Antisemitic Presbyterian Church
Sun July 18th, 2004 00:25 MSTI was raised a Presbyterian. It used to be a pretty normal, midwestern style church. I attended in Albuquerque and in Lawrence, Kansas, sang in the choir and in general found it a very ordinary sort of church. It sponsored Boy Scouts, had Sunday School and had various communitarian activities.
Then the leftists took over, and the national Church (which barely qualifies for the name) has done one outrageous thing after another.
Now the national church has taken a major antisemitic step: they have chosen to divest their investments in Israel. In other words, they are economically attacking the Jewish homeland. This is happening around the same time that the Catholic Church formally recognized anti-Zionism as antisemitism.
This is what happens when the left takes over an organization. First, it starts promoting all sorts of trendy causes, no matter what the official mission is. Then it starts supporting the hatred agenda of the hard left.
I am ashamed of this organization. I would hope individual congregations would leave the national organization. It is no longer behaving as a Christian organization, but rather as one more arm of the morally backwards left wing world of hate.
“Mainstream” protestant denominations in America have been captured by the left. This is probably a result of Vietnam era draft deferments for seminarians. As a result, the Catholic Church and the Evangelical Churches are gaining in membership, as the “mainstream” churches slowly wither away.
For the Presbyterian Church, withering away cannot happen fast enough.
The mental and social disease of Leftism has infected other large organized faiths too. Catholicism was patient zero; as Liberation Theology worked its way through the church it spread through trendy ecumenism to other denominations. Anti-semitism is only one symptom of the disease. It’s death dance can be seen in Anglicanism and Episcopalianism.
The bourgeois Leftism which emerged from the elitist John Kennedy regime has metastasized and politicized every features of modern life. It is impossible to escape “politics” or power in the Marxian sense because of Kennedyism and all its variants. If the schools, the home, industry, the professions, race relations, and more, why not the churches? The churches have no excuse, because Christianity is pretty clear on the temptations to power and the evil embodied in The State and the things of the world.
The figures for church attendance and belief in the U.S. are high, but not in themselves reassuring. Those who are pejoratively described as “fundamentalists” (Orwellian Newspeak at work) are a minority, but the process which led to “fundamentalism” will continue because the large bureaucratic denominations are rotting away. Fundamentalism is not just an independence movement, although that would be enough. Fundamentalism is a shock reaction to the secular manias (NOT humanism) of the large denominations.
Within a generation, Protestant Christianity will rip itself apart and realign, along with all the other static post war systems. This is a good thing, although people will be hurt along the way. In any case, the emerging Christian Church of the future is being born in Africa, not here, and we don’t know what that will look like. Good riddance anyway to the contemporary organized Christian denominations in the U.S. Most of them are in every way analogues to teacher’s unions.
This subject is a good example of the irreconcilable differences in Conservative and Leftist (not Liberal) thinking.
Conservatives believe that the ultimate good is human freedom. Everything else develops from it. Leftism is a preoccupation with liberation and material comfort, which are the building blocks of victimology. Victimology exploits structural weaknesses in Christianity the way fascism exploits structural weaknesses in Islam.
Once victimology is in place in Christianity, a fixation on the Palestinians is not just a requirement, it’s a compulsion. “Activist” Christians do the same thing with the perceived “injustice” in American society too. Salvation through mammon. Stupid.
I would note that “liberation theology” finds its adherents largely among the usual suspects in the U.S. and Latin America (where nominal Catholicism is facing a serious, although not yet fatal, challenge from charismatic Protestantism).
I suggest that Kingsmill is correct in identifying sub-Saharan African as the cradle of 3rd millennium Christianity. I would go further, and suggest that the next Pope will be non-European (and certainly not from western Europe), and sound a bit more like Pius XII than Paul VI.
John (Braue);
Maybe I missed what you were saying at the end of your post, Pope pius XII and the Paul VI were both Italian, the XII aka, Eugenio Maria Giovanni Pacelli and the VII was Giovanni Battista Montini, in fact except for Pope John Paul II,(The Polish Pope) I cant find one that was not Italian.
Obviously I missed something.
Mark
John Braue:
We would probably agree on most things, except that liberation theology is not mainly a Latin American phenomenon today. It originated there, perhaps with the starting point being “Theology of Liberation” in 1971 by Boff and Gutierrez. I suggest that the LT mentality has spread beyond Roman Catholicism to most Protestant denominations.
The stress on social and political action in LT accounts for the “activist” mentality in all churches today. If we define “activist” as the urge to connect religion with the requirement to create a just society, then many modern Protestant denominations fit the bill. This, in my view, has almost nothing to do with The Gospels, but that subject is not for this blog.
