Print
Must We Be Silent?
“Then they will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?’ And he will answer, ‘I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’” (Matthew 25:44-45)
In his book, Adventism and the American Republican, Douglas Morgan traces the development of a prophetic movement that understood the full ramifications of the term “prophetic.” It knew its place in the grand prophetic chronological scheme as it humbly received the baton from the historical sects who were on a quest to recover biblical Christianity. With courageous overtones, this fledgling movement decried the abuses of a religious system that claimed to be the representative of God (vicarius Dei), but had imbibed the intoxicating beverages of the bartender from the underworld. Bold representatives of this marginalized minority even dared to turn on their apostatizing Protestant siblings, whom they charged with throwing in the towel so that they could cling to treasured habits they had learned while in spiritual captivity.
In addition to its chronological awareness, this movement also understood that a people of prophecy were not merely called to cogitate on their remnant status but to agitate the status quo. It was not enough to print pamphlets with fancy charts and creatively crafted pictures of grotesque beasts designed to scare people into the kingdom. It was not enough to impress upon the masses the necessity to reform dress and diet as they exchanged constricting clothes and destructive diets for wide-fitting wardrobes and constructive calories. It was not enough to raise awareness about private sexual vices that chipped away at a person’s moral sensitivity and depleted their vital forces. This movement understood that a people of prophecy were called to be the voice of God in a kingdom captivated by Satan. This movement understood that the remnant were called to think how Jesus thought, walk how Jesus walked, and do what Jesus did.
With their invigorated awareness, spokespersons for the Adventist church dared to address unpopular issues with the full knowledge that their public actions would be seen by some of their very own and many outside the “little flock” as political activism. Nonetheless, committed to the dominant biblical call for social justice and driven by the practical demands of liberation theology, the seemingly insignificant crowd did not wince in speaking truth to power. Long before Dr. Martin Luther King preached the sermon, “Why America May Go to Hell”; long before Dr. Jeremiah Wright opened the nations eyes to a core aspect of the gospel as recorded in Luke 6; long before Bishop Tutu urged the apartheid government of South Africa to let his people go; Seventh-day Adventists understood that genuine Christianity mandated that those who are called by God’s name have no choice but to be a voice for the voiceless and a home for the homeless.
In the Spirit of the social prophets of antiquity, our pioneers challenged the warped, oppressive and demonic biblical interpretation of blinded American theologians who justified slavery by disseminating the venomous doctrine of the “Pauline mandate.” Though outnumbered by pseudo-Christians who sang in the choir on Sunday mornings and lynched Negroes at night, some among our spiritual foremothers and forefathers not only spoke out against the evils of slavery and segregation but developed systems for the full emancipation of those for whom the American dream was a living nightmare. It is true that some in leadership were paralyzed by fear and distracted by a “pie in the sky” mentality, but the fact that the most authoritative human voice in the church dared to speak about “our duty to the colored people” is proof positive that the Spirit of prophecy was very much alive.
Not only did church leaders challenge the cutthroat capitalism that dehumanized a major segment of the American population, but they sought to do something about the rampant destitution that ravaged lives in the inner cities. As Doug Morgan reports, Adventists were at the forefront of urban programs that provided shelter and skills training for the victims of a feudal system where those on top have no concern for the least of these. Additionally, the church did not shy away from its disdain for war that claimed innocent lives. They understood that no true citizen of the kingdom would applaud the carnage caused by war; no person with the mind of Christ will be satisfied with the explanation that innocent casualties of American aggression should be listed in the margins as “collateral damage.”
As I reflect on the bold stances taken by a people who understood the implications of being a prophetic movement, I wonder why my church chooses to remain silent in the face of the many injustices that confront our society today. I wonder why we choose to disengage from the national dialogue, not realizing that it is never possible to remain neutral. Indeed, it was Desmond Tutu who said, “If an elephant is stepping on the foot of a mouse, the mouse would not appreciate your neutrality” (my paraphrase). Our silence in kairos moments can indeed be deafening.
