← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust
Thread ID: 4361 | Posts: 39 | Started: 2003-01-07
2003-01-07 21:46 | User Profile
[url=http://www.freecongress.org/misc/990216ltr.asp]Free Congress Foundation[/url]
Dear Friend:
Late last year, I had the opportunity of speaking to the Conservative Leadership Conference on the state of the conservative movement. Iââ¬â¢ve given similar talks in the past, and usually they have focused on the most recent election or our situation in Congress or something similar. This time, the thoughts I offered were very different, and frankly rather radical. The strong, positive response they brought forth ââ¬â which came as something of a surprise to me ââ¬â has led me to think that I should share them more widely. That is the purpose of this letter.
What many of us have been trying to do for many years has been based upon a couple of premises. First of all, we have assumed that a majority of Americans basically agrees with our point of view. That has been the premise upon which we have tried to build any number of institutions, and indeed our whole strategy. It is I who suggested to Jerry Falwell that he call his organization the "Moral Majority." The second premise has been that if we could just elect enough conservatives, we could get our people in as Congressional leaders and they would fight to implement our agenda.
In looking at the long history of conservative politics, from the defeat of Robert Taft in 1952, to the nomination of Barry Goldwater, to the takeover of the Republican Party in 1994, I think it is fair to say that conservatives have learned to succeed in politics. That is, we got our people elected.
But that did not result in the adoption of our agenda. The reason, I think, is that politics itself has failed. And politics has failed because of the collapse of the culture. The culture we are living in becomes an ever-wider sewer. In truth, I think we are caught up in a cultural collapse of historic proportions, a collapse so great that it simply overwhelms politics.
Thatââ¬â¢s why I am in the process of rethinking what it is that we, who still believe in our traditional, Western, Judeo-Christian culture, can and should do under the circumstances. Please understand that I am not quarreling with anybody who pursues politics, because it is important to pursue politics, to be involved in government. It is also important to try, as many people have, to re-take the cultural institutions that have been captured by the other side.
But it is impossible to ignore the fact that the United States is becoming an ideological state. The ideology of Political Correctness, which openly calls for the destruction of our traditional culture, has so gripped the body politic, has so gripped our institutions, that it is even affecting the Church. It has completely taken over the academic community. It is now pervasive in the entertainment industry, and it threatens to control literally every aspect of our lives.
Those who came up with Political Correctness, which we more accurately call "Cultural Marxism," did so in a deliberate fashion. Iââ¬â¢m not going to go into the whole history of the Frankfurt School and Herbert Marcuse and the other people responsible for this. Suffice it to say that the United States is very close to becoming a state totally dominated by an alien ideology, an ideology bitterly hostile to Western culture. Even now, for the first time in their lives, people have to be afraid of what they say. This has never been true in the history of our country. Yet today, if you say the "wrong thing," you suddenly have legal problems, political problems, you might even lose your job or be expelled from college. Certain topics are forbidden. You canââ¬â¢t approach the truth about a lot of different subjects. If you do, you are immediately branded as "racist", "sexist", "homophobic", "insensitive", or "judgmental."
Cultural Marxism is succeeding in its war against our culture. The question becomes, if we are unable to escape the cultural disintegration that is gripping society, then what hope can we have? Let me be perfectly frank about it. If there really were a moral majority out there, Bill Clinton would have been driven out of office months ago. It is not only the lack of political will on the part of Republicans, although that is part of the problem. More powerful is the fact that what Americans would have found absolutely intolerable only a few years ago, a majority now not only tolerates but celebrates. Americans have adopted, in large measure, the MTV culture that we so valiantly opposed just a few years ago, and it has permeated the thinking of all but those who have separated themselves from the contemporary culture.
If in Washington State and Colorado, after we have spent years talking about partial birth abortion, we canââ¬â¢t by referendum pass a ban on it, we have to face some unpleasant facts. I no longer believe that there is a moral majority. I do not believe that a majority of Americans actually shares our values.
So, I have contemplated the question of what we should do. If you saw my predictions on the elections, you know that my views are far from infallible. Therefore, I do not represent this as any sort of final truth. It is merely my deduction based on a number of observations and a good deal of soul-searching.
I believe that we probably have lost the culture war. That doesnââ¬â¢t mean the war is not going to continue, and that it isnââ¬â¢t going to be fought on other fronts. But in terms of society in general, we have lost. This is why, even when we win in politics, our victories fail to translate into the kind of policies we believe are important.
Therefore, what seems to me a legitimate strategy for us to follow is to look at ways to separate ourselves from the institutions that have been captured by the ideology of Political Correctness, or by other enemies of our traditional culture. I would point out to you that the word "holy" means "set apart", and that it is not against our tradition to be, in fact, "set apart". You can look in the Old Testament, you can look at Christian history. You will see that there were times when those who had our beliefs were definitely in the minority and it was a band of hardy monks who preserved the culture while the surrounding society disintegrated.
What I mean by separation is, for example, what the homeschoolers have done. Faced with public school systems that no longer educate but instead "condition" students with the attitudes demanded by Political Correctness, they have seceded. They have separated themselves from public schools and have created new institutions, new schools, in their homes.
The same thing is happening in other areas. Some people are getting rid of their televisions. Others are setting up private courts, where they can hope to find justice instead of ideology and greed.
I think that we have to look at a whole series of possibilities for bypassing the institutions that are controlled by the enemy. If we expend our energies on fighting on the "turf" they already control, we will probably not accomplish what we hope, and we may spend ourselves to the point of exhaustion. The promising thing about a strategy of separation is that it has more to do with who we are, and what we become, than it does with what the other side is doing and what we are going to do about it.
For example, the Southern Baptists, Dr. Dobson and some other people started a boycott of Disney. We may regard this boycott in two ways. We might say, "Well, look at how much higher Disney stock is than before. The company made record profits, therefore the boycott has failed." But the strategy Iââ¬â¢m suggesting would see it differently. Because of that boycott, lots of people who otherwise would have been poisoned by the kind of viciously anti-religious, and specifically anti-Christian, entertainment that Disney is spewing out these days have been spared contact with it. They separated themselves from some of the cultural rot, and to that extent we succeeded.
I am very concerned, as I go around the country and speak and talk to young people, when I find how much of the decadent culture they have absorbed without even understanding that they are a part of it. And while Iââ¬â¢m not suggesting that we all become Amish or move to Idaho, I do think that we have to look at what we can do to separate ourselves from this hostile culture. What steps can we take to make sure that we and our children are not infected? We need some sort of quarantine.
It is not only political conservatives who are troubled by the disintegration of the culture. I gave a speech not long ago in which I was very critical of what was on television. Several people who described themselves as liberals came up to me and said "Well, I know I donââ¬â¢t agree with your politics, but you are absolutely correct on this and we donââ¬â¢t allow our children to watch television any more."
Donââ¬â¢t be mislead by politicians who say that everything is great, that we are on the verge of this wonderful, new era thanks to technology or the stock market or whatever. These are lies. We are not in the dawn of a new civilization, but the twilight of an old one. We will be lucky if we escape with any remnants of the great Judeo-Christian civilization that we have known down through the ages.
The radicals of the 1960s had three slogans: turn on, tune in, drop out. I suggest that we adopt a modified version. First, turn off. Turn off the television and video games and some of the garbage thatââ¬â¢s on the computers. Turn off the means by which you and your family are being infected with cultural decadence.
