Recapturing MLK's Radical Vision (by Adam Taylor)
I have become increasingly convinced that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. has become the victim of identity theft. Too often we domesticate King, sanitizing his radical message and selectively choosing his words. Our nation embraces the King of Montgomery and Selma but suffers amnesia about the King of Memphis who called for a living wage, or the King of Riverside who spoke out boldly against the war in Vietnam. Dr. King would be deeply disturbed by the crass materialism and naked narcissism of American society today, and he would resist the prosperity gospel that has infiltrated our churches - a message that pimps the gospel and places the crown before the cross.
Forty years ago Friday, Dr. King's life was cut short while supporting sanitation workers in Memphis. Dr. King said then, "Do you know that most of the poor people in our country are working everyday? They are making wages so low that they cannot begin to function in the mainstream of the economic life of our nation." Forty years later, Dr. King could still be saying the same words to the people of Memphis.
The year 2008 also marks the 40th anniversary of Robert F. Kennedy's assassination while campaigning to be president with an economic justice platform in the South and Appalachia. It has also been 40 years since the poor people's campaign was derailed by the rage of riots that fanned across the nation, burning down cities and neighborhoods, including the Columbia Heights neighborhood in Washington, D.C., where Sojourners still resides. In the 40 years since, we have been wandering in the wilderness when it comes to economic justice. While there have been some modest gains, 36 million Americans are still living in the quicksand of poverty, only 4 million less than in 1968. In 1968, an unjust and unnecessary war called Vietnam diverted massive resources from social programs to a military machine that King described in speech at Riverside as a demonic suction tube! Today that same machine in Iraq drains $3 billion from our budget every week, crippling our capacity to invest in social levies across this nation.
Many of us had hoped that Hurricane Katrina would remove the scales from our eyes to the persistence and pervasiveness of poverty in the U.S. But the lessons learned seem fleeting and almost forgotten. While we are the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world, 1-in-8 children still grow up in poverty, giving us the shameful distinction of having the highest proportion of children living in poverty out of all industrialized nations. The U.S. also has the highest incarceration rate, with a black child facing a 1-in-3 chance of serving time in behind bars. More people die each year of poverty related causes than from the combined casualties of war, natural disasters, and homicide. But the problem is that, unlike high-visibility crises, these are silent tragedies that almost never make headlines.
Passing a living wage represents ground zero in King’s effort to fight poverty. Tragically, our nation has lost ground since 1968, when the minimum wage was worth $9.70 in 2008 dollars compared to the woeful $5.85 today. While a living wage will not be a silver bullet or a panacea to ending poverty, it represents a critical first step! A poverty wage shatters the conservative myth that if you work full time you will not be poor. Stagnant wages make a mockery out of the Horatio Alger myth that people can simply lift themselves up by their bootstraps. Low wages force too many parents to work two or three jobs, denying them precious time to raise and love their children. Low wages exacerbate the financial stresses that have become the single greatest cause of divorce in this nation. Recent studies show that poverty even harms a child's brain and social development, dooming many children to misfortune.
But there is hope. In the year 2000, 189 heads of state agreed to the Millennium Development Goals, a set of time-bound, measurable goals which include a commitment to cut in half the 1.2 billion people living on less than a dollar a day by the year 2015. The other goals deal with education, gender equality, health, and the environment. What is striking is that our president and Congress have yet to agree to an equivalent set of goals for our own nation. In 1999, the government of the United Kingdom agreed to a goal of cutting child poverty in half over 10 years. In the first five years the country managed to reduce child poverty by 17 percent.
We have ample evidence of what works. What is missing is the political will. Through the Vote out Poverty campaign Sojourners is mobilizing people of faith to put overcoming poverty at the top of the national political and electoral agenda. We are pressuring presidential and congressional candidates to endorse the goal of cutting domestic poverty in half over the next 10 years and eradicating poverty within a generation.
Join us in holding our political leaders accountable to the measurable goal of cutting poverty in half over 10 years, and help us move a step closer to realizing King's vision of the beloved community. Let's work together, sacrifice together, march together, lobby together, and organize together so that we ensure that all people made in God's image have life and have it more abundantly.
Adam Taylor is director of campaigns and organizing for Sojourners.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
So there are 1.2 billion people living on less than a dollar a day worldwide. But those of us here in the U.S. are supposed to use our energies to ensure that everyone here in the U.S. makes at least $13+ an hour. Hmmmm...
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use our limited resources to ensure that those 1.2 billion get the basics of clean water and basic nutrition before addressing the problems of the relatively (as compared to the 1.2 billion living on a dollar a day) wealthy.
Just some food for thought...
Posted by: Hypothetical... | April 2, 2008 4:38 PM
Adam, you seem to imply that I must agree with MLK on everything in order to agree with him on anything.
Posted by: Gordon | April 2, 2008 4:48 PM
Eight times in the New Testament comes up the refrain, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. How can we live the lifestyles we live and pretend that we love those who have so little.
Posted by: Oak | April 2, 2008 8:55 PM
Adam, thank you for your post. It's far too easy for us to accept the "easy" parts of King's message, and say we never supported segregated lunch counters and restrooms, and to brush aside the parts that challenge us.
Posted by: I and I | April 2, 2008 9:59 PM
"Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use our limited resources to ensure that those 1.2 billion get the basics of clean water and basic nutrition before addressing the problems of the relatively (as compared to the 1.2 billion living on a dollar a day) wealthy."
The priorities of empire and war speak for other choices than either.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | April 2, 2008 11:15 PM
. . . "and he would resist the prosperity gospel that has infiltrated our churches - a message that pimps the gospel and places the crown before the cross."
Just as he would reject the Humanism that has replaced Apostolic truth in "Progressive Christian" ideology, theology, teachings and lifestyle. Want to talk about narcissitic.
Posted by: Apologetic truth still goes | April 3, 2008 8:28 AM
"Adam, you seem to imply that I must agree with MLK on everything in order to agree with him on anything." -Gordon
No Gordon, I believe what Adam is suggesting is that contemporaries love King when he talked about race. We can quote him on it, we love what he did for race relations in our nation, but that is easy. Why? Becuase there no longer should be racism on the massive scale that there was in King's day. Yes it still exists, and some sociologists would say in worse way than before (I might agree).
What Adam then says is we don't talk about MLK's other criticisms of scoial movements like that of a living wage.
