An Open Letter to Glenn Beck about Jim Wallis.

Beck's perversion of truth has tried to distort the meaning of what Social Justice. He is trying to imply that it means Marxism. Marxism is Godless Socialism. Socialism is not illegal, immoral or even unconstitutional. It is even partly Biblical. Acts 4 gives the description of an early Christian commune. But, I don’t think a purely socialistic society could work. Even the Early Christian commune had its own problems with the human sin of greed. It probably will never work this side of heaven. Jim Wallis, me and Social Justice Christians are not advocating socialism. The Bible is full of passages exalting the need and necessity and rewards for hard industrious work. The claim that we believe in “forced redistribution of the wealth” is a lie. But, forced redistribution of the wealth every 50 years itself is in itself a Biblical concept Leviticus 25:8-55. Beck’s claims are merely inflammatory distortions of the truth. Wallis has been asking him to have a public forum for a long time now. All Beck wants to do is yell.

Many sincere believers who are trying to sort out this issue say that social justice is the responsibility of the Church, not the government. I agree with the ethos behind that statement. I will even take that farther: The third century Church abdicated that responsibility to the government when the the Emperor Constantine, “got saved.” Until that time, 95% to %100% of the tithe went to the poor. Look at this link. That is one of the biggest reasons why Christianity grew so fast in those early centuries. Outsiders saw the sincere and sacrificial love of believers and converted to a faith that proved itself to be truly just.

But when Constantine had his conversion experience, he funded the Church, and then the Government indirectly funded Social Welfare. Unfortunately that has been the SOP handed down to the Church ever since. It got worse: the Church became wealthy and the means to political power, so it attracted less than sincere converts. With the wealth, and the way the government took over the welfare, believers were more and more isolated from the poor and their early roots. As the wealth of society grew, Christians became more and more dependant on their wealth and much less willing to share it. The cycle goes on. People accuse the poor of being lazy, and some are, but if one goes to an impoverished nation, or even the poor in the US and most of the time they will find, in the poor, the most generous people they ever met. They share an empathetic bond. I have witnessed it many times. Their generosity puts me to shame. We need to break that cycle.

So, the sincere believers who are trying to sort out what is right in this debate realize the mistake made by the State Church. They do not want to encourage sloth, but at the same time, their hearts have genuine compassion. So, the kindest statement made by those who oppose Social Justice Christians is that it should have been done by the Church. I agree that Social Welfare is the responsibility of the Church. The earlier link gives us an action plan for making that happen.

But it grieves me that too many believers have expressed nothing less than hatred toward the President that God gave us. Glenn Beck is dead wrong and is trying to confuse the issue. So, in order to take away his dishonest representation, we will have to change our language for a moment to help him see. let me break it down into two categories. Social WELFARE is the blessing of ministry that God lets the Church do. Social JUSTICE is mandated by God for the government to enact. Christians have responsibility in both arenas. (For those following me on Facebook, I started this week saying that Social Justice is the responsibility of the Church. But that was BBIR {Before Beck’s Ignorant Remarks}. I expect you to understand why I had to break down the issue.)

I am not condoning laziness, just ask my children. According to Isaiah 58, Social welfare is to be enacted by believers without the accusations of sloth, embezzlement, etc. But the arguments against health care reform that come to the front today, even from Christians, are primarily arguments about liberty, freedom, patriotism, the Constitution, and good ol' American resolve. These are noble things and I dearly hold those truths to be self evident, but they are second place to the teachings of Jesus. The bulk of the attacks against the Christian Social Justice position comes in the guise of Patriotic slogans.

On Thursday, March 11, I had the privilege of hearing Brother Jim Wallis at Cedarville College in Ohio. It was a debate between Rev. Wallis and Marvin Olasky the founder and Editor of World Magazine. The theme was: “A Critical Evaluation of Christian Responses to Poverty and Affluence.” Jim Wallis said: The Church should feed the poor, but the Church cannot build the levies.” I would add, the Church couldn't pass the laws that ended slavery. Among the student body, a fairly conservative Evangelical school, there were a few times that clapping broke out in support of one or the other. Most often, the clapping that broke out was in favor of Jim Wallis. It was supposed to be a "Biblical" debate. However, Marvin Olasky made a weak case for "trickle down" recovery (Isn't that what Bush41 called "Voodoo Economics?) based on Micah 6:8. His point was that the government was less than humble in its aspirations to help the poor and therefore violated the Spirit of "walking humbly." That, my friends is bad Hermeneutics. The rest of the substance of his arguments were patriotic sound-bites (one of those got the loudest and longest clap). Those sound bites implied that if you disagreed with him you were un-American and therefore, probably unchristian as well. All the while those “America is Great statements” were said, he ironically mixed them with the claim "you can't trust the government."

In my opinion, what little Scripture he used was out of context. His substance came from emotional sound-bites, some positive and some very negative. Of course, he can’t make a Biblical case against Social Justice; one simply cannot take Social Justice out of the Bible. Jim Wallis told us the story of how his study group at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois (one of the more conservative Seminaries in the nation) did an academic study of Biblical passages that referred to Social Justice, helping the poor, caring for the least of these and found at least 2,000 Biblical references.

I know that the extreme right's position states that in order for it to be Christian it must be voluntary, not compulsory. And the believers referred to in the first paragraph who think that it is "only the responsibility of the Church" are correct in the fact that the Church dropped the ball when Constantine "got saved" and Christian Social Welfare became a function of the State Church. (BTW, Christians Social Welfare by the State Church in England works very well. Jim Wallis' Spiritual advisorship to our President has mainly to do with ways that we can maintain constitutional freedoms and still support "faith based initiatives." Isn't it ironic that the Red Party, who decried the limitation of Faith Based initiatives during their won administration is now in effect lining up AGAINST THEM?)

Likewise, the church cannot pass the law to provide health care to the 30+ million Americans who do not have it. The government has responsibility for social justice, and it is Biblical. Look at this scripture about the greedy of King of Judah as Jeremiah compares him to his Father and talks about why God blessed his father: Jeremiah 22:15-16 "Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar? Did not your father have food and drink? He did what was right and just, so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" declares the LORD.

Christians, do you want to see revival? Then embrace God’s Word:

Amos 5:24 (The Message)

^21-24"I can't stand your religious meetings.
I'm fed up with your conferences and conventions.
I want nothing to do with your religion projects,
your pretentious slogans and goals.
I'm sick of your fund-raising schemes,
your public relations and image making.
I've had all I can take of your noisy ego-music.
When was the last time you sang to me?
Do you know what I want?
I want justice—oceans of it.
I want fairness—rivers of it.
That's what I want. That's all I want.

