Mike Corley recently took on the SBC’s initiative to be better stewards of our environment.  Let me first say that I have a growing respect for Mike and his willingness to go where other ODMs are not.  However, this article and radio broadcast left me scratching my head with confusion.

On air, he reads the initiative and agrees with everything, including the scripture used to back up the movement.  There was not one thing that he said was unbiblical or even off base theologically. In fact, the only negative thing he could say about it was that they referred to those who follow Christ as “Christ followers.”  So all in all, you would think that there was little cause for concern.   But, he continues by saying that he has “great concerns as to why this environmental move has taken place in the SBC.”

He makes a strange connection between this initiative and what he calls “hyper-arminianism.”  He defines this as “the implied or distinct teaching and mindset that God cannot save someone without that person’s agreement or allowance. “  Mike never makes the argument for the connection between this move to go green and this theology, so I am not too sure how one’s view of election would affect a biblical argument for caring for the earth.

He then takes the opportunity to rag on Rick Warren and LifeWay, the SBC publishing company –once again, giving no connection to the green initiative.  It seems that his basic premise is that are were bigger issues for the SBC to handle.  But it looks like he just took advantage of the situation to promote his opinions on the denomination, Rick Warren and what he calls the “money-driven practices of LifeWay”

He closes his article with a very strange comment

“But why not spend time and money on clearly defining the Gospel and preaching that Gospel, rather than doing the popular “green thing”.  It may make good conversation over a pumpkin spice latte, but it’s not the Gospel.”

First off, the SBC is known for its evangelistic focus.  While I am sure that Corley would say that Southern Baptists mostly produce false converts, not too many denominations can touch them in the amount of money and energies spent on reaching the world for Christ.  Therefore, the amount of time and money spent on drafting up this initiative is a drop in the bucket compared to that given to preaching the gospel.  If they weren’t doing the latter, the argument might hold up.

Second, there are lots of issues that are “not the gospel’:  Church discipline, modesty, homosexuality, abortion, divorce, idol worship, and spiritual disciplines to name a few.  Does that mean these are reduced to simply good Starbucks conversation topics too?  No.  Being good stewards of the world that God has given us is no different.       

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 12th, 2008 at 7:59 pm and is filed under Christian Living, Editor, Linked Articles, Mike Corley, ODM Responses, ODM Writers, PD/SS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

43 Comments(+Add)

1   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
March 12th, 2008 at 8:20 pm

The best part of this is that it isn’t even an official SBC document as they’re now pointing out. It was something a student wrote. Excellent research.

2   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 12th, 2008 at 8:27 pm

When Mark Driscoll uses obvious “Arminian” methods of evangelism he gets a pass because he is, you guessed it, a Calvinist. And now “Arminians” are to blame for going green. I do not believe the SBC should get involved with many things (politics!) but it isn’t because they are predominantly Arminian.

The Aminian punching bag serves such a convenient and self serving target for all the theological evils of the world. Wesley, what a soft monergist who destroyed the gospel. If only the Moravians were Calvinists they would have had a heart for missions. It is acceptable for ecclesiaistical organizations to be environementally conscience, but they should not get involved in the politics of it and more importantly make it a tenant of our faith.

Signed, Arminius. (I still live!)

3   nator    http://whydowenatorblogspot.com
March 12th, 2008 at 9:06 pm

Rick, please tell me how Wesley destroyed the gospel.

4   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 12th, 2008 at 9:15 pm

nator – that was a sarcasm meant to showcase how ridiculous it is to attach everything negative to Arminians, which, of course, Wesley was.

5   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
March 12th, 2008 at 9:18 pm

I knew a guy named Rick Wesley who preached drunk once…

6   Jim    http://www.watcherslamp.blogspot.com
March 12th, 2008 at 9:20 pm

Good evening,

Mike Corley’s program and article do not create a connection between the SBC Declaration and hyper-arminianism… From CRN summary line:

“Corley questions why this environmental move has taken place in the SBC when there are greater doctrinal issues that threaten the SBC.”

Corley begins to outline the serious conditions that threaten the SBC, which included hyper-arminianism.

When the SBC speaks of fighting climate change as a “Biblical duty”, one has to wonder “Are there other biblical duties that should have priority over such secular matters?

