The conservative mind set as far as from a Biblical point of view is bankrupt! You can say that you want to be involved with politics but you can say that God through the Bible has mandated that you be invovled.
The proponents of religious conservatism have not proven their ideals with all that the bible has to say and what they are doing is destroying who and what the church is with their agenda.
Come visit my site and find out more
http://www.kingdomcitizenship.org/book.htm
Politics and the Church
Moderator: Moderators
Post #11
"Look at Jesus and the religious ninnies He put up with, after He was the Son of God and they knew it but refuse to give way to Him. They were self. . ."
Tim,
The Lord leads me to test all things and hold on firmly to Truth.
Before I put on a yoke with you, what do you mean by "after He (Jesus) 'was' the Son of God."
In the beginning was the Word. The Word was God. No?
Tim,
The Lord leads me to test all things and hold on firmly to Truth.
Before I put on a yoke with you, what do you mean by "after He (Jesus) 'was' the Son of God."
In the beginning was the Word. The Word was God. No?
Post #12
AlAyet,
Sorry there is no hidden thing, it was an honest typo. It should have read, "after ALL He was the Son of God." I was refering to the fact they did not give respect to Him as the Son of God. They were so pig headed and arrogant in as to their own importance that they refused to see God in the flesh.
I did not mean to alarm you with some passive comment.
Sorry there is no hidden thing, it was an honest typo. It should have read, "after ALL He was the Son of God." I was refering to the fact they did not give respect to Him as the Son of God. They were so pig headed and arrogant in as to their own importance that they refused to see God in the flesh.
I did not mean to alarm you with some passive comment.
Post #13
Thanks.
I'm also a writer, meeting several deadlines a week. Should I respond to your posts?
It is timely finding a view like yours as I registered a website for the exact same reason as you. Although to be honest, I see Dobson and Falwell very Biblically grounded in their positions. The other men, Crossan and Spong alarm me as one (Crossan: Jesus Seminar) says Jesus was eaten by dogs and Spong wrote a book titled Christianty must Change or Die and he is the very example of a living breathing heretic. (Not that Crossan isn't.) And sadly they are both used as authoritative voices on so many TV shows and news programs about a Christianty that doesn't exist.
But, I believe that the Church should not be SO political. I believe that Jesus was pointing out logic when He told His followers to shake off the very dust from their shoes and move on (no pun intended).
In fact I never use the Bible to stand against the licentiousness and relativism that rules the society of the western mind. I am not an "Evangelist." Every time some "agenda" tries its way into my kids school I am more than willing to get secular in reponse to whatever pederast unnatural agenda is attempted to be forced on my children and friends.
Now help me here: I believe that Dobson has a good place in the world to point out the things that are happening against the Church and Falwell, I have never heard him ever get off the Biblical trail.
I don't believe I have any books by Falwell and maybe one by Dobson, so please don't think I'm a fundamentalist lemming. I'm a fundamentalist by modern definition, but I own and read a lot of books by a lot of authors Christian and non-Christian. My friends think I am quite Liberal as I think people make their own choices and that's that.
By the way, I'm not afriad of anything in writing. Not even anti-Christian laws.
So I am looking forward on your take on both Dobson and Falwell. They aren't my leaders, just guys I agree a lot with on Biblical issues.
You seem very capable.
I'm also a writer, meeting several deadlines a week. Should I respond to your posts?
It is timely finding a view like yours as I registered a website for the exact same reason as you. Although to be honest, I see Dobson and Falwell very Biblically grounded in their positions. The other men, Crossan and Spong alarm me as one (Crossan: Jesus Seminar) says Jesus was eaten by dogs and Spong wrote a book titled Christianty must Change or Die and he is the very example of a living breathing heretic. (Not that Crossan isn't.) And sadly they are both used as authoritative voices on so many TV shows and news programs about a Christianty that doesn't exist.
But, I believe that the Church should not be SO political. I believe that Jesus was pointing out logic when He told His followers to shake off the very dust from their shoes and move on (no pun intended).
In fact I never use the Bible to stand against the licentiousness and relativism that rules the society of the western mind. I am not an "Evangelist." Every time some "agenda" tries its way into my kids school I am more than willing to get secular in reponse to whatever pederast unnatural agenda is attempted to be forced on my children and friends.
Now help me here: I believe that Dobson has a good place in the world to point out the things that are happening against the Church and Falwell, I have never heard him ever get off the Biblical trail.
I don't believe I have any books by Falwell and maybe one by Dobson, so please don't think I'm a fundamentalist lemming. I'm a fundamentalist by modern definition, but I own and read a lot of books by a lot of authors Christian and non-Christian. My friends think I am quite Liberal as I think people make their own choices and that's that.
By the way, I'm not afriad of anything in writing. Not even anti-Christian laws.
So I am looking forward on your take on both Dobson and Falwell. They aren't my leaders, just guys I agree a lot with on Biblical issues.
You seem very capable.
Politics and the Church
Post #14AlAyeti,
You ask a very difficult set of questions to answer in a nutshell. First in my book I do not mention anybody living by name for several reasons. First I want people to listen to what is said, not necessarily who is saying it. Secondly, anybody could say some improper things in one area and be as good as gold in another. A common tendency in culture, church very much so too, is to burn people at the stake literarily and then never listen to anything they have to say because they have been "branded" as heretics.
I have written Dobson several times at his direct request. He said he would answer and each time he has not. My letters are somewhat long, because I am careful to state my case clearly and then draw the line. SO far all I have gotten is one of his underlings to write back a very limp letter with the common slapdowns and politically defensive fancy footwork comments that we all can't see eye to eye all the time...
Dobson is a very complex fellow. If you only listen to him you'll only get a third of reality. Read Dean Merrill's book, Sinner's in the hand of an Angry church, where he takes on Focus on the Families' political mindset and annihilates it. Merrill was a VP at Focus and so his insights into what Focus is doing politically are very well informed.
Dobson's whole ministry is based on some assumption. Yes he believes in God, but there is always the add ons of counseling and the touchy feely stuff that Dobson is steeped in. The church never had this before and it was very workable. Christ did not teach these things and so we get way out on a limb and we need to be careful. Dobson seems to feel the church needs him because he is everywhere continually dropping his name and ministry as if it has all the answers. Counseling CAN be helpful but it can also become a replacement for God and His ways, even while using His language.
Dobson takes stands on other people's ministies and kills people off to listening to other than him... For instance Gary Ezzo with Growing Kids God's Way. My wife and I found this course tremendously helpful and wise. We did not agree with everything, but we rarely do anyway, "test the spirits..." Dobson has gone on the air many times to denounce Ezzo. Why does he do this. Why is he allowed to do this in way that can not be challenged? Dobson appears to be self absorbed.
Dobson also plays on people's fears and is constantly appealing to this reactionary feeling. Perfect love casts out fear. Where does he believe in the sovereignty of God. Is God bankrupt if a liberal takes the presidency? I think not! Conservatives maybe a little more uncomfortable but that is because they are serving the god of self. God did not wake up on Sept. 11th late at 10:00am and freakout that the twin towers had been hit, why should we?
Falwell is less of a threat than he use to be. He still make arrogant statements that do not hold water but he is a guy whose sun is setting. Aside from teaching easy-believism, which is dangerous, he is not as much a threat as Dobson.
I am not afraid of much in writing myself. I dare not tell you what I am reading right now.
Scripture tells us to be salt and light in this world, not load mouths and dominating. This is the problem with religious conservatism it is very mean and spiritually ugly underneath it appearance to be of good cause.
I talked with my cousin who was a baptist fundamentalist missionary for 30 years in the Dominican Republic about my ideas in the book. I wanted to disprove my thesis in dialog and questions. After 6 months of e-mailing my cousin found her political ideas to be a house of cards, she is religious conservative. She almost cursed me and write me that I should be investigated by the FED's for what I teach. Wow wee! Imagine one believer threatening another because of political differences.
Back to you,
TimPrice
You ask a very difficult set of questions to answer in a nutshell. First in my book I do not mention anybody living by name for several reasons. First I want people to listen to what is said, not necessarily who is saying it. Secondly, anybody could say some improper things in one area and be as good as gold in another. A common tendency in culture, church very much so too, is to burn people at the stake literarily and then never listen to anything they have to say because they have been "branded" as heretics.
I have written Dobson several times at his direct request. He said he would answer and each time he has not. My letters are somewhat long, because I am careful to state my case clearly and then draw the line. SO far all I have gotten is one of his underlings to write back a very limp letter with the common slapdowns and politically defensive fancy footwork comments that we all can't see eye to eye all the time...
Dobson is a very complex fellow. If you only listen to him you'll only get a third of reality. Read Dean Merrill's book, Sinner's in the hand of an Angry church, where he takes on Focus on the Families' political mindset and annihilates it. Merrill was a VP at Focus and so his insights into what Focus is doing politically are very well informed.
Dobson's whole ministry is based on some assumption. Yes he believes in God, but there is always the add ons of counseling and the touchy feely stuff that Dobson is steeped in. The church never had this before and it was very workable. Christ did not teach these things and so we get way out on a limb and we need to be careful. Dobson seems to feel the church needs him because he is everywhere continually dropping his name and ministry as if it has all the answers. Counseling CAN be helpful but it can also become a replacement for God and His ways, even while using His language.
Dobson takes stands on other people's ministies and kills people off to listening to other than him... For instance Gary Ezzo with Growing Kids God's Way. My wife and I found this course tremendously helpful and wise. We did not agree with everything, but we rarely do anyway, "test the spirits..." Dobson has gone on the air many times to denounce Ezzo. Why does he do this. Why is he allowed to do this in way that can not be challenged? Dobson appears to be self absorbed.
Dobson also plays on people's fears and is constantly appealing to this reactionary feeling. Perfect love casts out fear. Where does he believe in the sovereignty of God. Is God bankrupt if a liberal takes the presidency? I think not! Conservatives maybe a little more uncomfortable but that is because they are serving the god of self. God did not wake up on Sept. 11th late at 10:00am and freakout that the twin towers had been hit, why should we?