Tune out. Create a little stillness. I was very struck by the fact that when I traveled in the former Soviet Union, I couldnââ¬â¢t go to a restaurant or any place else without hearing this incessant Western rock music pounding away. There was no escape from it. No wonder some Russians are anti-American. When they think of the United States, they think of the culture that we exported to them.
Finally, we need to drop out of this culture, and find places, even if it is where we physically are right now, where we can live godly, righteous and sober lives.
Again, I donââ¬â¢t have all the answers or even all the questions. But I know that what we have been doing for thirty years hasnââ¬â¢t worked, that while we have been fighting and winning in politics, our culture has decayed into something approaching barbarism. We need to take another tack, find a different strategy. If you agree, and are willing to help wrestle with what that strategy should be, let me know. If enough people are willing to do something different, we will call a roundtable meeting here at Free Congress this year to discuss it. I hope I will see you there.
Sincerely,
Paul M. Weyrich
2003-01-07 23:18 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jan 7 2003, 15:46 ** The reason, I think, is that politics itself has failed. And politics has failed because of the collapse of the culture. The culture we are living in becomes an ever-wider sewer. In truth, I think we are caught up in a cultural collapse of historic proportions, a collapse so great that it simply overwhelms politics.
**
I well remember when this article came out. Even Limbaugh weighed-in on the matter for an entire show. It was quite controversial.
Now I have no idea what Weyrich has done since writing this or if he has followed his own advice, but I read nothing here that I would disagree with. Indeed, I would highly endorse it. The American political system is nothing but rotting fruit and we nationalists had better start thinking of alternative ways to ensure the very [u]existence[/u] of the ways of life we hold dear.
I'll also add that I used to retain some hope in organizations like Focus on the Family and men like Dr. Dobson, but alas even that false hope has been shattered over the Zionist issue.
2003-01-07 23:53 | User Profile
Texas Dissident,
The SPLC does not like what they doing now.
More Marxsim: "Mainstreaming Hate" SPLC on William Lind and Paul Weyrich
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=3589]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...t=ST&f=3&t=3589[/url]
2003-01-08 00:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by Faust@Jan 7 2003, 23:53 **Texas Dissident,
The SPLC does not like what they doing now.
More Marxism: "Mainstreaming Hate" SPLC on William Lind and Paul Weyrich
**
Nor does the GOP.
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?s=69cc9e415bd5e3ebe]White House Silent on Racial Controversy[/url]
2003-01-08 00:36 | User Profile
**Again, I donââ¬â¢t have all the answers or even all the questions. But I know that what we have been doing for thirty years hasnââ¬â¢t worked, that while we have been fighting and winning in politics, our culture has decayed into something approaching barbarism. **
The problem is that Weyrich and the evangelicals engaged in the culture war want to change society through legislation and the force of law. A beast that's forced to wear a yoke it resents isn't going to suddenly like the yoke later on...in fact, it will rebel and teach its offspring to hate the yoke as well, rather than wearing it out of love and respect.
Only the spirit of the Gospel has the power to change the hearts of men, not the force of the Law. Luther understood this in 1529 when he debated Zwingli and the Swiss Protestants at the Marburg Conference and remarked, "Your spirit is different from ours."
Maybe if American Christianity spent the last 30 years evangelizing and living its faith and less time protesting abortion clinics things would be different today. Using law to make people behave in a more moral way does not make America any more Christian, and those would would attempt this have a confused view (and promote confusion) of the biblical roles of church and government.
"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."
1 Timothy 1:8-11 (KJV)
2003-01-08 00:46 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jan 7 2003, 23:18 I well remember when this article came out. Even Limbaugh weighed-in on the matter for an entire show. It was quite controversial.
You don't happen to remember what he said do you? I'm dying of curiousity. :P
Now I have no idea what Weyrich has done since writing this or if he has followed his own advice, but I read nothing here that I would disagree with. Indeed, I would highly endorse it. The American political system is nothing but rotting fruit and we nationalists had better start thinking of alternative ways to ensure the very [u]existence[/u] of the ways of life we hold dear.
The work of the Free Congress Foundation, especially that of the Cultural Conservatism Institute under Lind, is still very interesting.
I'll also add that I used to retain some hope in organizations like Focus on the Family and men like Dr. Dobson, but alas even that false hope has been shattered over the Zionist issue.
The Zionist issue is a complex one, which like a lot of complex issues really most of the the religious right types have chosen not to break wth the mainstream right. You have to realize there is a limit, both to their own expertise, and to the degree which they can break with mainstream right without losing all their political influence with it and in our political system.
Reluctance to break with Israel really is such a universal criticism we have, extending even to Chronicles, Samuel Francis, and Jerod Taylor, I think you just have to realize this is a difficult nut to crack. Part of the reason it hasn't been cracked is we haven't been able to give our mainstream tradtionalist friends the tools, i.e.articulate a really persuasive case why they should take a stand on this issue and go against the GOP mainstream.
If Lind is a bellweather, it might be worth trying to make our case.
2003-01-08 01:00 | User Profile
Originally posted by Centinel@Jan 8 2003, 00:36 > Again, I donââ¬â¢t have all the answers or even all the questions. But I know that what we have been doing for thirty years hasnââ¬â¢t worked, that while we have been fighting and winning in politics, our culture has decayed into something approaching barbarism. **
Maybe if American Christianity spent the last 30 years evangelizing and living its faith and less time protesting abortion clinics things would be different today. Using law to make people behave in a more moral way does not make America any more Christian, and those would would attempt this have a confused view (and promote confusion) of the proper biblical roles of church and government .
**
Centinel, you have me dying of curiousity. What are the > proper biblical roles of church and government ?
Can you articulate this without causing more confusion? And could explain to us how you relate this to your own self-perceived role in this most political of forums?
Mind you, up until 1980, Jerry Farwell had the exact same viewpoints you did, that churches and Christians should stay out of politics and government and stick to saving souls. When he changed his mind, after talking with the famous religious writer Francis Schaeffer among others, he of course drew widespread criticism from the religious mainstream and theological left. Are you thinking they were right (that is to say correct),all along?
2003-01-08 01:05 | User Profile
Part of the reason it hasn't been cracked is we haven't been able to give our mainstream tradtionalist friends the tools, i.e.articulate a really persuasive case why they should take a stand on this issue and go against the GOP mainstream.
So long as the bulk of American Protestantism--evangelicals and fundies--holds dispensational views, this isn't likely.
In fact, about the only place you find nondispensational Christians and large numbers is in Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Liberal Protestantism...many of which hold "liberal" political views and are at polar opposites to mainline evangelicals and conservatives.
There are conservative, reformation-era, nondispensational Protestants, but they are not large in number and mere blips on the political scene...mostly conservative Lutherans, Calvinists, and Mennonites, and even a few conservative Anglicans.
I was listening to a speech given by Rev. Reggie Kimbro of the Free Presbyterian Church (Ian Paisley's crew) on dispensationalism: A Layman's Look at the Problems in Dispensationalism
and one of the remarks he made was that many folks in the dispensational churches don't hold dispensational views, but they don't know it yet. When American Protestantism went liberal and went into the abyss in the 60's, many people started shopping around for fundamental churches that got back to scripture in the 70's "Back to Jesus" movement and landed at what would now be termed Independent Fundamental Baptist (Bible) chruches, yet most have a shallow grasp of dispensationalism and when it's explained to them many outright deny they ascribe to it. The Free Presbyterian Church is based on covenant theology, like other reformation-era Calvinists.