But must we be silent? Must we be silent when a xenophobic people forget that their ancestors did not have to formally apply for residency when they displaced the Sioux and Apache after landing on these shores on ships constructed in Europe? Must we be silent when unthinking people realize that the real problem with “our jobs” is not that foreigners are coming in and taking them, but wealthy American citizens who run the corporations and collect the dividends are exporting them? Must we be silent when a government enters into regional treaties that benefits the countries in the north and hurts the country in the south? Must we be silent?
Must we be silent when the gap between the haves and the have nots continues to widen? Must we be silent when so called Christian candidates for the presidency object to the fait taxation of the wealthiest Americans who benefit the most from the system? Must we be silent when a government uses public funds to bail out institutions that wrecked the economy and does nothing to alleviate the burden of the poor and middle class crippled under the weight of consumer and academic debt? Must we be silent?
Must we be silent when the cost of health care continues to rise and access to affordable health care consequently falls? Must we be silent when elected officials with six-figure salaries get to choose from an exotic menu of health care providers paid for by public money, but don’t think twice about voting against a public option? Must we be silent when state governments (e.g. Texas) deny funding to family planning clinics, because–although not performing abortions–some counselors may offer it as an option? Must we be silent?
Must we be silent as the spirit of war permeates the soul of a nation and churches boldly promote the government’s agenda in blatant defiance to the Prince of Peace? Must we be silent as the current administration continues destructive policies from the previous one and maintains detention camps in Guantanamo Bay where human beings are detained without due process of law? Must we be silent about the more than 1,000 military installations that the United States operates on foreign soil? Must we be silent when more and more Adventists see nothing wrong in volunteering for a military that teaches them to kill without conscience? Must we be silent?
As you contemplate your response to these questions, always remember that a tree is known by its fruit.
Keith Augustus Burton is the Coordinator for the Center of Adventist-Muslim Relations at Oakwood University. He also contributed to the volume, The Peace Making Remnant, published by Adventist Peace Fellowship.
User login
Recent
- Rescued LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Defender of THE Faith Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Roger S The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- George Tichy Pacific Union Conference Calls Special Constituency Meeting to Authorize Equality in Ordination
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Pagophilus Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Fred Eastman Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
Newsletter
Organizations
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
It is shameful that Adventists hope to be recognized by the distribution of millions of the Great Controversy warning people of their fateful end, while those who are struggling with unemployment, homeless, children in poverty and the wealthiest are piling up huge bonuses, oblivious to the needy around them. The U.S. today has the greatest disparity between the highest and lowest incomes that has ever been seen, yet Congress refuses to add another dime of taxes on those richest who have made their monies by the very services given them by the government from which they wish to avoid taxes. When will the REAL Christians stand up? Or will it be the "Occupiers of Wall Street" who are doing what Christians should have been doing?
Elaine
Seems to me, Keith, that America has always struggled with the dilemma of whether Christianity is about changing the world, or changing the self in order to change the world—and we Adventists tend toward the latter. (Actually, most of us are concerned about others changing themselves, rather than our changing ourselves!) At least here in North America, we have tended toward pietism. I have heard many stories of Adventist leaders being upset because others of us participated in a physical service activity on Sabbath, like Habitat for Humanity or some such. Isn't it interesting that perhaps the most well-known movie hero among Adventists is Eric Liddell of Chariots of Fire, who chose not to participate in the Paris Olympics on his Sabbath even if it would honor God and country? We admire obedience and personal discipline. (Unless it's called "spiritual disciplines"—but that's another matter!)
We're even more uncomfortable in the political process, which is probably why there are very few Adventist politicians. Interestingly Mormons, who share some of our religious DNA as an American faith, haven't had that same fear.
I have always thought it an anomaly that we, as a church, who have worship of a Creator/Re-creator God at our core - should be so unconcerned with his creation. As an SDA I have been embarrassed all my life for our poor record on issues that pertain to the betterment of our planet and its inhabitants.
It seems most of my life - my fellow church members have been pro-war, (still are) ignored civil rights movements, (still do) anti-liberation theology, (ignorant of) anti- ecology movement (avidly)- almost any movement that sought to change the status quo or improve life (other than our "health message" & hospital system) was not on our radar - we must be about "saving souls" and preparing folks for the hereafter not be concerned about saving this planet and its people.