Leftism itself, even in its most secular forms, is colored (or tainted) by LT in its collectivist thinking, reduction of the individual to a cipher (while exalting “individual rights” at the same time) and its need for an overarching State to bring about its Millenium. Leftism is LT without a church.
I also agree with you about the possibility of a non-European Pope next time around.
Kingsmill:
RE:Your comment ‘The stress on social and political action in LT accounts for the “activist” mentality in all churches today. If we define “activist” as the urge to connect religion with the requirement to create a just society, then many modern Protestant denominations fit the bill. This, in my view, has almost nothing to do with The Gospels, but that subject is not for this blog.’
I can’t argue with most of what you said in your post-I also have to answer to some of your claims, even if the ’subject is not for this blog’. First of all, define activism without attaching a religious requirement, but simply actions filling needs~both in the needy and the activists. It has little or nothing to do with creating a just society. You seem to look at organised religion/spirituality in a very logical and intellectual way. I find religion to be emotional and illogical. In the protestant churches I align myself with, we recognise that in His day, Jesus was also an activist. He literally fed the hungry, healed the sick, made leaders of His ’cause’, died for His cause, defied and exposed corruption in the ‘establishment’ of His day, to cite a few examples in the Gospels. I agree that this new idea by the Presbytery is not well appointed…in fact, I am angry, disappointed, and embarrassed by their position. But not all the major congregations are ‘tainted’, or collapsing. I know there are hundreds of churches with congregations totalling in the millions that give of time and money and talent quite generously, and believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. They do what they do, not because of any leftist ideals, but because they believe that this is what God would have them do~bless His people.
Billie
Billie:
Jesus was not an activist. If you subscribe to that view, Jesus was Abbie Hoffman with divine powers, a reduction of The Son of God (for whoever believes it) to the perfect activist with the approved views with a “cause”.
I see nothing in The Gospels that would describe Jesus as an activist within your meaning of the word. Your argument is perilously close to the agnostic view that Jesue was an admirable humanitarian, but not Divine. C.S. Lewis put this one to bed simply by saying it is precisely what Christians CANNOT believe.
Either Jesus was the Son of God whose ministry was beyond description, he was The Numinous incarnate, or he was a madman. If he was Divine, then such an acknowlegement raises your perception beyond ALL the petty concerns of this world. Your view could easily lead to a Christian acceptance of abortion, simply because it has some secular consequences that benefit the poor. “Activism” can be defined without religious terms, and all too often it is simply a secular impulse to alter society in the currently approved way.
It is this view of Christianity that worries me, not because of the dangers to Christianity but because of the dangers of public activism. Christianity is what it is, and will not change however you or I interperet it. The only thing I need to say here is that if you believe you were called upon to fulfill the requirements of your Christianity in this way, I won’t argue with it.
I have a completely different interpretation of The Gospels. I have said more than acceptable on this subject here and will let the matter go. The issue was the Presbytery.
It is important not to confuse protestant churches with their national organization. In the case of the Presbyterian Church, I doubt if many members have any idea what the national organization is doing with their money. This is one way that the leftists of the national organizations get away with what they do.
Evangelical churches tend not to be tainted with leftism, although there tend to be financial scams preying on some members of these churches - using religion language to separate people from their money.
The American Catholic Church has a lot of leftism, but is somewhat recovering from it. The abuse problem may have led to some reforms.
Overall, these churches do a lot of good in many ways. It is the exception (except in mainstream non-Evangelical protestantism) where the Left hijacks the national organizations.
Whoa,, where is the next pope coming from if not Italy or Europe ?
“Another Italian pope?
John Paul II, a Pole, is the first non-Italian pope in 456 years, but reports suggest that the cardinals may be in the mood for another Italian. And with 34 of the 77 European cardinals being Italian, there is no shortage of them.
But just who that might be is far from certain. As Robert Moynihan, editor and publisher of the magazine “Inside the Vatican” puts it, “In the Vatican, those who talk don’t know and those who know don’t talk.”
I would almost be willing to bet on this one another Italian for Pope.
I dont think it will come from outside the Vatican.
Mark
Billie: (if Mr. Moore will permit me)
A couple more thoughts. I will not contest anything you say further on this issue.
Christianity has been described as the religion of slaves. By that is meant the religion of the outcast, the reviled, the unfree, the rejected and lost, the needy, the downcast…in other words, all those who hearts lie outside the things and ideas of The World. Or whose hearts are in the world but struggle to be free of it.
Christianity has always found its followers among those for whom all the external things mean nothing, the eternally dissatisfied, or who have been persuaded that The World and all its trappings mean nothing. If the Gospels mean anything, particularly the Sermon on The Mount, it is that you shall be made free by this recognition of earthly meaninglessness. Only by giving your life away shall you gain it.
