Learning from the Sin of Sodom

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

nathan1977

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
3,446
Location
Strong Badia
Thoughts?

Op-Ed Columnist - Learning From the Sin of Sodom - NYTimes.com

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF The New York Times
Op-Ed Columnist

For most of the last century, save-the-worlders were primarily Democrats and liberals. In contrast, many Republicans and religious conservatives denounced government aid programs, with Senator Jesse Helms calling them “money down a rat hole.”

Over the last decade, however, that divide has dissolved, in ways that many Americans haven’t noticed or appreciated. Evangelicals have become the new internationalists, pushing successfully for new American programs against AIDS and malaria, and doing superb work on issues from human trafficking in India to mass rape in Congo.

A pop quiz: What’s the largest U.S.-based international relief and development organization?

It’s not Save the Children, and it’s not CARE — both terrific secular organizations. Rather, it’s World Vision, a Seattle-based Christian organization (with strong evangelical roots) whose budget has roughly tripled over the last decade.

World Vision now has 40,000 staff members in nearly 100 countries. That’s more staff members than CARE, Save the Children and the worldwide operations of the United States Agency for International Development — combined.

A growing number of conservative Christians are explicitly and self-critically acknowledging that to be “pro-life” must mean more than opposing abortion. The head of World Vision in the United States, Richard Stearns, begins his fascinating book, “The Hole in Our Gospel,” with an account of a visit a decade ago to Uganda, where he met a 13-year-old AIDS orphan who was raising his younger brothers by himself.

“What sickened me most was this question: where was the Church?” he writes. “Where were the followers of Jesus Christ in the midst of perhaps the greatest humanitarian crisis of our time? Surely the Church should have been caring for these ‘orphans and widows in their distress.’ (James 1:27). Shouldn’t the pulpits across America have flamed with exhortations to rush to the front lines of compassion?

“How have we missed it so tragically, when even rock stars and Hollywood actors seem to understand?”

Mr. Stearns argues that evangelicals were often so focused on sexual morality and a personal relationship with God that they ignored the needy. He writes laceratingly about “a Church that had the wealth to build great sanctuaries but lacked the will to build schools, hospitals, and clinics.”
In one striking passage, Mr. Stearns quotes the prophet Ezekiel as saying that the great sin of the people of Sodom wasn’t so much that they were promiscuous or gay as that they were “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” (Ezekiel 16:49.)

Hmm. Imagine if sodomy laws could be used to punish the stingy, unconcerned rich!

The American view of evangelicals is still shaped by preening television blowhards and hypocrites who seem obsessed with gays and fetuses. One study cited in the book found that even among churchgoers ages 16 to 29, the descriptions most associated with Christianity were “antihomosexual,” “judgmental,” “too involved in politics,” and “hypocritical.”

Some conservative Christians reinforced the worst view of themselves by inspiring Ugandan homophobes who backed a bill that would punish gays with life imprisonment or execution. Ditto for the Vatican, whose hostility to condoms contributes to the AIDS epidemic. But there’s more to the picture: I’ve also seen many Catholic nuns and priests heroically caring for AIDS patients — even quietly handing out condoms.

One of the most inspiring figures I’ve met while covering Congo’s brutal civil war is a determined Polish nun in the terrifying hinterland, feeding orphans, standing up to drunken soldiers and comforting survivors — all in a war zone. I came back and decided: I want to grow up and become a Polish nun.

Some Americans assume that religious groups offer aid to entice converts. That’s incorrect. Today, groups like World Vision ban the use of aid to lure anyone into a religious conversation.

Some liberals are pushing to end the longtime practice (it’s a myth that this started with President George W. Bush) of channeling American aid through faith-based organizations. That change would be a catastrophe. In Haiti, more than half of food distributions go through religious groups like World Vision that have indispensable networks on the ground. We mustn’t make Haitians the casualties in our cultural wars.

A root problem is a liberal snobbishness toward faith-based organizations. Those doing the sneering typically give away far less money than evangelicals. They’re also less likely to spend vacations volunteering at, say, a school or a clinic in Rwanda.

If secular liberals can give up some of their snootiness, and if evangelicals can retire some of their sanctimony, then we all might succeed together in making greater progress against common enemies of humanity, like illiteracy, human trafficking and maternal mortality.
 
On one hand I do think he's right that Conservative Christians are slowly coming around, and that pro-life does mean more than opposing abortion.

But I'm still hesitant about the channeling of tax dollars through faith-based organizations.
 
we can all absolutely stand and applaud the relief work done.

but one wonders, where were the Christians when AIDS was killing gays, Haitians, and IV drug users in the 1980s?
 