Other issues that only the “church” can address about the “church” from within the “church”? Again, Corley outlines a few major issues.

It is clear that Corley does not form a cause and effect relationship between the two subjects. He has simply painting the picture that the SBC’s time is better spent on foundational biblical matters for the sake of a true biblical witness of the Gospel to the world, for the salvation of men.

Why would any “church” allow attention to be given to tertiary matters when primary biblical matters are at such risk?

Therein lies the debate.

7   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
March 12th, 2008 at 9:45 pm

Jim,
Perhaps you, or perhaps Mr Corley, could explain to us why God included “tertiary” matters in scripture that the church is expected to simply ignore, as if they didn’t exist.

Maybe, you could also explain which other Biblical commands, and teachings the church is expected to ignore.

Thanks,
Tim

8   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
March 12th, 2008 at 9:52 pm

Jim,

first off, you falsely dichotomize environmental issues (”secular matters”) and biblical duty. The former is a part of the latter, and Corley agreed with this in his broadcast.

Even if I agreed that there are bigger fish to fry in the SBC, the argument is rediculous. It is a simple statement. The SBC isn’t dropping everything to go save the whales. They are just going to make an effort to be more green. If there is nothing unbiblical about the statement, I don’t see what the big deal is.

9   Evan Hurst    
March 12th, 2008 at 10:12 pm

Hey, everybody, let’s rustle up a theological excuse to not do something good for the world.

‘Cause, like, that’s worthwhile.

10   Brutus    
March 12th, 2008 at 10:13 pm

Tear it up. Use it up. Burn it up. In Jesus Name.

We need a lot more Arminians exercising their free will to stop the continued destruction of the earth. Leave it to all the gospel preachers and we will make certain the earth does not survive until the 22nd century.

God is Green. God Recycles. And God would not drive a SUV. Sounds crazy? Not really. The other option is a God who doesn’t give a rip about His Creation.

11   Evan Hurst    
March 12th, 2008 at 10:40 pm

God probably wouldn’t drive, since all cars pollute.

God would ensure that all consumption is sustainable.

When God gave man “dominion” over the earth, I highly doubt he meant “well, I wasn’t using this anymore, so feel free to take it in the garage and stomp on it.”

But some Christians are so hell-bent (and i do mean “hell-bent”) on doing every little thing exactly the opposite of what the “world” does (blah) that they don’t take the time to consider whether the “world” is doing something good.

Oprah educating girls in South Africa? Building houses for Katrina victims? Encouraging stupid Americans to turn off the teevee and read a book? False teacher.

Al Gore devoting his life to trying to save the planet? Let’s focus on how big his house is rather than what he’s actually saying. Deflect, deflect! False teacher, again. Jeezus (and i do mean “Jeezus”) didn’t say anything about deforestation, so it must not exist.

Group of Other-Christians-We-Don’t-Agree -With-On-Nit-Picky-Stupid-Things trying out new ways to reach the population? Obviously they’re part of the anti-Christ’s Oprah team, so let’s stick to our old ways. I mean, sure, our old ways are repugnant to the general population, but we’re pleasing Jeezus, and besides, we really want to make sure we have face time with God in heaven, so let’s be staunch in our ignorance. Besides, if we didn’t focus on all of these trivial things, we wouldn’t have any trivial things to complain about, and if we didn’t have any trivial things to complain about, then we might have to go out and do something with our lives and, like, associate with the general population for the mere sake of being a vital part of the world, instead of staying up here in our comfy Christian (TM) ivory towers where there’s no cussing, and no kissing, and no yoga, and no this, and no that, and no LIVING, for God’s sake (and i do mean “LIVING, for God’s sake.”)

and that would be just tur’ble.

12   M.G.    
March 12th, 2008 at 10:43 pm

If I could go “meta” for a moment.

I’m constantly intrigued by the distinction a lot of fundamentalists want to make between issues like abortion, stem cell research, drug use, pornography, and gay marriage on the one hand, and environmentalism, racial reconciliation, nuclear disarmament, and poverty on the other hand.

It’s always permissible for a church to target the constitutionality of gay marriage, but if a church takes on global warming, then it’s concerning itself with “secular issues.” If a pastor opines on substantive due process, many will say “go for it.” But if a pastor discusses global flooding because of melting ice caps, “watch out.”

