Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies – it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism. How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets – all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite?

By the 1990′s the growing urban Muslim population was obvious – and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious. Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark’s liberal way of life, the Danes – once so welcoming – began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history.

The New York Post in 2002 ran an article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted accurately that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported:

• “Muslim immigrants…constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.”
• “Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark’s 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country’s convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.”
• “Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.”
• “Forced marriages – promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death – are one problem…”
• “Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark’s Muslim population grows large enough – a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.”

As I pointed out in What of “Social Justice”? that those who promote “social justice” begin from the premise that life ought to be perfect, it isn’t perfect and capitalism is the reason. Once we establish a socialist society where all workers and non-workers share equally in the benefits of the workers, then all will be well. It eliminates the idea of personal responsibility or the demands of the uninvested. The uninvested are those who contribute little or nothing to the whole but make the most demands. We see it in the Danish statistics. 5% of the population is Muslim but consume 40% of the welfare spending. The increasing insistence on not mixing with the native Danes and demand for the introduction and imposition of their on the Danish population.

We have a similar problem here in America. Not just Muslim but those in the entitlement state. A large voting bloc are those on welfare. They too are not invested and yet derive their support from those who are working. No demands are made on them to contribute or take responsibility for their lives. If such stipulations as, say, drug testing or work fare are suggested, it is decried as unfair and immoral. Several years ago there was a split over food stamps in congress. Conservatives tried to ban their use on cigarettes, alcohol, or potato chips. The next part of this saga is breathtaking in its utter lack of logical thinking. The liberals were adamant that we cannot legislate anyone’s morality. When conservatives tried to take a firm stand the liberals said it would be immoral not to pass the bill. In other words, it is perfectly fine to legislate the morality of wage earners by forcing them to fund this charitable food program but wrong to legislate how the uninvested recipient uses the program. Voila! Social Justice in action. No personal responsibility for the non-contributor but extreme legislation and controls on the wage earners making care of the entire population their responsibility.

Biblically, we find that the world is not perfect because all humans are sinners (Romans 3:23; 5:12). Sure we can do good things. Jesus even pointed this out within the context of our sinfulness we can still do good things:

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?(Matthew 7:11)

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? (Luke 11:13)

He also pointed out that there may be ulterior motives in why we do things:

And He also went on to say to the one who had invited Him, “When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, otherwise they may also invite you in return and that will be your repayment. (Matthew 14:12)

What this demonstrates is that as humans we tend to do good things for those we know and care about our family and close community or for what we may derive from it. Such is the plight of sinful human nature. As believers, we can be more altruistic because we realize that He provided salvation for us who could not gain acceptance from God on our own merits. Out of thankful hearts we in turn serve others as a way of serving and glorifying Him. But even in that we find biblically that there is an expectation of personal responsibility on the one receiving.

As Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 3:10:

“For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.”

While either avoiding Scripture altogether or simply reading into the text (eisigesis) things that are not there, the rising Evangelical left, including such notables and Brian McLaren, Rick Warren, Don Miller and many others, take the position that the existence of poverty, hunger, sickness and illiteracy proves the church has failed in its mission since its inception. In other words, the gates of hell did prevail against the church which in turn would mean that Jesus Christ is a false prophet for He declared that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. The problems here are manifest and apparent. The mission of the church has not been to Christianize culture, force unbelieving leaders and dictators to behave according to biblical morals or to fix the unregenerate to behave more like regenerate believers which simply gives you better behaved unbelievers content in their own self-righteousness. Christians and other charitable folks send literally tons of food, medicine and other supplies as well as provide medical care and even education to many nations around the world The biggest hurdle is getting past corrupt national leaders who leave the food, medicine and supplies sitting on the dock with no intention of distributing or allowing distribution and in some cases they sell it for personal profit. In what way is the church responsible for this? The emerging left doesn’t say, they simply waggle the church lady finger and accuse faithful believers of being unfaithful for not meeting the demands of the emerging left. The proclamation of the gospel is less or even not at all important to this group when, biblically speaking, that is the mission of the church according to Matthew 28:18-20 and 2 Corinthians 5:20 is to be ambassadors, proclaim the gospel and make disciples. It isn’t eliminate poverty, hunger, illiteracy and help unbelievers be the best behaved unbelievers we can muster.

I wonder if Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV) has anything to do with the differences between the rising Evangelical Left and Conservative Evangeklicals see the world?:

“The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
but the heart of the fool to the left.”

“I’d encourage you to pause and think about the significance of losing people’s confidence. A leader can only sustain forward movement if he/she has the confidence of the people being led into battle. Now, if a church is simply providing a safe comfort station for hurting people, that’s one thing. But if a church is intent upon facilitating a moral and spiritual revolution, recognizing that doing so is a declaration of war on current cultural preferences and values, the loss of confidence is a devastating setback. And – strategically – such confidence cannot be restored by simply waiting for the tide to turn; church leaders must intentionally win back people’s confidence through visionary leadership, holy character, and guiding people in transformational ministry efforts.”