This does not mean that one does not feed and clothe and comfort and do the essentials, but this has nothing to do with earthly justice, earthly penalties for the fortunate, the support for particular sexual preferences, the encouragement of human “love”, income redistribution, free health care or anything else that this generation believes to be essential to the good life.
If you had read my posts more clearly, you would have seen that this was my point.
I did read your posts, in fact, re-read them to make sure. We do disagree: as I said, I find religion/spirituality to be illogical and emotional. Maybe because I find life to be that way, or because I see life that way, but walking out my belief is no garden path. I do believe in His Divinity. I also believe He turned the world upside down. I understand ‘religion for slaves’ and what that entails, and know that even kings find themselves in spiritual poverty.
I question your comment “Fundamentalism is a shock reaction to the secular manias (NOT humanism) of the large denominations.” Why do you say that? Could it not be a spiritual experience that leads someone to simply believe what the Bible says rather than a reaction to external pressures or to the secular manias or other weakness or lack in the church?
No, I am not comparing the likes of Abbie Hoffman to Jesus. Since activism is the doctrine of advocating active involvement (or the use of force) I was thinking more along the lines of Joan of Arc or Mother Teresa, Calvin, and others.
Our paths on this journey are different and personal. I can’t say I won’t respond to something I disagree with on the subject, but my self-control could use some exercise, so I’ll try.
Billie:
The thing called “fundamentalism” is the best thing that has happened to organized Christianity since the Protestant Reformation (in my view).
You second paragraph is confusing. Your sentence beginning “Could it not be…” confirms what I said about shock reactions. If you regard Fundamentalism as a form of literalism (which is fine with me), then it already IS a reaction to denominations that don’t, which is most of them today.
I mentioned that Fundamentalism is largely an independence movement, which is more pertinent. You don’t need to defend this movement against people like me; you need to defend it against The Left and the established denominations.
Billie:
Having just read the last sentence of your post and its intimation of lost “control”, I would like to know which of my preposterous remarks has pushed you to the edge. That you differ with me about some things hasn’t pushed me that far.
So far, with everything I’ve said on the subject, you choose to fixate on our differences about Christian “activism” and seem pretty annoyed that someone disagrees with you. Why?
Kingsmill:
I know that the growth in ‘fundamentalism’ is almost phenomenal. I heard today that it is the fastest growing segment of the Christian Church. I feel that it is a move of God, not a reaction to the failings or lack in mainstream churches, and I don’t think it can be attributed to the left leanings of national leadership. Although, it could be a catalyst, I suppose…
I have seen and heard so many people try to intellectualize movements or churches, or individuals, and God is minimized. It appeared to me you were doing that.
I ‘fixated’ on activism because that was the main point with which I disagreed. I don’t think that is fixating, though.
I generally live at the edge these days, your posts did not push me there. I was referring to self-control in general.
I am an emotional person. I have been known to yell at the tv news when I disagree with what is being presented. I change channels when Kerry ads come on, I get so frustrated and angry.
I have no ‘middle ground’ or gray area to deal with. It is all or nothing, black or white.
And pretty much, I only disagree outloud when I feel safe enough to do so.
So-is there a charge for this session or have I over-answered?
John, Regarding the national Presbyterian Church’s having left you: My wife was raised highish Church Episcopalian. More than 20 years ago she took some instruction in Catholicism. Three years ago she completed the instruction course for adult converts to the Catholic Church but still had personal and theological reservations. Two years ago, the movement to ordain an openly active homosexual as bishop having made it clear that there was no place for her in the Episcopal communion, she again entered the course for adult converts and on Easter of last year was—as my sister put it—received “into the fullness of the faith”.
In the discussion of where the mainstream churches have gone wrong, I have to take issue with the idea that social activism is central to the Gospel. Feeding the hungry, curing the sick, etc., were not programmatic parts of Jesus’ mission on Earth. They were consequences of it. He worked signs and wonders so that He would be believed when He told people that God loved them. He didn’t criticize the authorities for not building hospitals or not having a bread dole. He admonished soldiers and tax collectors not to abuse their authority and praised those who did act with justice and generosity. He didn’t rebuke the religious leaders for wearing soft garments while others wore rags. He rebuked them for laying unnecessary spiritual burdens upon the people and using their own observances for personal status—in other words, abusing their authority. Likewise, social progress is not part of the Church’s program—which is to get as many people as possible into Purgatory—but a consequence of it. Science—based on the Christian conviction that God’s creation is intelligible–is one example. For another: the church never preached against serfdom, but serfdom ended as the Church’s message of radical equality and the inestimable value of each person implied by God’s love sank in and made being under the will of another intolerable.
