I don't think Obama's church has much to do with the teachings of Jesus.
Posted on 11/02/2008 8:54:30 AM PST by SeekAndFind
While I truly tremble at the mere mention of the name "Jesus" in the same sentence with the word, "socialism," this question is one of the central issues of this presidential election, with Barack Obama a convert to the Marxist Black Liberation Theology practiced by Jeremiah Wright. And I believe it deserves consideration.
Of course, who am I to even attempt to answer such a question? I've spent two days now trying to figure out where to begin.
After all, Jesus preceded Marx historically by nearly 19 whole centuries. In addition, Marx built his entire socialist philosophy on the initial premise that God was merely a human delusion, and the second that religion was nothing more than an "opiate of the masses."
Therefore, any attempt to make Jesus a socialist begins with many contradictions.
As Pope Benedict XVI has written:
"Let us recall the fact that atheism and the denial of the human person, his liberty and his rights, are at the core of the Marxist theory...Moreover, to attempt to integrate into theology an analysis whose criterion of interpretation depends on this atheistic conception is to involve oneself in terrible contradictions. What is more, this misunderstanding of the spiritual nature of the person leads to a total subordination of the person to the collectivity, and thus to the denial of the principles of a social and political life which is in keeping with human dignity."
Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have had to confront various forms of liberation theology and socialist interpretations of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And both concluded unequivocally that all such attempts at transforming Christianity into a political creed, giving special favor to the materially poor, was like mixing oil with water. They simply do not mix.
As Pope Benedict XVI explains further:
"In its positive meaning the Church of the poor signifies the preference given to the poor, without exclusion, whatever the form of their poverty, because they are preferred by God...But the theologies of liberation...go on to a disastrous confusion between the poor of the Scripture and the proletariat of Marx. In this way they pervert the Christian meaning of the poor, and they transform the fight for the rights of the poor into a class fight within the ideological perspective of the class struggle."
So, what is the Christian meaning of the poor? It is simply that there are a host of ways to be poor. And according to the Christian faith the worst form of poverty is not material; it is spiritual. One can be rolling in money and material goods, but be spiritually impoverished. One can be materially poor as dirt, but spiritually rich.
Jesus did make many statements about the virtues of being generous with one's own material wealth, whether it be great or small. However, the innate crux of every one of Jesus' admonitions to give to those less fortunate was freedom. Unless the deed was done freely, according to the giver's own free will, there was no blessing in the deed at all.
Today, the faith component of Barack Obama's candidacy rests upon this one particle of Jesus' ministry, that by coercively "spreading the wealth" to all by means of a state collective distribution center we will somehow achieve the kingdom of Jesus on earth. In this belief, Obama is backed by a host of religious left people of a host of faiths, most predominantly those claiming to be Christian.
Much of the theological component to the Christian left's support for Barack Obama is found in Matthew 25:31-46, which refers to the Judgment of the Nations at the prophesied Second Coming of Christ.
Matthew 25:31-32:
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats."
The Gospel writer then goes on to define how God will separate the "good" nations from the "bad" nations, based upon how each nation has treated the "least of these" among them. These "least" are enumerated by Matthew as the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the ill, and the imprisoned. In the Gospel, Jesus tells the nations, when you did good to these "least" you did it to me, and you will be deemed good and worthy of the God's kingdom.
This judgment of the nations was to occur at Jesus' Second Coming. According to Catholic Biblical commentary, the definition of the "least of these" described in Matthew was not absent theological meaning. Although there is some disagreement over the authentic meaning of these verses, "a stronger case can be made for the view that in the evangelist's sense the sufferers are Christians, probably Christian missionaries whose sufferings were brought upon them by their preaching of the gospel."
The real problem with assuming that all of these merciful works can be taken at face value and given a purely political meaning is that these words were intended to apply to Christian missionaries carrying out the Great Commandment given by Jesus immediately before his Ascension into heaven.
And what was that Great Commandment?
"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."
Gospel of Mark: 28:18-20
Personally, I think one could write volumes about this intersection of faith and politics. Indeed, volumes have been written. And what we are left with is still the very question that Jesus posed to the Apostle Peter:
"Who do you say I am?"
Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She blogs at commonsenseregained.com
Jesus Christ was not talking about GOVERNMENT action when he said that. He was talking about INDIVIDUAL action. The fact that government takes your property and gives it to someone else does not make you righteous. Nor does the fact that you take property from someone else and give it to the poor make you righteous. In order to receive the blessing He’s talking about, you’ve got to give YOUR OWN property to the poor.
Your FReepername is spot on.
Nothing made me crazier than to have all those good folks applauding 0bama for his misuse of Christ's instructions. How any Christian can listen to the perversion of His Word and say, "Yes, that's what He means" is beyond me. People, when the man asked Christ how he could have eternal life, Jesus did not tell him to pass all his goods through the hands of government bureaucrats so that the poor might receive a dime from every dollar -- He told him to sell everything and give those proceeds to the poor.
To have 0bama and his minions claim selfishness because we are unwilling to allow government confiscation, use His Word and teachings to confuse so many, this is the real abomination. I simply cannot believe how many persons of faith are falling for this; it is heartbreaking.
When Jesus fed the five thousand or so from a handful of fish and bread, He demonstrated how socialism can work by divine hand. Otherwise, someone will have to decide from whom to take and to whom to give.
