There comes a moment in every revolution where the dark secrets of the revolutionaries must come to light. It is therefore necessary for me to come clean. I must confess -- I like Country Music! Which brings me today. As I travel from Houston to Illinois I switch between talk radio and whatever local country station I can find. A new song to me was “The House That Built Me” by Miranda Lambert. The singer goes back to her childhood home hoping to connect with her roots. She hopes that by remembering her roots she would be able to live through the pain in her life. Of course, her home had been filled with love and acceptance.
A democracy (or really any government) will stand only as strong as its basic unit – the family. When the family begins to fall into disarray there is moral drift, and moral drift leads to narcissism and narcissism leads to relativism. When a country embraces relativism there can never be consensus on what is important because importance is determine by the individual. In the confusion those who control power will lead by default and the downfall of a democratic society secured. Society becomes the family and the decisions that are made are for the benefit of the family (often at the expense of the individual).
The only way for American Democracy to survive is to focus on the family, passing laws that support the family, and creating infrastructures that are pro-family. It is within strong families that children learn the moral values of caring, compassion, justice, self-sufficiency, honesty, and community. Yet, there are no easy remedies. The family has been fragmented by a culture that is more interested in producing quality cars than quality kids. Our children grow up with babysitters, sit in front of television, left alone to surf the net, and spend countless hours playing video games. The average teen from 18 to 22 years of age spends 25.6 hours a week on the Internet. I asked some college students about this statistic and they were surprised it was so low.
Most families couldn’t return to a single income family if they wanted to. Because of our insatiable hunger for new and better stuff we don’t have time to build character into the lives our children. In fact we have given that task over to the school system – and the state becomes the parent. I am not calling for a return but to a renewal; a commitment to teach our children the value of hard work, sacrifice, and supporting themselves and eventually their own families. Our culture believes that new is better, but like the scriptures say we need to return to the ancient paths for they are good. Sit down with one of your children today or tomorrow and talk with them about what they would like to see the world to be like and begin teaching them the character necessary to get there.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Paul's Revolution -- Day 8
The Ukrainian parliament was in an uproar. People where fighting, eggs were being thrown, and people being trampled. Is this how civil people behave in a civil society? Of course different cultures do have different ways of interacting politically. The British Parliament is often loud with those on opposite sides yelling in disagreement. In the US there seems to be a little more decorum on the floor with clapping for favorable responses and the occasional booing or even the rare “He’s lying”, but more often then not it is rather boring. A little fisticuffs might liven things up.
How should Christians respond in the midst of political upheaval? After all there is a difference between making your position known passionately and being down right rude. Two passages of scripture, I think, should guide a Christian’s public discourse: 1) Jesus said, “love your enemies and do good to those who persecute you.” 2). “Speak the truth in love.” Yeah, even 3). “Leave room for the wrath of God.”
Jesus’ statement of love towards enemies was directed to Jews who hated and loathed the Roman Empire. It would seem that in Jesus’ mind there was no room for violent revolt but rather of confrontation through love. In this way Christians are to heap burning coals on those who are against them. Love always seeks the other person’s interest above our own, and of course the biggest concern for all non-believers is that they hear the truth of the gospel of Christ.
However, in a Republic such as ours we have the civic responsibility to speak out when we don’t like what the government is doing. The question is how that is done. When the scriptures says that we are to speak the truth it qualifies the tone in which we are to make that declaration – love. Truth stands on its own, and it can be spoken passionately, but if that passion conveys contempt, hate, bitterness, etc., then the believer has crossed the line. I was listening to a TV preacher rail against the President, not in reasoned tones, but in angry mockery. It was a tone that stirred his followers but not one that was for the purpose of reasoned debate, reconciliation, or even redemption. Politics sometimes is a means by which people club others with self-righteous indignation.
The scriptures say that we are not to seek revenge but rather leave room for the wrath of God. As believers speak the truth in love they will face subtle and overt opposition. Some will retaliate with words and others with violence. Believers are to respond in love, hands open, not fists up. Does this mean we should never exhibit righteous indignation? There are times and issues that we should, but because we are constantly wrestling with this sinful flesh we need to be very careful to judge whether our anger is without sin. However, if we leave judgment to God then we can utilize our energies to speak truth in love and move people closer to Christ, and thus, enact real change.
This goes to my final point. President Obama is our president and we should respect the office even if we don’t respect the actions and beliefs of the individual. The scripture says we are to be subject to the governing authority and pray for them. Dare I add that we should speak with kindness and respect and give the President his due. We would ask no less from others if a true Christian conservative were in the Whitehouse. Can there really be civility in a civilized nation? Christians need to lead the way.
