That's a cropped and tweaked version of a photograph of mine that I originally posted here on February 25, 2011. As I said yesterday, I've decided to repost some of my old photographs to show people — as they take an interest in our Wisconsin governor — the abuse Scott Walker took back in 2011.
I chose this photograph because of the plentiful talk this past week about Walker's refusal to express an opinion about whether President Obama is a Christian. I wanted you to see this old sign — taped to the marble wall of the Wisconsin Capitol as the anti-Walker protests raged. Whoever made that sign did not merely express the opinion that Walker is not a Christian. He presumed to speak in the voice of Jesus telling Scott Walker what to do and in the voice of Scott Walker directly and explicitly rejecting Jesus.
पोस्ट्स
८६ टिप्पण्या:
Brava Althouse!
Your photo archives of the recall struggle are the best answer to the Milbank ilk.
In the Democratic Church of the Rhetorical Christ Jesus always says what you would want Him to say: write away, apostle.
Go ahead, try it yourself. You know Jesus would want that of you.
I am Laslo.
"You need to tax the rich or you'll go broke"
Even God only wants 10%
Someone needs to explain to Lefties that paying taxes is not an act of charity, and that comparing government to Caesar does not make the government look good. Not in America, anyhow.
Poster has a very political un-Biblical Jesus.
Even God only wants 10%
..and not so the Pharisees can have a cushy retirement...
Laslo is spot on with this.
Lefties always love Rhetorical Commie Jesus.
So, the left is saying we should be governed by biblical Law?
Sounds like the Taliban to me.
The real Jesus asks much more than money: He wants you to carry your cross out of love for Him. Money and political power are worldly goals and Jesus himself made the distinction clear.
Judith Curry gets the process from Congress for testifying on climate change being uncertain
pdf legal demands.
Testify our way or not at all.
It seems to be a sort of system.
Remember when Maureen Dowd, Gail Collins, and the other leftist mandarins took Obama to the woodshed for his view that marriage should be between a man and a woman because of his Christian beliefs? How maligned he was! So many guffaws.
And oh, the relief they felt when Axelrod revealed it was just a politically expedient lie.
I love how Democrats trot out Jesus Christ when talking about getting more money, but yet think those that have Christian views on things like gay marriage or homosexuality are somehow nuts out of the mainstream and should be ridiculed.
Liberalism: where hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Republican Christians have their Christianity questioned all the time.
Unless you're willing to raise taxes and redistribute the money to the poor, then you're obviously not following the words of Christ.
Apparently, in Scott Walker's church they speak in tongues. I wonder if Walker has felt the spirit within him.
I like how you are taking the corrupt lefty media goons to task with this series. I don't know yet if Walker deserves your intervention but showing up the lefty media for who they really are is a noble cause.
The statement also reveals that leftists think of the Government as some sort of Church.
I thought they were FOR separation of Church and State.
Can one of the lefties here explain this to me?
@garage,
speaking as someone who grew up in a Spirit-filled church: people claiming to hear directly from Jesus or God don't always believe in speaking in tongues.
The two traditions run together a lot in American churches, but they are not always joined to each other.
Oddly, this picture is what the crazy protesters in the Capital think happened.
Scott Walker hasn't said much about what kind of church he attends.
Funny how people who have no interest in Jesus suddenly get really interested in Jesus when they think he's a noose with which to hang a Christian.
garage mahal said...
"Apparently, in Scott Walker's church they speak [']in tongues.[']"
That borders on the disqualifying. Do you have a source for that?
Simon
See here
"garage mahal said...
Apparently, in Scott Walker's church they speak in tongues. I wonder if Walker has felt the spirit within him."
After be called out and punting in the previous post, garage is now resorting to moronic "drive-by's."
Garage is afraid that Walker wins elections because he speaks in tongues. That is highly doubtful for a Southern Baptist/Community Church.
But Garage is onto something. That would be an undisclosed campaign contribution from the highest power there is...higher than a Koch Brother.
Oddly, God doesn't know English.
