ADVERTISEMENT

Sarah Sanders bugs the Hell out of me, or maybe the Heaven....

DougS

Hall of Famer
May 29, 2001
17,075
716
113
I posted (on Facebook) about Sarah Sanders the other day and it resulted in a good conversation with a friend from work. This got me to thinking a bit, as I try to put a finger on what it is about her that bugs me so much. I don't like the way she treats the press corps, but that is nothing new. I didn't like the four people who held that job before her very much either, and they were all men.

I don't like the way she flat out lies for the President, but that is her job. As I said the other day, it is the job of the Press Secretary to spin bull shit into gold. In her case, that's about all she gets to do.

It boils down, to me, to the fact that we both claim the same faith.

Having grown up in my faith in an authoritarian structure I can see why some might say that it is her job to show respect to the government. I get that. I really do. This is what is behind her admonition about questioning General Kelly.

But the lying... Does showing respect mean lying for the government?

Did John the Baptist hold his tongue before Herod because he did not want to show disrespect?

Did the Old Testament prophets? Did Isaiah? Did Moses?

The religious right backed this godless man for one reason. He promised them conservative Supreme Court Justices. Lots of them. Enough to alter the rulings of the Court for decades. It does not matter whom he hurts, as long as that precious prize is delivered. I get that too.

But how does one accept the lying.... the non stop lying?

The answer is, because they... and that includes me.... didn't just start doing it.

Have you ever hung out with a large group of mostly like minded people? The Evangelical church is a very large group of such. And when you start with the premise that a single Book is authoritative in every aspect of your life, and surround yourself with people who read it for you and tell you what it means, you better get in line and sing the same tune.

If you don't you aren't saved and you're going to Hell.

So you agree. The group says the Holy Spirit is working in their lives. You say it is working in yours. If it isn't, something is wrong and you aren't saved and you're going to Hell. You may not be aware of how the Spirit is working, but you take it on faith that it is, and announce it with great joy. Next to you, someone else shares that they are having the same experience. Someone else behind you fidgets uncomfortably.

Hallelujah. We are all saved and none of us are going to Hell.

The world is young. It was created in seven literal days. I believe it (no I don't. Shut up! Shut up! Do you want to not be saved and go to Hell? I BELIEVE IT). (Ahh.... better... and I feel the Spirit)

And so we lie to ourselves. The Bible never contradicts itself. (What about Judas dying two different ways? Shut up! Shut up! Do you want to not be saved and go to Hell? I BELIEVE IT).

And we tell ourselves we are not lying to ourselves, just walking by faith. We train ourselves to accept our lies as truth.

Make no mistake. I believe Jesus is the Son of God and all that goes with it. But I know why there are so few prophets willing to speak truth to power coming out of the evangelical movement these days.
 
I posted (on Facebook) about Sarah Sanders the other day and it resulted in a good conversation with a friend from work. This got me to thinking a bit, as I try to put a finger on what it is about her that bugs me so much. I don't like the way she treats the press corps, but that is nothing new. I didn't like the four people who held that job before her very much either, and they were all men.

I don't like the way she flat out lies for the President, but that is her job. As I said the other day, it is the job of the Press Secretary to spin bull shit into gold. In her case, that's about all she gets to do.

It boils down, to me, to the fact that we both claim the same faith.

Having grown up in my faith in an authoritarian structure I can see why some might say that it is her job to show respect to the government. I get that. I really do. This is what is behind her admonition about questioning General Kelly.

But the lying... Does showing respect mean lying for the government?

Did John the Baptist hold his tongue before Herod because he did not want to show disrespect?

Did the Old Testament prophets? Did Isaiah? Did Moses?

The religious right backed this godless man for one reason. He promised them conservative Supreme Court Justices. Lots of them. Enough to alter the rulings of the Court for decades. It does not matter whom he hurts, as long as that precious prize is delivered. I get that too.

But how does one accept the lying.... the non stop lying?

The answer is, because they... and that includes me.... didn't just start doing it.

Have you ever hung out with a large group of mostly like minded people? The Evangelical church is a very large group of such. And when you start with the premise that a single Book is authoritative in every aspect of your life, and surround yourself with people who read it for you and tell you what it means, you better get in line and sing the same tune.

If you don't you aren't saved and you're going to Hell.

So you agree. The group says the Holy Spirit is working in their lives. You say it is working in yours. If it isn't, something is wrong and you aren't saved and you're going to Hell. You may not be aware of how the Spirit is working, but you take it on faith that it is, and announce it with great joy. Next to you, someone else shares that they are having the same experience. Someone else behind you fidgets uncomfortably.

Hallelujah. We are all saved and none of us are going to Hell.

The world is young. It was created in seven literal days. I believe it (no I don't. Shut up! Shut up! Do you want to not be saved and go to Hell? I BELIEVE IT). (Ahh.... better... and I feel the Spirit)

And so we lie to ourselves. The Bible never contradicts itself. (What about Judas dying two different ways? Shut up! Shut up! Do you want to not be saved and go to Hell? I BELIEVE IT).

And we tell ourselves we are not lying to ourselves, just walking by faith. We train ourselves to accept our lies as truth.

Make no mistake. I believe Jesus is the Son of God and all that goes with it. But I know why there are so few prophets willing to speak truth to power coming out of the evangelical movement these days.
I'm not actually "liking" your post, and I don't have much to add, but that's a quality post, and I felt it deserved some recognition. So consider this just a wordy "bump."
 
I'm not actually "liking" your post, and I don't have much to add, but that's a quality post, and I felt it deserved some recognition. So consider this just a wordy "bump."
I would really like your perspective. I know you took this trip before me. Wish you would dialogue on FB too.
 