Falwell is less of a threat than he use to be. He still make arrogant statements that do not hold water but he is a guy whose sun is setting. Aside from teaching easy-believism, which is dangerous, he is not as much a threat as Dobson.
I am not afraid of much in writing myself. I dare not tell you what I am reading right now.
Scripture tells us to be salt and light in this world, not load mouths and dominating. This is the problem with religious conservatism it is very mean and spiritually ugly underneath it appearance to be of good cause.
I talked with my cousin who was a baptist fundamentalist missionary for 30 years in the Dominican Republic about my ideas in the book. I wanted to disprove my thesis in dialog and questions. After 6 months of e-mailing my cousin found her political ideas to be a house of cards, she is religious conservative. She almost cursed me and write me that I should be investigated by the FED's for what I teach. Wow wee! Imagine one believer threatening another because of political differences.
Back to you,
TimPrice
Post #15
Tim,
When does Christian conservatism become anti-Christ?
When does Christian liberalism become anti-Christ?
As in Neo-Con and Neo-Lib. The movements that arose circa 1960 until now.
I can't ask "anti-Christian" because "Christianity" has become so watered down and "diverse" as to be completely ambiguous.
Cultural Christianty I believe still exists, and a body of believers that still interact with the real Deity (not necessarily meaning me or my church), but as a word to define a single thing, that is no longer to be grasped.
So when does or do people that claim a certain political tact cross the line?
When does Christian conservatism become anti-Christ?
When does Christian liberalism become anti-Christ?
As in Neo-Con and Neo-Lib. The movements that arose circa 1960 until now.
I can't ask "anti-Christian" because "Christianity" has become so watered down and "diverse" as to be completely ambiguous.
Cultural Christianty I believe still exists, and a body of believers that still interact with the real Deity (not necessarily meaning me or my church), but as a word to define a single thing, that is no longer to be grasped.
So when does or do people that claim a certain political tact cross the line?
Politics and the Church
Post #16AlAyeti,
Your question, “When does Christian conservatism/liberalism become anti-Christ” is very good question. I am not sure I have all the answers but I will give it a whirl. I agree we cannot say “anti-christian” because that is a boondoggle term.
I think one of the first things we can say about these movements, within what most would call “church” populations, is that they tend not to depend on God for what to do. They use principles, which I suppose is fine, but just principle lacks relationship with God. I can be principled and have nothing to do with God. We can see these same tendencies in the political movements of Christ’s day, namely: Pharisee and Sadducees.
Christ rebuked them for their invention of tradition and their self-righteousness. He also chided them because they did not know what time it was, spiritually speaking. If anything could be anti-Christ I think it would be this, not knowing or refusing to know what spiritual times we are in. There seems to be no thought about this detail in either camp.
God definitely has a time schedule and things are going according to His plan. Christ cooperates with this and so we need to if we are following Christ.
Religious conservatives and liberals spend little time seeking God about what to do. Sure they pray, but seeking God is not the focus. The "action" in culture and politics is their battleground. What does it say in the scripture, “our struggle is not against flesh and blood” and in another place, “we wage war not according to the flesh or by fleshly means…” To launch in a direction through politics without God’s clear direction to do so is pure unadulterated presumption! How do they know what God is wanting done or what He is doing unless they are seeking Him and listening.
I think politics, left or right, is anti-Christ when it seeks its own, which, we know will end in one-world government. In order for the anti-Christ to come to power there has to be some system that ushers him in. And if “Christians” aren’t ruptured out, as many think they will be, they will be the ones who have naively done the ushering in of this ominous person. What a thought! “Christ-ins,” people who believe that Christ is in them, ushering in the anti-Christ.
You asked, “So when does or do people that claim a certain political tact cross the line” They cross the line when they are no longer listening to God and are not being directed by God. It comes down to relationship. What is God showing us to do and whatever it is better have clear support in scripture. Conservatives don't have the support they think they do for their "mandate to change culture for God" another of Dobson's erroroneous ideas. Dobson's ministry published a book, "Why You Can't Stay Silent". Of the 72 texts cited in this book, supposedly articulating God's mandate for us to change culture for Him, only 9 directly had something to do with this imagined "mandate." The other 63 were ancillary to a bunch of other topics within the book. I would say this crosses the line. Dobson and the rest have an agenda. They use a few texts, bend a few of them a whole bunch and then foist them on to an ignorant church populace, adding a little fear, and there you have the religious side of the conservative movement.
I would love to debate one of these religious conservative types using just scripture. They'd be done in 10 minutes because their ideals are extensions of theology, which was loosely based on scripture.
Anyway I am rambling.
TP
Your question, “When does Christian conservatism/liberalism become anti-Christ” is very good question. I am not sure I have all the answers but I will give it a whirl. I agree we cannot say “anti-christian” because that is a boondoggle term.
I think one of the first things we can say about these movements, within what most would call “church” populations, is that they tend not to depend on God for what to do. They use principles, which I suppose is fine, but just principle lacks relationship with God. I can be principled and have nothing to do with God. We can see these same tendencies in the political movements of Christ’s day, namely: Pharisee and Sadducees.
Christ rebuked them for their invention of tradition and their self-righteousness. He also chided them because they did not know what time it was, spiritually speaking. If anything could be anti-Christ I think it would be this, not knowing or refusing to know what spiritual times we are in. There seems to be no thought about this detail in either camp.
God definitely has a time schedule and things are going according to His plan. Christ cooperates with this and so we need to if we are following Christ.
Religious conservatives and liberals spend little time seeking God about what to do. Sure they pray, but seeking God is not the focus. The "action" in culture and politics is their battleground. What does it say in the scripture, “our struggle is not against flesh and blood” and in another place, “we wage war not according to the flesh or by fleshly means…” To launch in a direction through politics without God’s clear direction to do so is pure unadulterated presumption! How do they know what God is wanting done or what He is doing unless they are seeking Him and listening.
I think politics, left or right, is anti-Christ when it seeks its own, which, we know will end in one-world government. In order for the anti-Christ to come to power there has to be some system that ushers him in. And if “Christians” aren’t ruptured out, as many think they will be, they will be the ones who have naively done the ushering in of this ominous person. What a thought! “Christ-ins,” people who believe that Christ is in them, ushering in the anti-Christ.
You asked, “So when does or do people that claim a certain political tact cross the line” They cross the line when they are no longer listening to God and are not being directed by God. It comes down to relationship. What is God showing us to do and whatever it is better have clear support in scripture. Conservatives don't have the support they think they do for their "mandate to change culture for God" another of Dobson's erroroneous ideas. Dobson's ministry published a book, "Why You Can't Stay Silent". Of the 72 texts cited in this book, supposedly articulating God's mandate for us to change culture for Him, only 9 directly had something to do with this imagined "mandate." The other 63 were ancillary to a bunch of other topics within the book. I would say this crosses the line. Dobson and the rest have an agenda. They use a few texts, bend a few of them a whole bunch and then foist them on to an ignorant church populace, adding a little fear, and there you have the religious side of the conservative movement.
I would love to debate one of these religious conservative types using just scripture. They'd be done in 10 minutes because their ideals are extensions of theology, which was loosely based on scripture.
Anyway I am rambling.
TP
Post #17
You certainly didn't ramble.
How do we fight for our "consitutional rights" as Americans. How do we join the "philosophical" debate about morality?
Christians are just people. Watching what is happening to our school children by a perverted agenda (not just h-sexuals) ever ensnaring younger and younger children to be licentious, is incredibly horrifying. Should I remain silent to other people's children when those other children infected will infect my own?
When is a Christian-American allowed a voice? After their child comes home with an STD or molested? While I think you are very accurate about the conservative movement. It seems very clear that it is not "fear-based to see our very young children being mentally and physically molested by the agenda of promiscuious sexuality?
I became involved and unapthetic when I saw what "Liberal-Progressives" secuaar humanists seem to truly want. And that is the flesh of our children. That is not religious to me, it is walking down the street and being able to see! There is no hysteria in empiricism.
That is why I lean towards the right because they protect children with both their mouth and wallet.
Satanism has effectively used the religions of relativism, diversity and neo-culturalism, to kill the definition and effectiveness of family first and the children last.
I see nothing from the Left that will even admit what right and wrong is? They just dole out condoms and therapy propagated by the people who developed the diseases and the vehicle of its delivery.
How can anyone of conscience sit by and watch what the Leftist-Humanist agenda HAS done to this country alone? How is silence going to help a "questioning" youth get the right (CORRECT) answers if only one voice is allowed to speak in the schools and the piblic square? Do we just let them all go to hell via the abortoin mills and AIDS hospices? Do we just "love them" on a blanket so large that only reprobates cannot see the tragic irony in their memorial? Or do we let go of the offensive nature of the word repentance and embrace "Political Correctness"
where only one kind of act is protected by law?
Jesus judged and convicted the adulteress without doubt, when He told her to "go and sin no more." She was a sinner. Unlike the Left which expunged the word from their minds.
Where is the voice on the oppositie side of Dobson that will allow opposing voices to the hedonistic agenda a in place in our society? Are we to be like Lot and just sit and watch until we too are infected and so easily will offer the mob our daughters?
You are right about Dobson's politics, but I see no one on the Left I can trust to watch my children. No one. Am I wrong? At least Dobson as a babysitter would read books that don't teach sex acts to children. I would rather them hear about falling in love and getting married and then the whole life procees thing taking over.
Relativism throughout recorded history has been a disease to maintaining a society far more than a panacea. No?
Am I angry or "phobic" or are their really people pounding on my door demanding to come in to "know" me and my children? I used to think that there was much "myth" about Bible stories until I lived in Hollywood and read any newspaper today. Can we retreat to our personal prayer closet until that too is torn open? (Or, as a better analogy would be the closets being proudly vacated and prepared for us.) Do we just remain silent on social issues?
I am asking for advice. That is a compliment I do not offer lightly.
In am still seeking truth to firmly grasp. But in all honesty, I will not ever again accept the licentiousness of the Left. Been there, done that, still wear the scars under my T-Shirt. And I don't want more. And I want my children to have none.
