Children are dying ... so what?

Here we go again. The convergence of Christianity and Communism, it's all there. The Robin Hood syndrome, blessed are the meek, born into original sin, noblesse oblige, alms for the poor, from each according to his abillity to each according to his need, camels passing through the eyes of needles, tis better to give than to receive.

There's only about a million things wrong with it. Were it not for the desire and reward to create and enjoy wealth, the means to produe food and to transport it to the starving throngs wouldn't exist. By feeding them and seeing to their needs without sterilizing them they only breed more poor people who exascerbate the problem. The world has probably exceeded its capacity to sustain as many people as already exist without climate change or other drastic consequences long ago. When have you ever heard any talk of population control by those alarmed at climate change? Once the maximum level of sustainable production is achieved, either we need fewer people or as more people are born, each of them must become increasingly poorer sharing the fixed limit of what is producable at a sustainable level. Try telling that to India and China. They are not listening. In fact they have said explicitly that the rich nations should cut back because they caused the problem as it exists today. Did you like the gas shutoff last January in Europe? Better get used to it, that is what kind of sacrifices you'll be in for all winter every winter if we have to cut back CO2 output 50, 60, 80 percent with our existing technology, you know, the one that creates wealth. A real world philosopher? And which world would that be?

This guy is like something from out of the 1960s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yygMhtNQJ9M

Now all you need is tie died jeans and tea shirt, sandals, don't wash or shave for a few months and a hash pipe and your all set.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

romejellybean, I think it was Charles Colson or maybe G Gordon Liddy of the Nixon administration who was one of those deeply involved in the Watergate break in who said, just tell me what street corner to stand on and when and you can blow me away. So were and when do you want me to help you "meet your maker?"

Attention William Crawley, this message will self destruct in five seconds, four, three, two, one....ooops, thought I was still writing for Mission Impossible. Erase all that.

BTW romejellybean, are you bringing any friends to help reduce the populatin further than by one? I need to know how many bullets to load. I pride myself on one man one shot. It's kind of like one man one vote only it's sort of in reverse...or converse...or subverse...or universe. Enough of verse. This is prose and this job needs a pro. Capiche?

Lol Marcus.
If I had a gun and two bullets and was allowed to choose any two people on the planet to shoot - I think I'd shoot you twice.

romejellybean, I'll bet you couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from ten paces. I'll bet if someone pulled your legs out from under you, you couldn't find the floor with a map. BTW, I like you too :-) Read my other postings and you will understand why everything is not only as it should be but as it must be. It can't be any other way. But don't take my word for it, figure it out for yourself. Somewhere in there between your ears believe it or not is a fully functioning brain. Give it some exercise, some oxygen, some useful problem to solve once in awhile. Turn off your computer and TV set and go out in the world. Today....I confronted....the dentist. Hahahaha. And I survived. Great bottle of wine as a reward. Chateau Pichon Baron 1988 with a grilled porterhouse steak. Yum. Just as it should be.

This message will self destruct in five seconds, four, three, two, one....oops, thought I was "Secret Agent Man" again. Wrong script.

Jelly: Although I have pacifist leanings, I am prepard to kake a few exceptions. I'll stead the gun for you.

Perhaps Singer overstates his cases, but he is right in suggesting that we need to change our priorities in education. As a teacher of Economics at GCSE and A level, I thought it was disgraceful that poverty was treated under 'The problem of LDCs'. Singer is spot on that we should not limit so important a topic to specialised courses on international development.

Michelle Obama has set a good example serving lunch in a soup kitchen. I hope she keeps it up over 4-8 years.

Marcus resents the fact that the Thatcherite-Reaganite chickens have finally come home to roost.

I said in another post on another thread that I sometimes feel I am between a "rock and a hard place".

The "rock" in the context of this thread are the right-wing religious fundamentalists, who somehow manage to make the Bible justify a lack of concern for the poor, and the "hard place" are those who promote a world-view in which progress is the result of "survival of the fitness" (a.k.a. "natural selection") in which it is perfectly normal to allow the weak to go to the wall, since that is how nature works.

Both forms of fundamentalism are false, IMO.

If we want to help the poor, then is it too much to ask that we embrace a world-view in which it is logically right to help the weak and the vulnerable?

I believe there is such a world-view and it is neither of the two options I have mentioned above.

brianmcclinton, assuming that you actually know something about economics as opposed to reading to your students out of a text that the school's administration assigned, you know that there is an upper limit to the number of people on this earth that can be sustained at a given level of comfort for a given level of technology. What is that level at today's technology level at the comfort level you live at and all of the world's poor people aspire to, 6.5 billion? 9 billion? How about 1 or 2 billion? Only an idiot says that if they don't like the message, shoot the messenger. I didn't expect more from a man who calls himself jellybean but I did expect more from you even if you are a died in the wool communist.

Had the world scientists been as alarmed as everyone said 15 or 20 years ago, they would have gotten together with economists and other technically expert people to arrive at a coherent plan to avert worldwide ecological disaster that would not have doomed the world's economy but instead, the issue became a political football to bash the United States. Did you really expect the US to sign up to unilaterally destroy its own economy under European pressure? What if it had? You'd have been getting the worldwide depression you're seeing right now twenty years ago with no hope of recovery ever. Europe has been quiet recently because China is now the number one producer of CO2, slightly ahead of the Us with India not far behind. In the face of that, Europe sticks to what's left of its badly flawed argument about per capita CO2 output when what counts is unit CO2 evolved per unit GDP, a cost/benefit analysis all businesses use to assess what options make the most sense as any real economist would know. By this measure, the US is 4 times as efficient as China and when you consider the fact that the US has about one quarter to one fifth as many people as China, each American on average is fifteen to twenty times as efficient at producing GDP per unit CO2 as the average Chinese. BTW, not only has the EU failed miserably to meet its promised Kyoto targets for the same reason the US refused to sign up for them (95-0 against in a Sense of the Senate vote which is why the Clinton administration pulled out of the talks) but instead of advancing the efficiency of energy technology with new better methods as opposed to conservation which can only make marginal improvements, it wasted its own technological resources such as they are on projects of no relevance includnig a super jumbo passenger airplane, a redundant space program, a redundant global positioning satellite system the US has threatened to shoot down if the Europeans ever get it to work, and a very expenisve atom smasher which doesn't appear to be working now either.

We've probably passed the tipping point already. There may be no going back from here and the US will not commit economic suicide alone if China and India don't cooperate and do their fair share. Americans in their real democracy won't stand for it no matter what their politicians tell them.

Go back to reading your assigned text book to your students. That appears to be the extent of your expertise in your area of specialty.

Welcome to Dodge City!


William (as you appear to be unarmed, I shall direct my comments to you!)

It seems that many of us want to resist such conclusions when it comes to personal luxuries. It's rather like Christians arguing (as romejellybean has suggested) endlessly about the bible when we should actually be doing something with what we believe.

The problem might be summed up in asking the question, how can we continue to pursue lifestyles of luxury (or even variety) while others starve and die? I have some sympathy with the view, as, in the same, way I get frustrated at the plethora of new church builds when we could be doing something else with our millions; then however I remember that I am typing 'on a full stomach'.