And:

Isaiah 58 (The Message)

Isaiah 58

Your Prayers Won't Get Off the Ground

^1-3 "Shout! A full-throated shout! Hold nothing back—a trumpet-blast shout!
Tell my people what's wrong with their lives,
face my family Jacob with their sins!
They're busy, busy, busy at worship,
and love studying all about me.
To all appearances they're a nation of right-living people—
law-abiding, God-honoring.
They ask me, 'What's the right thing to do?'
and love having me on their side.
But they also complain,
'Why do we fast and you don't look our way?
Why do we humble ourselves and you don't even notice?'
^3-5"Well, here's why:

"The bottom line on your 'fast days' is profit.
You drive your employees much too hard.
You fast, but at the same time you bicker and fight.
You fast, but you swing a mean fist.
The kind of fasting you do
won't get your prayers off the ground.
Do you think this is the kind of fast day I'm after:
a day to show off humility?
To put on a pious long face
and parade around solemnly in black?
Do you call that fasting,
a fast day that I, God, would like?

^6-9"This is the kind of fast day I'm after:
to break the chains of injustice,
get rid of exploitation in the workplace,
free the oppressed,
cancel debts.
What I'm interested in seeing you do is:
sharing your food with the hungry,
inviting the homeless poor into your homes,
putting clothes on the shivering ill-clad,
being available to your own families.
Do this and the lights will turn on,
and your lives will turn around at once.
Your righteousness will pave your way.
The God of glory will secure your passage.
Then when you pray, God will answer.
You'll call out for help and I'll say, 'Here I am.'

A Full Life in the Emptiest of Places

^9-12"If you get rid of unfair practices,
quit blaming victims,
quit gossiping about other people's sins,
If you are generous with the hungry
and start giving yourselves to the down-and-out,
Your lives will begin to glow in the darkness,
your shadowed lives will be bathed in sunlight.
I will always show you where to go.
I'll give you a full life in the emptiest of places—
firm muscles, strong bones.
You'll be like a well-watered garden,
a gurgling spring that never runs dry.
You'll use the old rubble of past lives to build anew,
rebuild the foundations from out of your past.
You'll be known as those who can fix anything,
restore old ruins, rebuild and renovate,
make the community livable again.

^13-14"If you watch your step on the Sabbath
and don't use my holy day for personal advantage,
If you treat the Sabbath as a day of joy,
God's holy day as a celebration,
If you honor it by refusing 'business as usual,'
making money, running here and there—
Then you'll be free to enjoy God!
Oh, I'll make you ride high and soar above it all.
I'll make you feast on the inheritance of your ancestor Jacob."
Yes! God says so!

Can’t we have a conversation?

A facebook friend of mine, the president of the Republican Party Toastmaster club in Dayton Ohio posted on her facebook page and I responded. Not only is she an avid Republican, but like me, she is an avid Christian. On most days, she posts a “scripture of the day” reference that is always a blessing to me. However, one day she posted this on her wall and I responded with another scripture for her to consider. One fellow, a kind hearted individual named Greg showed that some people can have a conversation, but others cannot.

A man named Mark took me to task privately afterwards. So, I posted the initial wall dialogue and then posted his intercourse with me.

When we get to the place where I post the inbox messages, I did a spell check and cleaned up a couple of wrong words on my end (wrong words indicated with a bold, italic text in parenthesis). I started changing the way he spelled democrats, than then realized that he was intentionally leaving out the c.

Text of orignial wall post.

Deborah Mulholand OBAMA WATCH CENTRALPresident makes Top 10 list of corrupt politiciansBelieves he 'can violate privacy rights of Americans' without legal consequence
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=120407

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.wnd.com%252Findex.php%253Ffa%253DPAGE.view%2526pageId%253D120407&h=74e46a23c5af73f4ff095fee1d50172b&ref=mf

www.wnd.com

President Obama has been named to a Top 10 list he'd likely be grateful to avoid: Judicial Watch's Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians. The Obama White House believes, said the report from the organization that monitors government for corruption,

Wed at 8:17pm · Comment ·LikeUnlike · View Feedback (12)Hide Feedback (12) · Share

3 people like this.

Phil Reynolds

Scripture for the day: 1 Timothy 2:1-4, the good news is, as believers, we have the power to bless.

Wed at 8:49pm ·

Gregg Nicholl

Romans 1- and "God gave them over . . ." God's wrath of abandonment: a nation turns its back on God and God simply lets them go, reaping the natural consequences of their actions. Better go the 2 Chr. 7:14 route ASAP.

Wed at 10:10pm

Phil Reynolds

So, Romans 1 trumps 1 Tim 2:1-4 as if it isn't scripture? Or, does Romans 1 have to do with a lack of concern for the poor and the idolatry of materialism: Ezekiel 16:48-49? Maybe 2 Chr 7:14 has to do with GOD's people in relationship to Isaiah 58. Maybe that is how revival is won. Maybe the "giving over" from Romans 1 has to do with Leviticus 19:33-34 when God says "I will judge you for calling not calling "illegals" the term Jesus used: "Neighbors."

Wed at 11:12pm ·

Gregg Nicholl

Phil:
I was not responding to your Scripture quote but the text of the article posted by Deborah. I apologize if I have somehow offended you.
Romans Chapter 1, in my opinion, is the locus of control for the malaise we are experiencing in the present age. This is the root cause of our societal problems- a hardness of heart begotten from turning the back on God in a macro or national sense. I wasn't trying to "trump" your Scripture quote. I am not interested in playing "silly church games." Lord knows there have been way too many people who twist Scripture for their own aims. There have been way too many church folk who seek to assert their superiority in the church pecking order through the throwing out of Scripture quotes verbatim and using clever "Christian" catch phrases like bumper stickers for life in order to impress the bretheren And God knows how many people continue to use Scripture to cut the hearts out of their brothers and sisters. I am NOT that way and if I would ever drift into such nonsense, I would trust that someone would correct me, confront me, or hit me over the head with a ballbat. It is indeed sad and it is one of the many reasons that the contemporary American Church has had such a minimal impact upon the greater culture.... See More
Chronicles 7:14 was taken out of context. It specifically applies to ancient Israel. However, it does serve as a good example of what to do in these trying times. Humility and prayer are always good things. Additionally, It shows how God spared a nation that turned its back on Him in the past; a nation that had many years of kings that adopted the evil ways of the other nations. Granted, it was ancient Israel, God's chosen people, however,it shows how He responded in the past to a people that were His own. In New Covenant times, Christians would be considered as God's people. America was founded on Christian principles and (until recently) considered itself a "Christian nation". Hence, the illustration. God is immutable- He never changes.
Once again, Phil, I was not trying to respond to your Scripture quote, but only to the article as posted by Deborah. I am sorry if this has caused any offense to you or anyone else. It was certainly not my intention and, as stated before, I don't play games with the Word of God. I was merely attempting to illustrate a possible causation for the madness that has taken hold in this country. I am sorry and I do apologize for my comments.

Yesterday at 5:38am

Deborah Mulholand

Greg: I'm not sure what your ASAP was all about, but my purpose in posting is that the Obama Administration is pretending to be "Christian" but our dear Prez won't darken the door of a church and hangs out with his Muslim friends and loves reading Harry Potter books to his daughters more than reading from the Bible. Obama says that we're NOT a Christian nation any more. Oh, Really?????????????

