Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Excommunicate Dubya?
Read about it at Theolog, the blog of The Christian Century.
I agree with one of the commenters:
It seems to me that an overwhelming preponderance of Jesus' teachings and actions imply that the way we live is a lot more important than the doctrine we confess. He accepted and blessed people whose beliefs spanned the entire theological spectrum of his day - Levites, Samaritans, and Roman centurions. About the only people he seems to have consistently opposed were the "scribes and Pharisees" - the champions of Israelite religious orthodoxy.
So, much as I deplore the morality, ethics and conduct of the Bush administration, I don't think the imposition of denominational purity codes is an appropriate or effective response.
Besides, I am not a member of the United Methodist Church. What think y'all?
--ER
I agree with one of the commenters:
It seems to me that an overwhelming preponderance of Jesus' teachings and actions imply that the way we live is a lot more important than the doctrine we confess. He accepted and blessed people whose beliefs spanned the entire theological spectrum of his day - Levites, Samaritans, and Roman centurions. About the only people he seems to have consistently opposed were the "scribes and Pharisees" - the champions of Israelite religious orthodoxy.
So, much as I deplore the morality, ethics and conduct of the Bush administration, I don't think the imposition of denominational purity codes is an appropriate or effective response.
Besides, I am not a member of the United Methodist Church. What think y'all?
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
Speaking for myself and not my church...we are a bona fide peace church. We expect our members to support peacemaking initiatives and oppose war. We encourage one another to not support war efforts or the military-industrial complex.
Nonetheless, if a soldier or tank-builder wanted to join our church, we'd embrace them. We'd still encourage them to leave the structures of war in their lives behind, I'd think, but they'd be welcome.
Now, if a representative or president were to join our church and they were supporting a war - especially if they were supporting a war that we thought wholly unjust - I suspect that we would probably try to hold that beloved church member accountable. Even to the point of "shunning" them, or whatever our equivelant is.
Why the representative and not the soldier? Because the soldier is just a cog in the policy machine and the representatives are making the policies.
I don't know for sure how that'd play out as we don't have any representatives or soldiers currently active in our congregation, but that'd be my guess.
Nonetheless, if a soldier or tank-builder wanted to join our church, we'd embrace them. We'd still encourage them to leave the structures of war in their lives behind, I'd think, but they'd be welcome.
Now, if a representative or president were to join our church and they were supporting a war - especially if they were supporting a war that we thought wholly unjust - I suspect that we would probably try to hold that beloved church member accountable. Even to the point of "shunning" them, or whatever our equivelant is.
Why the representative and not the soldier? Because the soldier is just a cog in the policy machine and the representatives are making the policies.
I don't know for sure how that'd play out as we don't have any representatives or soldiers currently active in our congregation, but that'd be my guess.
As a United Methodist, I find the idea troubling. We are a non-creedal denomination, which is one of our great strengths. We are also a very wide-open church, and we do ourselves no service by limiting ourselves out of political expediency. As we are also officially anti-abortion, why not toss out Hillary Clinton as well? Nope. Bad idea all the way around.
I failed to mention that we're not a Methodist church. We're a formerly Southern Baptist church that was kicked out of the denomination and gladly so.
So, I was speaking from the individual church point of view, not a denominational one.
So, I was speaking from the individual church point of view, not a denominational one.
The state of his soul is between he and God. Excommunication I don't believe is a Methodist concept. To denie communion in the sense that his soul is forbidden to associate with the Church is a drastic action.
I don't want to damn his soul. The Bell should not toll, the candle should not be snuffed, nor the book closed on George W. Bush.
We should just impeach his ass and leave his soul to God.
I don't want to damn his soul. The Bell should not toll, the candle should not be snuffed, nor the book closed on George W. Bush.
We should just impeach his ass and leave his soul to God.
I think that the whole concept of "excommunication" is a concept of the organized church, as opposed to the Body of Christ, and as opposed to Christianity as originally conceived.
I think, then, that the concept of "withdrawing fellowship," as historically practiced by Baptists (and maybe other congregationalist-kinds of individual autonomous groups of believers), is the closest thing to practical and honest and doable. You get trouble showin' up, why, you just walk away from him-her, since there really is no official organization outside the holy and little-c catholic church.
Christianity is relational, in other words, and if one doesn't actually want to have a relationship with a group of believers, yet keeps showing up, then the only thing to do is leave them alone.
Of course, there are practical problems with this, I know. With an "open table," and a concept of the church as a hospital for sinners, as opposed to a social club for the redeemed, what the heck, really, can you do?
This is where organized religion really mucks things up.
Oh, but impeach his ass, yes.
I think, then, that the concept of "withdrawing fellowship," as historically practiced by Baptists (and maybe other congregationalist-kinds of individual autonomous groups of believers), is the closest thing to practical and honest and doable. You get trouble showin' up, why, you just walk away from him-her, since there really is no official organization outside the holy and little-c catholic church.
Christianity is relational, in other words, and if one doesn't actually want to have a relationship with a group of believers, yet keeps showing up, then the only thing to do is leave them alone.
Of course, there are practical problems with this, I know. With an "open table," and a concept of the church as a hospital for sinners, as opposed to a social club for the redeemed, what the heck, really, can you do?