For those concerned with the possibility of feeding the world while also introducing living wage into American society, I suggest Jeffrey Sachs' book "The End of Poverty." I believe it is there that you will find some statistics like less than 1% of US money is used on foreign aid, and of that I think half (??) is dedicated to "peace-keeping" (military). Sachs suggests that increasing this 1% even fractionally would do a great deal to help with both of these issues.
Posted by: Still Learning | April 3, 2008 8:36 AM
I hate to break this to you, but we are allowed to pick and choose a bit among writers and speakers. I never cared much for CS Lewis' Narnia series, but his apologetical and theological stuff, like The Screwtape Letters and Mere Christianity is really great, and the sci-fi Out of the Silent Planet isn't bad either.
Okay, so is it really all that shocking that one might be persuaded by the "the King of Montgomery and Selma" while being less persuaded by his case for the living wage?
This is, I would argue, an unfortunate effect of the Christian left's embrace of "prophetic" teaching: it's all about the prophet, not about the message. One can question the ideas of a pundit or commentator. One cannot question a prophet.
But who decides who is a prophet? What if I happen to think Charles Krauthammer is a prophet? Krauthammer and King would disagree on a lot of things, especially the War. Because you would be convinced that King ought not be questioned, and I would argue that Krauthammer cannot be doubted, there would be zero room for rational debate.
Martin Luther King was a perceptive and honorable man. He was not an Oracle. There's pretty much a consensus that he was dead right about segregation, and his use of nonviolence to combat it was simply brilliant. I am less convinced about some of the other causes he championed. This is not sanitizing King, it's accepting him for who he was, and weighing his arguments one-at-a-time.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | April 3, 2008 8:46 AM
Okay, so is it really all that shocking that one might be persuaded by the "the King of Montgomery and Selma" while being less persuaded by his case for the living wage?
Unfortunately, they are connected and in fact represented a paradigm shift in King's thinking. When and where he started race was the issue because the people in his church were "upper-class" blacks, and that was the case all over the South. However, when he ventured North, most notably Chicago, again he began to realize that class also was an issue for blacks there, and in those places where poverty and race were more connected.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 3, 2008 9:06 AM
Rick Nowlin wrote:
Unfortunately, they are connected and in fact represented a paradigm shift in King's thinking. When and where he started race was the issue because the people in his church were "upper-class" blacks, and that was the case all over the South. However, when he ventured North, most notably Chicago, again he began to realize that class also was an issue for blacks there, and in those places where poverty and race were more connected.
Rick, you're stuck in the Oracular Trap: just because these issues were linked in King's mind doesn't mean they're linked the same way, or linked at all, in real life.
Or to look at it another way, what if King's paradigm shift took King from a realistic paradigm to a less realistic one?
You're asking the wrong question. While it's certainly interesting to wonder what King would have thought, what really matters is what's really going on out there. Brilliant man that he was, reality is larger and more complicated than The Mind of King.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | April 3, 2008 9:14 AM
Wolverine - thanks for framing the "prophet" issue for me. I've been turning this over in my mind for some time, and your comment clarified my thinking a bit.
Posted by: Gordon | April 3, 2008 9:52 AM
Or to look at it another way, what if King's paradigm shift took King from a realistic paradigm to a less realistic one?
Beside the point -- having many of his writings at my immediate disposal, I realized that King came to realize that racism had different effects outside the South because it wasn't based on law and thus less obvious. Besides, he had to contend with more radical groups (such as the Nation of Islam in the Northeast and Midwest and the Black Panthers on the West Coast, both of which also served as legitimate social service agencies) that were also bucking the system. In fact Malcolm X wanted to get in on King's action down South, but King refused to meet with him because he knew full well that Malcolm's fiery rhetoric would only not only get people killed but turn even possibly sympathetic whites against the movement. (Malcolm once admitted, "I don't know nothing [sic] about the South.")
That hit home during my time attending school in Atlanta nearly 30 years ago, at a school that integrated peacefully only the year I was born. I noticed considerable militancy among the other black students there, but as I checked things out it turns out that none of those students were from the South. My guess is that the Southern students had already worked all that stuff out.
Bottom line, if King's message was going to penetrate outside the South it had to include the poor, of all races. Remember, he was assassinated in Memphis while supporting santitation workers; that they were almost all black was irrelevant.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 3, 2008 10:53 AM
I don't think it's that unusual that many more people quote Dr. King on race than on the issues of war or a living wage. There are very few people living today who feel Dr. King was wrong on race or that his prescriptions for the problems were wrong.
On the issues of war and poverty, it depends on who Adam's intended audience is. If it's to the population at large, the reason why Dr. King's thoughts on these issues are quoted less often is because there are simply fewer people who agree with Dr. King on whether the Vietnam War was a war worth fighting or whether the problems of poverty and the Washington-based solutions that are often proposed are the correct response. It only makes sense he's less often quoted. This shouldn't be a shock to anyone.
If Adam's asking why people who agree with King on war and the solutions to poverty don't quote him on these issues I can't say I have an answer. Maybe they're not aware of his stances on these issues. In that case, Adam's commentary is a good education effort.
Posted by: Eric | April 3, 2008 1:19 PM
Wolverine,
You can question a prophet all you want. People will question Martin for the next few hundred years. But I think you make the mistake of making it about the prophet and less about the message. The message and the prophet are not the same thing, not even close.
I love King and I agree with non-violence when it comes to massive societal change but I don't embrace non-violence when it comes to someone trying to break into my house. I won't retaliate or seek revenge but I am pretty sure that if someone threatened my family I might act violently to protect them.
See that's part of a critique of non-violence. Critique his message if you have one, but also listen to what King said and see if he is lying.
If he is not then accept what he says and see if there is something you can do to bring universal human values to the masses or not.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 3, 2008 1:22 PM
Seems to me that there's a tendency on the Left to call any sentiment you agree with "prophetic". I'm inclined to see that as a misuse of the term.
Posted by: Gordon | April 3, 2008 1:48 PM
Seems to me that there's a tendency on the Left to call any sentiment you agree with "prophetic". I'm inclined to see that as a misuse of the term.