Excellent post.

I posted (on Facebook) about Sarah Sanders the other day and it resulted in a good conversation with a friend from work. This got me to thinking a bit, as I try to put a finger on what it is about her that bugs me so much. I don't like the way she treats the press corps, but that is nothing new. I didn't like the four people who held that job before her very much either, and they were all men.

I don't like the way she flat out lies for the President, but that is her job. As I said the other day, it is the job of the Press Secretary to spin bull shit into gold. In her case, that's about all she gets to do.

It boils down, to me, to the fact that we both claim the same faith.

Having grown up in my faith in an authoritarian structure I can see why some might say that it is her job to show respect to the government. I get that. I really do. This is what is behind her admonition about questioning General Kelly.

But the lying... Does showing respect mean lying for the government?

Did John the Baptist hold his tongue before Herod because he did not want to show disrespect?

Did the Old Testament prophets? Did Isaiah? Did Moses?

The religious right backed this godless man for one reason. He promised them conservative Supreme Court Justices. Lots of them. Enough to alter the rulings of the Court for decades. It does not matter whom he hurts, as long as that precious prize is delivered. I get that too.

But how does one accept the lying.... the non stop lying?

The answer is, because they... and that includes me.... didn't just start doing it.

Have you ever hung out with a large group of mostly like minded people? The Evangelical church is a very large group of such. And when you start with the premise that a single Book is authoritative in every aspect of your life, and surround yourself with people who read it for you and tell you what it means, you better get in line and sing the same tune.

If you don't you aren't saved and you're going to Hell.

So you agree. The group says the Holy Spirit is working in their lives. You say it is working in yours. If it isn't, something is wrong and you aren't saved and you're going to Hell. You may not be aware of how the Spirit is working, but you take it on faith that it is, and announce it with great joy. Next to you, someone else shares that they are having the same experience. Someone else behind you fidgets uncomfortably.

Hallelujah. We are all saved and none of us are going to Hell.

The world is young. It was created in seven literal days. I believe it (no I don't. Shut up! Shut up! Do you want to not be saved and go to Hell? I BELIEVE IT). (Ahh.... better... and I feel the Spirit)

And so we lie to ourselves. The Bible never contradicts itself. (What about Judas dying two different ways? Shut up! Shut up! Do you want to not be saved and go to Hell? I BELIEVE IT).

And we tell ourselves we are not lying to ourselves, just walking by faith. We train ourselves to accept our lies as truth.

Make no mistake. I believe Jesus is the Son of God and all that goes with it. But I know why there are so few prophets willing to speak truth to power coming out of the evangelical movement these days.
 
I would really like your perspective. I know you took this trip before me. Wish you would dialogue on FB too.
Your FB post didn't hit my feed, or I would have responded.

As for your spiritual journey, I can only say that when I gave up Biblical literalism, I became less religious. But I did not abandon spiritually altogether (and I think there are other reasons behind my secularization, as well, but I won't go into that). I don't think faith needs to suffer because one comes to the conclusion that a particular collection of writings may not be entirely factual. St. Augustine recognized that many stories in the Bible were factually inaccurate, and he still believed they were divinely inspired. He simply felt that if common sense and known facts show a particular story to be inaccurate, then the believer must assume there is some deeper meaning there that needs discovered.
 
Your FB post didn't hit my feed, or I would have responded.

As for your spiritual journey, I can only say that when I gave up Biblical literalism, I became less religious. But I did not abandon spiritually altogether (and I think there are other reasons behind my secularization, as well, but I won't go into that). I don't think faith needs to suffer because one comes to the conclusion that a particular collection of writings may not be entirely factual. St. Augustine recognized that many stories in the Bible were factually inaccurate, and he still believed they were divinely inspired. He simply felt that if common sense and known facts show a particular story to be inaccurate, than the believer must assume there is some deeper meaning there that needs discovered.
I suspect you aren't following me. (Sniff)
 
This gets close to one of my peeves, evangelicals speaking for all Christians. It is, imho, far more technically correct to say, " A Baptist has the right to refuse service to a gay ... " than to say "A Christian ...". I know a lot of Christians who do not believe they are required to shun gays. I do not give them the right to speak for me.

I never say that God commands Christians to vote to help the poor, I may believe it but I would never say it. I cannot speak for those that disagree.
 
This gets close to one of my peeves, evangelicals speaking for all Christians. It is, imho, far more technically correct to say, " A Baptist has the right to refuse service to a gay ... " than to say "A Christian ...". I know a lot of Christians who do not believe they are required to shun gays. I do not give them the right to speak for me.

I never say that God commands Christians to vote to help the poor, I may believe it but I would never say it. I cannot speak for those that disagree.
Regarding helping the poor.... I would say that that topic provided the pivot point for many of the changes I am going through. It actually strengthens my faith.
 
I am, but for some reason, FB's algorithms insist on spamming my feed with "OBAMA IS THE DEVIL" posts from relatives I already have on mute.
Most recent versus top stories? I keep threatening to quit Facebook if they don't let me default to most recent for the reason you describe.
 
Whatever it is, it's making FB essentially useless. I basically use it as a replacement for AIM and as a way to share pictures of food I cook. That's it.
Try going to most recent and see if that does it. I get why millinials have left Facebook. Unfortunately it has become the default communication for many friends and family.
 
Whatever it is, it's making FB essentially useless. I basically use it as a replacement for AIM and as a way to share pictures of food I cook. That's it.
And I never see those. I suspect that their algorithms present us with the people we respond to most.
 
Regarding helping the poor.... I would say that that topic provided the pivot point for many of the changes I am going through. It actually strengthens my faith.
Do you care to flesh this out a little more?
 