And we wonder about "our young people"...
Let us assume that the denomination should speak out. What should it say?
Let us consider three issues
1) The "export of our jobs by the fat cats" issue
2) The "abortion" issue
3) The "protect the environment" issue
In each of these, I am sure I can find people who think the denomination should support side A, should keep quiet, should support side B.
How is the denomination to decide which to do? It doesn't exactly have a stella record in producing considered opinions on a lot of issues. Watch it wander all over the road on the trade union issue, on the military service question, on the role of women question.
I am reminded of the old proverb
Better to remain quiet and be thought a fool, than speak up and remove all doubt
/Bevin
So. We have two options, in your book. "Be silent" or be socialist. I think the choices are a little more varied than that.
By the way, the US military does not teach its members to kill without conscience. Speak of what you know, please.
Does it make a lot of difference on whether a soldiers kills "with" conscience" or without? If one is a soldier he is not allowed to disregard orders, is he?
Elaine
Donna Haerich - Thu, 10/06/2011 - 11:15
I have always thought it an anomaly that we, as a church, who have worship of a Creator/Re-creator God at our core - should be so unconcerned with his creation. As an SDA I have been embarrassed all my life for our poor record on issues that pertain to the betterment of our planet and its inhabitants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among those who hold that opinion, how do you account for the fact that the planet is COMPLETELY different than it was as God created it?
What we percieve as beautiful jagged peaks etc, God sees as the result of sin.
God himself states the planet will be made anew and for good reason.
Its a bit counter-intuitive like environmentalists who want to have everything natural and untouched by man, except for the work they want done to prevent anything natural like erosion, forest fires, spraying for beetles who have naturally migrated from other areas to healthy forests etc.
Michael
Michael - do you think God is going to trust us with a new heaven and new earth if we can't take care of the one we have?
The New Testament doesn't record a massive push toward social justice with regards to slavery, women's rights, children's rights etc. While proclaiming we are all one in Christ Jesus, it only gives admonishment for what I would call babysteps in reaching a new, more humane society. Is this the type of thing that is called for in the 21st century?
I am comfortable with saying our era calls for a more vocal, powerful, organized plan than what was appropriate in Paul's time. In other words, the "present truth" now would demand more than the quiet babysteps which in my view were necessary as the church was just gaining traction in the first century. I think we are missing our opportunity to truly reflect God in a powerful way when we are silent.
I am currently disappointed with the actions in my state government (Alabama) and am looking for ways to exercise what I believe is an authentic commitment to Jesus.
"If one is a soldier he is not allowed to disregard orders, is he?"
Soldiers are required to disobey unlawful orders. That became pretty clear after Nuremburg. The Law of Land Warfare, and the Rules of Engagement, outline conduct that is permitted and that is not. This is pretty basic stuff.
Before the church speaks out it has to be prepared to speak completely. If the church told the truth about the "fall" interpretation of Genesis only appearing in the intertestamental period we may not need to talk about these temporal things.
One Race, Indivisible.
I dare to comment the article of Keith although I am from Switzerland. I share Keith's opinion that Adventists, like our pioneers, should take a stance on (social &) political issues. In Switzerland, we not only elect our politicians, but have to vote and decide every three months in regards to many substantive political issues. We call this “direct democracy”. The Roman Catholic Church, the Evangelical Church and the Methodist Church in Switzerland have each a commission "Church and Society." These commissions develop position papers in regards to the issue in question based on biblical principles. It is up to the individual believer, how he will vote, but the position of the church is derived from Biblical principles. The Adventist Church in Switzerland remains in most cases silent - due to the lack of qualified personnel to prepare such position papers but also due to our position to not interfere in political matters.
It's good for me as an Adventist from Europe to read that there are among American Adventists people like Keith, advocating for social assistance/security and health insurance for all residents etc. etc. In Switzerland, health insurance etc. has been established since many years and nobody, not even politicians on the right would call this socialism, but simply what it is: social or solidarity.
We should increase the global exchange between Adventists of different continents and even cooperate in such matters. This exchange might perhaps make us conscious of the unquestioned assumptions we have because we live in this or that country. In Switzerland, a neutral country that has an army purely for self-defense, and where all men are obliged to military service, we recommend to young Adventists to choose civil service. If they choose the army service, we recommend the non-combatant status.
