Politics Free Church?

[Anonymous]

Jesus was not a “refugee” in any sense meaningful to today’s world. For one thing, Jesus’ family never left the Roman Empire; they simply fled from one region of Roman territory to another Roman territory. That would be like someone moving legally from one state to another within the USA to leave the jurisdiction of the governor of the first state. Also, Luke makes it clear that Joseph and Mary went out of their way to follow Roman law in adhering to the census (Luke 2:1–5). Everything they did was legal.

This is why churches should not get political. They bend the truth and use the Bible and the life of Jesus to further their political opinions.

Jesus and His family moved to Egypt in order to escape King Herod’s murderous intentions, but they had a plan, and they had supplies and support. Their trip was entirely self-funded, due to the gifts of the magi. And their sojourn in Egypt was short. The family remained there until the death of Herod, at which time they returned home (Matthew 2:19–21). Given these details, there’s no real parallel to the modern, indigent refugee who asks permission to enter a new country to avoid some calamity.

I really dislike listening to preaching from ignorant people, ignorant meaning uneducated and perhaps willfully so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moth Catholic Churches do a pretty good job of not being too overtly political in my view. Individual Catholics aside, I am talking about the priests and the general parish culture.

By the way, PP, Jesus said "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Christianity was and is revolutionary. But "political and revolutionary"? Nope. Go read also the discussion between Jesus and Pilate in the Gospel of John.

If you want to be political, then be political. But don't make your politics a false idol or twist Our Lord into some sort of proto-marxist.

Acts of the Apostles Ch2:
44All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds* to all, as any had need

Isn't that Marxism? 🤔 Oh I will wait for the inevitable 'but but but that's different' which is always the go to for the Christian conservative.

I don't recall anything in that passage about them giving all of their money to Rome and then vaguely hoping Rome would use it wisely.

In any event this is a long debate but we are Catholic. Catholicism has a pretty clear and long intellectual tradition. Was every Catholic intellectual from the founding of the Church until the development of Marxist doctrine just totally wrong? That seems odd. What about all the encyclicals specifically addressing socialist doctrine. Were they all wrong too?

So you voluntarily live a very humble life because you donate so much money to the poor? Jesus was pretty clear several times about rich people needing to give away money and possessions.

The Catholic Church has amassed massive amounts of wealth. Is that what Jesus wanted? Not sure they are coming from an unbiased perspective.

A rich you ruler came to Jesus and asked him for advice. “Looking at him, Jesus showed love to him and said to him, ‘One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.’ But he was deeply dismayed by these words, and he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.” (Mark 10:21-22)

This is taken out of context and applied to all people by those who like to use Jesus as an example of a socialist, and it’s wrong.

By asking the rich young ruler to give away his possessions, Jesus wasn’t setting a precedent for future disciples to follow. Poverty and voluntary vagrancy were not prerequisites for discipleship. Jesus wanted to demonstrate that money and possessions, like earthly power and influence, can become distractions and even obstacles that prevent us from truly knowing God or allowing Him to rule in our lives. Wealth and possessions are not condemned here. Paul later wrote to Timothy that, “the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (1 Timothy 6:10). Jesus also said that “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" (Matthew 6:21).

At times, Jesus instructed His disciples to travel light, give away their possessions, (Luke 10:4, Luke 12:33-34) and trust Him to provide for their every need (Luke 12:22-29, Philippians 4:19). This wasn’t an excuse to live reckless and irresponsible lives or to squander their money. Jesus instructed us to be wise stewards of the life, the gifts, and the time He has given. This includes our money and possessions. Jesus ultimately taught His followers to place their hope, trust, and treasure in the eternal rewards of obedience and the riches of knowing Him (Colossians 2:2-3), not accumulated wealth, power, or earthly possessions (1 Timothy 6:17-19).

Jesus didn’t want people to give away everything and plunge themselves into poverty. Another example of why churches that practice social justice bend the life of Jesus into their mold of what is right and do not actually even practice what they preach. Jesus was/is only interested in His Father’s kingdom and His Father’s rule. Anyone that tells you differently is a user or being used. Hard pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Falls Church Anglican that split from the Falls Church Episcopal if you like a somewhat traditional service with an energetic vibe.

https://www.tfcanglican.org/

That split was a very political decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Falls Church Anglican that split from the Falls Church Episcopal if you like a somewhat traditional service with an energetic vibe.

https://www.tfcanglican.org/

That split was a very political decision.