I posted (on Facebook) about Sarah Sanders the other day and it resulted in a good conversation with a friend from work. This got me to thinking a bit, as I try to put a finger on what it is about her that bugs me so much. I don't like the way she treats the press corps, but that is nothing new. I didn't like the four people who held that job before her very much either, and they were all men.

I don't like the way she flat out lies for the President, but that is her job. As I said the other day, it is the job of the Press Secretary to spin bull shit into gold. In her case, that's about all she gets to do.

It boils down, to me, to the fact that we both claim the same faith.

Having grown up in my faith in an authoritarian structure I can see why some might say that it is her job to show respect to the government. I get that. I really do. This is what is behind her admonition about questioning General Kelly.

But the lying... Does showing respect mean lying for the government?

Did John the Baptist hold his tongue before Herod because he did not want to show disrespect?

Did the Old Testament prophets? Did Isaiah? Did Moses?

The religious right backed this godless man for one reason. He promised them conservative Supreme Court Justices. Lots of them. Enough to alter the rulings of the Court for decades. It does not matter whom he hurts, as long as that precious prize is delivered. I get that too.

But how does one accept the lying.... the non stop lying?

The answer is, because they... and that includes me.... didn't just start doing it.

Have you ever hung out with a large group of mostly like minded people? The Evangelical church is a very large group of such. And when you start with the premise that a single Book is authoritative in every aspect of your life, and surround yourself with people who read it for you and tell you what it means, you better get in line and sing the same tune.

If you don't you aren't saved and you're going to Hell.

So you agree. The group says the Holy Spirit is working in their lives. You say it is working in yours. If it isn't, something is wrong and you aren't saved and you're going to Hell. You may not be aware of how the Spirit is working, but you take it on faith that it is, and announce it with great joy. Next to you, someone else shares that they are having the same experience. Someone else behind you fidgets uncomfortably.

Hallelujah. We are all saved and none of us are going to Hell.

The world is young. It was created in seven literal days. I believe it (no I don't. Shut up! Shut up! Do you want to not be saved and go to Hell? I BELIEVE IT). (Ahh.... better... and I feel the Spirit)

And so we lie to ourselves. The Bible never contradicts itself. (What about Judas dying two different ways? Shut up! Shut up! Do you want to not be saved and go to Hell? I BELIEVE IT).

And we tell ourselves we are not lying to ourselves, just walking by faith. We train ourselves to accept our lies as truth.

Make no mistake. I believe Jesus is the Son of God and all that goes with it. But I know why there are so few prophets willing to speak truth to power coming out of the evangelical movement these days.
My dislike for her is threefold. First, she's a drone monotone groan. Second, the lying. Third, the straight-faced lying. Sheesh. If your job is to lie, at least wink each time you do it.
 
Do you care to flesh this out a little more?
Within American Evangelicalism there is an emphasis on individualism and the notion that hard work by true believers will be rewarded with prosperity. "If a man will not work neither let him eat", and "The poor will always be with you" are much more than Biblical quotes. They are foundational to a philosophical structure that breeds contempt, not compassion, for the poor.

That is not to say that these quotes are without merit, but they are too often removed from their context. Within the Calvinistic underpinnings of this group is the conclusion that prosperity means that God is pleased with you. From there it is a short logical step to the belief that the poor are in their condition because God is not pleased with them. Add in the concept of "The Elect" and you end up making personal wealth a goal in and of itself.

About eight years ago I traveled to Mississippi to work on Katrina reconstruction projects. This was not working with the poor per se, but rather with people who had lost their homes to the hurricane. While there I heard about a mission trip to South Africa to build brick and mortar homes for the truly impoverished and AIDS-stricken population. I did not take the trip that year myself, but TFO did, and it was transformational for her. When she returned she had a new take on life, possessions, and service. She went again the next year and, in 2011, I joined her. To say that it was eye opening would be an understatement. If I could sum up my attitude in one sentence it would be "Damn me if I ever dare to think I have been short-changed in life".

Since then I have tried to be involved in using my wealth and time to assist others who are not as well off. I'm still working full time so I cannot be fully involved. TFO is more involved, or tries to be, although cancer and a new hip slowed her up a bit this year.

These changes have caused me to rethink those two quotes I gave earlier.

"If a man will not work, neither let him eat" was made within the context of communal living. The early Jerusalem church, believing the return of Jesus was imminent, pooled all their resources into a communal living society. As such, there were no personal possessions, and all were expected to contribute. Note that even in this scenario widows and orphans were to be cared for by the church. The emphasis of the quote is on "will not". All to often we use "will" and "can" interchangeably.

"The poor are always with you" is followed in the same sentence with "and you may help them whenever you wish". Again: context is key. A woman had used a jar of expensive perfume on Jesus; giving him a massage, as it were. It was an act of worship and, I assume, not an erotic event. The desciples (not named, but I suspect Judas was a loud voice) objected and said that the perfume should have been sold and the proceeds distributed to the poor.

I think what is missing in the written word is a degree of sarcasm on the part of Jesus. I hear it playing out this way: "Seriously guys? The poor are always with you, you can help them any time you want to. Cut this woman some slack. She has done a good thing." When you read it this way and follow his statement to its logical conclusion it follows that if you are not involved in helping the poor (assuming you are otherwise able to), then it is because you do not wish to do so, and not for lack of an opportunity.

Add to that all of Jesus' direct teachings about helping the needy - "In as much as you did it not to these, the least of my breathren, you did it not to me" and the notion that the poor are to be scorned withers on the vine.