I think at first blush, it would be easy to explain it as an issue of left v. right and the general inclination of evangelicals/fundamentalists to lean right on issues and to loathe working “across the aisle” with political liberals. While there is a great deal of truth in that, I don’t think that paints a complete picture. For example, views on pornography don’t line up perfectly with political inclination. There are some pretty radical feminists who feel virtually the same way as evangelicals do about pornography. Yet with pornography, Christians are very vocal and *never* play guilt by association games.

To get the complete picture, I think you have to take into consideration the genesis of these social issues. Who was at the vanguard of the environmental movement? Non-Christians. Who was at the vanguard of the Civil Rights movement? Non-white Christians and, to a significant extent, the Jewish community. Who has fought the most against poverty? Non-Christians.

My theory is that it is a view on Christian “exceptionalism” that prevents a number of fundamentalists from getting on board with specific, quite important, social issues. If your view of the Church is, at root, distorted, then it’s going to produce *significant* cognitive dissonance if you’re presented with a social issue that your religious community didn’t *first* begin to combat. If you believe the universal Church is something better than it actually is, then you are almost forced to be dismissive of environmentalists, blacks, and anyone else who comes *to you* with a social concern.

That, at root, is why so many fundamentalists hate environmentalists (amongst other social activists). In essence, they think “what could a non-Christian possibly tell me about what is moral and good and right in this world?”

I think this explains a lot of Ingrid and Ken’s thinking on these issues.

13   M.G.    
March 12th, 2008 at 10:52 pm

Evan said:

“But some Christians are so hell-bent (and i do mean “hell-bent”) on doing every little thing exactly the opposite of what the “world” does (blah) that they don’t take the time to consider whether the “world” is doing something good.”

My point exactly. (Only more succinct.)

This is a *major* problem for the American church. This explains the almost total alignment of fundamentalists with the Republican party (we seek refuge in the safety of a platform) and explains why we have almost completely lost our prophetic voice.

We no longer speak truth to power. And it is a tragedy.

14   Evan Hurst    
March 12th, 2008 at 11:06 pm

we were ranting at the same time, M.G.

;)

15   Mike Corley    http://www.mikecorley.org
March 13th, 2008 at 6:03 am

Okay, just a few points….

1. I was not trying to make a connection between Arminianism and the declaration on climate change, only to stress that there are more important issues than the enviromental issues.

2. The points regarding Warren and LifeWay were examples of what I think are problem areas within the denomination. (We will continue to disagree on PDL, but that’s okay)

3. As I said in the blog piece and the radio program, we SHOULD be wise stewards of the environment. (I think my Dad was a tremendous environmentalist and he worked the land every day, but always kept it in its proper perspective.)

4. I don’t think the SBC will drop everything to hug trees, but let’s be honest and at least acknowledge that there are elements in the denomination that tend to follow the latest trends, and when you have influential ministers such as the ones named as supporting the declaration, it should at least raise a cause for concern.

5. I don’t hate Arminianists i just think they are wrong.

6. Believe it or not, this has nothing to do with Mark Driscoll. (Sarcasm I know, but I couldn’t resist).

7. I suppose this subject will keep me on the ODM a little longer.

16   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 13th, 2008 at 6:47 am

or what I unapologetically would label as “hyper-Arminianism”, the implied or distinct teaching and mindset that God cannot save someone without that person’s agreement or allowance.

That is not “hyper-Arminianism”, Mike, that is plain old mainstream Arminianism. Or as we Arminians call it, Biblical theology. I stand by my obseravtion of preferential treatment of Driscoll because of his Calvinism. Exhibit one – John Piper.

And as a blatant Arminian, I agree with your assessment of PDL/seeker/emergent movements. So I do not fit the mold until God opens my eyes to reformed theology, but of course I must cooperate and He’s having a tough time!

God bless us, everyone. TT

17   Jim    http://www.watcherslamp.blogspot.com
March 13th, 2008 at 6:51 am

Nathan,

Regarding your comment “you falsely dichotomize environmental issues”…

I identified global warming as a secular issue which it is and a tertiary issue for the church…

And I dont support scorching the earth and reckless stewardship, but my more pressing concern are scorched men in the fires of hell.

