Posted on 03/26/2010 4:27:43 PM PDT by Colofornian
A group of more than 100 prominent Christians ranging from evangelical minister Jim Wallis on the political left to...Chuck Colson on the right released a document Thursday calling for an end to the fight club tone of the national political discourse.
...the "Civility Covenant"...says...churches have too often "reflected the political divisions of our culture rather than the unity we have in the body of Christ."
SNIP
...the covenant...has 114 signatories from a broad swath of Christian traditions, including the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, the head of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and the general superintendent of the Assemblies of God...
The list...includes...conservative Christian leaders like Harry Jackson -- who led the unsuccessful fight against gay marriage in Washington -- to Morna Murray, president of the progressive Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which is close to the Obama White House.
SNIP
Quoting the New Testament, the new covenant urges Christians to "put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice, and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you."
"We owe a certain responsibility to each other as believers," said Colson, an influential evangelical Christian voice. "This doesn't mean I haven't challenged some people's theology. But the document says we're not going to challenge each other's motives or engage in ad hominem attacks."
SNIP
...Wallis organized a boycott of Beck's show but says the timing of the covenant's release is incidental.
Colson said the document "wouldn't apply to Glenn Beck because we're talking about the conversation in the family of believers ... Glenn Beck is a Mormon."
Many Christians don't consider Mormons...to be Christians, though Mormons consider themselves Christian...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Jim Wallis is Obama’s spiritual advisor. [cripplecreek, post #53]
Wallis is, in fact, an ardent Democrat, who did not vote for Mr. Bush, and who edits a liberal religious magazine called Sojourners, which has consistently criticized the President and his administration. None of this is mentioned in the Times story [Piasa, post #73]
Wallis decided to move his ragtag Christian hippie community to Washington. [Richard] Barnet's influence was soon felt at Sojourners, for after [Jim] Wallis moved the Sojourners commune to Washington and came in contact with IPS, the appearance of the magazine improved and its rhetoric was toned down. But when Wallis addresses his colleagues in the elite theological circles, he makes no effort to conceal his politics. He told Mission Tracks in 1979, in the article "Liberation and Conformity", that he hoped "more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes. . ." [Piasa, post #77]
From the covenant doc: #3 “…recognizing in humility that in our limited, human opinions, “we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror” (1 Corinthians 13:12).
Yes, while this statement is true, it’s a bit lopsided to suggest this only applies to the response side…Frankly, after reading a few of Jim Wallis’ books and a number of articles and interviews from him, may I suggest to Mr. Wallis that some “leaders” should try to be a bit more humble on the writing side and actually refrain from publicly exporting what they write – given that much of his writing content not only reflects his limited vision (seeing “but a poor reflection” of a 60 A.D. quality mirror) – but appears to wear spiritual coke bottles as well!!!
I actually began by reading the covenant in reverse [click on link found @ post #173].
[I recommend that to others…you’ll find the more offensive parts tucked away @ the end…the beginning of these type of docs are usually filled with Scripture to lure you into a sense of false security…the Mormons do that “best” in a deceiving manner by inviting people to read & pray about the Book of Mormon…not telling the invitees that (a) most of the main teachings of Mormonism are NOT to be found there; and (b) Smith copied voraciously, even a couple of dozen chapters word-for-word, from the Bible.]
Anyway, another portion of this document at the end reads: We will strive to create in our congregations safe and sacred spaces…
What I’m sure you’ll find is that some of the crafters (& signers) of this statement are big believers in the Gay and Lesbian activist dimension of Corporate America, where they place a “Pink Triangle” at cubicles indicating that the workplace is a “safe space” for gays and lesbians to spout what they believe, without being subject to any return commentary counter to what they believe.
From the covenant doc: Preamble portion -- The church in the United States can offer a message of hope and reconciliation to a nation that is deeply divided by political and cultural differences. Too often, however, we have reflected the political divisions of our culture rather than the unity we have in the body of Christ. Wrap-up portion -- We will work to model a better way in how we treat each other in our many faith communities, even across religious and political lines.
Three comments:
(1) Things like dismembering babies is reduced to a "political and cultural 'difference'" in this "covenant -- 'difference' is itself, when it comes to killing off the next generation, a 'pro-choice' mentality.
(2) The crafters talk about “hope and reconciliation” -- but the 19th century "hope and reconciliation" in the U.S. came after the bloodbath of the Civil War, when more men died in battle than all of the other U.S. wars put together. When part of the religious community embraces the bloodbath of slavery (19th century) and abortion (20th-21st centuries), to proclaim a “false peace” is what Jeremiah railed about the false prophets of the Old Testament.