Yesterday at 9:18am

Gregg Nicholl

ASAP? (As Soon As Possible?) I don't understand. I explained my initial posting above, along with an apology to all concerned. There was no offense meant. it was just a reaction to continued examples of what happens when a nation turns its back On God as we have done in the past. Corruption permeates every level of government. There is no ... See Moreshame either. Consider Mary Landrieu's comments (D-Louisiana) referencing the amount of money it took to buy her vote on healthcare, "It wasn't 150 million, it was 300 million." This, to me, exmplifies Romans 1. And, as I have repeated, I am sorry for causing offense. It just made sense to me. Thanks. Take care.

Yesterday at 2:05pm

Deborah Mulholand

Greg: I'm still confused about those "Bumper Stickers For Life"! I've always felt they were a proclamation of loyalty to those "least among us" who need our protection. Those who are proudly pro-life, are fellow believers I can trust and call my friends.

30 minutes ago

END of wall posts, now Mark Buse asks me a question in my inbox. At the beginning of the conversation, his picture was visible and there was always a “reply” button. But after his last post, he deleted any access by me to him, his picture disappeared and the reply button did not exist anymore.

I weep for our nation:

Mark BuseDecember 31, 2009 at 2:43am Report

' So, Romans 1 trumps 1 Tim 2:1-4 as if it isn't scripture? Or, does Romans 1 have to do with a lack of concern for the poor and the idolatry of materialism: Ezekiel 16:48-49? Maybe 2 Chronicles 7:14 has to do with GOD's people in relationship to Isaiah 58. Maybe that is how revival is won. Maybe the "giving over" from Romans 1 has to do with Leviticus 19:33-34 when God says "I will judge you for calling not calling "illegals" the term Jesus used: "Neighbors." '

So are you furious that the nation doesn't treat invading thieves better? Or is this a statement of judgment against all of the home nations that abused their poor so thoroughly that they came to America to escape conditions that are far worse?

Phil Reynolds December 31, 2009 at 10:00am

Mark,
God bless you.
I am a conservative theologian and a pastor. I try not to begin a dialogue with accusations of self-righteous and angry L******* or angry C***********. It kind of makes it hard to have a conversation. What this country needs is a conversation instead of rhetoric. If a kingdom is divided against itself, it cannot stand. It seems to me that the politicians are more interested in politics than in healing our nation. I would love to elaborate further, as long as we can have a conversation.
Having said that, I don't see any evil in the word liberal. Liberal means "generous" and conservative means "to conserve" or to "hang (hand) on to." Of course, the ability to be generous most often begins with wise financial decisions that conserve wealth by eliminating irresponsible spending. When I see the call of God on the life of Abraham (Genesis 12) I read a spiritual principle, that apparently you also agree with (from your response on Deb Mulholland's page), that principle is that God blessed Abraham for the express purpose that he could be a blessing to others. I believe that principle is what you are saying when you say that we need to build up other nations so that people aren't so desperate to flee here. If we can do that, then we can eliminate a brain drain on the resources of those other nations.
I pause at your question "are you furious....?" I hadn't thought about it that way, that I am the one who is furious. Generally, the way to tell who is furious in a conversation has to do with their rhetoric, accusations or use of derogative or prerogative terms about the person they are taking with. Sometimes, I consider that debate tactic -attacking the character of those we disagree with- as an admission of defeat.
But, you are right, I am angry with the way the conversation has become to mean-spirited. I am angry that the name calling isn't going to move us from point a to point b. I believe there are sincere, honest thinkers on either side of the debate. If we, people like you and I, can model a respectful conversation, then perhaps that attitude will spread like leaven in a loaf of bread. It seems to me that our politicians are not interested in healing the land and it is up to us to start a grass roots conversation that will lead the way.
My comment on Deb's post was a reaction to the link. A knee jerk reaction and I am sorry for that. I do not know if you consider yourself a believer in Jesus Christ or not, but I know that Deb makes it clear that she has a deep and abiding faith. She deliberately represents Christianity on her facebook page. And, I was showing her from scripture that Christians are called to bless, and pray for, their government. God made it clear to Daniel and the Babylonian kings that God is the one who sets governments in power. If we represent Christ, then we need to reflect a biblical response over a political/national response.
I mentioned that I am a conservative theologian, and that means that my first allegiance is to the Kingdom of God. I am patriotic and I love the USA. But I am first and foremost a citizen of God's Kingdom and that Kingdom knows no national borders.
So, I believe, and this is just my opinion and faith, I am not asking you to adopt it for yourself. But I believe that although the nations that exploit their poor are reprehensible for their actions, their actions do not preclude us from obeying the scriptures. I believe the command in Leviticus 19:33-34 is a standard by which God will judge a nation as either righteous or evil. I believe that our national/political/financial interests do not take precedence over clear commands in scripture. I believe that our restrictive border policies are in direct violation of God's commandments for a just society and that by ignoring them, we place ourselves in a position to lose the blessing of God. I am not asking you to believe what I believe.
So, yes I am angry. I am also angry that both political parties are beating each other over the head with scriptures and obfuscating the (that) conversation that will heal our land. I am angry that Christianity is suborned by politics on both sides of the issue. And I am on a mission to ask people to have respectful conversations with each other instead of name calling.
I believe in the sincerity and integrity of those who disagree with me and I hope they can believe in the sincerity of my beliefs as well.
Mark, we can change the world.
Phil Reynolds

Mark BuseDecember 31, 2009 at 3:54pm Report

We can change the world as faithful witnesses to the Gospel. That includes an honest representation of what we support in the political aspects of life. I cannot believe that anyone can be a 'conservative' from a theological standpoint and in any way approve the legion of evil constituencies and policies that are bundled together in the modern Dem party or its leader, Odrama.
While I hope that every Christian prays for evil actors in politics every day, it is not our job to publicly bless their evil policies or behavior.
For example, I believe that it's quite proper and correct to pray openly for the salvation of BHO, Pelosi, etc, that they might turn from their destructive and damning evil.

Mark BuseDecember 31, 2009 at 3:59pm Report

The example of Daniel AND Esther are excellent ones to use in this context. While Daniel was properly respectful toward the despot Nebecudnezzar, he was NOT blindly obedient to his evil policies. In fact, the Lord turned the evil despot to Himself and I believe eventually to salvation because faithful believers did take a defiant stand against overtly EVIL policies and commands. That behavior was repeated by the Apostolic Church and the Lord Himself in their defiance of the evil Jewish leadership of their day. That continued throughout Church history as righteous believers defied wicked leaders and paid with their lives as martyrs.
And did Esther BLESS 'that vile Haman' and did her uncle bow to that vile man as protocol demanded?? Certainly not.

Mark BuseDecember 31, 2009 at 4:00pm Report

So I repeat, are you one who votes by proxy for the mass-murder of abortion through the one political party and its truly evil leadership the keeps that form of murder common, profitable, and legal?