2003-01-08 01:24 | User Profile
**Mind you, up until 1980, Jerry Farwell had the exact same viewpoints you did, that churches and Christians should stay out of politics and government and stick to saving souls. When he changed his mind, after talking with the famous religious writer Francis Schaeffer among others, he of course drew widespread criticism from the religious mainstream and theological left. Are you thinking they were right (that is to say correct),all along? **
Historically, Baptists (Falwell is a Southern Baptist IIRC) were big on separation of church and state because they were opposed to Catholic influence in American government.
In fact, to this day, the Southern Baptist Convention codifies this belief in its Baptist Faith and Message:
[url=http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp]http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp[/url]
* XVII. Religious Liberty
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.*
Nevermind that evangelicals quietly sweep this doctrine of theirs under the rug when their own pet vices and issues are on the front burner. I think what happened with many in the Religious Right getting caught up in politics was addressing problems they saw around them in society with a carnal response (poltical activism, legislative action) rather than a spiritual one (evangelism, prayer). It was easier, sometimes produced tangible results, but never fundamentally changed the culture.
I predict that as Catholicism (and the Hispanics who practice it) makes further inroads into the American Southwest, and as Islam infiltrates the coasts, you'll see the evangelicals on the Religious Right come full circle and start calling for "separation of church and state" when Virgin Mary statues are erected on City Hall lawns or Islamic judges openly keep a copy of the Koran on their bench.
Feeling "defeated" in the "culture war," many of these people are starting to go into a bunker mentality of separating themselves from society and waiting for Armageddon to come.
2003-01-08 01:24 | User Profile
Originally posted by Centinel@Jan 8 2003, 01:05 > Part of the reason it hasn't been cracked is we haven't been able to give our mainstream tradtionalist friends the tools, i.e.articulate a really persuasive case why they should take a stand on this issue and go against the GOP mainstream.**
So long as the bulk of American Protestantism--evangelicals and fundies--holds dispensational views, this isn't likely.
In fact, about the only place you find nondispensational Christians and large numbers is in Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Liberal Protestantism...many of which hold "liberal" political views and are at polar opposites to mainline evangelicals and conservatives.
There are conservative, reformation-era, nondispensational Protestants, but they are not large in number and mere blips on the political scene...mostly conservative Lutherans, Calvinists, and Mennonites, and even a few conservative Anglicans.**
I disagree here that they are not large in number, but politically you are right, they are mere blips on the radar screen, at least in the sense of being "Christian political activists". The large majority of American political leaders and activists who are at least nominally Christian really give little thought to dispensationalism, at least in a political sense.
It does however seem to disproportionally influence those who are active politically in regards to Christianity, i.e. the activists of the Christian Right. I think this is because it gives religious people some easy answers to some very perplexing questions about the relationship between religion and politics, the temporal and the hereafter.l
**I was listening to a speech given by Rev. Reggie Kimbro of the Free Presbyterian Church (Ian Paisley's crew) on dispensationalism: A Layman's Look at the Problems in Dispensationalism
and one of the remarks he made was that many folks in the dispensational churches don't hold dispensational views, but they don't know it yet. When American Protestantism went liberal and went into the abyss in the 60's, many people started shopping around for fundamental churches that got back to scripture in the 70's "Back to Jesus" movement and landed at what would now be termed Independent Fundamental Baptist (Bible) chruches, yet most have a shallow grasp of dispensationalism and when it's explained to them many outright deny they ascribe to it. The Free Presbyterian Church is based on covenant theology, like other reformation-era Calvinists.**
Free Presbyterians are indeed a tiny group, but they are a group with a coherent political-theological worldview ands activist mindset. It of course comes out of their Zwinglian roots.
Luther's approach sounded pious, but in fact was a recipe for political and cultural disaster. Jusy look at what became of the Lutheran countries, (Scandanavia and East Germany) - politically.
2003-01-08 01:38 | User Profile
Originally posted by Centinel@Jan 8 2003, 01:24 > Mind you, up until 1980, Jerry Farwell had the exact same viewpoints you did, that churches and Christians should stay out of politics and government and stick to saving souls. When he changed his mind, after talking with the famous religious writer Francis Schaeffer among others, he of course drew widespread criticism from the religious mainstream and theological left. Are you thinking they were right (that is to say correct),all along? **
Historically, Baptists (Falwell is a Southern Baptist IIRC) were big on separation of church and state because they were opposed to Catholic influence in American government.
In fact, to this day, the Southern Baptist Convention codifies this belief in its Baptist Faith and Message:
[url=http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp]http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp[/url]
* XVII. Religious Liberty....
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate.... *
Nevermind that evangelicals quietly sweep this doctrine of theirs under the rug when their own pet vices and issues are on the front burner. I think what happened with many in the Religious Right getting caught up in politics was addressing problems they saw around them in society with a carnal response (poltical activism, legislative action) rather than a spiritual one (evangelism, prayer). It was easier, sometimes produced tangible results, but never fundamentally changed the culture.**
You're misinterpreting that SBC resolution in regards to political activism, if you say it comments Christian pacifism.
You haven't addressed my question.
**I predict that as Catholicism (and the Hispanics who practice it) makes further inroads into the American Southwest, and as Islam infiltrates the coasts, you'll see the evangelicals on the Religious Right come full circle and start calling for "separation of church and state" when Virgin Mary statues are erected on City Hall lawns or Islamic judges openly keep a copy of the Koran on their bench. **
That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is that these things are political matters, and "Church/State - separation" compels them to be politically silent and quiet.
Feeling "defeated" in the "culture war," many of these people are starting to go into a bunker mentality of separating themselves from society and waiting for Armageddon to come.
According to you, isn't that the correct response? (Except apparently for internet discussion boards :huh: )
2003-01-08 01:46 | User Profile
**Luther's approach sounded pious, but in fact was a recipe for political and cultural disaster. Jusy look at what became of the Lutheran countries, (Scandanavia and East Germany) - politically. **
IMHO, one of the biggest mistakes the Lutheran churches in Europe made was allowing themselves to become yoked to civil government, which allowed political whims, and later the Third Reich and postmodern liberalism to have undue influence in church affairs.
The problem goes back to Luther himself. Many of the German nobles who afforded Luther protection from Rome and converted were doing so out of political and worldly reasons to escape taxation and meddling in their affairs, not as a matter of faith.
Luckily, this trend wasn't imported from Europe by Lutheran immigrants. (Not like the Constitution gave them much of a choice in the matter, either).
[url=http://www.lcms.org/belief/doct-13.html]http://www.lcms.org/belief/doct-13.html[/url]
Of Church and State
Accordingly we condemn the policy of those who would have the power of the State employed "in the interest of the Church" and who thus turn the Church into a secular dominion; as also of those who, aiming to govern the State by the Word of God, seek to turn the State into a Church.
In his defense, though, Luther was the most medieval of reformers. If the concept of a secular government with separation of church and state was a radical notion at the time of the American Revolution, it was purely unthinkable to Luther two and a half centuries before. He used to write about roles of government and church, but I don't think he could imagine living under a secular or pagan government himself.
2003-01-08 02:16 | User Profile
Originally posted by Centinel@Jan 8 2003, 01:46 > > **Luther's approach sounded pious, but in fact was a recipe for political and cultural disaster. Jusy look at what became of the Lutheran countries, (Scandanavia and East Germany) - politically. **
IMHO, one of the biggest mistakes the Lutheran churches in Europe made was allowing themselves to become yoked to civil government, which allowed political whims, and later the Third Reich and postmodern liberalism to have undue influence in church affairs.**
**
Well, as you note, this came out of the medieval era, and Church members had little choice originally, as the concept of religious freedom is a product of the modern era.