18   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 13th, 2008 at 6:54 am

And I dont support scorching the earth and reckless stewardship, but my more pressing concern are scorched men in the fires of hell.

A great but convicting quote. God help us to keep that as the core of our mission.

19   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
March 13th, 2008 at 8:10 am

Jim,
I’ve asked once before. Could you explain to us why God included “tertiary” matters in scripture that the church is expected to simply ignore, as if they didn’t exist.

Maybe, you could also explain which other Biblical commands, and teachings the church is expected to ignore.

Thanks,
Tim

20   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
March 13th, 2008 at 8:33 am

I’m kind of two minds about this. I do think that for too long Christians have just had the attitude of “it’s all gonna burn, so why try to stop it” which is completely wrong. God created the Earth, and I think that His command to us to work it and have dominion over it means we have to be good stewards of it.

However, what I have seen is that there are a lot of groups who use this issue to promote other socialist and anti-business political causes. So I think we need to be careful who we believe. I don’t believe the vast majority of politicians do anything that isn’t ultimately for their self-preservation.

As far as whether Jesus would drive a car, I don’t see why He wouldn’t. The Gospels talk of him grilling fish over a fire, which released CO2, so how is CO2 released from a car any different. Combustion is natural process, and it’s been going on for thousands and thousands of years. What gets me is when environmentalists act as if humans are somehow a foreign species on earth. That’s just as bad as the other extreme of saying we completely own the earth and can do whatever we want with it.

21   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 13th, 2008 at 8:39 am

I do not believe tertiary means “ignore” as Tim put it. I think women not wearing outlandish gold is a tertiary issue to belive on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved. See, its easy. Granted everyone’s “tertiary list” is different but everyone has one and it doesn’t mean ignore which is a false premise..

Women submit to your husbands is the verse around which all the others stand. That verse is not tertiary!

22   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
March 13th, 2008 at 9:21 am

Jim,

very good quote. Ironically, in the theological system that the ODMs support, we should have plenty of time on our hands to plant trees and pet dolphins. We have no part in helping men to find salvation. There is no urgency or sense of importance in the mission of God. The elect will be saved if we spend 2 seconds or 20 years sharing the gospel.

23   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
March 13th, 2008 at 9:22 am

Its one thing to argue about what environmental methodology to support, or who to believe, but its another to deride any action as wrong because its only a “tertiary” issue. Which really is code for “don’t do anything”.

24   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 13th, 2008 at 9:31 am

Nathan – You read my book! I see another CRN post about you in the future!

Pet dolphins? Do we have a problem?

25   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 13th, 2008 at 9:37 am

Fred Phelps = Hyper-Calvinism

Who would represent hyper-Arminiansim today? Where do you submit a resume?

26   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
March 13th, 2008 at 9:40 am

I’ve never understood the use of the word “hyper” before Calvinism or Arminianism. It seems to me that you either are a Calvinist (or Arminian) or you aren’t. I guess people do it to distance themselves from the bad apples in their particular group. No one ever calls someone a hyper-Republican or hyper-Democrat.

I say it’s hyper-stupid…

27   Evan Hurst    
March 13th, 2008 at 10:47 am

As far as whether Jesus would drive a car, I don’t see why He wouldn’t. The Gospels talk of him grilling fish over a fire, which released CO2, so how is CO2 released from a car any different. Combustion is natural process, and it’s been going on for thousands and thousands of years. What gets me is when environmentalists act as if humans are somehow a foreign species on earth. That’s just as bad as the other extreme of saying we completely own the earth and can do whatever we want with it.

actually, that’s just it – it’s the Christians who treat humans as a foreign species – “set apart.” environmentalists understand that humans are but one part of this enormous ecosystem, and there’s a difference between normal processes that provide sustenance, being part of the “normal chain of events” on earth, so to speak, and creating all of these pollutants which are completely unnatural, which have untold deleterious effects on the rest of the ecosystem.

humans are greedy for their electric power, and the people who provide the power are only concerned about the bottom line, therefore an entire river ecosystem in Canada is destroyed.

humans are greedy for their oil, so instead of actually devoting real resources to getting off of oil, they propose that we go ahead and rape Alaska while we’re procrastinating.

humans say “well, there’s coal!” instead of actually dealing with problems, and in the process the landscape of West Virginia is unrecognizable from the air, due to the fact that half the mountaintops have been removed!

etc.

