Thursday, November 1, 2012

The Christian Left and the Redefinition of Christianity.

By M.L. Wilson

All contents copyright © 2012 by M.L. Wilson. All rights reserved. No part of this document or the related files may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, by any means (electronic, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the publisher.

* * *

The Christian Left is an organization that is doing its utmost to redefine Christianity so as to allow the behaviors that do not align themselves with the Christian walk. This is not the first time people have attempted to do this in history and it will not be the last. This commentary is in response to the article link posted below.

Without a doubt, one of the biggest hurdles the Christian Left has to overcome in its teaching is the act of abortion. Progressive Liberals claim to hold all life as precious – unless said life is preborn, aged, infirm, or  “different" (quality of life is deemed not worth living). In these cases, life can be extinguished for “the sake of the poor wretch who would otherwise have to live in such deplorable conditions.” and seen as an act of mercy rather than the act of absolute selfishness it truly is.

The reason for this is simple. The Christian Left had to figure out how to rationalize killing preborn children to fall in line with the Christian ethic of living a SELFLESS life when the statistics clearly show that such method of killing is due to convenience of the parents. (not always the mother, by the way.) Without such rationalization, the essential tenets of the Christian Left are anything but - Christian. To accomplish this rationalization, the Christian Left attempts to delve into the cultural world of the ancient Jews – without really taking the time to understand Jewish culture or even the history. Let me explain.

I’ll begin with the last line of this article in question which seeks to place the responsibility for abortion squarely on Christ’s shoulders. The rationale of the Christian Left as outlined is that since God omitted the specific mention of the act of abortion throughout Christ’s ministry, it must be okay. I’ll hasten to add that there was much else that Christ also failed to mention with specificity such as rape. Could I extrapolate from this omission that Christ also sanctions rape?  That logic wouldn't work in any court of law much less a church today, but we’re to accept from the rationalization of the Progressive Liberal Christian Left that this omission on abortion is the way Jesus gives his tacit approval of killing another human being. I believe Christ once also said something about houses being built upon sand…

This errant conclusion by the author is prefaced by a torturous explanation utilizing Old Testament quotes to signify when life begins. I’ll also add that the author dismisses those Old Testament quotes which do not fall in line with his rationale. Perhaps if the author understood exactly the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, he would see just how far short his rationale falls. Let’s start with the obvious which the author hints at, but then retreats from: That God is omnipotent and omniscient; God is a purposeful creator and for us to believe that humans are created randomly at best and by mistake at worst and still hold to a view that we are Christians is ludicrous.

Again, exactly what does it mean to be a Christian? The answer – which for the purpose of this commentary I direct squarely at the Christian Left – is that to be a Christian is to be Christ-like. We human beings in this era are to be the face of God to our fellow man. Let me be clear on the concept so there is no confusion. When one accepts Christ into their lives, it is NOT about salvation; Christ took care of salvation for us Himself. Rather being a Christian is about relationship. When one decides that the killing of another is somehow sanctioned by God Almighty, it becomes evident that one is not clear on just who God Almighty really is. I am well aware that the Old Testament is full of violence against people supposedly spoken by God Almighty, but if you understood the Bible – if you understood just who Christ is, you’d see that this is not at all what is really being communicated. (For a definitive explanation on this seeming conundrum, please go to my site,  and read the commentary I wrote on Matthew 27:46)

The Christian Left seems to be more interested in usurping the works of Christ for their own selfish end than doing any true study of the scriptures. This is a shame because if they believe any of what it is they claim – that there is in fact an Almighty God, then they must understand that at some point in their future, they will meet Christ face to face and will have to explain their rationale to Him. I would predict that such will be an awkward meeting.

Getting back to the “When does life begin?” aspect of the article, science is actually pretty clear. Upon conception, there is an immediate change in the DNA structure of the new being making these newly created cells within the womb genetically different than that of their host or of the disparate component parts, the sperm and the egg. Uninterrupted, these cells will continue to grow as the DNA contained within directs. The host’s only role at this point is one of food and shelter; the cells will take care of everything else with respect to development and growth up to and including the sex of the individual. I’ll hasten to add that were we to find a similar collection of cells on Mars for example, we’d all be jumping up and down over the discovery of LIFE!

