Pressing Issues For Christianity

Fanny Cradock

The way I see it there are two issues to face the world that Christianity can make a positive impact upon. These are 1) insurmountable national debt and 2) the state of the environment. While some people might feel that the church should stay out of public affairs, I am of the opinion that the precepts of Christianity insist that we are involved in these critical world affairs.

However, before any issues can be effectively tackled, I think that the various denominations need to get together and sort out their inter-denominational differences by first working off their commonalities. So, for instance, acknowledging the commonality of The Eucharist (or whatever one calls it) and what we believe about Jesus. A reinforcement of our commonalities would have to be done across the board - from the highest members of the church to every punter that turns up on a Sunday. Easier said then done, of course. I've certainly been critical of the RCC in the past regarding certain matters, for example, their stance on contraception, and I'm no fan of the near obsessive focus many Evangelical traditions place on creationism. But at the same tim,e I don't pretend to know the 'only true path to God'. If we had closer ties with each other (and we really should) then I feel we could be a much better, wiser and sympathetic voice for positive change in the world.

1) And that leads me to the first issue: debt. More specifically, the weight of national debt that much of Africa (maybe even Ireland, too :pac:) is by being crushed by. This weight of debt is too great, and countries are left with the preposterous situation whereby 40% of every $ goes to repaying the debt. I really think that a united cross-denominational church (or at least a united voice) could really begin to apply some serious pressure at grass root level and also international level to actually tackle the issue, not just talk about it. Also, any better relations between denominations could mean that we could better coordinate the role of much needed Christian charities in these countries.

It is clear that the current system of throwing good money after bad will never see African nations (amongst others) get out of their predicament. The abolition of insurmountable debt, a fair trade system that is not based on protectionism and inventive thinking to tackle the problem of poverty - such as micro-financing - could literally change a nation for the better, if not an entire continent or even the world. At all levels a united Christianity can and should seek to positively influence this problem.

2) For me the second issue has to be the environment. I'm often disappointed by the care-free attitude many Christians have towards the earth. When you consider our beliefs - that God created the heavens and earth - it makes no sense to trash God's creation. I wonder does this casual disregard towards the environment stem from the erroneous belief that we are all going to heaven and this little old rock is just a pit stop along the way? Obviously they aren't aware what the bible talks about new creation here on earth after heaven.

Anyway, although I have seen some welcome attempts from the likes of the RCC and certain Protestantism to address environmental issues, there has to be a sustained cross-denomination approach as to how we - stewards of the earth - can best do our job.

What do people (most likely Christians) think are the most pressing issues and problems facing the world that Christianity must address?

Slav

The major problem with this approach as I see it is the reason the proposed reunion. Christianity is about salvation and not about business of this world be it environmental issues or economic crisis. It split because of different opinions on salvation (at least it's seen this way by the followers of different Christian denominations today). Wouldn't it just humiliate the great idea of united Christianity (the Body of Christ if we are talking about the united Church) if it unites for the sake of solving immediate problems of this world? I would hate to participate in that.

From a practical point of view reunification is not possible either. For instance you mention The Eucharist. Can you come up with something that would suit, for instance, RC and Baptism at the same time?

Another important question is how far you're planning to go with this approach of working off the commonalities? Will Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses get an invitation too? If not then why: we have a lot in common with them, e.g. the aforementioned Eucharist? If yes then are you sure that together with them you and your faith still be what it used to be?

In general I think at this point of time I would be in strong opposition to any movement that would seek unification on any of the dogmatic issues by concentrating on commonalities and leaving the differences for a better time.

Húrin

Slav wrote: »

The major problem with this approach as I see it is the reason the proposed reunion. Christianity is about salvation and not about business of this world be it environmental issues or economic crisis. It split because of different opinions on salvation (at least it's seen this way by the followers of different Christian denominations today). Wouldn't it just humiliate the great idea of united Christianity (the Body of Christ if we are talking about the united Church) if it unites for the sake of solving immediate problems of this world? I would hate to participate in that.

That is nonsense - it is like saying that helping the poor is interference in a worldly issue.

