Secession anyone? I'm thinking Dixie would go with us again, and this time we might get the heartland as well. We could make W the president of our new republic...
Okay, on to more realistic thoughts. Read what Dr. Corduan said about the election. He is taking it much better than I. He's pretty mature in Christ.
The rich and famous, the humanists, the liberals, and the president elect want you to believe that America's biggest problems are "two wars", a "planet in peril", and "the economy". O, my friends don't believe the lies. War is terrible but these wars have to be won, not abandoned. The planet is not in peril. The planet has been through a lot and it will be okay. The economy has been bad before and it will get better. Even if it gets worse first and even if it takes a long time, we are still wealthy compared to most of the people in history and in the world today.
No, those are not America's biggest problems. The problems we face are the culture of death, the erosion of the traditional family, greed, the abandonment of traditional Judeo-Christian values, and so forth. These are not post modern issues. These are post Christian issues.
I suppose one comforting thought is that whenever the church is persecuted she grows. But still, I'm not exactly excited about some possibilities of the next four years. Obama said "change is coming". I don't doubt that. I'm afraid, though, that the changes will be for the worse in the lives of those who vote red. Before its all over I have a feeling even the blue voters will realize the changes Obama wants will not be good for America.
Ok, got that off my chest. I'm sure I"ll cheer up in a bit.
9 comments:
As I was watching the coverage last night, it struck me at how many people were gazing at Obama. It wasn't a normal sight in the political arena. It's also something rarely seen in church.
I think the thought running most through my mind was that the Church in America has a blazing example of her failures in this culture.
There was some statistic the reporters read off that something like 70% of the voters feel that "government is the solution." I can't help but think that this is largely due to the Church not living up to her name.
I think the religious right has led much of the way in polarizing this country and we saw a response to that last night. It also seems that is what initially drove much of the hatred towards Bush these past 4 years at least, maybe even all 8.
My generation is longing for change. Not just in our country, but in every area of life. However, I'm thinking that what they thought the change would be and what it turns out to be are two very different things.
They didn't move away from the institutions already set in place, they just took a different approach. Obama is just as much an outsider to Washington as Bush was 8 years ago.
My main point I guess is this: The Church could gain a lot by what she has seen the past few months, culminating with the election last night. It's time to stop clinging to our rights, sounding like a noisy gong, and focus on Jesus. The Church was never intended to stand up for Jesus but rather to be the presence of Jesus in this world. The ONLY way that's possible is for us to trust Him, depend fully on Him, and allow Him to live fully through us.
Then, we'll see change!
Can you be specific in your criticisms of the church? I'm not positive as to what you are saying. Jesus is the answer, obviously. But other than the church, how are people going to hear about Jesus?
Maybe the religious right is polarizing. I tend to disagree, but for the sake of argument I'll give you that possibility. At any rate, don't forget that Jesus himself is polarizing, a stone that makes men stumble and a rock that makes them fall. Many loved him, many hated him--and so it is even now.
Well, I agree that Jesus is polarizing. But He wasn't/isn't polarizing because He's standing up for His rights. He's polarizing because He is Truth and Light. He doesn't allow for gray here...either you have life or you don't.
As for the church, I think we've fought the fight wrong. We've taken our morals and held onto them, even tried assuring that our country does the same. However, as we've done this, it seems to me to have been what 1 Cor. 13 describes as a "resounding gong" or "clanging cymbal." It hasn't been done out of a dependence on Christ which would automatically mean motivated by love. It has been done, in my opinion, out of fear for what might happen if "heathens" have their way.
I don't have any problem with the church calling out what's right and what's wrong. I do have problems with the church trying to do Jesus' work in their own abilities. Jesus' didn't call us as individuals or as the church to hold fast to biblical principles and morals, instead He called us to abide in Him, come to Him, fix our eyes on Him, and allow Him to live His life through us in this world.
Only then will we see and experience His love in the things we do, because it will be Him (who is love) doing them trough us. That's the way we were created to live and that's the way the church was designed to run. Any other way is a poor substitute and will end up polarizing, not because of the distinction between Truth and lies, but because of the absence of love.
Just some thoughts...
I am sorry you are so upset, so is Jeremiah. His teachers said he had a hard day, and still somehow holds onto the hope that McCain can pull out a win. Shame we can't be simple like a 5 year old.
Take your own advice, let God comfort you in your suffering.
bright side? 4 years goes real fast. Maybe this will be the catalyst for revival.
"But He wasn't/isn't polarizing because He's standing up for His rights. He's polarizing because He is Truth and Light. He doesn't allow for gray here...either you have life or you don't."
