Two Kinds of Christianity?

[JudyH]

My post wasn't about the Uncle Sam at all, or what we have to give as tax payers. But on that note, some of those on Government assistance need help and some don't, that is true. I see that like I see the man on the street asking for food, and I "think" he "might" buy drugs or whatever with the money, am I going to try to judge him to the point he gets nothing (really for my benefit) or just give it freely and let the chips fall where they may? I prefer the later, to give in good faith, and any lies are on the recipient, but that's me.

Now on government waste, that's another story and not the fault of the truly needy but to their disadvantage, not to mention the disadvantages to taxpayers, and all due to lazy Government workers. The first hand stories I could tell for the asking.

Anyway, I was talking about giving out of our pockets or even physically doing something to help the poor, on a voluntary basis. Some people just don't want to mess with any of it, or many things that are biblical for that matter and they cover their inaction with a chosen theology.

Okay, I understand. People will go to any lengths to justify not following the commands of Jesus. I see myself doing the same thing sometimes.

I totally agree with you on the issue of giving to the beggar in the street. It's not up to me to determine if he REALLY needs it or is going to buy drugs or alcohol. That's the very definition of giving, asking nothing in return, right? I give, and then it's not my responsibility any more.

Yep, I've heard some stories about those government workers myself.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[JudyH]

I am Charismàtic Christian conservative on social isues but we'll to the left on economic issues. I occasionally post on this forum. It is very clear that I am very much at variance with my group. There are others with somewhat similar views but they are a small minority. It seems to me that much of conservative Christianity has absorbed the materialistic, consumeristic values of the wider culture. It differs considerably from the Christianity practiced in the first few to several hundred years following the Ressurection. Very early Christianity at least prior to Constantine was pacifist. The Desert Father's as well as the essential thrust of Christianity at the time opposed the accumulation of wealth. In the first few centuries being a Christian often meant suffering, sacrifice and persecution. Charismàtic gifts were evident.

Interesting, thanks. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said much of conservative Christianity has absorbed the materialistic, consumeristic values of the wider culture--although my evangelical friends and family members would fervently disagree. I think they have absorbed Ayn Randian philosophies held by the Republican party: the wealthy elite should have free rein to do as they please, and the weak and poor are inferior and not worth worrying about. I hope I'm wrong, but that sure is how things look to me these days.

 

[bekkilyn]

Interesting, thanks. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said much of conservative Christianity has absorbed the materialistic, consumeristic values of the wider culture--although my evangelical friends and family members would fervently disagree. I think they have absorbed Ayn Randian philosophies held by the Republican party: the wealthy elite should have free rein to do as they please, and the weak and poor are inferior and not worth worrying about. I hope I'm wrong, but that sure is how things look to me these days.

I don't believe you are wrong. This brings to mind something I read a while back in Stephen Covey's 7 Habits book concerning how we define success:

I was also deeply immersed in an in-depth study of the success literature published in the United States since 1776. I was reading or scanning literally hundreds of books, articles, and essays in fields such as self-improvement, popular psychology, and self-help. At my fingertips was the sum and substance of what a free and democratic people considered to be the keys to successful living.

As my study took me back through 200 years of writing about success, I noticed a startling pattern emerging in the content of the literature. Because of our own pain, and because of similar pain I had seen in the lives and relationships of many people I had worked with through the years, I began to feel more and more that much of the success literature of the past 50 years was superficial. It was filled with social image consciousness, techniques and quick fixes -- with social band-aids and aspirin that address acute problems and sometimes even appeared to solve them temporarily -- but left the underlying chronic problems untouched to fester and resurface time and again.

In stark contrast, almost all the literature in the first 150 years or so focused on what could be called the character ethic as the foundation of success -- things like integrity, humility, fidelity, temperance, courage, justice, patience, industry, simplicity, modesty, and the Golden rule. Benjamin Franklin's autobiography is representative of that literature. It is, basically the story of one man's effort to integrate certain principles and habits deep within his nature.

The character ethic taught that there are basic principles of effective living, and that people can only experience true success and enduring happiness as they learn and integrate these principles into their basic character.

But shortly after World War I the basic view of success shifted from the character ethic to what we might call the personality ethic. Success became more a function of personality, of public image, of attitudes and behaviors, skills and techniques, that lubricate the processes of human interaction.​

Although the above presents the topic in a more non-religious way, I believe the point is valid. We no longer focus on good character when judging the worth of a person. It's all about appearance. Consumerism and materialism play right into it too.