I don't think Obama's church has much to do with the teachings of Jesus.
That is a good summary of the situation. I gather your position is that if a voter advocates some of common tax money to care for the poor then he is a socialist. I don't think that because a voter advocate the government to get involved makes them a socialist more so than advocating government bailouts makes Bush a socialist.
Peter had his own way to put it. 'Gold or silver I have none but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus, rise and walk.' I doubt the Roman government would have helped.
I don’t recall “economic justice” and “social justice” (the state redistributing wealth and jobs to one segment of society to “correct” the wrongs of the past) being principles espoused by Jesus on behalf of the State.
In Socialism, the State provides from that it takes.
In anarchist-socialism, there is a decentralized state but still provision from seized monies.
There is no CHARITY in forced taxation, there is no justice in receiving rewards you did nothing to personally earn. In religious terms, we are spared the punishments we deserve through the grace of God and receive benefits we do not deserve through His mercy. Nothing about “social justice”.
Barack Obama Junior grew up in an agnostic household run by a mother with a “healthy skepticism of organized religion” according to Barry. He claims that he hold this same “healthy skepticism” today.
He can call himself a Christian but I don’t see things that way considering he sees Jesus a some sort of “historical figure” but not the Savior and the Way to salvation (he doesn’t believe that four fifths of the world would be damned for following other religions and belives that sin is anything that goes against Obama’s own value system).
Also Jesus said to “render unto Cesar and render unto God”, meaning keep state and faith apart.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth.
Back when I was a deluded Democratic voter I recall that we were told that Johnson would bring an end to poverty. 4 Trillion dollars later, poverty still exists, and our well meaning efforts to ‘address the suffering of the poor’ has increased their suffering a great deal. In the meantime I have learned that this is the mark of Socialism, increasing misery for all by coercing citizens behavior.
There are probably some sound governmental means to improve the lot of the poor like vocational training, unemployment, some drug programs. But any clear thinking person has to admit that providing welfare checks only to households where fathers were not present destroyed millions of families. That building high-rise free housing ended with dangerous in-human warehouses. Government ‘help’ dehumanizes the recipient.
As for government bailouts - yes, I wretch and I see the danger of socialism in them. But its just so simplistic to blame Bush (other than hiring Henry Paulson and wasn’t that on Chuck Schumer’s recommendation?). I have read widely about this and it is clear that Bush was trying to bring up Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac reform along with John McCain
But go to the root of this problem. They tell us its a mortgage meltdown. Why are mortgages melting-down? Because again - Mr Government - in the corpus of Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, and Barach O’bama decided that THEY knew better than banks who should get loans. Rather than respect decades of sound business practices, THEY could coerce the citizens (you and me) to provide credit and thus help the poor. Hmmmmm smells like socialism - from the prime purveyors of socialism.
Well that worked out well.
Kind of proves my point- governments helping the poor by coercion = Socialism = failure.
Christ did not concern himself with human government.
The most prolific writer of the New Testament, Paul, said, ‘He who does not work shall not eat.’
Exactly the core of the difference.
Unfortunately, many Christian FReepers (and Gov. Huckabee, for example) have also forgotten the methods and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and seem to believe that the government should be the instrument of forcing behavior (e.g., redistributing wealth, preventing assisted suicide, banning fatty foods, etc.)
Such FReepers would be wise to recall that Jesus didn't use His awesome power to force compliance, but rather taught his followers to shake the dust off their sandals and move on.
Many Christians tell me that suffering is a "good thing"...
Amen - that reflects Who He Is - which is what we are about.
I don't think Obama's church has much to do with the teachings of Jesus.
"Individual salvation is dependent upon collective salvation." Teachings of Marx.
Of course they shouldn't suffer. Family, friends can help. If not them, there are any number of churches and charities that can and will help. Those are all funded by the kindness and goodness of fellow citizens.
Having the government pull a gun on me and order me to give up my money or else so that same poor person can get his/her care is insane and completely out-of-bounds.
This has been going on for YEARS in many “churches”.
These churches cater to liberal thinking people who still want to believe in God, so they twist the teachings to fit their political idea, you can see it in every type of religion.
This is why you see the stories of the democrats cutting into the evangelical, church going base of the Republican Party.
They’ve taken over the media, the schools, entertainment, their last push is for “religion”.
The left is an evil cult.
Jesus said, “If a man won’t work then he shouldn’t eat either.”
I think that about covers it!
Amen. When God says “give and it shall be given unto you...” He meant for you to have something to give, and not for the state to take it all.
Nope.
Jesus is LORD.
End of questions.
I think these verses answer the question better;
Mat 25:28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give [it] unto him which hath ten talents.
Mat 25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
Mat 25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
~
In Luke it says this;
Luk 19:24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give [it] to him that hath ten pounds.
Luk 19:25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
Luk 19:26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
~
Doesn’t sound like socialism to me.
How about this:
2Thess Ch 3
"10: For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11: For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
12: Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
13: But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.
14: And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. "
Not to be a trouble maker, but y’all do know that the early church did live communally, right?
Acts4:
[32] And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
[33] And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
[34] Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
[35] And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
[36] And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
[37] Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
Of course, in fairness, right after these words, we get the story of Annais and Saphira in chapter 5. In this story, Peter makes it quite clear that the decision to give of one’s goods was completely voluntary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.