Support Our Troops
I am confused. So much energy is spent from the ODMs trying to knock out Rick Warren for his P.E.A.C.E. plan. They don’t like the fact that he is spending a good amount of time fighting for so called non-religious causes, and partnering with people of different faiths and backgrounds to do so.

Yet, somehow because we are American, it is acceptable to tie supporting our military to our faith. Causes like world hunger, AIDS and poverty are not a worthy cause (or worse, used as a weapon against those they disagree with), but supporting a non-religious war, and connecting scripture to it is perfectly acceptable. However, I would like to remind the elusive editor at CRN that they are supporting an organization, our military, that is 22% catholic, 21% atheist, and a good minority of Muslims and Jews. We won’t even get into the rising numbers of homosexuals in the military.

So, how exactly are you condemning Warren for partnering with Democrats and homosexuals to end world hunger, but you yourselves openly support an enterprise with people you condemn on a regular basis? Is this not a double standard?

For the record, I strongly support our troops and the original intent of the war. I think that we do owe them a good deal of gratitude.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Sunday, February 17th, 2008 at 7:59 pm and is filed under Editor, Hypocrisy, Ken Silva, Linked Articles, ODM Responses, ODM Writers, What Can You Say?. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

42 Comments(+Add)

1   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 17th, 2008 at 8:42 pm

I’m surprised Rick isn’t all over this one.

2   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 17th, 2008 at 9:08 pm

Sorry, Tim, I was at the store.

“Yet, somehow because we are American, it is acceptable to tie supporting our military to our faith.”

It isn’t acceptable by any Biblical standards. I saw that post on CRN and it is incongruous with anything New Testament. To support a war is to say God is on your side. God has no nation except Israel which in reality is a race of people rather than a nation.

The Americanization of Christianity is unseemly and blurs the difference between being a follower of Jesus and a “good American”. Observing troops day, or memorial day, or the 4th of July, or any secular holiday in the worship service is blatant idolatry. I have been in services where the congregation pledges allegiance to the flag is the presence of the One who is supposed to have all our allegience.

Is that enough, Tim?

3   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 17th, 2008 at 9:11 pm

“Is this not a double standard?”

No, it a double standard cubed!

4   mandy reed, owosso mi    
February 17th, 2008 at 9:31 pm

but jesus = american. Don’t ya know?

5   inquisitor    
February 17th, 2008 at 10:23 pm

You guys are never happy are you.

The ODM’s knock RW and you bust their chops.

Then they encourage people to pray for the troops and you do the same.

Shouldn’t you be praising them for “doing good”?

6   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
February 17th, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Nathan plainly stated that he was in agreement with them on the concept. He asked a question about how they can hold to that concept, given their opposite stance on similar issues.

7   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 17th, 2008 at 10:33 pm

Inq,

I think you missed the point.

iggy

8   SSGT Joe C, USAF    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
February 17th, 2008 at 11:12 pm

Guys and gals,

I support the troops. I don’t find patriotism in sunday worship “idolatry”. Afterall, I go to and serve at a military chapel on a military base, how could I? I pay my taxes and deploy in harms way for my country. Those pictures on that website montage could be any number of my friends and co-workers, and myself.

And I still disagree with how Ken Silva used us to further his agenda of Amero-Christianity and hypocritical standards (ie, don’t support the good deeds of those we disagree with (Warren et al), bash those guys, but hell, support our troops…). Yes Ken, I’m talking about you. That stuff makes me sick. Thanks for your support, but no thanks on your agenda.

Seeing that posted on CRN is like when Hillary Clinton says “I support the troops, I love the military”. Funny, no one in the Armed Forces believes her.

I feel sick.

And Rick,, in case you’re wondering, I’m not offended by what you said. Stick to your guns, if that’s what you believe, brother.

When you start offending the troops, maybe that’s a signal that you shouldn’t be using them as a pat on the back. That’s all. I’m out.

Joe

9   merry    
February 18th, 2008 at 12:28 am

The military has nothing to do with Christianity.

Warren is a Christian pastor and should have everything to do with Christianity.

I think that’s the difference they see.