These days all contemporary prophecy will by definition come from the "left," not the right, because prophecy almost by definition offends the powers that be. When the right speaks about social issues there's always money and/or organization behind it and its pronouncements are make with those sponsors in mind for the specific purpose of gaining authority; thus, the right simply isn't sufficiently independent to be truly prophetic.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 3, 2008 2:14 PM
Gordon,
If that's what you think then it is you who is misusing the term. When we lefties (Christians)use the term prophetic it's generally because we hear the same call on our hearts. It speaks to a larger spiritual revolution that needs to happen in the human hearts. Can the right hear that? Of course why would not they? The Holy Spirit speaks to all, the question is will folks on the right listen? will they stop seeing the agenda as a leftist one?
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 3, 2008 2:20 PM
"These days all contemporary prophecy will by definition come from the "left," not the right . . ."
Even if I grant you that (and I don't), it doesn't mean that every pronouncement from the Left is prophetic.
Posted by: Gordon | April 3, 2008 2:22 PM
"When we lefties (Christians)use the term prophetic it's generally because we hear the same call on our hearts."
History is replete with the delusions of people who heard the call of their hearts.
Posted by: Gordon | April 3, 2008 2:26 PM
Yah like Martin Luther King Jr, Frederick Douglas, Cesar Chavez, the Grimke Sisters, Ghandi, Mother Theresa... I guess you would consider them delusional too.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 3, 2008 2:34 PM
Payshun -
Not at all. I have a great deal of respect for all of them. My point is not that the speaker of "prophecy" is delusional, but that what different people hear with the "call of their hearts" may be quite different - even contradictory - and the fact that you hear something that resonates deeply with you is not presumptive evidence that it is prophetical.
Posted by: Gordon | April 3, 2008 2:40 PM
Gordon,
My point is that what I hear in my heart mirrors what's in the hearts the Grimke Sisters, Mother Theresa, Cesar Chavez, Frederick Douglass, and Martin King.
I read their books, spoke to their disciples and what they say was the same thing I was hearing before so my point is that God speaks. The message itself is prophetic. The hearers become prophetic when the obey the words. I am not saying that everything the left says is prophetic. It's not but when people on the left are speaking prophetically you will see the same messages that the prophets of old spoke. You will see couched in different language but the message will be the same.
Love the poor, protect the weak, feed the hungry, bring justice to those that lack it, help and love your enemies, love yourself. That is the core of prophetic message.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 3, 2008 3:00 PM
"When we lefties (Christians)use the term prophetic it's generally because we hear the same call on our hearts."
That is a flowery way of restating Gordon's point, but I think you add to his criticism. Your assent is sufficient to ascertain prophecy because Christ his political values on your heart. In this narrative, disagreement with your ideology (what you call prophecy) is not merely disagreement, but sin.
Conveniently, and despite Rick's protestations to the contrary, the prophecy espoused here fits neatly within the confines of one of the two major political parties. As such, instead of becoming castoffs, these prophets are the recipients of praise and gifts from media outlets, political leaders, and influential organizations.
Call it Jeremiah-lite... Though I suppose a studio apartment in D.C. can feel like a cistern at times.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 3, 2008 3:01 PM
Gordon:
Adam, you seem to imply that I must agree with MLK on everything in order to agree with him on anything.
I don't think Adam is saying that, but part of MLK's greatness is that he presented a rare challenge and a rare inspiration through the sheer Jesus-rooted consistency of all his thinking. I can't, offhand, think of a recent public figure who even comes close to him in that regard.
And so, if you agree with him on one point, you have to at least consider seriously, in the light of the Spirit of Christ, what he said about other things.
meurig
Posted by: meurig | April 3, 2008 3:01 PM
"That is a flowery way of restating Gordon's point, but I think you add to his criticism. Your assent is sufficient to ascertain prophecy because Christ his political values on your heart. In this narrative, disagreement with your ideology (what you call prophecy) is not merely disagreement, but sin."
Kevin,
You almost were there. But no I don't see you all as sinful for not believing like me. There are times where I have thought that you were clueless, but I don't think that's a place for me to condemn you or other conservatives.
They are not just political values Kevin. You miss the mark when you call them that, stopping unjust wars is right thing to do. I stand against abortion but seek to heal those that had them, that is the right and merciful thing to do. I stand up for the environment because the prophetic role Adam was given before the fall. I stand up for immigrants because the bible taught me too. I stand against legalism because God's kingdom is coming and is here.
Understand that when I call it prophetic it is part of the same tradition the prophets did in the old and new testament, it's in the sufi traditions, it's in Ghandi's tradition... It's much more spiritual than you are describing and yes it does reflect God's heart.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 3, 2008 3:12 PM
Wolvie:
Martin Luther King was a perceptive and honorable man. ... There's pretty much a consensus that he was dead right about segregation, and his use of nonviolence to combat it was simply brilliant.
I wonder if you would have said this at the time. Most white church leaders didn't - at least not for several years. They either didn't see it as such a big issue, or used state-friendly interpretation of Rom 13 to oppose nvda of any sort, or just didn't have the courage to come out in public. By backing both King's theological rejection of segregation and his techniques in opposing and dismantling it, you would have got yourself called all the rude names that your own political tribe use for people who aren't quite as rightwing as they are. Plus a few more...
Wolvie the commie, eh?
meurig
Posted by: meurig | April 3, 2008 3:17 PM
Kevin,
In case you have noticed Daniel got gifts, Joseph was given extensive gifts... There is a long tradition of gratitude for right prophecy just as there is a long tradition of prophets dying.
MLK Jr. earned the Nobel peace prize, so did Ghandi. Mother Theresa also earned one and countless other accolades. Sometimes the world does what is right and actually honors it's prophets and teachers. Sometimes they don't.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 3, 2008 3:18 PM
Some 40 years ago when I heard MLK speak, his words indeed resonated with me - because I had a pre-existing moral framework that I had long-since internalized ("We hold these truths to be self-evident . . ."). I didn't view his words then as prophetic, and I don't now, but I saw the truth of what he was saying. Indeed he was speaking words also spoken by the prophets in the Old Testament, and his words were quite consistent with the New. If that's what prophecy means in the modern world - repeating the words and ideas of the Biblical prophets - then it seems a trivial exercise to call someone a prophet. One might do better to call him an "inspring preacher".