Still waiting for any lefty to explain why Government as Church is a Good Thing.
Somehow I can't visualize Christ of the Scriptures embracing the Pro-Infanticide Left.
The only response to any questions about the religious faith (Or, lack thereof) of a public official or candidate for public office should-and-must be: The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Curious George said...
'After be called out and punting in the previous post, garage is now resorting to moronic "drive-by's."'
If it's valid for us to raise questions about Obama's religion, it's valid for Garage to raise questions about Walker's religion.
SGT Ted said...
The statement also reveals that leftists think of the Government as some sort of Church.
They also see government as Santa Clause. Do you remember how one of the major news weeklies (IIRC, it was Time magazine) had the cover story, "How the Gingrich Stole Christmas" following the Republicans winning control of Congress back in the 1994 elections? To them, government means free stuff with the bill being paid by others.
James Pawlak, the Constitution governs the government, not the people. If the government passes a law that says "only Catholics may be appointed to the Supreme Court," the religious-test clause has something to say about that, but it has nothing to say to a voter who says "I'm not going to vote for a [pick a religion]." There is a muddy middle-ground there (what do you do with a President who informally says "I'm not interested in judicial candidates who are [pick a religion]"?) but this isn't one of them. Voters are as entitled to scrutinize and consider Walker's religion as they are Obama's.
Jesus railed against the tax collectors.
"Simon said...
Curious George said...
'After be called out and punting in the previous post, garage is now resorting to moronic "drive-by's."'
If it's valid for us to raise questions about Obama's religion, it's valid for Garage to raise questions about Walker's religion."
It wasn't valid to talk about Obama's religion. Have you forgotten?
And wake me when Walker's religion accuses the US Government of starting AIDS to kill off blacks. Until then...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Dear lefties,
Stealing from your neighbor is a virtue to Satan, not to Christ.
Is that person holding the sign running for President, or do you think Walker should only display the attitude that the worst of protesters from years back did?
I would think you would want to compare Walkers actions to something above the worst of the worst.
@garage,
at least someone has an explanation for how a son of a Baptist minister ended up among a group of Christians who believe in glossolalia and other Gifts of the Spirit.
However, I notice that Walker doesn't campaign on hearing from Jesus.
But Walker's opponents try to slander him about hearing from Jesus.
When did Jesus ever say that we should give other people's money to the poor or to anyone else?
John Henry
Is that person holding the sign running for President, or do you think Walker should only display the attitude that the worst of protesters from years back did?
It's context Mark, and I don't remember any of you guys disowning it when you thought it was working.
We might also bear in mind Bastiat's classic question in his book "The Law"
"Why is it morally OK for a group of people to do what would be morally wrong for an individual to do?" (Quoting from memory)
He was talking about the use of govt to collect taxes and impose other restrictions on us.
I don't think even Garage Mahal would disagree that it would be wrong for him to put a gun to my head and take my wallet.
Yet most people seem to think nothing of employing a 3rd party (govt at various levels) to do the same thing.
For those who question that taxation is done with threat of lethal force, just ask Eric Garner.
Ooops. You can't. He is dead. As a result of selling untaxed cigarettes.
John Henry
Blogger garage mahal said...
Oddly, God doesn't know English.
Common misunderstanding, even amongst Christians.
Speaking in tongues means speaking in other languages. It's not speaking to God in other languages, it's communicating His message to the people in their own language, even though you don't understand that language.
Ray Stevens had a song about it. "If 10% is good enough for Jesus it ought to be enough for Uncle Sam"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PTZHT43W7w
I've been a Ray fan since the early 60's.
John Henry
Curious George said...
"[Simon said that '[i]f it's valid for us to raise questions about Obama's religion, it's valid for Garage to raise questions about Walker's religion.'] It wasn't valid to talk about Obama's religion. Have you forgotten?"
It is valid to talk about Obama's religion, it is valid to talk about Walker's religion, and it is valid to impute the religious beliefs of a Church to its members. I'm a Catholic: “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God.” If the Catholic Church teaches it, you can and should hang that belief on me.
