A REBUTTAL

A REBUTTAL

Here is a rebuttal to my article "BLESSED ARE THE POOR IN SPIRIT" (which I published on the World Wide Web)---It came from a young man I have known for many years.----- Marion

My concerns over the insurgence of CD (Christian Dominionism) does not abate. So I decided to do a short bit of rebuttal.

Here's a very brief summary of why I doubt that the CDs are God's messengers of the hour. I propose, instead, that they are violating the precepts of Jesus.

It is just my opinion, but it makes enough sense to me to send it to you. Any rebuttal or agreement is equally welcome.

I don't claim to be certain -- else the following summary could not have been written by me. (In truth, I am pretty certain. For I am just as ego driven as anyone. Even when we know truth, it does not mean it has been incorporated into our behavior.)

----------------------

Christianity teaches that poverty of spirit is achieved through a transformation of our desires to fit God's will -- minimizing our ego and maximizing the attributes that God desires (selflessness). But this beatitude has been done great violence by some of modern Christendom's main public voices.

The violence comes from focusing on defining what constitutes the latter part of the equation (what God desires) to the exclusion of the former part (minimizing our egos). The "we are one true Church" characteristic is present in every denomination; and probably is the single most disgusting attribute of every denomination in God's eyes. There is nothing wrong with following our true beliefs; this is what we are called to do. But when we become so certain that we (our denomination) are the true repository of God's truths, we have overstepped; this claim that we are the one true Church surely means we have maximized our ego instead of minimizing it. It is this hubris, that we possess all the spiritual insight that causes us to try to force our idea of "the attributes that God desires in his people" onto all others. This is an utter violation of minimizing our egos; and is also a strong expression of self.

We need to be less certain that we are the voice of God. None of us have a "God's-eye-view." No one sees things as God sees things, as they truly are. Each person sees from his/her own perspective. We can become overly certain that we know God's will, when we perhaps have been fooled by our own heart or by false teaching or misunderstanding. Even if we have the right doctrines and a pure heart, we do not have completeness of understanding, nor are we free from our egos. Our "voice of God" is far from perfect.

This cautionary is in no way promoting subjectivism or relativism or the idea that each person creates his/her own truth. There is objective truth. But God is the only one who can say with certainty what objective truth is. We humans are too fallible to hold any degree of certainty that we know objective truth. Both history and current day examples prove this statement.

Looking back on history, we see many Christians burned at the stake for heresy. The problem is, however, that what they died for back then is now accepted theology. It was not just the Catholic church that burned people at the stake for heresy. We had it in early America, amongst Protestant groups too. Just ask the Quakers, Methodists, and Baptists if any of their early American followers were burned by the Puritans? The answer is, of course, affirmative.

For a current day example, if you are theologically competent at all, you can quickly understand just how little we agree as to what is objective truth by listening for one hour to any televangelist who spouts his certainty that he possesses THE truth. You will, in that hour hear several statements he makes that are not THE truth as you know it.

That televangelist needs to be less certain that his understanding is THE truth. And, so should you and I do be less certain of our understandings too. If I disagree with him, logic says that one of us must be wrong. Logic, however, does not dictate that it is him that is wrong; it could be him or it could be me. Only ego would propose that it cannot be me. We humans need to have some poverty of spirit regarding our ability to discern objective truth. Only God sees truth entirely as it is; we all see things from a personal perspective and not from God's objective perspective.

As we strive to shed our personal desires and "put on Christ," or will what God wills, there is a danger that in trying to will God's will, we will only be willing our skewed interpretation of God's will. This is a great danger. Who has not changed their understanding of God's will as they matured? But we were certain we knew it back then -- just as we are certain we know it now. And will be certain we know it when we change our views a decade from now. It is precisely this tendency to be certain of that which is uncertain that caused Jesus to write this beatitude. He calls for humility of spirit; a repression of our cocksure egos. And this beatitude is almost utterly ignored by the dominant mouthpieces of modern Christendom's. Is it too strong a statement to say that they are teaching doctrine opposite to that which Jesus taught? I think not.