I understand that poor or socially disadvantaged Adventists in the US choose the army and combatant forces to ever have a chance to get an education and earn money. The lack of vocational training opportunities for poor and disadvantaged segments of the population is in reality a social policy issue that should be taken care of by the church. Then the disadvantaged young Adventists would not have the sole choice between unemployment or army.
Herbert
Two deaths this week - Steve Jobs and Fred Shuttleworth... Burton's essay is a good memorial to the life of the later. Shuttleworth wasa truly authentic witness to social justice who would not be silenced.
Donna Haerich - Thu, 10/06/2011 - 13:53
Michael - do you think God is going to trust us with a new heaven and new earth if we can't take care of the one we have?
I absolutely do.
Are you saying that maintenance of heaven will be an issue? How would that be, trash pickup on Thursdays? Street sweepers? Will we have to spray for beetles that move in and kill all the pine and fir trees?
Michael
Among those who hold that opinion, how do you account for the fact that the planet is COMPLETELY different than it was as God created it?
*******************
That may be so, Michael, but since when has God's commisssion to humanity, to be faithful stewards of his creation, changed? I don't see anywhere in Scripture where that has been revoked. In fact, "...the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable."
Thanks...
Frank
I can only speak for myself, but when I left Adventism, I had to leave alot of baggage to drop along the way; and sometimes i found myself hurling it in shame.. How this baggage all came to be was a slow endoctrination, and maybe all SDA's didn't get it , but I sure did.
I had to learn what 'community' really was, and to learn to actually embrace it and recognize it's full value. None of this was learned in my isolationism and my sanctimonious separateness. God helped me to turn all of that upside down, and right-side out. It was a trip that took several decades.
I also came out of Adventism, looking down my nose at other religious people who were in the trenches; and I mean REALLY. They didn't have my respect, for they were 'only' promulgating the 'morality gospel'. Now, after several decades I see these same people heroes and Jesus in sneaker.
For the earth to be "completely different than it was" there has to be a much better description than a few verses in Genesis written thousands of years later. How can any human know exactly how the original earth was? Where is there a single mention of dinosaurs created and their sudden disappearance?
What has been accomplished in making the "earth bring forth fruit" has, at the same time, caused harm to the water and humans. There is no zero-sum activity that man has discovered yet that has all advantages and no disadvantages.
Elaine
Frank
Perhaps what is needed is a definition of what being a faithful steward means.
God didnt invent outhouses and sewage treatment plants. His plan was when ever you needed to go you go. He didnt provide hydroelectric power or airplanes to be dropping fire retardant on fires.
This is one of those areas where it is entirely to easy to interject ones own views into the equation. Given that most peoples view of the stewardship of nature is completely different in the last 75-100 years than in the entire history of mans interaction with the planet previously, it is important to realize the extent of stewardship possible without these modern technologies. The first steam powered fire engine pump only came about in the last part of the 19th century.
So the question becomes;
Does mans responsibility to the environment change depending on what technology is available?
Did people like the American Indians prior to European landing, take worse care of their environment than we do today?
Think carefully because a few hundred people in a tribe with stone tools going behind whatever tree suits them and haven't even invented the shovel don't make much impact on a forest fire. But neither do they make much of an impact on their environment.
If the environmental viewpoint made any sense, the advocates should spend less time worrying about the spotted owl and pygmy bunnies and start riding their bicycles and growing their own food.
Michael
Thank you Keith for this timely and stirring reminder of our role as "visible" agents of change. Jesus compared his followers to "light" and "salt" both qualities deeply embedded within our own spiritual worldview that equips us to not only be messengers but co-architects in reformation and redemption of humanity.
In the 80's there was a popular slogan: Silence=Death. While the genesis for this slogan was around HIV/AIDS prevention, the principle is very much part of the ethos of us Christians. It's a non-negotiable part of our "job description" to courageously speak up and speak out against injustice in any form. We're being groomed by the Holy Spirit to articulate kingdom battle cries against the hoards of evil. Silence sends the message that we don't believe our message or the Message Giver. I think that where some us get stuck is between either being too heavenly minded, we're no earthly good.....or too earthly minded we're no heavenly good. Only as we completely rely on The Holy Spirit for guidance can we resolve that little dilemma.