BTW, even though I don’t like Warren that much, I get tired of them trying to find thing wrong with him. I keep expecting to see headlines such as “Rick Warren Gets A Cavity– Goes To Worldly Dentist” just to bash him. :)

P.S. I support the troops also; I am really thankful for them– not a fun job, but they still volunteer!

10   Dave Muller    http://blog.thewebsiteguy.com.au
February 18th, 2008 at 12:58 am

…we are not Americans by accident

I suppose it fits into the calvinist model well though that they are called to be holy americans. I noticed a bible translation was used to say “exact places” instead of what Thayers says is “a setting of boundaries, laying down limits”

11   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
February 18th, 2008 at 1:18 am

Merry,

Ken Silva is a pastor that is supporting troops… catholic, atheist, Muslim. Buddhist and Jewish Troops… to fight a war in another country.

Rick Warren is a pastor that is supporting humanitarians… catholic, atheist, Muslim. Buddhist and Jewish humanitarians… to fight a war against poverty and disease

There is no difference between the two.

12   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 18th, 2008 at 1:38 am

BTW, even though I don’t like Warren that much, I get tired of them trying to find thing wrong with him. I keep expecting to see headlines such as “Rick Warren Gets A Cavity– Goes To Worldly Dentist” just to bash him.

13   mandy reed, owosso mi    
February 18th, 2008 at 6:28 am

I hear you Merry. I don’t really agree with all that Warren, McClaren, etc do… but trying telling that to ODMs. I really am quite far away from being ‘emergent’ (If they came to our church… they would see that.) but they don’t listen.

14   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 18th, 2008 at 6:38 am

Thank you for your gracious words, Joe C.. I am not against the troops, I am against any connection with the church and America. I rejoice when I hear soldiers have come to Christ through the witness of a Christian soldier such as yourself, and I believe their are many.

Maybe in heaven we find that America thought it was going to war against Iraq, but God was going to war against the devil within the spiritual lives of the troops, and with that we should all praise Him.

Continue to fight the good fight of faith, that my friend is the eternal war!

15   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
February 18th, 2008 at 8:44 am

I just love how the editor takes Acts 17:26 out of context, trying to make it support some sort of nationalism. The word that is translated as “nations” in that verse is the Greek word ethnos, which would probably better be translated “races” or “ethnic groups”. It’s not talking about political nations at all.

Paul is stating to the Athenians that God made all races, and He wants to bless them all. To turn it into some sort of support for nationalism is just wrong.

16   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
February 18th, 2008 at 9:23 am

I just love how the editor takes Acts 17:26 out of context, trying to make it support some sort of nationalism.

ODM’s misusing scripture to further their agenda? Say it ain’t so!

17   nc    
February 18th, 2008 at 9:24 am

I’m not a HIllary supporter, but the military brass has been reported as recognizing that she “knows” her stuff when it comes to the armed forces and that she’s ready to be a commander in chief.

Heck, even McCain said a couple years ago that she was qualified to be president…

I know that sticks in some people’s craw, but that sticking isn’t really about her ability/qualifications.

18   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
February 18th, 2008 at 9:31 am

nc,
I just question the decision-making ability of someone who would willingly marry Bill Clinton…
;-)

19   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 18th, 2008 at 9:32 am

I predicted one year ago that Hillary would be the president, and according to Scripture we as Christians should pray for her and not murmur. I am anxiously awaiting how that scenario plays out, I remember the church complaining, murmuring, and even telling lewd jokes about Pres. Clinton. Not Christian is it?

How do we avoid becoming entangled with this world and its politics? Well, you know. By the way, I watch all the debates and am looking forward to the conventions. They are like professional wrestling, entertaining but not real!

Go Hillary!! or Obama! or McCain! or better yet, come Lord Jesus!!!

20   nc    
February 18th, 2008 at 9:37 am

Not really on topic, but:

Was Bill’s naughty behavior really such a deal breaker?

I don’t get why he’s such an anti-christ?

I don’t elect a president to be my personal role model.
I vote for someone who is able to fill pot holes, give me clean water, protect my borders and maintain infrastructure.

So Bill “sullied” the office.
Yes.
But nobody died because he lied about his affair.

George Bush, that christian president who says Jesus is his hero, surrounds himself with bad people, they lie/manipulate/obfuscate (whatever word you want to use) and lots of people get killed.