How should Christians respond in the midst of political upheaval? After all there is a difference between making your position known passionately and being down right rude. Two passages of scripture, I think, should guide a Christian’s public discourse: 1) Jesus said, “love your enemies and do good to those who persecute you.” 2). “Speak the truth in love.” Yeah, even 3). “Leave room for the wrath of God.”
Jesus’ statement of love towards enemies was directed to Jews who hated and loathed the Roman Empire. It would seem that in Jesus’ mind there was no room for violent revolt but rather of confrontation through love. In this way Christians are to heap burning coals on those who are against them. Love always seeks the other person’s interest above our own, and of course the biggest concern for all non-believers is that they hear the truth of the gospel of Christ.
However, in a Republic such as ours we have the civic responsibility to speak out when we don’t like what the government is doing. The question is how that is done. When the scriptures says that we are to speak the truth it qualifies the tone in which we are to make that declaration – love. Truth stands on its own, and it can be spoken passionately, but if that passion conveys contempt, hate, bitterness, etc., then the believer has crossed the line. I was listening to a TV preacher rail against the President, not in reasoned tones, but in angry mockery. It was a tone that stirred his followers but not one that was for the purpose of reasoned debate, reconciliation, or even redemption. Politics sometimes is a means by which people club others with self-righteous indignation.
The scriptures say that we are not to seek revenge but rather leave room for the wrath of God. As believers speak the truth in love they will face subtle and overt opposition. Some will retaliate with words and others with violence. Believers are to respond in love, hands open, not fists up. Does this mean we should never exhibit righteous indignation? There are times and issues that we should, but because we are constantly wrestling with this sinful flesh we need to be very careful to judge whether our anger is without sin. However, if we leave judgment to God then we can utilize our energies to speak truth in love and move people closer to Christ, and thus, enact real change.
This goes to my final point. President Obama is our president and we should respect the office even if we don’t respect the actions and beliefs of the individual. The scripture says we are to be subject to the governing authority and pray for them. Dare I add that we should speak with kindness and respect and give the President his due. We would ask no less from others if a true Christian conservative were in the Whitehouse. Can there really be civility in a civilized nation? Christians need to lead the way.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Paul’s Revolution – Day 7
Trying to maintain a revolution while packing to move isn’t easy. There are so many interruptions. It makes one wonder how any revolution got off the ground. Right when I think I am ready to move forward Rebecca calls me to take out the trash. Even revolutionaries have to do household chores.
One reader has asked: Even if President Obama doesn’t conform to biblical Christian ideals, does that mean there isn’t anything that he does good that Christians can work with?
The Scripture says that God has established every government. God raises and brings down governments according to His will and plan. Especially in the Old Testament we see that God uses pagan governments to accomplish his plan. Of course most of the time he uses them as a tool of judgment or discipline on His people Israel. It is God’s sovereignty that provides hope when Christians have lived under repressive regimes.
The United States is unique (democratic governments in general) in all of history. The scriptures were written in a time when Christians had little or no say in the affairs of government and therefore their obedience to their authority (as long as it did not conflict with God’s will) was an example of their obedience to God. Today, however, we live in a country where we have the right to voice our praise or objections as part of our obligations as citizens. Christians have an opportunity to participate and shape the type of civil and political culture in which we want to live. If we retreat from this participation then we have no right to voice disapproval about things we don’t like, but as we participate we have a right to be heard and have our views considered.
The challenge is that in this form of government we are brought together with others who do not have our belief system or moral convictions. How do you work to accomplish the common good with people who do not have the same convictions? The one extreme is to take the passage that says we are not to be unequally yoked to mean that we should isolate ourselves from all those who think and believe differently and form small Christians communes. The other extreme is to embrace (tolerate) everything because peace is of greater value than moral and theological purity. Neither, really, is acceptable. Christians are called to live in the world and not be of the world, which means there is a constant tension we have to endure while trying to create change for all.
