An Apology - and a Retraction
There is an article on this blog, “Separation of Church and State” ≠ “There is No God”.
It outlines what is happening in the United States to erode the Constitution and purge ‘God’ from our Nation.
The article “Separation of Church and State” ≠ “There is No God” calls on Christians to become a ‘Political Action Committee’ to defeat this trend. This solution is wrong.
The identification of the ‘Humanist’ agenda is true. The solution is wrong. Our call from Jesus Christ is not to ‘fight’ political battles. It is our ‘duty’ to obey our Government, (Romans 13:1, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.”) This includes participation in the process (by informed voting, etc.). It is not ‘our call’ to use the ‘church’ to do it.
Our ‘call’ is paraphrased in three scriptures:
John 2:5, (Mary the mother of Jesus is speaking) “His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.””
1 Corinthians 10:31, “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”
Lastly, Matthew 28:18-19, “And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”
The only way to stop the moral decay in our society, the only way to keep the ‘purging’ of God from our land from happening, is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The only way we can truly change an immoral society to a moral society is not by legislation. It is by the change that comes from the saving grace of God.
'Turn your eyes to Jesus'. Christians are losing sight of the ‘goal’. 'Political activism' is replacing evangelism. We do need to continue to 'do what is right in the eyes of the Lord' concerning civic duty...But
We need to stop using the pulpit to further political agendas. Do not use the pulpit to further a political agenda, use the pulpit to preach the Word!
There are only two 'medicines' that will 'cure' the moral and spiritual decline in this Country (and the world).
1. Churches - need to start feeding 'solid food', not milk from the pulpit.
"For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." Hebrews 5:13-14
2. True Evangelical revival - Reach the unsaved. The only way to 'Change' immoral behavior is by the individual being 'transformed from within' (Romans 12:2, "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God."
Yes, there are issues that are 'hot-button' issues politically, that do have a place in the pulpit - it is how they are presented. Condemn the sin love the sinner...
Jesus taught us that in John 8:1-11, finishing with the phrase; "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."
‘Revival’ is the ‘political agenda’ that will change the Country and the World.
Changed hearts are going to have more impact on recovering from the moral and spiritual decline than all the 'political rallies' in the world.
It outlines what is happening in the United States to erode the Constitution and purge ‘God’ from our Nation.
The article “Separation of Church and State” ≠ “There is No God” calls on Christians to become a ‘Political Action Committee’ to defeat this trend. This solution is wrong.
The identification of the ‘Humanist’ agenda is true. The solution is wrong. Our call from Jesus Christ is not to ‘fight’ political battles. It is our ‘duty’ to obey our Government, (Romans 13:1, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.”) This includes participation in the process (by informed voting, etc.). It is not ‘our call’ to use the ‘church’ to do it.
Our ‘call’ is paraphrased in three scriptures:
John 2:5, (Mary the mother of Jesus is speaking) “His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.””
1 Corinthians 10:31, “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”
Lastly, Matthew 28:18-19, “And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”
The only way to stop the moral decay in our society, the only way to keep the ‘purging’ of God from our land from happening, is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The only way we can truly change an immoral society to a moral society is not by legislation. It is by the change that comes from the saving grace of God.
'Turn your eyes to Jesus'. Christians are losing sight of the ‘goal’. 'Political activism' is replacing evangelism. We do need to continue to 'do what is right in the eyes of the Lord' concerning civic duty...But
We need to stop using the pulpit to further political agendas. Do not use the pulpit to further a political agenda, use the pulpit to preach the Word!
There are only two 'medicines' that will 'cure' the moral and spiritual decline in this Country (and the world).
1. Churches - need to start feeding 'solid food', not milk from the pulpit.
"For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." Hebrews 5:13-14
2. True Evangelical revival - Reach the unsaved. The only way to 'Change' immoral behavior is by the individual being 'transformed from within' (Romans 12:2, "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God."
