The Great Divorce: Evangelicalism And Jesus
C. S. Lewis’ profound book, The Great Divorce, sprang to mind when I read an opinion piece in the Dallas Morning News by religion journalist Peggy Wehmeyer about her growing need to divorce from her longtime love: the Evangelical church.
Every word has an impact and I hope you will take the time to read the entire piece. She writes especially of the reasons her now adult daughters, steeped in the words of Jesus, can no longer tolerate the ongoing love affair of the Evangelical world with our current President.
At the dinner table with my adult daughters, I tried to explain that in the 2016 vote, evangelicals believed they had found a defender, albeit a mean-spirited bully, who would restore their rights to practice their faith freely.
But even as I said it, I wondered: At what cost? I had assumed the evangelical leaders who supported Trump’s policies would frown on his lack of character and sexual promiscuity.
Instead I watched them wink at behavior the Old Testament prophets would have shouted down.
When Lewis wrote The Great Divorce, he told a story of a man, wandering around a dirty little town on a damp, miserable early evening, who, for lack of anything better to do, boards a bus which ultimately takes him and his fellow passengers on a journey to what would turn out to be the outer edges of heaven. To make the journey further, each needed to decide to look into their souls and repent of the sin that keeps them from fully entering into the heart of God and the place of penetrating light. Or, . . . they could return to the dark, dank place to indulge in the things that give a semblance of power and achievement but ultimately destroy.
Lewis sums it up by quoting John Milton’s Paradise Lost, “The choice of every lost soul can be expressed in the words ‘Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.'”
Extract from the Original article by Christy Thomas , in The Thoughtful Pastor .
Tags
Who is online
448 visitors
Christ said, "Love one another!" No exceptions, no excuses.
Trump says, "It's OK to hate 'those people'".
It is impossible to follow Christ and Trump, both.
All who follow Trump must abandon Christ.
All who follow Trump already abandoned the Christ depicted in the gospels.
I think so.
I'm not very surprised by the behavior of "evangelical leaders" like Franklin Graham. The movement has been closely allied with the Republican party for decades. So their sacrificing religion for political power is shocking and disgusting... but not surprising.
What bothers me much more is the unwavering allegiance of the common church-goer. I mean... this isn't ultra-sophisticated theological controversy. It's DUH-simple. Christ said "Love one another." No exceptions. Trump says, "Hate 'those people'!"
A follower of Christ cannot also follow Trump. This is obvious. So why are so many self-proclaimed "Christians" betraying Christ? How can they live with themselves?
Is there a Christ approved politician in the US?
Religion has been a useful political tool to keep the country divided and make it appear that love, truth, honor, peace, and God was what motivated a man to "represent" his fellow men in government. Does any of this BS stand up to impartial scrutiny in today's world?
Good question.
I'm not someone who pretends to know what God thinks. She hasn't spoken to me recently.
Nor am I a "yes OR no" person. The world isn't binary: yes/no, off/on, white/black, ... The world is wide spectrums, from a teeny-tiny bit to a whole thumping LOT.
That's true for politicians, like everything else. More or less honest, more or less self-interested, more or less in service to the people, more or less in service to well-paying masters, ...
Christ told us to care for each other. So it seems to me that the politicians who try to do the greatest good for the greatest number are closest to Him.
Does that include Trump and his followers or are they the exception?
When I was a Christian, I struggled mightily with that "Love one another!" No exceptions, no excuses." rule. It was also detrimental to my mental and physical health.
As an atheist, I try to understand the societal influences that shape personality, but I have no qualms about not loving people who violate women and children or harm others in general.
Yes, IMNAAHO.
We have an obligation to continue to try to save the souls that they put in danger every day, with their rejection of others.
Christ said "Love one another". He did not say, "Be blind to who they are".
I am so happy that I am not a Christian because there is no way that I am wasting one more second of my life trying to love rapists, pedophiles, wife beaters, murderers or other people who take and/or ruin the lives of others.
"Loving" Trump, or probably 99% of other politicians, would definitely be one of things that would have been an impossibility for me. It would have caused emotional distress which would have caused physical illness.