I do a fair bit of campaigning about climate change when I get the time. My main motive is not "the environment", but rather the fact that if the governments of the west get their way, climate change will be the worst act of international violence in history.

The climate is intricately linked to justice for both humans and the non-humans of this world. I believe that God wishes for us to use resources to live well, but that he opposes the destructive consumption of resources that simply serves the plans of a small part of the world's population to lay up treasures here on earth.

Slav

Húrin wrote: »

That is nonsense - it is like saying that helping the poor is interference in a worldly issue.

It has nothing in common with that saying whatsoever.

Húrin wrote: »

I do a fair bit of campaigning about climate change when I get the time. My main motive is not "the environment", but rather the fact that if the governments of the west get their way, climate change will be the worst act of international violence in history.

The climate is intricately linked to justice for both humans and the non-humans of this world. I believe that God wishes for us to use resources to live well, but that he opposes the destructive consumption of resources that simply serves the plans of a small part of the world's population to lay up treasures here on earth.

This is all very well.

Should we have the united Church where would be no issues in getting it involved in all such activities. That would be right. Reuniting for the sole purpose of integrating the efforts in the said areas is wrong. That's my point.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The way I see it there are two issues to face the world that Christianity can make a positive impact upon. These are 1) insurmountable national debt and 2) the state of the environment. While some people might feel that the church should stay out of public affairs, I am of the opinion that the precepts of Christianity insist that we are involved in these critical world affairs.

If by Church, you mean body of believers, then we should not stay out of public affairs obviously. Other than that, 'church' is too loose a term IMO.

However, before any issues can be effectively tackled, I think that the various denominations need to get together and sort out their inter-denominational differences by first working off their commonalities.

Good luck with that:)

So, for instance, acknowledging the commonality of The Eucharist (or whatever one calls it) and what we believe about Jesus. A reinforcement of our commonalities would have to be done across the board - from the highest members of the church to every punter that turns up on a Sunday. Easier said then done, of course. I've certainly been critical of the RCC in the past regarding certain matters, for example, their stance on contraception, and I'm no fan of the near obsessive focus many Evangelical traditions place on creationism. But at the same tim,e I don't pretend to know the 'only true path to God'.

I do. Jesus Christ. In fact he categorically said, 'I AM THE WAY'. I know what you're saying though. If I may hold up a poster who was here briefly as an example. She was a nun called Sorella. In all her postings, she did not promote catholocism or specific religion. She focussed on Christ. Now we see other posters here, try to bludgeon us into submission to a particular religious denomination. However, with Sorella, we had an example of someone, IMO, who had it figured out. Her theology may have differed etc, from that of PDN or me, or Soul Winner etc. However, she always had that one mantra of Love Christ and his ways, and try live his message. That essentially is Christianity, all the rest is religion. We can feel passionately about certain religious concepts, and vehemently disagree or even hate others. If we accept that we have that one commonality, which is essentially our salvation path and the most important thing, then there's a chance. However, I hate to be the pessimist, but I would not hold my breath.

If we had closer ties with each other (and we really should) then I feel we could be a much better, wiser and sympathetic voice for positive change in the world.

An unrealistic goal IMO. For though we have the commonality I mentioned above, its what we'd like to change etc that would divide us IMO.

1) And that leads me to the first issue: debt. More specifically, the weight of national debt that much of Africa (maybe even Ireland, too :pac:) is by being crushed by. This weight of debt is too great, and countries are left with the preposterous situation whereby 40% of every $ goes to repaying the debt. I really think that a united cross-denominational church (or at least a united voice) could really begin to apply some serious pressure at grass root level and also international level to actually tackle the issue, not just talk about it. Also, any better relations between denominations could mean that we could better coordinate the role of much needed Christian charities in these countries.

I think what you suggest is an honourable endeavour, but I'm not sure if this whole inter-church thing has any real baring on it. I think you'll find that the Christians 'on the ground', will not have an issue working together. I think if we unite all Christians as one voice, it would certainly be a powerful voice, but it would have to be done specifically; I.E. Like your scenario above. Unite them for a cause.

2) For me the second issue has to be the environment. I'm often disappointed by the care-free attitude many Christians have towards the earth.

I'm not sure what you mean by this?