All progressive, collectivist politics is derived from Mediaeval Gnostics, who believed that an elect, inspired by a Gnostic prophet and following a Gnostic leader, could force the achievement of the perfected state that will occur after the Second Coming (something that the orthodox hold lies only in the mind of God). Thus, liberals and other Leftists see themselves not in a present of contingencies, of surprises, choices, and consequences, of advances and regressions, but rather in the middle of a drama with a beginning and foregone dénouement. Their sense of righteousness does not come from practicing objective virtues but from advancing an agenda. Hence their conviction of the depravity of those who act against the tide they are trying to impose on history.
In their own personal morality plays, Christian leftists sometimes like to cast themselves after the model of those who “spoke truth to power”, usually without specifically mentioning such rigorously orthodox names as Bernard of Clairveaux, Thomas More, and Pope Gregory VII (Hildegard of Bingen gets a feminist exception). In this as in so much else their understanding is twisted. In an age of kings, it may be appropriate to address the State as the seat of power. But in a democracy, power lies with the people. If you wish to achieve the humanitarian consequences of Christ’s Good News, then it is the citizenry who must be evangelized.
Mr. Fitzpatrick:
What a remarkable post. I believed that Gnosticism flickered out in the third century, and was unaware of the Medieval version.
You describes Christian leftists as being engaged in a “personal morality play”. I would add that the personal morality play is corrupted by its being a manifestation of The Self, with all that this implies.
Secular leftism is also contaminated by the kind of millenarianism, which creeps into the Christian version too.
Very well put, Sean. BTW… my wife is a conservative Catholic.
John, What you and the fathers (or is it metrosexuals?) of the Presbyterian church have in common is that you both lost your faith in Prebyterianism. In your case you have chosen a different Christian faith; they chose secular Christianity in the form of Marxism. What’s interesting is the loss of faith all round. For some reason, whatever their draw in previous times, these sort of moderate upright Christian churches are no longer to satisfy the religious needs of their members. It’s sad to see ancient institutions die, but nature abhors a religious vacuum and new religions of one sort or another will always spring up to satisfy the eternal demand for meaning in life.
That is why I don’t think it is at all inconceivable that many both here and in Europe will turn to Islam. That’s a far more satisfying religion than, say, the religion of buying particularly good olives at Whole Foods.
Wichita Boy:
Is IXLNXS hiding out as Wichita Boy?
I can’t answer for John Moore, but Wichita Boy misses the point entirely. First, it doesn’t follow that the decline or dilution of mainstream Christian denominations will lead to the rise of Islam. Why would it? You make the common error of confusing the practice of Christianity with Christianity itself. You observed that John Moore lost his “faith in Presbyterianism”. Ridiculous.
This leads to your second misconception, which is that dissatisfaction with established religions leads to “new religions” to “satisfy the eternal demand for meaning in life”. This is first on the list of delusions of non-believers and agnostic humanists about religion in general. You see religious adherents as consumers and religion as a vehicle to need satisfaction.
It is more likely that those who acknowledge that life is meaningless will turn AWAY from religion.
An awareness of “meaning” precedes religion, it does not follow FROM religion and is not a consequence of belief.
“Maybe I missed what you were saying at the end of your post, Pope pius XII and the Paul VI were both Italian, the XII aka, Eugenio Maria Giovanni Pacelli and the VII was Giovanni Battista Montini, in fact except for Pope John Paul II,(The Polish Pope) I cant find one that was not Italian.
Obviously I missed something.”
Without intending insult, yes, you did.
I think it self-evident that many non-Italians and non-Europeans sound more like Pius XII than Paul VI (in terms of the message conveyed, not of their accents
).
I wouldn’t assert that “conservativism” and “progressivism” (in terms of Catholic theology) are synonymous with “non-European” and “European”. I would assert, however, that a representative sample, whether of the laity or the clerisy, of non-European Catholics would be significantly more conservative (or less progresive) than a like sampling of European Catholics.
As you justly point out, though, these maunderings have little if any to do with what the College of Cardinals will do when the Chair of St. Peter becomes vacant.
texas-holdem
In your free time, visit the sites about online-poker texas-hold`em texas-holdem
empire poker
poker hands pacific poker poker games empire poker
texas hold em
Please check: free texas hold em texas holdem texas hold em.
Pacific poker
In your free time, check the sites about Texas hold em Empire poker
mortgage loan
You are invited to check out some information about auto loan cash loan college loan
blackjack
Please check: slot machines video poker blackjack.
roulette
Please check: craps roulette slots.
texas hold em
Please check: texas holdem texas hold em.
high risk loans
Please visit the sites dedicated to bankruptcy loan high risk loans motorcycle loan
texas holdem
Please check: texas holdem free poker online.
empire poker
Please check: empire poker empire poker.
texas hold em poker
Please check: pacific poker texas hold em poker.
party poker
In your free time, check out the sites in the field of texas hold em party poker texas hold em