Posted by: Gordon | April 3, 2008 3:31 PM
We are so very wordy but Jesus message was pretty darn clear-it did not distinguish colors either. In fact, some say Jesus was probably dark skinned - maybe even black. The message was love your neighbor as yourself-do unto others as you would do to yourself. Dr. King tried to give the same message. Come on folks, it is not Dr. King or anyone else - it is US-WE have made Jesus into a blonde white man and decided blond white men are the ones who should be in charge of everything. We have missed the message of nonviolence and equality-if we have more than we need share with those who do not. How much more clear and simple could it be-yet we crucify, shoot, or otherwise silence those who speak out for the ones who have no toice. People of color, or people living in poverty really are not like us so they do not really matter. Look around - what have we created that Dr. King and others tried to educate us to fix!
Posted by: Charlotte | April 3, 2008 3:31 PM
Even if I grant you that (and I don't), it doesn't mean that every pronouncement from the Left is prophetic.
Indeed, and I should have said that before. That clairified, the prophetic is by nature anti-status quo. There was a reason King's life was in danger from the outset
In this narrative, disagreement with your ideology (what you call prophecy) is not merely disagreement, but sin.
That's assuming we're talking about ideology here, which in fact we aren't necessarily. I find it interesting that the folks most focused in ideological purity come from the right; trouble is that the right, almost by definition, often focuses on the status quo, which is one reason why establishment Christianity in this country is and has always been in danger of spiritual stagnancy.
Let's take the issue of homosexuality. So-called conservatives for decades have used the issue for ideological purposes masquerading as a concern for cultural rot. However, when the Scripture was being written (and especially in ancient Rome) it was all over the place; the singles pastor of my church has estimated that 70 percent of Rome praticed homosexuality, in large part because infanticide of female children was common. In that context, not engaging in it was prophetic because it went against the grain.
As such, instead of becoming castoffs, these prophets are the recipients of praise and gifts from media outlets, political leaders, and influential organizations.
We'll see how long that lasts. Keep in mind that King and LBJ broke over the Vietnan War and that toward the end of King's life relatively few listened to him -- whites were more focused on opposing the war and blacks were chanting "Burn, Baby, Burn!".
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 3, 2008 3:34 PM
A prophet's primary job is to unite the people with God and to reflect God's heart to the people. What made Mother Theresa so amazing was that she learned the secret of love. If you love the least and love them well you are in effect saving them from damnation and condemnation. As long as the people know that saving comes from God they are saved. I realize conservative evangelicals will argue with that interpretation but I learned it from watching Jesus and the centurion. Jesus healed his servant remarking at his faith and how no one in Israel had showed such faith. Its the same thing imo.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 3, 2008 3:38 PM
Rick -
"That's assuming we're talking about ideology here, which in fact we aren't necessarily."
But that's what you implied when you earlier said,
". . . the prophetic is by nature anti-status quo."
It seems you are saying that any established truth is by definition non-prophetic, and prophecy is just the process of introducing novel ideas.
Posted by: Gordon | April 3, 2008 3:39 PM
Rick Nowlin wrote:
These days all contemporary prophecy will by definition come from the "left," not the right, because prophecy almost by definition offends the powers that be.
And of course, the left does not hold any power of its own.
Posted by: Wolverine | April 3, 2008 3:52 PM
It seems you are saying that any established truth is by definition non-prophetic, and prophecy is just the process of introducing novel ideas.
Just the opposite -- the prophet, at least in the Biblical sense, often notes that the culture/nation he/she is addressing has so strayed from God's truth that it needs to be reminded of it and brought back to it. In other words, the prophet speaks when the status quo is itself wrong, which is why I used the specific example of homosexuality (which I do believe to be wrong). And that is what gets the prophet into trouble.
King said from the outset that segregation was wrong, not simply because of what it did to blacks but also what it did to whites; however, he also extended the discussion to class issues, which is what we're talking about now. He preached a sermon at Dexter Avenue called "How Should a Christian View Communism?" in which he tore apart Marxist ideology but said, in essence, "Ya know ... Marx did have a point."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 3, 2008 3:56 PM
And of course, the left does not hold any power of its own.
Very little, in fact -- contrary to what most conservatives believe -- and especially in evangelical Christendom.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 3, 2008 3:58 PM
"And so, if you agree with him on one point, you have to at least consider seriously, in the light of the Spirit of Christ, what he said about other things."
Sure, but you don't have to embrace them, or embrace Taylor's interpretation of them. I wouldn't emulate King's attitude toward marriage, for example.
"They are not just political values Kevin. "
How you wish government to approach those values is political. In calling a Gandhi, who did not embrace the holy spirit, a prophet, you only reinforce the point that your definition of prophecy is political.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 3, 2008 4:08 PM
OK, RIck, I get your point.
Seems to me then that what the Left calls "prophecy" is just what I would call "good preaching".
Posted by: Gordon | April 3, 2008 4:11 PM
In calling a Gandhi, who did not embrace the holy spirit, a prophet, you only reinforce the point that your definition of prophecy is political.
Given the context of the remarks you responded to, that doesn't make any sense. Gandhi did know and study the Bible but ended up rejecting the church because of its hypcrisy in racial issues (he had studied law in South Africa before apartheid was officially codified). Besides, spritual change at times will produce political results -- just like whom and what we're talking about now.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 3, 2008 4:17 PM
Seems to me then that what the Left calls "prophecy" is just what I would call "good preaching".
It can be but isn't limited to that. In fact, I would say that the church's presence in this world should be prophetic.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 3, 2008 4:19 PM
"That's assuming we're talking about ideology here, which iI find it interesting that the folks most focused in ideological purity"
I didn't say anything about ideological purity. I was simply making the point that you are not transcending ideology the way you think you are. Calling your ideology prophecy doesn't make it so.
"trouble is that the right, almost by definition, often focuses on the status quo,"
Most conservatives would argue for radical changes to the status quo re: education, abortion property rights, and pork spending to name just a few issues. But you don't call such advocacy prophetic because you disagree with it.
"Very little, in fact "
Except for unions, academia, lawyers, the house and the senate...
"We'll see how long that lasts. "
I think it will last for quite awhile. I don't see Adam Taylor getting persecuted for anything he said above. I bet you he attends party's where literally dozens of people nod in agreement with everything he has to say. And I'm willing to bet it will be the same in twenty years, though he might be partying a little less.
