Coronavirus as Punishment for Sin Remains Popular
If you make your living as a preacher, you need to be nimble. You need to take advantage of every opportunity in order to beat out competitors and grab your share of the money. There are some preachers doing this very skillfully with the virus.
The preachers now doing this include some inside the White House. Rev. Ralph Drollinger leads Bible study for Trump's cabinet. He says the conronavirus is "God's consequential wrath on our (sinful) nation."
Rev. Robert Jeffress pastors a mega church in Dallas and hobnobs with the President, "All natural disasters can ultimately be traced back to sin."
John Piper was a mega church preacher in Minneapolis, "God sometimes uses disease to bring particular judgments upon those who reject him and give themselves over to sin."
According to a poll, 44% of Americans think the pandemic is a "wake up call from God and represents "signs of the coming judgment."
These are just preachers who make the news. One can guess similar sermons linking the disease to sin have been preached from coast to coast. Regardless of how many other preachers state definitively the disease is not a religious issue the temptation to make it into one is more than many preachers can resist. If the congregation is among the 44% who believe this the preachers of those Christians will respond with affirmation. Collection plates can write sermons.
Those of us outside religion are helpless to stop such nonsense. All we can do is roll our eyes and carry on. We can hope the link is correct and claiming the disease is caused by sin drives people away from Christianity.
A student of comparative theology can tell you what denominations (plural) those 44% attend. Put them all in a box, and grab one. Non Creedal, non liturgical. Thematic, and heavy on the sensational. Nothing new. Johnathan Edwards and Geo. Whitfield were masters of this. People would travel 50 miles in horse and buggy through the snow to hear Edwards scare the crap out of them. Virtually all law, and little Gospel. Calvin influenced. (The first awakening). Now they want another.
ReplyDeleteJon,
ReplyDeletelittle helper provided a useful description in his April 27, 2020 at 6:03 PM post of the denominations attended by the “44%”, i.e. non-creedal, non-liturgical, mostly law with little Gospel, thematic and heavy on the sensational. As one that tends to stretch analogy to the limits and occasionally barks up the wrong tree, I went looking for information on the expression of capitalism within denominational Christianity. Found a bunch on the influence of Christianity on capitalism but so far little on the influence capitalism within Christianity. Are the likes of Drollinger, Jeffress, and Piper for profit entrepreneurs taking full advantage of changes in the market environment by resurrecting an old effective ad campaign? Perhaps proselytizing is simply an expression of the entrepreneurial spirit or vice versa. I did find an article contrasting entrepreneurs with money-changers from a biblical perspective. “Money-changers are people who insert themselves in the nooks and crannies of the economic order where money can be siphoned out”. I would like to change “the economic order” to “the Christian denominational order” to describe those referred to in little helper’s post.
https://www.redletterchristians.org/a-theology-of-capitalism-entrepreneurs-vs-money-changers/
Ardy B-- 7:17 Post-- Interesting post, fun to read. Why institutions, religious, for profit, not for profit and individuals do what they do is at the heart of what is called the social sciences. As has been argued, the word "science" is controversial.
ReplyDeleteIn university schools of business these days there are entire courses, even majors, in "mission statements" or maybe some other name is more popular now. Churches have committees that write "mission statements." It is the elusive effort to nail down an answer to the question, "Why are we here?"
After hours of taking ideas, a church's mission statement would probably be something like, "To bring Jesus to our community" or "To serve the unchurched in our area." A restaurant may end up with "To feed people" and a auto dealership "To provide transportation to the public." But, from the view of economic theory these are all wrong.
From the late 1700's to early 1800's the explanation for the existence of all nonpublic businesses was hammered out, which would include churches I assume, "to maximize profits." This was challenged within the discipline off and on. I took courses in what was call "Institutional Economics" decades ago. It taught that the reason for all institutions was "to survive." This meant that sometimes profits were sacrificed in order to crowd out competitors. Still, the need was for enough revenue and costs low enough to make it. Still today that is the real "mission statement." The "mission" of any church, then, is business survival, not "bringing people to Jesus" or reaching the unchurched.
I point this out from time to time here. The argument I get back is that no, "my church" is not interested in money, it has more lofty goals. I would argue back that, yes, there are secondary goals that might be more lofty but the primary one involves money, paying the bills and surviving.