Phil Reynolds December 31, 2009 at 4:56pm

Mark,
Again, God bless you in the name of Jesus. Can I assume that your statement "being witnesses of the gospel" and knowledge of the OT minor prophets means that you too are a follower of Christ Jesus?
The short answer to your question is: I vote according to the principles revealed to us by God in the book we commonly refer to as "the Bible." I vote the Bible and I take its morals, values and definitions of righteous and just activity as a standard whereby I vote my politics. I believe that the creation of the US constitution is a miracle given to us by the same God of the Christian faith. Although it is not scripture, it seems to have had divine help in its construction. It is a gift from God. I do not vote political party lines. I don't bite "hook, line and sinker" the claims of either political party. And again, I am disgusted at the childish level of rhetoric perpetrated by people who call themselves Christians. It is as if those people are still saying: "Lord, is this the time you are going to restore the kingdom of Israel?" Jesus made it clear, the Kingdom of God is in the hearts of men and women and transcends national borders. It seemed to me that He was frustrated with the fact that the apostles didn't "Get it" when He kept telling them that politics is not the answer to the world, He is.
Now the long answer. I marched in the "right to life march" in January of 1981. It was 18 degrees below zero when we started the march. I came across a Southern Baptist pastor who was a friend of my twin brother. I was studying at Bible College in preparation for pastoral ministry and wanted to make a good impression on every preacher I met since I could gain advice, help, mentoring and insights into my calling by cultivating those relationships. In other words, I was listening instead of speaking. The preacher said something to me near the end of the route. He said: "I wonder where all the black people are? Why aren't they concerned about stopping abortion?"
I found his question odd. I found his question to be racially biased in an unchristian way. I remember thinking "why notice? Why single out this other race as being less since they didn't join our cause?" But, I took his question to heart and investigated the reason why the defeat of abortion was not as important to the African American community AT THE TIME as it was to the Caucasian American community. My investigation lead me to this answer: "While we were wondering where they were during the right to life marches, they were wondering where we were during the civil rights marches." I am sure there are many other reasons, but the consensus of my investigation is that this was the primary reason.
The same passion that the American Evangelical Christian Community of which I am a part of that has fueled our passion against abortion also fuels my passion for human rights in every area. I believe that access to health care is an human rights concern. I believe that compassion toward our neighbors who are at worse called "illegals" and at best called: "undocumented residents" should extend to the words of Jesus and we should call them: "neighbor." Remember, the Pharisee "wishing to justify himself" asked Jesus: "who is my neighbor?" And Jesus launched the story of the good Samaritan. What would Jesus call the undocumented resident? Would He call them anything less than "neighbor?" So, I vote the bible. There is a lot more to being just, caring and loving toward our fellow man than stopping abortion.

Phil Reynolds December 31, 2009 at 5:29pm

We have a favorable court, and unless something drastic happens, Obama's presidency will not change that court. I remember my Republican vote for Reagan in order to get a favorable court and he gave us Suiter. The party line vote did not stop it. Abortion will not stop by legislation, it will stop by revival. We need the 2 Chronicles 7:14 promises to come true and it starts by the believers being HUMBLE. This spite filled rhetoric is certainly not reflective of the humble nature of Jesus.
I appreciate you picking up on the Daniel prophesy and strong stands against evil and for righteousness. Remember when Daniel interpreted Nebachanezzar's dream? God is judging the tyrant because of his arrogance and unwillingness to acknowledge God's sovereignty over all nations. So, Daniel tells him to repent and perhaps God will stay His hand of judgment. What does he say repentance looks like? He says, "stop sinning by making sure the poor get justice." Daniel says nothing about his idolatry, his drunken (drunker) party, his huge harem, etc. He tells him this: repentance is making sure human rights are not violated. Haman wanted to violate the human rights of the alien (Jews) living in the land.
John the Baptist says the same thing. He criticizes the people who are coming to get baptized because they want to look righteous, religious and good. He tells them that they have no intention of repenting and that if they don't: "The axe is laid at the trees..." So, some of them hear and are convicted and decide to genuine repentance and they ask John, "What does repentance look like?" John says: "if you have two coats, give one to someone who has none. If you have extra food, share it with the hungry." John said nothing about taking a stand against socialism, big government. As a matter of fact, in today's current political climate, John's answer would probably be criticized because "it smacks of socialism and that is un-American (unamerican)."
Listen, God gave Sodom and Gomorrah over to their perverted pleasures because they "were proud, arrogant, had a lack of concern for the poor and were lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God." (Ezekiel 16:48) God judged them twice. The first time, He gave them over to their perversions (proven as a method of judgment by God on a culture in Romans 1) and the second judgment, because they didn't repent when He exposed their materialism was the hellfire and brimstone. God judged Abhimilech when he took Sarah as his wife when Abraham lied. God kept all the women in the land from getting pregnant. Terminal sexual deviations -the lack of a culture to reproduce- is the judgment of God on a culture. Abortion is not the reason we will be judged, it is God's judgment. And the repentance must start in the house of God. The whole 2 Chronicles 7:14 ASAP comment is true. But, the repentance that God calls for is one of justice for everyone. Justice for our "neighbors" who flee to this land in ORDER TO LIVE. Justice for the marginalized cultures who live within our land, justice for those who cannot get healthcare, justice for those who do not have the chance to get a viable education. "With liberty, freedom and Justice FOR ALL"
Final question: Isn't the debate between "big government" vs. "small government" actually a debate between restrained vs unrestrained capitalism? Hasn't this debate gone on since Hamilton and Jefferson dialogued back and forth? Couldn't we have the same civil discourse instead of all this mean-spirited rhetoric?
Mark, you can I can change the world.
Phil

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 4:34am Report

The debate is between voluntary relationships, including the economic ones, among the people working together Under God, or an authoritarian state worshiped by the people in idolatry, as the Lord condemned roundly at the time of Samuel as a sign that the people had rejected HIM.
In that sense, all statist-minded liberals, who worship the power and fantasy benevolence of an all-consuming state have rejected God's way most thoroughly.
In a sense, you use 'capitalism' as an epithet and curse against the free will that is the Lord's gift.
Generally, I like the way you have discussed Scripture, but you also read a wrong conclusion from Daniel. Remember how in the narrative, Daniel himself sternly lectures Nebecudnezzar's son/successor for failing to turn from evil and acknowledge the Lord as his predecessor/father had done. The Lord had provided that wicked leader a representation of His very hand to write out his condemnation on the wall. In a sense, what many Christians are doing is calling out to our present vile, anti-God leadership that the 'hand-writing is on the wall' and we shall bring down their vile governance using our higher law of the constitution.
Your proposition that we are in rebellion against God-ordained government is dead wrong because we are the ones following the highest God-ordained law for our nation, our Constitution. We are condemning the vile usurpers who trample that Constitution no less than when the evil King Ahab and Queen Jezebel trampled God's Law and murdered God's prophets.
Abortion is not the Lord's Judgment that we have not been socialistic or communistic enough, because those of us who are neither are the ones who are personally generous in helping the poor and needy as the liberals, and especially liberal Dem constituencies are not.
Illegal aliens are not the same as legitimate foreign guests within a nation, who are to be treated as equals. They made a decision, usually an entirely selfish one on which their lives did not depend, to steal access to a nation against God's ordained government for both our nation and their nation of origin. What you are advocating is that it's ok to flaunt the law because you want MORE for your life whether it's legal or not. You turn morality on its head.
So I ask you again, are you voting for the mass-murder of abortion? You claim that Reagan gave us Suiter when he did not. That was Bush41, who was deceived into that mistake. What we get instead from Democrats is a hard-line pro-abortion litmus test for their appointees, and the most vicious attacks on good men like Thomas who made it through their evil torture, and Bork, who did not. Had Democrats not been so vicious, the Federal mandate for abortion would have ended long, long ago.

