The truth is that Sojourners uses Christian terminology to advance an anti-American, anti-free enterprise, and pro-Communist agenda.
'Discover the Networks' submits the following expose':
'Giving voice to Sojourners' intense anti-Americanism, Jim Wallis called the U.S. "the great power, the great seducer, the great captor and destroyer of human life, the great master of humanity and history in its totalitarian claims and designs."
'In the 1980s the Sojourners community actively embraced "liberation theology," rallying to the cause of communist regimes that had seized power especially in Latin America, with the promise of bringing about the revolutionary restructuring of society. Particularly attractive for the ministry's religious activists was the Communist Sandinista regime that took power in Nicaragua in 1979. Clark Pinnock, a disaffected former member of Sojourners, revealed in 1985 that the community's members had been "100 percent in favor of the Nicaraguan revolution."'
Read the complete story here:
5 comments:
I disagree with you that Sojourners is just a leftist political rag. I've read a few of their articles and like much of what their saying, and it's a whole lot more Christ-like than the trash the religious right is dishing out.
Didymous,
Without getting into a debate about the views of the religious right, tell me how you think Sojourners is Christ-like. Where, for example, is there any directive in the New Testament for government to do what individual Christians are commanded to do out of their generosity?
And where did Christ at ANY POINT suggest that His teachings are to be taken as a mandate for a form of government rather than a mandate for personal behavior?
I have been following Sojourners ever since their beginning, and I have to say that their unwavering support for Marxist regimes, their anti-American propaganda, and their desire to make this nation into a collectivist, socialist nation makes them anything but Christian in orientation.
As far as I'm concerned, they merely use the words of Christ, taken out of context, to support their subversive political agenda.
Martyn
tell me how you think Sojourners is Christ-like.
For the sake of brevity I'll just take a couple of examples from a couple of magazine covers. From February 2006 Cover story we see "Fighting global poverty: What Works: Innovative programs are bringing hope to communities across Africa". Cover picture shows a bunch of kids playing on a water pump. I'd have to say that it is pretty Christ-like to help those in need. When churches, NGO's, and governments can work together as a community with those in need, that's a good thing.
Another cover, December 2006, picture of the face of James Loney, a Christian Peacemaker who was taken captive in Iraq, Tom Fox, one of his compatriots was killed there working as an ambassador for Christ. I respect what those guys are doing.
As for “anti-American propaganda”? What could possible be more American than disagreeing with your government and having the right to say it out loud. God bless them for their “anti-American propaganda”.
And where did Christ at ANY POINT suggest that His teachings are to be taken as a mandate for a form of government rather than a mandate for personal behavior?
I have to admit that I don't see Sojourners advocating the creation of a theocratic regime for the United States, they advocate organized Christian community participation in government. But now for your more specific question - where did Christ at ANY POINT suggest that His teachings are to be taken as a mandate for a form of government rather than a mandate for personal behavior? He mentions it in several places. It's called the church.
Didymus,
Sorry, but your argument fails on at least a few key points.
First, the church was never to be taken as a model for secular government. If this is your point in your last paragraph, then you have contradicted yourself, for at this point you ARE speaking of a theocratic rule based upon the model of the New Testament Church. The Church was NEVER seen as an example of what government could become but as the Body of Christ, period.
Second, you claim Sojourners has never advocated for a particular form of government. Oh, but it HAS! In Nicaragua. Sojourners and its adherents supported the Communist takoever of that country and advocated for similar Communist coups in the region.
Third, there is nothing wrong with criticizing the goverment. Heaven knows I do my share of it right here on The Liberty Sphere, each and every day. But to advocate for a totally different form of government based upon Marxism, as Sojourners is prone to do, is a far cry from being merely critical.
And don't try to give me the standard leftist party line that the teachings of Christ are very close to that of Marxism. I have heard that argument too many times, and it is simply hogwash. The primitive New Testament church tried it early on but it failed, and by the middle of the second century the idea of 'having all things in common' was abandoned for a more realistic approach.
Four, I hate the fact that any civilian in a war zone is killed. But there are some of the so-called 'Christian peacemakers' who go to the region for one reason alone--to condemn the presence of the U.S. in the region and thus turn public opinion in the area against the U.S.
I have personally encountered such 'peacemakers' in the past, and I am not at all impressed.
'Ambassadors for Christ' do not engage in political propaganda under the guise of 'Christian ministry.' The priorities of Christian ministry do not include spreading a Marxist message that twist the words of Christ.
We may continue with this debate, but frankly, I do not see what that will accomplish. We will just agree to disagree.
I will let you have the last word.
Martyn
First, the church was never to be taken as a model for secular government. ...
I agree. I don't think the church is to be taken as a model for secular government at all. Nonetheless, it is a government for the community of believers.
Second, you claim Sojourners has never advocated for a particular form of government. ...
Maybe they have in the past. But it appears to me that they have repented, since they obviously aren't advocating Marxist takeovers now.
Third, ... But to advocate for a totally different form of government based upon Marxism, as Sojourners is prone to do, is a far cry from being merely critical.
First off, I've studied Marxism and Sojourners gets an 'F' grade in Marxism. But besides that, what is honestly wrong with being a Marxist? You disagree with them, they disagree with you, and I disagree with both of you and them. Just because someone might be a Marxist doesn't make him or her anti-American. But lets get to the heart of the matter here - you're just using "Marxist" and "anti-American propaganda" as slur words to paint those you disagree with as mere traitors, without looking at who they really are.
And don't try to give me the standard leftist party line that the teachings of Christ are very close to that of Marxism. I have heard that argument too many times, and it is simply hogwash.
Now I wouldn't do that. Christ's teachings are not and never were anything like Marxism.
The primitive New Testament church tried it early on but it failed, and by the middle of the second century the idea of 'having all things in common' was abandoned for a more realistic approach.
Now here I must disagree with you. Acts 2:44-47 is not an expression of some erroneous Marxist utopianism that failed and then the church went to something more well thought out. No, Acts 2:44-47 is an expression of what the church is and always ought to be.
I will let you have the last word.
Thank you.
Post a Comment