Ultimately, as Christians, our goal is to bring the good news of Christ to all that they might come to know the Father through Jesus’ redemptive act. To truly have a moral culture a changed life in Christ is the only remedy. We can legislate morality but that won’t change people (though laws are important to stem the tide of evil). So, are there things that pagan people bring to the table that are good and useful to a civilized society? The answer is (drum roll please) – Yes. All truth is God’s truth and there is much that can be learned from those outside the faith. So while working with unbelievers to better our society we need to live within the tension that the good they have to offer will only be of temporary value, because unredeemed man will always spiral into sin and destruction. It is the proclamation of the gospel that will truly bring about a changed culture. Jesus said he came to bring a sword. I believe what he meant was that the gospel is so radical that those who oppose it will ultimately do so with hatred and vengeance. Those who put themselves in the public forum and hold true to the gospel will always find themselves being attacked. But blessed are those who are hated for His Name sake.
One reader has asked: Even if President Obama doesn’t conform to biblical Christian ideals, does that mean there isn’t anything that he does good that Christians can work with?
The Scripture says that God has established every government. God raises and brings down governments according to His will and plan. Especially in the Old Testament we see that God uses pagan governments to accomplish his plan. Of course most of the time he uses them as a tool of judgment or discipline on His people Israel. It is God’s sovereignty that provides hope when Christians have lived under repressive regimes.
The United States is unique (democratic governments in general) in all of history. The scriptures were written in a time when Christians had little or no say in the affairs of government and therefore their obedience to their authority (as long as it did not conflict with God’s will) was an example of their obedience to God. Today, however, we live in a country where we have the right to voice our praise or objections as part of our obligations as citizens. Christians have an opportunity to participate and shape the type of civil and political culture in which we want to live. If we retreat from this participation then we have no right to voice disapproval about things we don’t like, but as we participate we have a right to be heard and have our views considered.
The challenge is that in this form of government we are brought together with others who do not have our belief system or moral convictions. How do you work to accomplish the common good with people who do not have the same convictions? The one extreme is to take the passage that says we are not to be unequally yoked to mean that we should isolate ourselves from all those who think and believe differently and form small Christians communes. The other extreme is to embrace (tolerate) everything because peace is of greater value than moral and theological purity. Neither, really, is acceptable. Christians are called to live in the world and not be of the world, which means there is a constant tension we have to endure while trying to create change for all.
Ultimately, as Christians, our goal is to bring the good news of Christ to all that they might come to know the Father through Jesus’ redemptive act. To truly have a moral culture a changed life in Christ is the only remedy. We can legislate morality but that won’t change people (though laws are important to stem the tide of evil). So, are there things that pagan people bring to the table that are good and useful to a civilized society? The answer is (drum roll please) – Yes. All truth is God’s truth and there is much that can be learned from those outside the faith. So while working with unbelievers to better our society we need to live within the tension that the good they have to offer will only be of temporary value, because unredeemed man will always spiral into sin and destruction. It is the proclamation of the gospel that will truly bring about a changed culture. Jesus said he came to bring a sword. I believe what he meant was that the gospel is so radical that those who oppose it will ultimately do so with hatred and vengeance. Those who put themselves in the public forum and hold true to the gospel will always find themselves being attacked. But blessed are those who are hated for His Name sake.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Paul's Revolution -- Day 6
Is President Obama the Antichrist Part 2
A friend of mine asked a very good question: “I'm curious which policies/words from Obama make him an antichrist.”
A lot of the material out about President Obama as ‘the’ Antichrist is fabricated based on numerology, scriptural speculation, and political bias, so when I said that President Obama is ‘an’ antichrist what did I mean by that, and what policies and statements support this claim. The Apostle John wrote, “Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22, NIV). So the question is what does President Obama believe about the Son of God? President Obama said, “Jesus is a historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher. And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.” As Senator Barack Obama told an audience that although he believes Christ died for his sins, those who reject that teaching can also be children of God. On the surface it would seem that the President affirms the crucial doctrine of salvation through the forgiving grace of Christ, the mediator between God and man.
The problem occurs on two fronts. The first front is his attempt to be inclusive of other faiths. Jesus says that He is the only way to God. As such that means those who do not believe are not his children. In fact the scriptures say that they are his enemies, as we who believe once were. If the President means that we are all children because we have been created in God’s likeness that is a nice sentiment but not a biblical one. A people who hold that view believe that other faiths can lead them to God. God’s children are those who are born of faith in Christ. It would seem that the President affirms a faith that he culturally inherited and leans on when politically expedient. In addressing a University in Cairo, Egypt, the President acknowledged his Christianity, but raised the Muslim faith to the same level as the Christian faith. In other words, “My faith is good for me, your faith is good for you, let’s just get along.” As Christians we are called to be ambassadors for Christ and do everything possible to bring the truth of Christ to a lost world.