As I learned this I was forced to review the underpinnings of how I lived my faith. I realized that I was doing that which I despise in others: letting others do my thinking for me. It isn't the first time I have made that discovery, and it won't be the last. Each new lesson is painfully jarring.
 
Within American Evangelicalism there is an emphasis on individualism and the notion that hard work by true believers will be rewarded with prosperity. "If a man will not work neither let him eat", and "The poor will always be with you" are much more than Biblical quotes. They are foundational to a philosophical structure that breeds contempt, not compassion, for the poor.

That is not to say that these quotes are without merit, but they are too often removed from their context. Within the Calvinistic underpinnings of this group is the conclusion that prosperity means that God is pleased with you. From there it is a short logical step to the belief that the poor are in their condition because God is not pleased with them. Add in the concept of "The Elect" and you end up making personal wealth a goal in and of itself.

About eight years ago I traveled to Mississippi to work on Katrina reconstruction projects. This was not working with the poor per se, but rather with people who had lost their homes to the hurricane. While there I heard about a mission trip to South Africa to build brick and mortar homes for the truly impoverished and AIDS-stricken population. I did not take the trip that year myself, but TFO did, and it was transformational for her. When she returned she had a new take on life, possessions, and service. She went again the next year and, in 2011, I joined her. To say that it was eye opening would be an understatement. If I could sum up my attitude in one sentence it would be "Damn me if I ever dare to think I have been short-changed in life".

Since then I have tried to be involved in using my wealth and time to assist others who are not as well off. I'm still working full time so I cannot be fully involved. TFO is more involved, or tries to be, although cancer and a new hip slowed her up a bit this year.

These changes have caused me to rethink those two quotes I gave earlier.

"If a man will not work, neither let him eat" was made within the context of communal living. The early Jerusalem church, believing the return of Jesus was imminent, pooled all their resources into a communal living society. As such, there were no personal possessions, and all were expected to contribute. Note that even in this scenario widows and orphans were to be cared for by the church. The emphasis of the quote is on "will not". All to often we use "will" and "can" interchangeably.

"The poor are always with you" is followed in the same sentence with "and you may help them whenever you wish". Again: context is key. A woman had used a jar of expensive perfume on Jesus; giving him a massage, as it were. It was an act of worship and, I assume, not an erotic event. The desciples (not named, but I suspect Judas was a loud voice) objected and said that the perfume should have been sold and the proceeds distributed to the poor.

I think what is missing in the written word is a degree of sarcasm on the part of Jesus. I hear it playing out this way: "Seriously guys? The poor are always with you, you can help them any time you want to. Cut this woman some slack. She has done a good thing." When you read it this way and follow his statement to its logical conclusion it follows that if you are not involved in helping the poor (assuming you are otherwise able to), then it is because you do not wish to do so, and not for lack of an opportunity.

Add to that all of Jesus' direct teachings about helping the needy - "In as much as you did it not to these, the least of my breathren, you did it not to me" and the notion that the poor are to be scorned withers on the vine.

As I learned this I was forced to review the underpinnings of how I lived my faith. I realized that I was doing that which I despise in others: letting others do my thinking for me. It isn't the first time I have made that discovery, and it won't be the last. Each new lesson is painfully jarring.
Admiration.
 
Within American Evangelicalism there is an emphasis on individualism and the notion that hard work by true believers will be rewarded with prosperity. "If a man will not work neither let him eat", and "The poor will always be with you" are much more than Biblical quotes. They are foundational to a philosophical structure that breeds contempt, not compassion, for the poor.

That is not to say that these quotes are without merit, but they are too often removed from their context. Within the Calvinistic underpinnings of this group is the conclusion that prosperity means that God is pleased with you. From there it is a short logical step to the belief that the poor are in their condition because God is not pleased with them. Add in the concept of "The Elect" and you end up making personal wealth a goal in and of itself.

About eight years ago I traveled to Mississippi to work on Katrina reconstruction projects. This was not working with the poor per se, but rather with people who had lost their homes to the hurricane. While there I heard about a mission trip to South Africa to build brick and mortar homes for the truly impoverished and AIDS-stricken population. I did not take the trip that year myself, but TFO did, and it was transformational for her. When she returned she had a new take on life, possessions, and service. She went again the next year and, in 2011, I joined her. To say that it was eye opening would be an understatement. If I could sum up my attitude in one sentence it would be "Damn me if I ever dare to think I have been short-changed in life".

Since then I have tried to be involved in using my wealth and time to assist others who are not as well off. I'm still working full time so I cannot be fully involved. TFO is more involved, or tries to be, although cancer and a new hip slowed her up a bit this year.

These changes have caused me to rethink those two quotes I gave earlier.

"If a man will not work, neither let him eat" was made within the context of communal living. The early Jerusalem church, believing the return of Jesus was imminent, pooled all their resources into a communal living society. As such, there were no personal possessions, and all were expected to contribute. Note that even in this scenario widows and orphans were to be cared for by the church. The emphasis of the quote is on "will not". All to often we use "will" and "can" interchangeably.

"The poor are always with you" is followed in the same sentence with "and you may help them whenever you wish". Again: context is key. A woman had used a jar of expensive perfume on Jesus; giving him a massage, as it were. It was an act of worship and, I assume, not an erotic event. The desciples (not named, but I suspect Judas was a loud voice) objected and said that the perfume should have been sold and the proceeds distributed to the poor.

I think what is missing in the written word is a degree of sarcasm on the part of Jesus. I hear it playing out this way: "Seriously guys? The poor are always with you, you can help them any time you want to. Cut this woman some slack. She has done a good thing." When you read it this way and follow his statement to its logical conclusion it follows that if you are not involved in helping the poor (assuming you are otherwise able to), then it is because you do not wish to do so, and not for lack of an opportunity.