There are a couple of difficulties, first of all holidays and art and so on are not wrong, others make their living because we spend money on these things, and secondly even if we were to forgo a holiday or a new phone, each of us, as individuals, can only have a little impact on global poverty. I must also remember that I have a responsibility to my family, each of us.

However what I think we can do is to share. We can share our time, our money, and at varying points in our lives we may find ourselves able to share differing amounts of each. It might then also be possible for us to think of sharing as a local community and as a nation, of prioritizing the money we spend individually and collectively. As you say William, these are moral acts, we ought to and we can do more, but if we are truly to have an impact then something I think we need to rediscover is our sense of collective national responsibility, for in acting together we can do much, much more. The answer then to your last question, William, might be best found in this context.


LSV

"is it too much to ask that we embrace a world-view in which it is logically right to help the weak and the vulnerable?"

Absolutely not, I would call it the Kingdom of Heaven.

Marcus

You don't, by any chance, happen to have a formula for working out the ratio of, 'level of human disinterest' to 'unnecessary human deaths'?

Apologies

"I must also remember that I have a responsibility to my family, each of us."

Should read, "I must also remember that I have a responsibility to my family, each of us does."

#10 - petermorrow - "...I would call it the Kingdom of Heaven."

Correct answer!

The philosopher Peter Singer has gotten under my skin too. I could come up with many reasons why his arguments are wrong but I'll set them aside for now. Peter Singer is employed by one of the most prestigious and expensive schools in the United States, Princeton University. About ten years ago when one of my relatives had delusions of attending Princeton, tuition was around $45,000 a year and there are no scholarships or tuition assistance programs, the University expects you to pay them from whatever funds you can get on your own. Undoubtedly it is considerably higher now. While college professors don't have a reputation for being high earners, there are exceptions especially in the more expensive and prestigious schools like Princeton. Based on what an alumnus in my class is earning at MIT, I'd be amazed if Singer's salary isn't far in excess of $100,000 a year, maybe even over $150,000. He could have spouted off his jibberish for far less at a government owned University such as Rutgers, CCNY, CUNY, or any State University in the country but no, he is an elite. And that doesn't count the money he undoubtedly earns from book sales, talks, his investment portfolio in good years and his 401K. Considering that on a worldwide basis, his income has to be in the top one or two percentile of the human race, his words could hardly be more hypocritical had they come from the Queen of England herself.

BTW, he's also an animal rights wacko too. Surprise surprise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

And there's more;

"Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother against the preferences of the fetus."

"Singer's positions have been challenged by many different groups concerned with what they see as an attack upon human dignity, from advocates for disabled people to right-to-life supporters. Singer has replied that many people judge him based on secondhand summaries and short quotations taken out of context, not his books or articles."

"In Germany, his positions have been compared to Nazism and his lectures have been repeatedly disrupted. Some claim that Singer's utilitarian ideas lead to eugenics. American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position. Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level.""

"Practical Ethics includes a chapter arguing for the redistribution of wealth to ameliorate absolute poverty (Chapter 8, "Rich and Poor"), and another making a case for resettlement of refugees on a large scale in industrialized countries"

If he got his way, he'd have half the third world living in Europe and North America. And you thought Britain had a problem with Polish plumbers and Pakistanis now.

"Singer also works in the field of social psychology. Singer's writing appeared in Greater Good magazine, published by the Greater Good Science Center of the University of California, Berkeley. "

Berzerkley too, surprise surprise, firmly grounded in America's left coast in California, the land of fruits and nuts. How has he escaped Columbia University's notice?

"Vegetarianism
In an article for the online publication chinadialogue Singer called Western-style meat production cruel, unhealthy and damaging to the ecology. He rejected the idea that the method was necessary to meet the population’s increasing demand, explaining that animals in factory farms have to eat food grown explicitly for them, and they burn up most of the food’s energy just to breathe and keep their bodies warm. That loss of total energy has been verified in multiple studies, and the Nov. 2006 UN FAO Report states as much."

A vegetarian too. Now why doesn't that surprise me?

You picked a real winner this time Mr. Crawley. You get an "F." Go to the back of the classroom. 10,000 Hail Marys and 5000 Our Fathers for your pennance.

OK.

So you think the philosopher dude is a bit wacky... so what?... children are dying, or does that not actually matter?

petermorrow, fewer of them would die if there were fewer of them born into an impoverished overcroweded world. And if there were fewer religious wars. I don't hold out much hope for either. Read the news and you won't too.

Marcus-

'Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level.""

This is a load of crap to be quite honest. Someone please quote me, in context, where Singer has said this. Having read his books, it is clear that on many occasions he has spoken of such a scenario hypothetically to point out moral contradictions.

Logica-

"those who promote a world-view in which progress is the result of "survival of the fitness" (a.k.a. "natural selection") in which it is perfectly normal to allow the weak to go to the wall, since that is how nature works."

Are there organized groups who promote such a worldview. I remembering hearing Dawkins argue that we are the only species with the capability of rising above the basic 'nature red in tooth and claw' outcomes!

kRP

I have not read everything Singer ever wrote, in fact I have not read anything he ever wrote. He doesn't interest me except as a topic to discuss here. However, the point of view you cited seems consistent with what else he has reportedly said in Wikipedia's account. I'm not even going to say that on this point that I disagree with him. Many amoral people and some moral people agree. I'm just pointing out that this guy is not only a nut but I'm far from the only one who thinks so...but maybe for different reasons.

Anyway, insofar as the topic of this thread is concerned, he is wrong. Were it not for greed and the desire for wealth and comfort, science and technology would not have advanced and far more people would have died and continue to die than do already. For example, scientific advances allowed the US government to develop hybrid strains of grains combined with other advances in agricultural technology several decades ago that have put an end to the interminable widespread famines that were commonplace in some parts of the world throughout history. These advances were all the result of the efforts of people who lived comfortable lives in relative luxury by world standards far more than they needed to sustain their lives. Like it or not, without the progress made by the relatively rich, the poor would have died in far larger numbers. To follow Singer's argument through to its logical conclusion, all of the worlds wealth would be spread uniformly thoughout all humanity and diluted and dissipated to the point where all economies would collapse back to a subsistance farming level. This would result in mass discomfort and death. BTW, this is not very different from the views of how people should live the Taleban have.

Most notions of morality have been inherited from a time that lasted from the relatively recent past say no more than a couple of hundred years ago back to the origins of homo sapiens where the species was in jeopardy of extinction due to paucity of numbers. That is why it holds that each life is sacred. But the problem homo sapiens faces today is that it is in jeopardy of extinction through a surfeit of numbers. The inherited morality is bringing about the very destruction it was designed to prevent, human extinction. We may not have much longer to wait. When we go, Singer will go with us.

#17 - kingRupertPupkin - "I remembering hearing Dawkins argue that we are the only species with the capability of rising above the basic 'nature red in tooth and claw' outcomes!"

The trouble with Dawkins is that he is logically inconsistent. Only yesterday I watched a YouTube video of one of his talks in which he was saying that the universe is much queerer than we can imagine. He also stated that human knowledge is limited to the idiosyncracies of our own (supposed) evolution.