How have the rights to practice their faith freely have been taken from evangelicals or even threatened, unless their right to do so means the weapons their beliefs in order to discriminate and trample the equal religious and secular rights of others?
Christianity is the majority faith in the US, so who is taking their relgious rights away?
"Christians are persecuted in America!" is a very common complaint among Trumpist evangelicals.
It's ludicrous... manifestly untrue... but hey! They're Trumpists. They are not in touch with reality.
That's the first thing I noticed too, waddya mean 'restore'??
Never mind Trump, how can any Christian support the Republican party at all? They are the epitome of the moneychangers Jesus threw out of the temple.
Their people aren't following the words and ideas of Jesus Christ. They cherry pick the bible for passages that support their bigoted, racist and violent views.
I have often said that social conservatives would claim religious persecution if they were required to live by the teachings of the person who their claim to be the son of God and their eternal savior. When was the last time that you heard of an evangelical minister poinding the pulpit and raising his blood pressure because of the Sermon on The Mount?
Benjamin Corey unpacks this story better than the usual "itty-bitty gate".
If the Christians think that they are persecuted they have no idea of the meaning of the word.
That's exactly the case.
This phrase describes their claim of persecution,
Slightly revised:
When You’re Accustomed to Vast Privilege, Anything Even Tending Toward Equality Feels Like Oppression
How interesting that not one evangelical or Trump supporter has come on to this thread to try to dispute it. The truth certainly hurts.
It's a problem for them. They must betray either Trump or Christ.
And despite their calling themselves "Christians", if truly forced to choose, I'm sure they'd follow Trump. So... they pretty much stay away from the subject. Too embarrassing...
I know there are many good, honest Christians in America that live their life instep with their faith. However, there seems to be many others, like some here on NT, that portray themselves as being devout Christians and do a lot of talk the talk, but, when it comes down to walking the walk, they will find all kinds of excuses for not doing so.
They think they are fooling everyone with their talk of piety and devotion, but, their own words in how they speak to others betray their true selves.
You'll notice that Trumpist "Christians" rarely actually talk-talk Christ. They much prefer the more anonymous "God". Christ's message is fairly simple and direct, while "God" is all over the map. They can talk-talk just about anything while attributing their own ideas to "God".
So... I don't think that the right approach is to tar all Christians with a Trumpist brush. On the contrary, we should confront "Trumpist Christians" with the absolute contradiction between their two deities.
This is great news. I'm so glad their views are changing and they are abandoning the rigid beliefs of their grandparents. Finally some encouraging news coming from the religious community.
So confirmation they were wrong all along.
Yes and I see it as a step in the right direction.
Many of these people are only converting at their funerals. America is changing these social fossils die off. The younger people (Gen-X and millennials) who are internet savvy are evolving with time and discussions.
Scrubbed "Evangelical" from my professed Christian status year ago. The formation of "Moral Majority" literally put the term Evangelical on a slope it'll never recover. The love and hope of Christ, once part and parcel of an Evangelical's life, continues to be replaced with feeling sorry for themselves and their status in this country. The idea that a group, person or President would usher in an age of reformation is as ill fated at the last reformation. The God I worship doesn't need me to right the wrongs of the world, only to love those in my sphere of influence.
To this day, railing on lack of prayer in school...how about lack of prayer at home! Can the Evangelical Christian not pray with their children before school? Can't a Christian student pray during school? Parents provide faith guidance to their children and at some point children will determine their faith or rejection of same. It is not the role of society...read the "Good Book"!
Poor, pitiful, they are picking on me is laughable...if it weren't so sad.
"Love one another"
It's not rocket science...
I love my son, but can't stand what he keeps doing....and I won't placate him.
I also love the world, but the Maroons keep fucking things up. I can't stand them either....and No One should Placate them either.
Can't speak for Bob, but my Mom imprinted faith compliance on all my cheeks...
I don't recall that Christ said, "Love one another, but..."
He warned us that His "straight and narrow" would be hard to near-impossibility. It's up to us to decide whether to try or not.