Yes, there are issues that are 'hot-button' issues politically, that do have a place in the pulpit - it is how they are presented. Condemn the sin love the sinner...
Jesus taught us that in John 8:1-11, finishing with the phrase; "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."
‘Revival’ is the ‘political agenda’ that will change the Country and the World.
Changed hearts are going to have more impact on recovering from the moral and spiritual decline than all the 'political rallies' in the world.
posted by Unchained Slave at 11:33 AM
4 Comments:
My friend Loren from ”Pulpit of the Last Days" and I had a lengthy conversation about this ‘Apology and Retraction’: Its substance was such I wanted to include it here, and he agreed - [I never post an email to ‘comments’ without permission]
He said:
I read your newest post on ECB, but I didn't want to put this comment in there. I've actually had mixed feelings on the subject. ECB, in itself, does have some faults, like the ones Campi would point out. But getting rid of it altogether seems like throwing out the baby with the bath water.
For me, the lynchpin is the source of authority in the civil sense. In our society, the government draws it's powers from the consent of the governed. In other words, in the purely human sense, we, the citizens, are the authority, and the government merely represents us in a more concise form. So speaking up in opinions, debates, protests, get-out-the-vote drives, etc., is a part of our responsibility in forming our society. We are the salt of the earth. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.
Remember that the citizenship of our country determines what will be the accepted norm in society, so our voice should be heard in the land. This will have a reflection in our laws, and when it comes to forming those laws, within the framework of protecting individual rights, majorities will rule at the end of the day. But no, that last part's not really true. In the eyes of the government, it is truer to say that perceived majorities will rule. Our silence would simply allow extremist groups to be perceived as the majority instead of ourselves. It plays into their hands.
What if God has made us the authority in this sense, and we are 'ruling' badly by allowing usurpers to take the lead instead?
Campi makes good points when he says, basically, that ECB makes strange bedfellows. We should not invite a Mormon to speak in our church as part of a political agenda, for example. We need to keep a distinction that does not step over our doctrinal differences and seem to downplay them, because Christians will get the wrong idea in a broader and deadly sense. But at the end of the year, come November, that Mormon and I are still gonna vote our conscience and probably agree on the candidates and the purely governmental issues. Our doctrinal differences will be set aside in that action, perhaps blindly, but nonetheless. Maybe that's the way it needs to be, but it feels like fighting with one arm tied behind our backs. Plus, non-Christians do not understand our doctrinal differences, and they will point to this sort of division to ridicule the effectiveness of the gospel. And there is a genuine point to be seen in that (1 Cor 6:6,7).
I fully agree with you and with Campi that our chief 'vehicle of reform' should be in preaching the gospel, and of course that is where my agreement is strongest. "The effective work of righteousness is peace." But I also consider something in the longer run:
In the parable of the sower, Jesus spoke of seed that was sown in a good and noble heart, and so it produced much more fruit. This was the heart in the person before he became a Christian, and a society that respects Christian values could very well play a part in that. Or conversely, a society that openly derides Christians and our faith could make that unbelieving heart far less noble; and when they are saved, far less fruitful. Because this heart, though they were still not saved, eventually determined how fruitful of a Christian they would be.
I'm still working through this, by the way, but these are some of my muddled thoughts. The input from your article was appreciated and I'll work on this some more.
Yours in Christ,
Loren
I responded:
I am assuming - that 'this' letter is in response to "An Apology and a Retraction", which includes 'substance' from some comments, I made at Campi’s site.
IF that is true - I have no problems with posting this comment here!
My concern is the methodology used by the 'ECB'.
I have no problem with Christians being involved in the election and political process. We have a responsibility (Romans 13:1-3) to be pro-active in our government since that is how are government is designed. My concern is the 'methodology'. Take JS2, here is a quote from Campi, "Was there prayer offered for those in governing authority (1 Tim. 2:1-4)--no. Was there biblical instruction on this issue and how the church should respond (1 Peter 2:11-17)--no. Was there the presentation of the gospel at the conclusion of the broadcast to repent and come to Christ (Phil. 3:1-10)--no."
