Friends,

I’m supposed to be on hiatus this week as I begin moving into our new house and all, but something at SOL caught my eye this morning and I don’t want to let it pass without a comment or two.

Before I object to something in the post, I want to state upfront that I agree with this statement, “You cannot be a Christian and support the killing of un-born babies.” I am opposed to abortion on demand and the wholesale slaughter of children (even as I am opposed to the wholesale ‘putting away’ of the elderly in nursing homes or white vans owned by Jack Kevorkian). Murder, what the Bible calls enmity in Genesis 3:15 and elsewhere, is a terribly heinous sin and is perpetuated as the seed of the serpent goes about the business of trying to annihilate the seed of the woman. I am not, please note, not disagreeing with this particular point of the OP.

Having said that, I also came across this sentence (this quote is from Dave Daubenmire’s article that the author of Slice excerpted) that sort of bugged me. I’m not posting this because I agree or disagree (although I am leaning towards disagreement) at this point, but rather to stimulate some wholesome thinking and hopefully learn something. Daubemire wrote (admittedly, there is no other context aside from what the author of Slice excerpted, but I think I am not misunderstanding what he is saying):

No wonder we are losing the battle for this nation.

Now here’s my question: Is the battle we are fighting really for ‘this nation’? Is that really the war we are engaged in right now? I have to say, with all due respect, because in this instance I am perfectly willing to learn–that is, I’m not entirely certain of my position–that this doesn’t seem to be true. (I could ask if anyone thinks RW should have been tougher on the abortion issue, but that’s another post.) You see, I think here I agree again with Ellul who wrote this: “The church lets itself be seduced, invaded, dominated by the ease with which it can now spread the Gospel by force (another force than that of God) and use its influence to make the state, too, Christian. It is great acquiescence to the temptation Jesus himself resisted, for when Satan offered to give him all the kingdoms of the earth, Jesus refuses, but the church accepts, not realizing from whom it is receiving the kingdoms.” (The Subversion of Christianity, 124)

My point here is that if we are in a ‘battle for this nation’ are we not settling? I mean, is a merely Christian America the goal here? Is that why I wake up and pray every day? Is that why I preach? Is that why I sing? Is it God’s ambition that every business, every corporation, every entity in America, be Christianized? I know, I know: “Your Kingdom come, your will be done…” Yes. But if our vision doesn’t extend beyond the borders of America, are we not selling short the prayer? God’s vision is universal, cosmic, not merely local or national. When we pray, “your Kingdom Come,” does that mean, ‘Your Kingdom come in America?’ as in ’smite all the heretical enemies of America so the truly elect can get on with the business of Eden in America? Is that what Jesus had in mind?

With all due respect to Mr Daubemire, I am not fighting a battle for this nation any more than I am fighting a battle for the community where I live. Mostly I’m fighting a battle within myself (Romans 7) and often I’m losing–more often than I am winning. So my question to you is this: Are we, Christians (or for you good Reformed folks, the Elect), fighting a battle for America? Is that our particular calling at this particular moment in the history of the universe?  Ever? (On a side note, I might ask if RW is really the reason we are ‘losing the battle for America, but again, that’s another post as I don’t happen to think that what goes on at Saddleback is necessarily indicative of what goes on in most churches in America.) And do we really think that abortion is the issue in this battle? It goes back to Genesis 3:15 and the enmity. America is fond of killing in general; we invent ways of doing it; we glamorize it in films and Law and Order reruns; we are obsessed with killing. We have all sorts of reasons for murdering, but they are all murder. Abortion is a symptom and a consequence of the greater problem we have in the world, not a specifically American franchise.

What do you think? Does Ephesians 6 here play any role in this? Is there a battle for the soul of America that Christians are engaged in? (This sounds very political, and I am tres skeptical of the church being involved in politics at any level.) I’ll be interested in reading your thoughts. Please try hard to stay on topic and not railroad this post. Thanks in advance.

Soli Deo Gloria!

PS-please don’t read this and assume that I am either a) pro-abortion or b) anti-America. I am neither and if you accuse me of being so, I will sic merry on you or Rick or iggy or all three at the same time.