The second front deals with policy decisions. When Peter told Jesus that he would do everything in his power to keep Jesus from going to the cross, Jesus scolded him and said, “Get behind me Satan!” Those were harsh words, and very revealing. Jesus said that if we love Him we would obey him and if we promote that which is immoral then we are not promoting His agenda but the agenda of Satan. So, as I look at policy decisions made by the President I see that he has supported abortion rights and gay rights in particular. These are not in line with biblical teaching. They are anti-Christian. Now one could say that the President isn’t personally for these things and in a pluralistic society we all have the right to live how we chose and therefore he supports people’s freedom and not the actions themselves. As Christians obedience to the commands of God is a higher calling then the individual’s right to sinful action. The President is either for Christ (and votes that way) or he is against Christ (antichrist) and supports the ‘right’ of people to be immoral.
It isn’t easy for a Christian to be the President because if you stand on biblical principles you will be labeled intolerant, bigoted, and narrow minded. It would be difficult to bring people together because the gospel repels the darkness. So, either the President becomes a beacon of biblical light or he deludes his faith into irrelevance. I believe that President Obama has chosen the latter
A friend of mine asked a very good question: “I'm curious which policies/words from Obama make him an antichrist.”
A lot of the material out about President Obama as ‘the’ Antichrist is fabricated based on numerology, scriptural speculation, and political bias, so when I said that President Obama is ‘an’ antichrist what did I mean by that, and what policies and statements support this claim. The Apostle John wrote, “Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22, NIV). So the question is what does President Obama believe about the Son of God? President Obama said, “Jesus is a historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher. And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.” As Senator Barack Obama told an audience that although he believes Christ died for his sins, those who reject that teaching can also be children of God. On the surface it would seem that the President affirms the crucial doctrine of salvation through the forgiving grace of Christ, the mediator between God and man.
The problem occurs on two fronts. The first front is his attempt to be inclusive of other faiths. Jesus says that He is the only way to God. As such that means those who do not believe are not his children. In fact the scriptures say that they are his enemies, as we who believe once were. If the President means that we are all children because we have been created in God’s likeness that is a nice sentiment but not a biblical one. A people who hold that view believe that other faiths can lead them to God. God’s children are those who are born of faith in Christ. It would seem that the President affirms a faith that he culturally inherited and leans on when politically expedient. In addressing a University in Cairo, Egypt, the President acknowledged his Christianity, but raised the Muslim faith to the same level as the Christian faith. In other words, “My faith is good for me, your faith is good for you, let’s just get along.” As Christians we are called to be ambassadors for Christ and do everything possible to bring the truth of Christ to a lost world.
The second front deals with policy decisions. When Peter told Jesus that he would do everything in his power to keep Jesus from going to the cross, Jesus scolded him and said, “Get behind me Satan!” Those were harsh words, and very revealing. Jesus said that if we love Him we would obey him and if we promote that which is immoral then we are not promoting His agenda but the agenda of Satan. So, as I look at policy decisions made by the President I see that he has supported abortion rights and gay rights in particular. These are not in line with biblical teaching. They are anti-Christian. Now one could say that the President isn’t personally for these things and in a pluralistic society we all have the right to live how we chose and therefore he supports people’s freedom and not the actions themselves. As Christians obedience to the commands of God is a higher calling then the individual’s right to sinful action. The President is either for Christ (and votes that way) or he is against Christ (antichrist) and supports the ‘right’ of people to be immoral.
It isn’t easy for a Christian to be the President because if you stand on biblical principles you will be labeled intolerant, bigoted, and narrow minded. It would be difficult to bring people together because the gospel repels the darkness. So, either the President becomes a beacon of biblical light or he deludes his faith into irrelevance. I believe that President Obama has chosen the latter
Friday, April 23, 2010
Paul's Revolution -- Day 4
Today’s revolution comes as I participate in the bedrock of our capitalist economy – I am having a garage sale. Things must be priced right because people are buying. Of course I might be underselling myself – no problem there is always a bailout right around the corner.
Today’s question is an interesting one. It asks, “In what ways has the government strayed too far in applying biblical principals of helping those in need?”
We have to start by asking what is the biblical principal of helping those in need. Because I can’t be comprehensive here let me make some foundational statements and then briefly expound.
1. Jesus said the poor will be with us always.
2. Believers are to take care of true widows and orphans.
3. Those who don’t work don’t eat.
4. Believers are to bear one anothers burdens.
5. Everyone is to carry their own load.
It is incumbent of the Christian community to take care of those who are in need first within the church and then if possible those outside the church. There is a fine balance between helping people and enabling people. If the church’s (or the government’s) actions create a culture where people feel they have a right to other people’s resources because they don’t ‘have’ as much then we have not taught them to be self-sufficient to carry their own load.