(3) These statements can be read two ways (probably purposefully):
* How the church treats each other is a model to the rest of the nation and the world. [They could have included verses from John which reinforces this – like John 13:34-35; 17:21, 23]
* And/or, they define “the church” in the broadest possible terms [since cults masquerade as “the church” this would even include them] … so as to squelch attempts to speak reality to the hearts of the “pretenders” … notice the last portion of the doc references ”many faith communities, even across religious and political lines.”
So my Q to Sojourners: Does the timing of this document equate to wanting to protect Democratic Congressmen in as subtle ways as possible after they passed healthcare which could eventually lead to more of our tax$ paying for killing off more of our young?
Too much reading and scrolling of volumes I can’t take time to read...why not leave links instead? Sorry ..therefore no comment. Besides I’d prefer seeing your own personal opinions.
Here is a standard definition of “impugn”: to challenge as false (another’s statements, motives, etc.); cast doubt upon.
I don’t think that his use of the word “impugn helps Colson. The left has a policy agenda that it won’t publicly admit. To get at the truth of virtually any policy initiative from the Obama administration their publicly stated motives will have to be impugned.
Rip, the United Order wasn't only socialism but "pure communism." So says this faithful Mormon author cited below as they discussed the Utah community of Orderville:
"When Brigham Young established Orderville and similar United Orders, John Taylor was less than enthusiastic. He realized that enterprises such as Orderville were pure communism and not the law of consecration. He made this plain after he became President, when in 1882 he sent an epistle to all authorities of the Church in which he bluntly stated: 'We had no example of the 'United Order' in accordance with the word of God on the subject...Our relations with the world and our own imperfections prevent the establishment of this system [i.e. the system of consecration and stewardship spoken of at times as the 'United Order'] at the present time, as was stated by Joseph in an early day, it cannot yet be carried out.'" (George W. Givens, 500 More Little-Known Facts in Mormon History, 2004, p. 169)
The truly unfortunate thing for world history is that John Taylor didn’t go far enough, for while he dismantled Orderville, he left another “United Order” community (Brigham City, Utah) alone. Here is Givens again on the impact of that decision:
"One of the most famous utopian books ever written was Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy, published in 1889. Some scholars believe Looking Backward had considerable influence in the making of Lenin's Soviet Russia. If this is true, then [ensuing Lds "prophet"] Lorenzo Snow and the Latter-day Saints must receive some of the credit--or blame. Hearing of the success of the United Order in Brigham City, Edward Bellamy made a special trip to Utah in 1886 to study its operation. There he spent three days with Lorenzo Snow, Brigham City's founder and forty-year resident. Impressed with the thirty to forty industries run by its 2,000 inhabitants and the vitality at that time of one of the most successful United Orders, Bellamy returned home and wrote his influential book." (500 More Little-Known Facts in Mormon History, p. 185).
Way to go, 19th century Mormon leader-“prophets” of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor & Lorenzo Snow!!! They all unwittingly fueled Soviet Communism!
It was…
… Smith’s original idea of a United Order, something he falsely prophesied would be everlasting- see Doctrine & Covenants 82:20; 104:1 – I mean you haven’t taken scissors to those verses yet, have you Rip? So that must mean you still embrace these concepts as “Mormon truth”??)
…followed by Young’s implementation of these communistic ideas into Utah communities like Orderville & Brigham City…
…with Lds “prophet” Snow being the founder & long-term dictator of Brigham City, which in turn, influenced Bellamy, who in turn influenced Lenin!!!
…and while Taylor didn’t like the orders, he only did a half-mast job of taking them apart, leaving Brigham City untouched.
So, where has Beck been in critiquing his own precious Mormon history of communism?
MOST??
I've not found ANY in it!
Ha! I’d sure love to be a fly on the wall during a debate between you and Glenn Beck about the difference between what Peter and the early saints, and the early LDs church did... and what Communism is.
In fact, I’d pay good money for that.
Then use those scripture and define them. Why did Peter make the early saints covenant to give 100 percent. How do you think this is different than socialism?
Do you think there is a correct way for the Lord’s program versus an incorrect way?
You can throw out terms like cult all you want. Truth is, the early church was considered a cult, for many of the same reasons.
Please define the covenant they made to have all things common. It’s a simple question. It doesn’t say they lived in a communal setting, it said they gave all they had to Peter.
You can throw insults all you want, but the question remains. How is the Lord’s method of consecration different from Communism. Hint... it is.
I'd just add that with many false religions it is common for their members to be repetitive and want explanations more than what has already been addressed. However....