PPS-shame on Daubemire for laying all this at the feet of RW! Even if we are ‘losing the battle for America,’ it is hardly just to pile that at the feet of one person, especially RW. Fact is, all of us are guilty at some level. All of us bear the shame and responsibility for the sin of this nation.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , ,

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 21st, 2008 at 12:22 pm and is filed under Church and Society. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

44 Comments(+Add)

1   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 21st, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Man, my leash seems so short today…

2   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 21st, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Interestingly, Jesus did nothing about the slaughter of innocents when he was two… should we also accuse Jesus of all these things? He seemed to not be tough on abortion… outside the womb even…

iggy

3   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 21st, 2008 at 12:54 pm

What is America? It is an organization, otherwise know as a nation, created by men and inhabited by people. There is no battle for a nation, the battle is a spiritual battle for the souls of men sans their national affiliation.

Thinking in American terms cretaes, as Jerry noted, a false battle.

4   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
August 21st, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Jerry, no respect is due Dave Daubenmire. He is a nutcase of the highest order. He defended John Freshwater, the crazy teacher in Ohio who branded a cross on the arm of one of his students.

He and his future paramilitary group (it’s only a matter of time before these types completely lose it) Minutemen United have disrupted church services in churches whose teaching doesn’t square with their own. Daubenmire’s understanding of theology is, of course, backed up by his long career in…football coaching, which he had to give up because he didn’t respect the laws of the United States well enough to refrain from praying with/prosletyzing his students/sports teams in a Public School Environment.

Yeah.

He’s a real winner.

5   Neil    
August 21st, 2008 at 2:00 pm

I’m not familiar with Ellul, but I think I should read him.

Neil

6   Neil    
August 21st, 2008 at 2:11 pm

OK – I read the Daubmire polemic and the SoL re-post and comment – both miss the point… and by quite a margin.

Thinking a Christian MUST present the Gospel in all its detail EVERY time they are given a platform, REGARDLESS of the purpose of the platform – is to miss the point.

To blast Warren for allowing others to express their opinion without correcting them – is to miss the point.

Neil

7   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 21st, 2008 at 2:51 pm

See Neil, that is where you miss it. When presenting the gospel, you must include all of the following:

1. A complete exegisis of the fall of Adam
2. The reason for the flood.
3. Abraham and Isaac
4. The law of Moses inluding the Ten Commmandments and all the feasts
5. The Tabernacle of Moses and of David
6. Gabriel’s visit to Mary
7. The magnificat
8. The Wise Men
9. John the Baptist
10. An overview of the Passion Week
11. A doctor’s assessment of crucifixion
12. The last words of Christ
13. The resurrection
14. A thesis on repentance
15. A questionaire probing if the sinner is ready to surrender completely
16. And then the offer of redemption while making sure the sinner knows that if he is holding anything back God will know it and kill him.

After these steps you may rejoice, a sinner has come home!! :lol:

8   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 21st, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Wow – Idiocy in the extreme. Is Ingrid truly this blind in her hatred of RW?

FTA:

Why did Rick Warren call sin “moral failure”?

Forgive me my ignorance if it is not the case, but isn’t sin a “moral failure”? And, in a nationally-communicated forum, it is necessary to use Christianese (”sin”), or is a cultural paraphrase (”moral failure”) not a better description for a mixed audience?

How was a man allowed to go unchallenged in Warren’s church when he defended the right to slaughter preborn children and yet claimed a relationship with Jesus Christ?

Again, maybe I’m ignorant in the intent of the event, but I thought it was to help provide folks with the candidates’ answers to questions of import to Evangelical Christians – not to provide spiritual counseling and correction to the candidates…

Contrary to popular belief, you don’t need to spoon-feed people “HINT: THIS IS THE RIGHT ANSWER” when someone spouts something stupid. In fact, the forum was set up in a way that allowed people to listen to the answers to the same questions, and to be trusted to make their own conclusions. In fact, I know a good number of folks who get pretty darn turned off by being talked to like first-graders, with the assumption that they won’t come up with the right answers to such questions…

FTA:

But what matters most is eternity and what God will say when opportunity after opportunity was squandered by Mr. Warren to speak up for the Gospel and he refused to do it because being liked was more important.

From a CNN follow-up with RW:

RW: “The one thing I regret was – I so many times wanted to ask a follow-up [question] because I could have gone for 30 minutes on every topic.

I now know the pain of a journalist because so many times they’d say something and I’d want to say ‘yeah, but what about…’ Every bone in my body wanted to ask ‘yeah, but…’ – but I decided to go for breadth rather than depth. Because I knew I wouldn’t get a whole lot of questions asked if I did follow-ups”.