Talk about interjecting your own views, Michael. Where did you learn that God's intenet was for humans to defecate where they stand?
______________________________________________________________
Carolyn Parsons
Keith
I came across a story in Philip Yancey's book The Invisable God" that hits directly on your point.
At the end of one of Yancey's lectures a man approached him and asked, "Did you write: Where is God when it hurts." Philip answered yes. The man continued asking: "I am too busy to read the entire book, tell me in one or two sentences what is your point?"
Philip, of course, was taken aback for a moment. He finally said. "I'll answer your question with another:
"Where is the Church when it hurts?" If the Church is the body of Christ why isn't it helping to quench thirst, bind up wounds, and he went on with the whole nine yards of the gifts of the Spirit.
I think that is you point and I agree. I hope you promote some action. Tom Z
I find myself in an odd position, I mostly agree with the points that Keith is making. I do believe we should be more actively involved in social issues, but once again I find myself hating the arrogance that almost always comes from Keith's pen. He closes his article with this:
"As you contemplate your response to these questions, always remember that a tree is known by its fruit."
So as I think I understand Keith's message, his bottom line is that if you do not agree with him you are not a Christ follower. I am sorry, but I think that Keith needs to learn a little humility and tolerance. I worry that some of his fruit are rather overripe.
Here is the thing though . . . . I read in my Bible that when Peter goes to visit Paul and is followed by a bunch of Christian Jews who are are not at all happy with the Gentiles becoming converts, Peter shuns the Gentiles in favor of the Jews. Did he need rebuking? No doubt he did and it got a double barrel of it from Paul. Did that fruit mean he was not converted, not saved, not doing kingdom work? Of course not.
We are not a monolithic group of believers, the church never has been and never will be until the second coming. The early church that Keith idolizes in this article was far from monolithic in almost unbelievable ways. The fought over the prfound and the trivial, yet they were all children of God who are precious in His eyes.
Finally I find myself humored that Keith and Kevin Paulson are birds of a feather, because they both believe that anyone who does not see the world though their eyes, is doomed. My God is not so much like that, I see a God who is willing to save someone for the gift of a cup of cold water (sorry, just reading my Bible).
In the grip of grace
Steve Moran
Carlitas
Have you ever been in the woods? Ever see the Caribou waiting in line for a rest room? How about a chipmunk or a cow? You think Gods plan was all the animals could go where ever they want but man was designed to use a restroom? That is after he invented it a few thousand years after Eden?
That isn't interjecting views that is common sense. You think Eden had houses? Eden didn't even have clothes.
Michael
Many thoughts come to mind when I read this article but I will narrow my comments to just one issue currently.
Having grown up in the "city" (Washington DC) and then living in "rural America" for the past 29 years my appreciation of the "environmental issues" has seen great change by actually seeing and living in the "battleground" area.
A few observations:
1) most city dwellers have very little knowledge or actual experience with the vast majority of "environmental" issues being discussed or considered
2) the "environmental movement" is by and large a very "political" movement
3) the public is very "ignorant" of the facts because the "media" is very one sided in it's reporting of any given issue.
4) the "endangered species act" is being terribly abused by the "environmental activists" and most people don't have a clue as to how to decipher what is fact or fancy by and large
I will give you one current example: The Klamath River Restoration project being pushed by the "environmentalists" currently. The issue is regarding dam removal (4 dams) on the Klamath. The dams provide "clean renewable energy" to about 70,000 people. One of the largest fish hatcheries on the west coast will be lost. Some measure of flood control will be lost as will water storage for farming etc.
The objective: improve salmon fishing on the Klamath and support more native fish.
The evidence doesn't support the fact that native fish will be improved. The fall run of chinock salmon will likely be wiped out as the water flows are too low and unpredictable to support more native fish. Historical records going back to the Lewis and Clark era back up the fact that salmon have been hurt more by unregulated offshore fishing and offshore factors than by the dams currently in place.