This is too long--I need to stop. :)
re. "denominations";( the name of); There are synods; (walking together in theological agreement).and there are "associations" (united by a variety common interest). That should explain a lot of that 44%, Some of which is politically driven. virtually all are "associations". For example; to claim the name of Baptist, there are only two requirements; 1. against infant baptism, 2. each congregation is strongly independent in it's specific teachings, polity, and symbols, (symbols being statements of what is believed, and how practiced). That is why you can have a Baptist on one corner, and one across the street, and not recognize similarity.
DeleteTo clarify; creedal and liturgical.
DeleteChurches that are creedal subscribe to the three ecumenical Creeds. (This I believe).
Churches that are liturgical follow the liturgical and lectionary of the Church calendar. That is to say ; Season of Advent, Season of Christmas, Season of Epiphany, Season of Lent, Season of Easter, and Season of Pentecost. All the three readings,(Old Testament, Epistles, and Gospel), including the Psalms are contained in each and every day of the week, including Sunday, and the content is always related to the season of the Church Calendar. In like manner, the sermon text is always from one of the three readings for the day.
The advantage in this is that it prevents going off in non-scriptural tangents, such as thematics. (having a theme, and preaching on that theme for a month or more, as a favorite subject of the minister. For example; the end times, politics, drinking, dancing, dancing with snakes, giving tithes, etc.
Jon Lindgren April 28, 2020 at 8:02 AM “Why institutions ...”
Deletelittle helper April 28, 2020 at 1:59 PM “To clarify ...”
Both always the professors with much to teach. Very much appreciated by one always the student with much to learn. Thanks.
helper "This I believe" -- Reminds me of the very ritualistic Episcopalian Church. Years ago it was fighting internally over something. It's leader said something like, "I insist we do the same rituals every Sunday. Then we can disagree on everything else."
ReplyDeleteJon; Read it again. "This I believe" (the Creeds), In fact,"credo" (look it up) is "this i BELIEVE. It is not This we do . or how we do it.
DeleteI do agree however that the Episcopalian Church is heavy on ritual.
interesting comment. seems to me that that is the de facto polity of many churches today, perhaps even the LCMS. then again there is lex orandi, lex credendi: loosely the law of what is said and done is what is believed. spelling? didn't have time to look it up.
DeleteHelper "Jon read it again...This I believe..."
DeleteSeveral thousand times I said "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of....etc., etc,." but it never occurred to me I or anyone around me actually believed it. We were required to run through the ritual. You can call it "creeds" or whatever you want. It's actually just running though some motions, a ritual.
Jon; It is evident you or anyone around you didn't believe it. When you said "It", you were a hypocrite. You are free to call it a ritual. That in turn becomes your ritual.
DeleteWe call it; The Creed;"What we believe." You have no authority to demand anything we believe.
Unknowing; re. "loosely the law of what is said and done is what is believed". No "doing" is required, nor is there a "law" that demands it.
Conversely, whatever you believe IS your creed. Spoken or thought. You don't believe anything Christianity contains IS your creed. No matter what you DO,
Jon; In fact you sound just like Wesley; "It's deeds, not creeds." An understanding of a religion of works. A business model. Sounds very athestic,
Deletemouthing something that you consciously did not believe is a bit problematic. you could, at least, have remained silent. my point was that the church qua church believed it: evidence of which is the fact that it was part of their ritual. if they didn't really believe it they were a fraud or worse, a nest of scorpions.
DeleteHelper "We call it the creed, what we believe."
DeleteI should have prefaced my post by saying I did not know exactly what the term "creed" means in religious talk. Nor do I know in religious talk exactly what ritual means. In street language, when one goes through the steps of a ceremony, like singing the Star Spangled Banner, it is a ritual. When a congregation mumbles through the Apostles Creed is seems like a similar ritual.
helper, I was referring to the doing of the ritual. surely that is part of telling us what the church really believes.
DeleteUnknown; re. "doing of the ritual" NO! In reality the creeds (plural) are nothing more than confessions of the faith. said not only in church, but in many homes. Much like The Lord's Prayer and the ten commandments. All included in the book of confessions. (Confessions, not in the context of "I'm sorry", but a statement of faith, without the benefit of a church service.
DeleteBut yes, by hearing or reading the creeds both in or out of the church, you are informed of what Christians "really believe". A statement , and a reminder.
You must remember in context, "The Church' is/are the believing people.
"The Creed" is contained in the catechism, with ;"What does this mean" (explanation with supporting scripture, following each of the three chief articles., (The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.