Despite the uncertainty of the process, or perhaps because of it, poverty of spirit should make us seek to transform our desires to fit God's will; this need I will not deny. But this seeking is not enough. In addition to seeking must come humility. This same poverty of spirit should keep us very humble about our potential fallibilities and the uncertainties of this process.

We all have seen others who have been certain they knew God's will, and we have been equally certain that they did not. It is, of course, our egos that make us so certain that our understanding trumps theirs. If we have poverty of spirit, we will be more tolerant of other viewpoints, as perhaps being something we should seriously and prayerfully investigate. And if we ultimately reject that viewpoint, we should only reject it internally, not in ego driven public declamation. Poverty of spirit means we will never try to force our ideas on others; nor proclaim that we are the holders of THE truth. The hubris that drives men to insist that they know God's will only proves that they have not allowed God to empty them of their own pride and self certainty.

This cautionary is in no way promoting the idea that our religious beliefs should not be discussed and debated. It does promote the idea that much humility is called for. How quickly we declaim the spirituality of others. Jesus was far more inclusive in his acceptance of any who named the name of Christ. It is far better to err on the side of including in Christ's fold those who are not than it is to exclude those who are. (What God hath cleansed, let no man call unclean.) Jesus, in fact, ordered us not to try and separate the tares from the wheat. He has reserved that task for himself at the time of harvest. It is his crop; not ours.

True Christianity demands that we work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. There is no room for demanding that others conform to our concepts of Godliness. Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit offer truth gently. If we refuse it, they don't force it down our throats. The behavior of the Holy Spirit in presenting truth is always gently. There is no force. You have free will, and the Creator does not violate what has been given to you.

So where do we get the idea that we have the right to cram our religious ideas forcefully down other's throats? How can we possibly understand this to be the will of the Jesus? The answer lies in the Old Testament.

Clearly, in the Old Testament, a person could be killed for rejecting or violating the law of God. But this was under the old covenant. Under that covenant, the Israelites were literally born into a covenant of blessing and cursing; it was not a personal decision; it was a coercive theocracy. The new covenant is much different. It is individualistic. No national salvation. No salvation by birth. You must choose. Free will -- freedom to choose -- is the hallmark of the new covenant. But oh how many of us desire to return to selected aspects of the old covenant. We don't want all the down sides of the old covenant, but we sure want the coercion.

In this major area, Paul teachings appear to be contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Religion by force is throughout the Pauline epistles. It is my opinion that Paul was so thoroughly steeped with Old Testament theology (and his own ego) that he could not adapt to the new theology of Jesus.

Paul was willing to accept that salvation came to individuals by personal decision, instead of to nations by birthright. He recognized and accepted the personal nature of the decision process regarding salvation. But, he could not bring himself to believe that your working through the process of salvation remained between you and God. He wanted the church to insert itself into the process just as strongly as it did in Judaism.

Paul most assuredly was as demanding of "acceptable standards" as the Scribes and Pharisees who received such scathing denunciation from Jesus. They were so certain that they understood the "plain truth" of the law. And Jesus told them that they had no understanding. How do we suppose Jesus would respond to the Christian Dominionists of today? I suspect he'd be just as scathing to them: choking over gnats and swallowing camels; neglecting the core aspects of true religion and majoring on outward appearances; loving public prayers and hating ones enemies; money changing in the temples; etc. I fear that the CDs are as antichrist like in nature as the old Catholic church was during the dark ages.

How like God that the Catholic church of today has transformed itself to a church that seeks justice for all, care for the poor, and humility before God, and the modern Protestant church is drifting into the same mannerisms that they so soundly renounced in the old Catholic church. Could it be that the arrogance of the Protestants has brought their own decline? (And no, I don't condone the sins of the Catholic church regarding child molestation amongst the priests. I just credit them for the parts they have got right.)