What has happened in American culture is that what begins as a helping hand turns into an entitled right. After the great depression social security was designed to be a safety net that would assist people in their retired years. From my understanding it was never to be a complete, all encompassing, retirement plan. Yes, it is a safety net, but too many people expect it to be ample enough to carry them to their graves. Social Security has become an entitlement, and in this instance rightly so since the government has taken the money compulsory from the workers paycheck. They are entitled to their money. What they are not entitled to is to have every need taken care of.
With welfare, unemployment, medicare/caid, and now health care the government has become a nanny state seeing as its responsibility the care of those who ‘can’t’ take care of themselves. Is this a bad thing? Yes and no. It is not bad that people in the government want to take care of those who are need. But centralized bureaucracies as big as the US will only create dependency, disillusionment, and an uncaring institutionalized environment. The constitution says the government is to promote the common welfare. However, big government doesn’t promote the welfare of the people but rather creates an environment that is hostile to families, small communities, cities and states. True care comes when individuals in a community band together for the common good of all, helping those in need by standing with them as they are able to stand on their own. At any time if the government promotes another way then, in my humble opinion, it has strayed from biblical principles.
Tomorrow: Someone has asked me to view and comment on videos showing that President Obama is the Anti-Christ.
Join the revolution at http://cravesomethingmore.blogspot.com/ and follow the blog.
Today’s question is an interesting one. It asks, “In what ways has the government strayed too far in applying biblical principals of helping those in need?”
We have to start by asking what is the biblical principal of helping those in need. Because I can’t be comprehensive here let me make some foundational statements and then briefly expound.
1. Jesus said the poor will be with us always.
2. Believers are to take care of true widows and orphans.
3. Those who don’t work don’t eat.
4. Believers are to bear one anothers burdens.
5. Everyone is to carry their own load.
It is incumbent of the Christian community to take care of those who are in need first within the church and then if possible those outside the church. There is a fine balance between helping people and enabling people. If the church’s (or the government’s) actions create a culture where people feel they have a right to other people’s resources because they don’t ‘have’ as much then we have not taught them to be self-sufficient to carry their own load.
What has happened in American culture is that what begins as a helping hand turns into an entitled right. After the great depression social security was designed to be a safety net that would assist people in their retired years. From my understanding it was never to be a complete, all encompassing, retirement plan. Yes, it is a safety net, but too many people expect it to be ample enough to carry them to their graves. Social Security has become an entitlement, and in this instance rightly so since the government has taken the money compulsory from the workers paycheck. They are entitled to their money. What they are not entitled to is to have every need taken care of.
With welfare, unemployment, medicare/caid, and now health care the government has become a nanny state seeing as its responsibility the care of those who ‘can’t’ take care of themselves. Is this a bad thing? Yes and no. It is not bad that people in the government want to take care of those who are need. But centralized bureaucracies as big as the US will only create dependency, disillusionment, and an uncaring institutionalized environment. The constitution says the government is to promote the common welfare. However, big government doesn’t promote the welfare of the people but rather creates an environment that is hostile to families, small communities, cities and states. True care comes when individuals in a community band together for the common good of all, helping those in need by standing with them as they are able to stand on their own. At any time if the government promotes another way then, in my humble opinion, it has strayed from biblical principles.
Tomorrow: Someone has asked me to view and comment on videos showing that President Obama is the Anti-Christ.
Join the revolution at http://cravesomethingmore.blogspot.com/ and follow the blog.
Paul's Revolution -- Day 5
Revolutions don’t stop because of rain, but it puts a hamper on my garage sale. Did well yesterday bringing in enough to almost buy that IPad! What, Rebecca? Oh, I don’t get the IPad? Then I’m just going to go back to my Revolution (huff).
Yesterday I was asked to review some of the many YouTube videos revealing a startling, if not disturbing, “reality” that President Obama is in fact the Antichrist. I have to say that the videos were interesting. Their ability to connect the dots was impressive and alarming. But I couldn’t help but think back to the Star Trek Voyager episode where 7 of 9 was afflicted with some illness that made her paranoid and she began to randomly connect details of the ships crew which formulated into a conflict between Chacote and Captain Janeway. Almost destroyed the ship. Fortunately they were able to resolve everything within 60 minutes.