What this tells us clearly is that, according to the logic of his own worldview, Dawkins is most definitely not an atheist. He cannot possibly be, despite all his claims to the contrary. The most sceptical position he can take with regard to religious belief is one of agnosticism. Note that I am saying this by using the logic of his own worldview!

Furthermore, he claims that there are no such things as miracles - merely improbable events, which would fit into a naturalistic framework. But since, according to his thinking, the universe is much stranger and more improbable than we can imagine, and since human knowledge is so limited to the exigencies of our (supposed) evolutionary survival, then there is no reason to suppose that there are no miracles in the Christian or generally religious sense. God and miracles could be part of the strange and unknown aspects of the universe, according to the logic of his own thinking! So why is he so confident in dismissing millions of people as "deluded"? A bizarre conclusion!

Concerning the matter of humans as a species rising above "nature red in tooth and claw" - why are we able to do this since we are (supposedly) subject to the process of natural selection? Could it not be that actually we are not, and that Dawkins' view is a tacit admission of the failure of his own thinking. How can we rise above that which we must be subject to, according to Darwinian theory? This is evidence that we are moral beings, and this is not compatible with "survival of the fittest". But Dawkins is claiming that there is no evidence for the Christian position, and yet he refuses to consider the moral evidence which he himself acknowledges as part of the human experience. Another example of the illogicality of the man.

Certainly, our ability to rise above the morality of "survival of the fittest" is more consistent with the thinking Dawkins so derides. So why scorn those who adhere to that philosophy?

Frankly, having heard him talk and being interviewed, I consider him one of the most logically incoherent thinkers around today. He may be a great scientist in a limited empirical field, but as a philosopher he leaves a lot to be desired. As a Christian, every time I hear him express his views I feel ever more assured of the truth of my own beliefs (not that I doubt them anyway).

Further to my last post...

Just to clarify one paragraph in that post:

"What this tells us clearly is that, according to the logic of his own worldview, Dawkins is most definitely not an atheist. He cannot possibly be, despite all his claims to the contrary. The most sceptical position he can take with regard to religious belief is one of agnosticism."

I meant to add: he must be an agnostic due to his admission of the limitation of human knowledge.

A further point: I would have far more respect for Dawkins if he just had the decency to admit that he was an agnostic and gave up his ridiculous campaign against religious believers - a crusade driven more by emotion than intellectual integrity and consistency.

Sorry, but one more point about Dawkins...

Another thing he said in his talk was that our minds function mechanistically according to the demands of our evolutionary development and survival, and furthermore, different species have different perceptions of reality (e.g. dogs with their highly developed sense of smell). The content of our mechanistic minds is the result of the operation of the survival mechanism. We embrace a perception of reality in order to enhance our survival.

Now, from an epistemological point of view, that is subjectivism. He has no right therefore to call religious people "deluded" according to his own thinking. If the minds of religious people are determined mechanistically, and if the content of their minds and their perception of reality is geared to personal survival, then that content and perception is as valid as the atheistic viewpoint. There is no such thing as "objective truth" in this worldview - only perceptions of reality which enhance our prospects of survival. So therefore religion is simply another perception of reality which some people have, which is neither "true" nor "false", but simply a given within an evolutionary framework (according to his thinking, by the way, not mine).

So he cannot then appeal to some absolute standard of "objective truth" as a basis for declaring that such views are a delusion. Where is this standard of "objective truth" if knowledge is simply the result of human perceptions of reality driven by a survival mechanism?

So far I haven't heard one true believer say that if children die, it was god's will. How come you people accept that from your Priest, Minister, Rabbi, Imam, or whatever when one of your children, or friends' children, or relatives children dies but you won't accept that now? Suddenly it is a political issue. And of course it is all my fault....for not living in a cave huddling around a fire eating the kill of the day. Ooops, I forgot, Singer says I'm not allowed to eat animal flesh. I mean the garden vegetables of the day. If I lay some in for winter when they don't grow, is that greedy hording of food if it turns out to be more than I need?

LSV and Petermorrow
#'s 10 and 12

Such a place would be the Kingdom of Heaven.

Incorrect.

Such a place would be called the Kingdom of God. I've explained elsewhere why Kingdom of Heaven is a pejorative term - especially with regard to children dying (poverty, oppression, war, injustice etc...)

However, 10/10 to you both for at least locating this kingdom in the here and now and not in some utopian after-life.

Two other points. The constant reference to the death (and suffering) of children. Having witnessed the unnecessary and totally avoidable deaths of many adults in various parts of the world, I can assure you, none of them were particularly happy about their demise. We should be refering to 'human suffering' here, not merely prepubescent death.

It kind of makes me think of the right wing, so called Pro-Lifers who have this fixation on the unborn, demanding that they be allowed to be born, then they totally ignore their plight (or vote against measures which would help them after they are born) until of course they reach the age where they can join the military. Suddenly, such children miraculously become visible again!!

I have no doubt that most of you on here (with possibly one exception) would probably be reduced to tears to witness a starving child with bloated stomach breath his, or her, last.

Is the stinking, flee ridden, homeless man lying dead in his own vomit not worthy of your tears too?

(I sometimes think that many Christians must believe that the poor in Jesus' day were nice poor, a bit unkempt but smelled of lavendar.)

Secondly, any solution to the problem of avoidable human suffering will not be brought about by the 'up and ins' suddenly deciding to share with the 'down and outs.'

Such a solution will have to be a POLITICAL solution.

Marcus - comment # 1 - you may not be surprised to learn I have the jeans, T-shirt, sandals and, though I've never smoked hash in a pipe, I do have my great-grandfather's opium pipe - am I "all set" do you think?

I find many of Singer's views quite repugnant but here he makes a very serious point indeed. It is a point Jesus made long ago - except His prescription was much more radical. He did not suggest a sliding scale of giving - He said give everything. He said if you can enjoy your own material possessions while knowing of the need of others you simply do not have God in your life (1 John 3 v. 17). There is no greater testimony to the actual unbelief of professing Christians than the materialism of the Church and the practical indifference of its members to suffering in the world.

Marcus, Pastor Philip, on a another thread, suggests you find God by looking at Jesus - I would agree that this is as good a way as any but I do not think you will find my book any more palatable than his. Gustavo Gutierrez said that to be followers of Jesus requires that we walk with and be committed to the poor; when we do, we experience an encounter with the Lord who is simultaneously revealed and hidden in the faces of the poor.

There is not just a moral imperative here, there is a religious duty - if we are to encounter God in the world today we do so in our engagement with the poor, the marginalised, and the desolate.

Nothing pains me more than my relative affluence and my reluctance to divest myself of my possessions.

portwyne

I wonder if it is actually possible to live the life you describe (and the one to which I aspire) while at the same time living as disconnected individuals or even small family groups.

If however, there were such a thing as a community in which each encouraged to other to a life of godliness then... perhaps. I have however come to the conclusion that we, both inside and outside the church, have forgotten altogether what community is. At times it is as if we not only fail to live as the community of god's people but that we have forgotten that we are a people. A loosely stitched patchwork of individuals is, possibly, the best way to describe us.

