Fairly Conservative

33 responses so far ↓

• 1 Leapin // May 6, 2008 at 10:59 am

  Because he bought into the agenda ? (Until it became an impediment to the nomination).

• 2 Kathryn // May 6, 2008 at 12:36 pm

  Now he’s not Oprah enough?

• 3 BrkfldDad // May 6, 2008 at 2:42 pm

  Article is a bit enlightening in that it doesn’t indicate Oprah disagrees with the Pastor, just knew his controversial views wouldn’t sit well with her mainstream audience. Too bad Obama didn’t have that foresight.

• 4 Kathryn // May 6, 2008 at 3:44 pm

  Maybe all Catholics who approve of artificial contraception methods should leave their parishes because they disagree with their priests.

  Maybe everyone who disagrees with Pat Robertson should have their cable disconnected so they aren’t seen to be endorsing CBN.

  This is all too ridiculous.

• 5 Cindy Kilkenny // May 6, 2008 at 4:00 pm

  Kathryn, I don’t think your examples fit at all. It’s the Pope that’s written against contraceptives, not a priest, and one could simply turn the channel to another that didn’t show Pat Robertson.

  BrkfldDad, once again, you nailed it. I was hoping someone else would come to that same realization.

• 6 Fair Play // May 6, 2008 at 4:08 pm

  Why is it “too bad” Obama didn’t have that foresight? If Obama agrees with Pastor Wright (which I believe he does - at least to a certain degree) it is a good thing he didn’t have that foresight…right?

• 7 Kathryn // May 6, 2008 at 4:28 pm

  I think they fit, Cindy; they are all ridiculous because they hold the individual in the pew (or sofa) responsible for the actions of another.

  It’s ridiculous to speculate about Oprah’s motivation as an entertainer (or New-Age devotee) and to compare that with the motivation of a candidate who was influenced by his family ties to the congregation.

  It is also inaccurate to assume that a pastor in the Reformed tradition, which includes the UCC, is the spokesman for the congregation or the denomination–nor does the pastor get to set the agenda. These churches elect elders who make decisions and determine programs and policies. Pastors preach and minister to the membership; they have a lot of influence, but they don’t steer the ship.

• 8 Cindy Kilkenny // May 6, 2008 at 4:38 pm

  Nope, I still disagree. Attending a church week after week because it might HELP your political career means you own that history when the pastor lets you down.

  If my pastor were arguing bigotry, I’d certainly walk away. There are other churches that meet the requirement.

  It’s the NOT walking away that has Obama in trouble.

• 9 Kathryn // May 6, 2008 at 4:57 pm

  Where did the “might HELP your political career” come from? I thought his reasons were personal, and I admire his sticking with Wright up to a point–the point being that melt-down at the National Press Club.

  A-I’m not persuaded that Wright spent 20 years preaching bigotry.

  B-Even the sound bites we heard in March make sense if you listen to more of the sermon than the sound bites, if you have an understanding of that style of preaching (its called jeremiad, after the prophet.)

  C-even if he did go over the top or off the ranch at times, that doesn’t negate his entire ministry nor his relationship with church members.

• 10 Cindy Kilkenny // May 6, 2008 at 5:09 pm

  The church is easily recognized in the community as one of two places were upwardly mobile blacks should attend. One would be naive to think his choice of churches didn’t come in tandem with his political career.

  We are going to have to agree to disagree, though. You think that people are bigger than assigning Wright’s behavior to Obama. I doubt they will grant that much grace if they are truly undecided.

• 11 Kathryn // May 6, 2008 at 5:36 pm

  His career may very well have factored into his decision-choosing a church home involves many factors–but one would be pretty cynical to think that professional ambition was the only factor, or even the decisive factor. But then, you wouldn’t be the first person to call me politically naive.

  I don’t really think that everyone is bigger than assigning guilt by association; I’d just like them to try.

• 12 Cindy Kilkenny // May 6, 2008 at 6:05 pm

  Oh Kathryn, I don’t mean to sound harsh, but a political career is all encompassing. Of course he chose his church based on his ambition. I know a local alderperson that did so, why wouldn’t a state/national senator?

• 13 Kathryn // May 6, 2008 at 6:19 pm

  Maybe. My church is pretty. People have joined just so they could use the facilities for private functions. Nonetheless, a church is not a country club.