Give me Bill any day. At least he doesn’t bring God into that garbage.

21   nc    
February 18th, 2008 at 9:37 am

Henry,

I really appreciate your position on this…
I have my preferences for a president, but I agree that we need to pray for whomever gets the office and do so sincerely.

22   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 18th, 2008 at 9:41 am

If Pres. Clinto had been a Republican, minus the immorality, they would consider him a second Reagan!

Politics – I love this game!!

23   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
February 18th, 2008 at 9:43 am

nc,
I was just kidding, sort of. I don’t like the Clintons, nor many Democrats for that matter, because they are really closet (or not-so closet) socialists. Of course, the same can be said for a lot of Republicans.

I question any politician who thinks he knows how to spend my money better than me, which basically means I question all politicians.

24   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 18th, 2008 at 9:50 am

If Pres. Clinto had been a Republican, minus the immorality, they would consider him a second Reagan!

Ironically President Clinton passed more Republican-style legislation than the first President Bush. Welfare reform and tax cuts principally. I never really understood the hatred of President Clinton by Republicans, other than I suppose the fact that he defeated a sitting Republican President, but even that was as much Perot’s doing as Clinton’s.

25   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 18th, 2008 at 9:57 am

The entire focus is money. Even the war on terror is so we can continue to “live our lifestyle”. If Satan himself ran and people were convinced he would improve their financial status, he would win in a landslide.

I’m for Alf Landon. (trivia points)

26   dave    http://www.mindfulmission.com
February 18th, 2008 at 10:08 am

I don’t like the Clintons, nor many Democrats for that matter, because they are really closet (or not-so closet) socialists.

Hehe. I am not sure you know what socialism is if you think that many Democrats are socialists.

27   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 18th, 2008 at 10:13 am

Jesus was a socialist and I am serious. He was concerned with the poor, fed the five thousand equally with no respect of socio-economic status, said the first shall be last, commanded servanthood for everyone, and in reality he was never even close to being a capitalist.

And all the emerging types said “Amen!”

28   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
February 18th, 2008 at 10:16 am

Hehe. I am not sure you know what socialism is if you think that many Democrats are socialists.

Well, I define it as governmental redistribution of wealth, basically. America is already pretty well entrenched in it, if you consider that upwards of 50% of the federal budget goes to different programs that give money to one group or another.

I’m all for helping people, but I just think using the government to do it is about the least efficient way possible.

29   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 18th, 2008 at 10:30 am

The first Christians in Acts were socialists, extreme. Sold their goods and gave out equally. Can you imagine what would happen if the church suggested that today? Check out the Apostle Paul’s financial port folio. Not a real crowd pleaser, right?

And when the Lord Jesus said not to lay up for oursleves (retirement, etc.) treasures on earth he was just givng a suggestion? Just a metaphor? And by the way, those words are in red, no? I sincerely believe most of the western believers will be ashamed when we give an account to Him because we were so tied to this world.

Is it God’s will that I have a thousand dollars in the bank and an African mother will lose her two children to hunger this month? I cannot honestly say that is the God of the Bible and it certainly doesn’t emulate the person of Christ in His incarnation. Much of the church doesn’t actually preach the prosperity gospel, they just practice it while criticizing its doctrine.

And when the church needs a building they unscripturally borrow the money from the banks who use the interest to lend to abortion clinics, porno houses, bars, and all the very things that will be preached against from the pulpit that was erected on that borrowed money. Does the word “nuts” mean anything to anyone.

Locusts and wild honey for lunch, anyone?

30   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 18th, 2008 at 10:33 am

OK, I know waht your thinking – “Just when we thought we had that Frueh guy figured out he comes up with this stuff”. Who is this masked man?

The Lone Ranger.

31   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
February 18th, 2008 at 10:38 am

Rick,
The first Christians were not Socialists. What they did was out of their own free will. Socialism is collecting other’s money at the barrel of a gun. A Christian gives because of a changed heart, not out of compulsion. The government cannot change people’s hearts.

If anything, Socialist movements are a poor parody of what the Church is supposed to be.

