Watch this clip and tell me if you’ve ever seen/heard a Pentecostal TV preacher who sounds so much like Peter Rollins. Then tell me which phrase got his show canceled. I’m guessing “the negation of the negation.”
I love this guy!
This guy is good. And, he’s got that hip, post-modern, emerging look too. He’s in.
He looks and sounds like Jay Bakker and Peter Rollins’ love child.
love child indeed.
I was really enjoying it until he said “Barth” without the hard T.
I like him. How did he get cancelled on his own network?
I don’t know much about Peter Rollins or what sentence got his show canceled. I imagine his show was canceled because most people probably couldn’t understand WTF he was talking about. Usually this kind of speech results in the glorification of human suffering – i.e. if you want to be a follower of Christ you should suffer and there is a lot of glory in that. So, bums, for instance are closer to Christ than bankers and lawyers because bums have less stuff than bankers and lawyers and hence must suffer more. In fact, Drew would make more sense if he realized that identities must be maintained in the practical plane of reality in which we relate to the material world whereas identities are lost in the spiritual plane in which we relate to Christ. He seems to be saying that we maintain our identities but lose them at the same time (without differentiating between the two states of being (spiritual and material) with regard to our identities) which I think would confuse most viewers.
The way that I look at this issue is that we are all the same in Christ. Neither bums, bankers, lawyers, teachers, or those we consider the “dregs” of society have the corner on suffering and none of them are necessarily more prophetic (e.g. “the prophetic bum” archetype) than the others. We all suffer and we don’t necessarily know each others suffering nor can we relate to it. For example, a Harvard graduate might kill himself because he’s lost 75% of his fortune but a bum still finds a reason to live. I think the person who finds life unbearable may be suffering more than the one who doesn’t. And when Christ says “as you have done to the least of these, so you have done to me”, I think he’s talking about those who you think least of. Given the liberal sentiments of many on this blog, the person who you think the least of is not a bum on the street, it is probably someone more like Mitt Romney or Donald Trump. So, as you feel about Mitt Romney or Donald Trump, so you feel about Christ.
I think this issue means something important for the ecclesiology of Christian Churches where even the most liberal of them still have “men’s” groups and “women’s” groups and divide themselves by ages and require, say, the sacrament of baptism before one can take communion and where we have cultures in which “let me be as Christ to you” means that you expect other people to suffer for you to prove themselves worthy of Christ. These practices aren’t recognizing that we are all the same in Christ. They are divisive and non-spiritual.
Good point about pointing out that the application of Jesus teaching about ‘the least of these’ to us today ‘is probably someone more like Mitt Romney or Donald Trump.’ That must obviously be why Jesus singled out Pilate, Herod and the Sanhedrin as clear examples of those who were ‘the least of these’ (Matthew 29:16)
There is no Matthew 29:16. I don’t think Jesus ever gives any clear examples of who “the least of these” are.
We can easily extrapolate from the narrative (Matthew 25:31-45) who “the least of these” are that Jesus was referring to: the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the destitute, the sick, the imprisoned.
Seems rather clear.
He also referred to bread as his body and wine as his blood. It seems that Jesus did not always speak literally and he was more of a spiritual guy than a materialistic type. When he spoke about “the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the destitute, the sick, the imprisoned” he could well have been speaking about the spiritually hungry, the spiritually thirsty, the spiritual stranger, the spiritually destitute, the spiritually sick, and the spiritually imprisoned. In this case, Romney and Trump definitely qualify as “the least of these”.
Evelyn, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians would immediately disagree with you: the bread is Jesus’ “true” body. The wine is Jesus’ “true” blood. (I, of course, do not take the passage literally, but that is beside the point).
I also happen to agree with you. While I believe Jesus’ was referring literally to the the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the destitute, the sick, and the imprisoned, I also believe we can see this spiritually.
Overall, though, “the least of these” could easily expand to be inclusive of every human being.
There can be no discussion of the “least of these” without standing up for THE MOST least, the unborn. If we cannot protect the most innocent lives first then its very disingenuous to fight for anything else.
Frank, I entirely agree on the sanctity of the lives of the unborn. But we mustn’t ignore the sanctity of the mothers who bear them, particularly the mothers whose life circumstances are mired in such great hardship, pain and darkness — and often due to factors beyond their control — that they are left feeling helpless and powerless.
I’ll not get into the politics of the issue, which is ultimately a distraction. But the true human issue that’s really most important here requires our grace and compassion, not only for the unborn, but especially — if not even primarily — for the mothers.