If my fears are in any way true, then we are dreadfully, dreadfully guilty.

Sometimes religion just 'sucks'.

Portwyne
A man after my own heart...

Well done.

portwyne, tell it to the pope. He wears a ring that if sold at auction would pay to feed a lot more people than a couple of fish and a few loaves no matter who served them. Or tell it to your own Bishop. He's got a drawer full of his own rings.

Good posting Will.

Can we have much more of this theme on Sunday Sequence?

As we know NI are big charity givers so you know you will be onto a winner.

How about talking to Tearfund, World Vision etc about what is happening the world of poverty, on a regular basis?

What books can be reviewed on this as they are published?

What new developments and projects are happening?

It would be fascinating to know just how many spare room charities in N Ireland are actually taking real action to address such problems!

To your last point, perhaps the dividing line between your possessions are those that actually are luxuries and those that are not.

As for subjects in universities, many subjects not directly related to poverty could still be used to generate wealth that could help the poor!

shalom

OT

Marcus - this is a first, you've got me defending the pope! I recollect your making a similar comment about the Pope's ring in an earlier post too . The Ring of the Fisherman is a plain engraved gold signet whose intrinsic material value is negligible. I seem to remember that the late Pope John Paul II did indeed give his ring away on a visit to a Brazilian slum (I think the Vatican bought it back at an undoubted premium on market value).

That said, it is not the role of the followers of Christ to be museum curators or art collectors - the wealth of the churches in a world of poverty is nothing other than the vilest of obscenities.

As to my own bishop - I'd imagine he got his out of Ratner's.

Peter (or should that be Agent Peter? - I've been reading the recent posts) I think the reality of koinonia is completely foreign to most modern churches. I also think that it is all but impossible even to approximate the life that is possible in Christ without it. The churches have been unfaithful to their Lord and their leaders unprofitable servants. There is nothing more urgent for Christian communities than to tear down and rebuild the structures which do nothing but inhibit the ministry of Christ to the world.

Portwyne, once many years ago when I visited Quebec, a Quebecois told me that he stopped donating and going to church when his priest bought a brand new Cadillac. I've seen Priests on luxury cruise ships...as passengers. The Catholic Church in the US would be even richer...if it didn't have to pay out tens of million to squelch the victims of its sexual predator priests. The Anglicans are no better. The reason the Anglican church is so split is because it is caught in the dilemma of its throngs of impovrishied homophobic members in Africa and its wealthy homophilic members in The United States. It can't bring itself to decide whether to give up its numbers or risk its bank account. Many other religions are in the same boat. Don't waste your time defending them Portwyne, that's a lost cause. It will be harder for a wealthy Chirstian Bishop to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle...but he won't have any difficulty getting into the best restaurants, hotels, and other luxury accomodations the world has to offer. Noblesse oblige? Just so long as it remains Noblesse.

Aye Marcus,

Bejewelied Popes and Princes of the Church, living in palaces, feasting, commanding armies, inquisitors and concubines, all inspired by the words of that J.C. chappie in the Gospels.

Hello MA-II,

"The Catholic Church in the US would be even richer...if it didn't have to pay out tens of million to squelch the victims of its sexual predator priests."

How they'd wish. The priest sex abuse scandal was ~100 time bigger than that. There were accusations against some 5000 priests, they paid over 2 billion in settlements. They've paid even more in counseling for priests.

Two years ago there was a worldwide gathering of bishops in Rome to discuss the possibilities of getting the Eucharist to people around the globe who did not have access to it, or at least very limited access. The gathering finished with a banquet attended by the Pope. It was a very lavish affair. a different wine for each course. (The menu was published in The Tablet magazine.)
The Pope addressed the Bishops at the end of the meal and stated that it was no wonder that Jesus used the image of a banquet to describe the Kingdom.
After two weeks of meetings the Bishops decided that the best course of action to help the poor receive the Eucharist was..... to maintain the statusquo.
At a cost of millions absolutely nothing was done.
During all of this, a few hundred yards away under the Tiber Bridge, the homeless slept in the open air.

I am appalled that, on this blog, this topic has attracted so little comment. Many years ago I resigned from the General Synod, feeling I was completely wasting my time, when, meeting during one of the worst humanitarian disasters of recent years, they could not find time to debate the Church's response to it but were able to devote hours to the vital topics of clergy pensions and liturgical revision.

It is on this topic and in this area that we are most likely to meet Christ. When I post on other areas of the blog I am effectively just playing with my mental train set - I do not kid myself that it has any spiritual significance whatsoever. An interest in theology (grotesque word!) or religious philosophy is just that, an interest - it has no more spiritual significance than an interest in the Great Bustard. Those like Roberto Busa and, indeed, Aquinas himself (See: 'Gendering the Confessional') did nothing other than waste their lives in personal indulgence - their work has nothing to do with the gospel of Christ.

In my favourite parable of the good Samaritan it is noticeable that those who do not help are careful to avoid encountering the injured traveller. They do not just "pass by" - Jesus notes that they go to the "other side" of the road. Our society, our churches, our Christians do exactly the same. We marginalise the poor and the needy, we remove them from our vision and our attention, we make both them and their plight as invisible as we can.

This is a colossal indictment of the supposed followers of Christ. Those who need us are all around us, their cries beset us, it actually requires effort on our part to avoid them but that is an effort we most of us are prepared to put in.

The hard bit is breaking down our self-protecting but self-indulgent barriers and engaging with those in need. When we tear off our blinkers and see the pain of many with whom we share this world, when we are prepared to engage with them, then the rest is comparatively easy. The reality of need when we encounter it face to face makes the Samaritan's response, accepting unlimited responsibility, not merely understandable but inevitable.

It is much more important to do something about human suffering than to talk about it - but if we do not even talk about, if we do not force ourselves to think about it and engage with it, it is very much easier for us avoid committing to action.

Let me ask the sort of moral question I think we might be discussing on this thread.

Given that Sinn Fein have now eschewed violence and that they advance the most radical programme for social justice, should Christians, should Protestant Christians, who are concerned to follow Christ not just consider voting for that party but make it a priority to do so?

Portwyne #35

Probably the best piece I've read on any of these threads!!
(By the way, jellybean is a reference to jellybean christianity. I hope you get my drift now as you've just given a very good description of what jellybean christianity is.)

Boff, like Gutierrez, speaks about a crossing over to the side of the poor (not just a preferential option) to encounter Christ. There is no other way. That's why I take issue with those who are so fond of flinging scripture texts at me.

A friend of mine went to El Salvador wishing to meet Jon Sobrino. He spent an evening with him and came away enthralled, matching Sobrino's intellect and insight. Later, privately, Sobrino expressed what a complete waste of time it had been. It was all about conceptualising, theologizing. My friend wouldnt actually be 'crossing over', he just liked the idea of it.

The front cover of the book 'The Breaking Process' says it all in one image. A circle. The top half is a magnificent stained glass window in a church in full colour. The bottom half is in black and white and is the depressing and numbing image of children searching through a dump in Latin America.