Is Love the ONLY thing that makes the world go round in your mind ?
Even the Bible had "Punishment"....right ?
That makes me wonder how many Christians loved Hitler out of fear they would go to hell if they didn’t.
I said nothing of the kind.
The Bible was written over a period of thousands of years, in a constantly evolving society. So it has... just about everything you can imagine. IMNAAHO, anyone who takes any portion of the Bible to be the literal "Word of God" is not thinking very clearly.
I think you're completely off-track, into the weeds.
I didn't say you SAID IT !
I asked a question.
That's what the little "?" symbol means !
There is a difference yaknow....unless your "feeling" guilty about something, then I can see the reason for a comment like that.
"The Bible was written over a period of thousands of years, in a constantly evolving society. So it has... just about everything you can imagine. IMNAAHO, anyone who takes any portion of the Bible to be the literal "Word of God" is not thinking very clearly."
All I said was that the Bible had "Punishment" as part of it's word. Nothing more, nothing less. Do you deny that FACT ?
When did you stop beating your wife?
I see the "Child' in you has come out now.
Did I get you all "Verklempt" with my responses ?
Does the Bible "NOT" say anything about "Punishment" ?
You're gibbering... I think you need a break.
Is that the new definition of "One is Stumped" in a response ?
No. If you need an explanation: You are jumping all over the place, and making no sense.
to gibbe r: to speak rapidly, inarticulately, and often foolishly
So you really don't have "A Clue" if the Bible speaks of punishment.
Thanks for clarifying.
While scripture certainly refers to punishment, Jesus was/is the proponent of mercy. Is he not?
He tipped over a few tables at the temple, didn't he.
He tipped over a few tables at the temple, didn't he.
Interestingly the only time Jesus was purported to have used violence, was not a punishment, but a proactive means to rid the Temple of thieving hypocrites.
Interesting.
Sounded like a "Punishment' to me.....Banishment that is.
Did they come back ?
"Punishment":
the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense.
Weird huh !
It doesn't appear that Jesus' actions that day changed the practice sadly.
:~(
Jesus could show up today, and literally crawl outta some alley in some slum and be completely ignored by nearly all of Christianity.
Exactly.
There is only that single instance recounted, of Jesus expressing violent anger. It's a very particular case: doing business in a church... insulting God.
Despite the incident's being so very precisely circumscribed, some self-styled "Christians" would have us consider it to be of the same importance as "love one another", which Christ Himself said was "the most important commandment".
... taking the name of the Lord in vain...
Jesus talked about not judging, turning the other cheek and forgiveness. Punishment (an eye for an eye) is an Old Testament idea that Jesus condemned.
Yet he and God DO JUDGE.
Stop looking for loopholes.
He said that didn't belong in the temple. Jesus wasn't a fan of wealth.
He wasn't a fan of "Greed".....not Wealth.
Sorry for late response...outside with hubby doing chainsaw work.
Agree with Larry, while you may view Jesus' turning the tables as punishment, I saw it as a display of anger. Now had he relegated them to death, that would be punishment.
"Punishment":
the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense.
They were banished !
Punishment says nothing finite as "Death".
Yay!!!!!
The problem, of course, is that many self-styled "Christians" nowadays pay much more attention to the OT than to the NT.
You need to read the teachings of Jesus,
Matthew 19-23/24
This is where the priests get the vow of poverty, Matthew 21,
One of the verses that is found in all three synoptic gospels: Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
This isn't rocket science: If a person accumulates wealth far beyond their need, and does not share it to alleviate the misery of others, then that person does not love their fellows... is not a follower of Christ... will not be born up in God's love...
Duh...
Great minds work alike...
It's still a shock to me that a godless Humanist like myself knows the bible better than most Christian conservatives?
Obviously, Jesus would oppose the death penalty.
Thou Shall Not Kill, and opposing the concept of an eye for an eye.
“money answers all things” (Eccl. 9:10) ,
and
"money is a root of all kinds of evil.” (1 Tim. 6:10).
Interesting huh.