It would be disingenuous of us to talk about standing up for the unborn if we fail to stand up for the mothers who bear them.
Hey we actually agree on something. Belief it or not that gives me hope.
We should be doing both with urgency but it starts with the most innocent and works out from there. Let’s stop the killing while we provide more support to women so that they will actuall want their babies.
Hey we actually agree on something. Believe it or not that gives me hope.
We should be doing both with urgency but it starts with the most innocent and works out from there. Let’s stop the killing while we provide more support to women so that they will actually want their babies.
Amen to that, RJP.
Those truly serious about reducing abortions are doing all they can to reduce poverty and thereby give all women actual, viable choices. Anything else is political posturing and fundraising, pure and simple.
Dave the best way is to make sure there are jobs available not more handouts. Maybe they would value life more if they were actually useful and contributing to society as opposed to feeling like a failure that needs to be rescued.
Abortion is one of those tricky issues. I consider it a legalized vice, kind of like marriage, divorce, drinking alchohol, prescription drugs, plastic surgery, tax loopholes, and hedge funds. It’s even worse than the things I’ve mentioned because it involves the taking of innocent lives but it’s legalization leads to the same social phenomena that the legalization of other vices lead to: Just because something is legal, there will be people in society who will then decide that that thing is socially acceptable, and not only is that thing socially acceptable, but the “right thing” or “cool thing” to do in imagined circumstances and then they will use this attitude to encourage people they know to partake in the vice – kind of like when Tony was encouraging those teetotaling pastors to drink alcohol. I find this to be a bit sick and annoying.
So, people (I won’t call them ALL card-carrying liberals but they tend to be) come up with these scenarios in which abortion is the “right thing” to do – like if there’s a poor black woman (she’s always black of course – hispanics, for example, have no trouble breeding like rabbits even though they are poor) who lives in the inner city and already has 5 kids and can’t raise another one and a pregnancy would just be too difficult for her to handle, then abortion is the “right thing”. Abortion is never the “right thing” – it is immoral. It’s ok that abortion is legal because if it wasn’t, this same person might go and get an illegal procedure from an unlicensed person and wind up getting an infection and dying as a result, but it is not the “right thing”. And, I’m left to wonder, why did this person get pregnant in the first place? If these people are so destitute that they have to kill a baby then they should be encouraged to get their tubes tied so that they will not conceive again.
So, it’s a tricky issue. It’s immoral but it is difficult for me to say how it should be legislated.
“egalitarian collective that suspends all tribal identities”
Good God, man! That’s evil-liberal-pinko-commie talk! This is ‘Merica! And don’t you ever, by God, forget it again! We take care of our own, ’round here! Now go to your room.
Until this post, I’d never heard of Drew Sumrall or “The Harvest Show.” Nor, after seeing this, could I imagine ever being a viewer. Sumrall’s style drips of uber-cerebral, postmodern-ish philosophical snobbery typical of “pop emergence” and its overcooked intellectualism.
As for the phrase that got this guy’s show cancelled, not sure. Maybe it was “unwanted excremental remainder of society that is placed outside the city walls.” That’s just my guess.
Tribal Identity: Tall Hair Clan
Is that a post-pentecostal haircut?
yeah, i’d have to vote for the part where he says that by becoming a follower of christ, we are participating in becoming unwanted and excremental.
he sure uses all the key words, i love the way he throws “event” around. i like him, he can negate negation on my youtubes any day.
i kept hearing this in my head: “my hair points to the sky, the place i want to be” ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zecG5trE6BM )
Absolutely loving these comments…[how in the world did Trump and Romney get in here?]
Trump and Romney are despised and cast out from liberal Christendom. They are the garbage of liberal Christian society.
Others would be far more quick to refer to them as “unwanted excrement.”
Is there a political movement associated with “uber-cerebral, postmodern-ish philosophical snobbery typical of “pop emergence” and its overcooked intellectualism”? Perhaps as a alternative to the Teavangelicals?
Jeez I hope not.
I don’t remember the last time I heard the word “dialectic” used in a sermon, especially in close proximity to “excrement”….
With all due respect, no one who takes their Bible [remotely] seriously thinks Christ was referring to the excessively wealthy as the ‘least of these’.
It’s much more likely he was referring to the least of these [i.e., the LEAST of THESE–not Trump, not Romney].
