| Early Christian Communism |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2004 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March My Links Information about Darfur Southern Baptist Convention Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Baptist World Alliance Alliance of Baptists SBC International Mission Board Baptist Women in Ministry Ethics Daily Christian Ethics Today Howie Luvzus Baptist History & Heritage Society Mainstream Baptists Jokeoftheday's Blog tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
Baptist Theology: A Critical Look 
|
posted by: surrogate (reply) post date: 03.01.05 (10:35 am) I have my blog listed on another site. Another blogger there wrote a wonderful piece expanding on the points you just made regarding the way American Christians have come to look at the world. For the life of me I can't remember his or her name. Whe I find it, I'll send you a link. posted by: LynnKramer (reply) post date: 03.01.05 (11:07 am) Taking something from your own pocket to give to the poor or a charity is one thing and to be commended, but to forcibly take from someone else's pocket to give to the needy is stealing, theft. whether it is an individual or a majority vote in congress it is stealing and theft. When God gave Moses the ten commandments, THOU SHALL NOT STEAL, did not mean, except by government order, or even by a mojority vote. A case could be made that it is sinnful to be in possesion of stolen goods. posted by: Fairmoon (reply) post date: 03.01.05 (11:11 am) Personaly i believe, when it comes to 'living a good life' sharing and stewardship etc... it should be taken on because we are all human's trying to survive in a closed enviroment. I too am seeking ways to be more giving and less consumeristic (is that a word?) We are all struggling regardless of our religious choices. Good post! Thanks for writing it. FM posted by: Longshot (reply) post date: 03.01.05 (11:23 am) Reply to: Fairmoon You bring up a good point. Theologian Leonardo Boff argues that the main problem with American society is not consumerism, but the idea of progress. We do have limited resources, but those in our society believe that through "progress" we can solve the problem of scarcity. However, he argues that to believe that the cause of our problem (technology and progress) can somehow solve our problem is insane. posted by: Fairmoon (reply) post date: 03.01.05 (11:32 am) Reply to: Longshot thats one of those comments that makes my head hurt! :-) I agree with it, but ask me to explain it in my own words and i'd be stumped. I agree with it. We often get so caught up in the roots of 'why' it happended we can't get past is and say, "okay know what? we know this doesn't work, so what do we do instead?" Change is a damn scary thing and that's what this all ends up as i suppose, the need to change. But how? a millenn ia of ingrained ideals and lifestyle evolution doesn't go away with out afight. where the heck was i going with this.... I'm not even sure i'm making sense or even still on topic. I start thinking about this sort of stuff and it all becomes etheral and whisps of it float away like spider threads... sigh, perhaps a nap will make the world a better place, at least in my world it would. FM posted by: DrForbush (reply) post date: 03.01.05 (12:12 pm) Reply to: LynnKramer You are missing the entire point of the scripture here. Luke is telling us how the Christians chose to live by obeying Jesus' teaching. The ideas that you are espousing are what the Baptist preachers began to teach during the 1950s in their response to the Soviet Union. What would Jesus do? He'd be in favor of the Communist principles. At least the Early Christians believed that, and they lived nearer in time to Jesus himself. (Some actually knew him, seeing that Luke the author of Acts was an apostle.) posted by: Longshot (reply) post date: 03.01.05 (3:09 pm) Reply to: DrForbush WRONG--Baptist preachers avoided this text because it was too close to communism. posted by: shayno (reply) post date: 03.01.05 (10:42 pm) so what i'm supposed to look for people in need. man this christianity things is treading on my me time. next thing you are going to tell me is that if some one wants my tunic i'm supposed to give him my coat too, or if he want to borrow some cash i need to just give it to him. (matt. 5) i encourage you to do what you have written, and not just your resources bro, your time. you know if you take a jr. high school kid out for a burger after church one day and just spend some time with him you'll have made a friend for life and an impact in that young mans life forever. same thing goes for the new couple who started attending last month. people care about what you know when they know that you care about them. love the post as always posted by: shayno (reply) post date: 03.01.05 (10:49 pm) Reply to: LynnKramer homie, you really don't have a choice. either you are a bond-servant or you are not. Jesus commands you to do it, so is He a thief? your life is not you