I was thinking of something different regarding the Lutheran tradition - that is of ending up in creating a mindset of unquestioning support for the state, for which the German Lutheran church was so criticized for (it beats me why Jews only pick on Catholics).
In any event the problems here and now are of more concern than that of 16th century Germany.
Your quote is interesting, but you I have yet to hear you articulate a coherent definition of what this means in practice, what a truly "secular" government means. Most people who honestly assert the desirability of such haven't really thought about it and what it really means.
2003-01-08 03:41 | User Profile
Your quote is interesting, but you I have yet to hear you articulate a coherent definition of what this means in practice, what a truly "secular" government means.
To me, it means limiting government to a bare minimum of essential functions.
Most (if not many) of the "morality" battles I see being fought in the culture war are a waste of energy on behalf of Christians. Energy that could be put to better use in the religious realm carrying out the Great Commission and better use in the secular realm campaigning to reduce the scope, reach and cost of government.
These skirmishes are being fought over what can and can't be done in public institutions that shouldn't even exist in the first place. Every time government expands into a new function, the ACLU and Religious Right end up duking it out.
What a pathetic waste of resources the wrangling over filtering software in public libraries and prayer and teaching creationism vs. evolution in public schools has been. Finally, some are wising up and realizing by a grassroots movement of private institutions beyond government control is the only way to go.
Up until very recently, this type of "Take back America" thinking was very prevalent, but that is starting to change as people like Weyrich and others realized it failed. Still, the debate rages on. Some Christians who realize the unbiblical indoctrination in public schools still can't wean themselves off the government teat and want taxpayer-funded vouchers to send their kids to parochial schools, yet get all hissy when they are called welfare recipients. Wonder who will be screaming the loudest when tax vouchers go to support Islamic or Wiccan schools when that day comes.
2003-01-08 04:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by Centinel@Jan 8 2003, 03:41 > Your quote is interesting, but you I have yet to hear you articulate a coherent definition of what this means in practice, what a truly "secular" government means.**
To me, it means limiting government to a bare minimum of essential functions.**
I'm afraid you sound like a hopeless libertarian.
That's not what the word "secular" means. "Secular" involves a certain ideal notion of objectivity and moral neutrality. However, the entire root assumptions for this objectivity and neutrality are religiously based. The ideal of Secularism is deception. This realization, gained from talking with the great theologian Schaeffer, who you could learn from, was the inspiration for Farwell. Unfortunately the populace, even in Churches, is basically grounded in self serving fallacies adopted from the ACLU types like libertarianism
Since you aren't prosylitizing, good luck on your political organizing, which of course, unlike Farwell's, is a perfectly appropriate and effectual for Christians to engage in.
2003-01-08 14:11 | User Profile
When the government and the culture were going leftward together, it was rational to believe that capture of legislative bodies would reverse the flow.
When, of course, we found that the two bodies could move separately, and that the culture affected the govt more than the reverse, Weyrich's recent positions make more sense.
As Depeche Mode sang in "New Dress":
You can't change the world But you can change the facts And when you change the facts You change points of view If you change points of view You may change a vote And when you change a vote You may change the world
(In other words, the culture is the horse and the state is the cart) :ph34r:
2003-01-08 19:01 | User Profile
Originally posted by naBaron@Jan 8 2003, 14:11 **When the government and the culture were going leftward together, it was rational to believe that capture of legislative bodies would reverse the flow.
When, of course, we found that the two bodies could move separately, and that the culture affected the govt more than the reverse, Weyrich's recent positions make more sense.
**
I don't think Moral Majority ever thought government action was a panacea, but it certainly was necessary to respond to the great harm government activities were having on our culture all across the board.
I read here recently that the idea our culture is inherently corrupt, and ignoring the great role government has had in this, is one of the great fallacies of neo conservatism, libertarianism, and moderate Republicanism. I appear thouogh to be going against the grain with you guys on this thread.
2003-01-08 20:12 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jan 8 2003, 13:01 I read here recently that the idea our culture is inherently corrupt, and ignoring the great role government has had in this, is one of the great fallacies of neo conservatism, libertarianism, and moderate Republicanism. I appear thouogh to be going against the grain with you guys on this thread.
I'll put my two cents in as at various times in my political travels I've had all of these various opinions pulling me in one direction or another. Overall I tend to agree with Centinel regarding evangelical's role in politics. Culture trumps politics and when the culture is rotten efforts to reform society cannot be made through the political process. The one issue I identified and continue to identify myself with the 'Christian Right' or 'Moral Majority' is that of right-to-life. But to me that one issue stands alone as unique in its fundamentals.
Granted entire books could be written on all of the dynamics involved here, but basically I believe that Christians should primarily focus on evangelizing. The great divergence into political activism led to many negative factors, perhaps the primary one being our current wholesale withdrawal out of Buchanan's 'Culture War' and the subsequent unhealthy fascination with Israel and end-times prophecy.
On the other hand, our benevolent federal government is responsible for much of the social ills we tolerate today. Politically, I believe we should work to remove the federal choke hold on the States and local communities, for this is where, constitutionally speaking, the proper place for legislating morality, customs and mores. One issue that stands out in my mind is prayer in schools or at high-school football games. Another would be local blue laws. Remove the federal interference and local communities would sort these things out in their own manner respective of their own, local traditions and customs. That, IMO, should be the goal of evangelical, Christian political activism.
One thing is certain, white Christian protestants built this country and without them as a great majority, the political system we read of in our once-followed Constitution is impossible to maintain. This is why I believe there is no political answer to our current mess and a great separation will be required at some point to ensure the survival of the kind of society white, evangelical Christians want to live in.
2003-01-08 20:38 | User Profile
The one issue I identified and continue to identify myself with the 'Christian Right' or 'Moral Majority' is that of right-to-life. But to me that one issue stands alone as unique in its fundamentals.
TD,
What do you think the best way to defeat Roe v. Wade is?
1) Passage of a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion
2) Overturning Roe v. Wade on the grounds it usurped states' rights under the 10th Amendment by denying them the ability to determine the specifications, charges and punishments for murder in the form of abortion
3) Another approach
Ain't no way #1 is going to work until some serious changes in hearts and minds occur and there truly is a moral majority with the political will to make it happen.
2003-01-08 21:07 | User Profile
Obviously if I had my druthers then I would choose #1, Centinel. But I agree with you that #2 is probably the only realistic and [u]Constitutional[/u] solution. I'm no legal scholar, but I don't believe murder is a federal crime, so #2 seems like the way to go to me.
I'm sure that every state would not outlaw abortion, but some will and that's the important thing. At least it gives me the opportunity to move to a state that has laws that reflect my moral position on the most fundamental issue of the right to life.
2003-01-08 22:26 | User Profile
. > Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jan 8 2003, 13:01 > I read here recently that the idea our culture is inherently corrupt, and ignoring the great role government has had in this, is one of the great fallacies of neo conservatism, libertarianism, and moderate Republicanism. I appear thouogh to be going against the grain with you guys on this thread.**
I'll put my two cents in as at various times in my political travels I've had all of these various opinions pulling me in one direction or another. Overall I tend to agree with Centinel regarding evangelical's role in politics. Culture trumps politics and when the culture is rotten efforts to reform society cannot be made through the political process. The one issue I identified and continue to identify myself with the 'Christian Right' or 'Moral Majority' is that of right-to-life. But to me that one issue stands alone as unique in its fundamentals.**
I don't see really how you can really view right to life as that much more unique than other issues, such as education, decency in entertainment, family values, and others. These all intimately involve culture, in fact due a lot more than abortion. By the time a girl gets pregnant all the culture in the world isn't going to make her baby go away.