This is not to say they cannot participate in the kingdom of God…however…
‘Woe to you who are rich’…[Luke 6:24]–did he [Jesus] mean rich in ‘spirit’…[unlikely].
As for the [perverse] ‘glorification’ of suffering, I suggest you read the true revolutionary–Paul [Philippians 3:10].
It’s in no way a surprise that you don’t know WTF I’m talking about–you’d have to read your Bible to be in that position.
Drew . . .
You wrote, “It’s in no way a surprise that you don’t know WTF I’m talking about–you’d have to read your Bible to be in that position.”
That statement alone is immersed, not only in basic bullshit, but self-elevating bullshit.
The basic bullshit being the implication that Evelyn doesn’t read her Bible. She’s a regular here on Tony’s blog. I don’t agree with everything she writes, but she does read her Bible. And she knows her Bible. That she may not draw the same conclusions as you does not equate to her being unread. Nor does it equate to you being an expert. Not by a long shot.
The self-elevating bullshit being your snooty remark that reading the Bible will enable Eveyln to “be in a position” to understand WTF you’re talking about. The inference obviously being that you have it “right” and Evelyn has it “wrong.”
Knocking others down to make yourself feel tall is a sad way to try a bring a point across.
Ok. Lets read a few beatitudes in context:
Luke 6:24-25 But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full. Woe to you who are well-fed now, for you shall be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.
contrasted with BLESSEDNESS:
Luke 6:21 Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.
I think it is particularly instructive to contrast the parts concerning weeping and laughing. People who laugh are full of grace so there is no room to let in the grace of God. People who weep yearn for grace and when they feel it, they appreciate it and can actually notice the presence of grace. You can’t feel the presence of grace without first having not known grace. These are simply statements about the dynamics of passion.
Those who are rich are so comfortable that they have no need to seek out the grace of God nor do they appreciate that they have already received a form of grace – being provided for. They tend to feel entitled to it and are blind to the sufferings of those who “don’t have”.
Phillipians 3:10-11 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
Paul is expounding on a similar theme – the need to be dead in order to experience resurrection which is a statement of the passion felt within the dynamic between going to dualistic extremes. He then goes on to say in 3:12 that he hasn’t attained resurrection nor become perfect. And, we know historically that Paul wasn’t resurrected from the dead the way Jesus was so his sufferings were basically pointless and meaningless – he never reached his goal.
Welcome to “Theology Smackdown” (as I so affectionately refer to Tony’s blog commentary section).
You’re right, it was a bit out of line.
It was actually in direct response to the original comment of ‘no surprise no one knows WTF he (I) was talking about’.
I probably shouldn’t have responded at all though, it would have dripped of uber-cerebral, postmodern-ish philosophical snobbery typical of “pop emergence” and its overcooked intellectualism.
[I do appreciate the feedback though, thanks].
None of us here walks on water, Drew. But so far we all swim well together (even competitively at times) without trying to drown one another.
Do stick around and participate, though, where your time allows or interest prefers. Agreement is definitely not the standard here on Tony’s blog. And while I might take issue with overcooked theo-intellectualism, it doesn’t mean I don’t find value in the course of any given discussion.
And, Drew, if you are enough of an asshole, we might come to love you even more than we love Frank. 🙂
So, I have prevented my children from watching LeSea Broadcasts for the last 24 years, because of the illiterate and offensive programming. Drew appears to be able to read, and appears to have done so. While I am sure I differ with him on many things, I do enjoy listening to people who have done some literate and critical thinking before they speak.
Pingback: My Homepage()
Pingback: Injured at Lowe's()
Pingback: kamagra online, buy kamagra, buy kamagra online, kamagra()
Pingback: Highline residence tiong bahru()
Pingback: Marina 1()
Pingback: Relationship Energy()
Pingback: stay with me()
Pingback: Panorama price()
Pingback: Australia 108 Location()
Pingback: Marine Blue()
Pingback: click here()
Pingback: gopro hero 4 remote review()
Pingback: Raid Data Recovery()
Pingback: how to get out of credit card debt()
Pingback: Panorama floor plan()
Pingback: www.pizzahutcoupons.org, pizzacoupons, pizza hut coupon codes()
Pingback: buy generic cialis()
Pingback: 50+ dating()
Pingback: find out more()
Pingback: dr james martin thyroid()
Pingback: dr james martin sacramento thyroid()
Pingback: Kali Chauri()
Pingback: date online()
Pingback: why full tort? why limited tort?()
Pingback: quick loans()
Pingback: payday loan()