own anyomore is it? we are not "of this world" so why would it matter if you have less or more. sometimes i think you mistake concervatism for christianity and it just is not the case. and by the by if the "church" did it's job we would have no need for welfare programs. all those who were in need would be helped, and a bunch of hurting people could be healed, but go ahead and hang on tight to your bucks they'll do you a lot of good in heaven, or is it they will burn like everything else here, i forget. posted by: Longshot (reply) post date: 03.02.05 (4:35 am) Reply to: DrForbush Sorry. Misread your post! This text really did wreak havoc among Baptists. It still does because many Southern Baptists I know have become so afraid of being considered "liberal" that they ignore social issues. The Southern Baptist Convention several years ago started defunding their social ministries in favor of funding "church planting." If you can't get money from a ministry why do it? was their attitude. posted by: Longshot (reply) post date: 03.02.05 (6:32 am) Reply to: hughmanatee "The Church as demonstrated in Acts and in pockets throughout history is more than any human ideal. It is holy community. Let's not make it so much less than that. Great point! I would never suggest that this arrangement would be the best for society in general. But, I would say that American Christians need to take a hard look at it and determine if we are too much like the "world." How could we live this way now? Might our obsession with the things of this world not only be sinful, but also destructive of the community itself? And as an extension-- destructive to the society in which we live? If Christians took a prophetic stance against the excesses of American life maybe others would see that we are kingdom people instead of "American Christians"? posted by: hughmanatee (reply) post date: 03.02.05 (6:46 am) Reply to: Longshot I agree. But let us never miss the point that one of the most detrimental aspects of the excesses of American life is anonymous individuality. The Church offers peronsanlity in community. There is a distinct difference. What this means is that we can be unique, yet united as individuals as well as a corporate body. We do not have to ascribe to any particular political party or system as individuals nor as a group. We are Christians. We are the Church. Let nothing less than that be true. posted by: DrForbush (reply) post date: 03.02.05 (9:35 am) Reply to: hughmanatee You wrote: "It is holy community. Let's not make it so much less than that." Community was the central theme to Jesus' preaching. And, it was also the theme to Karl Marx's philosophy. The idea is that the community can be greater than the individual if everyone works together. Obviously this is in opposition to the idea that the individual can succeed when he goes against the set notions of the malaise of societal norms. The conflict of these two ideas is at the core of the left right debate in our country. The haves tend to side with the individualist ideology, because they are the top dogs and they don’t want to lose their position. The have-nots side with the community effort ideology, because they are looking for help to get out of their difficult situation. From a moral point of argument the haves say that the have ownership that should not be taken away from them. The have-nots say they didn’t get a fair deal at birth, or along the way. Jesus preached that the community should work together. The apostles demonstrated this in the early church. Paul on the other had read Plato and the Stoics and he had a higher ideal for the individual. Its quite obvious that the Baptists like to quote Paul more often than they quote Jesus. posted by: hughmanatee (reply) post date: 03.02.05 (10:23 am) Reply to: DrForbush I don't believe that Paul and Jesus were in such opposition, but then again I've read a lot of N.T. Wright. But anyway, we misuderstand community. We often call the neighborhood we live in our "community" or the people we meet at Starbucks our "community." But this does not describe what community truly is. It is a common-unity. It means that individuals can exhibit their true personality and use if for the good of the group. It means that our diversity is united in purpose. Few so-called "communities" achieve this. The Jewish Kibbutz is a great example of true community lived out. L'abri is another such example. Small, house churches across Asia are also excellent examples. It means shared resources (financial, spiritual, emotional) and shared purpose. Now, I would agree to a point that this lies at the basis of the left-right debate in America right now. However, I think it has gone far beyond differing ideologies on Paul's vs. Jesus' teachings. I think it is economic at its basis. It is greed. The have's want to keep their money. The have-not's want some. As soon as the have-not's become the have's, they switch their ideology so as to keep whatever they have acheived. Its been the same throughout