Garage has cited materials that support his claim that Walker attends a Church called Meadowbrook which believes in so-called "speaking in tongues"; it cites in support of that claim not some attack piece from a lefty blog but the pastor's own blog. Does Walker attend Meadowbrook? Why, if he doesn't believe something Meadowbrook believes? Or does he actually believe that (incidentally, unscriptural)
"charismatic" garbage?
Remember how Obama attended Jeremiah Wright's church, and we all pointed out, correctly, that if you attend a Church, you are assumed to agree with its views? Same deal. If Meadowbrook believes in that nonsense and Walker attends Meadowbrook, and if he won't leave or recant, that's a problem.
eric said...
"Speaking in tongues means speaking in other languages."
Yes, precisely: In scripture, speaking in tongues meant speaking in other languages--or more precisely yet, speaking, and being understood in foreign languages, after the prototype of St. Peter's pentecost sermon, recounted in Acts 2, where the audience murmured: "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?"
What "speaking in tongues" does not mean is what it purportedly means in some fraudulent charismatic circles: Spouting complete gibberish, random syllables that are interpreted as meaningful (on no basis whatsoever) and misunderstood as a religious experience.
Sort of reminds me of Obama lecturing Muslims on what is and is not Islam.
I like how the article makes a big deal about how Walker left a Baptist church to join one were,
"Many of those attending the church espouse an attitude that anyone that does not accept their born-again theology is not Christian,"
I've always been under the impression that you have to be a Baptist to get to heaven was basic Baptist doctrine.
There's even a joke about it.
A man dies and goes to heaven. He is being shown around by St. Peter when he notices a very tall wall in the center of heaven enclosing a large area. From it he hears singing, That Old Rugged Cross, Amazing Grace, etc. He asks St. Peter what the deal is and St. Peters shushes him. "Not so loud," St. Peter says "that's were the Baptists are and they don't know the rest of us are out here."
To non-baptist Christians that joke is considered funny.
Is that person holding the sign running for President, or do you think Walker should only display the attitude that the worst of protesters from years back did?
Is Rudy Giuliani running for President? Does Walker have to answer for every statement he makes? That is the issue here, if you recall.
garage mahal said...
Simon
See here
2/25/15, 9:11 AM
According to that link:
Maybe President Obama's mainstream brand of Christianity is so foreign to Walker that he doesn't even recognize it. So J.W.'s "God damn America" church is "mainstream"?
Also, according to this article, a church that Walker has attended since 2003 defines him but a church that Obama attended for 20(?) years does not define him?
Nice double-standards you got there...
Also, as Lutheran I thought I would post this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za-2OkE0BVk
Also, according to this article, a church that Walker has attended since 2003 defines him but a church that Obama attended for 20(?) years does not define him?
I would say the church Obama was part of defined him.
Rev. Wrights daughter was put back into prison. Something about money laundering.
Her father a Reverend, too, tsk, tsk.
"Simon said...
Remember how Obama attended Jeremiah Wright's church, and we all pointed out, correctly, that if you attend a Church, you are assumed to agree with its views? Same deal. If Meadowbrook believes in that nonsense and Walker attends Meadowbrook, and if he won't leave or recant, that's a problem."
C'mon Simon, Obama denied any knowledge of Wright's radical message, and it was swallowed whole by the MSM. It was a non-issue.
There's the answer. Does Dana really want to delve into Wright now?
"garage mahal said...
I would say the church Obama was part of defined him."
So you accept that Obama thinks the country he heads up created AIDs to kill blacks?
I don't think that Jesus felt that the path to salvation was in getting Caesar to take from Peter to pay Paul. I think Jesus felt that Peter would only get credit for paying Paul if he did it through the kindness of his heart.
garage mahal said: "I would say the church Obama was part of defined him."
Curious George said: "So you accept that Obama thinks the country he heads up created AIDs to kill blacks?"
Knowing that CG truly believes GM said that helps one better understand why CG thinks and believes as he does.