The point is that a 'light on hill' does not need to have a big sign saying 'Here is the light on the hill'. The light is there for all to see.
I have no problem with organizations getting involved in "speaking up in opinions, debates, protests, get-out-the-vote drives, etc." Where I have two big problems is this: First, the ECB is not TEACHING what the Bible says on the issues. They are trading on 'popularity' and 'Hollywood' style theatrics. The ECB is using worldly tactics, creating a media circus, and 'belligerently' confronting opposition. That is not 'speaking the truth in love'. The ECB is trading on 'our rights', a very worldly concept, to apply confrontational pressure on Congress.
I would rather see a group of Christians setting up a 'National Organization for Christian Voting'. The NOCV could set up a website, mailing list, political rallies, and even TV ads that 'call' Christians to vote for strong, Christ centered government and law. Actually, I think it would be a good idea. I would even encourage 'big-names' throwing their 'names' behind such an organization. Their method could be 1. Informing Christians what the Bible teaches. 2. Encouraging Christian involvement in process (per Romans 13). 3. Contacting Congress on behalf of their supporters in a firm but non-confrontational way. The NRA has used this type of lobby methodology for years quite successfully. Obversely, the 'in your face' confrontations by the 'liberal left' during the last Presidential election proved disastrous, and fallout is still being felt by many of its biggest proponents.
Second, just because Catholics, Mormons, or anyone else for that matter has a similar moral code does not mean that we should embrace them publicly for a 'common cause'. Pretty much the whole world wants 'world peace'. That includes North Korea, Sudan, Iran, Palestinians, and others. Should we publicly embrace Palestinians in our desire for world peace, when their definition of world peace includes genocide of the Jews? Protestants have drawn a line in the sand for 500 years that says the Catholic Church is NOT preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What does publicly embracing the Catholic Church regarding 'moral values' say? What 'message' is perceived?
Consider the 1986 'World Day of Prayer' in Assisi, Italy. Pope John Paul II invited 'all' the religious leaders of the world to join him in praying to 'their' gods for world peace. Think about that. Does that mean that the Catholic Church acknowledges there is more than one God? Does it mean, by such an invitation that the Catholic Church believes that the Dali Lama (who attended) is in fact an 'incarnate god' as his followers believe? The point is that such a display really confuses people. You hit the nail on the head when you said, "We need to keep a distinction that does not step over our doctrinal differences and seem to downplay them, because Christians will get the wrong idea in a broader and deadly sense." I submit that is exactly what the ECB is doing by these public displays of unity.
I am not sure I agree with your analysis of the 'Parable of the Sower'. I am not quite sure what you are saying there, but I am going to take a 'hack' at it anyway. First, there is no such thing as a 'noble heart' in an unbeliever (Jeremiah 17:9). The soil of a person's heart is their willingness to accept the Word, and how well the Word takes root. What we ‘once' were in the flesh has no bearing of what we become in Christ. Paul is an excellent example - he persecuted Christians 'unto death' and then became the torchbearer of Christ. There are hundreds of examples throughout history where the most wicked, ended up after salvation bearing huge fruit. There are many examples of 'born Christians' bearing little fruit - born Christians being those who are brought up in 'Christian' homes and making 'early' decisions for Christ. I mean how many Preachers Kids (PKs) are there out there who are the definition of 'rebellious youth'? How much stronger is a witness in front of derision? The historical example would be the persecution of early Christians by Rome. The gospel 'exploded'. I don't know how 'in touch' you are with 'evangelical events' in the world today, but there is an ongoing - huge explosion of the gospel in Romania, Bosnia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia and parts of Africa (Darfur, Sudan) where persecution is the rule not the exception.