Add to that all of Jesus' direct teachings about helping the needy - "In as much as you did it not to these, the least of my breathren, you did it not to me" and the notion that the poor are to be scorned withers on the vine.

As I learned this I was forced to review the underpinnings of how I lived my faith. I realized that I was doing that which I despise in others: letting others do my thinking for me. It isn't the first time I have made that discovery, and it won't be the last. Each new lesson is painfully jarring.
Excellent Doug.
 
Unfortunately it has become the default communication for many friends and family.
Same here. And I had no idea how gullible and foolish most of my friends and family are. Pulled the plug on FB about 3 years ago and haven’t looked back since.
 
Same here. And I had no idea how gullible and foolish most of my friends and family are. Pulled the plug on FB about 3 years ago and haven’t looked back since.
I've never succumbed. Everyone tells me how much I'm missing, but I don't feel it.

But you'll have to pry my Usenet account out of my cold, dead hands.
 
Within American Evangelicalism there is an emphasis on individualism and the notion that hard work by true believers will be rewarded with prosperity. "If a man will not work neither let him eat", and "The poor will always be with you" are much more than Biblical quotes. They are foundational to a philosophical structure that breeds contempt, not compassion, for the poor.

That is not to say that these quotes are without merit, but they are too often removed from their context. Within the Calvinistic underpinnings of this group is the conclusion that prosperity means that God is pleased with you. From there it is a short logical step to the belief that the poor are in their condition because God is not pleased with them. Add in the concept of "The Elect" and you end up making personal wealth a goal in and of itself.

About eight years ago I traveled to Mississippi to work on Katrina reconstruction projects. This was not working with the poor per se, but rather with people who had lost their homes to the hurricane. While there I heard about a mission trip to South Africa to build brick and mortar homes for the truly impoverished and AIDS-stricken population. I did not take the trip that year myself, but TFO did, and it was transformational for her. When she returned she had a new take on life, possessions, and service. She went again the next year and, in 2011, I joined her. To say that it was eye opening would be an understatement. If I could sum up my attitude in one sentence it would be "Damn me if I ever dare to think I have been short-changed in life".

Since then I have tried to be involved in using my wealth and time to assist others who are not as well off. I'm still working full time so I cannot be fully involved. TFO is more involved, or tries to be, although cancer and a new hip slowed her up a bit this year.

These changes have caused me to rethink those two quotes I gave earlier.

"If a man will not work, neither let him eat" was made within the context of communal living. The early Jerusalem church, believing the return of Jesus was imminent, pooled all their resources into a communal living society. As such, there were no personal possessions, and all were expected to contribute. Note that even in this scenario widows and orphans were to be cared for by the church. The emphasis of the quote is on "will not". All to often we use "will" and "can" interchangeably.

"The poor are always with you" is followed in the same sentence with "and you may help them whenever you wish". Again: context is key. A woman had used a jar of expensive perfume on Jesus; giving him a massage, as it were. It was an act of worship and, I assume, not an erotic event. The desciples (not named, but I suspect Judas was a loud voice) objected and said that the perfume should have been sold and the proceeds distributed to the poor.

I think what is missing in the written word is a degree of sarcasm on the part of Jesus. I hear it playing out this way: "Seriously guys? The poor are always with you, you can help them any time you want to. Cut this woman some slack. She has done a good thing." When you read it this way and follow his statement to its logical conclusion it follows that if you are not involved in helping the poor (assuming you are otherwise able to), then it is because you do not wish to do so, and not for lack of an opportunity.

Add to that all of Jesus' direct teachings about helping the needy - "In as much as you did it not to these, the least of my breathren, you did it not to me" and the notion that the poor are to be scorned withers on the vine.

As I learned this I was forced to review the underpinnings of how I lived my faith. I realized that I was doing that which I despise in others: letting others do my thinking for me. It isn't the first time I have made that discovery, and it won't be the last. Each new lesson is painfully jarring.
As a pastor I can say that without any doubt, Christ's Church. all who believe are to answer the great call to go unto all the world and spread the gospel. A certain type sect or denomination is not to be found in His body of believers. My flock consists of addicts, thieves, murderers, in a county jail. Not many of the elite there. Best job I ever had, helping the poor.
 
As a pastor I can say that without any doubt, Christ's Church. all who believe are to answer the great call to go unto all the world and spread the gospel. A certain type sect or denomination is not to be found in His body of believers. My flock consists of addicts, thieves, murderers, in a county jail. Not many of the elite there. Best job I ever had, helping the poor.
That is a topic worthy of its own post. I could spend a lot of time in that one!
 
I posted (on Facebook) about Sarah Sanders the other day and it resulted in a good conversation with a friend from work. This got me to thinking a bit, as I try to put a finger on what it is about her that bugs me so much. I don't like the way she treats the press corps, but that is nothing new. I didn't like the four people who held that job before her very much either, and they were all men.

I don't like the way she flat out lies for the President, but that is her job. As I said the other day, it is the job of the Press Secretary to spin bull shit into gold. In her case, that's about all she gets to do.

It boils down, to me, to the fact that we both claim the same faith.

Having grown up in my faith in an authoritarian structure I can see why some might say that it is her job to show respect to the government. I get that. I really do. This is what is behind her admonition about questioning General Kelly.

But the lying... Does showing respect mean lying for the government?

Did John the Baptist hold his tongue before Herod because he did not want to show disrespect?

Did the Old Testament prophets? Did Isaiah? Did Moses?

The religious right backed this godless man for one reason. He promised them conservative Supreme Court Justices. Lots of them. Enough to alter the rulings of the Court for decades. It does not matter whom he hurts, as long as that precious prize is delivered. I get that too.