As a Christian when I read Walkers attributed response, I thought, "Good answer." I did not understand that to be an anti-Walker slam.
Although Jesus did say that specific individuals ought to give their own money for various purposes and reasons, where in the Bible (or any writing for that matter) did Jesus say to take money from someone to give to someone else?
Although to be honest, Judas (not generally considered all that good a role model) did.
God warned His children about the dangers of a powerful, centralized government and told them to reject it in 1st Samuel 8. Here is a bit of what God said:
“These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. 15 He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. 16 He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men[a] and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. 18 And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
God commands his followers to feed and clothe the poor, he also commands us to not feed people who refuse to work. So the sign is heretical.
Trey
Curious George said...
"C'mon Simon, Obama denied any knowledge of Wright's radical message, and it was swallowed whole by the MSM. It was a non-issue."
And we believed him? And we thought that the media was right to swallow it? Funny, it's been a few years, but I thought that our answer to those questions was and has remained "no." Compare my comments of 5/1/08 on Obama and Wright.
Garage has cited materials that support his claim that Walker attends a Church called Meadowbrook which believes in so-called "speaking in tongues"; it cites in support of that claim not some attack piece from a lefty blog but the pastor's own blog. Does Walker attend Meadowbrook? Why, if he doesn't believe something Meadowbrook believes? Or does he actually believe that (incidentally, unscriptural)
"charismatic" garbage?
I was listening to the radio when this story broke yesterday. Several callers who claimed to be members of Meadowbrook called and asserted that no church members spoke in tongues. Dan Bice, A journalist with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, discussed the issue of Walker's church in a JSOnline chat:
Q: Greg, Sun Prairie - Why has Scott Walker gotten a pass on going to a pentacostal church that speaks in tongues when that was all the rage for weeks with Sarah Palin?
A: Daniel Bice - I love it when one of my editors say, "But the typical reader will think ... " Yeah, like there's a typical reader. You guys are all over the map. Some care about the gubernatorial race. Others county government. And this guy wants to know if Gov. Walker speaks in tongues. That's why I love my job. To answer, last I knew the governor and his wife went to Meadowbrook Church in Tosa, a spinoff from Elmbrook, a standard evangelical megachurch. I've been to Meadowbrook. No one spoke in tongues. But I wouldn't have cared if they had danced in the spirit. It's his church.
This is just a leftest tempest in a teapot.
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...
"I was listening to the radio when this story broke yesterday. Several callers who claimed to be members of Meadowbrook called and asserted that no church members spoke in tongues. Dan Bice, A journalist with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, discussed the issue of Walker's church in a JSOnline chat...."
The pastor's own blog appears to say otherwise, and Mr. Bice doesn't contradict him: In the text that you quote, Mr. Bice says only that "I've been to Meadowbrook. No one spoke in tongues." Well, I've been to a Catholic Church and no one sang the Exsultet. Not everything that a Church does happens at every service. So who are we to believe, unnamed "callers who claimed to be members of Meadowbrook," or the pastor of Meadowbrook, who wrote in 2006 (and repeated in 2013):
"Sometimes the Church’s response to those beginning to explore and use their spiritual gifts has been ... [suboptimal] ... a person’s attempt to pray in tongues in his cell group is met with ... icy glares.... I admit that people can abuse spiritual gifts ... [but] the fear that some gifts of the Spirit might be abused does not give us the right to abuse those who are trying to exercise such gifts. To be in fellowship with people who are discovering and exercising their spiritual gifts requires patience and kindness. We wouldn’t rebuke an infant whose first attempts at walking ended on the floor. So why would we ... shame a tongue speaker for misjudging when it would be helpful to exercise his gift?"