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 4:38am Report

Notions of "social justice" the modern leftist code-word for economic equalization, can NEVER trump mass-murder, even if it were true that one party was thwarting economic justice---in which case it would be the Dems who are systematically GUILTY of that crime. Their endless abuse of generous business people, their endless demonizing lies against every successful person and venture are an abomination before the Lord who provided those blessings. They are the party of Coveting everything, stealing from others, lying as they claim to be benefactors, and murders of the unborn. No Christian should have anything to do with such systematic evil.

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 4:45am Report

The Lord's kingdom is indeed always coming; let it come through His people rather than in spite of them.
Since we have to make real choices, I choose Conservatives for now since they are far more inclined toward the Lord and His kingdom than the other side.

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 4:52am Report

Luke 22:24-28
24Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
This is such a direct REBUKE to those who attempt to RULE over others as false benefactors.

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 4:55am Report

And this passage from Mark 10 (also in Luke)
The Rich Young Man/Ruler
17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
18“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’d”
20“Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
21Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
I've never met a poor redistributionist Demorat politician. They are all the worst kind of greedy, hypocritical, self-enriching LIARS while ripping the righteous people of our society as 'extreme'. We have had enough of their evil.

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 5:05am Report

I don't believe that our views are reconcilable because your sect seems to have heretically chopped out major sections of the OT and Revelation parts of Scripture to come up with a generalized 'anti-war' philosophy that is premature at best.
Only with the new Heaven and Earth, when evil and death have been destroyed shall there be total peace.
Until then, anti-war means lying down for despotism, a vile repudiation of the role that the Lord has provided for government to protect its citizens.

Phil Reynolds January 1 at 9:46am

Mark, again, God bless you.
After 9/11, I found an Inman (Imman) who was willing to respond to people who might be interested in the Islamic faith. After several discourses I asked him: "What would it take for there to be peace between Israel and the Arabs?"
He answered: "They kill our children, they steal our homes, they bomb our cities. There can never be a peace until we destroy them completely."
I posited back to him: "Consider this scenario, Jesus was hanging on a cross looking at the men who murdered Him and said, `Father forgive them, they don't know what they are doing?'" Sooner or later, one side is going to have to be the bigger person and seek a means for peace and a respectful dialogue because during the process, too many innocents will be destroyed.
What is it about Jesus nature, His command to turn the other cheek, His passion for the poor, His statement that a kingdom divided itself cannot stand, His command to bless those who curse us -to bless and curse not-, to treat people the way you want to be treated instead of the way you have been spitefully treated, and His nature conveyed to Peter who tells us to try to convince other people "with gentleness and respect" that so called Christians like you don't see? Do you really think this hard line of stopping everything the other political party does, twisting the Word of God by implying things like undocumented residents are not our neighbors, and obfuscating the truth of God's word by implying the US constitution is more important than God's Holy Word is acting in Christian love?
Mark, if you and I could have a conversation, then there is hope. We could change the world.
Phil

Phil Reynolds January 1 at 12:38pm

God bless you, Mark.
I am using the question of undocumented residents as a metaphor for our "Christian" nation but there are many other issues we could use as well.
You imply that our constitution implies that undocumented residents are "illegals." I am saying that the Bible calls them neighbor. You say, the US constitution is the highest authority in our country. And I agree. However, the Bible is the highest authority for me and if we are going to call ourselves a Christian nation, then we cannot pick and choose those passages that Augustine used to justify Roman imperialism. We need to accept and live by the whole council of scripture.
I have not tried to change your politics in this debate, I have only asked you and others like you, who name Christ as Savior to conduct yourselves in a manner that honors the Savior. I mentioned that I although I am a patriotic US citizen who believes in the good that we can do, I am first and foremost a member and citizen of the Kingdom of God. The apostles asked the question: "Should we obey God or man's laws?" I believe that I have a purpose and that is to help this nation get back into favor with God so that abortion, pornography and other terminal sexual deviations will be removed and the proof of our excessive materialism will stop.
Mark, we need the dialectical discourse to keep ourselves in balance. There is no reason why we as Christians cannot do it in a Christian manner?
Do you agree? Can a conversation help us to heal the land or is the only solution the elimination of one political party over the other? Where would America be if Jefferson AND Hamilton hadn't carried on a respectful discourse and shaped our values? Why can't we do the same?
Mark, We, you and I, can change this world.
Phil

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 2:36pm Report

As I mentioned before, you are so steeped in your heresy and folly that the best I can do for you and others like you is pray for you before you destroy our nation and tens of millions of other people around the world.

End of posts:

I guess a conversation is not possible with some. How sad.

How a Tattoo saved a man's life -From prison to freedom

I spent last weekend in prison. I spent with a group of guys who I came to love like my own brothers. I served on the team of a prison ministry called KAIROS. In order to protect the life of the principal in this story, I cannot share who I was with or where I was.

We sat inside the chapel area in "family groups" at five different tables to discuss impressions on what is known as "a short course in Christianity." During some "down time" on Saturday, I asked if anyone wanted to explain the significance of any of their ink. A brother, who is serving a life sentence, quickly jumped in. His tattoo was a view of Christ on the cross. At the foot of the cross, he had a gang symbol for the gang he had been “representin’” since 1983. He told us: “My religion is ****** (his gang) but my faith is in Jesus.” Now the fact that this man was intelligent was obvious. He had a real gift for writing and he gave incredibly insightful summaries to our table discussion talks.

But this statement bothered me. How can he consider faith as something different from religion? When I asked him, he said: “religion is what you practice but faith is what you believe in.” I thought I understood his perspective, but for some reason the misuse of the words bothered me. And it isn't that I am that concerned about abuse of the English language (keep reading my blog, that will become obvious). Something didn't set right in my spirit. He said that even though his gang is known for violence, enslaving people to drugs, and coercive recruiting, originally they intended to be a positive group. His desire was to restore them to a positive perspective. That, he said, was why he had the tattoo of Jesus on the cross mixed in with his gang symbol. It was then that he then told us that he was trying to make his gang "way of life" an official religion so that he and his fellow gang-members can wear their colors, just like the Muslims wear the Kufe.

Gang colors would cause a powder keg to erupt on the prison campus. Sitting on my left were two Hispanics. As soon as this gang leader mentioned the name of his gang they withdrew and became quiet. The tension soared at the table. There are subtle power struggles going on in the prison beyond what we outsiders can easily see. I started praying!!! I remembered that the ethos of approach to the men in the prison during the weekend was to be: “Listen, Listen, Love, Love and never judge." So, I didn’t directly challenge his statement, but I questioned his use of words in order to help him consider that faith in Christ is a way of life.