All these ideas in general involve, from the standpoint of political philosophy, issues of morality, which are part of the broader political issue of communitarian rights, which involve of course other things like environmentalism and immigration restriction. You need to conceptualize your thinking along these lines in the proper way politically. Then you want have such a seeming singularity in the way you treat religious issues and viewpoints from other issues, which it strikes me you and Centinal do now.
Granted entire books could be written on all of the dynamics involved here, but basically I believe that Christians should primarily focus on evangelizing. The great divergence into political activism led to many negative factors, perhaps the primary one being our current wholesale withdrawal out of Buchanan's 'Culture War' and the subsequent unhealthy fascination with Israel and end-times prophecy.
I will agree entire books could be written here. I don't really see how the things you mention are a result of "a divergence into political activism". Rather it is a result of the inevitable mistakes a naif group politically, that is evangelicals, make when they get involved in a new area to them.
I view this forum in part as a separate political viewpoint to some of these current events. This forum is of course intrinsically and completely political. I'm not sure why the irony of Christians participating in this forum and simultaneously questioning political activity escapes you and Centinal.
On the other hand, our benevolent federal government is responsible for much of the social ills we tolerate today. Politically, I believe we should work to remove the federal choke hold on the States and local communities, for this is where, constitutionally speaking, the proper place for legislating morality, customs and mores. One issue that stands out in my mind is prayer in schools or at high-school football games. Another would be local blue laws. Remove the federal interference and local communities would sort these things out in their own manner respective of their own, local traditions and customs. That, IMO, should be the goal of evangelical, Christian political activism.
We all may differ slightly on emphasis, but I see you agree that all these issues of course are political issues. Once we have conclusively identified the patient, but only then, can we proceed to treat it.
Personally I think, and Pat Buchanan I know has stated this also, that although removing the federal chokehold is important, even that is somewhat premature. When a people no longer really enjoy a genuine democratic system and powers, we may talk about constitutional reform etc., but how will you implement it? That really is implicit in the radicalism of this site.
One thing is certain, white Christian protestants built this country and without them as a great majority, the political system we read of in our once-followed Constitution is impossible to maintain. This is why I believe there is no political answer to our current mess and a great separation will be required at some point to ensure the survival of the kind of society white, evangelical Christians want to live in.
Seems to me if preserving the present ethnic composition of our country is of high importance, there is no solution [u]but[/u] a political one, since ethnic composition now is determined by immigration law. The "great separation" sounds political to me to, unless you are lapsing into dispensationalism and talking about the rapture again. I just always have to watch you Baptists. :lol:
2003-01-08 23:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jan 8 2003, 16:26 The "great separation" sounds political to me to, unless you are lapsing into dispensationalism and talking about the rapture again. I just always have to watch you Baptists. :lol:
Ha! There's your problem right there. Too many of my fellow So. Baptists and brothers in Christ have resigned themselves to a last ditch hope of being raptured because they put all their eggs in the political basket and lost. Sure the GOP has majorities here and there, but can anyone really point to one religious right issue that has come to fruition? I can't.
We didn't get it done at the ballot box...we see all the cultural rot around us...so let's throw all our weight behind Israel rebuilding the temple and maybe somehow we can force the Good Lord's hand and have him send Jesus back down to rapture us up.
I certainly don't mean to be mocking or making light, but that really is the current situation amongst evangelicals as I see it. If I had a dollar for everytime I got into a political conversation with a fellow believer, just to hear them dismiss all the problems with a comment like, "well let's just hope the Lord comes back soon and we won't have to worry about it."
I don't see really how you can really view right to life as that much more unique than other issues, such as education, decency in entertainment, family values, and others.
All issues are secondary to the fact of whether or not one gets to live. That's what makes right to life unique. Everything else is negotiable, but not that. Plus, it's an 'Either/Or' absolute with no middle ground. That's the kind of litmus test issue I like. :)
**All these ideas in general involve, from the standpoint of political philosophy, issues of morality, which are part of the broader political issue of communitarian rights, which involve of course other things like environmentalism and immigration restriction. You need to conceptualize your thinking along these lines in the proper way politically. Then you want have such a seeming singularity in the way you treat religious issues and viewpoints from other issues, which it strikes me you and Centinal do now. **
I don't think there is much disagreement here. Politics stem from culture and is a reflection of same. If we take it to the extreme we could say that if all men were devout, honest and upright there would be no need for the State or politics at all. I'm only saying that a Constitutional Republic as outlined by the Founding Fathers necessitates a pious, Christian (Protestant?) populace. One without the other just aint gonna work.
**I'm not sure why the irony of Christians participating in this forum and simultaneously questioning political activity escapes you and Centinal. **
I can't speak for Centinel, but I'm certainly not advocating Christian's withdraw from politics, rather it should not be official activity of respective churches and denominations. IOW, my voting is OK, but the So. Baptist convention endorsing and campaigning for Bush is not. Official group acts like that only muddy up the waters of the Good News with temporal political causes. I don't think Christ envisioned such things for his Church, much less spoke of having to vote straight-ticket GOP to enter the gates of heaven.
Seems to me if preserving the present ethnic composition of our country is of high importance, there is no solution [u]but[/u] a political one, since ethnic composition now is determined by immigration law.
True. After all, America was founded by the Pilgrims seeking religious freedom. Sometimes these things go hand in hand.
2003-01-08 23:50 | User Profile
I can't speak for Centinel, but I'm certainly not advocating Christian's withdraw from politics, rather it should not be official activity of respective churches and denominations. IOW, my voting is OK, but the So. Baptist convention endorsing and campaigning for Bush is not. Official group acts like that only muddy up the waters of the Good News with temporal political causes. I don't think Christ envisioned such things for his Church, much less spoke of having to vote straight-ticket GOP to enter the gates of heaven.
That's pretty much my position as well, TD.
Christian citizens should try to use their influence to try to encourage moral laws for our country, but most groups of the "moral majority" type confuse the church's assignment to change people's conduct by changing their hearts through the power of the gospel and the government's assignment of enforcing moral conduct by law.
Using the law to make people behave in a more moral way does not make the country more Christian. At best, it curbs coarse outbursts of sinful behavior. At worst, political activism by Christians has the potential to lead them into idolatry if they place a political party or the government above the Lord, especially when the goals of some "conservative" political efforts are carnal and conflict with Scripture. Look how many GOP evangelical types (the backbone of FR) venerate Bush and don't hold the adminstration accountable for sticking to Constitutional principles (ie the supreme law of the land) as long as "their man" is at the helm. Same people who howled the loudest about Constitutional abuses under Clinton.
BTW, were you born and raised Southern Baptist, or did you join them later in life? Your worldview almost seems more Free Presbyterian or Reformed Baptist. As I understand it, most Baptists gradually shifted from covenant theology to dispensationalism in the 20th century after Darby/Scofield, and it accelerated after World War II with the creation of political Israel. Are some of them drifting towards "progressive dispensationalism" (covenant theology with a premillennial eschatology) as Rev. Kimbro describes?
2003-01-09 00:38 | User Profile
Originally posted by Centinel@Jan 8 2003, 17:50 **BTW, were you born and raised Southern Baptist, or did you join them later in life? ÃÂ **
I'll put it this way, when Mom brought me into this world she gave me my first bottle along with Chapter One of the 'Baptist Faith and Message.'