I don't understand what you mean by standing up for rights. Don't understand why that's always a problem. Can you explain. Second, you are right about the no gray area. There are 3 kinds of people in the world the saved, the yet to be saved, and the never will be saved. When Christians proclaim absolute truth two of those three groups are going to have a problem with it. Not that we should do it without love, but those groups are going to be repelled whether we act lovingly or not. Its their nature.
"As for the church, I think we've fought the fight wrong. We've taken our morals and held onto them, even tried assuring that our country does the same. However, as we've done this, it seems to me to have been what 1 Cor. 13 describes as a "resounding gong" or "clanging cymbal." It hasn't been done out of a dependence on Christ which would automatically mean motivated by love. It has been done, in my opinion, out of fear for what might happen if "heathens" have their way."
Examples?
Love is certainly an important motivator, but it does not insure that the message will be received well.
"I don't have any problem with the church calling out what's right and what's wrong. I do have problems with the church trying to do Jesus' work in their own abilities. Jesus' didn't call us as individuals or as the church to hold fast to biblical principles and morals, instead He called us to abide in Him, come to Him, fix our eyes on Him, and allow Him to live His life through us in this world.
Only then will we see and experience His love in the things we do, because it will be Him (who is love) doing them trough us. That's the way we were created to live and that's the way the church was designed to run. Any other way is a poor substitute and will end up polarizing, not because of the distinction between Truth and lies, but because of the absence of love."
Again, love is our greatest command. We MUST act in love. But it is absolutely no guarantee that acting in love will save unborn babies or protect our children from the gay agenda. Sometimes love is tough.
You guys are having an interesting conversation here! I see what y-life is saying. The church, with very good intentions, has tried to carry out the Biblical call in our flesh. This has resulted in a great distortion of the Gospel and Christian life.
One example is the fight over prayer in schools. I see Christians with admirable intentions fighting over this issue. Having official prayer time in school would be nice, but it is not necessary. We can actually live out the separation of church and state better without prayer in schools. We can also in spirit live in a constant state of prayer and teach our children to live in the Spirit like this as well-regardless of whether there is a designated moment of silence or not. I believe that Christians abiding in Christ as the vine, living dependent on Christ in the Spirit would have handled the situation much differently. Like Sloth said, it isn't a guarantee that nonbelievers would respond any better, but they would have been responding to Christ in and through us, not our flesh.
I think the American church lives the majority of our life in the flesh. Flesh profits NOTHING, therefore, we have gained nothing for our country when we act in our flesh.
I would love to have a picture of how the world would respond to Jesus in us. Us in the world, living dependent on Christ, watching Him live through us in the world...I can imagine it would be a very beautiful picture full of love, grace and uncompromising Truth.
I think we've reached a point where its pretty hard to communicate in little snippets like this. But I would like to know something from Matt. My original thesis on this post was that the left is wrong in their assessment of what the biggest crises in America are. They point to the wars, the environment, and the economy as huge problems. They will include health care and I will admit that health care is a biggie. As bad as those first three are, I think they have no chance to erode our culture the way that abortion, euthanasia, erosion of family, greed, etc. are doing. So do you disagree with that thesis in and of itself?
Now, Mommydani, thank you so much for giving an example; I really appreciate that. I will confess that apparently I have not witnessed the fleshly displays that you have so I'll take your word for it. I do feel like your characterization of the church in America was an overgeneralization. And the thing you said at the end about the "beautiful picture"--I think that what someone with the Holy Spirit sees as a beautiful picture can look completely different to someone whose "eyes" are blinded by pride, greed, lust, Satan, etc. I'm not saying we shouldn't live the way you described, just that it won't be a panacea to the world. And it would not change the antagonism to the sanctity of life, the importance of family, the importance of purity, etc. So, while we have to live the way you describe we also have to use the political processes in place to fight for these things.
I think you're right, this probably isn't the best venue to converse about these issues.
As to your original thesis, I would agree that the left is mistaken on what is really wrong with the country. To overlook (or outright ignore) the incredible atrocity that is abortion is a serious problem.
I was thinking the other day about how the rich are demonized for being greedy, however it's the same greed in the poor that causes such a distaste for the rich...just some more thoughts that might be better shared over some coffee someday. :)
Speaking of coffee, I miss you buddy, when can we hang out again?
y-life, I e-mailed you something the other day and it bounced back. If you have my e-mail please send me your correct one. And let me know when you would like to get together. I'm flexible.
Post a Comment