  If he was worldly enough to do that, he might have chosen better. Twenty years ago, liberal denominations were not all the rage and liberal politicians were doing their best to appear agnostic.

• 14 El gato // May 6, 2008 at 8:03 pm

  Kathryn, I can’t figure out just where you stand on the issues. You seem conservative on some and liberal on others. Just where do you stand on the Bible being the inerrant word of God, and that any doctrine that conflicts with Scripture is false, and any doctrine that isn’t in the Bible is suspect?

• 15 Kathryn // May 6, 2008 at 9:27 pm

  LOL! Conservative on some and liberal on others is a fair assessment.

  I used to be a Republican–not card carrying, but still a paid-up member. A couple of things happened to change that. One, I read the Bible carefully, several times, and concluded that God does not share my enthusiasm for social and financial advantages, and that responsibility for one’s neighbor is not a private vs. public thing: God requires both. The other thing that changed my mind about the party was the W. administration. I voted for a compassionate conservative and didn’t get much satisfaction on either point. I’m done with parties.

  As for your question: I don’t worship scripture. I worship the Living God as revealed through Jesus Christ. I affirm Jesus Christ to be the Word of God, and any doctrine or point of scripture that conflicts with that Epiphany is suspect. Of course, people of faith can and will understand these things differently from one another; as Paul said, we see as through a glass, darkly. God is so far beyond human understanding that I can’t believe he is too bothered by our inevitable confusion.

• 16 BrkfldDad // May 6, 2008 at 10:22 pm

  FP - what I meant by “too bad he didn’t have that foresight”, was if Obama was politically astute, he would have separated from Reverend Wright’s Church before this became an issue. Like Oprah, he should have seen this coming.

  El Gato - you are surely aware that the doctrine of ’sola scriptura’ is not in the Scripture, so doesn’t that make it, by your assertion, suspect?

• 17 El gato // May 6, 2008 at 10:38 pm

  Kathryn your comment about faith is gobbledy-gook. The Bible is the instruction manual direct from God and the “inevitable confusion” is caused by man’s not accepting what God has said clearly.

  BrkfldDad, this from wikipedia:

  “Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (”Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.

  Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the reformer Martin Luther and is a definitive principle of Protestants today (see Five solas)

  Sola scriptura may be contrasted with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teaching, in which doctrine is taught by the teaching authority of the Church, drawing on the “Deposit of Faith”, based on what they consider to be “Sacred Tradition”, of which Scripture is a subset.”

  I am a Lutheran of the Missouri Synod (biblical, not liberal) and you apparently are Roman. The Bible clearly states “sola dei” in Eph. 2:8-9 but the Romans deny that as well. The Romans are as political as they are religious and that makes it a problem for them to accept the scriptures as having final authority. What, you think they are not political? Read the history of the Romans.

  But we digress!

• 18 Kathryn // May 7, 2008 at 8:59 am

  Gato, one epistle says women should not teach; another commends a woman’s preaching. One verse says faith alone, another says faith without works is dead. One book says divorce all the foreign women, another book says a foreign woman and a fornicator is grandmother of David. One says stone the prostitute, others (more than one) commend the actions of prostitutes. The Bible is a little more complicated than many of us would like to believe.

• 19 El gato // May 7, 2008 at 9:12 am

  Like so many people, you ignore context! I suggest you read Eph. 2:8-10 again. Faith is what saves us but works is what demonstrates that our faith is real. Not hard for me to understand!

• 20 Kathryn // May 7, 2008 at 10:45 am

  I was trying to make the point that context varies. I guess we are in agreement on that.

• 21 Kathryn // May 7, 2008 at 11:18 am

  One more thing–the goobledy-gook was not a comment on faith, but on understanding and applying scripture: there will always be disagreement. FAITH tells me I will be alright even if I get the details wrong.

