Posted on 07/12/2006 10:43:24 AM PDT by Aussie Dasher
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Forget about traditional morality—Christianity should focus on eradicating poverty, protecting the environment and ending the war in Iraq, according to the general secretary of the National Council of Churches, Dr. Bob Edgar.
“Jesus never said one word about homosexuality, never said one word about civil marriage or abortion,” said Dr. Edgar to CBS News at a recent gathering of liberal Christian leaders in Washington.
The gathering was the latest effort by the “religious left” to gain back some of the political power the group enjoyed during the 60’s and early 70’s. 30 years ago liberal religious leaders used their political influence to lead demonstrations against social injustices such as civil rights abuses and the Vietnam War. Once those issues left the spotlight, liberal Christianity lost focus and faded to the background.
Now, liberal Christian leaders are attempting to stage a return to power, targeting young voters and concentrating on increasing childcare funding and raising the minimum wage. The group wants to build a strong voter base to counter what it calls the “ground game” of the Christian right—the powerful voting block of traditional Christians that has significant influence on the country’s politics.
Finding a unifying message that will allow the group to achieve political clout has been a struggle, observers have said. The New York Times reported in May on an earlier meeting by liberal Christian activists in Washington, a brainstorming session concentrating on identifying the group’s goals.
During a session on ethical sexual behavior, the meeting bypassed discussion of concrete issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. Instead, Rev. Ama Zenya of First Congregational Church in Oakland, California, directed the gathering to discuss their spiritual values and “to practice fully our authentic being,” reported the Times.
The results of the gathering were disappointing, said liberal Baptist minister Rev. Tony Campolo, who once acted as spiritual adviser to President Bill Clinton, and attended the conference.
“We didn’t get on the same page with everyone, and it is about getting on the same page. The thing about the left is that they want everybody to feel good.”
Dr. Edgar, who has been general secretary of the NCC since 2000, was applauded by homosexual activist organizations shortly after his election for withdrawing his signature from an ecumenical statement in defence of traditional marriage, “A Christian Declaration on Marriage.”
Dr. Edgar also apologized to members of the homosexual community for originally endorsing the document, which was co-signed by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the National Association of Evangelicals.
Paul was an apostle; he had his conversion on the road to Damascus when Jesus appeared to him and blinded him. At that time Paul was Saul, persecutor of Christians.
A lot of liberals discount Paul, as he was not one of the apostles who actually walked with Jesus. The problem there is that Peter specifically says that Paul's letters are to be given the same authority as Holy Scripture.
Hard to get beyond that one.
But for me the biggest hurdle (for liberal christians-small c) is that Jesus IS and WAS and IS TO COME, which means that he was there from the beginning of time as the Godhead, and therefore just as forcefully condemns sexual immorality (pornea in Greek--where pornography comes from. This covers all sorts of sexual immorality, including homosexuality, incest, adultery, fornication, etc.)Since Jesus IS GOD and DOES NOT CHANGE, they have a real problem. Their problem is that they continually judge scripture, instead of letting scripture judge them.
Scary and sad situation to be in.
One thing that is very clear to me is that when Roman soldiers converted, they were not asked to leave the service. It seems to me that Jesus was about anything BUT politics and things of this earth.
We look to the OT for basic values and standards because in Jesus' time, those principles and values were assumed. And the OT DOES say a few things about Homosexuality. Jesus built on them and fulfilled them, he did not toss them out the window.
Christianity should focus on eradicating poverty
Don't you think the creator of the Universe can handle his own publishing? Is that so hard to grasp?
Jesus never said anything about protecting the environment.
I believe that even by first century standards thess laws were immoral.
I am no liberal, but I believe that Jesus did indeed repudiate the Mosiac Law.
In other words: "Sure I used a terribly inaccurate translation to support my point, but trust me, I've got plenty of other terribly inaccurate translations if that one didn't convince you!"
Jehovah's laws were very often evil by today's standards.
Today's standards are often intrinsically immoral, while the law of God is intrinsically just by definition.
Your statement is true, but only trivially.
And contrary to what some on the left may say, The Ten Commandments are still relevant.
I just used the first one I could find.
Surely you don't condone slavery, God did. Surely you don't condone keeping virgin girls as spoils of war; God did.
Jesus corrected this.
The word "lie down" does not equal "rape" no matter who claims anything to the contrary.