I always thought it was about unreconcilable beliefs about what the Bible says -- differing interpretations of scripture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moth Catholic Churches do a pretty good job of not being too overtly political in my view. Individual Catholics aside, I am talking about the priests and the general parish culture.

By the way, PP, Jesus said "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Christianity was and is revolutionary. But "political and revolutionary"? Nope. Go read also the discussion between Jesus and Pilate in the Gospel of John.

If you want to be political, then be political. But don't make your politics a false idol or twist Our Lord into some sort of proto-marxist.

Acts of the Apostles Ch2:
44All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds* to all, as any had need

Isn't that Marxism? 🤔 Oh I will wait for the inevitable 'but but but that's different' which is always the go to for the Christian conservative.

I don't recall anything in that passage about them giving all of their money to Rome and then vaguely hoping Rome would use it wisely.

In any event this is a long debate but we are Catholic. Catholicism has a pretty clear and long intellectual tradition. Was every Catholic intellectual from the founding of the Church until the development of Marxist doctrine just totally wrong? That seems odd. What about all the encyclicals specifically addressing socialist doctrine. Were they all wrong too?

So you voluntarily live a very humble life because you donate so much money to the poor? Jesus was pretty clear several times about rich people needing to give away money and possessions.

The Catholic Church has amassed massive amounts of wealth. Is that what Jesus wanted? Not sure they are coming from an unbiased perspective.

A rich you ruler came to Jesus and asked him for advice. “Looking at him, Jesus showed love to him and said to him, ‘One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.’ But he was deeply dismayed by these words, and he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.” (Mark 10:21-22)

This is taken out of context and applied to all people by those who like to use Jesus as an example of a socialist, and it’s wrong.

By asking the rich young ruler to give away his possessions, Jesus wasn’t setting a precedent for future disciples to follow. Poverty and voluntary vagrancy were not prerequisites for discipleship. Jesus wanted to demonstrate that money and possessions, like earthly power and influence, can become distractions and even obstacles that prevent us from truly knowing God or allowing Him to rule in our lives. Wealth and possessions are not condemned here. Paul later wrote to Timothy that, “the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (1 Timothy 6:10). Jesus also said that “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" (Matthew 6:21).

At times, Jesus instructed His disciples to travel light, give away their possessions, (Luke 10:4, Luke 12:33-34) and trust Him to provide for their every need (Luke 12:22-29, Philippians 4:19). This wasn’t an excuse to live reckless and irresponsible lives or to squander their money. Jesus instructed us to be wise stewards of the life, the gifts, and the time He has given. This includes our money and possessions. Jesus ultimately taught His followers to place their hope, trust, and treasure in the eternal rewards of obedience and the riches of knowing Him (Colossians 2:2-3), not accumulated wealth, power, or earthly possessions (1 Timothy 6:17-19).

Jesus didn’t want people to give away everything and plunge themselves into poverty. Another example of why churches that practice social justice bend the life of Jesus into their mold of what is right and do not actually even practice what they preach. Jesus was/is only interested in His Father’s kingdom and His Father’s rule. Anyone that tells you differently is a user or being used. Hard pass.

yay, the prosperity gospel to teach us that Jesus really wants his preachers to have gulf streams and that one mansion simply isn't sufficient

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster here.

As someone who voted twice for Obama and twice for Trump I have had a very difficult time finding a church. I am reading this thread closely.

No politics in my Sunday sermon, please.

You might like McLean Bible which is working on racial reconciliation and other issues of the day yet from a scriptural perspective as best they can and not a political one. I can tell there is now leadership at the top who are all over the map politically. The old guard sees the younger set as 'woke' and are leaving for Cornerstone Chapel in Leesburg.

I second McLean Bible, especially MoCo (diversity reflects MoCo diversity).

https://savemcleanbible.wordpress.com/

[Anonymous]

McLean Presbyterian Church

A faithful, Bible believing church with members across the political spectrum. No political sermons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moth Catholic Churches do a pretty good job of not being too overtly political in my view. Individual Catholics aside, I am talking about the priests and the general parish culture.

By the way, PP, Jesus said "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Christianity was and is revolutionary. But "political and revolutionary"? Nope. Go read also the discussion between Jesus and Pilate in the Gospel of John.

If you want to be political, then be political. But don't make your politics a false idol or twist Our Lord into some sort of proto-marxist.

Acts of the Apostles Ch2:
44All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds* to all, as any had need

Isn't that Marxism? 🤔 Oh I will wait for the inevitable 'but but but that's different' which is always the go to for the Christian conservative.

