I don't see any connection between catholic political movements and prostestant pastors although as far as I'm concerned the latter's worse. I'm no fan of mixing religion and politics but at least the former takes it's lead from Christ's teachings with regard to the poor as opposed to some charismatic individual that has spent the majority of his time building his pile of cash.
I don't think there can be a grand narrative with compartmentalisation because in effect that means there are areas where the grand narrative doesn't apply which makes a nonsense of the whole concept. For example there are plenty of rich evangelical preachers that have a direct point of view on Leviticus 18:22 but don't apply quite the same rigorous logic to Mark 10:25.
Up my way, in northern liberal land, evangelical is a code word in political discussions -- along with "right wing" far right wing" and others and a rather disprespectful one among people I know who use it. Most mean Republican Christian. If your issue is with preachers (or people in general, for that matter) who you think would have trouble passing through the eye of a needle, then "rich preachers" or "rich people" (of all religions) would have been sufficient for your point, rather than the phrase I have bolded above "rich evangelical preachers".
As to your comment that the Catholic church takes its lead from Christ's teaching with respect to the poor, I hope you realize that Protestants also preach and believe the same teaching (to perhaps the same effect).
In your post quoted above, your anti-Protestantism is showing, and not all of us respect that attitude (since, say, the Reformation).
I'm not certain when "liberation theology" gave way to the likes of Joel Osteen. I'm not certain which is worse really.
Regarding your question about a typical teaching, I was questioning "typical" with respect to the Catholic church. I would say that most of Jesus' teachings (and the entire example of his life) were atypical with respect to the times in which he lived. That's rather the point, isn't it? If you are interested in my idea of basic Christian teachings, then I would offer Jesus' words on the two great commandments on which all others depend, and the direct statement that "I am the way and the truth and the life." Good enough?
Moreover, I would call Christian anyone who says they are Christian (Roman Catholic included), without applying further epithets to the Christians we disagree with.
I hope that clarifies my reaction to your post.
You evidently thought I was sectarian, that is not the case.
Well you sure could have fooled me! With your use of words like
and a catholic church (or was it the movement?) "built on" Jesus' teachings with respect to the poor. (I thought it was Peter, the Rock.)
The level of hostility that you introduced in your invective has not been seen for many years around here in discussions related to religion.
If you say I misunderstood what you meant, I can only suggest saying what you mean specifically instead of with broad generalities.
I apologize if you sounded to my ears like someone you didn't want to sound like.
Sectarian or not, your attitudes rest with you.
I don't see any connection between catholic political movements and prostestant pastors although as far as I'm concerned the latter's worse.
I don't think there can be a grand narrative with compartmentalisation because in effect that means there are areas where the grand narrative doesn't apply which makes a nonsense of the whole concept. For example there are plenty of rich evangelical preachers that have a direct point of view on Leviticus 18:22 but don't apply quite the same rigorous logic to Mark 10:25.An excellent point.
Actually, you are right; I can't find the sentence I had in mind. So, I can only say my memory must have played a trick on me. But that is no excuse. So I apologize sincerely for reading the word "hate" where it did not appear, I am sincerely sorry for that. Perhaps it was while reading your phrase "I'm no fan of," but that again is no excuse either. I am sorry for my error and I apologize.Hate? care to quote me..
My attitude neatly fits the chip on your shoulder.
I can't help but wonder if McLaren's thesis is wounded by being more generous than orthodox.
In the late '90s, I went to a bookstore and purchased Of Sense and Soul by Ken Wilber. While there are many books on Buddhism out there and I've read most, Wilber was different. His main point was to create a coherent "integral" theory that united science and religion and all branches of knowledge into one system. What Ken Wilber is to Buddhism, Brian D. McLaren is to contemporary Christianity. This book is his attempt to integrate different strands of Christianity into a personal faith system. He takes the best from each "branch" if you will that he has experienced in Christianity and feels that the other branches off-set the negativity of the other branches. The vignettes about his dabbling with pentecostalism is interesting, as well as his history of retelling the history of Methodism. The "post-protestant," and "post-christian" language is loaded with vague meaning, but it is abundantly clear that he is attempting to steer a middle road between stifling literalist-fundamentalism on the one hand, and certain Christian services that resemble a sociology class more than a church service. I'm painting with a wide brush here, but if you have experienced these examples in person, you will get what I mean. A "generous" orthodoxy is solid on certain fundamentals, but accepts and encourages differing viewpoints as individuals experience them and adopt them. I'm not certain if McLaren's viewpoint is coherent enough to create a new branch of Christianity or movement in and of itself. I can't help but wonder if McLaren's thesis is wounded by being more generous than orthodox.
What Ken Wilber is to Buddhism, Brian D. McLaren is to contemporary Christianity. This book is his attempt to integrate different strands of Christianity into a personal faith system.
And that sounds like a good example to me!Example : You don't have to necessarily believe it is right to baptize a baby, but you also don't have to condemn people to hell because they do.
Sounds like an interesting read.
Only if you're Christian, it's not puzzling from a broader viewpoint.
It seems like it would be more puzzling from a broader viewpoint. The broader viewpoint might say : "Don't all of you believe basically the same thing? What's the problem?" Sort of the way people who don't understand Sunni vs Shiite differences, can't figure out why one muslim might kill another.