To be sure, we may be misreading his remarks. Perhaps they can be explained. But they do need to be explained, and they can't be explained away with a wave of the hand and a dismissal of the claim because it came from a leftist. That would be an atrocious bit of epistemic closure. Garage made a claim. I was skeptical, and asked him for a source. He provided credible evidence; the one that he cited, www.progressive.org, is not a credible source per se, but it made a reasonable inquiry and credible (indeed, primary) sources for the salient facts. That means that we have to deal with those facts; you can't just turn your face away and shrug simply because you don't like Garage's politics. If Scott Walker attends a Church that believes in the so-called "speaking in tongues" nonsense, as there is some evidence that he does, then he has some explaining to do.
Church that believes in the so-called "speaking in tongues" nonsense
Question, what makes this nonsense but ghosts, astrology, numerology, healing crystals, etc. not nonsense?
I could go full "dick" and include global warming, but I won't (this time).
My goodness. I wish he had just used Meade's "That's a clown question bro" answer so we could get out of these weeds.
Todd said...
"Question, what makes this nonsense but ghosts, astrology, numerology, healing crystals, etc. not nonsense?"
I would tend to think that those things are nonsense, and if a candidate belonged to a new-age cult that favored such things, (s)he, too, would have some explaining to do. Glossolalia is a somewhat rare example of a fraud that is condemned by all serious Christians across all denominations, broadly-speaking. It's a fraud that makes Medjugorje look like a blue-chip.
Simon, I really don't know what's going on in the mind of the pastor. It sounds to me like he is asking the church members not to judge or "abuse" people who partake in this activity. Hardly something that would need to be said if this was common practice at Meadowbrook.
My casual read of his blog failed to find another reference to this topic.
@ Simon
My own father was a Charismatic Catholic--spoke gibberish--the whole nine yards. He attended a Catholic Church (St. Mary's--Chandler, AZ) Would you like me to accuse you of being a person who speaks in tongues? After all, you're both Catholic. Or can you imagine that people can attend the same Church and do different things away from the Church?
To a liberal, Christianity, The Constitution, the Geneva Convention are all things that support whatever you think is good and oppose everything you think is bad. Actual words notwithstanding.
@Simon, @Bushman, et. al.
Again, I feel like people from outside the culture of Spirit-filled churches are misunderstanding things.
It's a subtle distinction, but there are several kinds of churches who teach that "Speaking in tongues" is valid in the life of the modern believer.
A. Church members aren't really Saved unless they receive this Gift, and can speak in spiritual tongues.
B. Church members are encouraged to pursue and exercise this Gift in their private lives, and in corporate worship services.
C. Church members are encouraged to pursue this Gift in private, but there is little/no encouragement to bring it into the worship service.
D. Church members are told that the Gift is valid, but are neither encouraged nor discouraged from exercising the Gift.
These aren't a theological distinctions. This is more of a discussion of comfort level, individual-church culture, etc.
I kind of suspect that Walker's church is closer to (D) than to (A). Especially since there are conflicting news reports on the subject.
(There's another rabbit-trail down the subject of "cessationism of Gifts". It's the kind of discussion that makes Baptists and Pentecostals go nuts.
And yet another rabbit-trail down the list of Gifts of the Spirit that is given by the Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church. These gifts include words-of-wisdom, healing, prophecy, distinguishing-of-spirits, tongues, and interpretation-of-tongues.
And yet another rabbit-trail down the subject of whether 'spiritual tongues' need to be interpreted. In the same letter to the church in Corinth, the Apostle Paul goes through a discussion of spiritual tongues, interpretation, and how those items are supposed to be part of a church service. This discussion kind of forecloses the claim that 'speaking in tongues' can only be the kind that speakers of other languages can understand...)
"Glossolalia is a somewhat rare example of a fraud that is condemned by all serious Christians across all denominations, broadly-speaking."
What are you even talking about? Speaking in tongues is not some kind of weird, scandalous behavior. If your sources claim that it is they're either misinformed or lying. SJ's summary encompasses exactly the spectrum of belief that I've heard expressed.
Birches said...
"My own father was a Charismatic Catholic--spoke gibberish--the whole nine yards. He attended a Catholic Church (St. Mary's--Chandler, AZ) Would you like me to accuse you of being a person who speaks in tongues? After all, you're both Catholic. Or can you imagine that people can attend the same Church and do different things away from the Church?"