Again, I would go back to the purpose of the forum – the purpose of the forum was NOT to influence the candidates – it was to get the candidates’ answers to specific questions of interest to members of Saddleback and the larger Christian community in America.

Unfortunately, haters like Ingrid are more interested in tearing down brothers like Warren playing the perpetual role of Monday-morning quarterback.

The truth of the matter is – we got to hear the candidates’ answers to questions that were not otherwise being asked (asked in ways harder to dodge), and in a manner that Christians could listen to and make more educated decisions at the polls.

9   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 21st, 2008 at 3:19 pm

If you believe the forum was Scriptural, then Warren acted as a Christian. This was not the inquisition of Luther, and I believe he did what he could.

In the end, however, it was full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

10   JJ    
August 21st, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Daubenmire has always been critical of Rick Warren, Joel Osteen and Rod Parsley because they don’t teach Daubenmire’s version of the truth. The truth is that Daubenmire is just plain jealous of their fame. As we central Ohioans have known for a decade, Daubenmire craves media attention. He is tryng to recapture his 15 minutes of fame when he was sued by the ACLU for pushing his religious beliefs on his public high school football team back in 1999. He shows up at the scene of any local religious controversy, grabs the microphone and starts blurting out controversial statements that are guaranteed to gets his photo in the newspaper. When audience emotions are running high, he PASSES THE COLLECTION BASKET and disappears as soon as the dust settles. He’s extremely judgemental and self-righteous. The large majority of local Ohioans think he’s an embarrassment to our community so he’s never going to get the success he craves and thinks he deserves. The problem is that he makes the rest of us Christians look bad. His ministry has just been limping along for ten years now. Someday I hope he will give up and go away for good.

11   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
August 21st, 2008 at 3:57 pm

He’s even more of a wingnut by e-mail. HILARIOUS.

12   Aaron    
August 21st, 2008 at 4:00 pm

This might divert the subject a little bit, but I have always wondered if it is really as bad as people make it out to be when we consider how much Christianity is being repressed or removed from the public view. It’s not allowed in schools publicly, plates and signs with the 10 commandments are removed from Courts and public facilities, Crosses are removed from public lands (and usually relocated to private institutions), and so on.

I hear and read about how this nation is falling down the toilet with its systematic removal and oppression of Christianity, but I wonder, is that really a bad thing? Here’s why, Christianity has always (and I mean ALWAYS) thrived under fire. Currently China has the fastest growing numbers of Christians and they get thrown in jail for simply being a Christian. Yeah, I know, the mass numbers of people make it easier, but still. Up until Constantine (if my memory serves me correctly), Christianity exploded all over the place, but since then has become weak, political, a status alongside male, white, 26, heterosexual, etc.

With the sky falling down and the world coming to an end in America, there are times when I think to myself “Bring on the persecution, bring on the fire, lets show the people in America REAL Christianity. Lets show them refusal to bow down before guns, lets show them hospitality to people who seek shelter, lets show them what amazing force of God drives and protects and gives us peace before death.”

Maybe I’ve been watching too many movies, I certainly belong to that generation of misled, misinformed, over-hyped, commercialized sons of the future that believe they can be millionaires and rock stars (10 points to anyone who name that movie). But I feel that Christianity should be hard, it should be something that we treasure, it should be something that we feel is the cure to bring people back to life from this dead planet we take up space in. It should be the easiest decision anyone would ever make, but the hardest one to fake. (btw, I would agree with Nathan’s post on easy-believism, it really is that easy to commit. It just should be hard to fake it, that’s all.)

So after all that blabber coming out of my mouth (fingers?), what do you guys think?

-Aaron

13   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 21st, 2008 at 4:08 pm

“it really is that easy to commit. It just should be hard to fake it, that’s all”

A great statement.

14   Joe C    
August 21st, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Fight Club?

15   Neil    
August 21st, 2008 at 4:27 pm

I’ve seen just the opposite on CNN. One time a well known evangelical that has never (as fas as I know) been the subject of an ODM attack was on Larry King,

Larry asked several question along a particular subject line, yet every answer was a Gospel presentation regardless of how i did not fit.

It sounded something like:

LK: Well (insert name), you say that the fighting in Darfur is made worse by outside influences – what might these be.