But how does one accept the lying.... the non stop lying?

The answer is, because they... and that includes me.... didn't just start doing it.

Have you ever hung out with a large group of mostly like minded people? The Evangelical church is a very large group of such. And when you start with the premise that a single Book is authoritative in every aspect of your life, and surround yourself with people who read it for you and tell you what it means, you better get in line and sing the same tune.

If you don't you aren't saved and you're going to Hell.

So you agree. The group says the Holy Spirit is working in their lives. You say it is working in yours. If it isn't, something is wrong and you aren't saved and you're going to Hell. You may not be aware of how the Spirit is working, but you take it on faith that it is, and announce it with great joy. Next to you, someone else shares that they are having the same experience. Someone else behind you fidgets uncomfortably.

Hallelujah. We are all saved and none of us are going to Hell.

The world is young. It was created in seven literal days. I believe it (no I don't. Shut up! Shut up! Do you want to not be saved and go to Hell? I BELIEVE IT). (Ahh.... better... and I feel the Spirit)

And so we lie to ourselves. The Bible never contradicts itself. (What about Judas dying two different ways? Shut up! Shut up! Do you want to not be saved and go to Hell? I BELIEVE IT).

And we tell ourselves we are not lying to ourselves, just walking by faith. We train ourselves to accept our lies as truth.

Make no mistake. I believe Jesus is the Son of God and all that goes with it. But I know why there are so few prophets willing to speak truth to power coming out of the evangelical movement these days.
All that jeezus stuff is fantasy. If ya cant live your life decently and help others without referring to a story book as the basis its a cop out
 
Last edited:
Within American Evangelicalism there is an emphasis on individualism and the notion that hard work by true believers will be rewarded with prosperity. "If a man will not work neither let him eat", and "The poor will always be with you" are much more than Biblical quotes. They are foundational to a philosophical structure that breeds contempt, not compassion, for the poor.

That is not to say that these quotes are without merit, but they are too often removed from their context. Within the Calvinistic underpinnings of this group is the conclusion that prosperity means that God is pleased with you. From there it is a short logical step to the belief that the poor are in their condition because God is not pleased with them. Add in the concept of "The Elect" and you end up making personal wealth a goal in and of itself.

About eight years ago I traveled to Mississippi to work on Katrina reconstruction projects. This was not working with the poor per se, but rather with people who had lost their homes to the hurricane. While there I heard about a mission trip to South Africa to build brick and mortar homes for the truly impoverished and AIDS-stricken population. I did not take the trip that year myself, but TFO did, and it was transformational for her. When she returned she had a new take on life, possessions, and service. She went again the next year and, in 2011, I joined her. To say that it was eye opening would be an understatement. If I could sum up my attitude in one sentence it would be "Damn me if I ever dare to think I have been short-changed in life".

Since then I have tried to be involved in using my wealth and time to assist others who are not as well off. I'm still working full time so I cannot be fully involved. TFO is more involved, or tries to be, although cancer and a new hip slowed her up a bit this year.

These changes have caused me to rethink those two quotes I gave earlier.

"If a man will not work, neither let him eat" was made within the context of communal living. The early Jerusalem church, believing the return of Jesus was imminent, pooled all their resources into a communal living society. As such, there were no personal possessions, and all were expected to contribute. Note that even in this scenario widows and orphans were to be cared for by the church. The emphasis of the quote is on "will not". All to often we use "will" and "can" interchangeably.

"The poor are always with you" is followed in the same sentence with "and you may help them whenever you wish". Again: context is key. A woman had used a jar of expensive perfume on Jesus; giving him a massage, as it were. It was an act of worship and, I assume, not an erotic event. The desciples (not named, but I suspect Judas was a loud voice) objected and said that the perfume should have been sold and the proceeds distributed to the poor.

I think what is missing in the written word is a degree of sarcasm on the part of Jesus. I hear it playing out this way: "Seriously guys? The poor are always with you, you can help them any time you want to. Cut this woman some slack. She has done a good thing." When you read it this way and follow his statement to its logical conclusion it follows that if you are not involved in helping the poor (assuming you are otherwise able to), then it is because you do not wish to do so, and not for lack of an opportunity.

Add to that all of Jesus' direct teachings about helping the needy - "In as much as you did it not to these, the least of my breathren, you did it not to me" and the notion that the poor are to be scorned withers on the vine.

As I learned this I was forced to review the underpinnings of how I lived my faith. I realized that I was doing that which I despise in others: letting others do my thinking for me. It isn't the first time I have made that discovery, and it won't be the last. Each new lesson is painfully jarring.
Thank you, Doug for such an incredibly honest and thoughtful reply. It has become clearer to me recently that there are but two reasons by which all of my life's experiences are given. The first is that so that I might grow in faith, and by extension, closer to God. The second reason is so that I might use those experiences to help another human being. I also had a life-changing experience about 6 years ago, and since then have been examining the differences between my Catholic school upbringing and the relationship I now have with God, Jesus and Scripture.

It is a daily struggle to overcome an admittedly selfish nature, but I believe God intercedes to that end and I pray daily for it. I am not sure how I feel today regarding what Marvin describes as 'voting to help the poor". I don't believe that is the government's job. Rather, I believe it's my job.

I deleted much rambling, because my mind has been wandering for hours, inspired by this post. I'll conclude with a prayer I say every morning:

Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace!
That where there is hatred, I may bring love.
That where there is wrong, I may bring the spirit of forgiveness.
That where there is discord, I may bring harmony.
That where there is error, I may bring truth.
That where there is doubt, I may bring faith.
That where there is despair, I may bring hope.
That where there are shadows, I may bring light.
That where there is sadness, I may bring joy.