Jon @ 6;59; "mumbles" That is a little disrespectful. I will give you a pass on this, but if you bring it up, you really should know what you are talking about, or at least find out before you say something.
Respectfully.
Helper "...you are informed of what Christians 'really believe.' A statement and reminder."
DeleteFor some reason you put "really believe" in quotes. Quotes like that are normally used when something is said but not considered factual. I'm not saying that was your intent, I don't know what you intended.
The phrase "really believe" is curious. The Apostle's Creed has things in I would guess the majority of people do not believe. For example the part about Jesus ascending into heaven. No has ever said, "I saw this." If it did happen Jesus would have defied gravity. Do most Christians literally he or anyone else defied gravity.
But then, gravity returned. Another phrase says Jesus now SITS at the right hand of God. How does one SIT without gravity? Oh, maybe he is tied to the chair and the chair is fastened to something. But, what is it fastened to? The astronants have pictures showing there is no gravity anywhere in space.
When you use the phrase "really believes", and, if you meant the average rational Christian really believes gravity affects Jesus sometimes but not other times, I think you are out of touch with average folks.
I think I am more correct than you. The Creed is not something people really believe, it is part of a ritual required by some denominations.
how literal can you get? literally sitting in a chair. good grief! no gravity anywhere in space: what is that supposed to mean?
DeleteJon; re "really believe" Would you prefer "Actually strongly believe. Really ! ! -?" People I know REALLY do believe, as compared to your "Mumbling" something you REALLY don't believe.
DeleteI really really really do believe I like parsnips
Your 6;52 is a failed and a REALLY silly attempt to have the last word.
Helper "Your 6;52 is a failed and a REALLY silly attempt to have the last word."
DeleteI think it is more accurate to say my post illustrates why it is so hard for a past or non Christians to understand the faith. At the beginning of the Creed are the two words, "I believe." You confirmed it is what Christians believe. Then, it becomes obvious you yourself do not really believe parts of it. You neither confirm nor deny that Jesus can sit in a chair when there is no gravity. Instead of wasting space here ridiculing my post, why not use the space to explain why this "Jesus sits at the right hand and God the father almighty" is in there. Or explain why it is not to be believed when the beginning of the Creed says "I believe."
Good one Jon. You just revealed your selective hyper literalism. You should start a compound near Waco Texas.
DeleteI'm sure Hebraisms would be a snap for you. Start with the Talmud, and worm your way through it. Then get back to me. There will be questions.
helper -- "Good one Jon. You just revealed your selective hyper literalism. "
DeleteThe way I look at it, you are the one who reveals something confusing about your own version of literalism. You say the a creed is what we "believe." That is an endorsement of literalism. Then you seem to deny literalism, or, as you call it "hyper literalism." Obviously you have no answer for Jesus sitting in or on something or don't believe it.
As you frequently do, you avoid dealing with issues put in front of you.
Unknown-- "no gravity anywhere in space: what is that supposed to mean?"
ReplyDeleteBeats me. Helper said it is way Christians "really believe." Do you recite creed but do not really believe it? That's what I used to do.
Jon; "Helper said it is a way Christians "really believe". No I did not say that. Can you provide the source of your quote?
DeleteActually ; A more close rendition I would have said is; "It is WHAT Christians really believe.
I would not recite any assertion of belief that I do not really believe. and I try to avoid saying anything that I do not believe to be true (i.e. I try not to lie, not always successfully, or course).
DeleteNever mind Jon. This is where he gets desperate and grabs at anything no matter how thin.
DeleteThis is also where Jon usually goes dark, after his last feeble rant.
Gonna print this Jon?
Helper -- "Gonna print this Jon?"
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm trying to do, and you could help, is bring some precision to your posts. You are forever criticizing me for not being precise about views in religion.
When you say the Creed is what Christians believe you need to be more precise. Obviously, there are parts of it you do not believe. An example is where it says Jesus is seated on the right hand of God. You should modify and say something like, "The Creed is to some extent what we believers believe."
Jon I don't know how to more explicitly tell you your claim / accusation / spin is a hyper literal word game. I'm not going to play your game. Your strategy is one of many reasons your brand of atheism does not hold water. In fact, it strengthens my faith when you reveal how petty and childish you actually are.
DeleteYou gonner print that?
for whomever. there is indeed gravity in space. it is just very weak the farther away you get from a celestial object. but it's there. in theory at least it's possible to get "stuck" in space if you happen on a "spot" where the pull of gravity between to bodies is equal/offsetting. .
ReplyDelete