So, what does this mean for President Obama, is he the Antichrist? Whenever suffering occurs or someone promotes and agenda that is against the general principles of scripture there are those who cry that the end is near. The first century Christians did it with Nero (who was probably more like the Anti Christ than any of the others), Pope John Paul, JKF, the Clintons (Hillary still scares me), and now President Obama. The Apostle John makes these statements.
“For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist…Just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared.”
There will be THE Antichrist but we don’t know who he will be or when he will arrive on the scene. But there are many antichrists in our midst, those who deny Jesus coming in the flesh, those who fight against Christian beliefs, and those who would like to see the name of Christ obliterated. Every generation has these antichrists. One of these days Satan will raise one of them up as a puppet to wreak havoc on the world. The Apostle John writes about the antichrist so that the believers will not be deceived. He wants them to stand in the truth and their faith in their savior, Jesus. So it is important for us as well to stand on the truth that Jesus has come in the flesh and through faith in his death and resurrection we can have eternal life. There are many antichrists in our midst. They are our neighbors, our coworkers, politicians, and, sadly, our family members. Any of these can lead us from the truth if we are not careful. We need to stand on the promises and precepts of the scripture.
I will say, from what I have read and heard, that President Obama is an antichrist. His policies, behaviors, and statements do not conform to the gospel of truth, but rather are designed to promote false beliefs and diminish the gospel. There is a snake in our midst. The dots that have been connected to ‘prove’ that he is THE antichrist are interesting and antidotal, but are based, not on the scriptures, but man’s ability to manipulate data. Yet……
Follow the Revolution at: http://cravesomethingmore.blogspot.com/
Yesterday I was asked to review some of the many YouTube videos revealing a startling, if not disturbing, “reality” that President Obama is in fact the Antichrist. I have to say that the videos were interesting. Their ability to connect the dots was impressive and alarming. But I couldn’t help but think back to the Star Trek Voyager episode where 7 of 9 was afflicted with some illness that made her paranoid and she began to randomly connect details of the ships crew which formulated into a conflict between Chacote and Captain Janeway. Almost destroyed the ship. Fortunately they were able to resolve everything within 60 minutes.
So, what does this mean for President Obama, is he the Antichrist? Whenever suffering occurs or someone promotes and agenda that is against the general principles of scripture there are those who cry that the end is near. The first century Christians did it with Nero (who was probably more like the Anti Christ than any of the others), Pope John Paul, JKF, the Clintons (Hillary still scares me), and now President Obama. The Apostle John makes these statements.
“For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist…Just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared.”
There will be THE Antichrist but we don’t know who he will be or when he will arrive on the scene. But there are many antichrists in our midst, those who deny Jesus coming in the flesh, those who fight against Christian beliefs, and those who would like to see the name of Christ obliterated. Every generation has these antichrists. One of these days Satan will raise one of them up as a puppet to wreak havoc on the world. The Apostle John writes about the antichrist so that the believers will not be deceived. He wants them to stand in the truth and their faith in their savior, Jesus. So it is important for us as well to stand on the truth that Jesus has come in the flesh and through faith in his death and resurrection we can have eternal life. There are many antichrists in our midst. They are our neighbors, our coworkers, politicians, and, sadly, our family members. Any of these can lead us from the truth if we are not careful. We need to stand on the promises and precepts of the scripture.
I will say, from what I have read and heard, that President Obama is an antichrist. His policies, behaviors, and statements do not conform to the gospel of truth, but rather are designed to promote false beliefs and diminish the gospel. There is a snake in our midst. The dots that have been connected to ‘prove’ that he is THE antichrist are interesting and antidotal, but are based, not on the scriptures, but man’s ability to manipulate data. Yet……
Follow the Revolution at: http://cravesomethingmore.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Paul's Revolution -- Day 3
Today was to be preamble day for my manifesto, but a couple of questions have been asked that need to be addressed. I will deal with the first one today and the second tomorrow.
Question: On what basis do you say that America is a Christian nation? Another way of asking the question - if Jesus were to give an assessment of Christ like behavior, what would he say?
In a strict theocratic since America has never been a Christian nation. I think it is fair to say, however, that the founding fathers, living at a time when the majority of people had a Christian consensus, utilized the Scriptures as a framework for establishing human dignity, God given rights, and the need for law. They did not apply this equally across the board (Slavery and native Americans) but it laid a foundation to deal with their inconsistencies later. And though many of the framers were Christian they were very careful not to use Christian language in the writing of the Constitution, though they acknowledged God’s providential hand in all that they did.