When you consider our beliefs - that God created the heavens and earth - it makes no sense to trash God's creation.

I agree, but is this what we do?

I wonder does this casual disregard towards the environment stem from the erroneous belief that we are all going to heaven and this little old rock is just a pit stop along the way? Obviously they aren't aware what the bible talks about new creation here on earth after heaven.

There is a certain Irony here I feel. What you describe above is not a view shared across all christian denominations, so its probably already a division. I agree with you, about the new heaven and earth thing, but some wont. Even with your reasoning, it could be argued that God is making a new earth anyway.

Anyway, although I have seen some welcome attempts from the likes of the RCC and certain Protestantism to address environmental issues, there has to be a sustained cross-denomination approach as to how we - stewards of the earth - can best do our job.

I think that while your cause is honourable, the role of Christians is to spread the message of Christ and Live by his message. This world 'is' passing away, and while we should respect and look after his creation, as Christians, we should be seeking the kingdom, and spreading its message.

What do people (most likely Christians) think are the most pressing issues and problems facing the world that Christianity must address?

Personally, negative perceptions, and God being the butt of the joke. Sounds a bit innocuous, but it really damages IMO.

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

An unrealistic goal IMO. For though we have the commonality I mentioned above, its what we'd like to change etc that would divide us IMO.

JimiTime wrote: »

Good luck with that:)

We already have ecumenical meetings between the top brass of various denominations. Obviously there will be difficulties and obstacles - some insurmountable - but we must be sanguine about the possibility of reaching closer cross-denominational relations. Really, if one is of the opinion that God is working in all our lives through the Holy Spirit, then we must be positive about the chances for something approaching a type of unity. It wont be easy, quick, or all encompassing but it is something we must be working towards. I don't believe that God wants discord.

JimiTime wrote: »

I do. Jesus Christ.

Very true! But I was actually talking about the denominational differences that all us Christians seem to get our knickers in a twist over. Sorry if my point didn't come across.

JimiTime wrote: »

I think what you suggest is an honourable endeavour, but I'm not sure if this whole inter-church thing has any real baring on it. I think you'll find that the Christians 'on the ground', will not have an issue working together. I think if we unite all Christians as one voice, it would certainly be a powerful voice, but it would have to be done specifically; I.E. Like your scenario above. Unite them for a cause.

Tackling the poverty brought about by seemingly insurmountable and unjust debt repayments surely must be a priority for the Church (and I use the term 'Church' to refer to a cross-denominational body).

I am reminded of the Lord's Prayer here. Specifically the verse Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Those words scream out to me that the work of new creation has already begun, and in this we should be working towards furthering it. In short, the world will become a better place because it is remains firmly part of God's plans. Bearing this in mind, we should be helping to usher this in. Societal justice would be essential to this, IMO.

Take the example of South Africa. Yes, the country is blighted by the wedded problems of crime and unemployment, and that age old devil racism still flows through the veins, but think back to how much worse it was 30 years ago. Despite the problems that exist today the progress of reconciliation has been astounding, and it is due in no small part to men of faith like Tutu – maybe even Mandela. Positive change on a grand scale is possible through faith, and I believe that it has the added bonus of preaching the truth of our convictions.

In short, and this is by way of addressing Slav's point, the work of people like MLK Jr., Wilberforce, Tutu and every Christian aid worker under the sun are as good and as effective a testimony to God as any I could think of.

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by this?

JimiTime wrote: »

I agree, but is this what we do?

Now I could be wrong, but I am of the opinion that Christians by large don't seem to be overly concerned with the environment or if they are it isn't necessarily seen as part of their Christian identity or Christian duty. Why is the destruction of the environment not thought of a a sin? Or taking a positive slant on it, why is there not more emphasis from the pulpit put on protecting God's creation and enjoying it in a responsible manner?

JimiTime wrote: »

There is a certain Irony here I feel. What you describe above is not a view shared across all christian denominations, so its probably already a division. I agree with you, about the new heaven and earth thing, but some wont. Even with your reasoning, it could be argued that God is making a new earth anyway.

You are correct, it most certainly isn't accepted across the board. But this is the type of debate we need to have to see if Christianity has been unduly influenced by Platonic dualism.

