From the comments at someone's blog:
The blogger had written: "The real issues, the real priorities of the Anglican Communion, need to be poverty, hunger, HIV/AIDS, the oppression of women and children, the oppression of the Dalits in India, war, refugees, care for creation, etc. (Indeed, if there is a consensus at this Lambeth it is that global warming is the most important matter facing humankind and that care for creation must be a first priority for the Church.)"
A commentor (among six others who said that the only thing we should be doing is preaching the gospel and social service agencies can do all the rest and we shouldn't be): I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
+
Such a kind comment, one that is so full of judgement.
If this is the type Christianity that the Anglican Communion now is going to espouse, one that condemns others for doing justice and loving mercy, then I am outta here. Where's the wideness of God's mercy? The difference in theology is a gulf I have no desire to cross. Sorry.
My name is Caminante and I am a pervert... not for orientation but because I dare to focus on the MDGs. Let me be eternally condemned.
Sheesh.
8 comments:
I have been living in the gospel of Matthew this year--preaching it obviously, and also leading a rather intense bible study on it. I don't know how ANYONE who takes the gospels--Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John--seriously could say that we should "leave all the rest to social service agencies". That's sure not what Jesus said.
I suppose if one only read Paul and the pseudo-Pauline letters one *might* be able to come to that conclusion. But I am continuously befuddled by how one can come to the conclusion that we "liberals" have abandoned the gospel--far from it imho.
Unfortunately I see little evidence that those who insist on the priority of preaching the Gospel have any clue about what Jesus taught. Perhaps I have a faulty Bible in which Jesus talks about doing not just talking about doing what he tried to teach? Feed, clothe, heal, etc.
Not only is the comment judgmental but it demeans both the Incarnation and the prophetic Jewish tradition in which Jesus stood and stands.
I guess we're supposed to let the earth sizzle and burn so as to avoid having our souls sizzle and burn in hell.
I'd rather leave the judgment up to God and try a little discipleship. (Notice how those who are all upset about some of our views of salvation never talk about discipleship?) Not that I am always good at it -- discipleship is difficult and demanding -- but Jesus does invite us to follow him, not just "believe in him" or as some say in these Southern parts, "believe on him."
It's just a bunch of Bible-babble to disguise a position of "don't rock the boat, I've got mine, Jack, and forget the rest of you lot." If we take Jesus seriously we are all in for a lot of uncomfortable change, by which I don't mean sexual orientation as he said nothing about it.
Stay tuned for tomorrow's sermon which tackles this a bit more in depth.
Caminante, just a few words, "We are all perverts." Solidarity!
Hi,
I hope your arm is feeling better.
The MDGs remind me of the Decade of Evangelism in the Episcopal Church back in the 90s. Something much discussed that simply isn't happening.
The Bishops can take their short march before their tea with the Queen, but the U.N. doesn't sound very hopeful:
From the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Least Developed Countries Report, 2008:
"Rapid economic growth has been associated with a slow rate of poverty reduction and progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The Least Developed Countries as a group are unlikely to reach the goal of reducing the incidence of poverty by half between 1990 and 2015. Most of these countries are also off track to achieve most of the other MDGs. There is no evidence of a significant change in trends in social development since 2000, after the adoption of the Millennium Declaration and more socially-oriented policy reforms... the food crisis is likely to slow down - or even reverse - the limited progress achieved so far towards reducing poverty and malnutrition in LDCs."
So... no significant change towards meeting the MDGs goals since 2000. Eight years without any significant progress. Even the progress achieved by the MDGs may be reversed.
At what point would you agree that there is much energy going toward a program that doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything?
I'm not saying this because I think you should focus your energy on Jesus as "pie in the sky, by and by." I'm saying this because maybe the MDGs are simply a non-starter and another model needs to be found.
What do you think?
-Stu
"Something much discussed that simply isn't happening."
Iwouldn't go that far... though your empirical evidence suggests as much.
When I get two hands back maybe I can write a response or someone else here can.
Thanks for visiting and your thoughts.
Post a Comment