I applaud the relief work done. But anyone who wants to pimp those stats also has to completely and unequivocally denounce Rush Limbaugh's comments on Haiti relief efforts, and I have a feeling the people who would want to cite this Christian relief group as something good that conservative Christians are doing wouldn't dare denounce their man Rush. Which creates, yet again, another case of hypocrisy.
 
I applaud the relief work done. But anyone who wants to pimp those stats also has to completely and unequivocally denounce Rush Limbaugh's comments on Haiti relief efforts, and I have a feeling the people who would want to cite this Christian relief group as something good that conservative Christians are doing wouldn't dare denounce their man Rush. Which creates, yet again, another case of hypocrisy.



i don't think either Kristof nor Nathan are fans of Rush. just to be clear.
 
Nor do I. I'm merely predicting that fans of Rush will pimp this as a debate piece in that whole vague "seculars vs. Christians" debate that randomly pops up, and I will laugh at that hypocrisy when it occurs (and then probably cry).
 
In one striking passage, Mr. Stearns quotes the prophet Ezekiel as saying that the great sin of the people of Sodom wasn’t so much that they were promiscuous or gay as that they were “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” (Ezekiel 16:49.)

:up:

If secular liberals can give up some of their snootiness, and if evangelicals can retire some of their sanctimony, then we all might succeed together in making greater progress against common enemies of humanity, like illiteracy, human trafficking and maternal mortality.

Absolutely.

Government aid should continue to be distributed through both secular and faith-based channels (which really is the thrust of the article) not one or the other.
 
Rush and Olbermann in my mind are two sides of the same coin.

Entertainers.

And neither I find particularly entertaining.

Consider Rush's comments on Haiti denounced.
 
Well, it's not like American Christians haven't been doing these things for hundreds of years through missionary work, clothing collections, The Salvation Army, monetary donations and so on. But, if in a computerized world it's becoming more organized... great.
 
Well, it's not like American Christians haven't been doing these things for hundreds of years through missionary work, clothing collections, The Salvation Army, monetary donations and so on. But, if in a computerized world it's becoming more organized... great.



only American Christians?
 
Well, it's not like American Christians haven't been doing these things for hundreds of years through missionary work,

There are few things that leave as big of a distaste in my mouth as missionary work.
 
That was a great article, thanks. Two things come to mind:

1. I generally agree with the notion that many liberal/progressives are good at thinking and talking about how the world could be better, but are not always as ready with the checkbook as some of those whom they consider closed-minded.

2. ...and this probably deserves its own thread... That aspect of Christianity, and those stories of Jesus, that essentially command Christians to care for the poor, disabled, etc. is one that the lords of the far right are worried about (especially as the economy has tanked and the rich/poor divide grows wider every year). Those people in charge of the Republican/conservative movement that are only interested in money/tax issues (and don't care much at all about abortion, etc.) have harnessed the power of great numbers of Christians by appealing to their "religious" issues. But they know that the real message of Jesus Christ may be more threatening to pure capitalism and kill or be killed economic society.

So, we have heard in recent months (from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc.) a growing pre-emptive strike on that issue. Limbaugh has cast any discussion of WWJD? (what would Jesus do?), as applied to the U.S. political/economic system, as being the first steps to "class warfare" as he puts it. He has said some truly nasty stuff. Glenn Beck's program has been even more ferocious lately. He doesn't even try to disguise it. He has gone directly after the priests and pastors, telling his listeners to protest and demand the resignation of any minister who talks up the "social activism" of Jesus' teachings. This past week he has gone seemingly directly after the Catholic Church, and even managed to give a darker-skinned face to our hatred (so we can feel better about hating Jesus' message). He said that this brand of "Christian" social activism is coming from Latin American christians (i.e. Catholics) out of the communist and social regimes of Central America, etc. (I think it goes back easily over more than a hundred years to the Irish Catholic priests and nuns. But Glenn Beck knows he can't target them. He picked the Latin American immigrants because he thinks people will find them easier to hate.)

The Catholic Church has been much maligned lately, and no doubt much of it is very well deserved. In fact, I think they've lost me forever. But before we assign them "to the ash bin of history", I think it is worth noting that the world will sorely miss their role in advocating for the poor and less fortunate. That part of the Catholic Church was and remains genuine, unselfish, and heroic. I hope they can get their act together. I remember when the western world was congratulating itself not long after the fall of the Soviet Union and communism. Much credit went to Pope John Paul II who lived under that Soviet boot in Poland and he knew its oppression of the human spirit first hand. However, while accepting their compliments, he stated that it was good that communism was defeated, but he cautioned against unthinking embracement of pure capitalism to the exclusion of those people in society who just can't compete (for whatever reason). In other words, I think he was saying that capitalism is a far better system, but it has the potential to trample those among us who are "the least of my brothers", and that we need to make sure our society provides for them (and not necessarily with the beggers, orphanages, and poorhouses of the 19th and early 20th century). We can do better than that.

