Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

OK, listened, what you thinking?
 

Meyers always amazes me with his ability to make Jesus fully human, and not a superhero, acknowledging that trhe Gospels are, of course, religious tracts, editorials, if you will, not records of history per see -- yet still insire people to follow Him.
 

Would listen but it's about bed time here. Sounds good from your response though.

You made my day by stopping by. I think i'm on the edge of culture shock or something. I'll let you know. Anyway, good to hear a good ol suthern voice!!

Take care and I'll be seeing ya around some
 

One thing he didn't dwell on was what the Jews expected the Messiah to be and do. John the B. would have had those expectations as well. They expected a King and Kingdom on earth, and deliverance(salvation) from their earthly oppressors and woes. Their expectations were similar to what a good pre-millennialist expects Jesus to do the during the second coming. So after a while John was beginning to question why Jesus wasn't doing all those things, thus "Are You the One?"
 

Good point.

I wish I had the text of that sermon. It was FULL. I need to listen to it again and take notes...
 

OK, he lost me in the first 30 seconds or so, when he said something like, “I think all of you know that I think Joseph was Jesus’ father.”

Now what did he mean by THAT? Is he beginning his sermon by asserting that Jesus is not divine?

If that is what he's saying, he might as well stop right there and quit wasting his breath.

Just shut down the church and go home.

If Jesus was just another prophet who preached doing good things, plenty of others have done that, too. Why worship him? Why follow him? Go study Gandhi. Go join the Optimist Club or some other group of do-gooders.

And I do not accept his leap that Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist.

The Gospel writers go to great lengths to be clear that John the Baptist was "not the light" himself but only paved the way for Jesus Christ.

I appreciated and agreed with his emphasis on Christian commitment to the poor and disenfranchised, and like him, consider it among our formost obligations.

But the sermon was too much partisan politics for me and not enough reaching out to individuals. He seemed to leave the sermon at one point and make kind of a stump speech. I wondered if he was running for something.

To his credit, he did end by affirming that "He is the one."

But in light of what he had said earlier, I wanted to ask, One what, Pastor?

One great guy?
 

Yep. Big leap, I reckon.

The chu8rhc he leads is workin' for me, for now. I haven't joined percisely because he disbelieves some of the basics.

But I've not let basic differences with invididuals keep me from God's presence among other congregations, so I'm going to keep enjoyin' this one for the time being.
 

Oh, and as for the partisan politics:

With so much partisanship on the religious right, I find it positive and refreshing to hear a preacher delcare his church to be unapologetically Christian and unapologetically liberal. Liberal, not partisan. There's a difference.
 

Respectfully, my dear friend, I prefer unapologetically Christian and unapologetically Christian.
With open arms extended toward ALL of God's children -- left, right or in between. With the divisive political arguments either left at home or posted on the ER blog site. The Sunday pulpit should be reserved for the Worship of God.
 

But, like you said, it ain't all about the pastor. Or shouldn't be. I pray for you and wish you the best on your journey.
 

The pulpit should be the place of inspiration. The pews should be the places of worship. :-)

When the right-wing quits boasting about its "conservative" Christianity, then I'll quit being pleased with this rare pulpitical assertion of Christian liberality.
 

My point is this: Can it really be "Christian" liberality if the premise is that Jesus is not the Son of God???
 

I mean that's one of the few core beliefs that unite all Christians, don't you think? That Jesus is the Christ?

Please correct me if I have misinterpreted what he was trying to say at the beginning of the sermon? He never explained it.
 

You'd probably have to listen to more of him to know where he's coming from. I took him to mean that he thought Joseph was Jesus's father, but you're right; he didn't make that clear.

But, "Jesus is the Christ" and "Jesus is the Son of God" do not necessarily equal "Jesus is God" or "Jesus was born of a virgin" or "Jesus rose bodily from the dead," do they?

Does one have to believe the latter two to follow Jesus? Does disbelief in the latter two mean one thinks Jesus was "just a man"? (I don't think so, myself).

Just stuff to ponder.
 

No, you don't have to believe in the resurrection to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

But if he didn't rise from the dead, indeed, he WAS just a man.

And he didn't conquer sin.

And he didn't save us from anything.
 

:-)

My own basics are under "Fundamentalism is dangerous," the eighth comment, I think.