And if I could add to your excellent piece on the Good Samaritan, I'd like to put forward for contemplation, the parable of Judgement Day, the sheep and the goats. But when did we see you hungry and not feed you? Thirsty and not give you anything to drink? etc.. Even although they complain that they never encountered such people, they are still guilty.

According to Christian morality, you have to be aware that something is sinful before you can be guilty of committing that sin.

NOT according to this text. Christ puts it forward extremely powerfully and rather frighteningly that there is such a thing as 'culpable ignorance.'
Well done, PW!!

Portwyne asks a direct question, should Protestant Christians vote for Sinn Fein on the basis of their manifesto.

My answer is the same as the one I would give whatever political party might be inserted in the place of Sinn Fein - no!

Now, why is this?

There are a number of reasons. First, I am bone weary of Northern Ireland politics and have not voted for many years. Second, and more importantly, I do not see how (and I have tried to see how on many occasions, over many years) religion and politics can mix. Now please do not misunderstand me, I am not saying that politics does not achieve anything, obviously it does, nor am I saying that religion can do everything (specifically in this case in terms of the issue of poverty it cannot) I simply mean that, for me, I must define my primary allegiance in terms of the Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven (that 'Kingdom' description is not point scoring, it's a statement which explains that I think thatboth are necessary descriptions of the work and hope of the Christian church) I do not drive a wedge between the Kingdom 'here and now' and the Kingdom which is 'yet to come'. Let me be clearer, I believe that it is possible, necessary, for Christians to work with everyone, (those of all religions and none, both individuals and governments) to alleviate poverty and injustice wherever it arises; there must be no 'ourselves alone' for the Christian church regarding these issues, but this does not mean that I as a Christian expect injustice to be overcome by politics, in fact I think it requires more than party politics if a solution is to be found. It is also a statement that I think there is hope to be found for all those who do suffer and die here and now while being trampled by the rich and powerful, the Kingdom is for them and one day justice will be done.

There other important aspect of this for me is that if the church, as followers of Jesus, believe, in any way, that his words are words of truth, then the church is more guilty than others in respect of it's failure to act justly wherever it can. For the church, multi million pound buildings are wrong, museums of art are wrong, mutual societies are wrong, a self generated and self sustaining christian sub-culture (also worth millions) which has us all drowning in our own self-importance is wrong. If the church (and by church I mean the collective actions of those who call themselves Christians) does not take the lead here and use it's wealth to benefit others, then really, there's no point in William feeling guilty about a new phone and it might mean that that the church is not christian at all.

Romejellybean I know you don't like the bible being quoted, but sometimes it's important,

James 5:1-6
1 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. 4 Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. 5 You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.

Multi purpose church building anyone?

Errr

a few questions.

Why is everyone only knocking the church with no credit given, here?

Jubillee Campaign (started by churches)? Salvation Army? Tearfund? World Vision? Christian Aid?

I know of numerous tiny charities in NI dedicated to helping the poor overseas.

They are usually moivated by faith here in NI.

It would be a travesty to ignore this great work and a great disservice to the people they have, do and will help in future.

I know a church personally that has beggars and drunks regularly in church services and supports them.

Also... why do we need Singer to preach to us about poverty when Christ and James did it just fine?

(Is Singer really an advocate of bestiality and did he really write a book called "Should the Baby Live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants"?)

Will, is he informing your medical ethics?

Ref Sinn Fein, they may have a radical plan for the poor but is it sustainable? They have little understanding of how industry and business work as the engines of an economy.

Here is some food for thought from the athiest, Matthew Parris;-

"As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God Missionaries, not aid money, are the solution to Africa's biggest problem - the crushing passivity of the people's mindset."

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece

BTW, this is not a suggestion that we have no responsibility to directly help the poor.

Ref multi-use churches Peter Morrow, surely you must be aware of churches which do just that. I personally know of at least three places like that.

Ref the parable of the sheep and goats, was Christ talking primarily about helping his brothers in his faith, or all of mankind?

See vs 40 where he says "MY BRETHERN".


Matt 25;-

34Then the King will say to those at His right hand, Come, you blessed of My Father [you [g]favored of God and appointed to eternal salvation], inherit (receive as your own) the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

35For I was hungry and you gave Me food, I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink, I was a stranger and you [h]brought Me together with yourselves and welcomed and entertained and [i]lodged Me,

36I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you visited Me [j]with help and ministering care, I was in prison and you came to see Me.(B)

37Then the just and upright will answer Him, Lord, when did we see You hungry and gave You food, or thirsty and gave You something to drink?

38And when did we see You a stranger and welcomed and entertained You, or naked and clothed You?

39And when did we see You sick or in prison and came to visit You?

40And the King will reply to them, Truly I tell you, in so far as you did it for one of the least [[k]in the estimation of men] of these MY BRETHERN, you did it for Me.(C)


Please dont accuse me of arguing against direct help the poor. That is totally contrary to my views.

But some of the points made above do need to be gently challenged.

Shalom

OT

PS I am not dismissing Sinn Fein's policies out of hand BTW, IMHO there is significant merit in decentralising Government offices to help increase employment in rural areas for example...just saying.... I think socialism on its own for our economy is a bit naive.

OT

OT we are all aware of the great work church people do (an orphanage I help in Latin America would not be able to function without the generosity of the people of the Bogside in Derry.) I was making the point earlier about the Bishops gathering in Rome where they had the power to change the lives of millions and chose to do nothing. This was the point picked up on by Portwyne. And we can list as many (mini) church charities as we like. They will only tinker with the vast problem out there. The RC Church has huge finance at its disposal, massive network for the implementation for change, but has done very little. It hasnt mobilised itself, it hasnt challenged structures or governments in any meaningful way and has certainly not answered the radical call of the Gospel in this day and age. It has however tried to impose its will on the poor as regards contraception and who knows the extent of the damage caused in the Aids pandemic.
(There is also an argument that small charities do more damage than good because they are prolonging the problems of the third world.) If a drowning person is floating past you every five minutes, it is good that you dive in and save each person. Far better to go up stream and tackle the person who is throwing them in in the first place.
There are occasions when Christ addresses a specific teaching to a specific audience - The Prodigal Son is addressed to the Pharisees. He attempts to teach them that their image of God is wrong. He is not the harsh and exacting monster they portray him to be. The teaching on divorce is aimed at those hypocrits who would stone a woman to death, but who themselves would dismiss their own wives with a writ.
However, to contend that the Judgement Day parable is aimed only at his own flock is a gross misreading of the scripture. Who are his brethren?
It is abundantly clear from numerous passages that children, the poor etc.. are not just his brethren, they are his mother, his father, his brothers and his sisters.
And he considers that when something is done to them, its as good as doing it to him.
One of the major underlying points about that parable is that he is warning people who think they are showing love for God by their prayers and religious piety, that their endeavours are empty and contemptuous if it does not go hand in hand with a merciful and compassionate heart towards those who suffer.
Are we to ask Big Issue venders what religion they are before we hand over our sheckle?

OT

I think I said a while ago, when Brian suggested to me that I shouldn't knock the church, that I reserved the right, cos I was a member of it. So let me try and explain, I hope you'll understand.