JimiTime wrote: »

Personally, negative perceptions, and God being the butt of the joke. Sounds a bit innocuous, but it really damages IMO.

That's fair enough! It's why I asked for opinions

Phototoxin

I think that Christian churches should focus more on being christians and doing good things and improving the world while simultaneously holding those who abuse power to account. However it generally degrades into a recruitment campaign to put bums on seats in chapels or a platform to judge others.

I also think religions should focus more on helping people understand and develope a relationship with Christ. After 21 years of being a catholic I've become agnostic as I've just concuded that its all probably rubbish. If support systems were in place it could help people. My experience of protestant churches is that this is so, they tend to be more close knit and supporting although the danger is that people go only for a social element rather than a
spiritual one. Not that the social element is bad just sole focus on it is but most churches aren't like that... Catholicsm in particular NEEDS a social element as its so dead.

Húrin

Slav wrote: »

This is all very well.

Should we have the united Church where would be no issues in getting it involved in all such activities. That would be right. Reuniting for the sole purpose of integrating the efforts in the said areas is wrong. That's my point.

In this case we are in agreement!

Fanny, it is not necessary to get denominations to resolved their differences and merge together in order to get effective campaigning going. It is perfectly possible to ignore denominational differences, and indeed, numerous groups already do this and have done so for many years.

Fanny Cradock

Húrin wrote: »

In this case we are in agreement!

Fanny, it is not necessary to get denominations to resolved their differences and merge together in order to get effective campaigning going. It is perfectly possible to ignore denominational differences, and indeed, numerous groups already do this and have done so for many years.

That is very true, but I also think that it is most regrettable that we don't always have closer ties. Maybe I'm being too hash by not better highlighting the efforts you mention, but there is always room for improvement. I've just felt a sudden interest in the last few months about what we (or is that I?) can do and do better in places like Africa.

Húrin

On Africa, one of the things that annoys me most is that many Christians are so politically naive. They do not recognise that the plans offered by politicians rarely exist for the benefit of anyone but large western businesses. Most of them are our our ideological enemies, and the embrace of their rhetoric that I sometimes see is sad. I'm just rambling.

ChocolateSauce

Húrin wrote: »

On Africa, one of the things that annoys me most is that many Christians are so politically naive. They do not recognise that the plans offered by politicians rarely exist for the benefit of anyone but large western businesses. Most of them are our our ideological enemies, and the embrace of their rhetoric that I sometimes see is sad. I'm just rambling.

A region has a resource, but the locals have no way of getting it and the, so a big company comes in, spends millions developing infrastructure, then gives the locals jobs, creating a market for transport companies, food vendors, etc, and also paying taxes to the government...and in return they make a profit. Should this be discouraged then? And are the businesses really the only ones who benefit? What about the possibly thousands of workers who are finally making a living?

Or should the broke and probably corrupt African government (without the experience to develop the resource) bloat itself by trying to do it themselves?

PDN

I believe denominatiional differences are something to be celebrated, not mourned.

When different denominations try to act as if they are united then they lose their distinctiveness and everything is reduced to a (usually very insipid) lowest common denominator form of Christianity.

Why not work together on stuff without trying to enforce uniformity? Each movement and denomination has their own strengths. I don't want the Salvation Army to start acting like Anglicans, I don't want NT Wright to start thinking like a US Baptist College professor who just parrots his party line, I don't want Pentecostals to start worshipping like Methodists, and Mother Theresa would never have achieved what she did if she had tried to act and think like a Quaker!

Húrin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

A region has a resource, but the locals have no way of getting it and the, so a big company comes in, spends millions developing infrastructure, then gives the locals jobs, creating a market for transport companies, food vendors, etc, and also paying taxes to the government...and in return they make a profit. Should this be discouraged then? And are the businesses really the only ones who benefit? What about the possibly thousands of workers who are finally making a living?

Or should the broke and probably corrupt African government (without the experience to develop the resource) bloat itself by trying to do it themselves?

So you believe that Western governments are acting in the interests of someone other than western businesses? In countless communities across the world, the switch from local resilient industry to export agriculture has impoverished the people there. Backed up, of course, by corrupt governments.