Do you think he would have dropped the bomb on Japan?
Obvioiusly Jesus opposed greed,
I think that's what I said, isn't it ?
"Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."
Again..........GREED !
Japan was ready to surrender before we bombed Hiroshima. All that was left was how the US treated the Emporer. We would not have needed to invade Japan (Operation Olympic)
That bomb was as much of a PR effort to demonstrate to Stalin that we had atomic weapons as it was a tactical action to end the war.
Timothy doesn't negate Mattew 19-24. Jesus didn't support wealth or riches.
But do not forget to do good and to share, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. Hebrews 13:16
For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. 2 Thessalonians 3:10
In all labour there is profit, but idle chatter leads only to poverty. Proverbs 14:23
A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children…’ Proverbs 13:22
Weird !
This is telling people to get a career and contribute. It isn't saying to make yourself wealthy.
It doesn't say you shouldn't either. The "More", the merrier everyone else can be. You can't give to others, if you can't even give to yourself.
In simpler "These Days" words:
“In case of emergency, air masks will drop the ceiling. Please put on your own mask before helping minors or others around you.”
Helping others is almost impossible to achieve if you are destitute yourself. A hug doesn't help feed or cloth anyone.
It's still a shock to me that a godless Humanist like myself knows the bible better than most Christian conservatives?
Unfortunately extrapolation of a singular verse serves as justification for self-righteousness. Perhaps the lack of biblical knowledge is directly proportional to the lack of Christian humility shown by many conservatives.
I agree. They are looking for ways to justify their current beliefs instead of following the teachings of Jesus as a Christian when they would be forced to change.
I have long felt that if you need to go to church after the age of 16-18 because you have no adopted the teachings of Jesus you are not ever going to follow his teachings. You can sit in the first pew 3 days a week but if you don't live by them after you cross the church threshold you aren't a Christian in your heart.
Matthew 19-23 says that you should not be wealthy.
The prosperity gospel is BS and is in direct opposition the teachings of Jesus. We should have enough to live reasonably and care for others but generating wealth is morally wrong.
Were it not true, this article would never have been written
Don't tell Joel Olsteen!!
The question is would we have been morally superior to continue the conventional raids on Japanese cities that created firestorms, as well as to starve the civilain population with a shipping blockade via submarines, than bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic weapons.
The Japanese wanted to preserve the emperor in some capacity, but McCarthur and Truman demanded an unconditional surrender.
Nagasaki was our last available atomic weapon, and if they hadn't surrendered it would have been almost 90 days until we could have used another.
I see the bombings as an opening act of the Cold War because we demonstrated to Stalin and the world our ability to prevent any Russian advances in both Europe and Asia.
His eyes creep me out. I want to punch him, with a 2x4.
LMFAO
Although Truman certainly knew that the atomic bomb was much more powerful than any other weapon in human history, he still viewed it as a weapon of the moment. I think the simple fact of it is they came to him and said, "this bomb is ready" and he said OK, let's do it.
Truman rightfully saw his job as needing to end the war. He knew that the atomic bomb would cause massive civilian casualties, but the last years of the war had caused massive , unimaginable casualties around the world. Less than one half of one percent of WW2 deaths happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It wasn't the civilian deaths that it caused because we caused many more with the firestorms of Tokoyo and Yokahoma, but it was the manner of doing it. I don't think that they understood the full magnitude of the radiation sickness that would occur.
You are misstating the teaching of Jesus. First let me be clear that the prosperity gospel is a false teaching and I believe those who teach it are leading people astray. But that said, Jesus never said that being wealthy is contrary to God. He said it’s difficult for the wealthy because they tend to worship their wealth rather than God and that is idolatry.