• 22 BrkfldDad // May 7, 2008 at 9:22 pm

  Eg - I guess well have to agree to disagree. I respect your dedication and faith. For me, however, Scripture tells us that Christ left a Church with a divine authority to govern in His name (Mt 1:13-20, 18:18; Lk 10:16) and that it would last until the end of time (Mt 16:18, 28:19-20; Jn 14:16). Yes, I believe Sacred Tradition is to be followed alongside Sacred Scripture (2 Thess 2:15, 3:6).. The official canon of the books of the Bible was determined by the Catholic Church in the fourth century. Even Martin Luther admitted Christians owed their Bible to effort fo the same - “We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists - that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should know nothing at all about it”. This was one of the very reasons that my grandfather converted, as it was contradictory for him to accept the Bible, yet reject the authority of the Church that preserved it for him.

• 23 Kathryn // May 7, 2008 at 9:32 pm

  Wow, BD. What a beautiful heritage!

• 24 BrkfldDad // May 10, 2008 at 8:45 pm

  Thanks. Kathryn, is it just me, or is it when he is taking to task like here, or when we pointed out the inconsistency with his support for divorce versus what Scripture says, he goes dead quiet?

• 25 Kathryn // May 10, 2008 at 11:34 pm

  Well, religious conviction is more than an intellectual argument. Since we are unlikely to agree to any greater extent, I take silence as a sign of restraint, courtesy. I can’t fault a man for that!

• 26 Shawn Matson // May 11, 2008 at 2:56 am

  I think Kathryn made a good point about how being part of a liberal christian church was not popular 20 years ago.

  Contrast this with John McCain who flip-flops between churches and Hillary (what denomination is she?) and in an odd way, Obama is the most patently religious candidate.

  I’m not trying to make a dig on anyone, I just find it really interesting.

• 27 Kathryn // May 11, 2008 at 8:57 am

  Hillary is a United Methodist, as is George! It’s a liberal denomination in the sense of “freedom to think and question,” and as you can see, individuals are going to be all of the board in terms of doctrine and politics.

  Mainline protestant denominations tend to have regional characteristics (north-south) as well as some ethnic distinctions (black-white is obvious, but there can be others.)

  Hillary, as a northerner, is likely to be more reserved in her religious expression than George from Texas. Even very conservative members of northern churches might wish the religious right comported themselves with a bit more, shall we say, decorum. I’m not sure it’s accurate to say George (or Obama) is more religious than Hil, only that Obama broke the mold for a Democrat by speaking out about his beliefs.

• 28 El gato // May 11, 2008 at 4:01 pm

  Kathyrn, you hit the nail on the head! Further debate wasn’t going to be productive, and people like BrkfldPappy bring out the worst in me, so I just know when to end unproductive debate. Where he comes up with his remark that I support divorce seems to come right out of his drug induced stupor.

• 29 BrkfldDad // May 11, 2008 at 8:04 pm

  That’s funny! I wish it were only true. Maybe that was an El Gato impostor who on May 1, 2008 at 3:04 pm posted….

  “I guess I wasn’t clear about divorce. I certainly think that if people want to divorce without stating any reason other than that they don’t want to be married to each other, that should be acceptable, but if there are grounds such as adultery, abuse, etc. they should be able to bring them up and be grounds for the settlement instead of just a straight 50-50 division.” Let’s see how saying divorce is acceptable comes out as not being in support of it…

  I don’t think you find it unproductive debate at all… I do find it interesting that you tow the line when it comes to Scripture and take many to task for their faults of faith, but when the shoe is on the other foot you go quiet.

• 30 BrkfldDad // May 11, 2008 at 9:55 pm

  p.s. I don’t do drugs, goes against my Christian ethics.

• 31 Shawn Matson // May 11, 2008 at 10:14 pm

  ouch.

• 32 El gato // May 12, 2008 at 8:13 am

  Hey brkfldpappy, do you mean “toe the line”? Duh! Again, YOU ignore the context in which I made that statement. That discussion was not about divorce, but rather the reasons for it. It just so happens that I am NOT in favor of divorce for reasons other than biblical which would be adultery. Even then I believe thatforgiveness, repentance, and reconciliation are preferred.

  Don’t try to put words in my mouth. You aren’t clever or intelligent enough for that!

• 33 Cindy Kilkenny // May 12, 2008 at 9:02 am

  El Gato, cool it. I can always tell when you’ve gotten your back against the wall because you start messing with people’s screen names.

  I’ve read this thread a couple of times and for the life of me can’t figure out where it went wrong. I will say it’s time to close comments on this one.

  You can beat each other up somewhere else.