Since its inception the US has been influenced by spiritual men who believed that God’s plan was good and should be followed as closely as possible. That does not mean that all men were equally spiritual and that they lived righteous lives. Yet, there was a greater sense that ‘religion’ was important to the life of the community. The same sins that have always plagued men bit at the heels of men in the US from the beginning until now. The difference between then and now is that in the past evil behavior was considered sinful, even by those who lived unrighteously. Part of that was an acknowledgment of God and part was the imposition of public shame. Today there is not a consensus of either. In the past, because religion was important, communities, large and small, attempted to live out their religion locally and dealt with issues of law and compassion as a community problem and people contributed as they saw fit. The church was a central part of these activities and the Pastor a guiding force.
Today the church is not longer central and it would be safe to say that Public Schools have become more influential in developing attitudes about life and community. As schools have become more centralized in government and God removed from them the moral temperature of the country has fallen. And though there are many other influences to the moral degradation of the US, the public school system has become a battleground for liberal humanistic philosophies. This has made being a Christian teacher both difficult and important. I would dare to venture that the smaller the community the greater its moral influence of the school system.
Today there is no more moral consensus and whatever Christlikeness was evident in the beginning has been eroded by humanism. We are no longer guided by righteousness but by polls, opinions, fear, and guilt. When there is no standard of Truth the people will lose their way. Jesus’ assessment? Not good. That is why we need a savior.
Tomorrow’s Question: In what ways has the government strayed too far in applying biblical principals of helping those in need?
Question: On what basis do you say that America is a Christian nation? Another way of asking the question - if Jesus were to give an assessment of Christ like behavior, what would he say?
In a strict theocratic since America has never been a Christian nation. I think it is fair to say, however, that the founding fathers, living at a time when the majority of people had a Christian consensus, utilized the Scriptures as a framework for establishing human dignity, God given rights, and the need for law. They did not apply this equally across the board (Slavery and native Americans) but it laid a foundation to deal with their inconsistencies later. And though many of the framers were Christian they were very careful not to use Christian language in the writing of the Constitution, though they acknowledged God’s providential hand in all that they did.
Since its inception the US has been influenced by spiritual men who believed that God’s plan was good and should be followed as closely as possible. That does not mean that all men were equally spiritual and that they lived righteous lives. Yet, there was a greater sense that ‘religion’ was important to the life of the community. The same sins that have always plagued men bit at the heels of men in the US from the beginning until now. The difference between then and now is that in the past evil behavior was considered sinful, even by those who lived unrighteously. Part of that was an acknowledgment of God and part was the imposition of public shame. Today there is not a consensus of either. In the past, because religion was important, communities, large and small, attempted to live out their religion locally and dealt with issues of law and compassion as a community problem and people contributed as they saw fit. The church was a central part of these activities and the Pastor a guiding force.
Today the church is not longer central and it would be safe to say that Public Schools have become more influential in developing attitudes about life and community. As schools have become more centralized in government and God removed from them the moral temperature of the country has fallen. And though there are many other influences to the moral degradation of the US, the public school system has become a battleground for liberal humanistic philosophies. This has made being a Christian teacher both difficult and important. I would dare to venture that the smaller the community the greater its moral influence of the school system.
Today there is no more moral consensus and whatever Christlikeness was evident in the beginning has been eroded by humanism. We are no longer guided by righteousness but by polls, opinions, fear, and guilt. When there is no standard of Truth the people will lose their way. Jesus’ assessment? Not good. That is why we need a savior.
Tomorrow’s Question: In what ways has the government strayed too far in applying biblical principals of helping those in need?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Paul's Revolution -- Day 2
Let’s face it; my revolution has had a slow start. Most of the time it feels like I am shouting at a hurricane telling it to stop blowing its wind at me. No one hears and no one listens, of course, this is all new to me. Though I am patriotic (I cry when the national anthem plays for a medalist at the Olympics and weep when flag draped coffins come home) I have not been an overtly flag waving American. As the scripture says my citizenship is a heavenly one and I find it difficult to pledge loyalty to two different entities. My wife reminds me that I pledge allegiance to a country under God. That’s the rub isn’t it? Is America a country under God, and if not where does my loyalty begin and end? Jesus acknowledges the reality of living in this world and the need to render to Cesar what belongs to him. Jesus doesn’t want our money He wants something deeper and more costly – our lives. Yet, we don’t live our lives in a vacuum, and unless we are going to take the church community into the remote parts of the world and seclude ourselves from everyone else we do have to function within the greater ‘world’ community.
