Story here on the NewsReal blog. (H/T Mary)
Excerpt:
Dr. Jeffrey Siker, professor of religion at Loyola University and a liberal Presbyterian minister, was featured in the LA Times yesterday for an academic paper he did on Obama’s use of the Bible in public speeches and writings. His findings show a candidate and President willing to pick and choose scripture that Obama considers pluralistic and in support of his policies. Siker presents this fact as positive pragmatism instead of what it really may be – sacrilegious ambition.
[…]Obama uses “brother’s keeper” to convince Americans to support socialist policies.
“This vision of being my brother’s keeper has important political and social consequences when it comes to such issues as healthcare, consumer protection or education reform.” – Siker
The problem with that interpretation is that the “brother’s keeper” passage has nothing to do with supporting welfare policies. Cain has just killed his brother Abel, and God was condemning Cain for the sin by asking Cain where his brother was. Cain said he didn’t know where Abel was because he’s not responsible for him. God does not respond by saying, “Yes you are Cain. You are responsible to make enough money to pay not only for your healthcare but also Abel’s.”
Quoting the Bible to teach socialism only works on people who haven’t read the Bible. You can’t get socialism from the Bible, because there is no passage that teaches that Jews and Christians should embrace the idea of wealth redistribution by government. The Bible teaches private, voluntary charity.
Related posts
- Frank Turek interviews Jay Richards on Christianity and capitalism
- Christian professor of economics discusses capitalism, socialism and the Bible
- How I got interested in the relationship between Christianity and economics
- First Things reviews Jay Richards’ Money, Greed and God
- Ron Nash explains what should Christians believe about social justice
WINTERY KNIGHT 
I’m often sad to find Christians that I respect fall for this ‘Biblical socialism’.
Yes we are commanded to take care of our brothers and sisters, but not by using secular government as we actually giving away their religious freedom bit by bit.
LikeLike
The liberal left paradigm is, “I have the right to be left alone to do what I want, and you have the responsibility to fund me — so, pay up and leave me alone.”
However, being one’s “brother’s keeper” entails all the admonitions of Paul — reprove, exhort, correct, teach, censure, shun, and, “if they will not work, let them not eat”. It doesn’t just mean “hand over your money”.
Somehow, the liberal left want to avoid the part about admonishing, censuring, and correcting.
LikeLike
I hate it when people use the Bible to promote their own agendas.
Obama is one.
I hate it when he does it.
But he’s not the only one.
LikeLike
Those complementarians do it, and I’m one of them – because I think that their view is consistent with the Bible. But then those weird Vision Forum patriarchy people are much worse, right? I’m not one of them – because I think their view is inconsistent with the Bible.
LikeLike
Hey, I wasn’t going to name names cause I’m in a good mood today and don’t feel like fighting. So I’ll just keep my short list to the most outrageous.
But yeah, to be sure, those Vision Forum people are near the top of my list. They make a lot of money peddling their wares and promoting their horrid doctrines.
Another bunch that ranks higher than VF is the FLDS who use the Bible to promote their plural marriages and marrying 14 and 15 year old girls.
Those men have quite a scam going on. They won’t give up their priviledge without a knock down drag out fight. May the kingdom they are building on sand fall down about their ears so the prisoners can go free.
Then there is this bunch that I learned about today. Glad they’ve been caught and are being charged. It’s a good reason to be happy.
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/25011/leaders-of-religious-sect-charged-with-rape
I get so sick of people using religion to hurt and control others.
Especially those who use the Bible.
I love the Bible so much. I hate seeing twisted in the hands of people with agendas.
People need to read it for what it is, not make it into what they want, i.e. fashion it after their own image.
K, I’m done.
:)
LikeLike
Well, I don’t disagree with any of those! I don’t like those people either.
I think women should become theologians and philosophers and historians and debate bad men who misuse the Bible.
Why don’t we go through the Bible and read all the parts where men have moral obligations? Then boss them around – like providing. Have you every seen that verse about men being obligated to provide? How about the one where it forbids drunkenness? And gambling?
If a man doesn’t know the Bible, the woman can tell him. If a man doesn’t think that the Bible is true, the woman should argue for it using apologetics. I just bought some books for a young lady I like last night so that she and I can learn apologetics together. But I can’t say what they are, it will spoil the surprise. Women have to read their own Bible and argue with men. It’s allowed.
I think you go too far in being mean to Grudem and Driscoll though… I don’t think the text supports egalitarianism – I think it supports sex roles, chivalry and courting. I love courting. I love telling a woman that I love her and giving her gifts and serving her – it’s the man’s job, you know.
LikeLike
Said I was done. But you know how it is when you bring up these two guys.
The only reason you think that the text doesn’t support egalitarianism is because you accept the strawmen arguments put up by Grudem and others.
If you truely looked at Egal teaching, objectively, without the lens that comps have made for you, you would find that it has far more merit than those who teach against it will ever admit.
I still don’t feel like arguing so please understand that when I bring this up, it’s in a matter of fact way. Not a frothing at the mouth way.