Which is fine. He shouldn't be persecuted for believing what he believes. This is America.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 3, 2008 4:19 PM
Well, having worked in right-wing ministries for about 20 years, I can assure you that many I worked with loved the poor and were not getting any government payouts. They lived below the poverty line themselves, but always "gave to anyone that asked" and proactively to any need they saw. They are "of the right" because they agree more on certain sins.
I was born in 63 -- so I was little when King was speaking. I was in first grade when school was dismissed because he'd been shot. I do remember the adults in my Conservative Baptist church talking about Garbage men "living" on 10 cents a day -- and they all that was horrible.
The thought of integration scared them to death, but they all felt anyone working for a living should be able to afford indoor plumbing.
My school observed Martin Luther King's birthday from then on -- and I heard a lot about what he said, but they never mentioned the wage thing. I remember kids talking about him -- that he just started a bunch of riots -- but even then teachers didn't really speak up for him, and we had a very integrated school staff. Our teachers have a great opportunity every year to teach his message, but I think they fail miserably. I'm not slamming teachers here -- I just think it's an easy opening to keep King's message alive.
Posted by: frankie | April 3, 2008 4:21 PM
Rick -
"I would say that the church's presence in this world should be prophetic."
I'm not at all sure I would agree with that, at least insofar as I (think I) understand your use of the term. I agree the Church should speak the word of God as contained in the old and new testaments, and should call us to repentance when we transgress. I agree the church should challenge us to live as Christ said we should. When I was a member of a mainline church, that was the definition of prophecy they used. I'm not sure I agree these days that it's a good definition. The problem I have is that when such things are defined as prophecy rather than just preaching, any attractive idea is presented as "prophecy" when it might just be another nice idea (and attractive ideas are not always good ones). I prefer to listen to the preaching as it comes, then make up my mind whether it is truly something I should apply, or whether it is just some preacher's (or politician's) opinion.
Posted by: Gordon | April 3, 2008 4:27 PM
I was simply making the point that you are not transcending ideology the way you think you are. Calling your ideology prophecy doesn't make it so.
Calling prophecy mere dressed-up ideology doesn't make that so, either.
Most conservatives would argue for radical changes to the status quo re: education, abortion property rights, and pork spending to name just a few issues. But you don't call such advocacy prophetic because you disagree with it.
Whether I personally agree with it has nothing to do with it -- in fact, they would be the primary beneficiaries of such change, and for that reason alone it's certainly not prophetic because God doesn't bless selfish motives.
I don't see Adam Taylor getting persecuted for anything he said above.
If he wrote this message 20 to 25 years ago in an evangelical church that was mostly white, I guarantee you he wouldn't have been taken seriously -- he would have been either ignored, laughed at or run out. He certainly wouldn't get on Christian television even now.
I prefer to listen to the preaching as it comes, then make up my mind whether it is truly something I should apply, or whether it is just some preacher's (or politician's) opinion.
Two things about that.
One, you have to be well-grounded in the Word of God in order to determine what's kosher and what's not, and of course that includes personal study. You should be willing to challenge any preacher on his message if it deviates from it (and a smart preacher will welcome correction if needed).
Two, prophecy and preaching are actually two different things. I'm not a preacher, but I have acted and spoken prophetically for much of my life, especially when it came to issues of race (I've mentioned that on other threads, so I won't here). In fact, most of your Biblical prophets weren't part of the ecclestiastical pipeline, which is why their messages were often at the time ignored or denounced as invalid.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 3, 2008 4:54 PM
"One, you have to be well-grounded in the Word of God in order to determine what's kosher and what's not, and of course that includes personal study."
Agreed. I find it astonishing that so many in the church don't seem to be (imo, of course).
As to whether prophecy and preaching are different things - I quite agree, and that is my point. If you are going to claim to "speak prophetically", then you need to give me some idea how to distinguish what you say as prophecy from ordinary political (or moral) discourse.
Posted by: Gordon | April 3, 2008 5:05 PM
God used Ghandi regardless of his rejection of the church. The truths he spoke were universal spiritually and politically. it doesn't mean that it's only political.
Here are some quotes from Gandhi.
As long as you derive inner help and comfort from anything, keep it.
Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress.
Mahatma Gandhi
One needs to be slow to form convictions, but once formed they must be defended against the heaviest odds.
Mahatma Gandhi
The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.
Mahatma Gandhi
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?
Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.
God can speak truth to power thru anyone, Jew or Greek, Christian or not. The idea that God limits truth telling to Christians is ludicrous.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 3, 2008 5:12 PM
Gordon,
Actually you have to study that for yourself. It's your relationship with God, not mine.
here's another Gandhi quote about our savior.
A man who was completely innocent, offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies, and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act.
Mohandas Gandhi
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 3, 2008 5:14 PM
Gandhi's respect for Jesus doesn't make him a prophet. Nor does the fact that he often said wise things. So did Mark Twain. If you mean that he said things you find agreeable and that makes him a prophet, then you establish my earlier point: the Left defines as prophecy any sentiment with which they agree.
Posted by: Gordon | April 3, 2008 5:28 PM
If you are going to claim to "speak prophetically", then you need to give me some idea how to distinguish what you say as prophecy from ordinary political (or moral) discourse.
You can't most of the time, and that's the reason why prophecy generally isn't recognized as truth until years, or even decades, down the road.
One example of what I'm talking about: I was playing basketball with a few other guys, mostly white conservatives, back in 2000; at the end of the evening after one session a couple of weeks before Christmas, one of them was exulting that the SCOTUS decided in George W. Bush's favor. I responded, "I voted for Gore." Since he assumed correctly that I was a fellow Christian he looked puzzled and responded, "You must know something I don't know" -- which was true, but no way could I have explained that to him then in a way he would have understood it.
This is not to say that I wouldn't vote for a conservative Republican, though I never have to date -- today I will vote for the person I believe is best able to run the country, ideology be damned. At that time, however, I really felt that Bush and what he represented would eventually mean disaster for this country.
Getting back on topic, we as a nation only in hindsight see that King was right. When he was walking the earth his message was not popular, not even among blacks and generally not outside the South. And that's why Taylor's piece was right on the money.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 3, 2008 5:33 PM
Gordon
No, My earlier point is that Gandhi did not just say things that were agreeable. What made him a prophet was the fact that he did love Jesus and wanted God's perfect love shown to all people. That's prophetic and not what you said at all.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 3, 2008 5:45 PM
"You can't most of the time, and that's the reason why prophecy generally isn't recognized as truth until years, or even decades, down the road.