At the core of the gospel is God’s grace poured out on sinful man through the sacrifice of His son on our behalf. Through faith we appropriate that grace. That grace is then played out as we demonstrate love and care to other people. There is, however, a communal aspect of the gospel that reaches out to those in need, the down trodden, the weak, oppressed, and disenfranchised. We call this social justice. God often disciplined Israel when they neglected their responsibility to those in need.
Because the United States has its roots in a Judeo/Christian ethic there is a strong sense to take care of the socially disinclined. However, as it wanders further from those beginnings how it achieves this end becomes muddled with philosophies that are in conflict with those roots. In the media today (conservative talk radio) you would think that the only reason liberals do anything is to gain or retain power (are conservatives much better?). I hate to be so cynical. I would like to think that their motives are genuine, though misguided. The tension is between conflicting philosophies of the distribution of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Revolutions are marked by what they are for and what they are against. I am for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (within the context of a biblical worldview) and I am against that which limits this pursuit by the imposition of governmental constraints that unduly forces me to conform to a philosophical framework that is antithetical to my core beliefs.
This may call for a Manifesto. I wonder if I have to write that from prison. Revolutionaries seem to end up there.
At the core of the gospel is God’s grace poured out on sinful man through the sacrifice of His son on our behalf. Through faith we appropriate that grace. That grace is then played out as we demonstrate love and care to other people. There is, however, a communal aspect of the gospel that reaches out to those in need, the down trodden, the weak, oppressed, and disenfranchised. We call this social justice. God often disciplined Israel when they neglected their responsibility to those in need.
Because the United States has its roots in a Judeo/Christian ethic there is a strong sense to take care of the socially disinclined. However, as it wanders further from those beginnings how it achieves this end becomes muddled with philosophies that are in conflict with those roots. In the media today (conservative talk radio) you would think that the only reason liberals do anything is to gain or retain power (are conservatives much better?). I hate to be so cynical. I would like to think that their motives are genuine, though misguided. The tension is between conflicting philosophies of the distribution of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Revolutions are marked by what they are for and what they are against. I am for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (within the context of a biblical worldview) and I am against that which limits this pursuit by the imposition of governmental constraints that unduly forces me to conform to a philosophical framework that is antithetical to my core beliefs.
This may call for a Manifesto. I wonder if I have to write that from prison. Revolutionaries seem to end up there.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Starting A Revolution
Frogs in slow boiling water always die. They rarely realize that death is happening and kind of feel good about it until it is too late. In the economic and political climate of today many are beginning to wake up to the slow boiling pot. The ever-increasing taxation and intrusion of our government has riled up a segment of American culture who are speaking out and calling for change. Both democratic and republican politicians have been to blame. They have their own causes, their own ideals, and they are willing to sacrifice the freedoms and liberties that Americans have enjoyed for over 200 years to accomplish their own agendas.
When I work twice as hard to make half as much because the government has their hands in my pocket something is wrong. Only one hand fits in my pocket at a time and when I reach in and find it empty I know that Uncle Sam has already been there and I feel violated. There has been a lot of discussion about gas prices, the home mortgage crisis, the cost of goods and services, etc. Gas prices are high because of taxes, I can’t afford my home because half my mortgage each month goes to taxes, I can’t go out and purchase items because retail taxes go up to pay for professional sports stadiums and other projects to “boost” the economy (of course I can’t afford to go to the games).
John Lenin (of the Beatles for those whose music history is limited) wrote, “Revolution ------ we all want to change the world”. I am on the verge of starting my own revolution. Revolutions seem to begin when people feel disenfranchised by those who are in power. And when those disenfranchised feel that peaceful demonstration or political activism falls on deaf ears they revolt. Revolts can take on different forms. They can be passive, “I won’t do that,” or they are active, “I will force you to change”. However, I have a dilemma.
The Scriptures say, “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God…for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil” (Romans 14:1ff, NASB 2005).
The Apostle Paul was talking about a highly repressive Roman government. There was no individual freedom, especially for non-Roman citizens. So, how does this apply today? And how does it apply to a government that espouses public participation and even encourages revolution when the laws of the country no longer exist for the public good? And how do you determine which laws have been established for the good of the people and which are imposed on the people for political purposes? Do you see my dilemma?
All I know is that the water is a little warmer than I want it to be and if I am not careful I am going to boil to death while I enjoy its illusory comfort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)