As I was watching this video of Chris LaTondresse of RecoveringEvangelical.com, I realized that the post-RR (religious right) Evangelicals are just as superficial in their biblical exegesis as their parents (if this guy speaks for the whole movement):LaTondresse states that there are more Bible verses dealing with the poor than there are dealing with homosexuality and abortion, so why not support those who are promising to do something about the issue that gets more Bible verses. Um…so, whatever subject gets the most press wins? That’s the argument? But what he doesn’t deal with is what God is saying about the poor. Is it ever a nation’s duty to provide for the needs of the poor worldwide? Where is the biblical mandate for a nation to feed the poor of another nation? Isn’t it the job of each nation to provide for it’s own poor? How can we provide for the needs of the poor in nations that are run by dictators? How can we help the poor in North Korea? Or in Zimbabwe? How can we help the poor when the food we send is confiscated and never reaches those it was intended to help? We’ve spent billions of dollars helping the poor in this country and in other countries, how much more does he want us to spend? And is throwing money at the problem really the biblical solution? How can we train people to feed themselves worldwide and is that our job? Where is the biblical mandate for that?But more importantly, LaTondresse doesn’t seem to get that when God exhorted Israel to care for the widows, orphans, aliens, poor and oppressed, he was telling them to take care of those who are usually mistreated by society, “the least of these.” I would think that the “least of these” would include helpless babies in the womb who are mistreated in our society because they are inconvenient, just as the widows and orphans were inconvenient for Israel. Reading through the prophets, it’s clear that Israel failed in their duty to protect those who were the weakest members of society and they were judged because of it. Those who are willing to throw the unborn under the bus may want to read through the prophets and see what God had to say about those who ignored the plight of the oppressed, it may give them pause in being as callous as LaTondresse who warned the Republicans to drop abortion as an issue if they want to attract the post-RR Evangelicals. (I guess leaving those of us who are interested in helping the “least of these” with no party to support.) LaTondresse also implies that the post-RR Evangelicals have traded the poor for the unborn because they are more connected to the poor, it’s a global world after all and they’ve met them. Maybe it’s time the crisis pregnancy centers updated their presence on the Internet. Maybe they should have a womb-cam so that the web-savvy Evangelicals can develop a connection with the unborn and care about their plight.(via)
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted December 29, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Is Chris Latondresse and his so called “Recovering Evangelicals” “The New Face of the Evangelical movement”? No. It appears to be one face with a following and it doesn’t include true Christian Evangelicals only the so called “Recovering Evangelicals”, who ever they are. Lets make sure we don’t confuse the two. What are they recovering from, anyway?
What Chris Latondresse of the “Recovering Evangelicals” had to say in the Fox News video is sheer foolishness. He stated that there are more scriptures in the bible about the poor than there are about homosexuality and abortion and so therefore we need to focus on the poor not the other two issues. What kind of heresy is this? True, we as Christians need to move from our complacency to doing more for the poor. But, are we to ignore the scriptures about homosexuality (and abortion issues) because there are less of them in the bible than about the poor? Do the more appearing scriptures in the Word cancel out the ones that appear less? Isn’t ALL of God’s Word inspired by Him? Are we to select which scriptures we want to believe and obey and ignore the others? If he wants to help the poor so much, than perhaps he should obey the Lord by selling his possessions and give to the poor as our Lord suggested in the Word.
He stated that the homosexuality and abortion issues are old issues and no longer need to be addressed. OLD ISSUES? No, they are issues that are still here and we need to continue to deal with them, not ignore them and throw them aside as a child would an old, boring toy and want a new toy to play with. Perhaps Mr. Latondresse needs to mature a little more before he presents himself as someone who knows what he is talking about and so he doesn’t mislead others.
Isn’t it the Christians responsibility to take care of the poor, not the government? Any one who would vote for and believes promises to take care of the poor, which are mainly for political advancement anyway, shows how ignorant and naive they really are. Since Mr.Latondresse voted as he did, it appears then, that he is wanting homosexuality to be taught as truth in our schools leading little ones astray. What did the Lord say would be better for those who do that? A mill stone hung around their neck and throne into the sea? And what about all the crying dear babies who suffer through the abortion process not to mention ending their lives? And Latondresse voted for that too??
No, this new Recovering Evangelicals is NOT the voice of Christian Evangelicals. Don’t even think it. They are misguided and mislead.
posted December 30, 2008 at 2:05 am
Interesting that starving people should be fed on the basis of nationalistic nonsense. One great reason to imagine there’s no countries…..
posted December 30, 2008 at 2:23 am
This LaTondresse realizes that feeding the poor is everybody’s business and that homosexuality and abortions nobody’s business. That’s a big difference. The religious right isn’t just against abortions, they’re against any form contraception too. That’s because they think that every sex act must be open for procreation. If that’s the way they want to live they can. But they have no business demanding that others live that way.
posted December 30, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Can’t we be against abortion without being fixated on it?
I guess not. Some people are just negative only. God made them way, and She must have known what She was doing.
posted December 31, 2008 at 8:49 am
Murder only gets several mentions as a prohibition…I guess that should be placed as a very low priority of concern if not ignored as an “old issue”. The name “Chris LaTondresse” can now be considered a synonym for “clown”.
Next Please!
posted January 1, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I found this startling …
Isn’t it the job of each nation to provide for it’s own poor? How can we provide for the needs of the poor in nations that are run by dictators? How can we help the poor in North Korea? Or in Zimbabwe? How can we help the poor when the food we send is confiscated and never reaches those it was intended to help? We’ve spent billions of dollars helping the poor in this country and in other countries, how much more does he want us to spend? And is throwing money at the problem really the biblical solution? How can we train people to feed themselves worldwide and is that our job? Where is the biblical mandate for that?
So, would this apply to missionaries, too? Each nation responsible for its own?
I think Christians live beyond national boundaries … the boundary-bound images of the OT are best read through the boundary-less words of Jesus.
If nationalism is the great besetting sin of the world, then God’s love for the world is the only antidote.
Doctors without borders? How about Christians?
posted January 1, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Oh but Michele isn’t a “regular” Christian, Tom. She’s a “Reformed” Christian, the original bootstrappers – those who believe there is a pre-ordained elect, and that anyoen who isn’t elect deserves not even a glance from their sour visages. This is “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” territory.
No room for compassion, and everyone’s personal issues are absolutely their business.
How else would they know toward whom they should focus their disdain and contempt?
So silly, isn’t it?
posted January 4, 2009 at 8:30 am
Why does this segment begin with footage of Egan and Benedict at prayer? Fox News showing its ignorance of who’s an Evangelical? … anyway …
The religious right isn’t just against abortions, they’re against any form contraception too. That’s because they think that every sex act must be open for procreation.
I don’t think that’s the case.
LaTondresse is caught up in the letter of the law and not the spirit … Matt. 23:23 – “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.