Maybe rather in the name of theology. Or preference. Or mammon. Or comfort. Or power.
Certainly not this kind of love:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
I was brought to tears at work yesterday after a presentation by a (woman) Black History prof from MSU, who was invited to speak at our state level department of education all staff meeting. (Nothing that meaningful has ever happened at a state level department meeting within living memory.) She spoke about Black women in the movement for the advancement of Black people in the U.S., the good and the bad about the movement, their anti-lynching work and the various ways in which white Americans have been complicit in lynchings. I knew most of what she presented. I was sobbing in my cubicle, because people I know and love think I'm crazy, if I bring up anything like this. If I affirm that "Black lives DO matter." "All Black lives matter."
Why would anyone listen to a gospel that demonstrates the only important thing is saving souls. A half a gospel. The easy half that costs little. Does such an incomplete expression of love come close to love at all?
Maybe rather in the name of theology. Or preference. Or mammon. Or comfort. Or power.
Certainly not this kind of love:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
I was brought to tears at work yesterday after a presentation by a (woman) Black History prof from MSU, who was invited to speak at our state level department of education all staff meeting. (Nothing that meaningful has ever happened at a state level department meeting within living memory.) She spoke about Black women in the movement for the advancement of Black people in the U.S., the good and the bad about the movement, their anti-lynching work and the various ways in which white Americans have been complicit in lynchings. I knew most of what she presented. I was sobbing in my cubicle, because people I know and love think I'm crazy, if I bring up anything like this. If I affirm that "Black lives DO matter." "All Black lives matter."
Why would anyone listen to a gospel that demonstrates the only important thing is saving souls. A half a gospel. The easy half that costs little. Does such an incomplete expression of love come close to love at all?
My heart sighs with and for you @Kendel. Saving souls with terror is no gospel at all. Your tears are. They listen because it affirms their unrighteous privilege.
If a person genuinely believes that you need to make Christ your saviour to gain life after death it is a sign of love to pursue that. To tell and keep telling people because now is the opportunity. To not tell them is not showing love. It is letting them go to Hell condemning them to eternal separation from God. Not love
If a person genuinely believes that you need to make Christ your saviour to gain life after death it is a sign of love to pursue that. To tell and keep telling people because now is the opportunity. To not tell them is not showing love. It is letting them go to Hell condemning them to eternal separation from God. Not love
There's a problem right there.
If letting a person go to Hell is unloving, how much more so is sending them there.
And yet we're told God is perfect love.
The logic of the position, superficially appealling as it is, could have a handle attached to it and be used to open wine bottles.
If a person genuinely believes that you need to make Christ your saviour to gain life after death it is a sign of love to pursue that. To tell and keep telling people because now is the opportunity. To not tell them is not showing love. It is letting them go to Hell condemning them to eternal separation from God. Not love
There's a problem right there.
If letting a person go to Hell is unloving, how much more so is sending them there.
And yet we're told God is perfect love.
The logic of the position, superficially appealling as it is, could have a handle attached to it and be used to open wine bottles.
It’s also quite a step to tell someone they need to do something because of what you believe, and if they don't do it, they’re damned. Forever.
If a person genuinely believes that you need to make Christ your saviour to gain life after death it is a sign of love to pursue that. To tell and keep telling people because now is the opportunity. To not tell them is not showing love. It is letting them go to Hell condemning them to eternal separation from God. Not love
There's a problem right there.
If letting a person go to Hell is unloving, how much more so is sending them there.
And yet we're told God is perfect love.
The logic of the position, superficially appealling as it is, could have a handle attached to it and be used to open wine bottles.
The question of whether people can be damned seems like a different topic than “if you believe that someone is in danger of damnation, trying to help them is a loving act “—or for that matter Christian Nationalism.
If a person genuinely believes that you need to make Christ your saviour to gain life after death it is a sign of love to pursue that. To tell and keep telling people because now is the opportunity. To not tell them is not showing love. It is letting them go to Hell condemning them to eternal separation from God. Not love
There's a problem right there.
If letting a person go to Hell is unloving, how much more so is sending them there.
And yet we're told God is perfect love.
The logic of the position, superficially appealling as it is, could have a handle attached to it and be used to open wine bottles.