Lord, grant that I may seek rather to comfort, than to be comforted.
To understand, than to be understood.
To love, than to be loved.
For it is by self-forgetting that one finds.
It is by forgiving that one is forgiven.
It is by dying that one awakens to Eternal Life.
The first stanza reminds me to seek to be the change. The second reminds me how. Sounds simple, but it surely ain't easy...
 
I think that, all too often, we try to put God in a box. Actually, I don't think we can help it, even when we try our best not to.

By that I mean that we attempt to cover all the bases; to state authoritatively that we know how God will react in all circumstances. It is an exercise in futility because God, by definition, is not of this world. God is beyond our capability to fully understand.

The reverse side is people who will say "well, since I cannot completely understand God then I cannot understand at all" and give up on the effort.

To know the mind of God is the eternal Impossible Dream. That doesn't mean, however, that it is not a goal worth striving for. Just don't think you've ever crossed the finish line.

A recent example that I heard was when Pat Buchanan explained to a grieving mother that the reason he took her fifteen year old son was to keep him from becoming a drug addict or atheist. When you put God in a box, and particularly when that box says that God actively controls everything, you are left with coming up with stupid answers to difficult questions like this, because the alternative is to say "I don't know" - which forces you to realize that the box you put God in isn't big enough, and is bursting at the seams.

My brother once said, and I've quoted it here before, that if you discover that God hates all the same people that you do then you need to ask yourself who it is that you are really worshipping.

Between learning to love and picking the planks out of our own eyes, we will be kept busy enough to not have time to hate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CO. Hoosier
I think that, all too often, we try to put God in a box. Actually, I don't think we can help it, even when we try our best not to.

By that I mean that we attempt to cover all the bases; to state authoritatively that we know how God will react in all circumstances. It is an exercise in futility because God, by definition, is not of this world. God is beyond our capability to fully understand.

The reverse side is people who will say "well, since I cannot completely understand God then I cannot understand at all" and give up on the effort.

To know the mind of God is the eternal Impossible Dream. That doesn't mean, however, that it is not a goal worth striving for. Just don't think you've ever crossed the finish line.

A recent example that I heard was when Pat Buchanan explained to a grieving mother that the reason he took her fifteen year old son was to keep him from becoming a drug addict or atheist. When you put God in a box, and particularly when that box says that God actively controls everything, you are left with coming up with stupid answers to difficult questions like this, because the alternative is to say "I don't know" - which forces you to realize that the box you put God in isn't big enough, and is bursting at the seams.

My brother once said, and I've quoted it here before, that if you discover that God hates all the same people that you do then you need to ask yourself who it is that you are really worshipping.

Between learning to love and picking the planks out of our own eyes, we will be kept busy enough to not have time to hate.
To your point and others. The idea of legislation to the poor to help them over come poverty is biblically based but not the intention of the author. The Bible talks of collections for the poor, poor of heart, sick, widows and much more that is designed to pass from collection, to church needs, and finally to use the last for going on through the church for missionary work here and abroad. Building great houses of worship for our own worldly pleasures cries out against the teachings of Christ. I wonder what Christ would say about the hungry and the money we waste for self?

Trying to put God in a box is foreign to the concept of The Great I am. He created the box. We are of a sinful nature of which hard as we try cannot stop but strive to improve ourselves. We will never achieve perfection in our walk with Him, unless we give our weakness and our own thoughts of His way of doing His will to Him first. None of us who are truthful can claim that we / I cannot be of a sinful nature and fall short of the Glory of God. Planks are painful but necessary to keep us humble.
 
I think that, all too often, we try to put God in a box. Actually, I don't think we can help it, even when we try our best not to.

By that I mean that we attempt to cover all the bases; to state authoritatively that we know how God will react in all circumstances. It is an exercise in futility because God, by definition, is not of this world. God is beyond our capability to fully understand.

The reverse side is people who will say "well, since I cannot completely understand God then I cannot understand at all" and give up on the effort.

To know the mind of God is the eternal Impossible Dream. That doesn't mean, however, that it is not a goal worth striving for. Just don't think you've ever crossed the finish line.

A recent example that I heard was when Pat Buchanan explained to a grieving mother that the reason he took her fifteen year old son was to keep him from becoming a drug addict or atheist. When you put God in a box, and particularly when that box says that God actively controls everything, you are left with coming up with stupid answers to difficult questions like this, because the alternative is to say "I don't know" - which forces you to realize that the box you put God in isn't big enough, and is bursting at the seams.

My brother once said, and I've quoted it here before, that if you discover that God hates all the same people that you do then you need to ask yourself who it is that you are really worshipping.

Between learning to love and picking the planks out of our own eyes, we will be kept busy enough to not have time to hate.

Another fascinating thread. I guess when we don't discuss politics we show some potential around here. Thanks for starting it; although I think your Sarah Sanders vehicle is the opposite of what you intend with your subsequent posts.

Over my many trips around the sun my views about God in general and religion in particular have evolved and continue to do so. I have come to the conclusion that there is a God or supreme being in some sense. Who, what, and where God is is by no means settled. (I've posted about that before) I guess part of the way I define God is by figuring out what God isn't. God is not Moses. God does not give us rules. He gives us Grace. ( know this goes against many beliefs, but it is what I believe.). I love your brother's quote. Another way to look at his point is that hate comes from rules. If there are rules to accept God'd grace, we are not capable of understanding them never mind trying to impose those rules on others.*

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have some rules to live by as we strive to accept God's grace. The one rule I try to live by is to not ever be angry. Anger lies at the root of many if not all failed human relationships whether we are talking about one on one or nations coming together. I try to apply this idea every day (actually that is easier the older I am). Sadly, I see signs that the world is becoming an angrier place by the day.