EL: Well Larry, Christ Jesus died for our sins…”

LK: OK, fine, I’ve heard that before, but back to the price of tea in China, do you think the Olympics have…

El: Certainly, and Jesus died for the sins of the same Chinese…

I understand the need to present the Gospel, but said Evangelist just looked silly an unable to interact with King.

Neil

16   Joe C    
August 21st, 2008 at 5:12 pm

LOL Neil….I saw that one…

17   Aaron    
August 21st, 2008 at 6:53 pm

10 points to Joe C!

Anyone keeping score? I lost my pencil…

18   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
August 21st, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Well I see this post had little steam…back to the drawing board.

:)

PS–I’m from Ohio and I have never heard of this guy before. Strange

19   merry    
August 21st, 2008 at 8:04 pm

I will sic merry on you

I’m trying to have a nice birthday; I’m afraid I don’t have time right now, sorry! ;)

I try to be so loving and peaceful . . . is this what a bulldog really feels like?! :)

20   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
August 21st, 2008 at 9:19 pm

This might divert the subject a little bit, but I have always wondered if it is really as bad as people make it out to be when we consider how much Christianity is being repressed or removed from the public view. It’s not allowed in schools publicly, plates and signs with the 10 commandments are removed from Courts and public facilities, Crosses are removed from public lands (and usually relocated to private institutions), and so on.

*blank stare*

The idea that Christianity is somehow suppressed or removed in this country is beyond nuts.

21   Aaron    
August 21st, 2008 at 9:53 pm

BTT-
It’s not really my opinion that Christianity is being removed or suppressed but rather that of a few schoolmates of mine and I remember a few posts on ODM sites screeching about it a few months ago involving politicians, city councils, and maybe a few other things, I don’t remember really.

This is another area of my thoughts about Christianity in America, there are those who whine about Christian icons being removed and such (hence my original comment) and another group that whines about Christianity being overly popular and automatically watered-down, status-quo, weak, etc. I would think that both groups are correct to a minor extent, but ultimately overblown. The only area of America that I would confidently say that Christianity is but a former shell of itself would be in the realm of Politics.

I think Rick Warren did a great job in hosting the debate and focusing on what the intent of the debate was (asking questions and receiving answers, not interrogating and convicting the senators), however, other Christian leaders in politics that merely yell a lot and endorse politicians (I don’t think a pastor should endorse a particular candidate to the public) are a waste of time and an abuse of what God’s Grace is for. Jesus did not save us so that we could say “Vote for this guy!” to the world. Jesus saved us so that we could say “Behold, here is our Savior! He who cleanses us of Sin!”.

-Aaron

22   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:57 am

But Christianity as an institution has an inordinate and unwelcome place in politics — maybe it overshadows what the true message should be about, but it’s there.

This Rick Warren festival wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t.

23   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:16 am

Christianity should affect politics and the laws of the land, but only in a residual way and never directly and as a strategy. And sometimes, when God is most powerfully exhibiting Himself in His church, the change in the laws of the land just may be the opposite of what we had hoped and prayed for.

To leave our gospel calling and pursue legislative morality, is like putting down our bazooka and pick up a fly swatter. America has become an idol that much of the church seems intent on protecting and polishing. Our ministry is reconciliation, not political reformation.

24   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:45 am

Rick,

Christianity cannot affect politics and the laws of the land because the land is not a Christian place and because eventually the land will want to affect the Christianity (see ‘faith-based initiatives’). Rather, I think we should have nothing to do with the land. We live here. Besides, whose ‘Christianity’ are we going to allow to affect those laws? Shall it be the Christianity of Rod Parsley or Jim Wallis or Jerry Falwell or Benny Hinn or Joel Osteen or Doug Pagitt or Brian McClaren or Jerry Hillyer or Rick Frueh or Ken Silva or Richard Abanes or Kirk Cameron or Ray Comfort? And how shall it (Christianity) affect it?

You see the problem? Even in a merely residual way is problematic. I would argue that Christianity (at least one strand of it) has residually (in fact profoundly!) affected our policies towards the Middle East and Israel. I think those policies are horrifying and have yielded horrifying consequences because they are, in effect, based on very, very, very bad pre-millenial, rapture theology. Our blind allegiance to Israel to the detriment of others living there is beyond absurd. And I’m telling you it is based on bad theology. This is exactly what I am talking about in the OP. We (the Redeemed, the Elect) are not building a kingdom of America nor are we fighting a battle for America. And while I don’t think laws should exist to punish Christians or subjugate them (or minorities or others), neither do I think laws should exist which protect us as a special class of people (nor do I think laws should exist to protect any ’special’ class of people, such as women, Muslims, homosexuals, minorities, whites, etc.) Laws ought to be for basic human dignity and freedom–human, I say, because our (the Redeemed, the Elect) freedom is found only, truly in Christ and exists quite apart from the laws that govern the land.