When the church today asks for contributions for special projects or helps for others it is quite common folks step up to that plate and fill the need....and this over and above what they might already give.... It is voluntary and NOT required for membership.
Life is fluid and so are peoples wages and availability of funds....if I were to have serious medical bills I would hope because I might want to join a church they wouldn't demand I give them the deed to my property when I might have to sell that property to pay those bills!
Any organization that requires anyone to hand over their property in order to attain membership IS a false religion, cult, or it's leadership simply wants the steady cash flow....generally to build and or enlarge their organization rather than to take care of their members needs who oftentimes have many members who are in more need than the next piece of land the church wants to purchase.
Ripliancum, there were differences:
1. Leadership participation: In the early church the apostles were involved; was this true of Lds leadership hierarchy? One BYU prof (anthropologist Max E. Stanton) says NONE were involved; I say, one was -- Lorenzo Snow in Brigham City -- and one (Young) tokenly joined at one point. [See further down this post for specifics]
2. Leadership blundership: The apostles of the early church were involved in teaching, praying, and bringing forth signs and wonders. How does this compare to the most full-blown communal living situation in Mormon history? (Orderville) John Taylor concluded: "all kinds of foolishness and all kinds of blunderings have occurred in their administration" (BYU anthropologist prof Max Stanton, quoting a source he referenced as Allen 112).
(You're not going to imply that Peter and the apostles were "blundering...fools" like the Lds "prophet" said were in charge of the most full-blown socialistic commune the Mormons ever ran, are you??? Now we know why Orderville didn't last long...organized in 1875...Taylor disbanded it later in the 1870s, I believe...St. Joseph, AZ United Order lasted only two months!!! St. George, Utah's United Order lasted less than four years!!!)
3. One master vs. two masters: The Early church retained one Master, Jesus Christ; The United Orders had two masters, church and its communal state...I explain this further below.
4. Ownership of possessions in the early church was retained -- though held loosely: People in the early church retained ownership, though they freely held loose hands with what they owned and gave it away and shared it with all in common according to their "need." There was no forced division in the early church. If you don't own something, you can't give it away, now can you?
EXPLANATIONS OF POINTS ABOVE:
#1 Explanation: BYU prof Stanton says: Even Brigham Young, who so forcefully spoke out in favor of the system and promoted the establishment of Orderville, the Little Colorado River colonies, and other communitarian orders, never embraced this style of living himself-- nor did any of the other members of the hierarchy of the Church. Source: "All Things Common: A Comparison of Israeli, Hutterite and Latter-day Saint Communalism"
Well, I think although the tenor of what Stanton says here is true, Lds author George W. Givens actually says Young did join one of the orders, (apparently, tho, he didn't really participate much). Also Lorenzo Snow was part of the Lds hierarchy...and for some reason Stanton doesn't recognize his role in Brigham City.
Anyway, Stanton's point is largely true: The Lds hierarchy, by and large, did not set the example by truly immersing themselves as part of any of the orders. Even you concede Peter participated fully in the Acts 2 community experience.
Acts 2:42-43 made it clear there was full involvement by the apostles: They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. [IOW this was primarily a spiritually-focused community with leaders fully engaged in teaching, prayer, fellowshipping, communion, healing!, not a set-aside economic experiment!!!]
#2 Explanation: Nothing further to add.
#3 Explanation: Why were St. George's and Orderville's life span as United Orders so short? Well, let's look a few "rules" they established: Rule 14 imbedded @ St. George United Order: "We will honestly and diligently labor, and devote ourselves and all we have to the Order, and the building up of the kingdom of God."
Already, we see here, Rule 14 is establishing two masters -- "the Order" -- and "the kingdom of God." (And believe me, the two were not the same) We know what Jesus said about having two masters, loving one and hating the other.
#4 Explanation: Looking @ the charter used in Orderville, the most fully engaged Mormon commune: ...he is under obligations to use it, and his time, strength, and talents for the good of all...There was to be no private property. 'No man could say "This is mine."' The property was the Lord's and was to be used 'for the advancement of the Order and the Church.' [Source Max Stanton, paper cited above]
Let's compare this to the Acts 2 experience -- 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling THEIR possessions and goods, THEY GAVE to anyone as he had need.
Don't you see, Rip? You can't sell something individually that you don't own individually!!! (In Orderville, you didn't own anything) Likewise, look at Acts 2:45: "THEIR possessions and goods" and "THEY gave"...)
When an "order" owned something, you needed the authority of the whole order to sell it or give it away...
Great post.
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.