It is possible to be a Values Conservative

Posted on Categories UncategorizedTags , , ,

Because of the effective take-over of the Republican Party by the Trumpians, and similar developments in several other countries, I find it necessary to state clearly:

It is possible to be a values conservative without becoming a right wing crazy.

It is possible to be a values conservative without supporting attempts to overturn election results, violent attacks on the institutions of government, or the fomenting of civil unrest.

It is possible to be a values conservative and a Christian without being a “Christian nationalist” of the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene and other Trumpians in the US, or Victor Orbán and Vladimir Putin in Europe.

It is possible to be a values conservative who does not turn a blind eye to the suffering of refugees from war zones or famine-stricken countries.

It is possible to be a values conservative who does not oppose government aid to the disadvantaged in our own countries.

It is possible to be a values conservative who rejects abortion as a birth control method but who recognizes that there are legitimate exceptions to a total ban and wants these enshrined in the relevant laws.

It is possible to be a values conservative who does not oppose, but indeed supports, comprehensive universal healthcare with needs-based public financing.

It is possible to be a values conservative who supports reasonable gun control – at the very least a ban on private ownership of military grade weapons beginning with assault rifles.

It is possible to be a values conservative who believes churches and religious believers should be able to follow their understanding of human nature, sexuality, and marriage while at the same time respecting democratic decisions concerning broader definitions of civil marriage.

There are probably other aspects I can think of right now; but my main point is that it is possible to be a values conservative without being a right-wing nutter.

I do not permit comments on this blog. The reason for this and further information can be found on the page Privacy Policy.

What is “the worst”??

Posted on Categories UncategorizedTags , ,

According to this article  in the Roys Report,

The 47-year old lead pastor of an evangelical church in Wiconsin was arrested after soliciting a sex act with an underage girl. …

“These arrests demonstrate that the market for juvenile commercial sex is not confined to limited segments of society,” said Washington County attorney Kevin Magnuson. “The buyers come from all walks of life and each are responsible for the tremendous harm to the victims, their families and the public that sex trafficking causes.” …

“It’s a sad thing,” said the church’s associate pastor. “This is a lose-lose scenario for the community and the people impacted by it. The worst thing is what this will do to his family — and the church family.”

Unfortunately this associate pastor’s perspective is all too common in churches across the denominational spectrum.

No sir, the worst is notwhat this will do to his family — and the church family”, but what this sort of thing does to the victims of sex trafficking and to the testimony of the Lord’s church, and that is where our focus should be, not on the perpetrator’s family and congregation (however painful and devastating this no doubt is for them), nor on the reputational and legal problems that may cause the local church and/or denomination.

 

I do not permit comments on this blog. The reason for this and further information can be found on the page Privacy Policy.

Quo Vadis, America?

Posted on Categories Uncategorized, UncategorizedTags , , ,

In a recent Facebook discussion on the subject of “Christian nationalism” a commenter said, 

“I sometimes feel we have an attitude that because we do it better than most, we don’t need to make changes. When you believe you are the best, why make changes??”

This was my response, slightly expanded here, which gave me no pleasure to write:


As an Austrian who grew up in a home built with Marshall Plan funds and and who was fully aware that without US involvement in WWII my country would likely be living under either Hitler’s or Stalin’s terror regime, and who therfore used to be an uncritical fan of the US in my youth; as one who was socialized and formed as an Evangelical Christian by American missionaries, spent almost five years living in the US working for a Christan ministry, and still has many dear friends in and from the US, but who now is thoroughly disillusioned with both American society/politics and the American church, I would say the attitude you describe is wrong on two counts:

  1. Of course you need to make changes. Even the best can always do and be better.
  2. But you don’t actually do it better than most. Let’s see:
    • You are almost the worst at controlling violent crime, largely due to a ludicrous misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment to your constitution;
    • You may have some of the best (and best-equipped) doctors and medical facilities but you are pretty worse than most industrialized nations at providing equal and equitable healthcare access and funding to all;
    • You are a leader in technological research who sends people into space and spends tons of money on your military, but your power grid and road network and telephone network are in deplorable condition;
    • Your education system leaves most of its graduates shackled by debt for many years;
    • Your society is hopelessly polarized and your politics controlled by the extremes of the left and the right:
      • The Democrats are dominated by a destructive “progressive” agenda which seeks to deconstruct human nature as essentially male and female and plays with identity politics which divides rather than unites the country;
      • The GOP is under the thumb of a serial adulterer and liar who has brought the country to the brink of political collapse and possibly civil war and whose followers know only law and order but not mercy and compassion;
    • Vast swathes of the American church, instead of being a prophetic witness speaking truth to power, have got into bed with either the political left or the political right, championing their respective agendas and favouring the separation of church and state only when it suits them while trying to push their own agenda on the state when that suits them.

I could go on, but this is enough to show why in a very real sense you do it worse than most in so many areas that the meaning of American exceptionalism has become inverted, and why there is definitely room (and a desparate need) for change.


It pains me especially that many churches and leaders in my own Evangelical tradition have, in an extreme and especially bizarre form of supersessionism, appropriated the Jewish people’s status as God’s uniquely chosen people not just for the church (bad enough in view of Romans 9–11) but for the United States, claiming the promises made to Israel but disregarding most of the responsibilities such as caring for the poor and welcoming strangers. At the same time they uncritically support the State of Israel as an actor in and venue of their favourite end time scenario but have little use and sympathy for Jews as a people.

So the question posed in the title of this post is a very real one: unless the American nation and the American church drastically change direction, and do so soon, I fear for their future.

 


The cover image appeared here. The editor of e-International Relations could not find any licensing information so I decided to use it. If anyone claims copyright I will of course remove it.

I do not permit comments on this blog. The reason for this and further information can be found on the page Privacy Policy.

Biblical? Christ-Like?

Posted on Categories UncategorizedTags , ,

(I borrowed this text from Craig Greenfield)

On the Mount of Transfiguration Jesus stands with Moses and Elijah (representing the Prophets and the Law of the OT). (Mt 17:1-9)

God’s command is “This is my son, Listen to him!”

In this powerful moment,
with these powerful words,
Jesus is lifted above and beyond all other teachers
and all other parts of scripture.

This is why we must read the Bible though the lens of the life and teachings of Jesus.

This is why Jesus can dare to say, “You have heard it said, an eye for an eye (in Exodus 21:23), but I say to you, Love your enemies”

This is why we seek,
not to be Biblical,
but to be Christlike.

Note from Wolf: I am fully aware that this hermeneutical principle can be (and has been) distorted and abused. That doesn’t mean it’s not valid. And I know one can argue about the word “biblical” in the meme above, but I think readers of good will know what is meant.

And finally, a common temptation seems to be to read all Scripture not through the lens of Christ’s life and teachings, but rather through the lens of that image of Christ we have constructed in our own head.

I do not permit comments on this blog. The reason for this and further information can be found on the page Privacy Policy.

Biblisch? Christus-Ähnlich?

Posted on Categories UncategorizedTags , ,

Diesen Text habe ich von Craig Greenfield übernommen und übersetzt:

Auf dem Berg der Verklärung steht Jesus mit Moses und Elija (als Verteter von Gesetz und Propheten im AT) (Matt 17:1-9).

Gottes Gebot lautet, “Dieser ist mein Sohn, Ihn sollt ihr hören!”

In diesem mächtigen Augenblick,
mit diesen mächtigen Worten,
wird Jesus über alle anderen Lehrer gestellt, und auch über alle anderen Stellen in der Schrift.

Deshalb müssen wir die Bibel durch die Linse von Jesu Leben und Lehre lesen.

Deshalb kann Jesus sagen, “Ihr habt gehört, dass gesagt ist ( 2. Mose 21,24): Auge um Auge, Zahn um Zahn. Ich aber sage euch, Liebet eure Feinde.”

Deshalb streben wir
nicht so sehr danach, biblisch zu sein,
sondern vielmehr danach, Jesus-ähnlich zu sein.

Anmerkung von Wolf: Und ja, mir ist schon klar, daß dieses Auslegungsprinzip auch verdreht und mißbraucht werden kann und wird, was aber nichts an seiner Gültigkeit ändert. Und man kann darüber streiten, was in dem Bild hier oberhalb “biblisch” bedeutet, aber jeder Leser guten Willens versteht das schon.

Und schließlich besteht immer die Gefahr, daß wir die Schrift nicht durch die Linse von Jesu Leben und Lehre lesen, sondern durch die Linse des Bildes von Jesus, das wir uns zurechtgelegt haben.

Ich erlaube auf diesem Blog keine Kommentare. Den Grund dafür und weitere Informationen findest Du auf der Seite Datenschutz.

Nonsensical Facebook Chain Letters

Posted on Categories Uncategorized

This is a public service message.

Some texts come back with great regularity every few months to circulate on Facebook, copied & pasted by mindless sheeple, probably the same folks who fifty years ago would have propagated nonsensical chain letters (sorry, folks, see the last paragraph).

Here is the most recent iteration of one of these:

This text claims that “tomorrow” Facebook (or now Meta) will become a “public entity” (whatever that means) and then purports to limit, with generous use of ALL-CAPS, what Facebook/Meta may do with the material a person has posted on the service.

First of all, in view of the fact that this text has re-surfaced and circulated every few months for a number of years, exactly which date does “tomorrow” refer to?

Secondly, I am sorry, but this is all nothing but legal mumbo-jumbo and gobbledigook.

Facebook/Meta may have changed their name but they are still a private company, not a “public entity” — their legal status has not changed. However, they effectively provide a sort of public forum, and it is just a bit ludicrous to claim privacy expectations for stuff you have yourself posted to a public forum.

In any case, what Facebook/Meta may or may not do with stuff you post is determined by their Terms & Conditions (T&C) which you explicitly agreed to when you created your FB acount, and implicitly agree to every time you use their service. A unilateral declaration on your part has absolutely no legal effect; the only thing you can do, if you no longer like their T&C, is to stop using the service.

Recent iterations of this text also claim that Facebook will only show your posts to about 25 people (or will only show you posts from about 25 people) determined by some algorithm, and that posting this text will somehow fool this algorithm. This, too, is nonsense. Posting some random text has absolutely no effect on the algorithm that determines which posts you see or who sees your posts.

Now, if you are offended by my reference to “mindless sheeple”, all I can recommend is that you think very carefully before you copy and paste something simply because some text tells you to. Mindlessly doing what you are told is the very definition of “sheeple”.

I do not permit comments on this blog. The reason for this and further information can be found on the page Privacy Policy.

Pressreader’s Pseudo-Flatrate

Posted on Categories UncategorizedTags , ,

Pressreader claims to offer 7000+ newspapers and magazines from around the world for one subscription—effectively a flatrate. About a week ago I signed up for a subscription.

Pressreader Ad in mobile browser

Since I had been subscribing to both an American and a British paper at a higher combined monthly cost than the Pressreader subscription, and I would be able to add a few more papers (i e. German, Austrian, Dutch, Israeli papers) at no extra cost, this seemed to be a no-brainer.

Now, the thing is, I rarely read a newspaper or magazine from cover to cover; rather, I will scroll through, glance at the headlines, and read only those articles which catch my interest or strike my fancy. Often I will only go to a particular paper or magazine wben I come across a link to an article on, say, Facebook, and the story is behind a paywall.

Imagine my surprise, then, when, less than a week after subscribing, every time I open a newspaper I get a pop-up complaining that I have been reading too much:

Pressreader Pop-Up

The pop-up suggests that I might be using Pressreader professionally (instead of in a personal capacity as my subscription allows) and that I should probably upgrade from my $30/mo Premium (personal use) subscription to a $100+/mo Corporate subscription:

Pressreader Subscription Rates

Now I realize that this is phrased as a question, “If you are using this account professionally …”, but since it persistently keeps popping up again and again, it feels very much like an accusation.

I am retired (i.e. I don’t do anything professionaly, anymore), an avid reader, and currently bedridden, so I have a lot of time on my hands; nevertheless I don’t feel I have spent nearly enough time with Pressreader to warrant questioning my personal use (after all, I also have €9.99 subscription to Readly for a couple of magazines not included in Pressreader, and I also spend a lot of time reading on my Kindle).

Perhaps the problem is that I follow (have marked as favourites) 27 newspapers and a handful of magazines, but of course I don’t actually read (or even download) all of them every day, and Pressreader nowhere states a limit on the number of publications one may follow — or read, for that matter. If there is indeed such a limit, or a hard limit on how many articles a day/week/month one is allowed to read with a personal subscription, then this should be clearly stated and potential subscribers warned about it before signing up. Otherwise this is false and misleading advertising.

So to put it bluntly: Apart from the fact that it is annoying to have to click away the stupid pop-up I feel insulted and harrassed by the insinuation that I am abusing my account, and I expect Pressreader to fix this. Because I suspect there really are no hard limits as mentioned above, and Pressreader‘s abuse detection algorithm is simply way too aggressive.

I do not permit comments on this blog. The reason for this and further information can be found on the page Privacy Policy.

Lobpreis-Enunziation

Posted on Categories UncategorizedTags , , ,

Es gibt sie immer noch, die christlichen Gemeinden, die kein professionelles Lobpreis- oder Musikteam haben, zumindest nicht jeden Sonntag. Da kommen dann “Amateure” zum Einsatz.

Für die erfordert es meist einigen Mut, sich vorne hinzustellen und zu singen, und ich will da ganz vorsichtig sein mit Kritik, will aber trotzdem etwas erwähnen, was mir in solchen Situationn immer wieder auffällt:

In normaler Konversation neigen wir alle dazu, die einzelnen Laute, aus denen sich Worte zusammensetzen, seien es Vokale oder Konsonanten, nicht allzu genau auszusprechen. Teilweise ist das auch mundart- oder dialektbedingt – wir Österreicher neigen z.B. dazu, ‘t’ und ‘d’ ziemlich gleich auszusprechen. In normalen Gesprächen funktioniert das auch ziemlich gut; wenn es jedoch über eine Soundanlage im für Gemeinden erschwinglichen Preissegment läuft, und erst recht, wenn es sich um Gesang handelt, wird es schnell schwer verständlich.

Wir brauchen keine Schauspielausbildung, kein Burgtheater-Deutsch, aber wir sollten so sprechen oder singen, daß man zwischen ähnlichen Lauten unterscheiden kann, und daß die Konsonanten am Ende von Worten nicht verschluckt werden. Man nennt das “Enunziation“.

Ein paar Beispiele: ‘u’ und ‘ü’ sind zwei unterschiedliche Laute, ebenso ‘ei’ und ‘eu’; “Herr” hat ein r am Schluss, oder zumindest ein ‘a’ (“Hea”); und “Gott” hat ein ‘t’ am Ende, welches von Soundanlagen leicht unterschlagen wird, wenn man es als ‘d’ ausspricht.

Wenn Du also selbst als Amateur in der Gemeinde Lobpreis leitest, achte ein wenig auf die deutliche Enunziation: kann man verstehen, was du singst, auch wenn man den Text nicht kennt oder vorne auf der Leinwand sieht?

Und wenn Du für die Gottesdienstgestaltung oder die Bedienung der Soundanlage zuständig bist, achte darauf, wie verständlich die Sänger oder Sängerinnen auf der Bühne singen und nütze die Autorität Deiner Position, um konstruktive Verbesserungsvorschläge zu machen – genauso, wie du den Leuten erklärst, daß sie das Mikro vor den Mund halten und hinein singen sollen, statt es irgendwo vor den Brustkorb zu halten und darüber hinweg zu singen.

Ich erlaube auf diesem Blog keine Kommentare. Den Grund dafür und weitere Informationen findest Du auf der Seite Datenschutz.

Shocked By The Reactions To The Roe Reversal

Posted on Categories UncategorizedTags , , ,

I must confess to being a bit shocked by the reactions to SCOTUS reversing Roe v Wade.

On the one hand there are my conservative Christian friends, both Evangelical and Catholic, who celebrate the court’s decision, in a triumphal tone, seemingly without any awareness of how this will increase and confirm the polarization of the USA; many without recognition that abortion is first a spiritual issue, and only then a legal issue. It is very easy to see abortion primarily as the result of self-indulgent recreational sex and to ignore the desparate situation of thousands, if not millions of women who are in borderline abusive relationships where the man can’t be bothered to take responsibility for either contraception or the baby that may result without it — women who simply cannot afford another baby or cannot cope with another pregnancy. The latter is also why adoption is not a good alternative for many pregnant women: as soon as the baby is born there is instinctive bonding that makes it difficult to give the baby up and for many women results in feelings of guilt; relentless propaganda by the pro-choice side during the past half-century has convinced many women that a baby in the early stages of pregnancy is merely a blob of tissue one doesn’t need to feel guilty about.

I am not an expert in this area, but it seems to me that instead of triumphal celebrations and the feeling that we have arrived at the goal, the challenge for pro-life Christians and their churches is to find good solutions for these desparate situations. This may include making sure that the laws passed by their states do not save the lives of babies at the expense of the lives of mothers but have robust medical exceptions; ramping up existing programs which provide material assistance to pregnant women, and legal initiatives to hold fathers accountable for their offspring, with compulsory paternity tests if necessary.

On the other hand I am astonished at the hysterical reaction of the pro-choice side to this reversal of Roe v. Wade; this includes most of the media, not just in the US but in Europe etc as well. SCOTUS argues pretty convincingly that the US constitution not only contains no explicit right to abortion but that contemporary jurisprudence didn’t assume an implicit right to abortion, certainly not after “quickening”, i.e. when a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

In view of that fact Roe v. Wade invented a right to abortion; all the current court did was to return this issue to the legislatures, which is where laws are supposed to be made in a democracy.

The hysterical reaction also demonstrates total oblivion to the fact that a human fetus is a human being, and therefore is entitled to the protection of the law; making that dependent on viability independent of the mother would take us down a very sinister path because human beings at all stages of life can become so dependent on another that they are no longer independently viable, and I hope no-one other than Peter Singer suggests “aborting” them.

And finally, the hysterical reaction demonstrates a marked lack of confidence in the democratic processes and institutions — or else a very UNdemocratic unwillingness to accept the will of the majority.

The challenge for the pro-choice side, instead of this hysteria, is to engage in the political and legislative processes to achieve their goals; to persuade enough of their fellow citizens of their point of view to pass legislation they can live with (should not be too difficult since they always claim that the majority of Americans want abortion to be legal); and finally, to redouble any efforts designed to give pregnant women such good alternatives that abortions become unnecessary.

I do not permit comments on this blog. The reason for this and further information can be found on the page Privacy Policy.

“Unser Kardinal”

Posted on Categories UncategorizedTags , ,

Bei allen Schwächen, die er als Mensch natürlich hat, und trotz all meiner theologischen Differenzen mit seiner Kirche, bin ich sehr dankbar für den Wiener Erzbischof, Christoph Kardinal Schönborn OP.

Er hat die staatliche Anerkennung der Freikirchen in Österreich unterstützt, die täuferische Bruderhof-Gemeinschaft in Österreich und seinem designierten Alterswohnsitz in Retz willkommen geheißen, und fördert in seiner Diözese ein Verständnis von Christsein, das eine bewußte Glaubensentscheidung (Bekehrung/”Lebensübergabe”) und Jüngerschaft umfaßt.

Als evangelikaler Christ, dem die katholische Kirche nicht egal ist, bin ich auch sehr dankbar für seine klare Stellungnahme zum sogenannten “Synodalen Weg“, einem revisionistischen “Reformprozeß” in der katholischen Kirche in Deutschland, der von der Mehrzahl der deutschen Bischöfe unterstützt wird, und der, ob absichtlich oder nicht, immer mehr in die Richtung geht, die katholische Kirche an den liberalen Protestantismus der EKD anzugleichen, komplett mit der Normalisierung “alternativer Sexualitäten”.

Unter anderem wirft Schönborn dem “Synodalen Weg” vor, die klerikalen Mißbrauchsfälle für eine über das legitime Ziel hinausschießende Kirchenreform zu instrumentalisieren, und viel zu wenig von Umkehr (Bekehrung) und Nachfolge Jesu zu reden:

Mit Blick auf das Thema Klerikalismus sagte der Kardinal, das “Heilmittel gegen den Klerikalismus ist, pardon, es so schlicht und deutlich zu sagen, die Nachfolge Jesu”.

“Von Umkehr und Nachfolge ist auf den Debatten des Synodalen Weges zu wenig zu hören”, so Schönborn. Der Maßstab für das kirchliche Amt müsse “die dienende Gestalt Jesu” sein.

“Der Missbrauch, der durch Priester geschehen ist, ist sicher die schlimmste Form von Missbrauch”, erklärte der Wiener Erzbischof. “Aber das als Argument dafür zu nehmen, dass die Stiftung Jesu geändert oder korrigiert werden muss, scheint mir verfehlt.”

Vor drei Jahren (2019) wurde Kardinal Schönborn 75 Jahre alt, das Alter, in dem Bischöfe laut Kirchenrecht dem Papst ihren Rückblick anbieten müssen; Scönborn tat dies, Papst Franziskus nahm das Angebot jedoch nicht an und beließ Kardinal Schönborn bis auf weiteres im Amt. Aber das Ende seiner Amtszeit ist absehbar, und kein Mensch weiß, wer ihm als Wiener Erzbischof nachfolgen wird. Viele konservative, bewußte Christen, auch in den Freikirchen, werden “unserem Kardinal” nachtrauern.

Titelbild: Kardinal Schönborn beim Festgottesdienst anläßlich 150 Jahre Baptisten in Österreich in der Baptistengemeinde Mollardgasse, 23. November 2019.

 

Ich erlaube auf diesem Blog keine Kommentare. Den Grund dafür und weitere Informationen findest Du auf der Seite Datenschutz.