A personal anecdote: As I mentioned from time to time, my stoker and I ride a tandem bicycle and we have taken several tandem specific multi-day tours. Not all couples are well suited for tandem riding. (although I think it is great couples therapy--but that is another discussion). The leader of these tours, whose company manufacturers tandems, used to say there is a single overriding rule for successful tandem rides. "No matter what happens on the bike, its the captain's fault". I try to apply that to every day life. In particular, a variation on that theme was a good way to run a business.

*I've had an ongoing discussion with one of my best friends for years about the whole "Born Again" concept in Christian theology. That was really a "thing" a number of years ago.
 
Thank you, Doug for such an incredibly honest and thoughtful reply. It has become clearer to me recently that there are but two reasons by which all of my life's experiences are given. The first is that so that I might grow in faith, and by extension, closer to God. The second reason is so that I might use those experiences to help another human being. I also had a life-changing experience about 6 years ago, and since then have been examining the differences between my Catholic school upbringing and the relationship I now have with God, Jesus and Scripture.

It is a daily struggle to overcome an admittedly selfish nature, but I believe God intercedes to that end and I pray daily for it. I am not sure how I feel today regarding what Marvin describes as 'voting to help the poor". I don't believe that is the government's job. Rather, I believe it's my job.

I deleted much rambling, because my mind has been wandering for hours, inspired by this post. I'll conclude with a prayer I say every morning:

Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace!
That where there is hatred, I may bring love.
That where there is wrong, I may bring the spirit of forgiveness.
That where there is discord, I may bring harmony.
That where there is error, I may bring truth.
That where there is doubt, I may bring faith.
That where there is despair, I may bring hope.
That where there are shadows, I may bring light.
That where there is sadness, I may bring joy.

Lord, grant that I may seek rather to comfort, than to be comforted.
To understand, than to be understood.
To love, than to be loved.
For it is by self-forgetting that one finds.
It is by forgiving that one is forgiven.
It is by dying that one awakens to Eternal Life.
The first stanza reminds me to seek to be the change. The second reminds me how. Sounds simple, but it surely ain't easy...
Thank you Hillz. I do have to ask @IUBBALLAWOL why he “liked” this post. Do you @IUBBALLAWOL honestly think that any of your behaviors on this forum are representative of Hillz’s insightful prayer to help become a more virtuous man? I’ll wait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Circlejoe
I posted (on Facebook) about Sarah Sanders the other day and it resulted in a good conversation with a friend from work. This got me to thinking a bit, as I try to put a finger on what it is about her that bugs me so much. I don't like the way she treats the press corps, but that is nothing new. I didn't like the four people who held that job before her very much either, and they were all men.

I don't like the way she flat out lies for the President, but that is her job. As I said the other day, it is the job of the Press Secretary to spin bull shit into gold. In her case, that's about all she gets to do.

It boils down, to me, to the fact that we both claim the same faith.

Having grown up in my faith in an authoritarian structure I can see why some might say that it is her job to show respect to the government. I get that. I really do. This is what is behind her admonition about questioning General Kelly.

But the lying... Does showing respect mean lying for the government?

Did John the Baptist hold his tongue before Herod because he did not want to show disrespect?

Did the Old Testament prophets? Did Isaiah? Did Moses?

The religious right backed this godless man for one reason. He promised them conservative Supreme Court Justices. Lots of them. Enough to alter the rulings of the Court for decades. It does not matter whom he hurts, as long as that precious prize is delivered. I get that too.

But how does one accept the lying.... the non stop lying?

The answer is, because they... and that includes me.... didn't just start doing it.

Have you ever hung out with a large group of mostly like minded people? The Evangelical church is a very large group of such. And when you start with the premise that a single Book is authoritative in every aspect of your life, and surround yourself with people who read it for you and tell you what it means, you better get in line and sing the same tune.

If you don't you aren't saved and you're going to Hell.

So you agree. The group says the Holy Spirit is working in their lives. You say it is working in yours. If it isn't, something is wrong and you aren't saved and you're going to Hell. You may not be aware of how the Spirit is working, but you take it on faith that it is, and announce it with great joy. Next to you, someone else shares that they are having the same experience. Someone else behind you fidgets uncomfortably.

Hallelujah. We are all saved and none of us are going to Hell.

The world is young. It was created in seven literal days. I believe it (no I don't. Shut up! Shut up! Do you want to not be saved and go to Hell? I BELIEVE IT). (Ahh.... better... and I feel the Spirit)

And so we lie to ourselves. The Bible never contradicts itself. (What about Judas dying two different ways? Shut up! Shut up! Do you want to not be saved and go to Hell? I BELIEVE IT).

And we tell ourselves we are not lying to ourselves, just walking by faith. We train ourselves to accept our lies as truth.

Make no mistake. I believe Jesus is the Son of God and all that goes with it. But I know why there are so few prophets willing to speak truth to power coming out of the evangelical movement these days.
Doug, she goes out there every day and intentionally lies, not just spins, (also in my opinion misleads and deceives) and, in addition, is condescending and arrogant to everyone who calls her out on it. What Christian principles say this is generally OK just because it's "her job"?

She does not appear to be the type of hypocrite that results from human imperfection and inherent inability to comply 100% with a divine code of conduct. Instead, she is an intentional liar and has no apparent scruples about lying to make money in her chosen job. She'll do whatever Trump tells her to do. I don't think she shares a religious faith with anyone who takes pride in personal honesty.

Hope it doesn't sound like I was coming after you. That wasn't my intent at all. I just about puke every time I see her at the podium.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT