Weird Time for Christians

[knapplc]

14 minutes ago, Landlord said:

The gospels are called the gospels because the Romans would send out 'gospel' pamphlets (good news) to conquered citizens (aka, the gospels are in a way satire)

 

I've never heard of this, and it doesn't make a lot of sense. A couple of attempts to google this doesn't produce anything for me. Can you point me to a source for this?

[BigRedBuster]

20 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

I completely disagree with this and think it's the wrong approach, at least for anyone who identifies as a Christian.

 

Jesus was not politically neutral. He was radically subversive and opposed to the effects of empire, and the effects of legalism. There is political subterfuge and subtext in almost every lesson he ever taught. The gospels are called the gospels because the Romans would send out 'gospel' pamphlets (good news) to conquered citizens (aka, the gospels are in a way satire). Jesus' virgin birth combats Caesar's unique birth story, because those stories were how those who fancied themselves deities set themselves apart. I could go on and on and on, but the point is true religion and spirituality can not be informed by politics, but if you want to be a part of true Christian expression your politics will land not with any party or defined side, but in support and favor and solidarity with the broken, the oppressed, the downtrodden, the abused and the trampled.

I agree with the point @TGHusker is making.  But, it's not a real cut and dry issue.

 

I'll give an example and maybe it will make sense with politics.  As a Christian, it really bothers me to walk into a place of business and see that the owner of the business has made it absolutely clear they are Christian and want to express that Christianity in their place of business.  Honestly, some of the biggest screw jobs I have ever had were from people like this.

 

I would hope that I don't need to do that to show I'm a Christian or someone with high morals.  You should be able to tell that by simply how I conduct myself and treat you while doing business with you.  This is how we should treat politics within our faith.  Politics shouldn't be a part of our faith.  We should use our faith to move us forward in how we view issues.

 

Hopefully that makes sense.  I have never been a part of a church that regularly talked about politics on Sunday morning.  I think I would have to stand up and walk out if it ever happened.  It's sad that some churches do do that though.

[Moiraine]

5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I agree with the point @TGHusker is making.  But, it's not a real cut and dry issue.

 

I'll give an example and maybe it will make sense with politics.  As a Christian, it really bothers me to walk into a place of business and see that the owner of the business has made it absolutely clear they are Christian and want to express that Christianity in their place of business.  Honestly, some of the biggest screw jobs I have ever had were from people like this.

 

I would hope that I don't need to do that to show I'm a Christian or someone with high morals.  You should be able to tell that by simply how I conduct myself and treat you while doing business with you.  This is how we should treat politics within our faith.  Politics shouldn't be a part of our faith.  We should use our faith to move us forward in how we view issues.

 

Hopefully that makes sense.  I have never been a part of a church that regularly talked about politics on Sunday morning.  I think I would have to stand up and walk out if it ever happened.  It's sad that some churches do do that though.

 

 

 

I get exactly what you're saying... and maybe you don't agree with this but to me it's kind of like football teams carrying the American flag out on the field, as if they're trying to show they're more patriotic than the other team, who is also American. (Unless it's on a military holiday)

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

I get exactly what you're saying... and maybe you don't agree with this but to me it's kind of like football teams carrying the American flag out on the field, as if they're trying to show they're more patriotic than the other team, who is also American. (Unless it's on a military holiday)

 

I don't disagree.

[jsneb83]

24 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Hopefully that makes sense.  I have never been a part of a church that regularly talked about politics on Sunday morning.  I think I would have to stand up and walk out if it ever happened.  It's sad that some churches do do that though.

Our new pastor brings up something polictal in almost every one of his sermons and it pisses me off. I've been real close to walking out myself, but I'm always there with my mom. So instead, I just zone out and don't listen to what he's saying. The good thing is he and the associate switch off every week

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, jsneb83 said:

Our new pastor brings up something polictal in almost every one of his sermons and it pisses me off. I've been real close to walking out myself, but I'm always there with my mom. So instead, I just zone out and don't listen to what he's saying. The good thing is he and the associate switch off every week 

 

 

This is a good reason why churches should not be tax-exempt.

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, Landlord said:

 

 

I completely disagree with this and think it's the wrong approach, at least for anyone who identifies as a Christian.

 

Jesus was not politically neutral. He was radically subversive and opposed to the effects of empire, and the effects of legalism. There is political subterfuge and subtext in almost every lesson he ever taught. The gospels are called the gospels because the Romans would send out 'gospel' pamphlets (good news) to conquered citizens (aka, the gospels are in a way satire). Jesus' virgin birth combats Caesar's unique birth story, because those stories were how those who fancied themselves deities set themselves apart. I could go on and on and on, but the point is true religion and spirituality can not be informed by politics, but if you want to be a part of true Christian expression your politics will land not with any party or defined side, but in support and favor and solidarity with the broken, the oppressed, the downtrodden, the abused and the trampled.

LL there must be a wire crossed someplace for I totally agree with the bold.   You must have misread my statement. 