history. Toyotomi Hideyoshi is a great example of this in Japanese history. Basically, Hideyoshi was a have-not who rose to power, became shogun and then eliminated the possibility of any other have-not rising up to succeed him as shogun. It's all about money, and the lust for more of it. Well, at least mostly. posted by: DrForbush (reply) post date: 03.02.05 (10:37 am) Reply to: hughmanatee You wrote: "But this does not describe what community truly is." A word can only be what everyone agrees with what it means. Of course definitions change over time, and maybe the meaning of the word community was different at the time of Jesus. Obviously he spoke Aramaic and not English, but he did use parables to get his meaning across the language gap. Of course Early Christians described their community by the word Agape, which is a type of 'community love.' The Greeks had three different words for the meaning of love, and this is the word they used to describe their community love. posted by: Longshot (reply) post date: 03.02.05 (10:50 am) Reply to: DrForbush Baptists' preference for Paul, especially in America, is due to his focus on obedience to authority and take on slavery. You are correct in your assessment. Also, the rugged individualist western mindset played a big role. Rauschenbusch, a baptist who is the Father of the Social Gospel, was demonized by Southern Baptists. BTW he hated Paul! posted by: DrForbush (reply) post date: 03.02.05 (10:54 am) Reply to: Longshot You wrote: "Paul, ... due to his focus on obedience to authority and take on slavery." These ideas also come from Paul's reading of Plato and the Stoics, not Jesus. posted by: Longshot (reply) post date: 03.02.05 (10:58 am) Reply to: hughmanatee Your insight into the area of greed is very important. I have an African-American friend who detests the civil rights movement because he believes that it has resulted in the ability of more African-Americans to participate in a capitalistic society rather than changing the society itself. His argument is that African-Americans are less "spiritual" today than 30 years ago and more sold out to the capitalists system than ever before. He argues that they are more materialistic and less community minded (Think Barbershop). posted by: Longshot (reply) post date: 03.02.05 (11:07 am) Reply to: DrForbush True, but there might also be another reason. Some scholars argue that Paul’s statement in Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” represents his vision for the church. It was written early in his career. However, this vision represented threat to Roman society so he toned it down in later works. Now this is problematic for conservative Christians because it seems to threaten their view of the inerrancy of Scripture. posted by: hughmanatee (reply) post date: 03.02.05 (11:59 am) Reply to: DrForbush But words have history (etymology). There is a reason that they mean what they mean. To my knowledge, Jesus never used the term "community" but he certainly used ecclesia (gathering, or assembly) which we now translate as "church." "ecclesia" is quite similar to the meaning of "community" - a unified group of individuals. We refer to many things as a "community" when there is no unity demonstrated whatsoever. That is all I'm saying: we misuse the word. As for Agape, "phileo" is also used but not nearly as often in the Bible. I'm not sure about early Christians referring to their community specifically as "agape" but I do know that the community will be known by their "agape" (Jn 13:15). So I can see how you can come to that conclusion. Love (agape, and phileo) is necessary for true community to exist, and I believe should be the primary characteristic of that community, just as it is the primary characteristic of God. posted by: DrForbush (reply) post date: 03.02.05 (1:15 pm) Reply to: hughmanatee You wrote: "But words have history (etymology). There is a reason that they mean what they mean. " And, You wrote: " But anyway, we misunderstand community. We often call the neighborhood we live in our "community" or the people we meet at Starbucks our "community."" So, lets look at what you are saying. You say that we misuse words today. And, you say that words have a specific meaning. The hole in your argument is that the authors could have misused words when they wrote. Just because someone misuses a word today doesn't mean that they couldn't have misused it 2000 years ago. There isn't any reason why an author 2000 years ago might misuse a word in his writing. In fact, it is more likely than today because education 2000 years ago wasn't standardized like it is today. (Ha Ha Ha, but was it better today or yesteryear?) One school could have had one meaning for a word and 100 miles away another school could have had a slightly different meaning for the same word. In fact, it wasn't until relatively recently that dictionaries were written. And, even those writing the dictionaries of English have fought over the descriptive vs. the prescriptive meanings of