It’s also quite a step to tell someone they need to do something because of what you believe, and if they don't do it, they’re damned. Forever.
But to the person who believes it, it’s not because they believe it. It’s like someone who believes a big hole is in the middle of the street, and warns people away from it—even if they’re mistaken, they’re following what they understand to be true.
Again, this is seeming less and less about Christian Nationalism and more about the doctrine of Hell itself, which I think is a different topic.
Why would anyone listen to a gospel that demonstrates the only important thing is saving souls. A half a gospel. The easy half that costs little. Does such an incomplete expression of love come close to love at all?
When the gospel is treated as if it's only about being saved from hell (or purgatory, or a less than ideal relationship with God, etc) and the rest of a person's life situation is simply a matter of, "Sucks to be you," we demonstrate that we really aren't interested in the whole gospel, which concerns itself as well with justice and relief of poverty.
If that interest in justice and relief of poverty is only of interest to Christians in terms of legislating Christian morality, making contemporary "christian" culture the law of the land, we are entering very clearly into the realm of "christian" nationalism.
When Christians are willing to put their economic and social capital at risk for the sake of another, for the sake of justice economic fairness, then we demonstrate that we do trust God to care for our needs enough that we can give and share generously not only of our wealth but our power. That's a testimony that people might listen to - historically have listened to. It demonstrates that the faith we talk about might actually have something behind it.
I watched this video last night on Christian nationalism. Entitled Bad Faith, it explains how the CNs have a long history in the United States, where it's basic philosophy comes from, how it is currently organized, and what they are willing to do to get their way. Just the other day, one of the leaders stated they are willing to have a second revolution. You will see why they are so extreme.
Comments
Maybe rather in the name of theology. Or preference. Or mammon. Or comfort. Or power.
Certainly not this kind of love:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
I was brought to tears at work yesterday after a presentation by a (woman) Black History prof from MSU, who was invited to speak at our state level department of education all staff meeting. (Nothing that meaningful has ever happened at a state level department meeting within living memory.) She spoke about Black women in the movement for the advancement of Black people in the U.S., the good and the bad about the movement, their anti-lynching work and the various ways in which white Americans have been complicit in lynchings. I knew most of what she presented. I was sobbing in my cubicle, because people I know and love think I'm crazy, if I bring up anything like this. If I affirm that "Black lives DO matter." "All Black lives matter."
Why would anyone listen to a gospel that demonstrates the only important thing is saving souls. A half a gospel. The easy half that costs little. Does such an incomplete expression of love come close to love at all?
My heart sighs with and for you @Kendel. Saving souls with terror is no gospel at all. Your tears are. They listen because it affirms their unrighteous privilege.
There's a problem right there.
If letting a person go to Hell is unloving, how much more so is sending them there.
And yet we're told God is perfect love.
The logic of the position, superficially appealling as it is, could have a handle attached to it and be used to open wine bottles.
It’s also quite a step to tell someone they need to do something because of what you believe, and if they don't do it, they’re damned. Forever.
The question of whether people can be damned seems like a different topic than “if you believe that someone is in danger of damnation, trying to help them is a loving act “—or for that matter Christian Nationalism.
But to the person who believes it, it’s not because they believe it. It’s like someone who believes a big hole is in the middle of the street, and warns people away from it—even if they’re mistaken, they’re following what they understand to be true.
Again, this is seeming less and less about Christian Nationalism and more about the doctrine of Hell itself, which I think is a different topic.
When the gospel is treated as if it's only about being saved from hell (or purgatory, or a less than ideal relationship with God, etc) and the rest of a person's life situation is simply a matter of, "Sucks to be you," we demonstrate that we really aren't interested in the whole gospel, which concerns itself as well with justice and relief of poverty.
If that interest in justice and relief of poverty is only of interest to Christians in terms of legislating Christian morality, making contemporary "christian" culture the law of the land, we are entering very clearly into the realm of "christian" nationalism.
When Christians are willing to put their economic and social capital at risk for the sake of another, for the sake of justice economic fairness, then we demonstrate that we do trust God to care for our needs enough that we can give and share generously not only of our wealth but our power. That's a testimony that people might listen to - historically have listened to. It demonstrates that the faith we talk about might actually have something behind it.