32   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 18th, 2008 at 10:48 am

“political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles”
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Of cousre the church is not secular, buttheu do have a spiritual government. My contention is that the true church nshould mirror socilaism much closer than capitalism which is greed personified. We live in a nation who can find billions for sports facilities but cannot find money for the prescriptions for the elderly. Money for Las Vegas but are burdened with the children of illegal aliens. And if this wasn’t bad enough, much of the church takes the governmental position.

With the eremgents in this I agree, Jesus today would be considered a radical believer whose life was not within mainstream evangelicalism. There, I said it…

33   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 18th, 2008 at 10:49 am

The first Christians in Acts were socialists, extreme. Sold their goods and gave out equally. Can you imagine what would happen if the church suggested that today? Check out the Apostle Paul’s financial port folio. Not a real crowd pleaser, right?

That’s not socialism. Socialism forces people to do that. The Kingdom is made of people who want to do that.

34   nc    
February 18th, 2008 at 11:02 am

Ummm…

we need to be careful about what we say socialism “forces”…

There’s a thing called democratic socialism…we have a form of it here…we vote for things to be this way.

As soon as someone says…”I hate socialized medicine”, but doesn’t think twice about paying into medicare they’re a hypocrite, or just ignorant…I dunno.

Our system sucks.

35   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 18th, 2008 at 11:05 am

As soon as someone says…”I hate socialized medicine”, but doesn’t think twice about paying into medicare they’re a hypocrite, or just ignorant…I dunno.

Uh… dude, you’re forced to pay into medicare by the full might of the US gov’t.

It doesn’t matter if socialism is democratic or not. It still forces people to pay money whether they want to or not.

36   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
February 18th, 2008 at 11:08 am

nc,
Well, yeah, we have the government we deserve, for the most part. It’s just that when everyone is expecting the gevernment to support them in their old age, you end up with a system that falls under it’s own weight eventually. Just look at Western Europe to see a preview of what happens when there aren’t enough workers to support a system of wealth re-distribution.

37   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 18th, 2008 at 11:18 am

I was speaking of spiritual socialism that takes into account the needs of everyone at the direction of the Holy Spirit. The word is deficient as it applies to the church. I know, maybe care-ism.

38   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
February 18th, 2008 at 11:50 am

I’m not a HIllary supporter, but the military brass has been reported as recognizing that she “knows” her stuff when it comes to the armed forces and that she’s ready to be a commander in chief.

Yeah…unfortunately, everyone who’s under ‘the brass’, doesn’t agree. The military does not like the Clintons. They pay us less, take away our rights, and snub our budget. And don’t get me started on Barak “Let’s ask for permission from the UN” Obama.

I’d vote the Flying Spaghetti Monster in to office before I’d vote Clinton. It has nothing to do with Dem/Rep, because I’m neither. And neither is God.

Joe

39   merry    
February 18th, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Nathan,

“There is no difference between the two.”

I see your point. :)

Iggy,

Ha, ha!

40   Dave Muller    http://blog.thewebsiteguy.com.au
February 18th, 2008 at 5:40 pm

The entire focus is money.

Uh huh. US deficit up 162b to 410b this year, a projected annual spend of 3.1t in 2009.

41   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 18th, 2008 at 6:06 pm

They will spend close to one billion dollars overall this year just to make unkept promises, inflate their value, and tell half triths about their opponent. In the end, it will take obscene amounts of money to elect someone who will spend obscene amounts of money while in office. Oh yea, and millions of people will march right into church buildings and vote for everything God is against morally.

The Almighty gets such a kick out of election year! We cannot have organized prayer in the government’s schools, but the government can come in and vote in God’s house. Uzziah was a king who did “right in God’s sight”. And yet when he decided, with good intentions, to light some incense unto the Lord God struck him with leprosy. And this year churches will have politicians come and speak from their pulpits (Thomas Road Baptist – Huckabee).

It is sacrilege in its highest form. If you believe God wants you to participate as a citizen, at least keep it seperate from the church. And why do you vote in a booth with a curtain on a secret ballot? Men love darkness because their deeds are evil. =)

42   Dave Muller    http://blog.thewebsiteguy.com.au
February 19th, 2008 at 6:48 pm

Woo hoo Rick, we could both rant and highjack this thread to no end!