"Development" is not always a good thing. Especially when justified by myths that everyone can live to western standards of resource consumption.

This might, however, be an issue for the politics forum.

Húrin

PDN wrote: »

I don't want NT Wright to start thinking like a US Baptist College professor who just parrots his party line

Good post, but surely the existence of people who parrot party lines is to be mourned?

mickeydevine

I think the most pressing issue for christianity is how silly it is.

Fanny Cradock

Go on you little internet warrior!

I'm not quite sure what you are hoping to accomplish. Your sneering post simply makes you look rather arrogant. The only reason I leave it up is to show people as much. Cop yourself on.

Don't post any retort or try try a similar trick again.

Húrin

mickeydevine wrote: »

I think the most pressing issue for christianity is how silly it is.

This is the most blatant ban-fishing I've seen, ever!

Fanny Cradock

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

A region has a resource, but the locals have no way of getting it and the, so a big company comes in, spends millions developing infrastructure, then gives the locals jobs, creating a market for transport companies, food vendors, etc, and also paying taxes to the government...and in return they make a profit. Should this be discouraged then? And are the businesses really the only ones who benefit? What about the possibly thousands of workers who are finally making a living?

Or should the broke and probably corrupt African government (without the experience to develop the resource) bloat itself by trying to do it themselves?

Like Hurin I would be sceptical that these companies are really interested in anything other than profit. Certainly Nestle, the wider diamond industry being complicit in selling conflict diamonds and Shell's policy in Nigeria are just a few examples of the problems caused by the motives that drive these companies. While they may appear to support certain local initiatives, I would be of the opinion that this is really only done in a cold reflection of its responsibilities to its shareholders. In other words, social responsibility is only a concept that is viable as long as it benefits the shareholders. The Corporation had more to say on this.

PDN wrote: »

I believe denominatiional differences are something to be celebrated, not mourned.

When different denominations try to act as if they are united then they lose their distinctiveness and everything is reduced to a (usually very insipid) lowest common denominator form of Christianity.

Why not work together on stuff without trying to enforce uniformity? Each movement and denomination has their own strengths. I don't want the Salvation Army to start acting like Anglicans, I don't want NT Wright to start thinking like a US Baptist College professor who just parrots his party line, I don't want Pentecostals to start worshipping like Methodists, and Mother Theresa would never have achieved what she did if she had tried to act and think like a Quaker!

Very true! However, as someone who spends a great deal of time in Africa do you think that the continent could be better served by Christianity if there was closer ties between denominations?

gramlab

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

However, before any issues can be effectively tackled, I think that the various denominations need to get together and sort out their inter-denominational differences by first working off their commonalities. So, for instance, acknowledging the commonality of The Eucharist (or whatever one calls it) and what we believe about Jesus.

Rather than sorting out interdenominational differences in order to make a difference would it not be better, easier and more realistic to tackle the problems as just problems and not issues that need "christian help". Most christians would see themselves as people who could and can help (correct me if I am wrong), so why not just tackle these problems for what they are and leave it at that. If this brings denominations closer as a byproduct then all the better for you.

Do you believe that there has to be a christian aspect to the aid/help in order for it to be effective?

Fanny Cradock

I think that you have misunderstood my point. The work is already being done irrespective of denominational differences (much of which are cursory), but I wondered if it could be done better if there where closer ties or maybe some holistic cross-denominational approach. So instead of everybody doing their own thing and possibly causing in inefficiencies in the process, maybe a linear programming approach could be adopted to better coordinate aid. Maybe this is already the case. Maybe RCs, Anglicans, Evangelicals etc. all get together and work for the common good irrespective of differences. If so that would be fantastic!

I'm speaking from a large degree of ignorance here, but I just have it in my mind that maybe there isn't always sufficient cooperation between denominations because they are seen as lying outside their beliefs. I would be happy to be wrong though

gramlab wrote: »

Do you believe that there has to be a christian aspect to the aid/help in order for it to be effective?

Not in the slightest. However, I do think it undeniable that Christian charitable organisations and individual Christians working within secular charities are in some way involved in a sizeable proportion of the aid offered.