Why do christian young people have such an easy time criticizing the church and it's older members for their disobedience of the Scriptures demanding a "social gospel" and yet see the Scriptures on sexual morality and excessive alcohol as unimportant, unnecessary, or outdated?
9 comments:
What exactly do you mean by 'social gospel?' And, do you know of a lot of Christian young people that find open sexuality as acceptable? I won't ask the same question in terms of drunkenness, b/c I know the answer to that one.
"Social Gospel" is a term often used to describe the working out of Christ's teachings in regards to taking care of the poor, feeding the hungry, comforting the widow, etc. Most often the complaints I hear from people our/my age is that the church isn't really fulfilling these commands. What do YOU mean by open sexuality? I'm talking about sexual immorality; premarital sex or the advocation for or justification of homosexuality. I don't want to guess on anyone else's sins, but I know from conversations I've had/heard that these are issues amongst young christians.
I guess our generation and those following find it harder to reconcile the accumulation of wealth with christianity. The two just don't jive and what we're seeing today is wealth accumulated in the hands of a very small number of people while a very large number of people are starving or living on the street or in garbage dumps. Wealth isn't a bad thing if it is used to do good. However, I know I've seen people who want to do good with their money only give it with strings attached--it's their money after all, they earned it, so they want to be sure it's used well. These people don't recognize it, but by having such a mindset they are trying to exert their power rather than give humbly. As I write this I realize that I am or have been guilty of this in small ways. For instance, consider the common defence people give to why they don't give money to beggars, that they'll just use it for alcohol. I know I'm guilty of this mindset.
As for drunkenness and sexual immorality ... the line I hear a lot is that Jesus ate with sinners such as these all the time and denounced the wealthy ... and that's supposed to say it all.
Sexual immorality is also an easy one because you just say that it's about love, and God is love, therefore it's not so bad, it's not evil. At least, that's how I've heard certain things defended.
for Caro:
Surely you aren't equating the desire to see monies donated to be used prudently, with a subversive or even unconscious desire to be controlling over finances!? I agree that the latter can be, and often is, the case, and that is a shame. But I don't think it is wise to simply offer over money without being aware of how that money may be used.
When I donate money to the church, I trust and know that the board is accountable and transparent, and therefore I don't need to specify how my money will be used. To that end, a one time donation to a specific cause should not be looked at as controlling. If I want to give $10,000 to a men's shelter, for instance, am I controlling?
However, if I give money to an unregulated source, such as a panhandler, I am instantly more cautious. I have seen first-hand how cash donated to a panhandler ($5 in the case I observed), was IMMEDIATELY taken to the LBS to purchase alcohol. Yes, I observed this full event. Now tell me how that be considered to be fulfilling any sort of social gospel.
I hesitate to equate humility with blind trust. Or, am I mis-interpreting your comments?
for Matt:
I mean the same as you when I said 'open sexuality.' Poor choice of words I guess.
I wonder if these criticisms aren't indicative of generational divides. This is a theory I am working out as I type, so 'read' me out, then feel free to tear it to shreds.
As one grows older, I believe that finances become more prevalent of a concern. That is, we become more concerned with saving for retirement, paying the mortgage, and so on. Further, with age, we see 'more of life' and the inequities and abuses within our society. Sometime we just get tired of trying to help the poor, or saving the environment, or any number of things we know we should do. Why should I continue to donate to the poor, when it never seems to do any permanent good (so says my theory)?
On the other hand, young people are more pre-occupied with matters such as sex, partying, music, and so on. And with raging hormones, the desire to have sex is strong, and harder to resist. I think alcohol abuse spans all age and demographic divides.
In either camp, compromises are being made against their moral code. It's simply a matter of which one you are sensitive to, and therefore it is easy to criticize the other 'camp.'
I think you have an old soul, Matt, and so you may perhaps be caught in an odd place. You don't fully identify with the struggles of your peers, and yet haven't fully experienced the world as the older generation has and are thus less jaded and tired.
Does my theory hold any water at all? (I sure do seem to like to use metaphors)
I think cynicism is a serious part of the whole debate, on both sides.
And Wade you do make sense, and metaphors are wonderful.
Wade: There is a difference between being prudent with how you use your money and feeling some sort of right to dictate how your money is used. I have seen adults who have made huge contributions to whatever cause thereafter dictate how their money should be spent by said cause. If you're done your research in advance you should be able to give your money to the cause and let it go.
Regarding panhandlers, it depends again on how you give or refuse to give. Surely not every panhandler will use your money for alcohol, but there is a strong possibility that they will. Given this knowledge it might be prudent not to give $10,000 to the panhandler, but would a bit of change be so bad? I face this quandry every day if I leave the office during the day for any reason and I often feel like I'm being overly judgmental of many panhandlers.
Just a quick word in response to the last two paragraphs of Caroline's first comment:
Firstly, Christ spent time with the wealthy and the powerful as well as the poor and sinful. He spent time with tax collectors and Jewish rulers. Christ was not interested in what kind of sinner people were, rather He was interested in people that were honestly looking for the true path to God.
Secondly, more often than not, people our age base their concept of love (especially in regards to sex and marriage) on the worldly definition of love. If we were to study the Biblical definition of love we would quickly discover it to be much less romantic and "passionate" (at least according to our definition of passion), and much more severe and consuming. Also, just because we believe sex to be the physical expression of love, that does not bypass the commands given in regards to premarital sex. We are also told that if our passion burns too greatly, we should get married before it becomes sinful.
Matt, re sex: that's all compellingly said if one just looked at the statements made but I wonder what the context tells us. Of course, I wonder without being willing to put too much time into it (devil's advocate am I but a lazy one I fear).
re money/wealth: there seems to be a difference in the way people look at the sins related to wealth and the sins related to alcohol, sex, etc. If you live a "clean" life (i.e. no booze or adultery etc.) you're allowed to accumulate wealth. That is, wealth can control your life in ways that are not nearly as visible or visibly destructive as alcohol, sex, etc. You're right, Jesus mingled with those who wanted to find truth, but I think it just happens that those who realize their need are those that have allowed their life to be controlled and destroyed in an obvious way.
If that doesn't make sense I apologize; it's 12:21am!!
Post a Comment