I could hardly sleep that night. In the course of the conservation on Saturday, he told us that converting to Christianity would cost him his life. He told us that he would defend his fellow gang members to the death and that in the course of his defense; he had already been shot with 6 bullets on three different occasions. But the fact was: the Holy Spirit was calling him to Jesus. Joel, my table leader asked me to “step up” and be a little more direct. We all prayed about the situation, the fact of gang violence and the cost of discipleship.

God was calling him to Jesus. And for this man, that wasn't a simple call. God’s call reminded me of those early Jewish followers who died for their faith. It reminded me of the early Roman converts who were slaughtered in the arenas. It reminded me of the Brethren and Mennonite farmers who gave their lives and farms in order to create the underground railroad and stop slavery in the US. It reminded me of the courage that believers had in WWII when they hid our Jewish brothers and sisters, sometimes at the cost of their own lives. These were people who rejected the doctrine of the empire and the false forms of Christianity that mix politics with religion in order to justify racism, extensive materialism, oppression and war. They are people that Charlotte, a beautiful Jewish woman who is my friend and next-door neighbor, would call “sincere Christians” because their faith isn’t about domination, but serving humanity like Jesus did. As God was calling this man to Himself, our table looked at Jesus’ words “if anyone seeks to gain (maintain control of) his or her life, they will lose it. If they lose their life, they will gain eternal life.” That man was faced with a real hard choice. He was faced with physical life and spiritual death or physical death and spiritual life.

At the closing, he went to the microphone and said, “You all know what I have been representin'. I have been representin’ since 1983, but now, I represent Jesus.” Pray for Him. I won’t give his name, because I don’t want to paint the bull’s-eye on his back, but the Lord knows who he is. Pray that God use this man to bring the peace of Christ to that campus. Those prisoners became the Lord's freemen. They were set free from sin, from prejudice, and from unforgiveness.

Liberal verses conservative verses emerging

So, I was at the National pastors retreat for the Sustaining Pastoral excellence program November 2008.

We were having a good time together, until the last session of the last day. My cohort did an emerging church study in which we looked at leadership principles for disciple-making in a post-modern culture.

Brian McLaren (who leans a little to the left side of the emerging church movement) has a great mission statement for his church: "To make disciples of Jesus Christ in authentic Christian Community for the good of the world." (Emphasis mine).

I think everyone, (liberal/conservative/fundamental/emerging/emergent/missional)
agrees with these statements: 1) The Church is the Kingdom of God on earth and it exists for the good of the world. 2) It is the only organization that exists to serve those who are not members. (N'est pas?)

Those two statements incorporate every facet of the COB. Yet I ask the question, why can't we get along better?

At the national pastors retreat, one other group was doing an emerging church study. They played a quote by Michael Frost which they titled "Fishing With Lesbians."
I appreciated the journey and context of this quote. Michael Frost is speaking at Calvary Pentecostal Church in a Youth For Christ Rally. In that Rally, he tells the audience a story about a fundamentalist preacher who is starting to get it. The minister, without any criticism, but with genuine warmth and love sees beyond the sexuality of two lesbian women, befriends them and fishes 3 times a week with them. He refers to the fact that Jesus has called him to make friends with sinners.

At this point, the National Pastor's conference erupted. I mean erupted! People were offended that these women were called sinners. The day before, in 6 small group settings (rotating) so that I had an interpersonal environment with everyone at the conference, I told a similar story of a baby shower for a lesbian couple with whom my wife and our praise team leader worked. Excuse my stereotyping, but when I shared my story, all the "liberals" were happy for me. Some even wept. I guess they thought they had converted a conservative. What I said was "The mother of one of the women told us that we were the first Christians to show any love to her daughter." and we told the one woman my wife works with: "We are sinners. Jesus came to save the world from its sin and brokenness. We have found that He loves us as we are and we love you as you are."

Now, we clearly stated that she was a sinner. But the second day, when the words came from a "conservative" (like me) the place got HOSTILE. I felt unsafe, judged, attacked, condemned and marginalized. And I discovered something that I hadn't understood before.

I already understood that conservatives feel called to propositional rhetoric because they believe that it is up to them to declare sin to be sin. (The danger may be that they are more interested in the propositions than the gospel). What was new to me was that liberals are just as propositional and self righteous about their liberality. To the liberals there, it was a terrible sin and offense to say that such and such is sin.

It was enlightening to realize that propositional theology, a construct of modernity, is as much of a stumbling block for conservatives as it is with liberals (but then didn't the Pharisees and Sadducees have the same problem?).

Then there is the temptation to comfort myself with a feeling of superiority since I recognize that God is not impressed with how well I know the propositions. He blesses me for sharing good news about Jesus. Period. But that is the real dilemma, that feeling of superiority. I can get proud when I see how wrong conservative and liberals are and get into the same cycle of self-righteousness. God deliver us from ourselves. Is there any hope this side of heaven?

Phil

God of Wrath or God of Love?

I have been shaken to the core of my eschatology through the book “Everything Must Change” by Brian McLaren. McLaren deconstructs evangelical Christianity and I can’t argue with his conclusions. I can sum it up with saying that he does a good job of relating evangelical Christianity with the doctrine of the Empire instead of the gospel of the Kingdom. He reminds the reader of the Jewish (oppressed by the Romans) context of Jesus’ ministry. However, it does change how we interpret certain parables and miracles. For example, the feeding of the 5,000 was Jewish and there were 12 baskets left over. The feeding of the 4,000 was Gentile and there were 7 baskets left over. The 12 baskets for the 12 tribes and the 7 baskets refer to the 7 Canaanite nations displaced by Israel. It happens right after Matthew refers to the Syro-Phoenician woman as a Canaanite. It is the only reference to Canaanites in the entire NT. They were displaced by the Jews and the use of Canaanite means that God was no longer punishing, or calling for a separation of, the Jews and the Canaanites. The parable of the unjust steward finally makes sense when we see the steward as a minion of a landlord with sharecroppers who have lost their land due to the taxation system of the Romans. The land barons augment the oppression by making an almost feudal system. All of a sudden Jesus praises a steward for giving justice and appeasing the oppressive landlord at the same time. I never understood that parable before and could never justify the lying until I saw it in this context.

That brings me to eschatology and the “shaken to the core” statement. I have always been suspicious of the wrath and anger of God in Revelation, but have been afraid to mention it because “if any one adds to this book….” Here was my dilemma: If the wrath of God against humanity was satisfied on the cross, against Himself as the incarnate God, then why is there more wrath at the end of the current human existence? McLaren verbalized my fear in bold language when he says: “the cross then, is a fake-out and God really is a God of wrath.” I guess he verbalized a fear that I have. The fear being that I can’t reconcile Revelation with the rest of the Bible. (I have no problem reconciling the destruction of Canaan with the NT when I recognize how evil the Canaanites were. God was making an example out of them after He gave up on convincing them to repent.) Why Revelation? Why this second judgment? Wasn’t the cross enough? Isn’t the unfairness of the cross, the Innocent One dying for everyone else the most pure form of justice? Somewhere justice wasn’t going to be fair, so God took the unfairness oh Himself. What love! But then Revelation shows God getting revenge for it. I had this dilemma.