;) :D
Just kidding, but seriously I was born and raised in a Southern Baptist church that was the cornerstone of the greater community. Where the deacons were the school administrators, most everybody knew everybody and it was hard gettin' away with anything at home, school or church. I would say it was not atypical of any suburb surrounding Houston at that time. Now a trip back there feels like you wandered into Matamoros, Mexico. It's very upsetting and one of the main things that drives me and my activism here.
Anyway, back to your question:
** As I understand it, most Baptists gradually shifted from covenant theology to dispensationalism in the 20th century after Darby/Scofield, and it accelerated after World War II with the creation of political Israel. ÃÂ Are some of them drifting towards "progressive dispensationalism" (covenant theology with a premillennial eschatology) as Rev. Kimbro describes?**
Man, to be quite honest I have no idea. All that pre-trib, post-trib, neo-trib stuff just kinda went over my head. The great thing about Baptists is that it really is up to each local church and to an ultimate extent, each individual, to interpret eschatology on their own. Not to give my testimony here or anything (I know wintermute and the pagans are getting nauseous reading all this :) ), but I was raised in a Southern Baptist Church. When I say So. Baptist, I mean So. Baptist. It was strong in the denomination from missions to the convention. From earliest I can remember, I just don't recall any emphasis whatsoever on eschatology. The only thing I can really recall was our pastor stating something to the effect that it was subject to interpretation and not much authoritative doctrine could be gleaned from it. "We should always be ready for Christ's return" best sums it up, I guess.
It has only been in the last 10 years or so where I have witnessed the growing prevalence of dispensationalism and Israel-focus. I lay almost all of this in the hands of men like Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye, with their books on the subject we are all familiar with. But, if I ever get to talking to folks one one one, I almost always find that they will agree that Jews are not saved, Christ is the only way to salvation, etc. Yet they will still mouth the platitude "Jews are God's Chosen" like Stepford wives. There's a real disconnection there, IMO.
I will also say that I haven't heard any of this from the pulpit. My experience is that most of the growing and pervasive dispensationalism comes from popular 'Christian' media and it does seem to be a relatively recent phenomenon.
As for me, not ever having really thought too deeply on the matter (most all of my spiritual energy and study has been spent on things like the nature of faith, the paradox of the God-Man and other such fundamentals), I went through my youth holding a loose dispensationalist view i.e. rapture, seven last years, second coming, millenial rule. As American evangelicals moved toward this and greater support for the nation-state of Israel, I have moved in the direction of covenant theology. I cannot support the current activities of the nation-state of Israel out of any belief that 'Jews are God's Chosen.' What if someone is 1/8th or 1/16th Jewish? How in the world are we gonna sort that out? In short, we'll never know and it's best to be always prepared and keep evangelizing in the meantime, whatever happens. God's gonna do whatever he wants to do no matter how much American blood and treasure is spent propping up Israel. I don't see where I have a dog in their fight.
2003-01-09 01:17 | User Profile
from "The South Under Siege 1830-2000",page 708: "This book has proposed an ideological revolutionary war to reinstate the society of decency in the South.This society of decency will revere Christianity as revealed in the Bible;then personal honor;then family;then community;then limited republican government under the U.S.Constitution;and then the other desirable values.That is our goal;and it is not a randomly organized list.Rearrange the priorities or take away any one of those elements,and the decent society will swiftly fall apart again." The author goes into detail in explaining his reasoning behind this claim.This "society of decency" can later be expanded to include the rest of the country.
2003-01-09 03:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jan 8 2003, 23:21 > Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jan 8 2003, 16:26 The "great separation" sounds political to me to, unless you are lapsing into dispensationalism and talking about the rapture again. ÃÂ I just always have to watch you Baptists. ÃÂ :lol:**
Ha! There's your problem right there. Too many of my fellow So. Baptists and brothers in Christ have resigned themselves to a last ditch hope of being raptured because they put all their eggs in the political basket and lost. Sure the GOP has majorities here and there, but can anyone really point to one religious right issue that has come to fruition? I can't.
We didn't get it done at the ballot box...we see all the cultural rot around us...so let's throw all our weight behind Israel rebuilding the temple and maybe somehow we can force the Good Lord's hand and have him send Jesus back down to rapture us up.
**
The issue of dispensationalism and premillinealism is interesting in that its introduction and acceptance into mainstream American Protestant religious life in the late 1800's really is indicative of a huge cultural shift at the time among Protestantism, as described by theologian Douglas Frank in Less than Conquerors - How Evangelicals entered the twentieth century. The shift was from overbearing optimism (from Sea to Shining Sea) to overwhelming pessimism, and was reflected theologically in the shift from post millennialism to premillenialism and dispensationalism. Frank succinctly sums up premillenialism
**One can see how neatly the fears of losing control were thus transformed into claims of possessing control. To premillenialists looking for the return of the Lord, bad news was essentially good news. The worse things got, the nearer their reward approached. **
It really is interesting and amazing how little I learned about this sort of folk-religious cultural history in school. As I recall my school history though, most of it regarding the turn of the century, written as it was by big city oriented easterners et. al basically concentrated on the cities, the new immigration, and prejudice against them. As MacDonald notes concerning the New York Intellectuals, rural America was not only a foreign land, but a hostile and alien one.
2003-01-09 04:00 | User Profile
The shift was from overbearing optimism (from Sea to Shining Sea) to overwhelming pessimism, and was reflected theologically in the shift from post millennialism to premillenialism and dispensationalism.
World War I killed postmillennialism and its optimism in the progress of mankind. And World War II drove the last nail in its coffin.
2003-01-09 17:39 | User Profile
Originally posted by naBaron@Jan 8 2003, 08:11 ** As Depeche Mode sang in "New Dress":
You can't change the world But you can change the facts And when you change the facts You change points of view If you change points of view You may change a vote And when you change a vote You may change the world **
Hey naBaron,
I'm sorry I missed this until now, but that's off the Black Celebration album, right?
Not to divert the topic, but boy do I have some great memories surrounding that album! DM peaked with Black Celebration and went down hill after that, but that was just a great album, beginning to end. Talk about obscure quotes!!
2003-01-09 18:30 | User Profile
Quote from Texas Dissident:
**The great thing about Baptists is that it really is up to each local church and to an ultimate extent, each individual, to interpret eschatology on their own...From earliest I can remember, I just don't recall any emphasis whatsoever on eschatology...I will also say that I haven't heard any of this from the pulpit. ÃÂ My experience is that most of the growing and pervasive dispensationalism comes from popular 'Christian' media and it does seem to be a relatively recent phenomenon. **
My experience growing up in a Southern Baptist household was vastly different. I'm not sure how many members of our church could define "eschatology", but the rapture was iron-clad dogma. And this wasn't a phenomenon; other S.B. kids I would meet thorough interchurch activities were taught the same thing. Israel was then (mid 1960's and on) and still is held in the highest regard, and pilgrimages to the Holy Land were an accepted and encouraged part of growth in faith.
This was communicated to us regularly from the pulpit by a succession of ministers and by the frequent evangelistic "crusades" hosted by the church. I can still remember nearly peeing on the pew when an evangelist- quietly winding down his long sermon on the coming rapture- suddenly crowhopped and screamed out that the back wall of the church was crumbling, and pointing wildly at that wall announced that "Christ is already here! ARE YOU READY?!"