That is why I am no longer silent.
How do we fight for our "consitutional rights" as Americans. How do we join the "philosophical" debate about morality?
Christians are just people. Watching what is happening to our school children by a perverted agenda (not just h-sexuals) ever ensnaring younger and younger children to be licentious, is incredibly horrifying. Should I remain silent to other people's children when those other children infected will infect my own?
When is a Christian-American allowed a voice? After their child comes home with an STD or molested? While I think you are very accurate about the conservative movement. It seems very clear that it is not "fear-based to see our very young children being mentally and physically molested by the agenda of promiscuious sexuality?
I became involved and unapthetic when I saw what "Liberal-Progressives" secuaar humanists seem to truly want. And that is the flesh of our children. That is not religious to me, it is walking down the street and being able to see! There is no hysteria in empiricism.
That is why I lean towards the right because they protect children with both their mouth and wallet.
Satanism has effectively used the religions of relativism, diversity and neo-culturalism, to kill the definition and effectiveness of family first and the children last.
I see nothing from the Left that will even admit what right and wrong is? They just dole out condoms and therapy propagated by the people who developed the diseases and the vehicle of its delivery.
How can anyone of conscience sit by and watch what the Leftist-Humanist agenda HAS done to this country alone? How is silence going to help a "questioning" youth get the right (CORRECT) answers if only one voice is allowed to speak in the schools and the piblic square? Do we just let them all go to hell via the abortoin mills and AIDS hospices? Do we just "love them" on a blanket so large that only reprobates cannot see the tragic irony in their memorial? Or do we let go of the offensive nature of the word repentance and embrace "Political Correctness"
where only one kind of act is protected by law?
Jesus judged and convicted the adulteress without doubt, when He told her to "go and sin no more." She was a sinner. Unlike the Left which expunged the word from their minds.
Where is the voice on the oppositie side of Dobson that will allow opposing voices to the hedonistic agenda a in place in our society? Are we to be like Lot and just sit and watch until we too are infected and so easily will offer the mob our daughters?
You are right about Dobson's politics, but I see no one on the Left I can trust to watch my children. No one. Am I wrong? At least Dobson as a babysitter would read books that don't teach sex acts to children. I would rather them hear about falling in love and getting married and then the whole life procees thing taking over.
Relativism throughout recorded history has been a disease to maintaining a society far more than a panacea. No?
Am I angry or "phobic" or are their really people pounding on my door demanding to come in to "know" me and my children? I used to think that there was much "myth" about Bible stories until I lived in Hollywood and read any newspaper today. Can we retreat to our personal prayer closet until that too is torn open? (Or, as a better analogy would be the closets being proudly vacated and prepared for us.) Do we just remain silent on social issues?
I am asking for advice. That is a compliment I do not offer lightly.
In am still seeking truth to firmly grasp. But in all honesty, I will not ever again accept the licentiousness of the Left. Been there, done that, still wear the scars under my T-Shirt. And I don't want more. And I want my children to have none.
That is why I am no longer silent.
Politics and the Church
Post #18AlAyeti
Thanks for being positive about the length of my last transmission. I would like to share a story with you. In a recent event in Nebraska politics, the casinos have been trying to get in this state for a near decade and they almost got the job done last election. One group, Gambling with the good life, politicked against the massive casino lobby effort.
Believer lost a great opportunity to minister through this. First they lead people to believe that not gambling is moral in and of itself, thus making man feel totally justified and righteous in his own eyes. Secondly, gambling as with all excesses will have consequences. These consequences happen to both the gambler and people of society and the later seek to insolate themselves from and discomfort coming from this venue.
Who are the people who come to God? Is it not the damaged, weak, bottomed out, ruined, without excuse people. The arrogance of modern society is that they think man is good and getting better all the time and Christians to little to help remove this mask from society by trying to insulate themselves from harm and discomfort. Some people will make an informed decision about Christ, but most will be lackluster in their walk because it was not born out of total desperation and surrender. We do society a big disfavor by preventing them from hitting the head hard on what the Rock has said.
Should we protect our children from harm, homosexual, molestation and the like…? Absolutely! We should even try and protect anybody else’s kid by means of exerting control or influence in ways we can. If the state within its right or people within their rights does harm to a kid there is not much we can do. And God can and will use it in His time. The little liberal in us all wants to protect and insulate against the inevitable evil that is latent under the surface in the human theatre.
Christian do watch things happen all around them and instead of collectively doing something to provide an alternative many of us go to the state and say, “here you do something about it. Make sure it is in keeping with our views…”Thus an issue is born and a party then picks it up in order to acquire the following behind it. Never mind ever really doing something about the problem, that might cost too much political capital. And thus the issue goes on and on and on. And people will follow something for a generation or more without a sufficient fix. What a crock of crap!
When the world hits their head on reality we can be there to pick up the pieces and offer hope. If we do anything before the world (specific people) has run a ground hard with their on foolishness we don’t have much to say and we will help them continue in their foolishness
I noticed you used the word our in regards to schools and country. This correlation and belonging that is part of it is a real problem to the church. If we are not aliens, sojourners and ambassador from another realm representing its truth and light, then we are very much part of the problem.
If we are to be an alternative it will take much more than lining up behind a candidate and lobbying for our way of thinking. Notice Jesus said, My Kingdom is not of this world. If we are following Him can our kingdom and citizenship be of this world? Not at all, we can co-exist with the world but to identify with it in any way is a denial of who and what we really are. We become part of the pecking order, which I am afraid most religious people in a state setting a sucking hind tit most of the time. Secular society can rarely stand or afford a religious person in high-power.
If we stand as Christ’s representatives and not a political interest group, the world will see light and truth because it is not filtered through the means and ways of men. When we step into either side of the political process on their terms according to the way they think and deal with things we are putting our lamp under a basket. When we stand outside the way politics has become acculturated with answers and success the world will either crush us because of conviction and unwillingness to agree or it will herald us through the streets as the next big turning point. Even then we have not done all we should because if we offer the truth we have to mere worldly people without dealing with their souls in the process, we are only affording them a self-improvement program for the temporal that will last maybe a generation. Their eternal situation will still be bankrupt plus they will not consider surrender to God because they are satisfied with truth, instead of the truth giver.
I would like to include a section of my book that deals with this discussion.
Your sound like an earnest person and I don’t take lightly that you have asked for my thoughts.
9
The Deceptiveness Of
Democracy
As it was mentioned before, the few facets of democracy most Christians understand may be the only aspects they might have ever entertained. In the last chapter we looked at a few comments made by notable people that should awaken our interest. What else have we not considered about democracy? The deceptiveness of democracy is that we can supposedly choose the future of this country and control it through voting. The evidence on whether we really can effectively control the moral slide of this country through voting is seriously in question after 40-years of failure. But perhaps a more important question for the believer is, should we even try? Some groups call this “taking dominion.” Others would say it is being a good steward of the opportunity God has given us. Many of these would point to a few texts of scripture, mostly in the OT, to prove their point of seeking to effect culture through the means of politics.
Consider for a moment what today's medicine is able to do that could only be dreamed about for centuries. Most recently, with the unlocking of the genetic code, the implications of what can be done through the science of medicine are vastly extended. With the coming of age in modern medicine, many questions concerning morals and ethics have come back into the forefront. People want to know what is ethical or even moral. Given the new horizons science offers mankind, how do we decide what is right or wrong, ethical or moral? This problem, what new discoveries do to old paradigms of morality, is a microcosm of what has become an icon of modern society that includes the church. Things have slipped from what was clearly right or wrong, to becoming mere shades of gray. Who is to say what is really right? Is there really a thing called “right” in an absolute sense?
Has technology and discovery changed morality or caused a need to redefine what we once thought to be moral?
There is a question that is more preeminent than the question, “is it right or wrong.”
Just because we have the ability to do something, does this mean we should do it?
The answer to this question is even more important than the other questions or their answers. The answer is, not always!
Why is it so important to consider if a choice should be made or not? Among other things, the “relegation of chooser” is of utmost importance, especially for the believer. Relegation means where do our choices automatically put us as far as outcome, ramification or identification. What do our choices relegate us to be?
Is every available choice one in which we should participate, just because it is being put in front of us?
If you said “no,” we are going in the right direction. Eve should have considered her choices in the garden more carefully. Where did her choice to eat the fruit relegate her and her posterity?
What does “relegation of the chooser” have to do the deceptiveness of democracy?
Sometimes we can choose things that automatically put us into an arena that we should not be caught dead in as representatives of Christ. If the world can put the follower of Christ into a straitjacket mentally or philosophically, it will limit our effectiveness. The enemy knows this and has been behind the scenes fomenting all kinds of traps for Christians to fall into and we have been falling into them for centuries. The enemy loves for us to walk off the narrow path of Christ’s calling for our lives in order to dilly-dally in the world’s Vanity Fair.1
The strangeness of our day is that the societal system of politics through the means of democracy has offered two regimens of destruction to the church and we have not grasped the reality of this paradox. Those who loosely bandy scripture about claiming to be following it are simplemindedly falling into a trap in which most any choice, save the one God may show us to make, is a losing proposition.
To illustrate, let’s consider making a choice between two negative things like an overdose of either methamphetamine or heroin. This might seem to be an absurd analogy, which is the point. It illustrates what is happening in this country politically. No matter who is running things over the past 70 years, be it Republican or Democrat, there has been a steady downward trend morally, ethically, spiritually and in most other respects save the economy. Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly depicted this reality on his radio show when he compares the rhetoric of John F. Kennedy in the early 1960s to the Republican language of today. In other words, today’s Republicans have stooped to the level of the Democrats of the 1960s while today’s Democrats have plunged into still deeper forms of degradation and deceit.
The nature of politics/democracy is issue-based. Issues are the great equalizers and power-brokers. Richard John Neuhaus once wrote, “It is in the interest of politicians and the hordes of people who make their living by talking about what politicians do to disguise the stark and simple truth that they are engaged in the getting and keeping power.”2 Issues are a means of getting power. Issues are also a natural means of dividing people into groups. Once people put themselves into these politically defined groups they become easy to manipulate. Purposed division like this should sound an alarm with all believers because it is the first step towards destruction. A house divided against itself will not stand, (cf. Mark 3:25). “The house of God,” or at least those who charade about being the “house of God,” is certainly divided over politics!