. . .
we as a nation only in hindsight see that King was right."
I will trust you, then to not claim that anything Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jim Wallis, etc., etc., says is prophetic, until many years have passed.
Many of us saw that much of what MLK said was right. After all, his words brought about significant changes. He was a great preacher.
As to predicting that GWB would be a disaster - even if I were to grant that you are right, that's hardly prophetic: just about every supporter of Algore I knew back then told me the same thing.
Posted by: Gordon | April 3, 2008 5:47 PM
I will trust you, then to not claim that anything Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jim Wallis, etc., etc., says is prophetic, until many years have passed.
The jury is out on Obama and Hillary, to be sure. But Wallis has been out there since the 1970s, and he has a track record.
As to predicting that GWB would be a disaster - even if I were to grant that you are right, that's hardly prophetic: just about every supporter of Algore I knew back then told me the same thing.
But not for the same reasons, I grant you that -- most of them were focused on ideology. Nothing, in my view, in his background that I was able to detect, made him fit to be the leader of the free world, and I'd never felt that before.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 3, 2008 5:53 PM
"Nothing, in my view, in his background that I was able to detect, made him fit to be the leader of the free world, and I'd never felt that before"
Well, then - what would have qualified him to be the leader of the free world?
That doesn't sound prophetic - it sounds like a rational conclusion based on your interpretation of the facts.
Posted by: Gordon | April 3, 2008 5:57 PM
That doesn't sound prophetic - it sounds like a rational conclusion based on your interpretation of the facts.
I would have never been able to explain that to that fellow hoopster, who I learned during that conversation was more focused on ideology. Only in that context would it be considered prophetic. (That's why we agree that not everything is prophetic just because we may think it is.)
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 3, 2008 6:04 PM
You can be a prophet without being God's prophet.
Those who tell some truths and some falsehoods are actually very dangerous. Maybe even more dangerous than a George W. Bush. No one will quote him in a good way down the line. It's those in between folks -- that say some really true things and some really false things that you have to worry about.
They generally end up leading cults or even political movements.
Posted by: frankie | April 3, 2008 7:06 PM
Frankie -
You seem to be saying that in order to be viewed as a prophet, one must always be right. Then if I agree with MLK's point of view about race, but disagree with his view on the war in Vietnam, I would reject him as a prophet.
I'm comfortable with that. He was a great preacher, but like all preachers, he sometimes went off the deep end.
Posted by: Gordon | April 3, 2008 7:24 PM
Frankie,
I tell you right now that George Bush Jr. is far more dangerous than most spiritual cultists out there.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 3, 2008 7:41 PM
Then if I agree with MLK's point of view about race, but disagree with his view on the war in Vietnam, I would reject him as a prophet.
As I said, prophecy is not often recognized as truth until time passes and prophets are usually rejected in their time. I was born during Vietnam so I didn't understand the issues then but, from what I since have learned, going there proved a mistake.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 3, 2008 8:10 PM
thanks for the article adam.
truth speeking is prophetic. calling it prophetic casts it in a spiritual light.
ghandi spoke of truth as god. jesus was the word made flesh. before creation the word was with and was god.
no one has a corner or a monopoly on truth. nor should the market of truth ever be box-marketed. i can't believe we're still talking about the right and left - even using those dinosouric terms.
the spectrum must be evaporated from linear 2D and consider 3D - 4D (time - historical context is a necessary layer) - maybe 5D - cultural/sociological influences/setting etc...
ghandi and king and jesus and arundhati roy - scholars - know that it's necessary to gather truth in breadth as well as depth and height.
truth is transcendent. i recently read from the ICHING - 'standing on the tail of a tiger - it does not bite - success'
that the tiger - the one in power - does not retaliate when it's tail is inconvenienced sounds like 'love your enemies'. the non-biting tiger (a culturally significant choice) symbolizes something we learn from jesus (a choice significant to jesus culture). truth and truth-speaking must consider aesthetics and the vast creativity with which humanity attempts to communicate things. ideology is something but language/meaning/interpretation isn't concrete.
we can't afford to wait 40 yrs to find out who gets recognition/praise. that doesn't even matter. our world/brothers/sisters matters now; urgently in need of healing and renewing of minds.
personally, i've had to get creative with my theology; basically having confronted it was detrimental/sabatoging by attempting to contain what the words 'love' and 'truth' attempt to label/identify.
we must admit that the united-statesian way of life (whatever that means - heck it's as broad as the life experiences of those within these funny metaphysical geo-political power (d)illusions) is and was founded upon a rhetoric of 'freedom' and 'prosperity' coming at the tragic expense of others.
did columbus ever take time to learn arawak before going forth with his/spains/'satan's/god's agenda? those who've never recieved due inclusion in the dialogue generated by those conquerering are oppressed in the absolutest sense. the resulting dialogue (having not seen it fit or necessary to ask someone else what they think) is unbalanced and inherently bigotted (if deviant voices are silenced they are stripped/dehumanized of the foremost right that is speech).
the conquerers - i mean colonists - no - i mean conquerers - couldn't agree on whether or not to ban slavery before going to revolutionary war against britain who they propogandized as an oppressor. why didn't a revolution deeply invested in the tradgedy that was the slave trade (hardly an 'issue' for those it effected for centuries) happen so that the country may have been birthed a step closer to consistency to the 'bill of rights', to universal freedom of religion instead of freedom for us to practice our empire-dogma. but the native americans weren't in the philly capital buildings...
liberty and freedom (as used so often towards economic terms) always warrant victimization - someone who prospers prospers at the capitalized upon. is the freedom and love and truth and 'way' that the bible talks about so poisened by the arrogance/supremecy & competition that mass culture breed/manufacture that so many can go around quoting it stroking percieved authority/power yet so inconsistantly and continuually unchecked? i kinda thought it was about human rights and equality - the source of such rhetoric i accept as universal rather than dominant/minority. as such, the bible (as a slice of truth) crushes us.
i'm thankful for the praxis of truth-force - the satyagraha of nonviolence. it's painful to hear a perspective that contends that my entire socialization was flawed but/and urges - in 'love' - that complicity to that sick and twisted MOUNTAIN outside and within - is simply not ever acceptable.
without challenge we continue pertetuating oppression escpecially in the subtlest suggestion that we are just and righteous. so, now - we dig and dwell in the earth, in our souls, and underground. the truth is always too painful for the majority/masses to hear let alone accept (malcolm, jeremiah wright, dorothy day as cases in point).
the shephards are among the sheep; to heade the sheep that our eyes clothe as wolves may lead us to become more like wolves ourselves. the empires (national, spiritual, political) have no clothes.
i'm thankful to be sojourning with ya'll.