Gill net fishing by native tribes have been very detrimental to the total salmon catch numbers not to mention the fact that the government has turned a blind eye to this illegal activity much to the chagrine of local tribe members who have reported these illegal "commercial fishing" activities by fellow tribesmen but "Fish and Game" has been instructed to not interfere and look the other way.
The only vote by the public locally done last year showed >80% opposed to dam removal. Every local elected official opposes dam removal. The supporting "science" is minimal at best and the best science indicates it is a "long shot " to help as it isn't addressing the real factors.
The Interior Dept Sec. (Salazar) won't even come and see for himself what are the facts but will make a decision soon!! Not to mention the cost which is considerable at a time when we need the energy produced by the dams and can't afford the cost to take them out. I could go on for a looooong time but will spare you further pain.
Bottom line. Dam removal makes no sense but it is fully embraced by the "environmentalists" trying to get back to "nature"!! Total rubbish!!! but the public has "no clue" because the media doesn't have a clue and is reporting what is perceived to be "politically correct".
My bottom line is you better be VERY SKEPTICAL about what is really "environmentally accurate"!!
Sincerely yours from the "State of Jefferson"
Fred
Personally I'm very happy that are rich people in this country so that my husband and I could have a job. If all mericans will be poor like me I would not be able to provide for my family"s needs. I am also happy that there are rich people so they pay more taxes so I don't have to pay any myself. I'm happy there are rich people so that I could go to a health clinic and don't pay almost anything because the taxes of the rich people are paying for that. My kids also get financial aid and go to the university almost free of charge because there are rich people that pay taxes so that would be possible. I guess it all depends how you look at the rich/taxation situation. Some people are upset because there are rich people in the world, some (like me) are thankful...
I am however, asking that question "must we be quiet" when it comes to church.
We, as members, most of us in difficult financial situations, are sending milions and milions to the organization every year. What do we do to better the world, our comunities? There are members in the church that have no food on the table at dinner time, no money for medication, no money to buy clothes for their children. What do we do? Distribute books about wars in heaven when our own people have are starving, build or buy new churches when our people get evicted from their homes,
perform abortions in our hospitals while we claim to be the " it" church because we keep ALL 10 commandments. Why don't we have shelters for the homeless, food pantries for the hungry, funds to help those in need? We talk about peace when our own church members are attacked because they have different views that do not confirm with the 28 fb, we talk about the wealthy as being evil when our own church leadership is wasting millions every year, we talk about social justice when we ignore the fact that our church does nothing to help the needy.
We claim that we want people to be saved when the books we distribute have little to do with salvation.
Such empty talk, such double standard.
Can we expect anything but confused speech from someone who claims to be a Christian and yet has a working relationship with the Dragon? Show them Jesus in ALL of His Glory but don't "Coordinator for the Center of Adventist-Muslim Relations"!! There was a time when SDA's used to believe in the Mark of the Beast, they just didn't recognize who really wore it, Islam.
do you think "man was designed to use a restroom?".Michael
well, here is God's command to Moses in Deut 23:
make sure that you have a small shovel in your equipment. When you go out to the toilet area, use the shovel to dig a hole. Then, after you relieve yourself, bury the waste in the hole. 14You must keep your camp clean of filthy and disgusting things. The LORD is always present in your camp, ready to rescue you and give you victory over your enemies. But if he sees something disgusting in your camp, he may turn around and leave. "
so animals can go wherever they want, but people have to worry about the Lord seeing something "disgusting" and leaving. I know that's why I always flush without looking.
(I always wondered if there will be flush toilets in Heaven......which ecologists say is a terrible waste of water.....which is why the Chosen People had to carry their own shovel everywhere)
N>B> archeologists have noted a complete absence of coprolite evidence in shallow graves in the Sinai....which should be in abundance due to the multi million march over 40 years processing and eliminating all that manna and bad quail. And all those Israelites killed by plagues sent by god? or by poisonous snakes also at God's command? anybody know where all those mummies are buried?
where there's a will and a heavy counterbalance, there's a way.
http://www.wimp.com/mastbridge/
Not to forget all the abundant water in the Sinai to wash down the manna. Where in the world have millions lived in one small area for 40 years and never left even a shard of all the pots needed to carry water from that "rock" and not a smidgen of human or animal bones? It was a good story, too bad they magically left no evidence of their having been there, and we're left with only imagination, plus the Bible tales to continue the fables.