However, what I have seen is that there are a lot of groups who use this issue to promote other socialist and anti-business political causes.

and yet again, the unholy strange-bedfellow marriage between Christianity and unregulated capitalism, engineered decades ago, rears its ugly head.

i hesitate to label Jesus Christ from a political perspective, but, judging from what He seemed to be concerned with while He was on this earth, i highly highly highly highly

highly

highly

highly

doubt that He would want anything to do with unregulated capitalism.

it’s so weird when people say “anti-business” like corporations are victims. maybe if big business had a solid record of behaving well and being good stewards of the environment and humanity in general…but no. instead, large corporations most closely resemble a classroom full of toddlers, greedy and difficult to control.

28   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
March 13th, 2008 at 10:59 am

Evan,
LOL, I knew that would tweak you. I said nothing to the effect of worshiping capitalism. Obviously, Jesus doesn’t want Christians to be ruled by greed and materialism, but to assume that all businesses operate under those things is naive. I don’t think God is against people earning money through honesty and hard work.

I just don’t think that politicians from any country should have the power to tell people how much money they should and how much resources they should use. Let the market decide such things. If the public gets irritated with a company because of it’s anti-environmental policies, it will vote with it’s wallet. No one is holding guns to people’s head forcing to buy from companies. However, if you have a government run company, as in Venezuela, you literally do have the government deciding who and what people can buy.

29   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
March 13th, 2008 at 11:07 am

Oh and by the way, I do support things like fair trade movements. I don’t think Christians can overlook exploitive practices by corporations, and it’s our responsibility to be informed about such things. I also don’t think we should let corporations run rough-shod and do whatever they want to anywhere. I have no problem with a use of resources that is more intelligent.

Previously we were able to pretty much get away with being wasteful because energy was cheap and we thought we could just use whatever we wanted. Now that places like China and India are moving up as real player in the global market, we have to realize that we’re not alone in this game.

30   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 13th, 2008 at 11:07 am

I would think that greed and compromise is pervasive in an economic system such as captialism that seems to go against the “laying up for yourselves treasures on earth” system as outlined by someone named Jesus. The system is so powerful it spawned an entire aberrant theology.

I find it very difficult to believe that Jesus is OK with people dying of hunger while his followers in the west dine sumptuously. Maybe that is communism, I call it Christian.

31   Evan Hurst    
March 13th, 2008 at 11:18 am

I find it very difficult to believe that Jesus is OK with people dying of hunger while his followers in the west dine sumptuously. Maybe that is communism, I call it Christian.

yeah, really, and that’s what unrestrained capitalism does.

Evan,
LOL, I knew that would tweak you.

ha ha.

and i know that there are many great businesses out there, who “act right” of their own volition. i just get creeped out when certain political parties want to roll back every regulation so that the bad ones can feel free to pollute, to game the system, to make their money off the backs of the poor, etc.

i think we’re too conditioned in this country, at least, to view every common-sense regulation or law concerning business as a “step toward socialism.” no, sometimes it’s just common sense.

However, if you have a government run company, as in Venezuela, you literally do have the government deciding who and what people can buy.

actually, Venezuela is more complex than that, and it’s really interesting. the people seem to love it. Chavez has been taking failing industries and putting them together in cooperatives and handing them over to the people to run. very short version, obviously, but it’s spreading like wildfire across South America, and it’s helping society across the board. we don’t really hear much about it, because the American gov’t/media doesn’t want us to hear about the successes of any system that isn’t capitalism.

Oh and by the way, I do support things like fair trade movements.

yay! we actually have a fair-trade shoppe in one of the churches i go to. it’s an important issue, and people care once they learn about it.

32   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
March 13th, 2008 at 12:16 pm

actually, Venezuela is more complex than that, and it’s really interesting. the people seem to love it. Chavez has been taking failing industries and putting them together in cooperatives and handing them over to the people to run. very short version, obviously, but it’s spreading like wildfire across South America, and it’s helping society across the board. we don’t really hear much about it, because the American gov’t/media doesn’t want us to hear about the successes of any system that isn’t capitalism.