Truth to tell, I don't believe Charismatics are Catholics. But set that aside. What I said above is that you can hang on me anything that the Catholic Church teaches; I didn't say that you can hang on me anything that any Catholic does. By that reasoning, could conclude that I vote Democratic! If many members of Scott Walker's church are vegetarians, that doesn't allow the inference that Scott Walker is a vegetarian. But if his church teaches that members should not eat meat, that allows the inference that Walker is a vegetarian.
Bushman, what Garage foud is enough to establish a prima facie case; it doesn't prove it, but it is sufficient to call the question and shift the burden to the church and to Walker to deny it.
Let me give an example. I am not a communist. But I have a collection of Soviet militaria and books on the Soviet military, and in my library I have several books by Marx, Lenin, Mao, even a folio of Stalin's writings. (Indeed, I recall approvingly-quoting Marxism and the National Question in this very combox, although Google says not.) Does any of that prove that I'm a communist? No. If I were running for office and someone pointed to that stuff and raised the question, would the onus fall on me to explain it? Sure.
Or suppose you have a pool-hall that's notorious as a hang-out for drug dealers, and suppose that a political candidate has been playing pool her entire life, it's her favorite thing to do, she happens to live a block away from said pool-hall, and so that's where she goes every night for a few hours on her way home from work to relax. Someone says "Jane Doe is a drug-addict, and here's the facts: This pool-hall is a notorious spot for drug-dealers, and she goes there every night." Does that prove the allegation? No. Does the emphasis fall to Jane to explain it? Sure.
From my perspective ( atheist raised Lutheran ) speaking in tongues sounds strange.
On the other hand, the difference between the most outspoken charismatic and the most staid deist is pretty trivial compared to the difference between either of them and an atheist.
So it is a non-issue for me.
Bryan C said...
"What are you even talking about? Speaking in tongues is not some kind of weird, scandalous behavior."
Yes, it is. Outside of the incredibly narrow cloister of charismatic/Pentecostal assemblies that practice it, it is as kooky as snake-handling is outside of the assemblies that practice that. When you have a practice that Catholics, Orthodox, and virtually all protestants reject, "weird" is not the wrong word and "fraudulent" is not too strong.
And if the only mention of it is from nine years ago, and it was a reference to something happening in prayer groups, not church services, and it was something that was done by new members, and frowned upon by the established members, then it hardly seems like a practice that was common in the church.
SJ, "Spirit-filled” churches? Is that what they’re calling themselves now? Whether they call themselves charismatic or spirit-filled, it still smells of snake oil.
Again: In the vernacular of the New Testament, a “tongue” is a foreign language. That’s why St. Jerome rendered the Greek γλώσσῃ as lingua; when St. Paul says “[t]he man who talks in a strange tongue is talking to God, not to men,” for example, he means something like the recitation of the liturgy in Hebrew rather than Aramaic (or today, in Greek or Latin rather than the vernacular), not someone “ecstatically” babbling in word-like (but meaningless) vocalizations.
There are no valid new ideas in Christianity lurking, waiting to be excavated. The Church has been around for a long time, and she proclaims the same truth today that she has proclaimed in all ages and will proclaim to the end of time. When people come up with novel ideas that are at odds with the entire Christian tradition, which have been (contra Vincent of Lerins) implicitly or explicitly rejected by all Christians ever and everywhere, quite frankly, they’re nuts. It was the great fundamentalist theologian James Packer, no Catholic he, who pointed out that the Christian tradition"yields much valuable help in understanding what scripture teaches. The spirit has been active in the Church from the first, doing the work He was sent to do--guiding God's people into an understanding of revealed truth. The history of the Church’s labour [sic.] to understand the Bible forms a commentary on the Bible which we cannot despise or ignore without dishonouring [sic.] the Holy Ghost," and so "[t]radition may not be so lightly-dismissed.” Fundamentalism and the Word of God 48 (1958).