Then I understood it from the perspective of the oppressed. I am not buying into all of McLaren’s explanation that Jewish Apocalyptic literature was merely a Jewish liberation theology technique designed to give hope to the Jewish people in the form of a coming judgment against the Imperialists and their collaborators. (A point he makes in the book “The Last Word, and the Word After That.”) In that book, he deconstructs the doctrine of hell. And I did change my theology of hell after reading it. My theology of hell, as you know is: “Hell is the divine act of Love by the righteous judge of all the earth on behalf of the oppressed.” Hell is important. Without hell, the oppressors go free. That could be mercy, but it isn’t love on behalf of the oppressed. Sure, they can, and have to forgive. But the loving parent gives justice to all of his or her children. Brian alludes to his belief that Jewish apocalyptic literature is merely oppressed people seeking hope, I tend to believe that Daniel and Revelation are supernatural visions from God. All that aside, I am still relived to have an answer to my dilemma. The answer comes in Revelation 19. This chapter takes place after all 21 judgments are meted out. In the chapter, the saints of God and the oppressed are praising God for giving them justice. It changes the whole book from Angry God to God of Justice (who loves the oppressed). It certainly explains the soteriology of Lazarus and the statement by Jesus about the rich man who was in torment: “You had your leisure on earth; he now has his in heaven.” (Lazarus never answered an altar call -it appears he was saved merely because he was poor.). It explains Luke’s telling of the beatitudes: “Blessed are the poor (without the words “in spirit”), for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.”

However, the question of imperialism and current eschatology comes to play here as well. I think from reading Brian McLaren that he resists current eschatology because it isn’t green. I am not a tree hugger. But I concur. As a registered theologian for over 30 years, I have always wondered just what would happen if Jesus didn’t return in my lifetime. I mean we all expect it and hope for it. But honestly, so did Paul and Peter. So did those who died in concentration camps in Germany. So did Christians during the reign of Communism in the USSR. So did the Huguenots during the mini-ice age when it snowed in July and they were being oppressed. Realistically, we could be wrong and I don’t think any sincere Bible scholar disagrees. Brian’s problem then is this: If we believe this is the final generation, then a PASSION for caring for the earth is not important and that could have terrible ramifications for our children. As a matter of fact, if the earth falls under the manifold problems of pollution, then perhaps the plagues in Revelation have the impudence to happen, (And, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy). Brian’s point is that we should care. I would say that even if we believe that it will happen, we must live like it won’t happen. The book of Genesis makes it clear that God entrusted the earth to us to care for, not exploit.

But that isn’t the imperialistic problem with current eschatology. The symbol of the cross was pretty significant to any Jewish person. The Empire of Rome made it clear that if you did not accept their peace, then you would be tortured into submission. If God is a God of wrath who will torture and burn his enemies, then Empires who use torture are partners with God in the way they treat the people they have conquered. McLaren’s point is that we have justified aspects of our warfare based on this incorrect eschatology. Amen. That is the difference between the good news of the Kingdom of God and the doctrine of the Empire. God has called Christians to another way of living. Jesus said it like this: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.”

My thoughts on the election so far

AUTHORS NOTE, I HAVE CHANGED MY POSITION ON ABORTION AND I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS MURDER. PERIOD. I APOLOGIZE FOR THIS. JULY 30, 2016.

 As to the candidates being Christian. I watched Jeremiah Wright's interview on Bill Moyer and wept for joy that a Christian pastor was speaking the truth about injustice. What impressed me in the Rick Warren/Obama/McCain discussion was the way Obama said "evil exists out there AND in the United States. We have to confront evil everywhere." His implication (I believe) was that confronting certain evils of our own, in foreign and national polity will have a positive effect in addressing some of the root causes of terrorism directed against us.

For example. I get these "Christian" scorecards about the candidates. Clearly spoken is an issue: Candidate A is against giving Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants. Candidate B is for giving said SS benefits. Which is the Christian response?

Leviticus 19:33-34 "Do not take advantage of foreigners in your land; do not wrong them. They must be treated like any other citizen; love them as yourself, for remember that you too were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am Jehovah your God."

I want to remind Christians that this is just one chapter removed from Leviticus 18:21-22. A passage that we take our stand on about righteousness blessing a nation or lack of righteousness cursing a nation. I want to ask why it is not a Christian viewpoint that we care for illegals as much as we care for ourselves? US border policy is just as big an issue as abortion and gay marriage. It is a Christian issue because it elevates the Word of God over the Constitution, national security or hoarding our resources for ourselves.

It seems problematic to me that one side is carping on a few issues, making up others, and ignoring other important biblical concerns. Well, probably both sides. But at least one Candidate is willing to say "the problem is with US as well." I see one candidate being very Christian in his confessional humility. I see another candidate doing what some evil despots have done in the 20th century by creating a following through focusing on a common enemy.

Why do people ignore border policy when it is one chapter away from the strongest indictment against homosexual behavior? It seems to me that fingers are pointed in one direction in order to distract us.

I disagree with Obama's stand on abortion. Abortion, except in the case of the survival of the mother is murder. Period. But, the court is already favorable. Yesterday (October 13) CNN was making an issue of how important the court nominees would be and they made it clear that in the 4-8 years of an Obama presidency, 3 liberal judges will probably be replaced. But it won't change the court because there is a 5-4 majority. I voted Republican for the last 20 years in order to get this court. Reagan appointed Suiter, who is described as one of the liberals who will probably go off during this next presidency.

My vote for Reagan was wasted on that issue (I still think he was a great president and am glad I voted for him in spite of his failure to fulfill that promise -and I know, he had a Democratic senate to work with).

But one final thing. One side tries to build support by rallying against terminal sexual deviations (abortion, homosexuality). I agree that these are issues of righteousness. But terminal sexual deviations are not the reason we will be judged, they are the judgment. Ezekiel 16:48, Romans 1. Why are we judged? Ezekiel 16:48, again. Lack of concern for the poor. Which candidate will help us win revival? The one who places concern for the poor over concern for the rich.

Do I really believe that one candidate cares that much for the poor? Nope, I am realistic. Both candidates are politicians Our political system is designed to serve the interests, whether it be the "gay agenda," "abortion mills," or insurance companies who want to continue to deny or restrict health care to the unhealthy, to the oil/energy concerns, Wall street, or any other group with enough financial clout to buy votes and influence in order to create an unfair advantage over others with political power and legislation.

SO, I know how I am voting, because I know what is happening isn't working. Being truly Biblical, having the values of Jesus expressed in Mathew 25, is bigger than the narrow issues that one side is making them out to be. I am voting that way because of my deep commitment to God's Word and my Christian faith. But my hope is not in either candidate, my hope is in the Lord.