Evan,
Man… do you not believe anything that Michael Moore says? You probably think that Cuba was a utopia and that we were too hard on ol’ Fidel, too. There’s a reason why communist countries have unemployment rates well above 50%. I’m not saying America is God’s country or anything. I don’t worship capitalism, but I think it’s pretty obvious to me that there some correlation between extreme poverty and communist dictatorships.

Oh well, that’s another debate for another day.

33   Evan Hurst    
March 13th, 2008 at 12:27 pm

actually, i don’t listen to Michael Moore.

but what i’m actually saying is that the policies being put forth in MANY South American governments (not just Chavez’s) are actually rescuing the people from what decades of economic “shock-therapy” did to destroy them.

there’s a difference between a communist dictatorship and a democratic socialist system, which the citizens of those countries could explain quite nicely.

and THAT is the news the American government doesn’t want you to hear.

34   Evan Hurst    
March 13th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

as to ol’ Fidel, though…Fidel’s was an actual communist dictatorship.

but the US’s policies toward his regime just poured salt on the wounds of the Cuban people.

so…

35   Brutus    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Berry
March 13th, 2008 at 1:42 pm

The Word hyper means to go beyond. Classically, a hyper-calvinist is one who always believes in double predestination and who denies the free offer of the gospel.

Hyper-Arminian is more problematic. If we use Wesleyan Arminianism as the standard then hyper-arminianism would describe the Free-Will Baptist, in grace, out of grace, in grace, out of grace, type of Arminianism. Perhaps Pelgianism best describes hyper-arminianism.

Having said all that……………who cares about the stupid labels. Ether we are Christ followers or we are not.

36   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 13th, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Evan – your points illustrate the principle that money is the greatest opiate of all. If Hitler helps your prosperity, who cares about the Jews. People in America, even many Christians, vote their pocketbooks and not their morality.

As a matter of fact, if they desired to vote their morality, the would be candidate-less.

37   Evan Hurst    
March 13th, 2008 at 2:45 pm

well, or at least they would vote the candidate who vowed to do the most for the “least-of-these,” rather than the “least-moral-of-these-corporations.”

38   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
March 13th, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Rick,
Well this is getting off the topic of this thread, but what we do with our money is a moral issue as well. It seems to me that it’s at least something we should think about when we have politicians we elect making choices about spending that are supposed to represent us.

I do agree, though, that often people are willing to vote in their own self-interest ahead of anything else.

39   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 13th, 2008 at 2:45 pm

“vowed” = worthless

40   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 13th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

I do agree, though, that often people are willing to vote in their own self-interest ahead of anything else.

often = always

41   Evan Hurst    
March 13th, 2008 at 3:08 pm

sure, “vowed” is sometimes worthless, but occasionally someone comes along who isn’t part of that military-industrial vortex who actually seems to want to make the world a better place.

so, why waste the possibility of things changing for the better by allowing John McCain or Hillary Clinton to be elected?

;)

42   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 13th, 2008 at 3:21 pm

“so, why waste the possibility of things changing for the better by allowing John McCain or Hillary Clinton to be elected?”

Evan – you are an enviably optimistic person who doesn’t take history into account. When the church itself is rife with hedonism, corruption, and false lies what makes us think any secular amalgam will fare better?

Democracy is anti-christ and designed to be run by sinners mostly unsaved. It is an enemy of God and is well able to continue to prove it. Politics – I love this game!

43   Evan Hurst    
March 13th, 2008 at 5:20 pm

yeah, but that doesn’t mean you give up.

yes, there are disappointments throughout history, but there are also bright spots.

and honestly, if a person pays really close attention to what’s going on, it’s not hard to determine politicians’ motives, whose interests they’ll actually look out for if elected. or appointed by the Supreme Court.

unfortunately, too many people rely on whatever narrative the media constructs, and the words that come out of politicians’ mouths, and aren’t willing to do the research required to make informed decisions.

so, that sucks.

but, and i hate to say it this way, i don’t look at the church in such a way as to say “well, if they can’t work honestly, then how can society at large do so?”

the church’s own history really doesn’t earn it that much regard, in my book at least.