There are indeed a vast number of small christian charities dedicated to helping the poor in all sorts of situations (I do not ignore their work), but their very existence, and their make up, small, independent, with limited recourses, in itself demonstrates the huge gap right at the heart of the established church's consciousness with regard to their mission and calling. Quite simply, we have too much money invested in buildings and property and media and not enough in people. It is this which is my gripe. I long to see my own denomination take a lead in this but the simple fact of the matter is that there is too much focus on property, non conformist rituals, programs, conferences, debates and the like and I am absolutely and thoroughly convinced that it is not our calling. We have turned the Kingdom into one long meeting after another. My simple argument is that the time and money invested unnecessarily in these aspects of church life could be invested more productively. Surely we do not need so grand a budget to fund our organizations.

You say, "I know a church personally that has beggars and drunks regularly in church services and supports them." This is fantastic, but I suspect it is one of the few, I wish it were not.

On multi purpose churches, yes I know quite a few, I have been in them, too often, and I can't stand them!! Not only that but I have put the point again and again in my own church that church equals people, but I have a brick shaped dent on my forehead. If I might mis-quote St Paul, we have made the church a matter of talk and PowerPoint! We don't need soft seats, surround sound systems, sports halls, lighting, and whatever else any of us care to mention, to be the church, we're not the Odeon Movie Theatre Group, I mean what next, the Imax bible? I find I cannot give my money to support such ventures, not while people are dying.

Here's the trouble as I see it. I've been a member of the broadly evangelical church all my life and I fear that we have limited our understanding of the Kingdom of God to a sort of verbal assent to a Christian form of words, and we always, always find ways of explaining why we don't have to help the poor of our world any more than we are all ready doing.

I also know something else, if the world were a village of 100 people, then:

20 would be undernourished
20 have no clean, safe water to drink
Of the energy of this village, 20 people consume 80%, and 80 people share the remaining 20%.
56 have access to sanitation
If we have money in the bank, money in our wallet and spare change somewhere around the house, then we are among the richest 8.

OT, I'm not getting at you, and I'm not knocking the church for the sake of it, but sometimes I do genuinely fear for the substance of my Christianity.

RJB and PM

glad to let you knock your own churches, if I did it I might be seen as sectarian!

PM, where should churches gather to hear the word preached? ie as in Acts?

PS RJB

not so sure you are right about the brethren thing.

As I understand it Christ only every referred to his disciples as his brethren;-


Matt 12.

47Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

48But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

49And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Where should one go to hear the word preached (or worship) (or be in the presence of the Father)?

-Anywhere where two or three are gathered in his name.

-Go to your room and close the door and let no one see what you are doing.

-Dont take the front seats in the churches.

-Dont be greeted obsequiously in the Mall.

-If you are giving alms, dont let your right hand know what your left hand is doing.

-Worship the Father in spirit and in truth.

-Give your wealth to the poor.

-Dont allow yourself to be called Father, Rabbi or Pastor!!

-Visit those who are sick or in prison.

-If you are having a party, dont just invite your mates.

In short, if you want to find God, go and look where he is to be found.

(Hopefully this will also cover the question about who Jesus considered to be his brethren.) (And Sistren!)

RJB - thank you for your comments - it would appear we think alike on many issues as, I believe, I do with PeterM.

Peter, I share your weariness and for many years, in the absence of power, I cannot see that it made much difference whether we in NI voted or not. Things are different now and the politicians who present themselves for election in the province have the ability to change the society in which we live.

The prophets of the Lord in the Old Testament burned with zeal, not just for their God, but also for justice, equity and compassion in society. As Christians we can do no less - we should speak out whenever we can on behalf of the downtrodden and those short-changed by the establishment. Social change is effected through politics and Christians must proclaim the words of God in the political arena and vote for those who are committed to the poor.

I do not give Sinn Fein my unqualified endorsement, as an Internationalist I can not, for example, agree with Connolly that socialism and nationalism are complementary - I would contend that they are antagonistic. I also oppose the Irish language commitments as a misuse of scant resources and an encouragement to look inward in backward rather than forward and outward.

I asked the question because I would contend that we now need to look at politics and political parties with new eyes and make fresh judgements thereon strictly in accordance with Christ's agenda.

OT, as RJB correctly pointed out, my criticisms were aimed at the institutional church and institutional Christianity. I am well aware of the efforts (and indeed successes) of individuals and small groups in encouraging giving and fostering social responsibility.

RJB's analysis of the passage from Matthew 25 is spot on - the point Christ makes here is precisely the same as one of the key points of the Good Samaritan parable - in the face of human need the responsibility of the Christian is unlimited - we have to say to whoever requires it whatever it takes I will give you.

OT

You are giving me the impression that we should not for some reason or other criticize the church.

Here are the key points again:

I genuinely fear for the substance of my Christianity.
If we have money in the bank, money in our wallet and spare change somewhere around the house, then we are among the richest 8. (percent)
we have limited our understanding of the Kingdom of God to a sort of verbal assent to a Christian form of words?
we always, always find ways of explaining why we don't have to help the poor of our world any more than we are all ready doing.

and from Romejellybean
he (Jesus) is warning people who think they are showing love for God by their prayers and religious piety, that their endeavours are empty and contemptuous if it does not go hand in hand with a merciful and compassionate heart towards those who suffer.

Personally I can't see much wrong with his interpretation, and he's a Roman Catholic and I am Reformed through and through! And even if Jesus is saying 'my brethren' equals christians, then there are plenty of poor dying christians to be taking an interest in. However, in the churches I've been in the 'my brethren' quote usually becomes an excuse for doing nothing.

You ask: "where should churches gather to hear the word preached?"

I really fail to see what this has to do with anything I said, but since you ask here are some suggestions,

my living room, a pub, a forest, a beach, a jail, a back garden, a tent, a hotel, a coffee shop, a street corner, a river bank, round someone’s kitchen table, a hill, a field, a mountainside, a city park, a jungle, a desert, the wrong side of the tracks, a refugee camp, a slum, a rubbish dump, round a picnic rug with cups of tea, on a boat...

And OT, please remember, nothing personal intended.

OT - further to my last comment and coincidently explaining what I meant by unlimited responsibility, I would contend that your remarks about Christ's "Brethren" in the context of the whole passage are quite irrelevant.

In verse 45 Christ says: "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me". Here he omits the word "brethren" altogether.

RJB, PM, Portwyne

thanks for the comments.

Sadly, despite saying I was not arguing that we should not give direct help to the poor, you seem to have missed these words.

Also, I am not for a second saying you shouldnt criticise your churches.

May I assure you, you dont want to get ME started on your churches.

;-)

My points is, I think it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

Why not leave those churches and start your own, which can do things better?

You are not primarily accountable for the sins of ancient monolithic orgs but for yourselves.

Peter and RJB, would be interesting to see you two together starting a new church!!

;-)

Peter, if you really feel you are by far too rich then what is stopping you from investing it in the kindgom?? just do it for goodness sake.

Could it be that there is an element here of wallowing in self pity, enjoying the power of your anger as a mutual badge of honour/pride?

Some really creative answers about where your fellowship should meet guys.

Does that mean that you dont regularly meet with other believers in church buildings or have sworn off doing so?