And so if Scott Walker is nuts, I want to know about it before I pull a lever for him, just as surely as that question should have been asked of Barack Obama.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
"And if the only mention of it is from nine years ago...."
It isn't. As I noted above, the pastor repeated the same homily verbatim on his blog in 2013. And quite frankly, a position statement from nine years ago would suffice: If the church has changed its position, that is a whole different kind of red flag. A church that vacillates and twists in the wind is alarming for a whole different set of reasons.
Outside of the incredibly narrow cloister of charismatic/Pentecostal assemblies that practice it, it is as kooky as snake-handling is outside of the assemblies that practice that.
That narrow cloister has taken a solemn and sacred ritual and turned it into pure theater for the purpose of bringing in more business and publicity. Much like the evangelists who practice "healing" using the most outlandish theatrics. Remember, Jesus always told the people he performed healing and miracles for to not speak of it to anyone, although they always did anyway.
I think your perception of it has been influenced by these charlatans.
Well Simon, for you and your personal beliefs, what Scott Walker's Church teaches is an important distinction. That is fine.
However, you've almost crossed a line into becoming a spokesperson for the rest of your Faith. There are plenty of Charismatic groups formed within the Catholic Church---you might not think them real Catholics, but they are there, and are some of the more devoted members of Parishes (as my father was). So if your own Church allows these things to go on without much condemnation one way or another, I find it interesting that your condemnation of the practice is so strong.
When you have a practice that Catholics, Orthodox, and virtually all protestants reject, "weird" is not the wrong word and "fraudulent" is not too strong.
I direct you to my father's parish's website, citing their charismatic group. If they've been kicked out of the diocese for this "fraudulent" behavior, I haven't heard.
Simon said...
It isn't. As I noted above, the pastor repeated the same homily verbatim on his blog in 2013. And quite frankly, a position statement from nine years ago would suffice: If the church has changed its position, that is a whole different kind of red flag. A church that vacillates and twists in the wind is alarming for a whole different set of reasons.
I stand corrected. But my point was not that the message was likely to have changed, it was that the practice was rare enough that it doesn't get much mention.
And a position statement might well suffice, but this was clearly not such a statement.
Wisconsin's largest coalition of Christian churches called on lawmakers Wednesday to halt the fast-tracking of the right-to-work legislation that is expected to be approved by the Senate in an extraordinary session Wednesday.
The Wisconsin Council of Churches has not taken a position on the bill. However, it issued a statement calling on lawmakers to consider "how this legislation could impact efforts to reduce poverty, close racial disparities and build economic opportunities for working families."
The Rev. Cindy Crane of the Lutheran Office registered in opposition to the bill, but had not had a chance to speak before the close of the hearing. Crane said her organization does not typically lobby on union issues. But it did in this case, she said, because of the effect the bill could have on hunger and poverty — issues it does advocate on — and the speed with which the bill was moving.
"There hasn't been enough time to really understand the impact this legislation would have on poverty in our state," she said.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/religion/faith-group-says-lawmakers-should-slow-down-on-right-to-work-b99451910z1-294073001.html
Birches said...
"[I]f your own Church allows these things to go on without much condemnation one way or another, I find it interesting that your condemnation of the practice is so strong."
Unfortunately, we are in an era during which my Church allows vipers to slither freely among her children, so afraid of upsetting the children that she will not raise her voice to give warning. The Synod, the Medjugorje fraud, the "neocat" cult, the blasphemous distension of Marian piety into Mariolatry (especially in South America), you name it--and now even so-called "liberation theology" is back. We are sailing through profoundly dark days in the Catholic Church, made darker still by the black smoke of Satan that has enveloped us since the sixties. A dark and evil time, sorry to say.
"There hasn't been enough time to really understand the impact this legislation would have on poverty in our state," she said.
Looks as though they want to get into the "paralysis by analysis" mode.