Posted by: amos | April 3, 2008 9:28 PM
"Gandhi, who did not embrace the holy spirit"
At least not YOUR holy spirit. Who is the Holy Spirit?
Conservatives, by nature, can have no prophet but themselves. Nations do not sin, powers are random assemblages of individuals and economics is ruled by one sovereign "invisible hand". What would a conservative prophet say? "Let my people go from these burdensome regulation and taxes"? "Set my people free from the IRS"? "I have a dream that we can someday see the promised land of an illegal immigrant free nation"? "O America, return to your white, male landowner covenant of citizenship"?
The conservatives are their own "prophets".
I've heard others define prophecy as "speaking truth to power". By that definition Ghandi, King, Mother Theresa, Jeremiah Wright, Tibetan monks and the Chinese house churches even, dare we say it?, Palastinian leaders "embrace the Holy Spirit". The voice is not always timid and submissive.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 3, 2008 9:32 PM
Wow, Amos, that was quite a dissertation. It will take me a while to digest it all.
Posted by: Gordon | April 3, 2008 9:48 PM
"The jury is out on Obama and Hillary, to be sure. But Wallis has been out there since the 1970s, and he has a track record."
What did he say in the 70s that was prophetic? I'd be interested in some quotes.
"Conservatives, by nature, can have no prophet but themselves."
Can you unpack his a little?
"Nations do not sin,"
Correct.
"powers are random assemblages"
Huh?
"economics is ruled by one sovereign "invisible hand". "
Yes. Do you know what the invisible hand represents, and how it (at least theoretically) impacts the economy?
"What would a conservative prophet say?"
Repent?
""Let my people go from these burdensome regulation and taxes"? "
To some degree, yes. Many oppressive governments garner influence through excessive taxation. Not sure that's the case in America, but we should be careful not to head in that direction.
""I have a dream that we can someday see the promised land of an illegal immigrant free nation"?"
Perhaps not, but they wouldn't ask for a nation in which NCAA sports feature equal gender representation either. In other words, some issues are merely political.
"The conservatives are their own "prophets"."
You said that already.
"I've heard others define prophecy as "speaking truth to power". "
An inadequate definition. Prophecy requires more than factual accuracy.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 4, 2008 2:07 AM
What did he say in the 70s that was prophetic?
Prophecy in the broader sense is something you do, not just something you say. That he lives and ministers in one of the worst sections of D.C. should be sufficient, because prophecy tries to show the difference.
In "God's Politics," however, he mentioned the investigative piece Sojo published in 1976 about the attempting marrying of Christian activism to a conservative ideological agenda -- that of course raised the hackles of the late Bill Bright, who founded Campus Crusade. It was the concept of "This is where things might go if ...", and can anyone argue with what happened?
"Nations do not sin,"
Correct.
False, Kevin. I wouldn't even be here were it not for national sin.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 4, 2008 8:58 AM
P--
I'm the first one to agree that Bush is dangerous.
I personally think he, and many before him, tell the Religious Right that they were all on the same page when they were not. The worst part is that the Religious Right believes them.
Gordon --
I'm not saying we agree with everything a prophet says. Prophets usually say more truth than we can understand at the time.
I'm saying that just because someone says things that are profoundly true doesn't make them a prophet. Hey, Dr. Phil says a lot of good things, but I wouldn't call him a prophet.
Many leaders in history have said truthful things, but then used their power to ruin their nations. Jim Jones did what he did just to make history. His followers should have noticed how his teachings changed, but they didn't.
Pastor Jim--
Conservative prophets speak out against sin -- against unborn babies, against sex outside of marriage, addictions, greed, anything they see as God's law. They aren't the same causes you speak out against, but the bulk of it needs to be said just the same.
Posted by: frankie | April 4, 2008 11:54 AM
Yeah, Frankie - I was being flip. Bad habit of mine.
That saying something that is profoundly true does not make one a prophet is an important point. The Left as well as the Right have these buzzwords that obfuscate, and leftist use of the word "prophecy" is a case in point. I find myself sometimes in the odd position of agreeing with their admiration for some "prophet" or other, while being irked at the emotional blackmail implied by their use of the term.
Posted by: Gordon | April 4, 2008 12:11 PM
The only context I believe that prophecy can exist is that a prophetic utterance or behavior must be truly consistently independent of any larger organizational structure. One reason I discount conservative "prophets" is that they tend to be bullies, setting up strawmen and identifying scapegoats that generally don't fight back (because they don't know until after the fact that someone's hating on them) for the express purpose of setting themselves up as big shots. It's similar to a Goliath going after a David to establish himself as a player.
When King spoke out against the Vietnam War he alienated a bunch of people -- LBJ, most obviously, but also right-wing Northerners who accused him of being a closet Communist and civil-rights warriors who wanted him to stay "on message."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 4, 2008 1:13 PM
Nations don't sin.
Kevin,
Have you read Amos, Revelation, Ezekiel, Exodus...? They all say something different.
Gordon,
It's only emotional blackmail if you believe in it. It doesn't have to be that's your choice.
Amos,
I agree with almost everything you said. The labels of right and left should die, I see that my label needs to die too. Thanks for your post.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 4, 2008 1:14 PM
What makes a prophet?
Someone that is more connected to God's suffering and joy than their own or their nation's.
Someone that seeks to see freedom, love, joy and hope for all but isn't afraid to call judgement when sin has overfilled the mystical "cup."
Someone that will tell the truth even when it's hard.
An intimate connection to the Holy Spirit or a vessel in which the Holy Spirit can speak through.
Someone for whom God speaks regularly.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 4, 2008 1:18 PM
Frankie: Agreed. The one of the many dangers of political polarization is that it can prevent agreement on moral issues that we should agree on. The Cons/Libs have Christians focused on demonizing each others' positions so that the prophetic word is muted.
So who are your prophets Kevin, Frankie, Gordon, et. al.?