What does this obvious division tell us about the political parties and their objectives and purposes?
Many folks, including the religious, believe that political parties are headed towards the objective of an issue that a group of constituents are following. The politically active do not conceive that, for the politician or his party, any issue is merely a means to an end rather then an end in and of itself. The “end” is power; not justice, equity, voice or even change for which most issues were cultivated. This is the absurdity of political action. Nothing is ever finished, it is always just in process. Another absurdity is that if the government ever attempts to fix something it is more screwed up afterwards and so the process continues to right the situation, e.g., Medicaid, Social Security and drug cards.
The vast majority of recent political history can be recounted as evidence of this analysis. As for more specific evidence of a political party’s shallow relationship to the essence behind an issue of a special interest group, consider that from 1996 to 2002 the Republican Party was ready to dump the conservative “platform issues.” The party thought conservatism to be more of a liability than an asset to winning high offices. This is a prime indication that parties merely use special interest groups and their issues to gain power.
Let us look at another illustrative scenario that will paint a picture of the problems we face when we try to stop this country’s moral slide through political means. On one hand, you have a candidate who is great on foreign policy and social reform but is also soft on abortion and liberal about the homosexual agenda. Conversely, the opposing candidate has a tough stand on abortion and is against the homosexual agenda, while he is completely clueless regarding social reform and foreign policy. What should we do as believers? Is this really a choice or is it moral or nationalistic suicide? Those who vote exclusively according to “morally based issues” will find themselves voting for the lesser of two evils and usually the less capable of the two politically. I would challenge anyone to find scriptural support for this “lesser of two evils” approach! Don’t even mention voting Independent. It’s a waste, if the real goal is to effect change, because the independent has no chance of winning.
On top of what the politicians are trying to do, the proponents of political activism are playing theological games based on false assumptions of identity, history and weird interpretations of scripture when they advocate involvement in the political realm using the motivations and explanations they give. On the one hand, the activist tells us that we are supposed to be patriots as well as Christians, which is pluralism, (cf. Matt. 6:24, Jas. 1:5-8). On the other hand, the political system gives us the choice of being either a patriot or a follower of Christ, through various choices, should we choose to make them. Both of these options have destructive outcomes. It is not a win/win situation. It’s very much a win/lose situation. If we should win from one way we really lose from the alternative. If we really are believers and we make any kind of choice under these circumstances, we are fools!
With the political system being the way it is, constituents are forced to swallow the good with the bad. With the religious thought the way it is today believers are made to think that their only avenue to effect change is through the political system. On top of this they proceed in this venture without a concerted effort in prayer and seeking God about what should be done. Supposedly, scripture has given us all that we need, so off we go into the political wild blue yonder based solely on our limited views and interpretations, with a very suspicious use of scripture, I might add. On the other hand, if we ask God what to do based upon a full knowledge of the scriptures; His directives may not include the agenda the activists advocate.
Could we be seeing scripture incorrectly or could we be looking at issues wrongly and responding in a way that God would not want?
No one will ever know without asking God, and this does not seem to be the modus operandi of political activism. King David inquired of the LORD, saying, “Shall I go up against the Philistines? Wilt Thou give them into my hand?” And the LORD said to David, “Go up, for I will certainly give the Philistines into your hand.” II Sam. 5:19. And at other times God said to Israel, “Do not go up, lest you be struck down before your enemies, for the LORD is not among you,” Num. 14:42. There does not seem to be a balanced view widely available to believers today from religious leaders. Either we are told to be immersed in political activism or we are told to abstain from the “dirty work of the world.”
Where is the teaching that encourages the believer to listen to God and seek what He wants rather than what seems the right thing to do based from our point of view?
Many of today’s believers do not even possess a rudimentary understanding of church history. In the early church, leaders were faced with similar options to what democracy presents us today. For 300-years the church had been tortured, chased, harassed, dogged, made death sport of, pillaged and many other nasty things. In time the state offered the church reprieve through edict, recognition so as to become part of the state. Few events in history have changed the church more for the negative than this specific incident.
In the words of one author, “In fact, there may have been no greater disaster for the cause of the gospel, in contrast to the material interests of the clerical class, than the marriage of the church and state which first occurred under Constantine…this adulterous affair destroyed the church’s independence and position of moral leadership.”3 Of course this proposal by the State sounded good to the beleaguered church of that time. What could be wrong with not being an outlaw anymore? Yet as we look back, the church was forever changed by this single choice, and this change was not good. The church became an institution rather than a fellowship of Christ’s suffering.
We might think, “Well, I am glad I live in these days where I can be ‘free’ to practice my belief.” Yet it is this very thing, state sponsored freedom, which fetters the church. We now waste our life and limb defending our “freedoms” provided by the state instead of expending our lives doing what God asked us to do. And besides, how much “freer” can one be than the person who the Son sets free? The original church had no “freedom” granted by the state and it did not matter because they lived as citizens of Heaven, (cf. Phil. 3:20).
The early church concentrated their efforts on being whom they really were rather than trying to keep what the state had afforded them. Jesus said, “For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's shall save it,” (cf. Mark 8:35). This is true in all aspects of life. If we in our own strength for our own purposes try and maintain what we think is ours we will lose it. Through political activism we may even lose a lot more than state sponsored freedom.
The deceptiveness of democracy is that we step out of our element when we step en masse as the church onto the political stage set up by the enemy. The opportunity afforded by the democratic system is more of a temptation like the lottery than any real opportunity. The stakes for which we are tempted to play politics obscures the cost to the believer/church for having played. These same stakes for which we play the game of politics are no more secured for having played either. The distraction of democracy dilutes the church in purpose, identity and effectiveness. Democracy is like a black hole, which sucks everything into its grip and utterly cuts off any counteractive work or ability to respond to anything but its demands. The question is, when is “the church” going to wake up and smell the coffee? And when they do what will they do about it?
10
Other Concerns About
Politics
There are several other questions that are not adequately addressed by conservative political activists. While the activists articulate many reasons for their approach and the need for it, they do not address the fact that what they advocate flies in the face of other “beliefs” they claim to hold. When you take into account that these inconsistencies deal with major themes in Christian teaching our interest should really be piqued. If God was in this charade of corporately using politics as the chief means for the church to do its job (as many proponents would like you to think it is), don’t you think the negative features we covered in Chapter 3, Stupid is as Stupid Does, would not be associable to the church’s people who have joined in this activity?
Who can point to any “failure” in the Bible (like that of modern conservative Christians in their political activities) being the direct result of doing what God told someone to do, wherein they were following His exact directions?
Divisiveness in the Ranks of the Church
A notable concern is what politics is doing to the church as far as divisiveness. Former Senator Mark O. Hatfield once said,
Let me take off my political hat and put on my laymen’s hat. I’m more concerned as to what political activism is doing to the gospel. When you label something “Christian,” if it is accompanied by an agenda of political items and the economic items on that agenda of political action, does that mean that if you agree with the political items and the economic items on the agenda that that constitutes your Christianity? No way! Christ asked Peter one question. It was not “who do others say that I am,” but “who do you say that I am?” That is the basic question. People outside the faith get the wrong message. They think, “Well, if I believe in these political issues because they say this is the ‘Christian’ agenda, then I’m a Christian. And that is to me miscommunication. That is not biblical. The question is, who do you say Christ is? – Not who agrees about abortion or school prayer.1
Dean Sherman of Youth With a Mission, shows his concern with the churches deviated activities. He wrote,
Even Christians can take action in the wrong way. Many well-meaning folks give money, time, and efforts to improving man’s situation, but ignore the spiritual way to combat evil. They are more concerned with man’s condition than with God’s heart. They attend protests, organize boycotts, or launch educational efforts, but spend little or no time in prayer, spiritual warfare, or evangelism.2
Additionally concerning divisiveness, it is an odd occurrence when people who claim to have the same belief and who also claim dependency on God for decisions of importance come up on opposite sides of the same issue. In one race, there are opposing candidates with “Christians” supporting both sides. In other words, one votes for the Democrat and the other Republican in the exact same race. Why? If we really are following the “same God,” either we have to change our definition of “the same God” or we have to throw out that we are “following” that same God.
Does God have “Multiple Personality Disorder”?
Is God telling one-person one thing and another person the opposite? Surely not! (cf. I Cor. 1:10-13)
The only other possible explanation for this opposing phenomenon seems to be that people are making up their minds on politically presented issues while only passively assenting to following Christ. If this is true, it says three things about these voters.
1. Their identity is compartmentalized, pluralistic; thus their actions are inconsistent with their claimed beliefs.
2. They are not living out of God’s daily word to them; i.e., Jesus’ example of doing just what He heard His Father saying… (cf. John 5:30, 6:38, 8:28)
3. They are duped into being pawns in the political manipulation game, allowing themselves to be the bow by which the political fiddle is played.
Are believers merely throwing God’s name behind what they do to try to legitimize their actions?
Prophets in the OT paid a high price for putting God’s name on what they were saying. If we want to vote because we’ll feel better, go right ahead! Just don’t moralize it or try to pull “God” in on your side by throwing His name behind what you do by saying, “you’re led of God.”
While we’re at it, we shouldn’t refer to our “Christian beliefs” as a basis for our choices because they’re not. Our identity as an American is our chief motive. Our “Christian beliefs” are just a perspective at best and wall decorations at worst. Instead of listening to God and operating out of what He is showing us, we make ourselves part of the divisiveness of politics rather than being salt and light to the society that is being politically manipulated through the issues politics drums up. We are to be an alternative, not one side or the other of the world’s game.
The question of God’s Sovereignty
The Sovereignty of God is also touched in this mess of politics in the church? The proponents of activism really paint themselves in the corner on this point because they put such a high emphasis on man’s intervention while God’s sovereignty is not addressed. The silence of activists on this point gives some indication of what they really believe. It also shows us a major weakness in their position. When we speak of sovereignty we mean control over or complete knowledge of everything. In other words, God allows things if He does not actively direct them.