So the author really isn't talking about when life begins, per se, rather the author is talking about when the spirit or the soul enters this life. Well since the author used Christ to buttress his claim, I’ll use Christ to buttress mine. (I’ll get back to why Christ failed to specifically mention abortion later on.) In the Gospel of Luke, there are two occasions where upon women became pregnant and the preborn were described as cognizant. The first occurrence is with Zechariah and Elizabeth. Their son was John the Baptist who while still in his mother’s womb, leapt when he was in proximity of the newly pregnant Mary. (Luke 1:39-45)  The second occurrence is that of Christ Himself.  Both of these babies while in the womb are depicted as being “alive” in every sense, but The Christian Left conveniently ignores this. Why might that be?

The answer to that question is found in the opening line of this commentary: they are seeking to redefine Christianity. This is a tactic as old as the hills and has been used with varying degrees of success over thousands of years. The early Christian church was just so assaulted when a Roman Emperor named Constantine usurped the movement and refashioned it as he saw fit. While Constantine the Great is seen by a great many Christians as something as a savior of Christianity; saving those early Christians from the brutal persecutions they faced, the simple fact of the matter remains that the “Christianity” that emerged out of the Ecumenical Counsels scarcely resembled the Gospel of Christ. Constantine had succeeded in redefining Christianity so he could utilize it as a tool for his own ends; specifically the unification of the Roman Empire under his command.  This tactic succeeded for Constantine for only another 150 years; the Roman Empire eventually crumbled as their foundation was built upon man and not upon Christ.

Can one look upon the efforts of the Christian Left any differently than those of Constantine? Why are human beings here in this realm to begin with? What is the purpose of any life? The answers to those questions can be found throughout the Gospels and the Epistles. The Apostle Paul correctly points out that at the end of the day our battle is not against one another, but against those spiritual forces that seek to turn us against one another. (Ephesians 6:12). The question one need ask themselves is why would Christ sanction the death of the innocent? If Christ does indeed sanction such death, how is that any different than the Catholic doctrine of indulgences?

 Indulgences were essentially a means by which those with money could secure a place for themselves in Heaven. In this doctrine, the poor were lost as they had no money. Where abortion is concerned, the unborn do not have access to the same rights as do the born and the established. They are in effect at the mercy of such people as were the poor of centuries ago.  It took Martin Luther to pull back the fraud that was indulgences taught by the Catholic Church for that practice to eventually be dropped and repudiated. Still, a contract was put upon his head by the Pope and Luther had to flee the “Christians” for fear of his life. Sound familiar?

When we accept the relationship offered to us by Christ, we accept that we will no longer live our lives for ourselves, but rather we choose to live our lives for Him. Teachers, pastors and theologians who teach that Christ is little more than allegory and that He represented merely a guideline to follow fail to understand what they are actually saying. I realize that such a claim may sound arrogant of me, but it remains the truth. You either believe that Jesus Christ is also God Almighty or you do not. If this is all merely quaint stories to you with sometimes a good point or message that is made, this commentary will make no sense to you whatsoever. If, however, you subscribe to the idea that Jesus Christ IS God Almighty, then seeking His face; seeking that perfect relationship with Him means giving up the selfishness that exists within you. This is not an easy task as the Apostle Paul pointed out in Romans 7:18-25. Here he points out the dichotomy existent between the pull of the flesh and the pull of the spirit within.

Let me be clear on this point. As human beings, we are all spirit; that is our true nature. The human body is but a conveyance which is used while we exist here in this realm. Upon our death, this body will break down and return to its component parts. The spirit, however, returns to its creator. (2nd Corinthians 5:1-10) Again, you can believe that this is what it is to be a Christian or you can decide otherwise; that choice is up to the individual. But if one is to choose otherwise, would it not be honest to define for oneself a separate movement rather than co-opt Christianity? Would such co-opting not be analogues to spiritual squatting?

Let me conclude with this: These words were given by the Apostle Paul to the Church at Corinth and they are as true today as they were then.

Love is patient, Love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes. Always perseveres. Love never fails.”       -  1st Corinthians 13:4-8.

If as a Christian, you can rationalize the killing of the unborn with the words that Paul spoke to the Corinthians, then by all means continue in your quest. You will have an opportunity to give a full account of your actions to the Creator one day and it may well be that your perspective on this matter is correct. But if at all you find yourself cringing at the words spoken by Paul and are struggling to justify the killing of the unborn in light of the meaning of love, then maybe The Christian Left isn't for you.

Christ does so want a relationship with each and every one of us. In the flesh, we are on this earth for such a brief period of time that to squander it on ourselves exclusively is an anathema to what it is to be a Christian. Start by realizing that as a Christian, YOU may be the only face of God that those around you ever see.

No comments:

Post a Comment