This is where organized religion really mucks things up.
Oh, but impeach his ass, yes.
Dr. Lobojo, you did it again. You are my hero. Could it be that I'm in the same tributary as you? I don't think so, but maybe I visit it periodically. Maybe I'm headed for Main Stream? Nope . . . don't think so on that either. . . don't like it there . . . boring. YES. Impeach his ass, and leave his soul to God.
# posted by 
: 8:53 AM
: 8:53 AM
Would you continue to worship at the church with an active child molester? With a unrepentent killer?
I'm not comparing Bush to either, just suggesting that there is a continuum and, for most of us, at some point along the continuum, we'd ask someone to repent and change their ways and, failing that, ask them to leave the church (synagogue, temple, book club, etc).
I don't have a problem with the biblical concept of what the Amish call shunning, found at least here in the Bible:
"But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat" (I Corinthians 5:11)
"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and of fences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." (Romans 16:17)
As with the Amish, though, I'd think the purpose of the shunning would be redemptive, that the shunned one would feel - in his or her isolation - some guilt for their transgression and come to ask for forgiveness.
I'm not comparing Bush to either, just suggesting that there is a continuum and, for most of us, at some point along the continuum, we'd ask someone to repent and change their ways and, failing that, ask them to leave the church (synagogue, temple, book club, etc).
I don't have a problem with the biblical concept of what the Amish call shunning, found at least here in the Bible:
"But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat" (I Corinthians 5:11)
"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and of fences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." (Romans 16:17)
As with the Amish, though, I'd think the purpose of the shunning would be redemptive, that the shunned one would feel - in his or her isolation - some guilt for their transgression and come to ask for forgiveness.
DT said "...the shunned one would feel...some guilt for their transgression and come to ask for forgiveness."
George W. shows no signs of feeing his guilt or needing forgiveness.
It is not for George W. that we need to impeach him.
We do not need to impeach him for revenge, for punishment, for retribution. We need to impeach him so that his ignorance and arrogance will not become the acceptable norms of the office of President.
Impeachment has to be a restorative action. This type of behavior is not acceptable, it must be at a much higher standard than George W. has shown. That is the reason that he must be impeached.
The Imperial Presidency is not an acceptable form for any American President from any party at any time. The principle must be laid down here and now. No more of this.
George W. shows no signs of feeing his guilt or needing forgiveness.
It is not for George W. that we need to impeach him.
We do not need to impeach him for revenge, for punishment, for retribution. We need to impeach him so that his ignorance and arrogance will not become the acceptable norms of the office of President.
Impeachment has to be a restorative action. This type of behavior is not acceptable, it must be at a much higher standard than George W. has shown. That is the reason that he must be impeached.
The Imperial Presidency is not an acceptable form for any American President from any party at any time. The principle must be laid down here and now. No more of this.
I haven’t read an original thought at this place in a year. All you do is regurgitate what you’ve read on hate blogs and talk radio
# posted by : 8:45 AM
: 8:45 AM
Anon.
1. Then quit coming here.
2. I don't read hateful blogs, and I wouldn't be caugfht desd listening to talk radio.
3. Either you're blind, or being deliberately deceitful. I didn't steal this thought, in the comments above, from anyone, jerk:
I think that the whole concept of "excommunication" is a concept of the organized church, as opposed to the Body of Christ, and as opposed to Christianity as originally conceived.
I think, then, that the concept of "withdrawing fellowship," as historically practiced by Baptists (and maybe other congregationalist-kinds of individual autonomous groups of believers), is the closest thing to practical and honest and doable. You get trouble showin' up, why, you just walk away from him-her, since there really is no official organization outside the holy and little-c catholic church.
Christianity is relational, in other words, and if one doesn't actually want to have a relationship with a group of believers, yet keeps showing up, then the only thing to do is leave them alone.
Of course, there are practical problems with this, I know. With an "open table," and a concept of the church as a hospital for sinners, as opposed to a social club for the redeemed, what the heck, really, can you do?
This is where organized religion really mucks things up.
Oh, but impeach his ass, yes.
# posted by Erudite Redneck : 10:08 PM
Post a Comment
1. Then quit coming here.
2. I don't read hateful blogs, and I wouldn't be caugfht desd listening to talk radio.
3. Either you're blind, or being deliberately deceitful. I didn't steal this thought, in the comments above, from anyone, jerk:
I think that the whole concept of "excommunication" is a concept of the organized church, as opposed to the Body of Christ, and as opposed to Christianity as originally conceived.
I think, then, that the concept of "withdrawing fellowship," as historically practiced by Baptists (and maybe other congregationalist-kinds of individual autonomous groups of believers), is the closest thing to practical and honest and doable. You get trouble showin' up, why, you just walk away from him-her, since there really is no official organization outside the holy and little-c catholic church.
Christianity is relational, in other words, and if one doesn't actually want to have a relationship with a group of believers, yet keeps showing up, then the only thing to do is leave them alone.
Of course, there are practical problems with this, I know. With an "open table," and a concept of the church as a hospital for sinners, as opposed to a social club for the redeemed, what the heck, really, can you do?
This is where organized religion really mucks things up.
Oh, but impeach his ass, yes.
# posted by Erudite Redneck : 10:08 PM
<< Home