 

I am saying that politics and religion are NOT to mix in the sense of their loyalties.  However, religion must address the injustices that politics and other institutions might bring to a society.  In that way, religion or faith is both confrontational and combative.  But we cannot be confrontational if our loyalties are with a particular party or if our loyalties are even with a particular system of govt.  The Christian voice should be the same regardless of the political system it finds in culture.  That is why Christianity has survived under all kinds of political systems around the world and through the ages and in far different cultures.  It survives because of the power of the  gospel message to free, redeem and to transform both individuals and societies.  The gospel message is Isaiah 58:8-12 lived out.  It is Micah 6:8 lived out. 

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

 

This is a good reason why churches should not be tax-exempt.

 

If you're going to push political opinions, the political system should extract a price.

[Landlord]

10 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I agree with the point @TGHusker is making.  But, it's not a real cut and dry issue.

 

I'll give an example and maybe it will make sense with politics.  As a Christian, it really bothers me to walk into a place of business and see that the owner of the business has made it absolutely clear they are Christian and want to express that Christianity in their place of business.  Honestly, some of the biggest screw jobs I have ever had were from people like this.

 

 

I do agree with this and if this is what TG is getting at then I'm 100% on board. 

 

I think people taking the teachings of Jesus and turning it into yet another tribe that you're either in or out of is COMPLETELY the opposite of the thing Jesus was trying to get at. Christianity should not be a team. I think a key tenant of Christ ethos is that there are no teams and that God is not keeping score.

 

 

 

10 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

I've never heard of this, and it doesn't make a lot of sense. A couple of attempts to google this doesn't produce anything for me. Can you point me to a source for this?

 

 

Quote

 

The English word gospel is derived from the Anglo-Saxon godspell (“good story”). The classical Greek word euangelion means “a reward for bringing of good news” or the “good news” itself. In the emperor cult particularly, in which the Roman emperor was venerated as the spirit and protector of the empire, the term took on a religious meaning: the announcement of the appearance or accession to the throne of the ruler. In contemporary Greek it denoted a weighty, authoritative, royal, and official message.

In the New Testament, no stress can be placed on the etymological (root) meaning of eu (“good”); in Luke, chapter 3, verse 18 (as in other places), the word means simply authoritative news concerning impending judgment.

 

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/New-Testament-literature#ref598075

 

Quote

Since Providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior [σωτήρ], both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance…. surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of the god [τοῦ θεοῦ] Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings [εὐαγγέλιον] for the world that came by reason of him…

 

https://glenandpaula.com/wordpress/archives/2010/02/25/pre-christian-uses-of-gospel

 

Quote

Celebrated as a hero after the strife of civil war, Augustus was considered the great source of peace for Rome. After defeating the enemies of Rome, he was celebrated as a great “savior” to the people who would have likely been hopeless had victory not been achieved.[7]  The themes of freedom, justice, peace and salvation permeated his reign.

Whenever the great deeds of Augusts were proclaimed, they were presented with the Greek term euangelion, which is translated, “good news” or, “gospel”.

 

https://theologycurator.com/roman-empire-during-time-jesus/

 

Quote

An inscription that heralds the supposedly benevolent reign of Caesar Augustus (27 BC-AD 14) reads: “…the birthday of the god [Augustus] was the beginning of the

good news that came through him to the world.” In our contemporary context of a separation of church and state, it can be easy to assign this claim for Caesar to the political realm and to identify Jesus’ kingdom announcement as spiritual. Yet no person in that era would have conceived of such a separation. Instead, this inscription claims that Augustus was ordained as supreme ruler. Later coins minted with the image of Tiberius (AD 14-37), Rome’s ruler during Jesus’ ministry, identify Tiberius as emperor (“Caesar”), “son of the divine Augustus,” and “high priest.”

 

https://www.nae.net/theology-behind-euangelion/

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bit about the pamphlets might be a bit of imaginative embellishing on my part or on the part of people who's work I follow, but the nature of the New Testament "gospel" accounts being highly politically subversive to Rome would have been very apparent to people within the culture of that empire.

 

 

[knapplc]

6 hours ago, Landlord said:

The bit about the pamphlets might be a bit of imaginative embellishing on my part or on the part of people who's work I follow, but the nature of the New Testament "gospel" accounts being highly politically subversive to Rome would have been very apparent to people within the culture of that empire.

 

OK, gotcha. In context I get what you're saying.

 

It's funny how the more we understand the times, the more early Christianity fits in really well with the times in which it grew.

[TGHusker]

8 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

I do agree with this and if this is what TG is getting at then I'm 100% on board. 

 

I think people taking the teachings of Jesus and turning it into yet another tribe that you're either in or out of is COMPLETELY the opposite of the thing Jesus was trying to get at. Christianity should not be a team. I think a key tenant of Christ ethos is that there are no teams and that God is not keeping score.

Yes, that is it.    We do not want tribes - the gospel tells us there is no longer Greek, Jew, Gentile, Male, Female.  We are all ONE tribe if you will.  The gospel is meant to tear down the walls of separation between us and God (we realize God is for us and not against us - the wall we build out of fear) and it tears down the wall between each other making us all one family.  

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

OK, gotcha. In context I get what you're saying.

 

It's funny how the more we understand the times, the more early Christianity fits in really well with the times in which it grew.