That meandered a little off topic, but I thought it was worth saying.
 
I think the problem is that a lot of Christians...don't act Christian. The message I grew up with when I thought of Christianity was the story of The Good Samaritan. That contrasts with the people that think homosexuality is a disease, not something that you can't control, and support war and violence against those that oppose their views.

It's this, more than anything, that drove me away from Christianity. I still believe in it, somewhat, but as a supporter of gay rights and as someone who believes in pro-choice, I don't seem to fit well within that church anymore.
 
That's what the article was about wasn't it? Didn't really want to rehash the entire history of global Christian philanthropy from the Good Samaritan, through church supported hospitals and orphanages to today's efforts.



didn't you just say it effectively enough right there?
 
we can all absolutely stand and applaud the relief work done.

but one wonders, where were the Christians when AIDS was killing gays, Haitians, and IV drug users in the 1980s?

They were telling us we were getting our 'just desserts' for being gay: they suffered -- and still suffer, in my never to be humble opinion -- from the 'Those People Disease'.


"we're not like those people! They're sick, we're perfect."
Until their friends and relatives became the 'those people'.
 
When I (indirectly) worked for World Vision in Australia they said it was founded by a priest (or pastor) who spent time in Vietnam sometime in the 1960s and then thought of how to provide more effective help. The organisation now still works in his spirit, and still identifies as a Christian based NGO, but it's no part whatsoever in their work. Neither in who the support, nor in who they employ or who supports them.
I wouldn't support any organisation that at the same time tries to teach any certain religion (or non-religion for that matter) to those people, or is otherwise engaged in the kind of missionary work that has gone on for so long.
 
.
I wouldn't support any organisation that at the same time tries to teach any certain religion (or non-religion for that matter) to those people, or is otherwise engaged in the kind of missionary work that has gone on for so long.

But I would argue, and they would too, that the work they do is exactly that; promoting their beliefs through action.
:applaud:
 
As long as it's through action, and the "action" isn't just a cover for "spreading the word". I've seen both, that's why I'm on the fence...
 
But I would argue, and they would too, that the work they do is exactly that; promoting their beliefs through action.
:applaud:

Sure, but there is a difference between such groups that go there with the bible (or whatever (non-) religious text) in their hands, and those who just go there to help. They don't have to deny their religious origins or anything, but the good work shouldn't be the cover up for any missionary work.
At least not those groups I would support.
 
But I would argue, and they would too, that the work they do is exactly that; promoting their beliefs through action.
:applaud:

They can argue it any way they want; a large proportion of them still come with a plate in one hand and a Bible in the other. Maybe it is much more subtle than 300 years ago, but it still happens and I find it terribly insulting and distasteful. And yes, I have had personal experience with this; you grow up in a war zone and suddenly the evangelicals and Jehovahs and Mormons descend upon you in droves. And it isn't just to feed and clothe you either.

I think there is something extremely exploitative in targeting people in their darkest, worst hour when they are vulnerable. There are religious organizations like Vincent mentioned that do work on very secular grounds and are to be commended. The other ones I have little respect for and truly believe that historically are responsible for a lot of ills that continue on in this world to this day.
 
there's a reason why that the Mormon missionaries are found in the roughest neighborhoods in DC. why aren't they in Upper NW or Georgetown or Dupont?

however, if we are to take, say, Bono as a model of someone who does action motivated by faith, i have absolutely no problem with that. and neither does the Obama administration, which seems to be just as comfortable with faith-based organizations receiving government $$$ for charity. that's more than i'm comfortable with, but having seen what Catholics can do, for example, with soup kitchens and clothing drives, i'm willing to step back and let them do their job.
 
Well, it's not like American Christians haven't been doing these things for hundreds of years through missionary work, clothing collections, The Salvation Army, monetary donations and so on. But, if in a computerized world it's becoming more organized... great.

Agreed and also Christians from around the world, have done wonderful work in aiding the poor and sick. I forgot to add, everyone else who has done something to help another. It's not just Christians. But, good hearted people who truly care. Make our planet a better place to live.
 
Agreed and also Christians from around the world, have done wonderful work in aiding the poor and sick. I forgot to add, everyone else who has done something to help another. It's not just Christians. But, good hearted people who truly care. Make our planet a better place to live.


I agree, really doesn't matter if your motivation is Matthew 22:39, the Golden Rule or some other variation. Applying it is what counts.
 
Back
Top Bottom