If we really believe God to be sovereign we should take our hands out of the political stew until God directs us, thereby allowing God to do what He wants. We cannot make broad-brush statements that God wants us to vote, because this cannot be proven. If we say that God wants us to vote without question, then we must face the problem of why believers end up voting against each other, which cannot be God’s intent. If God were really telling us to vote, there would be a more decisive direction from religious political action in societal life because of that voting. That however is not the case. If voting were nothing more than the apparatus of man, outcomes would be hit and miss, just like they are. God is still bigger than this, but why cloud our minds as to the sovereignty issue through our meddling?
God’s work is simple and decisive not haphazard. What does scripture tell us? “The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes,” (cf. Prov. 21:1). The only problem today is that we have supposedly been “empowered” by the state and this somehow fogs our minds into thinking God’s will cannot be accomplished without our intervention. Maybe the OT scriptures aren’t for today simply because we have the vote and a democratic system. Does this “new” option supersede or preclude scripture? This is very shaky ground when we interpret scripture through the perspective of our situations.
It is easy to nod in full agreement with the Bible’s record of God’s dealings with people and situations, despite kings or rulers. It seems to be quite another story to practically apply allowing God and depending on Him to work things out. Most of us evangelical, fundamental types believe with all our hearts that God is sovereign. However, we are the ones screaming the loudest about cultural reform through the political process. This is not trusting God. The activist mindset places itself, as a strategic operative ready to manhandle something that we are not equipped to overcome in the way of politics.
Nationalism
From a scriptural perspective, since when is nationalism a motive for a believer to be propelled into political action?
There is a phrase in the NT repeated in various forms 11-times* that says, “There is no distinction between Greek or Jew.” The significance of this phrase is that the Jewish disciples really struggled with this problem of national pride and race superiority because of their “choseness as Jews,” (cf. Acts 9:32-10:35). Jesus made a cloaked reference that He had followers in “another fold,” and that they and the Jewish believers would become one flock with Him, (cf. John 10:16). These texts should expose the weakness of nationalism and abolish this idea for the Body of Christ around the world. Especially the kind which seeks to put God on one country’s side or against another. Regarding all these scriptures one writer said this: “Few things are said as plainly in the NT, and as often, as that Christ's church is not coextensive with any socio-political grouping or ethnic delineation, and that boundaries are meaningless in it.” 3
God is looking to find people who are willing to voluntarily come out of the world and serve Him and live out of the destiny of their relationship with Him, rather then eat the scraps of garbage that fall off the
Endnote: *These texts speak of a renewal that accepts all people by God through faith. The Jewish disciples had been pretty exclusive with the truth up until the time of Peter and Cornelius in Acts 9-10. Paul articulates clearly that God does not favor one nation over others. For the 11 Scriptures I mentioned above (cf. Acts 15:9, 26:23 Rom. 1:14-16, 2:9-26, 3:22, 10:12, I Cor. 1:24, 12:12-13, Gal. 3:28, Eph. 2:11-22 and Col. 3:1-15).
world’s table. Those who advocate political activism do not seem to have made this jump. Nationalism is a system of thought that would tie us back into the world’s mindset and keep us sitting below its table waiting for our portion. If we are using the world’s system to legitimize or protect us, we need to repent!
God is not an American and He has no eternal interest in this country or any other for that matter, save Israel. He is interested in each person and his or her soul’s condition. God is not cheering when America beats the Chinese on trade deficits, or who broke the sound barrier first. He couldn’t care less! Dr. Tony Evans, founder of the Urban Alternative in Dallas Texas, had this to say: “Jesus is not an American, He is not a Republican or Democrat. He didn’t come to take sides He came to take over.”
Some would say this is a dominionistic statement. On the contrary! Dr. Evans is saying that God has a separate show going on; it is called the church, the Kingdom of God. It was meant to overrun the world's system, not get in the mud play with it. Keith Green elaborates on Dr. Evans comments saying, “The original church was the welfare board, soup kitchen, the pregnancy counseling clinics and employment agency, they were all these things and more. Now look at us, oh sure, we still are God’s representation on the earth. But can people see it, and if they can’t how will they?”4
The Forbidden Zone
Recently, I watched the original Planet of the Apes movie. This film was quite lucid in its depiction of people [in this case apes] who cannot, or will not, think beyond limits that they have arbitrarily established for themselves. I am not advocating wanton willy-nilly forays into the obscurity of questioning just to question. Rather, I am saying that we need to go beyond what is common thought today because most indicators would show that we have been living and thinking on the “safe” side of the forbidden zone.
In the movie, the safe side of the forbidden zone was the intentional denial of reality for a self-serving purpose. The leading “religious” apes denied the evidence in the “forbidden zone” because it did not support their interpretation of events that in turn supported their power and prejudices. In like manner the modern conservative also lives in a theological “safe-zone” which empowers their way of dealing with the alter-reality they’ve invented. And because we act upon this imaginary reality*, in a very real world, we have become utterly ineffective in our attempts politically as well as in doing what God has commanded us to do in the Great Commission. Look at Chapter 2, The State of Things, for statistical evidence.
You might wonder how much involvement or disassociation I am advocating here. I want to de-emphasize the two extremes of being either totally “for” or “against” political involvement. Having said this I would rather underline our responsibility as followers of Christ, who are citizens of Heaven, not of the kingdoms of men. This means letting go of the imagined ability to control society through voting. However, this does not totally exclude voting or even running for office. More importantly I want to emphasize listening
*Endnote: “Imaginary reality” We are not what we were before we came to Christ. This deals with ethnicity, nationality, denominationalism, and our political identities. To approach the world as if we are still “of it” is a reversal of the truth, i.e. an imaginary reality. This imaginary reality is carried out further in the idea that we can appeal to people to be moral without knowing the basis for morality. When we approach politics with these erroneous ideas we are living in a world that does not really exist.
to God and doing exactly, no more or less than, what He tells us. Even if that means not responding to the issues the political system pitches over our plate. For the vast majority of us, we’ll not have much to do with the political system because of its intrinsic nature and because of our weaknesses as disciples to understand and participate in the dirt in which politics tends to be played. Few have actually been called to the vocation of politics by God. This is evidenced through: failures, burnout and the sudden metamorphosis of “good candidates” that suddenly become functionaries of the system they were elected to fight against.
While modern thinkers advocate the corporate domination of the political system in this country by church people, we need to realize that this is just a modern idea. Let’s be reminded that God only used a small group of people who were at the top of their fields, or who were pliable in His hand, to work directly in the political systems of their day. They were exceedingly successful by any measure. God Himself put: Daniel, Moses, David, Joseph, Jonathan, Samuel and the Judges into political positions to do His bidding. God purposes were accomplished in His work through these people and He did not need democracy to do it. This goes back to the issue of sovereignty!
The political system of our day allures people with the opportunity of “free choice” and the “potential” to effect things for our own purposes, only not really. It is a trap and a distraction to follow after something other than God. God says come and die and I will raise you up to do the work I have for you. Conservatives condemn gambling and the lottery but in an inconsistency to their own ideas they will commonly play a political “lottery” without conscience. Certain people in ministry today think that we should turn lights on in Washington and force the issues. The Bible says, “turn The Light” on in people’s heart and things will automatically change because God is calling the shots. Which will you do? Are you going to continue to sin the sin of futility and frustrate the work of God that could be realized through your life because you are off on your own crusade or on somebody else’s agenda you have adopted?
Count Zinzendorf, founder of the Moravian Brethren, once said, “I could not spend my time over such trifles as make up the daily life of courtiers and of Kings. I dare not appear before God with the responsibilities incurred by frittering away my days in such puerilities.”5 It should be noted that Zinzendorf did not make this comment out of ignorance. He stepped back from court life after many years in it and took up the work of the Kingdom of God. He never wanted to participate in the political arena but was “forced” to by certain pressures of his day to do so. Eventually he made a break from this “pressure” and the world has never been the same since.
It is this kind of true commitment to the cause of Christ that needs to resurface in the church today. 10,000 years from now it will not matter the position we took on most politically manufactured issues that are being floated these days. However, if we do not tell people about the Savior and their inability to achieve what God would give them through this Savior, THAT will make a tremendous difference 10,000 years from now! We need to become fishers of men, not the proponents political interest groups trying to get the government to see things our way, while we become their lackey in the process, instead of God’s servants.
Thanks for being positive about the length of my last transmission. I would like to share a story with you. In a recent event in Nebraska politics, the casinos have been trying to get in this state for a near decade and they almost got the job done last election. One group, Gambling with the good life, politicked against the massive casino lobby effort.
Believer lost a great opportunity to minister through this. First they lead people to believe that not gambling is moral in and of itself, thus making man feel totally justified and righteous in his own eyes. Secondly, gambling as with all excesses will have consequences. These consequences happen to both the gambler and people of society and the later seek to insolate themselves from and discomfort coming from this venue.
Who are the people who come to God? Is it not the damaged, weak, bottomed out, ruined, without excuse people. The arrogance of modern society is that they think man is good and getting better all the time and Christians to little to help remove this mask from society by trying to insulate themselves from harm and discomfort. Some people will make an informed decision about Christ, but most will be lackluster in their walk because it was not born out of total desperation and surrender. We do society a big disfavor by preventing them from hitting the head hard on what the Rock has said.
Should we protect our children from harm, homosexual, molestation and the like…? Absolutely! We should even try and protect anybody else’s kid by means of exerting control or influence in ways we can. If the state within its right or people within their rights does harm to a kid there is not much we can do. And God can and will use it in His time. The little liberal in us all wants to protect and insulate against the inevitable evil that is latent under the surface in the human theatre.
Christian do watch things happen all around them and instead of collectively doing something to provide an alternative many of us go to the state and say, “here you do something about it. Make sure it is in keeping with our views…”Thus an issue is born and a party then picks it up in order to acquire the following behind it. Never mind ever really doing something about the problem, that might cost too much political capital. And thus the issue goes on and on and on. And people will follow something for a generation or more without a sufficient fix. What a crock of crap!