To paraphrase a familiar quote, “I don’t need no stinking green card” (if you take my meaning.)

jerry

25   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:50 am

BTT,

You wrote: “But Christianity as an institution has an inordinate and unwelcome place in politics — maybe it overshadows what the true message should be about, but it’s there. This Rick Warren festival wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t.”

I agree. Frankly, I think politicians spend entirely too much time, money, and energy courting the Christian vote. We would be outraged, as Christians, if they spent as much money courting the atheist vote, or the Muslim vote, or the homosexual vote. It’s almost as if these politicians are running for the high office of the church and not of the land. I wish they would concentrate on running for president and stop with all this fake ‘we care about our Christian values’ crap. Every last one of them is fake beyond imagination. They don’t care about Christ or the church. They care about getting elected. Wow, I agree with BTT!!!

jerry

26   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:51 am

I believe that the more salt the church exhibits will have some effect of society as a whole, even if it is more persecution.

As far as the American thing? You are preaching to the choir here, I am the sargeant at arms in this issue. My good friend Joe C. and I have had some lively exchanges. Watch in the two conventions this year as both parties castigate the other and promise nirvana if elected, and sadly many believers will get caught up in all of it.

27   Neil    
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:02 am

Jerry,

RE: Post #24 – absolutely brilliant!

I would say, though, I may take exception with one phrase, when you say we should have noting to do with the land. If by this you mean the church, or Christianity as an organization – I agree. If, though, you mean any individual Christian (along the Rick Frueh lines) I would disagree.

I think individual Christians have a responsibility and duty to vote… not based on any biblical position, but based on being citizens of the country.

Now, apart from that one phrase, – brilliant my fellow buckeye!

Neil

28   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:06 am

My work is obviously not finished here… :)

29   Neil    
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:19 am

Rick, you are right… while I am completely on board with Jerry (and others) about “Christianity’s” political involvement (particularly in the Middle East); I still do not agree (or even really understand) the position that Christians should not even vote, or have any other involvement in the direction and leadership of their country.

Neil

30   M.G.    
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:38 am

What I fail to understand is the idea that partial withdrawal is possible. Partial withdrawal is just acquiescence.

When you don’t do anything,but still pay taxes, all you do is line up to be counted with the powers that be.

That isn’t withdrawal, just laziness.

31   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:40 am

To think we are losing the nation, we first have to assume that we had it to begin with. Did we? I don’t see it…..

32   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:57 am

This is one of the few things that Rick and I agree on. Well this and the fact he is a genius.

My kingdom is not of this world. I don’t view it as acquiescence but rather submission to the life that Christ has called me to. Pray for the rulers and authorities don’t try to elect them because they fit your flavor of faith.

Laws don’t change the hearts of men. Christ does.

33   M.G.    
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:16 am

Laws don’t need to fit flavors of faith and they certainly don’t need to change hearts. But they can save lives.

I know we live in a trite and cynical time. But if this were 1933 and I could something, yes politically, about Hitler or the Enabling Act, then I would. A failure to do otherwise is a kind of inconsistent fatalism.

34   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:40 am

Neil,

I was thinking about this very thing after I posted my initial response. I mean, if what I have said is true, then perhaps Christians should not vote. But after reading your reply, I thought about it this way: We do not vote because we are Christians specifically or necessarily. We vote because a) it is a civic duty (and Christians are to obey the law except in cases where it places God in a less godlike position) b) we are Americans and can (because people have secured that right for us) and c) we are humans (and we still have to live here like it or not).