It is what it is, whether you want to face it or not. If you choose not to, what can I say? It’s your life, you have to live it the best way you know how, and I trust you with that.
But note one thing.
Grudem’s agenda to make sure that people believe that husband’s are NEVER to submit to their wives and it is ALWAYS the wife’s job to submit to the husband takes him on some very ridiculous, logic-defying trips.
For example the Hebrew word that give us the word “help” as part of the phrase, “Help Meet” are also used for God when God helps man.
Grudem states that because the woman was created to be a help, that means a little helper as in not on equal footing, authority wise.
And he is soooo invested in it that when that word for “help” is applied to God, then, at that point in time, Grudem says that God is submitting man when He helps him.
So rather than ever letting it look like maybe a women is taking a strong position of help that a man might submit to, Grudem must always show the woman as submitting, even to the point that God is submitting to man. This is how invested in it he is.
Grudem has an agenda. It’s one that, when he’s cornered on these things, he defies sound logic and reason to make sure no husband ever has to submit to his wife on anything. Or at least never look like he’s submitting. They use other words for it, even though it’s totally the same thing.
He’s the man that says Ephesians 5:21 doesn’t mean what it says, “Submit to one another.”
He says it means, “some submit to others”. He says this because he feels husbands are exempt from this where their wives are concerned. Which is ridiculous.
I’m not even going to get started on Driscoll. Any man who tells women that Jesus commands them to service their husbands by performing oral sex on them is not worth my anger tonight. Driscoll, in the area of sex, is messed* up* in the head. (*wanted to use a much stronger word, but out of respect for the people here, and my general good mood, I used lesser words.)
Now, rather than go through anymore arguments concerning Grudem, I’ll let you read a real egal response to Grudem that you need to use for honest study. The strawmen argument just don’t accomplish anything, for anyone. It especially doesn’t prove compism because it is not an honest argument by any stretch.
(Also, I couldn’t find the links for the examples I used above. They exist, I just don’t have the time to look for them. The the following does a much better job than me depending on my memory.)
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/07/04/wayne-grudems-an-open-letter-to-egalitarians/
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/07/05/wayne-grudem-part-2/
yipee.
I’m still in my mellow, good mood. Which is a good thing cause I’m tired. I gotta get to bed.
And you know I agree with you about men and women saving themselves for marriage.
Very hard in this porn-infested culture of ours.
LikeLike
Hi Mara
I’m not all that clued up on the subtleties of the egalitarian vs complementarian argument between Grudem and his detractors, so I’ll stay out of that one.
However, I recall when I first read the passages about wives submitting to their husbands. It made me uncomfortable, but there was no getting around it.
What removed my discomfort with the complementarian view was someone pointing out that there is submission within the Godhead. The Son submits to the Father. However, that does not imply that the Son is less divine than the Father. It also doesn’t imply inferiority of Son to Father.
Also, I think the guys have a harder task actually. They have to be loving towards their wives as Christ was to the Church – a high standard indeed. They are to be servant leaders, as Jesus was. Provided men see this, we have nothing to fear.
LikeLike
Hey Mary.
What you are describing is referred to as the Eternal Subordination of the Son or the ESS doctrine which is gaining in popularity within many circles.
Which is terribly unfortunate.
Since this is not an orthodox Christian view, but is rather the repackaging of the 4th century A.D. Arian heresy. (Not to be confused with Aryanism, as in Hitler/Holocast etc.)
Rather than get much into it myself, here is a link that explains it better than I ever could.
http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2008/09/growing-semi-arianism-in-sbc-and.html
On a side note, if you think I have problem with submitting, I don’t. I think it was WG who told me that since my husband is an alcholic, that somehow cancels out my need to submit to him. I appreciate what he said to me. It was base in mercy and concern over my situation.
But you see, I DON’T feel it cancels out Ephesians five. But my definition of submission for wives and husbands is not nearly so legalistic and as what CBMW makes it out to be. CBMW makes it mean ‘obey’ when that’s not what submission means.
I still submit in that I still do things for him, still honor, respect, and appreciate him, etc.
LikeLike
Thanks, Mara.
I read the article and I feel that it’s an inaccurate depiction of what I believe. I feel that the depiction of complementarianism as “semi-Arianism” is a misrepresentation.
I don’t believe that Christ is inferior to the Father or that wives are inferior to their husbands. I do believe that there is submission in the Godhead, and in marriage – and that it’s not the same as inferiority. Christ says in the Garden of Gethsemane, as He prays to the Father: “Yet not as I will, but as you will.” Note also that the very names “Father” and “Son” imply different roles in the Godhead. Yet, He also uses expressions reserved only for God as applying to Himself and acts with the authority of God. The pharisees are horrified by Him “making himself equal with God”. Both equality and submission are present in the Godhead.
I am sorry to hear that your husband is an alcoholic. It must be very difficult. :-( I would certainly say that you should not submit to him if he asks anything ungodly of you. And honoring, respecting, and appreciating him sounds like a good definition of submission to me.