When the world hits their head on reality we can be there to pick up the pieces and offer hope. If we do anything before the world (specific people) has run a ground hard with their on foolishness we don’t have much to say and we will help them continue in their foolishness
I noticed you used the word our in regards to schools and country. This correlation and belonging that is part of it is a real problem to the church. If we are not aliens, sojourners and ambassador from another realm representing its truth and light, then we are very much part of the problem.
If we are to be an alternative it will take much more than lining up behind a candidate and lobbying for our way of thinking. Notice Jesus said, My Kingdom is not of this world. If we are following Him can our kingdom and citizenship be of this world? Not at all, we can co-exist with the world but to identify with it in any way is a denial of who and what we really are. We become part of the pecking order, which I am afraid most religious people in a state setting a sucking hind tit most of the time. Secular society can rarely stand or afford a religious person in high-power.
If we stand as Christ’s representatives and not a political interest group, the world will see light and truth because it is not filtered through the means and ways of men. When we step into either side of the political process on their terms according to the way they think and deal with things we are putting our lamp under a basket. When we stand outside the way politics has become acculturated with answers and success the world will either crush us because of conviction and unwillingness to agree or it will herald us through the streets as the next big turning point. Even then we have not done all we should because if we offer the truth we have to mere worldly people without dealing with their souls in the process, we are only affording them a self-improvement program for the temporal that will last maybe a generation. Their eternal situation will still be bankrupt plus they will not consider surrender to God because they are satisfied with truth, instead of the truth giver.
I would like to include a section of my book that deals with this discussion.
Your sound like an earnest person and I don’t take lightly that you have asked for my thoughts.
9
The Deceptiveness Of
Democracy
As it was mentioned before, the few facets of democracy most Christians understand may be the only aspects they might have ever entertained. In the last chapter we looked at a few comments made by notable people that should awaken our interest. What else have we not considered about democracy? The deceptiveness of democracy is that we can supposedly choose the future of this country and control it through voting. The evidence on whether we really can effectively control the moral slide of this country through voting is seriously in question after 40-years of failure. But perhaps a more important question for the believer is, should we even try? Some groups call this “taking dominion.” Others would say it is being a good steward of the opportunity God has given us. Many of these would point to a few texts of scripture, mostly in the OT, to prove their point of seeking to effect culture through the means of politics.
Consider for a moment what today's medicine is able to do that could only be dreamed about for centuries. Most recently, with the unlocking of the genetic code, the implications of what can be done through the science of medicine are vastly extended. With the coming of age in modern medicine, many questions concerning morals and ethics have come back into the forefront. People want to know what is ethical or even moral. Given the new horizons science offers mankind, how do we decide what is right or wrong, ethical or moral? This problem, what new discoveries do to old paradigms of morality, is a microcosm of what has become an icon of modern society that includes the church. Things have slipped from what was clearly right or wrong, to becoming mere shades of gray. Who is to say what is really right? Is there really a thing called “right” in an absolute sense?
Has technology and discovery changed morality or caused a need to redefine what we once thought to be moral?
There is a question that is more preeminent than the question, “is it right or wrong.”
Just because we have the ability to do something, does this mean we should do it?
The answer to this question is even more important than the other questions or their answers. The answer is, not always!
Why is it so important to consider if a choice should be made or not? Among other things, the “relegation of chooser” is of utmost importance, especially for the believer. Relegation means where do our choices automatically put us as far as outcome, ramification or identification. What do our choices relegate us to be?
Is every available choice one in which we should participate, just because it is being put in front of us?
If you said “no,” we are going in the right direction. Eve should have considered her choices in the garden more carefully. Where did her choice to eat the fruit relegate her and her posterity?
What does “relegation of the chooser” have to do the deceptiveness of democracy?
Sometimes we can choose things that automatically put us into an arena that we should not be caught dead in as representatives of Christ. If the world can put the follower of Christ into a straitjacket mentally or philosophically, it will limit our effectiveness. The enemy knows this and has been behind the scenes fomenting all kinds of traps for Christians to fall into and we have been falling into them for centuries. The enemy loves for us to walk off the narrow path of Christ’s calling for our lives in order to dilly-dally in the world’s Vanity Fair.1
The strangeness of our day is that the societal system of politics through the means of democracy has offered two regimens of destruction to the church and we have not grasped the reality of this paradox. Those who loosely bandy scripture about claiming to be following it are simplemindedly falling into a trap in which most any choice, save the one God may show us to make, is a losing proposition.
To illustrate, let’s consider making a choice between two negative things like an overdose of either methamphetamine or heroin. This might seem to be an absurd analogy, which is the point. It illustrates what is happening in this country politically. No matter who is running things over the past 70 years, be it Republican or Democrat, there has been a steady downward trend morally, ethically, spiritually and in most other respects save the economy. Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly depicted this reality on his radio show when he compares the rhetoric of John F. Kennedy in the early 1960s to the Republican language of today. In other words, today’s Republicans have stooped to the level of the Democrats of the 1960s while today’s Democrats have plunged into still deeper forms of degradation and deceit.
The nature of politics/democracy is issue-based. Issues are the great equalizers and power-brokers. Richard John Neuhaus once wrote, “It is in the interest of politicians and the hordes of people who make their living by talking about what politicians do to disguise the stark and simple truth that they are engaged in the getting and keeping power.”2 Issues are a means of getting power. Issues are also a natural means of dividing people into groups. Once people put themselves into these politically defined groups they become easy to manipulate. Purposed division like this should sound an alarm with all believers because it is the first step towards destruction. A house divided against itself will not stand, (cf. Mark 3:25). “The house of God,” or at least those who charade about being the “house of God,” is certainly divided over politics!
What does this obvious division tell us about the political parties and their objectives and purposes?
Many folks, including the religious, believe that political parties are headed towards the objective of an issue that a group of constituents are following. The politically active do not conceive that, for the politician or his party, any issue is merely a means to an end rather then an end in and of itself. The “end” is power; not justice, equity, voice or even change for which most issues were cultivated. This is the absurdity of political action. Nothing is ever finished, it is always just in process. Another absurdity is that if the government ever attempts to fix something it is more screwed up afterwards and so the process continues to right the situation, e.g., Medicaid, Social Security and drug cards.
The vast majority of recent political history can be recounted as evidence of this analysis. As for more specific evidence of a political party’s shallow relationship to the essence behind an issue of a special interest group, consider that from 1996 to 2002 the Republican Party was ready to dump the conservative “platform issues.” The party thought conservatism to be more of a liability than an asset to winning high offices. This is a prime indication that parties merely use special interest groups and their issues to gain power.
Let us look at another illustrative scenario that will paint a picture of the problems we face when we try to stop this country’s moral slide through political means. On one hand, you have a candidate who is great on foreign policy and social reform but is also soft on abortion and liberal about the homosexual agenda. Conversely, the opposing candidate has a tough stand on abortion and is against the homosexual agenda, while he is completely clueless regarding social reform and foreign policy. What should we do as believers? Is this really a choice or is it moral or nationalistic suicide? Those who vote exclusively according to “morally based issues” will find themselves voting for the lesser of two evils and usually the less capable of the two politically. I would challenge anyone to find scriptural support for this “lesser of two evils” approach! Don’t even mention voting Independent. It’s a waste, if the real goal is to effect change, because the independent has no chance of winning.
On top of what the politicians are trying to do, the proponents of political activism are playing theological games based on false assumptions of identity, history and weird interpretations of scripture when they advocate involvement in the political realm using the motivations and explanations they give. On the one hand, the activist tells us that we are supposed to be patriots as well as Christians, which is pluralism, (cf. Matt. 6:24, Jas. 1:5-8). On the other hand, the political system gives us the choice of being either a patriot or a follower of Christ, through various choices, should we choose to make them. Both of these options have destructive outcomes. It is not a win/win situation. It’s very much a win/lose situation. If we should win from one way we really lose from the alternative. If we really are believers and we make any kind of choice under these circumstances, we are fools!
With the political system being the way it is, constituents are forced to swallow the good with the bad. With the religious thought the way it is today believers are made to think that their only avenue to effect change is through the political system. On top of this they proceed in this venture without a concerted effort in prayer and seeking God about what should be done. Supposedly, scripture has given us all that we need, so off we go into the political wild blue yonder based solely on our limited views and interpretations, with a very suspicious use of scripture, I might add. On the other hand, if we ask God what to do based upon a full knowledge of the scriptures; His directives may not include the agenda the activists advocate.
Could we be seeing scripture incorrectly or could we be looking at issues wrongly and responding in a way that God would not want?
No one will ever know without asking God, and this does not seem to be the modus operandi of political activism. King David inquired of the LORD, saying, “Shall I go up against the Philistines? Wilt Thou give them into my hand?” And the LORD said to David, “Go up, for I will certainly give the Philistines into your hand.” II Sam. 5:19. And at other times God said to Israel, “Do not go up, lest you be struck down before your enemies, for the LORD is not among you,” Num. 14:42. There does not seem to be a balanced view widely available to believers today from religious leaders. Either we are told to be immersed in political activism or we are told to abstain from the “dirty work of the world.”
Where is the teaching that encourages the believer to listen to God and seek what He wants rather than what seems the right thing to do based from our point of view?
Many of today’s believers do not even possess a rudimentary understanding of church history. In the early church, leaders were faced with similar options to what democracy presents us today. For 300-years the church had been tortured, chased, harassed, dogged, made death sport of, pillaged and many other nasty things. In time the state offered the church reprieve through edict, recognition so as to become part of the state. Few events in history have changed the church more for the negative than this specific incident.
In the words of one author, “In fact, there may have been no greater disaster for the cause of the gospel, in contrast to the material interests of the clerical class, than the marriage of the church and state which first occurred under Constantine…this adulterous affair destroyed the church’s independence and position of moral leadership.”3 Of course this proposal by the State sounded good to the beleaguered church of that time. What could be wrong with not being an outlaw anymore? Yet as we look back, the church was forever changed by this single choice, and this change was not good. The church became an institution rather than a fellowship of Christ’s suffering.