I don't recall anything in that passage about them giving all of their money to Rome and then vaguely hoping Rome would use it wisely.

In any event this is a long debate but we are Catholic. Catholicism has a pretty clear and long intellectual tradition. Was every Catholic intellectual from the founding of the Church until the development of Marxist doctrine just totally wrong? That seems odd. What about all the encyclicals specifically addressing socialist doctrine. Were they all wrong too?

So you voluntarily live a very humble life because you donate so much money to the poor? Jesus was pretty clear several times about rich people needing to give away money and possessions.

PP here.

I think that's in the eye of the beholder. What's rich? I would personally classify myself as rich but I am not rich by the standards of this forum. I do live modestly for the area but not in comparison how people live in developing countries or historically. Whether I give "enough" money is up to God in the end. I am not sure what any of that has to do with forced extractions to fund a large federal bureaucracy. ("Blessed are those who support increases in income tax rates to fund large secular governmental institutions." Sounds odd.)

What about you PP? You seem to enjoy judging people you've never met. How are you doing and what's the state of your soul?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jesus was not a “refugee” in any sense meaningful to today’s world. For one thing, Jesus’ family never left the Roman Empire; they simply fled from one region of Roman territory to another Roman territory. That would be like someone moving legally from one state to another within the USA to leave the jurisdiction of the governor of the first state. Also, Luke makes it clear that Joseph and Mary went out of their way to follow Roman law in adhering to the census (Luke 2:1–5). Everything they did was legal.

This is why churches should not get political. They bend the truth and use the Bible and the life of Jesus to further their political opinions.

Jesus and His family moved to Egypt in order to escape King Herod’s murderous intentions, but they had a plan, and they had supplies and support. Their trip was entirely self-funded, due to the gifts of the magi. And their sojourn in Egypt was short. The family remained there until the death of Herod, at which time they returned home (Matthew 2:19–21). Given these details, there’s no real parallel to the modern, indigent refugee who asks permission to enter a new country to avoid some calamity.

I really dislike listening to preaching from ignorant people, ignorant meaning uneducated and perhaps willfully so.

They were political refugees. From King Herod. He had no jurisdiction over people in Egypt and he wanted to kill Jesus.

AND SEEKING ASYLUM IS ABSOLUTELY LEGAL BY INTERNATIONAL LAW YOU ABSOLUTE POTATO.

The modern ideas of borders that you are discussing didn't exist in the Roman empire- my father has a PHD in Classics, is a devout Christian, and he absolutely deplores this common argument that you put forth.

And the self-funded thing b.c of the gifts is just hilarious!! You are like a parody of a jerk. Calling refugees indigent is just the cherry on top. Just say you hate poor people and don't want them around you.

"I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
"Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me’” (Matthew 25:40 NIV).

but when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, [and] the blind" (Luke 14:12-14)

[Anonymous]

"Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." Psalm 82 3-4

[Anonymous]

but when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, [and] the blind" (Luke 14:12-14)



Are you kidding me? You won't ever see a liberal inviting a conservative to a dinner party around here! I find the social events here in the DC area so boring. The weirdest thing is that everyone assumes that you believe exactly like they do before you even get to know each other. Or that you follow the party line rather than think for yourself!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

but when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, [and] the blind" (Luke 14:12-14)

Are you kidding me? You won't ever see a liberal inviting a conservative to a dinner party around here! I find the social events here in the DC area so boring. The weirdest thing is that everyone assumes that you believe exactly like they do before you even get to know each other. Or that you follow the party line rather than think for yourself! I have very rarely seen someone so dramatically missthe point. And I teach community college.

[Anonymous]

Of course Jesus was a radical.

Why on earth do you think everyone in power wanted him dead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course Jesus was a radical.

Why on earth do you think everyone in power wanted him dead?

Jesus was no radical. He merely repeated traditional Jewish teaching. The gospels were written decades after Jesus died. We don’t even know if there ever was a Jesus. Why he was condemned to death, if in fact he ever lived, is lost in history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course Jesus was a radical.

Why on earth do you think everyone in power wanted him dead?

Jesus was no radical. He merely repeated traditional Jewish teaching. The gospels were written decades after Jesus died. We don’t even know if there ever was a Jesus. Why he was condemned to death, if in fact he ever lived, is lost in history.

You are totally and completely wrong. Please cite your sources.





There’s no doubt Christ existed.