We should vote, and I suspect that some people are vocationally called to political positions (i.e. Daniel, Hananiah, Mischael, and Azariah; Nehemiah; Joseph among others). But my point is this: Even the positions they take and policies they affirm must be beneficial to humanity generally and not to Christians specifically. Does that make sense my position? (We might argue that Nehemiah used his position to move Artaxerxes, but methinks a strong argument can be made that his was a unique position and his petition a unique petition.)

jerry

35   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 am

Scotty,

Comments like this: “To think we are losing the nation, we first have to assume that we had it to begin with. Did we? I don’t see it….” Are what get people added to my blogroll at LUBS. This is, I must say, the second most brilliant thing said in this thread or the OP. :)

jerry

36   Neil    
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:02 am

My kingdom is not of this world. I don’t view it as acquiescence but rather submission to the life that Christ has called me to. Pray for the rulers and authorities don’t try to elect them because they fit your flavor of faith.

Yet it’s not like they are mutually exclusive… I too am a citizen of a greater Kingdom, and I try and act like it, live my life according to its standards, and promote and extend it… but that does not mean I cannot also participate in the lesser kingdom of this world in which I am also a citizen.

Neil

37   Neil    
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:04 am

Does that make sense my position? – Jerry

Yes, and I agree wholeheartedly.

Neil

38   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:17 am

I know we live in a trite and cynical time. But if this were 1933 and I could something, yes politically, about Hitler or the Enabling Act, then I would. A failure to do otherwise is a kind of inconsistent fatalism.

Maybe fatalism…but in the long view is not God’s will going to prevail?

I know it may seem that I’m taking a laissez faire approach to my faith and my call as a Christian but I have often struggled with what role should I take in the political system.

To be quite frank I shudder every time I hear a politician say “I’m a Christian” or some variant there of. It just seems to smack in the face of “When you pray don’t…When you fast don’t…” I view my faith as a quiet, prayerful, personal experience that really doesn’t need to be broadcast or displayed to prove my faithfulness to the Gospel.

Does all that make sense?

39   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:37 am

Thanks Jerry, but truth be known, I’ve been taking night classes at Rick Frueh’s school of short quips and profundity.

40   John Hughes    
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:39 am

Jerry: Shall it be the Christianity of Rod Parsley or Jim Wallis or Jerry Falwell or Benny Hinn or Joel Osteen or Doug Pagitt or Brian McClaren or Jerry Hillyer or Rick Frueh or Ken Silva or Richard Abanes or Kirk Cameron or Ray Comfort?

41   John Hughes    
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:41 am

Jerry: Shall it be the Christianity of Rod Parsley or Jim Wallis or Jerry Falwell or Benny Hinn or Joel Osteen or Doug Pagitt or Brian McClaren or Jerry Hillyer or Rick Frueh or Ken Silva or Richard Abanes or Kirk Cameron or Ray Comfort?

I vote for Joel Osteen’s brand. He’ll go along with anything and his wife is hot and knows how to handle pesky lowlifes servant class people.

42   John Hughes    
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:43 am

Scotty: I’ve been taking night classes at Rick Frueh’s school of short quips and profundity.

Me too! Is that you in the corner with the Fedora?

43   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Frankly, I think politicians spend entirely too much time, money, and energy courting the Christian vote. We would be outraged, as Christians, if they spent as much money courting the atheist vote, or the Muslim vote, or the homosexual vote. It’s almost as if these politicians are running for the high office of the church and not of the land.

Well, and the other thing, Jerry, is that it contributes to the overall dumbing down of the electorate as regards real issues, and it’s gotten to the point that when a politician gives a nuanced, thoughtful, detailed answer on an issue, rather than a canned trademarked answer, the media and much of the electorate view that as a weakness. It happened in 2000, it happened in 2004, and it’s happening this year. I’m thinking of the abortion issue in particular right now, but there are these buzz phrases thrown around like “sanctity of life” and “reproductive freedom” (both sides) and rarely is the electorate called on to make informed decisions beyond “My candidate gives the dogwhistle answer to which I’m accustomed, and I don’t care whether or not his/her policies actually work.”

44   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm

To think we are losing the nation, we first have to assume that we had it to begin with. Did we? I don’t see it…..

There are some (revisionist Christian) historians who would argue that Christians “had it.” They are very funny. They idolize Stonewall Jackson with a straight face. Unfortunately, most of them are raising an unreasonable number of children, as well.

One Trackback/Ping

  1. The Church and the ‘Battle for America’ « Life Under the Blue Sky: The View From Below    Aug 22 2008 / 1pm:

    [...] else in the world. As if it was their mission from God to inform the world on the shortcomings [...]The Battle for America?!?Friends, I’m supposed to be on hiatus this week as I begin moving into our new house and all, [...]