Lighthouse Ministires

[segovius]

Seeing as I seem to have something of a reputation in some quarters as a 'Christian' basher I thought I'd lay my cards on the table and at the same time redress the balance a bit by posting some stuff on the real Christians out there.

Also stops me being negative which is always a problem. So here we go: let's kick off with checking out Lighthouse World Ministries (http://www.lighthouseproductionsllc.com/).

I'll fill in some background before quoting some juicy bits.

Firstly the LWM interpret the bible based on the Greek text, not any English translation. Obviously this not only brings them closer to the original meaning but it results in beliefs that are in direct opposition to many of today's XIans - whilst still being in keeping with the teachings of Christ.

For example, re the 'rapture' the LWM teach that:

the "end times" prophecies in question were fulfilled by 70 AD with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. The modern idea of the Rapture is not actually in scripture, and is misinterpreted or mistranslated and was first popularized in the 1830's, and more recently in the Left Behind books. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that people are going to fly off the Earth

Furthermore, the pastor of LWM is critical of the 'rapturist' doctrine on an another level saying:

it can drive America's foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, and cause serious problems in that regard.

[I would say] that the Antichrist is not one person, but many that are already here.

Hmm....wonder who he had in mind ?

This is a very interesting (if badly designed) site and a good antidote to the excesses of their co-religionists. It needs more exposure imo.

[BRussell]

Here's a good column (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/opinion/17danforth.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and %20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fContributors) written by a Protestant minister, former Republican Senator, and short-lived Bush administration ambassador to the UN. I'll paste the whole thing here because it will go away in a few days.

June 17, 2005
Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers
By JOHN C. DANFORTH
St. Louis
IT would be an oversimplification to say that America's culture wars are now between people of faith and nonbelievers. People of faith are not of one mind, whether on specific issues like stem cell research and government intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo, or the more general issue of how religion relates to politics. In recent years, conservative Christians have presented themselves as representing the one authentic Christian perspective on politics. With due respect for our conservative friends, equally devout Christians come to very different conclusions.
It is important for those of us who are sometimes called moderates to make the case that we, too, have strongly held Christian convictions, that we speak from the depths of our beliefs, and that our approach to politics is at least as faithful as that of those who are more conservative. Our difference concerns the extent to which government should, or even can, translate religious beliefs into the laws of the state.
People of faith have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to bring their values to bear in politics. Many conservative Christians approach politics with a certainty that they know God's truth, and that they can advance the kingdom of God through governmental action. So they have developed a political agenda that they believe advances God's kingdom, one that includes efforts to "put God back" into the public square and to pass a constitutional amendment intended to protect marriage from the perceived threat of homosexuality.
Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers.
But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.
When, on television, we see a person in a persistent vegetative state, one who will never recover, we believe that allowing the natural and merciful end to her ordeal is more loving than imposing government power to keep her hooked up to a feeding tube.
When we see an opportunity to save our neighbors' lives through stem cell research, we believe that it is our duty to pursue that research, and to oppose legislation that would impede us from doing so.
We think that efforts to haul references of God into the public square, into schools and courthouses, are far more apt to divide Americans than to advance faith.
Following a Lord who reached out in compassion to all human beings, we oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would humiliate homosexuals.
For us, living the Love Commandment may be at odds with efforts to encapsulate Christianity in a political agenda. We strongly support the separation of church and state, both because that principle is essential to holding together a diverse country, and because the policies of the state always fall short of the demands of faith. Aware that even our most passionate ventures into politics are efforts to carry the treasure of religion in the earthen vessel of government, we proceed in a spirit of humility lacking in our conservative colleagues.
In the decade since I left the Senate, American politics has been characterized by two phenomena: the increased activism of the Christian right, especially in the Republican Party, and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest a relationship between the two. To assert that I am on God's side and you are not, that I know God's will and you do not, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God's kingdom is certain to produce hostility.
By contrast, moderate Christians see ourselves, literally, as moderators. Far from claiming to possess God's truth, we claim only to be imperfect seekers of the truth. We reject the notion that religion should present a series of wedge issues useful at election time for energizing a political base. We believe it is God's work to practice humility, to wear tolerance on our sleeves, to reach out to those with whom we disagree, and to overcome the meanness we see in today's politics.
For us, religion should be inclusive, and it should seek to bridge the differences that separate people. We do not exclude from worship those whose opinions differ from ours. Following a Lord who sat at the table with tax collectors and sinners, we welcome to the Lord's table all who would come. Following a Lord who cited love of God and love of neighbor as encompassing all the commandments, we reject a political agenda that displaces that love. Christians who hold these convictions ought to add their clear voice of moderation to the debate on religion in politics.
John C. Danforth is an Episcopal minister and former Republican senator from Missouri.

[dmz]

I don't know what else they are up to, but I agree with them on the Rapture and that a great deal of John's Apocalypse happened within the first several hundred years A.D. Unless they have a screw loose, this is pretty standard Post-mil stuff, so I'm not certain you need a new translation to go there.

You can read John's Apocalypse, about 'bodies piled in the streets of Jerusalem' and then read Josephus, put 2 and 2 together, and figure 'in their lifetime' meant 'in their lifetime.'

My dispenstational brethren do have a problem in the rapture, in that it nearly neuters their ability to function day-to-day. Yes, there are many missionary ministries, but for all the good they have done, and they have done a great deal of good, they have left their own lives and their country go to seed intellectually as they make one faustian culutural pact after another. In many, many ways the evangelical/pre-mil Christians are acutally functioning gnostics, spirits trapped in this dirty little world, and waiting for the rapture, which is presumalby going to happen at any moment.

Cultural fixations brought on by the 'get 'em in the door at any cost' mentaltiy have led to an abandonment of diactical hyms, for instance, for infantile scales of minor chords with about as much intellectual depth as an epsiode of Jimmy Neutron, that could be sung by anyone from a Buddhist monk to a member of the Church of the subgenious.

Evangelicals often end up making the same mistake as mystics, in that they want to whip up an emotional high, more than they want to study their philosophy, and get down to the hard work that a religion that operates on a "heart, mind, soul" level demands.

Using all the culutural idioms, Christian heavy metal -- pissed off for Christ??, or the disheveld dress --- rebelling for Christ??? and the like is the norm, but it doens't occur that a philosophy is more than feeling warm about a guy floating around in the universe somewhere. Leeching off the cultural attitudes and manerisms have given the evangelical circle a crappy track record in marriage -- which doesn't come in handy when decrying gay marriage, furthur compounded by being hypocrites using intellectually dishonest arguments about "family values".

And this is happening all too often.

I approached the pastor of a Church that I attended until recently, and asked him what he thought about using Christian apologetics as a means to accuratley communicate the Gosple. His response was to basically tell me that after Paul's experience at Mars Hill, all he wanted to do was 'preach Christ crucifed'. Oh Boy -- great -- now we're living in 1st century Rome?

I guess there are 'fundie' mentalities that need to go by the wayside.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by dmz
I guess there are [ . . . ] mentalities that need to go by the wayside.

[Placebo]

That's a really ugly website.

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
I guess there are 'fundie' mentalities that need to go by the wayside.

I can see how that may just be a possibility....

[progmac]

Originally posted by Placebo
That's a really ugly website.
they should pay $29.95 for some stock photos