Jesus was not against acumulating wealth since it is He who prospers those who love Him so that we might advance the kingdom of God and help those in need. Charity should come the body of Christ not government compulsion and coercion
“And you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He who gives you power to get wealth, that He may establish His covenant which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day.” Deuteronomy 8:18
“And He will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your land, your grain and your new wine and your oil, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flock, in the land of which He swore to your fathers to give you.” Deuteronomy 7:13
The young lions lack and suffer hunger;
But those who seek the Lord shall not lack any good thing. Psalm 34:10
So Jesus answered and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel’s, 30 who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time—houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions—and in the age to come, eternal life. Mark 10:29,30
“If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples.” John 14:7,8
And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work...Now may He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, while you are enriched in everything for all liberality, which causes thanksgiving through us to God. For the administration of this service not only supplies the needs of the saints, but also is abounding through many thanksgivings to God” 2 Corinthians 9:8,10-12
My take...
Why did God not want to give a king to Israel?
Rejecting God
When the Israelites asked for a king in 1 Samuel 8, God says “they have rejected me from being king over them” (verse 7). That was the core of their sin. They wanted to have a king “like all the nations” (verse 5). But God’s plan for Israel was not to let them be ‘like all the nations’! God was their king, and He ruled them directly. He spoke to His people through the prophet Samuel. But that was not enough for them. They did not want a simple prophet speaking God’s words to them. They wanted a strong and mighty king! And they forgot the Lord Himself was their strong and mighty king.
The scepter from Judah
How does this square with the prophecy that the scepter would not depart from Judah? First, the final fulfillment of this prophecy is not found in any earthly king of Israel, but in the Lord Jesus. You can see this from Genesis 47:8: “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.” The Bible speaks about ‘peoples’, not just about the people of Israel. Jesus is the King of kings, but his kingdom is not of this earth.
Secondly, undoubtedly this prophecy also finds a partial fulfilment in king David and his royal line. And it is very likely that God would have instructed Samuel to anoint David as king even if Saul had not been king before. Just as God could rule His people through a prophet, He could rule his people through a king. But Israel was not happy with what God gave them at that time, and demanded a king before the time of the Lord’s plan. The result was that they got a king who was ideal in the eyes of man: tall, strong, and brave. Yet his heart was not right with God. And it was clear that this was not God’s perfect plan for Israel: for king Saul came not from the tribe of Judah, but from Benjamin.
Earthly king
So in summary: God was reluctant to give Israel a king when they demanded one because they were looking for an earthly and not a heavenly king; and because they did not want to wait for God’s time. These are important lessons for us. We should seek heavenly and not earthly blessings; and we should not push the Lord to confirm to our time schedule, but trust Him to work out His good purposes in His perfect time.
~LINK~
...modern American Evangelical Christianity lost faith in their God because of fear and gluttony, and opted rather for an earthly answer. In essence, using a term they would understand, they have backslidden.
Evangelical Christians = The nations largest hate group.
Discriminating since 1772 and not officially denouncing racism or its support for slavery till 1995.
"the Southern Baptist group used the curse of Cain as a justification for slavery. Some 19th- and 20th-century Baptist ministers in the Southern United States taught the belief that there were two separate heavens; one for blacks , and one for whites . Southern Baptists have either taught or practiced various forms of racial segregation well into the mid-to-late-20th century, though members of all races were accepted at worship services. In 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention officially denounced racism and apologized for its past defense of slavery .
The curse of Cain was used to support a ban on ordaining blacks to most Protestant clergies until the 1960s in both the United States and Europe. The majority of Christian churches in the world, including the Catholic Church , Eastern Orthodox churches, Anglican churches, and Oriental Orthodox churches, did not recognize these interpretations and did not participate in the religious movement to support them. Certain Catholic dioceses in the Southern United States adopted a policy of not ordaining blacks to oversee, administer the sacraments to, or accept confessions from white parishioners. This policy was not based on a "curse of Cain" teaching, but was justified by the widely held perception that slaves should not rule over their masters. However, this was not approved of by the Pope or by any papal teaching".
First they fought the right of black Americans to be free, then fought their right to vote, then fought to keep them segregated and fought to ban interracial marriage, now they continue their tradition of hate and discrimination focused at the LGTBQ community. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now, nothing but hateful bigots trying to force their faith on others in violation of the constitutions establishment clause and the freedom of all religions and none.
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
- Matthew 22:36-40 New International Version (NIV)