LikeLike
Jesus was submitted, temporarily, in His human time on earth.
But when it was all over, all authority was given to Him.
He is not eternally subordinate. The time in the garden where He, in His temporary human form, cannot be taken as proof of His eternal, unilateral submission. The point of the garden is not ESS. The point is that our redemption could not be bought any other way and He was willing to lay down His life.
And you cannot get heiarchy in the Trinity from any other place except in Hebrews which is also talking about the time Jesus spent on this earth.
The men who teach this doctrine, instead of making assumptions about prayers in gardens, should instead, listen to the actual words and commands of God and what His opinon is of authority.
It is quite different than limited, human opinion.
Hey, if I’m starting to sound contentious, I’m sorry. In fact, I think I’ll drop out of this discussion for a while.
I’m really not angry. A little frustrated by the inroads this ESS doctrine has made into the lives of good people, perhaps. But as I mentioned above. It is what it is. Gotta just trust in the goodness in your heart and in Christ in you the hope of glory.
LikeLike
Actually I am finding all your comments, especially the resource suggestions, great. It’s the weekend, and the only thing I’ve seen from your list is The Princess Bride. So I’ll be looking at some of these new ones. It’s good for me to be sensitive.
LikeLike
Well, then, Wintery. If you have seen the Princess Bride, then you know that early on in the movie, when Wesley responded to Buttercup’s orders with, “As you wish.” He was really saying, “I love you.”
Which really is a form of submission. But submission is not an ugly thing for either male or female to engage in when it is based in love(Eph%:21;Icor13). It is beautiful and one way of expressing love, whether a woman gives it freely to a man, or a man gives it freely to woman.
His “As you wish”, won her heart and showed her his heart, a heart willing to die for her.
Submission in relationships is awesome.
Hiearchy and pulling rank, not so much.
LikeLike
I think the main question we need to ask is whether a person, including ourselves, is using the Bible for their own ends or for God’s purposes. If it is for God’s purposes then they will be willing to submit to the whole witness of Scripture.
LikeLike
Mary, you are absolutely right.
One of my prayers is that I will grow to know God on this earth to the greatest measure possible in my situaion.
And part of this is knowing what His heart is when He inspire the Bible.
I think it’s safe to say that the men who use the Bible to promote plural marriages are missing the heart of God.
The best studies of scripture are the ones that look to find God in the word, not doctrines, not agendas, God.
True doctrine grows out of knowing God, not just knowing scriptures.
Jesus talking to the Pharisees:
John 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me.
We don’t get eternal life from the Scriptures. We get it from Jesus. The Scriptures are His letter to us to help us know Him more.
LikeLike
I think Obama uses the Bible as a paper-weight and that’s about it.
LikeLike
:) (Smirk)
LikeLike
Hey Wintery.
After I made the comment last night I began to think about some of the other things you said and wanted to come back and tell you something.
I don’t feel egalism cancels out chivalry or courting. It leaves things open for how the male and female want to go about this.
The last thing I want to do is to try to take away chivalry and the fun two people can have in the courting department.
Since we were talking about movies on the other thread, thought I’d bring up three as an afterthough here and make comments on them.
Ever After. Even though I like this movie, I found the ending to be somewhat disappointing because even though I appreciate how strong the heroine was, I wish that they would have allowed the prince more participation in saving her.
Princess Bride. What I didn’t like about this movie was the soundtrack behind the action that sounds like it was played on a chinky Casio keyboard.
What I liked was how the hero gained the love of the princess and how he rescued her in the end from the man that didn’t love her, but wanted to use her as a pawn in his bigger plans. Plus, it’s very funny. Not a chick flick. Guys like this one too.
And last, an oldie but a goody.
The Court Jester, starring Danny Kaye and a very young Angela Lansbury.
Yes it’s older and probably harder for the younger generation to watch. But it is clever and has 1950s morals.
The hero is not your strong Rambo type at all. But he’s still very much a hero fighting for what is right along side is very capable female sidekick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Court_Jester
So, this is my peace offering, for what it is.
I also like the book, Once and Future King, which is about King Arthur and Chivalry. I like it because it was written in the early 40s, partially during WWII and it brings up the issues of might vs right.
Something I can’t get into here because, again, my post is getting too long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Once_and_Future_King
LikeLike
Those last two movies sound really nice. :)
LikeLike
Discovered another group that makes my outrageous list. Don’t know if they should be listed just above FLDS or just below it.
I’m not linking directly, but linking to a link since there is no point in having people from tha original site come here and bother us. I know this is not what Wintery’s blog is about.
I’m only leaving it for you to see so that you will be aware of what has been going on behind closed doors, and is now coming out of the closet and being defended as right and Christian. This is the sort of thing that makes the rest of us look bad.
I know most, if not all, of the people who read here recognize this as NOT representing the heart of God for marriage. And most, if not all, will be just as aghast at this as I was.
When you get to jumpers to jean, click on the link: Domestic Discipline Journal entry.
Read it, and then, if you have time, take a gander at the comments that support this lifestyle.
LikeLike