I guess my view is that it is actually not that difficult for people cut back on luxuries and to take reasonable steps to make a real difference.

I think energies are better poured into organisations and projects that really will make a difference rather than beating dead horses.

My point about Christ's brethern was certainly a secondary point, but one I have been looking at, therefore I thought it relevant to mention.

None of you have done anything to seriously contest the view that Christ never used this word except for his disciples.

I agree that NT charity is not limited to brethren, the good samaritan is a good example, but my point about the parable of the sheep and goats has not been dismissed, Portwyne's point does not explain WHY Christ mentions brethren at all, if he didnt mean something by it.

Paul in Galations says;-

9And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

10As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, ESCPECIALLY unto them who are of the household of faith.

I suggest there is a bias towards poor Christians in the NT Peter and yes, I agree there are plenty of poor Christians out there needing our help.


Also RJB, I have to say, you do give the impression, at least, that you feel you have no need to listen and/or engage with others here but have only come to teach/preach.

All my Christian experience counts for nothing and my understanding that I have experienced God and been led to a more holy and caring life through Christ have been an illusion?

OT

OT I could be here all nighteth or unto dawn verily, answering unto thee the points thou hast brought forth.
Could we please talk in modern English!! Jesus or Paul or James did not speak King James Aramaic. They spoke the lingo of their time. We speak the lingo of our time. I know this is a huge ask and asking you to think outside the box, but, WE'VE nearly managed it with the Latin, so maybe you could try it. How on earth do you expect to convey anything to young people, for example, when you are using a language which is alien to them?

I cannot speak for the other two guys, but I certainly wont be starting any new church. I will live my life as best I can, treating others as I would like to be treated. Attempting to respond to poverty at a personal level, but also supporting structures which are trying to defend the poor. I will try to maintain a personal relationship with the Lord and where that relationship prompts me to speak out or to keep silent, I will.

I cannot in all conscience allow you to make highly questionable statements - and then rush to hide behind a given scripture text (or in this case, a single word) in an attempt to justify them, without challenge. Given the broad picture of what we know about Jesus' life, his teachings, do you think it LIKELY that his words are directed at his brethren exclusively? Do you think it LIKELY that he promoted a them and us mentality. Look at the people he praised who were not his brethren.
-The Centurion (whose servant he cured.)
-The widow's mite.
-The woman at the well.
-The tax collector who promised to give the money he had swindled, back.
-Zacchaeus.
etc... etc... etc.... etc....

Look at what else he said.
-Go out to the whole world and proclaim the GOOD NEWS.
-Those who are not against you are for you.
-Come to me ALL of you who are weary and overburdened.
-The Sermon on the mount!! (This was originally believed to be six seperate sermons which the Evangelist has rolled into one.)
etc... etc... etc... etc....

Do you think it LIKELY that he was operating a two tier system on poor people?

How can you ignore all of this and focus all your energy on what he meant by the inclusion or exclusion of one word, brethren? You cant see the forest for the trees, OT.

And now that I'm outed as RC, let me mention Mary, not the halo wearing, rosary wielding statue so many of my 'brethren' promote. Words attributed to her are amongst the most radical you'll find anywhere in the pages of the Bible. Princes thrown down from their throwns, the poor raised on high, the hungry given good things to eat. All this will happen because of her son - even she saw the poor as central to her sons life and death.

You speak about the poor as if there is some sort of question as to where they lie in terms of Christ's priorities. Our treatment of the poor is absolutely central to the history of salvation, the Gospel, Christ's life and death and ultimately, salvation. I'm assuming that this is what GVeale means when he says that all the other subjects we discuss on these threads are just a bit of light entertainment! If your religious practice, your Bible reading, your prayer life, your church going has not brought you to this conclusion, then I would say that your lived experience has been dancing around the issue which is at the very core of our faith.

At the very beginning of his ministry he reads from the scroll in the Temple, inaugurating the Kingdom, the blind see again, the lame walk, the hungry are fed.... This isnt some aside, it is pivotal. And they try and kill him for it. Ring any bells?!!

You're accusing me of arrogance and yet, you take the parable of judgement day where Jesus cant state any more clearly, short of banging people's heads together, what we will be judged upon, and you argue about who he might or might not have actually been refering to. No wonder he thanked his heavenly father for hiding these things from the learned and the clever and revealing them to mere children. No wonder he complained about ears being deaf. Listen if you have ears to hear.

"A bias towards the poor in the New Testament." ?????????????? A bias?
Are you kidding me?

I'm sorry if I give the impression that I'm just preaching and that I do not need to listen to anyone. I'm willing to listen to you on a multitude of subjects. I will not budge on this one though. Its far too crucial to indulge in pleasantries. If in your Christian life so far you havent realised the centrality of the poor in Christ's teaching, then your holiness is not illusion. Its delusion.

And unfortunately, OT, when it is your turn to stand before Christ on judgement day and you say, but I didnt realise... I never knew....
Christ might just say, "Remember that arrogant so and so called Romejellybean?!!"

P.S. And please feel free to "get started" on your criticisms of other churches. I'm sure GVeale and PeterMorrow are honest and genuine enough to feed back to you whether your criticisms are valid or sectarian.

A couple of posters on another thread recently confessed to the mundane character of their daily lives. I could make no such confession being the sort of person who no sooner wonders what something might be like than he makes sure he finds out. I am therefore quite, as the French say, experimente, however, being conflated with GVeale is an entirely new experience even for me: how was it for you Graham?

OT

There is no evidence that Christ or any of the Old Testament prophets suggested leaving the congregation of Israel to set up a better set of chosen people; rather they spoke the word of the Lord to His people, challenging their failures and short-coming and seeking to reform the community which represented God to the world. The books of the prophets, like the ministry of Christ, are a sustained cry for social justice and a condemnation of religious hypocrisy.

Christ and the prophets made it a central part of their life-work to curse the darkness and to challenge those inhabiting it.

OT (Posted in two parts, it's too long, way too long)

Sometimes I think we on this blog, and I mean all of us, speak at cross purposes, and sometimes I think it would be much better if we could speak face to face, and sometimes I think it is our lack of knowledge of one another which seems to get in the way, so with all that in mind let me try to respond to your comments and explain how I, see it mis-communication and all.

I'll take your points in order.

I know you are not saying we shouldn't help the poor directly, any comments I made which might have led you to think this were concerned with the use of the words 'my brethren', as I have heard them used, and my concern that not enough attention is paid to the poor of this world by many mainstream churches. I'm actually going out of my way not to comment on you or your church because I don't know either well enough.

You may criticise my church, PCI, if you wish, I'm sure we Presbyterians have a lot we can learn from others.

Lighting candles is good, my concern is not to complain about what is being done, but to point out what I think could also be done, specifically in relation to the role and mission of the church which is, I think, much broader than most NI evangelical christians seem to think it is.