We might think, “Well, I am glad I live in these days where I can be ‘free’ to practice my belief.” Yet it is this very thing, state sponsored freedom, which fetters the church. We now waste our life and limb defending our “freedoms” provided by the state instead of expending our lives doing what God asked us to do. And besides, how much “freer” can one be than the person who the Son sets free? The original church had no “freedom” granted by the state and it did not matter because they lived as citizens of Heaven, (cf. Phil. 3:20).
The early church concentrated their efforts on being whom they really were rather than trying to keep what the state had afforded them. Jesus said, “For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's shall save it,” (cf. Mark 8:35). This is true in all aspects of life. If we in our own strength for our own purposes try and maintain what we think is ours we will lose it. Through political activism we may even lose a lot more than state sponsored freedom.
The deceptiveness of democracy is that we step out of our element when we step en masse as the church onto the political stage set up by the enemy. The opportunity afforded by the democratic system is more of a temptation like the lottery than any real opportunity. The stakes for which we are tempted to play politics obscures the cost to the believer/church for having played. These same stakes for which we play the game of politics are no more secured for having played either. The distraction of democracy dilutes the church in purpose, identity and effectiveness. Democracy is like a black hole, which sucks everything into its grip and utterly cuts off any counteractive work or ability to respond to anything but its demands. The question is, when is “the church” going to wake up and smell the coffee? And when they do what will they do about it?
10
Other Concerns About
Politics
There are several other questions that are not adequately addressed by conservative political activists. While the activists articulate many reasons for their approach and the need for it, they do not address the fact that what they advocate flies in the face of other “beliefs” they claim to hold. When you take into account that these inconsistencies deal with major themes in Christian teaching our interest should really be piqued. If God was in this charade of corporately using politics as the chief means for the church to do its job (as many proponents would like you to think it is), don’t you think the negative features we covered in Chapter 3, Stupid is as Stupid Does, would not be associable to the church’s people who have joined in this activity?
Who can point to any “failure” in the Bible (like that of modern conservative Christians in their political activities) being the direct result of doing what God told someone to do, wherein they were following His exact directions?
Divisiveness in the Ranks of the Church
A notable concern is what politics is doing to the church as far as divisiveness. Former Senator Mark O. Hatfield once said,
Let me take off my political hat and put on my laymen’s hat. I’m more concerned as to what political activism is doing to the gospel. When you label something “Christian,” if it is accompanied by an agenda of political items and the economic items on that agenda of political action, does that mean that if you agree with the political items and the economic items on the agenda that that constitutes your Christianity? No way! Christ asked Peter one question. It was not “who do others say that I am,” but “who do you say that I am?” That is the basic question. People outside the faith get the wrong message. They think, “Well, if I believe in these political issues because they say this is the ‘Christian’ agenda, then I’m a Christian. And that is to me miscommunication. That is not biblical. The question is, who do you say Christ is? – Not who agrees about abortion or school prayer.1
Dean Sherman of Youth With a Mission, shows his concern with the churches deviated activities. He wrote,
Even Christians can take action in the wrong way. Many well-meaning folks give money, time, and efforts to improving man’s situation, but ignore the spiritual way to combat evil. They are more concerned with man’s condition than with God’s heart. They attend protests, organize boycotts, or launch educational efforts, but spend little or no time in prayer, spiritual warfare, or evangelism.2
Additionally concerning divisiveness, it is an odd occurrence when people who claim to have the same belief and who also claim dependency on God for decisions of importance come up on opposite sides of the same issue. In one race, there are opposing candidates with “Christians” supporting both sides. In other words, one votes for the Democrat and the other Republican in the exact same race. Why? If we really are following the “same God,” either we have to change our definition of “the same God” or we have to throw out that we are “following” that same God.
Does God have “Multiple Personality Disorder”?
Is God telling one-person one thing and another person the opposite? Surely not! (cf. I Cor. 1:10-13)
The only other possible explanation for this opposing phenomenon seems to be that people are making up their minds on politically presented issues while only passively assenting to following Christ. If this is true, it says three things about these voters.
1. Their identity is compartmentalized, pluralistic; thus their actions are inconsistent with their claimed beliefs.
2. They are not living out of God’s daily word to them; i.e., Jesus’ example of doing just what He heard His Father saying… (cf. John 5:30, 6:38, 8:28)
3. They are duped into being pawns in the political manipulation game, allowing themselves to be the bow by which the political fiddle is played.
Are believers merely throwing God’s name behind what they do to try to legitimize their actions?
Prophets in the OT paid a high price for putting God’s name on what they were saying. If we want to vote because we’ll feel better, go right ahead! Just don’t moralize it or try to pull “God” in on your side by throwing His name behind what you do by saying, “you’re led of God.”
While we’re at it, we shouldn’t refer to our “Christian beliefs” as a basis for our choices because they’re not. Our identity as an American is our chief motive. Our “Christian beliefs” are just a perspective at best and wall decorations at worst. Instead of listening to God and operating out of what He is showing us, we make ourselves part of the divisiveness of politics rather than being salt and light to the society that is being politically manipulated through the issues politics drums up. We are to be an alternative, not one side or the other of the world’s game.
The question of God’s Sovereignty
The Sovereignty of God is also touched in this mess of politics in the church? The proponents of activism really paint themselves in the corner on this point because they put such a high emphasis on man’s intervention while God’s sovereignty is not addressed. The silence of activists on this point gives some indication of what they really believe. It also shows us a major weakness in their position. When we speak of sovereignty we mean control over or complete knowledge of everything. In other words, God allows things if He does not actively direct them.
If we really believe God to be sovereign we should take our hands out of the political stew until God directs us, thereby allowing God to do what He wants. We cannot make broad-brush statements that God wants us to vote, because this cannot be proven. If we say that God wants us to vote without question, then we must face the problem of why believers end up voting against each other, which cannot be God’s intent. If God were really telling us to vote, there would be a more decisive direction from religious political action in societal life because of that voting. That however is not the case. If voting were nothing more than the apparatus of man, outcomes would be hit and miss, just like they are. God is still bigger than this, but why cloud our minds as to the sovereignty issue through our meddling?
God’s work is simple and decisive not haphazard. What does scripture tell us? “The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes,” (cf. Prov. 21:1). The only problem today is that we have supposedly been “empowered” by the state and this somehow fogs our minds into thinking God’s will cannot be accomplished without our intervention. Maybe the OT scriptures aren’t for today simply because we have the vote and a democratic system. Does this “new” option supersede or preclude scripture? This is very shaky ground when we interpret scripture through the perspective of our situations.
It is easy to nod in full agreement with the Bible’s record of God’s dealings with people and situations, despite kings or rulers. It seems to be quite another story to practically apply allowing God and depending on Him to work things out. Most of us evangelical, fundamental types believe with all our hearts that God is sovereign. However, we are the ones screaming the loudest about cultural reform through the political process. This is not trusting God. The activist mindset places itself, as a strategic operative ready to manhandle something that we are not equipped to overcome in the way of politics.
Nationalism
From a scriptural perspective, since when is nationalism a motive for a believer to be propelled into political action?
There is a phrase in the NT repeated in various forms 11-times* that says, “There is no distinction between Greek or Jew.” The significance of this phrase is that the Jewish disciples really struggled with this problem of national pride and race superiority because of their “choseness as Jews,” (cf. Acts 9:32-10:35). Jesus made a cloaked reference that He had followers in “another fold,” and that they and the Jewish believers would become one flock with Him, (cf. John 10:16). These texts should expose the weakness of nationalism and abolish this idea for the Body of Christ around the world. Especially the kind which seeks to put God on one country’s side or against another. Regarding all these scriptures one writer said this: “Few things are said as plainly in the NT, and as often, as that Christ's church is not coextensive with any socio-political grouping or ethnic delineation, and that boundaries are meaningless in it.” 3
God is looking to find people who are willing to voluntarily come out of the world and serve Him and live out of the destiny of their relationship with Him, rather then eat the scraps of garbage that fall off the
Endnote: *These texts speak of a renewal that accepts all people by God through faith. The Jewish disciples had been pretty exclusive with the truth up until the time of Peter and Cornelius in Acts 9-10. Paul articulates clearly that God does not favor one nation over others. For the 11 Scriptures I mentioned above (cf. Acts 15:9, 26:23 Rom. 1:14-16, 2:9-26, 3:22, 10:12, I Cor. 1:24, 12:12-13, Gal. 3:28, Eph. 2:11-22 and Col. 3:1-15).
world’s table. Those who advocate political activism do not seem to have made this jump. Nationalism is a system of thought that would tie us back into the world’s mindset and keep us sitting below its table waiting for our portion. If we are using the world’s system to legitimize or protect us, we need to repent!
God is not an American and He has no eternal interest in this country or any other for that matter, save Israel. He is interested in each person and his or her soul’s condition. God is not cheering when America beats the Chinese on trade deficits, or who broke the sound barrier first. He couldn’t care less! Dr. Tony Evans, founder of the Urban Alternative in Dallas Texas, had this to say: “Jesus is not an American, He is not a Republican or Democrat. He didn’t come to take sides He came to take over.”
Some would say this is a dominionistic statement. On the contrary! Dr. Evans is saying that God has a separate show going on; it is called the church, the Kingdom of God. It was meant to overrun the world's system, not get in the mud play with it. Keith Green elaborates on Dr. Evans comments saying, “The original church was the welfare board, soup kitchen, the pregnancy counseling clinics and employment agency, they were all these things and more. Now look at us, oh sure, we still are God’s representation on the earth. But can people see it, and if they can’t how will they?”4
The Forbidden Zone
Recently, I watched the original Planet of the Apes movie. This film was quite lucid in its depiction of people [in this case apes] who cannot, or will not, think beyond limits that they have arbitrarily established for themselves. I am not advocating wanton willy-nilly forays into the obscurity of questioning just to question. Rather, I am saying that we need to go beyond what is common thought today because most indicators would show that we have been living and thinking on the “safe” side of the forbidden zone.
