United Churches of Castro

Frontpagemag.com published an article I penned on the the NCC and the Antiochian pullout.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Related Posts:

11 thoughts on “United Churches of Castro”

  2. Is the charge against the NCC that it is too “political” or too “liberal”?

    The answer can’t be both.

  3. #2. Yes, Dean, the answer can be both. The two conditions aren’t mutually exclusive. Check your logic.

  4. Thank Bill – but if we say the NCC is “too liberal” aren’t we endorsing a political stance, albiet a different one and being too political as well?

    I believe that the NCC is “too political”. The effect of this politicization is to distract and divert us from the work of Christ by creating unneccesary division, acrimony and rancor over partisan issues. There is a disturbing “thumb-in-your-eye” quality to a lot of NCC pronouncements that is inconsistent with Christian fellow-ship.

    As Christians we are instructed to love our neighbor and implicit in that directive is understanding your neighbor’s point of view and be sympathetic to his concerns. Christian fellowship should operate to create consensus and agreement, not division and bitterness, and this is where I think the NCC has really gone off the tracks.

    But if we are merely exchanging ideologies, cheering for the preacher who wants to assasinate Hugo Chavez, instead of the once who wants to support Castro – if we are still putting the thumb in the other guys eye – how are we any better than we were with the NCC?

  5. Dean, your logic only holds for 1-bit programming: 0 or 1, black or white, one extreme or the other. But reality has greater bit depth.

    IOW, rejecting the NCC does not automatically imply endorsing Buchanan’s or any other extremist’s agenda. Not everyone on the religious left goes to the extremes that Bob Edgar does. Not everyone on the religious right is a would-be Buchanan. (Thank God in both cases.)

    I agree thoroughly with your third paragraph, BTW. The key point is that everyone be mature enough to stand up for their own beliefs, agree to disagree when nothing else suffices, and be large-minded enough to work together despite the differences. This can only happen within a shared moral framework, of course.

  6. Note 5 Answering to a Wealthy Donor while Claiming to Represent Member Churches

    Perhaps it would be a good idea to step back a minute and reflect that concept of a Church is derived from Scripture. Therefore the relationship of a believer to his or her church is a matter of sound theology. However, NCC is simply a voluntary association of Churches, it has no Scriptural source or authority. It isn’t necessar for anyone’s faith. It certainly drains off valuable and scarce resources that could be put to other uses.

    FOLLOW THE MONEY:
    For decades the NCC was funded by American Christian Churches. These contributions from member churchs dropped very low. Churchs voted with their dollars and the NCC was losing support from American churchs as evidenced and proven by their financial contributions. NCC probably would have gone out of business IF a wealthy individual donor had not bailed it out with a single large contribution. The contribution has been veiled in secrecy although there is speclation that it was Joan Kroc or Soros.

    CAPITAIZING ON MORAL STATURE OF CHURCHES IT DOESN’T REPRESENT AND WHICH DON’T SUPPORT IT
    Without the influence of a single wealthy dononr, (TIME TO PIPE UP HERE DEAN, DON’T YOU OPPOSE THE INFLUENCE PURCHASED BY INDIVIDUAL WEALTH?) the NCC would be out of business. Yet, in all of its public pronouncements it assumes the posture of the REPRESENTATIVE of its members churchs. This is an unhealthy and self-contradictory situation. It is essentially dishonest. If for no other reason, member churches should withdraw, because NCC uses their names and reputations BUT answers to the secret individual donor.

    The NCC is a corrupt institution which seeks to use the funds and reputatoin of American Christian churches to furtherj the political agenda of Soros and Edgar.

    The antics of Robertson are simply not at issue here. The issue are the contributions and support going to the NCC. Congratulations to the Antiochians for maintaining their integrity.

  7. Note 4. Robertson’s statement has no logical relationship to the NCC critique. Only if Robertson had taken donations to support groups that killed others would the comparison make sense, and even then it would not soften the NCC crimes, but call Robertson to the same public scrutiny.

    The NCC is not “off track.” The NCC is complicit in fostering revolution and death in the name of Christ. Read what I said:

    The NCC wants us to believe that when it crawled into bed with Marx the affair was not consummated, when in fact it adulterated the Christian Gospel and thereby joined the ranks of those who foster evil in the name of religion.

    Ideas have consequences.

  8. So how does an ecumenical organization involve itself with politics … any politics? I can’t really see a specifically religious organization becoming a cheerleader for capitalism (excuse me, Missourian, “free markets”) OR Marxism. Both are imperfect systems that lead to inevitable evils which the Church ends up having to address in some fashion (though Marxism is, of course, far more dangerous). Is an ecumenical organization supposed to advance, say, “trickle-down economics” as a theory that most adheres to Christian tradition? It would seem a stretch.

    No, politics and political ideologies are at best, morally neutral. I’m not saying that a religious organization should avoid the topic altogether, but it should simply serve as a means of reigning in the excesses that the ideology of the surrounding culture is likely to cause and not simply become another mouthpiece for the Republican or Democratic platforms.

  9. Bill,

    In what way, exactly, is Pat Buchanan an extremist? Pat is a devout Catholic, a former White House communications director, and one of the most thoughtful conservatives I have ever been priveleged to read or listen to. Pat is an opponent of the policies of the Bush Administration on many levels, particularly Middle East policy. He has suffered greatly for this in Conservative circles, yet has stuck to his guns and refused to be silenced.

    Pat has championed the views of Pope John Paul II. He has criticized corporate influence over the Republican Party. He has opposed the fiscal recklessness of the Bush Administration. Yet, he was also a principled and bitter opponent of the Clinton slime machine. He speaks his mind, takes on all comers, and is frequently reviled for his trouble.

    I do disagree with him on free trade issues, but otherwise I find myself in agreement with him. Father Hans dislikes Pat, but that is understandable. Pat is against Bush’s policy of using the United States military to forcibly spread democracy in the Middle East as if it were the Gospel. That is sensible and is the traditional conservative position, one that is rapidly reasserting itself (see Sen. Chuck Hagel’s comments recently concerning parallels between Iraq and Vietnam) as the neo-conservative ideals represented by ‘Frontpagemag.com’are soon to return to the Trotskyite nether world from which they sprang.

    But I am at a loss as to why you, based on the things you have written, would be so hostile to a traditionalist conservative. Why is that? What is so ‘extreme’ about Pat Buchanan?

  10. Bill meant Pat Roberston, not Pat Buchanan I think.

    As for the comment “Father Hans dislikes Pat, but that is understandable. Pat is against Bush’s policy of using the United States military to forcibly spread democracy in the Middle East as if it were the Gospel” — you got that from my criticism of some paleo ideas, juxtaposed against the Scharansky review I wrote for Town Hall. I’ve never criticized Buchanan in any other context, or discussed Scharansky’s ideas anywhere else apart from another review published in “Religion and Liberty” for the Acton Institute.

    Your characterizations aren’t accurate. There is a lot about Buchanan to like, even admire. As for the crack about Scharansky, well, it has that contemptuous sneer that you often hear from the libertarian/paleo side of the aisle (although never from Buchanan interestingly) that, frankly, I find as senseless as the moral posturing of the left. Contempt isn’t content.

    So, while I appreciate your engagement with my ideas, let’s be clear that I will define them, not you.

Comments are closed.