Elaine
Fred Eastman-
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. What I read of Keith's rant seems more related to politics than anything else. And has anyone ever given a definition of "social justice" that the majority of reasonable persons can agree with?
We are admonished to give the Gospel to all the world; there is no admonition to give social justice to all the world. Definitely, it is the responsibly of individuals to feed the hungry, etc. It is not the responsibility of the corporate church to serve tables!
Acts 6:1,2
And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples [unto them], and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
Keith, as I read your comments, I tend to apply them in a way I'm sure you didn't intend:
"dared to address unpopular issues with the full knowledge that their public actions would be seen by some of their very own and many outside the “little flock” as political activism.' Such as advocating for the needs of our gay and lesbian members...
"genuine Christianity mandated that those who are called by God’s name have no choice but to be a voice for the voiceless and a home for the homeless" Such as those who voice support for the rejected gay and lesbian members who long for a true home in their church...
"blinded American theologians who justified slavery by disseminating the venomous doctrine of the “Pauline mandate.” Well, the Bible does appear to condone and regulate the practice of slavery, which was prevalent in those days, but I agree the Holy Spirit has led us to understand the "present truth" of our day that slavery is not God's ideal. What about the "present truth" that society and many churches and other world faiths are currently struggling with about the issue of homosexuality? ...
"They understood that no true citizen of the kingdom would applaud the carnage caused by war" And I would add no true citizen of the kingdom would turn away from the suffering and rejection endured by GLBTI members of our church - or in the world...
"As I reflect on the bold stances taken by a people who understood the implications of being a prophetic movement, I wonder why my church chooses to remain silent in the face of the many injustices that confront our society today. I wonder why we choose to disengage from the national dialogue, not realizing that it is never possible to remain neutral." And what of those who take a bold stance, are part of a prophetic movement , are not silent in the face of the many injustices that confront gay and lesbian people today? ...
You quote Desmond Tutu, who is a staunch supporter of gay and lesbian inclusion. I rest my case.
I think Carrol is hitting the nail on the head here.
I am not normally silent about the social issues mentioned here. However, when I speak up, I am usually shot down by most friends and family members. Scowling and rolling their eyes, they mumble about lack of patriotism or religious conviction, or worse. (Yes, the "s" word and the "c" word have been used.) Most often their reasoning sounds more like talk radio than the Scriptures. It is my experience that one's true loyalty to God and country are questioned when one attempts to bring social issues into the conversation. Also, many of us were brought up in an SDA church where only one political party was deemed worthy of our membership. Admitting to membership in any other party causes jaws to drop. In some quarters, it's a family disgrace. That, I believe, is why so many remain silent. I'm glad to know a few (with varying political affiliations) who forge ahead with the word of God as their sole motivation. Thank you for inspiring me to raise my voice more loudly and more often.
I am waiting for Ted to acknowledge noblesse oblige and open his personal financial affairs and those of the church to total, continual, competent, disinterested audit. Under the infamous bushel, power corrupts all the faster.
Harry
Hmm. It occurs to me that the same bushel was used by the White dynasty while countless primary documents were edited into sanitary Manuscript Releases. (And smoke?)
"Sometimes I want to ask God why he allows poverty, famine and injustice in the world when He could do something about it, but I'm afraid He might just ask me the same question." Anon.
Patti Cottrell Grant
Really, Keith, who has any respect for Jeremiah Wright and any opinion he may express? His crude language and other excesses make him an embarrassment to his church and ...
"Sometimes I want to ask God why he allows poverty, famine and injustice in the world when He could do something about it, but I'm afraid He might just ask me the same question." Anon. Quoted by Patti.
Is this the answer: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/10/24/vatican-economy-idUKL5E7LO1LS20...
No, we must not be silent!
Thanks, Keith, for your clear words!
We shall only be true Christians if we denounce aloud that horrid reality, that some people are calling the Fourth Reich.
Add your comment