I know a number of S.B.'s from Texas, and their beliefs and experiences match up with what I was taught growing up. I suspect that your experience, Tex, may have been informed from being in a more "moderate" S.B. congregation. The more "conservative" wing of the church now subscribes- and as far as I know has for many years- to the dispensationalist views of Darby/Scofield, and is expecting the rapture to come at any time. And has been regularly forecasting it to occur any moment for years, based on observations of the culture and world events. These Texas S.B.'s I know are very active in church politics, as are some of own family; all were raised in the "conservative" tradition characterized by the teaching of the Dallas Theological Seminary and the Moody Bible Institute. Not many U.S. observers of fundamentalism who are non-S.B.'s are aware of the bitter divisions between the "moderate" and "conservative" factions of the S.B. church, and don't recognize the effect this split has had on the directions and teachings of each wing.
LaHaye and Lindsey reflect the views of the conservative S.B.'s for the most part, but they certainly didn't create those views. They have brought them to the attention of broader audiences, as mentioned by Tex, but many, many S.B.'s have held those views for years. And the view is becoming more widely accepted- or at least popularly recognized- based on the incredible success of the Left Behind series. Popular Christian media has definitely been a factor in popularizing dispensationalism to a wider audience, but this belief system has been much more widely accepted within the mainstream of the S.B. church- i.e., the "conservative" wing that has dominated of late- than many people might know or would hope.
Couple of references: [url=http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:_UNDz7Kijp8C:www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle%3Fitem_id%3D216+falwell,+jet,+israel,+halsell&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]Evangelicals and Israel: Theological Roots of a Political Alliance[/url]
[url=http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/journal_vol7/0002_wall.asp]Forcing God's Hand: Why Millions Pray for a Quick Rapture -- and Destruction of Planet Earth[/url]
2003-01-09 18:36 | User Profile
Originally posted by weisbrot@Jan 9 2003, 18:30 ** I know a number of S.B.'s from Texas, and their beliefs and experiences match up with what I was taught growing up. **
I'll confirm that. I grew up as an S.B., too. Every other month some yahoo of a snake-salesman would come in and talk about the Rapture showing up any minute now.
Best, P
2003-01-09 19:00 | User Profile
Believe me, weisbrot, I am very familiar with the conservative/moderate split in the SBC and the church I was raised in was most definitely conservative. To this day I wouldn't walk in the door of one of the moderate churches!
Perhaps I didn't state it clearly earlier. The dispensationalist view was commonly held by most in the church and indeed, this was my own until the last few years, but it just wasn't emphasized with any importance from the pulpit. This probably has to do more with each churches' pastor than anything else. The conservative SBC church I attend now is pretty much the same way. The pastor and most all the membership are dispensationalist, but if it is preached on or studied in Sunday school, never is it even alluded to as necessary for salvation or anything like that.
Further, you won't find anything in the Baptist Faith and Message codifying dispensationalism either:
God, in His own time and in His own way, will bring the world to its appropriate end. According to His promise, Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly in glory to the earth; the dead will be raised; and Christ will judge all men in righteousness. The unrighteous will be consigned to Hell, the place of everlasting punishment. The righteous in their resurrected and glorified bodies will receive their reward and will dwell forever in Heaven with the Lord.
I have no problem with those who hold dispensationalist views. Indeed, most all my family does. But I do have a problem when someone tries to make those beliefs a requirement for salvation. That's where I would draw the line.
2003-01-09 19:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jan 9 2003, 15:00 **
The pastor and most all the membership are dispensationalist, but if it is preached on or studied in Sunday school, never is it even alluded to as necessary for salvation or anything like that.
Further, you won't find anything in the Baptist Faith and Message codifying dispensationalism either:
God, in His own time and in His own way, will bring the world to its appropriate end. According to His promise, Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly in glory to the earth; the dead will be raised; and Christ will judge all men in righteousness. The unrighteous will be consigned to Hell, the place of everlasting punishment. The righteous in their resurrected and glorified bodies will receive their reward and will dwell forever in Heaven with the Lord.
I have no problem with those who hold dispensationalist views. Indeed, most all my family does. But I do have a problem when someone tries to make those beliefs a requirement for salvation. That's where I would draw the line.**
Maybe I don't have a firm understanding of dispensationalist beliefs. But the quoted section of the Faith and Message sounds exactly like an endorsement of the major tenets of premillenial dispensationalism.
The S.B. Convention advocates the autonomy of the believer and the church, and rejects creedalism. So there would not be a codified endorsement of dispensationalism or any sort of eschatology, as I understand it. But when the two major and authoritative seminaries teach this system as basic to S.B. beliefs and the leadership of the Convention overwhelmingly endorses it, it would seem to be a de facto doctrine.
In my own experience and that of almost all other S.B.'s I know, belief in the rapture and dispensationalism is taken for granted. No one wants to be "left behind"- it's a pretty seductive system. The focus is constantly on the "end times" promise of dispensationalism- that is, just the return and judgement mentioned in the Faith and Message.
2003-01-09 19:52 | User Profile
Hell, I don't know, weisbrot. Maybe my recollections are clouded by my affinity for the traditional church of my people. Like I said earlier, I just never gave much thought to eschatology at all. The dispensationalist view was commonly accepted, but I do remember my pastor back then, a man whom I have the upmost respect for, stating on numerous occasions that it was hard to preach on Revelations because it could be interpreted in so many ways. That's probably why I've never really done any in-depth study of same, believing as I do that it is not a requirement for salvation. I guess I've always figured that it's hard enough doing what a Christian should each day without worrying about what's going to happen somewhere down the line. Obviously I need to study up since the issue has become such a bellweather, defining one.
I have come to highly value the work of the [url=http://www.equip.org]Christian Research Institute[/url]. [url=http://www.equip.org/free/DS320.htm]Here's[/url] a good, concise article outlining all the positions.
2003-01-09 20:25 | User Profile
TD & Weisbrot,
You may find these articles interesting as they relate to the worldview and conduct exhibited by some dispensationalists:
Evangelicals and Israel: Theological Roots of a Political Alliance
The Unannounced Reason Behind American Fundamentalism's Support for the State of Israel
Something I've never understood about (some) dispensationalists is how they can rationalize separate roles for the nation of Israel and the Church in light of Romans 9-11 and Galations 3-4.
If they ignore passages like John 14:6 and Romans 1:16 and refuse to evangelize Jews while supporting political Israel and "helping" world events along (red heifer ranchers, etc.) to fit their eschatology, then there's something seriously wrong with that.
2003-01-09 20:32 | User Profile
TD, :D
correct on that: Black Celebration
Luckily for every musical group, there are fans posting the lyrics on the web. A simple Google search saved me the typing.
On a more topical note, I think restricting the # of TVs in the home, as well as perhaps sticking to prerecorded video could work wonders. My family has a set in every room, and my grades were always lower than they should have been.
Then I visited the home of our valedictorian. 1 Tv, Black and White (this was 1987)....
2003-01-09 23:58 | User Profile
Originally posted by Centinel@Jan 9 2003, 14:25 ** Something I've never understood about (some) dispensationalists is how they can rationalize separate roles for the nation of Israel and the Church in light of Romans 9-11 and Galations 3-4. **
You got me, C. I've run out of answers. The one thing I could never understand was how Christians here could support non-saved Jews in Israel over Palestinian Christians, which I believe are more than a few. At the very least you would think they'd advocate a position of strict American neutrality.
I don't get it. :wacko:
Thanks for the links.