In the movie, the safe side of the forbidden zone was the intentional denial of reality for a self-serving purpose. The leading “religious” apes denied the evidence in the “forbidden zone” because it did not support their interpretation of events that in turn supported their power and prejudices. In like manner the modern conservative also lives in a theological “safe-zone” which empowers their way of dealing with the alter-reality they’ve invented. And because we act upon this imaginary reality*, in a very real world, we have become utterly ineffective in our attempts politically as well as in doing what God has commanded us to do in the Great Commission. Look at Chapter 2, The State of Things, for statistical evidence.
You might wonder how much involvement or disassociation I am advocating here. I want to de-emphasize the two extremes of being either totally “for” or “against” political involvement. Having said this I would rather underline our responsibility as followers of Christ, who are citizens of Heaven, not of the kingdoms of men. This means letting go of the imagined ability to control society through voting. However, this does not totally exclude voting or even running for office. More importantly I want to emphasize listening
*Endnote: “Imaginary reality” We are not what we were before we came to Christ. This deals with ethnicity, nationality, denominationalism, and our political identities. To approach the world as if we are still “of it” is a reversal of the truth, i.e. an imaginary reality. This imaginary reality is carried out further in the idea that we can appeal to people to be moral without knowing the basis for morality. When we approach politics with these erroneous ideas we are living in a world that does not really exist.
to God and doing exactly, no more or less than, what He tells us. Even if that means not responding to the issues the political system pitches over our plate. For the vast majority of us, we’ll not have much to do with the political system because of its intrinsic nature and because of our weaknesses as disciples to understand and participate in the dirt in which politics tends to be played. Few have actually been called to the vocation of politics by God. This is evidenced through: failures, burnout and the sudden metamorphosis of “good candidates” that suddenly become functionaries of the system they were elected to fight against.
While modern thinkers advocate the corporate domination of the political system in this country by church people, we need to realize that this is just a modern idea. Let’s be reminded that God only used a small group of people who were at the top of their fields, or who were pliable in His hand, to work directly in the political systems of their day. They were exceedingly successful by any measure. God Himself put: Daniel, Moses, David, Joseph, Jonathan, Samuel and the Judges into political positions to do His bidding. God purposes were accomplished in His work through these people and He did not need democracy to do it. This goes back to the issue of sovereignty!
The political system of our day allures people with the opportunity of “free choice” and the “potential” to effect things for our own purposes, only not really. It is a trap and a distraction to follow after something other than God. God says come and die and I will raise you up to do the work I have for you. Conservatives condemn gambling and the lottery but in an inconsistency to their own ideas they will commonly play a political “lottery” without conscience. Certain people in ministry today think that we should turn lights on in Washington and force the issues. The Bible says, “turn The Light” on in people’s heart and things will automatically change because God is calling the shots. Which will you do? Are you going to continue to sin the sin of futility and frustrate the work of God that could be realized through your life because you are off on your own crusade or on somebody else’s agenda you have adopted?
Count Zinzendorf, founder of the Moravian Brethren, once said, “I could not spend my time over such trifles as make up the daily life of courtiers and of Kings. I dare not appear before God with the responsibilities incurred by frittering away my days in such puerilities.”5 It should be noted that Zinzendorf did not make this comment out of ignorance. He stepped back from court life after many years in it and took up the work of the Kingdom of God. He never wanted to participate in the political arena but was “forced” to by certain pressures of his day to do so. Eventually he made a break from this “pressure” and the world has never been the same since.
It is this kind of true commitment to the cause of Christ that needs to resurface in the church today. 10,000 years from now it will not matter the position we took on most politically manufactured issues that are being floated these days. However, if we do not tell people about the Savior and their inability to achieve what God would give them through this Savior, THAT will make a tremendous difference 10,000 years from now! We need to become fishers of men, not the proponents political interest groups trying to get the government to see things our way, while we become their lackey in the process, instead of God’s servants.
Post #19
The only time I think the world was going to be utterly wiped out and restarted, was when Jesus was writing in the sand with the crowd waiting to stone the adulteress.
He was 33-years old and knew a thing or two about real life issues. Every person doing the shouting was no better than the whore and He knew it. Thatis why He insulted them.
I come from a life of real issues and experiences and can still see so clearly that licentiousness is always wrapped in pretty lies and hypocrisy. The message so loudly proclaimed by Liberals is licentiousness unchecked and unfettered. I want to treat them like the liars they and I know they are. Because, their diseases will infect me, again, sooner or later! Now even without my willing participation. I feel similar towards Conservatives but less intense. They seem to be able to be less intense hypocrites.
If you look at the greatest speech ever spoken by a politician, Lincoln's Second Inaugural speech, you see and hear Paul in First Corinthians. "There must be divisions among you so that those that a correct will be proved so." (My paraphrase.) Exactly Jesus' teachings about divisions even among even family members!
I wish that we would pull away from politics but my desire to protect my children is now fully enveloping me like an alpha wolf. Seriously, how can a person be a Christian and propagate anti-Biblical positions at the same time "for the brethren?" I definately see my calling ONLY towards and for the brethren, but it is almost impossible for me to not point out to a non-deistic secularist, the stupidity and hypocrisy, in their own positions while using their own logic and evidence to disprove their goofyness. I would have been the follower in the Garden of Gethsamene ahcking off ears. Your point is like that of the Savior. Surely that's not the way He to face the issues. I'm working on my issues still.
I thank you for your directoin in the matter.
How implement the next great "Re-Awakening?"
He was 33-years old and knew a thing or two about real life issues. Every person doing the shouting was no better than the whore and He knew it. Thatis why He insulted them.
I come from a life of real issues and experiences and can still see so clearly that licentiousness is always wrapped in pretty lies and hypocrisy. The message so loudly proclaimed by Liberals is licentiousness unchecked and unfettered. I want to treat them like the liars they and I know they are. Because, their diseases will infect me, again, sooner or later! Now even without my willing participation. I feel similar towards Conservatives but less intense. They seem to be able to be less intense hypocrites.
If you look at the greatest speech ever spoken by a politician, Lincoln's Second Inaugural speech, you see and hear Paul in First Corinthians. "There must be divisions among you so that those that a correct will be proved so." (My paraphrase.) Exactly Jesus' teachings about divisions even among even family members!
I wish that we would pull away from politics but my desire to protect my children is now fully enveloping me like an alpha wolf. Seriously, how can a person be a Christian and propagate anti-Biblical positions at the same time "for the brethren?" I definately see my calling ONLY towards and for the brethren, but it is almost impossible for me to not point out to a non-deistic secularist, the stupidity and hypocrisy, in their own positions while using their own logic and evidence to disprove their goofyness. I would have been the follower in the Garden of Gethsamene ahcking off ears. Your point is like that of the Savior. Surely that's not the way He to face the issues. I'm working on my issues still.
I thank you for your directoin in the matter.
How implement the next great "Re-Awakening?"
Politics and the Church
Post #20AlAyeti,
I think you are like most concerned people. This country is going to the dogs quick. Many conservatives are picking up on this threads and trying to dig in to protect the little that is left and certainly try to protect their families.
If you would read just a very short book, only 120 pages, I think it would be helpful. The book is entitled: Tortured For Christ by Richard Wurmbrand. He talkes about protecting family and how it cannot be done in the normal sense. He shows how God protects and even if God does not protect in the way we think He should, it still all works together for good. I say with consideration of my own 2 kids.
One of the main threads of Conservative thinking is protection and comfort. These are understandable but very selfish motives. How can we follow Christ, who suffered upon a tree for our sins, and think we will not also suffer with Him? Philippians 3 talks about "fellowshiping with His suffering." When we suffer Christ is there with us and when we don't suffer we do not have the deep fellowship of God because we don't need it, nor are we looking for it.
A new Reformation will happen when people like you and me laydown our rights to be heard, to be considered or protected by the culture or state, and also when we begin to take Christ seriously when He says, "Come follow me." Inevitably we will go to a cross, much like His and we will suffer injustice, humilation and be degraded. We watch shows with awe concerning Christ and or people of history who paid a big price to stand up for Him and be the alternative to society, organized religion and politics, but we fail to step forward out of the line of comformity the world has set-up for us.
These are not harsh words for you but tough words for all of us.
TP
Please take a peek at my quotes page. You can download it and read through it. These quote give me hope and encouragement in considering tough times. I think you will find some heavy duty stuff that will answer some of your questions.
Go to: http://www.kingdomcitizenship.org/resources/quotes.htm
I think you are like most concerned people. This country is going to the dogs quick. Many conservatives are picking up on this threads and trying to dig in to protect the little that is left and certainly try to protect their families.
If you would read just a very short book, only 120 pages, I think it would be helpful. The book is entitled: Tortured For Christ by Richard Wurmbrand. He talkes about protecting family and how it cannot be done in the normal sense. He shows how God protects and even if God does not protect in the way we think He should, it still all works together for good. I say with consideration of my own 2 kids.
One of the main threads of Conservative thinking is protection and comfort. These are understandable but very selfish motives. How can we follow Christ, who suffered upon a tree for our sins, and think we will not also suffer with Him? Philippians 3 talks about "fellowshiping with His suffering." When we suffer Christ is there with us and when we don't suffer we do not have the deep fellowship of God because we don't need it, nor are we looking for it.
A new Reformation will happen when people like you and me laydown our rights to be heard, to be considered or protected by the culture or state, and also when we begin to take Christ seriously when He says, "Come follow me." Inevitably we will go to a cross, much like His and we will suffer injustice, humilation and be degraded. We watch shows with awe concerning Christ and or people of history who paid a big price to stand up for Him and be the alternative to society, organized religion and politics, but we fail to step forward out of the line of comformity the world has set-up for us.
These are not harsh words for you but tough words for all of us.
TP
Please take a peek at my quotes page. You can download it and read through it. These quote give me hope and encouragement in considering tough times. I think you will find some heavy duty stuff that will answer some of your questions.
Go to: http://www.kingdomcitizenship.org/resources/quotes.htm
