This to Diane Carman, a Denver Post columnist after her column was printed here:
http://denverpost.com/carman/ci_2780132
Dear Diane,
Your column this morning points out a very clear distinction between Iliff's social gospel and the more "conservative" orthodoxy of Christianity. Iliff's brand, that of your subject Jim Luallen, lead him to assign primacy to what is called the "social gospel". The choice he made is not, however, choosing the path of peace over the path of war. One can be a "traditional" Christian and lament war, choosing instead to work for peace. But, Rev. Luallen's passion and commitment has led him straight out of the church into political activism, showing that political orthodoxy is his "true" religion. In following it, he has abandoned Jesus' teaching. Jesus taught that the greatest commandment, that of the "Shema" of Deuteronomy 6:4, needs to be of primary importance. In the political path he has learned at Iliff seminary, "liberal" political principles are held in higher esteem than mere "Christian" principles. It is more important to speak out against this hideous war than speak up for Christ. Iliff, which at last report had an Immam on its staff and has taken an interest in Witchcraft, did not give this young minister the foundation to stand firm in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Standing firmly in biblical Christianity, he could choose to be either liberal or conservative. But, to act from a Christian worldview he would have to put God first, not the activities of man.
So, your story is sad. The church needs both liberal and conservative Christians who are true disciples of Christ, not merely politicos spinning passionately in reaction to the issues of the day. The fact that Rev. Luellan saw his congregation as evil (i.e., conservative) is the tip off. Though presumably his congregation was composed of fellow believers in Christ, to his mind and heart, they were following the wrong gospel. Rev. Luellan has chosen to follow the Sith Lord, I'm afraid; not the Lord of the Universe. The "worldly" way he has chosen will lead to nihilism and despair. It always does.
http://denverpost.com/carman/ci_2780132
Dear Diane,
Your column this morning points out a very clear distinction between Iliff's social gospel and the more "conservative" orthodoxy of Christianity. Iliff's brand, that of your subject Jim Luallen, lead him to assign primacy to what is called the "social gospel". The choice he made is not, however, choosing the path of peace over the path of war. One can be a "traditional" Christian and lament war, choosing instead to work for peace. But, Rev. Luallen's passion and commitment has led him straight out of the church into political activism, showing that political orthodoxy is his "true" religion. In following it, he has abandoned Jesus' teaching. Jesus taught that the greatest commandment, that of the "Shema" of Deuteronomy 6:4, needs to be of primary importance. In the political path he has learned at Iliff seminary, "liberal" political principles are held in higher esteem than mere "Christian" principles. It is more important to speak out against this hideous war than speak up for Christ. Iliff, which at last report had an Immam on its staff and has taken an interest in Witchcraft, did not give this young minister the foundation to stand firm in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Standing firmly in biblical Christianity, he could choose to be either liberal or conservative. But, to act from a Christian worldview he would have to put God first, not the activities of man.
So, your story is sad. The church needs both liberal and conservative Christians who are true disciples of Christ, not merely politicos spinning passionately in reaction to the issues of the day. The fact that Rev. Luellan saw his congregation as evil (i.e., conservative) is the tip off. Though presumably his congregation was composed of fellow believers in Christ, to his mind and heart, they were following the wrong gospel. Rev. Luellan has chosen to follow the Sith Lord, I'm afraid; not the Lord of the Universe. The "worldly" way he has chosen will lead to nihilism and despair. It always does.
4 Comments:
At 1:52 PM, June 06, 2005, Dan Trabue said…
Kevin, Kevin, Kevin,
What in the world did this guy say but the Truth? I read the article and agreed with this fella right down the line (no surprise to you, I'm sure).
Jesus taught that two commandments were of the utmost importance: Love God and Love Folk. This guy is doing that: Loving God and loving folk and acting on behalf of God for justice in this world.
As to his leaving the church, Jesus clearly taught us that there comes a time to shake the dust from our feet and go on to more important ministry. This Luallen guy did so.
Orthopraxy and orthodoxy.
It doesn't matter that Bush is Republican or Democrat. What does matter is that Bush is wrong. To an evil degree. That is why this guy and I are both in opposition to Bush's policies, not his party.
And to make a distinction between "liberal political principles" and "Christian principles" is likely due to poor biblical understanding.
This fella was not alienated from The Church, he was alienated by the religious. Him and Jesus both. More power to him.
I close by quoting Marx: Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others.
At 2:18 PM, June 08, 2005, Dan Trabue said…
Neither the fella in this article (to the best of my recollection) nor I endorsed Kerry. I thought he was a horrible candidate.
And I recognize as long as I'm following Jesus, whose teachings have never been very popular among any ruling elite, that I will not likely have a candidate that I actually could endorse (although Dennis Kucinich was great). I understand that and am okay with it.
That aside, I think Bush's actions are war crimes and I must stand against that. Just as I would have hoped that I would have stood against Hitler's unprovoked and illegal invasion of Poland.
I thought Kerry was a flawed candidate and who knows what he might have done once he got in office. BUT he wasn't a war criminal. He did not lie to get us in an illegal war. When faced with a known criminal and an unknown scoundrel, I'll always choose the scoundrel.
So, to at least that degree, I agree with your first sentence, jholder.
At 9:41 AM, June 09, 2005, Anonymous said…
Danny, Danny, Danny.
Kucinich? Please.
Kevin
At 6:16 PM, June 09, 2005, Dan Trabue said…
Kooch! Kooch! Kooch!
Post a Comment
<< Home