2003-01-10 00:52 | User Profile
** The one thing I could never understand was how Christians here could support non-saved Jews in Israel over Palestinian Christians, which I believe are more than a few. At the very least you would think they'd advocate a position of strict American neutrality. **
Because the Palestinian Christians are mostly Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and Anglican. To many evangelicals, these people aren't really Christians in their book. "A bunch of baby sprinklers and sacramentalists" some of the more cynical among them would say.
To cloud the issue further, the Christian Zionists see the Palestinian Christians as puppets and pawns for Rome and the World Council of Churches, and this accusation isn't entirely without merit. Much of the agitation on behalf of the Palestinians in the United States is done by Catholics and liberal Protestants from the National Council of Churches.
For example, as a conservative, confessional Lutheran, I have a hard time empathizing with the Palestinian Lutherans as the "household of faith," even when the Israeli soldiers trashed the Lutheran church in Bethlehem last April during the occupation, because they belong to the liberal and ecumenical Lutheran World Federation. They didn't deserve to be harassed by the Israelis like they were, but conservative Lutherans in the US and the paleocon press tried to make political hay out of it all by saying "Look, those Israelis are harassing 'our people' over there!" Chronicles even ran a piece about it in the June 2002 issue:
[url=http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/June2002/0602Wolf.html]http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicl...2/0602Wolf.html[/url]
The "conservative" Missouri Synod, which doesn't belong to the LWF, but is moving in increasingly-ecumenical and liberal directions reported on it as well:
[url=http://www.lcms.org/news/2002_021.html]http://www.lcms.org/news/2002_021.html[/url]
It should be noted that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan, of which the Bethlehem congregation is a member, belongs to the ecumenical and liberal Lutheran World Federation, which in turn belongs to the WCC. That makes them the doctrinal equivalent of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) on this side of the pond, part of the same apostate Lutheran World Federation that betrayed Luther and the Reformation in 1999 by signing the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification with the Vatican.
Support among conservative Lutherans for such a church body as "brothers and sisters in Christ" would have been unthinkable in times past, regardless of the circumstances. It just goes to show how far down the road to Rome the LCMS itself has moved, offically rebuking the LWF for the JDDJ while quitely fellowshiping with its churches and agencies right and left. Politics trumps doctrine, evidently. More like "By their fruits ye shall know them." As compared to the SBC becoming more liberal and ecumenical in Baptist circles, so the LCMS has become more liberal and ecumenical among Lutherans. Both pay lip service to their heritage of conservative doctrine and separation from the NCC, but both are infiltrated with liberal and ecumenical agitators.
Lutheran World Relief, the only Lutheran relief agency operating in Palestine to my knowledge, is jointly supported by the LCMS and and ELCA. It relates to the LWF, and regularly deals with the United Nations. During the Jenin uprising, the LCMS was soliciting donations through one of its charities to help the Bethlehem Lutherans build a "Wellness Center," as if building a health club has anything to do with the Great Commission in a city where the Muslims are the majority and the mission field is ripe on the church's doorstep.
I honestly wish the International Lutheran Council or the Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference would establish missions in Palestine and separate themselves from the liberals so I could support the faith over there with a clear conscience. As things are now, I can't. The Christians in Palestine are the doctrinal equivalent of the National Council of Churches transplanted over there.
The fact that modern Israel (aside from a tiny community of non-Zionist Orthodox Jews) isn't even close to keeping Old Testament covenants doesn't even figure into the typical evangelical mindset, either. They are oblivious to the rampant political corruption, brutal human rights abuses against the Palestinians, the drugs, the homosexuality, and the prostitution. Whether they choose to put blinders on and ignore it, or get their news from places that tell them what they want to hear like Fox News, WorldNetDaily, and Hal Lindsey, it's no excuse for their ignorance, just like being ignorant of Deuteronomy 28 and the consequences of not keeping the old covenant.
It doesn't take a genius to see that modern Israel took its land by force, not faith, and it's a country mile from keeping covenant.
2003-01-10 07:16 | User Profile
Originally posted by Centinel@Jan 9 2003, 20:25 **TD & Weisbrot,
You may find these articles interesting as they relate to the worldview and conduct exhibited by some dispensationalists:
The Unannounced Reason Behind American Fundamentalism's Support for the State of Israel**
LOL great minds think alike. Weisy just posted this.
**Something I've never understood about (some) dispensationalists is how they can rationalize separate roles for the nation of Israel and the Church in light of Romans 9-11 and Galations 3-4.
If they ignore passages like John 14:6 and Romans 1:16 and refuse to evangelize Jews while supporting political Israel and "helping" world events along (red heifer ranchers, etc.) to fit their eschatology, then there's something seriously wrong with that.**
Well my opinion is that the laity really doesn't much understand these differences. Among the leadership of course they do. But I would suspect this hedging and support of political Israel just represents in part, at some level just a conscious adversion to going head on against the ADL. If you do after all there are a number of immediately negative consequences. One might argue for instance the Religious Right would just be marginalized within the GOP and lose whatever influence within it they have in mainstream politics.
Its odd to me that in these considerations we never see acknowledgement of disproportionate burden IMO the religious right already bears in confronting the ADL. Comments like these are just typical
Saul Rosenthal, a regional director of the ADL in Denver, CO, added that "if fundamentalist Christians" and "fundamentalist Jews" suceed with regard to abortion, homosexuality, and tuition vouchers, many Jews, along with Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hiindu's, and others, would be ostracized. Similarly, a 1994 ADL Report, "the Religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance and Pluralism in America" castigated Robertson and the Christian Coalition for insensitivity. The report accussed the Coalition of being "exclusionist" of indlging in a "rhetoric of fear" for politicial purposes, and of resorting to a political style reminescint [of] Joseph McCarthy in the 1950's." Robertson's book, The New World Order (1991) , was particularly offensive because of its alleged anti-Semitism
With all seriousness, I don't think any other portion of the mainstream right even comes close to confronting and opposing the basic agenda of the ADL and Co as the religious right.
2003-01-10 07:54 | User Profile
LOL great minds think alike. Weisy just posted this.
Doh! Sorry, Weisbrot
Well my opinion is that the laity really doesn't much understand these differences. Among the leadership of course they do. But I would suspect this hedging and support of political Israel just represents in part, at some level just a conscious adversion to going head on against the ADL. If you do after all there are a number of immediately negative consequences. One might argue for instance the Religious Right would just be marginalized within the GOP and lose whatever influence within it they have in mainstream politics.
I find it interesting that the leadership in the (dispensationalist) Religious Right is willing to suppress politically incorrect aspects of their gospel for political expedience. Even though I disagree with their their eschatology, I'd have more respect for them if they had the courage to state their convictions, made their doctrinal positions clear in no uncertain terms, and let the chips fall where they may.
It's bitterly ironic that the Jews have branded Reformation amillennial churches (Lutherans, Calvinists, Mennonites) as "anti-Semitic" because they maintain that Christ is the only way to salvation and don't recognize political Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy, while the Jews' politcal "allies," the dispensational evangelicals, largely don't evangelize Jews, yet support temporal Israel so that it can go through the tribulation only to have have 2/3 of the Jews perish after the church is raptured.
Messianic Jews have been up in arms lately about the Vatican formally stating that Jews can be saved without Christ and agreeing not to evangelize them. The Messianics consider this deliberate withholding of the gospel to be the ultimate anti-Semitism. Can the same be said of dispensationalist doctrine?
**With all seriousness, I don't think any other portion of the mainstream right even comes close to confronting and opposing the basic agenda of the ADL and Co as the religious right. **
I agree. The right-wing Zionist Jews in the GOP that are closely allied with the Religious Right are still a minority of American Jewry. They are, however very vocal and influential.