Regarding the bold, I just finished reading a book "Sinners in the hands of a LOVING God" by Brian Zohnd.  After I got done with it I actually thought of you and Landlord as 2 individuals who may like to read it or find it interesting.      Great book that tears down some of the dispensational and western interpretation of  the OT -dispelling the notion that God was evolving in the OT from the angry God to the loving God of the gospels.  God was always loving, however the cultural context of ancient understanding of God was mixed with the angry gods of other nations. Thus we have the angry god of war, genocide, etc of the OT.  But the Gospel presents God in a total new light - as revealed in Christ as the God who suffers with us, forgives, and loves.  The book ends wt putting the book of Revelation in the cultural context of the time. It is not a book about how we need 'end time' wars, earthquakes, death and suffering to usher in the 2nd coming of Christ - so popularized by the Left Behind series and back in the 1970s The Late Great Planet Earth and all other books like those.  It is a political pamphlet (using LL's phrase) that the early church would understand - full of symbolism that  exposed the Roman govt for what it was - anti god, spiritually corrupt, godless. 

 

About the book:

 

 

Quote

 

Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God: The Scandalous Truth of the Very Good News

Pastor Brian Zahnd began "to question the theology of a wrathful God who delights in punishing sinners, and has started to explore the real nature of Jesus and His Father. The book isn’t only an interesting look at the context of some modern theological ideas; it’s also offers some profound insight into God’s love and eternal plan." —Relevant Magazine (Named one of the Top 10 Books of 2017)

God is wrath? Or God is Love?

In his famous sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” Puritan revivalist Jonathan Edwards shaped predominating American theology with a vision of God as angry, violent, and retributive. Three centuries later, Brian Zahnd was both mesmerized and terrified by Edwards’s wrathful God. Haunted by fear that crippled his relationship with God, Zahnd spent years praying for a divine experience of hell.
 
What Zahnd experienced instead was the Father’s love—revealed perfectly through Jesus Christ—for all prodigal sons and daughters.

In Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God, Zahnd asks important questions like: Is seeing God primarily as wrathful towards sinners true or biblical? Is fearing God a normal expected behavior? And where might the natural implications of this theological framework lead us?
 
Thoughtfully wrestling with subjects like Old Testament genocide, the crucifixion of Jesus, eternal punishment in hell, and the final judgment in Revelation, Zanhd maintains that the summit of divine revelation for sinners is not God is wrath, but God is love.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Sinners-Hands-Loving-God-Scandalous/dp/1601429517/ref=sr_1_1?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIzuewtv2s4wIVB9lkCh0ULQ8DEAAYASAAEgJhZ_D_BwE&hvadid=241647737755&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9026567&hvnetw=g&hvpos=1t1&hvqmt=e&hvrand=7002241597370621137&hvtargid=kwd-356134127002&hydadcr=19739_10212548&keywords=sinners+in+the+hand+of+a+loving+god&qid=1562852017&s=gateway&sr=8-1

 

[Landlord]

6 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

OK, gotcha. In context I get what you're saying.

 

It's funny how the more we understand the times, the more early Christianity fits in really well with the times in which it grew.

 

 

It's why I keep coming back to Christian tradition and specifically to the person of Jesus. The more I understand history, the more I understand empire, the more I understand rebellion, the more fascinating the story and the teachings of that guy are. The Bible really comes to life when you start leaning into and embracing how human it is. Along with what TG was saying from his book, reading the stories of different types of people in different times and places trying to make sense of the world around them and the divine is pretty cool, especially when you see the idea and understanding of God change throughout history.

[TGHusker]

21 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

It's why I keep coming back to Christian tradition and specifically to the person of Jesus. The more I understand history, the more I understand empire, the more I understand rebellion, the more fascinating the story and the teachings of that guy are. The Bible really comes to life when you start leaning into and embracing how human it is. Along with what TG was saying from his book, reading the stories of different types of people in different times and places trying to make sense of the world around them and the divine is pretty cool, especially when you see the idea and understanding of God change throughout history.

I think in understanding Biblical literature in its cultural, political and religious context & the time it was written helps us to understand the 'real God' that the Bible want us to see.  That book by Brian Zohnd (always think there is a  vowel missing in his last name) tells us that the true picture of God is Jesus (He who has seen Me has seen the Father) while the Bible's OT stores we only see in part.  At the beginning of the OT we see the writers talk about the need for a blood sacrifice and a scapegoat but by the Psalms and the Prophets we hear the common theme "Sacrifice you desired not but worship and devotion"  We go from the angry God that needs to be appeased to the God who desires not just our worship but our fellowship. While our fellowship does not fulfill anything lacking in God for He lacks nothing, it does free us from our self-centerness to become people of mission - bringing His kingdom to others through service.   Some examples:

Psalm 51-15-16

O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare Your praise. 16For You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; You take no pleasure in burnt offerings. 17The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.…

1 Samuel 15:22
But Samuel declared: "Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, obedience is better than sacrifice, and attentiveness is better than the fat of rams.

Psalm 40:6
Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but my ears You have opened. Burnt offerings and sin offerings You did not require.
 

[BigRedBuster]