But even should I concede your point, what about the genocide?
Which genocide is that now?
What about instructing the army to keep virgin girls as spoils of war?
What about it? In the 12th century BC Near East, a virgin girl whose father and other adult male family members was killed in warfare had absolutely no protection of any kind and was anyone's prey. Commanding the soldiers who slew her male relatives in war to take her in and provide for her is hardly cruel or unjust.
What about being required to marry rdead brother's wife?
Men were required to offer to marry their deceased brother's wife. A very different matter altogether.
What about slavery
What about it? God's law not only did not mandate slavery, but it mandated the freeing of slaves in various circumstances.
Jehovah's laws are full of things which we will rightly reject today.
Not on the basis of the spotty evidence you've presented.
Therefore, "silence is tacit acceptance", as the Left loves to say. ;^)
Where are the Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopals, and the UCC? Why are they not saying anything? It is their money that keeps Edgar in his job at the NCC.
That's a vacuous statement. Christianity is evil by "today's standards" or as the bible refers to it as the wisdom of man. Can you find any verse more "intolerant" than: NASB with Strong's Numbers John 14:6 6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
TNIV Yikes! Where do you go to church where this is considered acceptable? A better translation couple with the Mathew Henry Commentary would better help your understanding.
You are the only person I have ever heard who has read the Bible and has come to conclusions that you have.
I am not a stubborn a man.
I will take your interpretation under advisement for further study.
Thank you
If this was the first one you could find, you clearly haven't done any serious thinking on the matter at all.
Surely you don't condone slavery, God did.
In a situation where the alternative is death by starvation or servitude, the compassionate alternative is servitude. We have slavery today - it's called public assistance.
Surely you don't condone keeping virgin girls as spoils of war; God did.
If the alternative is to either leave a young woman out in the wilderness to die of exposure or to take her in and make her part of your household, the moral choice is clear.
Jesus corrected this.
There was nothing to correct. As Jesus said, He came not to erase a jot or a tittle from the Torah but to fulfill it.
In Hebrews 8 Paul discusses the replacement of the old Law with Jesus' new Law:
7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
They'd probably have a problem with 2 Timothy 3:16-17, then:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.(italics mine)
(Of course, in true Clintonian fashion, they might say that it depends on what the definition of "all" is...)
And let's not forget what Paul talked about in Romans 1, that because these wicked people knew who God was, but didn't glorify Him or give thanks to Him, and didn't find it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, that "God gave them over" to a host of things, including in verses 26 and 27 of Chapter 1:
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (emphases and italics mine)
Folks, the manifestation of Romans chapter 1 (the latter half, anyway) is not just part of the world - it is part of the church! Not the part that Jesus told to Peter, that "the gates of Hades would not overcome it", but the other "church". Paul predicted what's going on today...even in "churches" like the NCC, and with the, uh, Revrun Thacksunnnnnnnnnn...
I digress slightly, but when I was first taught this passage, in a non-liberal church, the passage about the wrath of God being poured out, was preceded by the good news of Romans 1:16 ("I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe...").
The pastor said that before you could fully understand the good news, we needed to know about the bad news...and in the first three chapters of Romans, there is plenty of it. In the second half of Romans 1, up to the first 20 verses of Romans 3, three groups of people were covered:
--godless wicked
--godless "good people"
--godless "religious people"
In the end, Paul declares what believers know, or should - that "no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by observing the law" (Romans 3:20). The pastor put it another way - "the law wasn't given to make us better; the law was given to show us how bad we are!"
But then two of the best words in the Bible follow: "But now". Man is deceitfully wicked, people think they are right in their own eyes, the world's gone to hell in a handbasket..."but now"...a righteousness from God, apart from the Law, has been made known, to which both the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and have come short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came from Christ Jesus." (3:21-24, italics added)
Now THAT's GREAT news!
Perhaps I am. But I am far from the only person who analyzes the Old Testament in its proper historical context.
I will take your interpretation under advisement for further study. Thank you.
You're very welcome.
I would recommend two books: Life In Biblical Israel by King and Stager (from the Reformed perspective) and Ancient Israel: Its Life And Institutions by De Vaux (from the Catholic perspective).
Both books illustrate the conditions of daily life in the ancient Near East and show the cultural context in which the Old Testament laws were applied.
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.