words. Imagine for a second the divergence in language around the Mediterranean. Of course, the Hebrew text is much more reliable, because of the careful preservation of the Hebrew language over the centuries. But, again the early texts in Hebrew could have fallen into the same issues. Language is always changing, and that is why the gist of the Bible is more reliable than reading meaning into the text word by word. posted by: hughmanatee (reply) post date: 03.02.05 (1:27 pm) Reply to: DrForbush I also said, "To my knowledge, Jesus never used the term, "community"." So are we really arguing over something that was never said? I'm saying that words should be used carefully. I'm guilty many times of not doing so, but I try my best to wield my words as well as possible. True, the word "community" can have a specific meaning and that meaning be misused, then the meaning of the word expands. Just look in ole' Webster. That is certainly the case there. I would agree that language is always changing, but it still must hold itself to root meanings of words, because if not, communication ceases to exist. btw, I was just wondering if you've studied Hebrew or Greek? posted by: DrForbush (reply) post date: 03.02.05 (2:11 pm) Reply to: hughmanatee You wrote: "I would agree that language is always changing, but it still must hold itself to root meanings of words, because if not, communication ceases to exist." This is a completely false statement. Go to Jamaca and listen to the English that is spoken there. You most likely won't understandit imeadiatly, but hang around for a few weeks and you'll understand it more and more. The words they use may or may not stick to the root meaning of the origional words. But, communication certainly exists. Consider the Latin language. This language evolved into French, Spanish and Italian. Some of the words no longer have the same meanings as their roots, but communication still exists. I have studied some Greek, but I am certainly no expert. posted by: billyv (reply) post date: 03.02.05 (2:36 pm) The Aquinas quote really hit me between the eyes. posted by: DrForbush (reply) post date: 03.02.05 (4:10 pm) Reply to: hughmanatee You wrote: "I also said, "To my knowledge, Jesus never used the term, "community"" I spent a few minutes at BibleGateway.com and searched through several translations of the Bible. It is quite interesting to note that the word community is used over 100 times in some versions of the Bible, and it isn't used at all in some versions. But, the places where community is used in some versions of the Bible are two predominant places. In the Old Testament when there are references to the entire group of Jews, and in the New Testament when they refer to the "brethren." Obviously brethren is a more endearing word referring to a large family rather than a collection of people. So, I looked at the etymology of the word community. Its origin comes from the French word citizenry mean a member of a group under a common government. However, it has come to be used to describe a group of people with common interests. Certainly community is less family like than what Early Christians would be trying to express. However, in modern times in the English language the word community is being used to express more than just living together under a common government. Churches refer to their “faith community” or “loving community,” or Christian community. The last of which obviously refers to a group of people with a common interest. There is another would that seems to be related, but actually isn’t. That word is communion. This word is used to describe a religious group with common interest, or the same faith. This word comes from the Latin word for common. It could be quite easy create a lot of non-sense out this collection of facts, but it would be better not to. posted by: hughmanatee (reply) post date: 03.03.05 (5:48 am) Reply to: DrForbush I'd like an example of a word that has no connection whatsoever to its history. I agree that language evolves, but there is still a connection to that root meaning. posted by: Michael Homan (reply) post date: 03.04.05 (9:41 am) Can I have your refrigerator, Comrade Gstohl posted by: Longshot (reply) post date: 03.04.05 (10:31 am) Reply to: Michael You didn't believe me when I told you it was for the good of the department? Feel free to use it anytime! posted by: hughmanatee (reply) post date: 03.07.05 (10:17 am) Reply to: Longshot Ahhh....community in action! posted by: ConyersCraft (reply) post date: 03.15.05 (3:01 pm) Hi - You posted a comment on my blog about the Andy's diner piece - many thanks - am just learning how to use this thing. I am glad you liked the piece...James posted by: newbie (reply) post date: 05.04.05 (5:23 pm) Yes, Christ is God, not Paul posted by: newbie (reply) post date: 05.30.05 (11:13 am) I DON'T WANT US TO BOTHER ABOUT IDEOLOGIES, BECAUSE THE DISAGREEMENTS AND CONFLICTS HAVE DONE US MORE HARM THAN GOOD. WE SHOULD JUST OBEY GOD. |
A Blog About Baptists and Their Theology
|