Why not leave my church? Interesting thought, maybe I should give you my testimony!! Portwyne has given a pretty good answer in relation to this but a couple more points. When I said that my experience of christianity had been broadly evangelical, I meant that I have first hand experience of traditional Presbyterianism, Charismatic fellowships, independent mennonite influenced gatherings and, what I like to call, the 'mini-mega' type church, by this I mean I mean zupped up traditional churches trying to look like Willow Creek or something. I haven't been a member of all types but, I know quite a lot at first hand, RJB, Protestantism is like that, you probably know this already! And basically, apart form the outward expression of worship and emphasis on spoken theology, I can't for the life of me tell the difference between any of them. Now I know they all look different and sound different but really in the end they all pretty much live in exactly the same way. When the chips are down, the rhetoric is the same.

Yes I am accountable for my own sins, but not exclusively, as I said before evangelicals don't do community, but doing community does have something to do with encouragement, confession and 'carrying burdens'. We should be like the Three Musketeers, 'All for one and one for all', unfortunately church community more often looks like the opposite. OT I firmly believe that there is no church without a concept of 'us'.

Not starting a new church, that's a Protestant malady, not explaining the reason why now.

Part 2 to follow

Part 2

OT

Then you said, "Peter, if you really feel you are by far too rich then what is stopping you from investing it in the kindgom?? just do it for goodness sake."

Yes, I am concerned about how I use my relative wealth and even though we are a single income family I still like to think I can do with less. (BTW I am a teacher) What is stopping me investing in the Kingdom? That's not really my point, I must seek to invest all I can, but my point is we can do more if we act together and invest less in unnecessary aspects of church life. That's all I'm saying, I'm not specifically criticizing individual christians, they must decide what to do, I'm asking the church to think about how it uses the money it already has. I'd also say though that if we got started then we might encourage each other to give more and more.

Could it be that there is an element here of wallowing in self pity, enjoying the power of your anger as a mutual badge of honour/pride?

Yep, maybe, see how christians can hold one another to account. Anger though isn't power, anger usually destroys those who are angry and those we are angry towards.

'Dead horse' versus 'organisations and projects'. I presume by dead horse you mean the church? In other words you think the same as us but don't seem to want to say? ;-)

The 'my brethren' thing again. It's in the wider context of three parables relating to the end of the age and judgement. As RJB has already said it seems to be about being the genuine article. Wise and foolish, misusing money, sheep and goats. Jesus is telling us to 'get real', and I’m sorry but the evangelical mantra of 'asking jesus into your heart' guarantees nothing. As for 'my brethren', maybe Jesus just means that the thirsty, the hungry, the naked and the prisoners are all to be thought of as his 'brothers', this would make sense in the wider context of loving enemies. Anyway the whole parable is about doing something rather than saying something.

Galatians verse 10 reemaphasised, 10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto ALL MEN, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

Thanks Peter

At least I feel you are listening and to your credit, honestly till it hurts.

I get the impression you are talking to me when you talk about "asking Jesus into your heart" being the heart of Christianity??

That is certainly not my view and I dont believe I ever said anything that suggests it. I dont believe in salvation by works in any manner but I do think I believe in de-salvation through sins of ommission. RJB, it would appear you are quite strong on liberation theology, which is fine, but please dont deny quite compatible viewpoints that believe Christ's death was to cancel sin. Liberation theology is, after all, a very recent philosophy. If you are just going to rage at me that it is original Christianity I think you will be taking an ignorant, ill informed fundamentalist stance, but I'm sure you wont. You think I am against you, but I'm not you really dont know me and havent really listened to me.

Ref the brethern thing, I am really sorry I brought it up. I wasnt trying to preach a sermon. If you notice it was a question I asked as a discussion point.

I feel a bit battered and bruised for raising it. Free speech anyone? A minor point, which stands, but is a minor point for that perhaps.

RJB seems to batter first, then considers studying the text to refute the point and then decides he doesnt need to study the text because he has all the answers and doesnt need holy scripture.......at all. Why did God bother giving us the bible, teachers, apostles?

RJB you *appear* to have judged and condemned me when, as Peter points out, you really dont know anything about my lifestyle, and arguably my motives, at all.

As for beating dead horses, of course biblical prophets gave it both barrels. I am asking if there is difference between self-indulgent comic posturing here and positive action.

There is alot of energy here if it could be channelled constructively. I dont think we should be centred on anger, poverty or ...even the poor, but Christ. Seek ye first....

I honestly think there can be hypocrisy in slamming churches if people do not have a go at doing better. The church is run by.... those who turned up. You dont even have to start a church...you think people havent previously started think-tanks and lobby groups to address world poverty? You can support such groups at many levels without even starting a new church.

As for bashing churches.... well I think Christ will decide the wheat and the tares.... I reckon respectable established religion may not come off too well in the book of Revelation ie

I am conscious that Christ, Luther and Wesley all met with no success in reforming the monoliths they challenged.

RJB, I bless you on your journey, blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness...

shalom

OT

OT

"I don't think we should be centred on anger, poverty or ...even the poor, but Christ. Seek ye first...."

I can agree with these words, but what does it mean, what does it look like?

What does it mean to centre on Christ?

There are a lot of words in our churches and when I ask these questions, I usually can't get any answers!

Not particularly referring to you with the 'into my heart' thing, I just find it limited, and particularly evangelical.

All in all I just want to bring another view to to the evangelical church, one it doesn't usually consider but which I think is biblical.

Peter

OT
"I feel a bit battered and bruised..."

I apologise, that was mainly my fault. I felt angry and frustrated last night when I read your posts.

I know what its like to feel battered and bruised, its a horrible feeling. I wish I could convey my convictions without causing you pain. Again, my apologies.

RJB

In all these things, especially if it involves matters which are seen as political (and care for the poor is certainly political in the West), despite these matters also being of concern to Christians (as they would of course be, whether politics existed or not), then, if the boat is (believed to be?) leaning too far in one direction (such as Western Christians being too rich, in some people's eyes, etc.), then the 'opponents', i.e. the opposing politicos, always seem to feel they must press down (and they also always seem to press down TOO FAR) on the other side of the boat.

Chrstianity is not (it never was meant ever to be) dominated by middle-class, rich, afluent, 'passing by on the other siders' (if that is actually a truly fair description of most Christians). Whenever revival comes to the Church, who are in the majority? It most certainly ain't the middle class(es). If we also look at the world-wide Church, the majority are surely not middle class or Western either, are they ?

Are we not possibly 'flogging a dead horse', demanding the affluent middle class of the West (whose possible whole life is the pursuit of INDIVIDUAL happiness [and property, bank balance, etc]), when we should be concentrating on reaching (even in our own country/ies) (what the middle classes see as ?) the 'unwashed', in order to change the make-up and behaviour of the Western Church.

Could the problem that RJB and others are exercised with simply then begin to right itself when the working classes and those from poorer groups (with perhaps much more of a sense of comunity) begin more to dominate the Western Church?

Hence, is perhaps the real problem not really one of class (dominance in the Western Church) and of the 'capitalist' / 'middle class(es) in capitalism' greed? And are they also only acting on what they know / what their world has taught them? And, before anyone quotes it (at them or e), are we not ALL, in some sense/way or other (as least LIKELY to be) 'conformed to the world'. Otherwise, why in Scripture are we urged NOT to be? 'Those without sin cast the first stone' ?