Phil Reynolds

My Story So far

I have learned the most about me. I discovered that my worldview is Post-Modern. What a freeing discovery! Although I do not embrace the concepts of syncretism and pluralism as part of my theological understanding, I do embrace them socially and politically.

I find that my many years of pastoral ministry have exhibited this journey. My first years could simply be defined as ministry born out of “a reaction to modernity.” This was fleshed out through a passion for apologetics, memorization of most of the New Testament, study in the original languages, and the history of the Church and its development of theology. The passion for this gnosis became a polemic because it was reactionary. My own personal experience was that the importance of orthodoxy was elevated over orthopraxy in Western Christianity. This happened across Western Christendom but especially within my own camp: American Evangelicals. The Evangelical community became a Christian sub-culture that is good at cursing the darkness of modernity. However, the world moved on into post-modernity. The “cursing of the darkness” became an embarrassment to me. It is irrelevant to our culture. Therefore, although it might create disciples of the Christian sub-culture, it is no longer an effective means of proclaiming the good news to the post-Christian world. When I began to evaluate the rhetoric of the Christian sub-culture I decided I needed to compare it to the value system of the post-modern world. I finally admitted that even my passion for apologetics, during my “fighting modernity” stage of my ministry, was merely me trying to assuage the guilt of arrogance by trying to show that believers are not kooks. I did that by emphasizing the teachings of Jesus Christ and the prophets –especially those dealing with justice and mercy.

This journey was freeing because I realize that the Christian Sub-Culture in the West had abandoned the most important teachings of Jesus and the prophets. (I actually get regular email from a group describing itself as “right Christians” that directly oppose Leviticus 19:34 and call it a Christian value to make stricter US border policy.) I find the missional concepts of evangelism that are designed to reach the post-modern world are much more in line with the teaching of Jesus. Story-telling in my preaching is more in line with the way Jesus taught. But more than that, it reconnects me with the good reasons why I became a hippie in the 70’s in an holistic, Christ-centered way. It feels like a full circle with real purpose and meaning. More than that, it helps me deal with the painful experiences I have faced in 22 years of pastoral ministry. It re-connects me to our Anabaptist roots.

It seems to me, that every time we arrive at a central position in dialectic, it becomes a new extreme and a new dialectic is formed. Then the new dialectic moves us to another center, which in turn becomes another extreme; and then an even newer dialectic is formed and so forth. In other words, emphasis on orthodoxy was the correct response to modernity. However, we got so wrapped up in it that it led to what I call Neo-Gnosticism. The dialectic created is leading us into the emerging church movement. I need to remember that some day it will become an extreme, and another dialectic will form and another new center will be created. (Hopefully I will be in heaven by then and not have to learn it all over again!) As it is right now, the Church has in many ways become irrelevant. There are millions of Christians in the West who will get to heaven, but it seems they have forgot that the Church exists for the good of the world.

So, there are general principles, perceptions and practices that I feel the church needs in order to be invited back to the table. This list is not exhaustive or a comprehensive answer to all of Western of Christendom, but personally developed out of my passions and understanding. I believe this is what God is leading me to focus on:

Principles:

• Orthodoxy is irrelevant if it does not create Christ-like behavior.
• Jesus came to save the world from its sin.
• Jesus will always be with the Church, empowering her to preach good news.
• The Church exists for the good of the world.
• The Church is called to reflect Jesus to non-Christians.
• We do not have the privilege of bringing our world back to Jesus as if we were like the early believers preaching in the streets of Jerusalem. Instead we are more like the early believers preaching in the streets of Rome or Corinth, where the good news is not generally known.
• Jesus is the only way to the Father.

Perceptions:

• To Prevent:

· Christians hate homosexuals

o Racism used to be taught from conservative pulpits, if they were wrong about racism, are they also wrong about homosexuals?

· Christianity is Imperialistic:

o God is a Republican.

o America has a manifest destiny

§ Emphasized in the Religious Right’s decrying of UN involvement

§ The erroneous view that if we did it, it must be right

§ The erroneous view that the Constitution is as divinely inspired as the Bible

· Christianity is irrelevant.

• To Proclaim:

· Jesus loves the homosexual as much as us.

o Just as Christianity was instrumental in overcoming slavery, Christianity was instrumental in overcoming racism.

§ We need to confess our own part in racism as sin.

o We need to confess our creation of homophobia as sin.

o We are all sinners and singling out homosexuality is merely cursing the darkness.

o God is the one who sets people free, and sometimes it may not be until they get to heaven.

o Jesus never taught that homosexuality was okay, normal or a viable option. But on the other hand, He never bothered to elevate it as a litmus test of true spirituality or biblical authority.

o We cannot judge another servant of the master, because in the Master’s eyes (not ours) they stand or fall.

o Terminal sexual deviations will not bring the judgment of God on our society; they are the judgment of God (Romans 1).

§ Just as we understand disease to be a judgment, we never hate the person infected with that disease.

§ Disease is often non-specific in who it attacks.

§ Let us be as merciful to the homosexual as we are to the cancer patient.

· God loves the whole world, no exceptions:

o We need to be about a 2 kingdom theology that overcomes the political belief in the manifest destiny of America.

o Jesus is not a Republican or a Democrat.

o We need to admit that Columbus was probably more interested in gold than sharing Jesus.

o Even though Israel does have a manifest destiny, its destiny, along with ours is to be a blessing to the entire world.

o America needs to confess its sin of dominating the world economy for its own welfare instead of the good of the entire world.

o American Christians need to influence the government to do justice.

· Christianity is still relevant

o It is still the only world religion doing good works in almost every area of deep poverty (for example the caste system of Hinduism actually sanctions the poverty of the poor).

o The teachings of Christ Jesus still inform us how to live.

o When Christians are acting like Christ, good things happen.

Practices:

• Do justice.
• Be humble.
• Love Mercy.
• Work with other faiths and religions to overcome injustice.
• Expect the power of the Holy Spirit to draw people to Jesus.
• Create authentic community centered on our mission.
• Be unapologetic about justice.
• Distance myself from the arrogance of the Religious right.
• Be more open-minded than the liberals.
• Explore more of the mystery of God.
• Have Faith
• Pray in faith
• Do not be afraid of evildoers
• Do not fear the rhetoric of the Religious Right
• My ministry is at God’s privilege, therefore hold it with an open hand.
• Be anxious for nothing, but in everything with prayer and supplication, let my requests be known to God.
• Trust in the fact that God is leading me to know Jesus, and the fellowship of His suffering.
• Remember the leaven of the Pharisees (for me this is important).

Are you being served?

My dad and me

I said to many men, "May I serve you?"

But to a man, who because of pride is my adversary,

I would say, "Will you be served by me?”

I have asked the man to let me be the one in control and Power.

Jesus stops by me.

I AM says to me, "Will you be served by me?"

I say “No.”

He says,

"Then you may have no part in me."

Thinking I have Jesus' point

I turn to this man and say. "I will be served by you."

But Jesus looks at me with love

Eventually, I say. "You may serve me"