When I was a foster care provider, I (who am quite traditionally Roman Catholic) took a person in care to his Pentecostal church more or less regularly, Sunday after Sunday (and sometimes on Wednesdays, for my sins). A foreign country, really, but none the less one where, having taken the time and made the effort, I could recognize other Christians, in spite of the several heresies etc etc that were obvious to me. The speaking in tongues happened very rarely, a handful of times each year, and each one of the 'speaking' faithful were, let us say, from the periphery of the local community, or visitors. I will be interested in reading about Mr Walker's religious opinions at some point.
Big Mike re: Council of Churches: "Looks as though they want to get into the "paralysis by analysis" mode."
The Council of Churches is simply another far left construct full of marxists. They spend their time advocating for every loony lefty idea there is.
There isn't a communist leader anywhere in the world those "cats" haven't supported.
Not surprising when you consider that the National Council of Churches basically sprang from the Federal Council of Churches.
Yes, that Federal Council of Churches. One of many Soviet front groups.
Naturally, madisonfella is on board with what they are putting forth.
Glossolalia is a somewhat rare example of a fraud that is condemned by all serious Christians across all denominations,
Simon, your Catholic is showing. (As a former Catholic I can say that.). I'm not Pentacostal but I would firmly disagree that Pentacostalism is "condemned by all serious Christians".
More important, this just the sort of fight that Dems would love Republicans to have around Walker's or any other candidates church. Remember Romney.
How paranoid does one have to be in order to label Wisconsin's largest coalition of Christian churches as a "Soviet Front Group"?
@Simon,
the appelation "Spirit-filled" has been used by many since my childhood.
And it is my great worry that, as Apostle Paul said, speakers of spiritual tongues should also seek an interpretation of them.
It's kind of hard to square that with an assertion that such tongues are always other human languages.
However, it's also kind of hard to ignore that the most prominent such occurrence did involve people speaking in languages that they did not have fluency in.
The practice is relatively new in North America (against the panoply of Church history).
However, among those who instructed me in the many gifts of the Spirit were men who grew up in Charismatic Catholic tradition.
On a broader front: though this practice feels weird and strange to many non-practitioners, it is only as weird as believing that Jesus aligns with a political position that I've already chosen.
Which is what is in the photo that Ann showed.
"There hasn't been enough time to really understand the impact this legislation would have on poverty in our state," she said.
I find it interesting that any move to expand personal freedom and choice is always met with "not enough time to REALLY understand the impact" but if it is something designed to control us, well then "we have to pass it to see what is in it" and "we CAN'T afford to wait". As I said, interesting...
@Simon, one more thought.
There are no valid new ideas in Christianity lurking, waiting to be excavated.
You're right.
When I was young, I would hear of people quoting stories of "Gifts of the Spirit" coming and going across all branches of Church history.
Much later, I realized something.
The evidence was thin and scattered. (What did Augustine mean when he distinguished "jubilation" from xenoglossia? Did St. Patrick engage in such? Hildegard of Bergen? the Moravians? the Quakers?)
A person who already believes that "speaking in tongues" or "singing in tongues" is valid would take the evidence as affirmative.
And a person who doesn't believe that would take it as negative or contradictory.
The evidence isn't conclusive.
(People have a tendency to see what they're looking for, you know.)
I realized that similar things could be said of prayer for the sick leading to miraculous healings.
The evidence is thin and scattered.
Cessationists have similar grounds to insist that such things are no longer valid.
Spiritualists have similar grounds for insisting that believers should pursue Gifts of Healing.
And there are always stories of cranks who took the Experience and used it to pervert doctrine. (In the case of ecstatic spiritual tongues, there are several heretics that can be named.)
Which leads me back to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.
"You will know a tree by its fruit."
"Test the spirits. No one speaking by the Spirit of God can say 'Jesus is cursed'; and no one [speaking under the influence of a spirit] can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the the Holy Spirit."
Which is what led me to peace with the phenomenon.
I've known people who engage in speaking in tongues merely for the sake of weirdness. Their lives didn't show much Fruit of the Spirit.
I've known people who enter into that gift easily, as a form of meditation or communion with God. Often, their lives showed much Fruit of the Spirit.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा