Ecumenical Insanity parsed the latest NCC tome of self-importance:
Ten suggestions from the NCC
The National Council of Churches has put out a set of principles that it suggests should guide Christians as we prepare to vote in November. There’s also a “study guide” of doubtful usefulness, but the main stuff is this:
Our Christian faith compels us to address the world through the lens of our relationship to God and to one another. Public discourse is enhanced as we engage civic leaders on the values and ethics affirmed by our faith. At the same time, religious liberty and the integrity of our democracy will be protected as candidates refrain from using faith-based organizations and institutions for partisan gain. We offer these ten principles to those seeking to accept the responsibility that comes with holding public office.1. War is contrary to the will of God. While the use of violent force may, at times, be a necessity of last resort, Christ pronounces his blessing on the peacemakers. We look for political leaders who will make peace with justice a top priority and who will actively seek nonviolent solutions to conflict.
Translation: When another nation (or private organization, like say al-Qaeda) attacks or assists those who attack the United States or Israel, no force may be used for preventive or retaliatory purposes. Only harsh language is permissible, and only then when it is culturally sensitive. We support politicians who are comfortable with that. (Remember, the NCC didn’t just oppose the Iraq invasion, it opposed any use of force in Afghanistan, too.)
Read the entire piece on the ity blog.
I just love how the Left adds all kinds of things to the word justice. In the NCC’s “Ten Suggestions” we are asked to embrace “global justice”, “economic justice”, “racial justice”, and “environmental justice”. Then there was “peace with justice”, which means finding “nonviolent solutions to conflict”, and a brief mention of the “criminal justice system”, which focused on restoration rather than retribution (the NCC must be in favor of cloning, since the only way to restore a family ripped apart by the crime of murder is to clone the victim).
Can anyone out there tell me what happened to plain, old justice?
To the NCC the term “justice” functions only as a euphemism meant to clothe their collectivist ideology in Christian dress.
Collectivist Ideology? Wasn’t that the ideology of the first disciples of Christ who, after the Resurrection, held all their possessions in common and shared freely with the poor as they spread the message of Jesus Christ and built our Church?
I don’t mean to make myself an advocate for communism and socialism because I’m not. But before we reflexively attack people with a “collectivist ideology” let’s remember that Saints Peter and Paul, among others, are included in that grouping.
NO!!!!, the Apostles and early disciples had nothing at all like a collectivist ideology. Collectivist ideologies disregard the individual and the notion of choice and responsibility for same while at the same time tearing down genuine community. Collectivist ideologies are structured along tyrannical lines, although they take great pains to hide the tyranny at least initially. Collectivist ideologies deaden the mind, and kill the soul all in the name of equality.
That you would even seriously consider a statement equating collectivist ideology with early Christianity shows how little you know about either modern social thought or genuine Christianity. Since you are wallowing in such a sea of ignorance, it explains how easy it is to manipulate you with emotional pleas that lack either substance or logic. Your ideology, Dean, is the antithesis of Orthodox Christianity. Your rhetoric seems founded in emotion, materialism, and oppression while Orthodox Christianity is founded on the rational worship we give our Lord, God, and Savior resulting in a union of heaven and earth that allows us to live in freedom.
That the apostles and early Christians held all things in common (a prescription for the church, btw, not society) is a far cry from state imposed collectivism, the source and origin of a scale of brutality never witnessed earlier in history. Michael is right. That you would equate the apostles with collectivists, and thus conflate the Gospel into Marx, shows how little you understand of each.
The NCC, btw, was an untiring and uncritical supporter of collectivist regimes in the latter half of the last century. Only when Communism fell and the great lie was exposed did the NCC start to backtrack. Rev. Joan Brown Campbell, former General Secretary admitted in a rare moment of candor that the NCC did not defend the Christians persecuted under Communism as they should have. They have yet to account for this failing. Think twice before jumping into bed with them.
Dean,
I too concur with Fr. Jacobse and Michael, and want to sincerely extend a hand to you if you are willing to learn. I myself, as well as Fr. Jacobsen and Michael can recommend source text’s for you so that you can truly educate yourself on both traditional Christian view of polity and modern collectivist theory and practice. Do you want help? It will be an adventure for you, all it takes is your willingness. Will you accept this help?
I took pains to say that I was NOT advocating communism or socialism, but I was interested in how people viewed the selfless sharing of the early Christians. Was it a “collectivist ideology?” Some authors, for example Thomas Cahill in “Desire of the Everlasting Hills” have described the early Christians as almost communist in their approach to wealth and posessions.
However as you all mention, the early Christians shared willingly, and not with the barrel of a rifle ovee their heads. The totalitarian aspect of modern communism was of course never a feature of the early Church, and would have been contrary to all its teachings.
Dean,
Dean, your “pains that I was NOT advocating communism or socialism” does not matter because it is exactly what you did. In other words, I don’t really believe you. Why? Because what the NCC supports is NOT what the early, or current Church supports (which still has a vibrant place possessions are held in common – the monastery). Yet, you want to confuse the issue by conflating collectivist ideology with Christian brotherhood. How? By at the same time scolding those who rightly understand collectivist ideology by claiming that they are “reflexively attacking” something they are not, namely Christian brotherhood. Why Dean why?? Why would you conflate the two, while at the same time claiming to know that you know the difference? If you truly know the difference between Christian brotherhood and collectivist ideology, why do you claim that Fr Jacobse is “reflexively attacking” Christian brotherhood, which he so clearly was not? Why Dean do you seem so confused about this? Could it be that you really do not know the difference? Perhaps you were just temporary confused – if so then retract your original statement. However, based on this and other things you have said, I believe you to be deeply confused/mistaken about the issue…
Mr. Scourtes:
I believe that social scientists would refer to early Christian groups as being more communitarian than libertarian (that is, favoring their close-knit group over individuality), but that would not make them collectivist. There is a great deal of us against them language in the Gospel of John, as well as abnegation of the self and the flesh. Whether this is evidence of collectivism, or whether the letters of St. Paul contain evidence of collectivism, I do not know.
It is evident that St. Paul is not concerned about wealth and distinctions between people except where it makes them less a part of the Christian community. If I had a bible at hand I could provide citations, but alas I do not. I don’t believe that collectivism is really what you mean, however. I recommend communitarianism (if you’re going to -ism the early Church, that is), as its far less politically charged a word.