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 4, 2008 1:27 PM
Oddly -- George Verwer comes to mind as a prophet. He's a little hokey -- he sold all his wedding gifts to do a mission trip to Mexico. He's the founder of Operation Mobilization. They have two ships that take Christian books all over the world, among other things.
If you ever hear him speak -- his message is pretty harsh -- get off your butt and do something for God. But he tells the complacent how many people are dying all over the world without Christ and that they can do something about it. He points out the sin of not doing anything about the Great Commission. He says any Christian can pray for another country -- and if you're not doing it for like an hour a day you're priorities are screwed up.
Again, it seems a little hokey -- but we could change the world if we prayed seriously for it.
Posted by: frankie | April 4, 2008 2:41 PM
"Have you read Amos, Revelation, Ezekiel, Exodus...? "
This argument has been restated in essentially the same way dozens, if not hundreds of times on this blog, and it has been addressed in equal measure. It simply does not make sense to equate a nation state to God's chosen people. You are conflating ideas of what constitutes a nation.
"So who are your prophets Kevin, Frankie, Gordon, et. al.?"
My pastor would be one.
"Prophecy in the broader sense is something you do,"
What did Jim Wallis do in the 1970s that was prophetic.
"I wouldn't even be here were it not for national sin."
You wouldn't be here were it not for the sins of many individuals. And nobody would be here were it not for the sin of Adam. This is not an argument for the concept of national sin.
"The only context I believe that prophecy can exist is that a prophetic utterance or behavior must be truly consistently independent of any larger organizational structure."
This is a definition of your invention, not the Bible's.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 4, 2008 7:15 PM
"You are conflating ideas of what constitutes a nation."
You obviously have not read it because if you had then you would see that God judged a lot of different nations ranging from the Babylonians to the Egyptians to eventually every single nation. Your argument against recognizing corporate judgement is weak and has no scriptural basis what so ever. God judges nations whether they are his chosen people or not.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 4, 2008 8:54 PM
One more quick question if God did not judge nations then what happened to the Philistines? That entire nation faced God's wrath and were completely wiped out.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 4, 2008 8:56 PM
"So who are your prophets Kevin, Frankie, Gordon, et. al.?"
I prefer not to use the term. There is one branch of theology that even denies it's possible in the post-Apostolic age. It's not an idea I personally endorse, but I have some sympathy with its outlook. The other extreme is Montanism, which unfortunately seems to be increasingly popular in the Protestant church these days.
I think we can appreciate visionary preachers of any political persuasion when they have something important to say. Elevating them to the status of "prophet" adds nothing to the discourse. Perhaps there really are prophets in the modern church, but I suspect they are veyr rare.
Posted by: Gordon | April 4, 2008 10:01 PM
I think we can appreciate visionary preachers of any political persuasion when they have something important to say. Elevating them to the status of "prophet" adds nothing to the discourse.
But that's the point -- they're usually not appreciated until after they're gone, and this is one case. Anyway, not all prophets are preachers as we understand things; there is actually a spiritual gift of prophecy that the apostle Paul said he wished everyone had. (Years ago I realized that I also had that gift.)
You are right, however, in saying that prophets are rare, and it's not something you want to be unless God calls you (because of all the abuse and rejection prophets experience). That said, because of that responsibility a prophet should not speak unless it's absolutely necessary and forced into it.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 4, 2008 11:20 PM
"But that's the point -- they're usually not appreciated until after they're gone, and this is one case. "
Have you forgotten MLK's Nobel Peace Prize, awarded in 1964?
Posted by: Gordon | April 4, 2008 11:27 PM
Kevin: Care to post a you tube link to your prophet?
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 4, 2008 11:52 PM
Have you forgotten MLK's Nobel Peace Prize, awarded in 1964?
I said usually, and even at that he still had his critics -- including one Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 5, 2008 8:22 AM
"I think we can appreciate visionary preachers of any political persuasion when they have something important to say. Elevating them to the status of "prophet" adds nothing to the discourse. Perhaps there really are prophets in the modern church, but I suspect they are veyr rare."
Not as rare as you might think. There are more prophets then one might think especially depending on the church or denomination. Pentecostals seem to have more than most but there are quite a few orthodox and catholic prophets.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 5, 2008 6:19 PM
"There are more prophets then one might think especially depending on the church or denomination. Pentecostals seem to have more than most . . ."
See my comment above on Montanism
Posted by: Gordon | April 6, 2008 11:57 AM
Calling Pentecostals Montanists is a bit of stretch. It's not the same thing even though you might see similar practices among Montanists and other branches of the Christian tree.
They would not claim that their prophetic gifts and utterances supersede the bible or the collective moving of the spirit throughout history. Actually here is a link that talks about one of their movements within the church. The funny thing is that the most visible charismatics are conservative republicans.
http://www.elijahhouse.org/index.php
There are a lot of ministries like that one.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 6, 2008 4:29 PM
"The funny thing is that the most visible charismatics are conservative republicans."
Yeah, even conservative Republicans can go astray.
Posted by: Gordon | April 6, 2008 6:32 PM
Gordon,
Was that a joke?
I did not realize they had gone astray, a little underdeveloped maybe but they are still Christians.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 6, 2008 9:15 PM
Payshun - Yeah, it was a joke.
I do think the Pentecostals are Montanists, but I respect them.
Posted by: Gordon | April 6, 2008 10:01 PM
Maybe I'm just grouchy, but in this narcissistic age I would prefer that people just simply not use the term prophet to describe a leader. Simply debate and discuss whether the leader's views and actions are right or wrong. The word "prophet" just elevates the person over the message and turns movements into personality cults.
There weren't focus groups, marketing gurus and hundreds of nonstop cable channels in the days of Isaiah. Our society can't handle calling somebody a prophet.
Posted by: I and I | April 7, 2008 11:59 AM
Gordon,
Yah don't you wish there were smilicons or something. Anywho, I I can see your point but I think prophets are needed in America more than ever. We have lost so much by downplaying the term. How often do we even listen to the message when the prophet comes? Most of us usually ignore the message until something tragic happens and even then we (I) usually ignore it for years until I grow into it.
I think if we focus on the message then great, we are heeding part of what a prophet is there to teach. The other part is to examine if some of their individual spiritual practice will bring us closer to God.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 7, 2008 1:18 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?