Campi points out, and I agree, that when one is living in a 'Moral Society' there is 'no need' for Salvation since 'everybody is good'. I do not know if you have ever heard of 'The Barna Group'. For a number of years George Barna has done a 'State of the Church' survey. What the Barna Group does is send out a survey (nationwide) to 'Christians' to get a 'feel' for what ‘Christians' believe. They then publish the results identifying trends, strengths and weaknesses in the ‘American Church'.
The Barna Group divides respondents into two groups: people that 'claim' they are 'Christians' [I'll call c-Christians] and those that by their responses indicate they are ‘Christians'. Catholics are included in the survey.
Additionally, the Barna Group defines a Biblical world view as:
Jesus Christ lived a sinless life
God is the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe and He still rules it today.
Salvation is a gift from God that can not be earned
Satan is real
Christians have a responsibility to share their faith with other people
The Bible is accurate in all of its teachings
Absolute moral truth exists and the Bible defines that truth
Here are some highlights about c-Christians [Taken from the 2005 edition of 'The State of the Church' from the 2004 surveys]:
9% of hold a Biblical world view
26% believe all religions are essentially the same
50% believe a life of good works will enable a person to go to Heaven
35% do not believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead.
33% accept same-sex marriage
39% believe it is morally acceptable for couples to live together before marriage
27% have experienced divorce [compared to 24% of non-Christians]
45% attend church regularly
45% read the Bible regularly (more than once a week & other than at 'church services' while only 19% STUDY the Bible daily)
20% attend Sunday school or some other 'Bible Study'
This is at time when 84% of adult Americans 'claim' to be Christians. Out of the 84% less than one-half will claim to be 'absolutely committed' to Christianity.
It is apparent that the pulpit should not be 'galvanizing people' to political activism; instead, it should be 'galvanizing people' to the worship of God, and spreading His gospel. Something is terribly wrong when we live in a society where 'our rights' are far more important than our 'tangible' understanding of the Word of God. Take one statistic from that list. "35% do not believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead." That is not 35% of the population at large, that is 35% of people calling themselves Christians! Our pulpits need to be on fire with the Word of Truth, not a call to vote!
The bottom line is the 'church' has two priorities. The first priority is to 'feed the flock'. The second priority is to reach the unbeliever. I submit that the ECB is diverting those priorities and actually by it methodology making it more difficult to reach unbelievers.
Loren said,
Wow, you have really spent some time on this, I really like the things you've said here. I especially like that you're offering practical alternatives, such as your NOCV idea. I once knew of a group called 'Eagle Forum' that was a Christian 'watchdog' group, it seems to me they would be a
good player in getting such a project off the ground.
I also agree that we can't toss aside our religious differences with Catholics, Mormons, etc and publicly embrace them. My point is that we can't have the opposite either, if we hope to elect candidates who support Christian values and ideals.
In other words, Catholics and Mormons can have their rallies and we can have ours, for the exact same candidates and the exact same reasons, but each attends their own rallies - fine. In each case, this is essentially a political gathering motivated by our own religious beliefs. But there is no need in the same political setting to stand up and say "We are for candidate X but we are against Catholics and Mormons."
That's the purely religious part which both we and they, in our respective political contexts, should remain silent about. Those differences are better expressed in another, purely religious context. Do you see the point I'm making?
in Him,
Loren
Loren,
I do see the point you are making, and I agree. Active politically and active spiritually are not 'mutually exclusive'. Just as political activism is not the venue to address differences in doctrine.
At the same time, It is very important (to me) that churches 'know what they believe'. The first thing I look for when visiting a church - online or in person - is the 'statement of faith' - that is why my first comment at "Pulpit of the Last Days" was in 'Vision'. There are too many 'churches' that do not have a solid 'statement of faith' so the church is 'built' on shifting sand. It is easy for 'compromise' to take root - hence those alarming statistics about the 'State of the Church'.
Post a Comment
<< Home