This past weekend before even seeing Barna’s report, this is also one of the main emphasis I was making. You might say it has even been a theme of mine for some time. The church is in a state of confusion and the result is many are not certain what it’s mission and responsibilities are in an increasingly pagan culture. Even reading the comments on Barna’s short article show the lack of biblical literacy on our calling. “B Crump” has a lengthy comment in which they decry the non-acceptance of them by the organized church. There is a lot of truth to that. There seems to be an almost natural attempt to cause everyone to conform to the group. Independence is not encouraged in many cases. If you happened to really be called as a missionary to your culture, you will likely be a round peg in a square hole in many churches. Working with people is messy and churches don’t like messy because it is, well, messy. The ministry of the church in the first century was mostly about training, equipping and comforting hurting people who had come to the faith from paganism. It was a time to be loved in spite of your differences and readied to get back out into the mission field. The Apostle Paul in Romans 14 reminds the Romans to accept one another in spite of their differences.

Some comments imply that Jesus cared not a fig for doctrine. He wasn’t a theologian according to one but we can hardly read the gospels and come to that conclusion. He often appealed to Scripture for what He was doing or derided the religious leaders of the day for ignoring Scripture and even accused them of biblical illiteracy. For example, when the Sadducees tried to trap Him He responded in Matthew 22:29:

“Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”

Another of the commenters, Vsheehan, targeted their comment on “Social Justice.”

“Social Justice was what Jesus was all about!!!! The Catholic Church trying to block healthcare for all is a perfect example of how Churches are more interested in shoving their worldview down peoples throats instead of caring for others.”

The first comment I have on this is to point out that we do not find anything in Scripture giving believers the responsibility to force non-believers, or unbelieving governments to take from one segment of society (believers and unbelievers alike) and dole it out to another segment of society who feel it is their due.

Christians down through the generations have been enormously charitable even to the point of sending vast amounts of food, clothes and medical supplies to nations where the dictators let these things sit and rot on the docks or sold them for their personal gain and left the starving to continue starving. Why are those who are calling for Social Justice unwilling to call these evil leaders to task?

Social Justice is a phrase that we hear often these days but will search the Scriptures in vain to find the concept. In addition, Vsheehan, like so many, distort and/or ignore what contributions many churches have made. Whatever our views of the Roman Catholic Church, they have done a great deal in addressing poverty. I believe and have argued that Rome proclaims a false gospel and yet, it is hard to argue with the vast amount of help Catholic Charities has given to so many for so long without expectation from the recipients. The flaws in the claim that Jesus “was all about” Social Justice are more extensive than I can address in this short piece but the core is important. It is an idea that comes not from Scripture but from Marxism. It assumes the world ought to be perfect and since it is not perfect it is our job to make sure every human has not only equal opportunity but equal stuff. The way to work this out is to steal stuff from those who have material possessions and give it to those who lack. Now we are not really talking about charity here but rather an equalization and redistribution of material wealth in an effort to eliminate poverty, sickness and illiteracy.

In Mark 14 a woman brought a very expensive vial of perfume and poured it over Jesus feet. The disciples were very upset and in their indignation pointed out that it could have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor. His response is quite telling:

”For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them;”(Mark 14:7)

Poverty is not something we will be able to solve this side of the Lord’s return. That doesn’t mean we ignore the poor. As the Lord said, “Whenever you wish you can do good to them.” That kind of charity is done best one on one. The one helping the poor is rewarded by the personal contact, the one being helped is helped and becomes known to those in their community. Relationships are built, caring relationships which are beneficial to all. In the Social Justice environment no one really benefits. The one whose stuff is taken is not happy because they were stolen from, usually by the government. The one who receives is not happy because they think they deserve more. The bureaucrat is the middle man to who gets it from both sides. The result is making all equally poor. The Scriptures show quite a different way of addressing physical need. In the Old Testament, farmers were not to harvest the corners of their field nor glean (pick up everything) the harvest (Lev. 23.22). The expectation was that those in need had to do something, accomplish some work, in order to have food. Here they were given opportunity on the farmers land, to gather and harvest food. They didn’t sit around and wait for someone to deliver it.

In 2 Thessalonians 3:10 the Apostle Paul clearly stated the same principle when he said:

“For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.“

The Apostle Paul makes a distinction between “widows” and “widows indeed” and gives strict guidelines:

“Honor widows who are widows indeed; but if any widow has children or grandchildren, they must first learn to practice piety in regard to their own family and to make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God. Now she who is a widow indeed and who has been left alone, has fixed her hope on God and continues in entreaties and prayers night and day. But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives.

Prescribe these things as well, so that they may be above reproach. But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man, having a reputation for good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to every good work.

But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married, thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge. At the same time they also learn to be idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention. Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; for some have already turned aside to follow Satan.
If any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are widows indeed.” (1 Timothy 5:3-16)

What we don’t find here is a women living in a taxpayer provided apartment, collecting a check (or credit card), food stamps, with a Droid mobile phone, color T.V., etc. There are responsibilities to be met before even being considered for church charity. Does she have family who should be taking care of her? Does she live out her faith? How has she treated others? She must stay busy and not be a busy body and gossip. All of this demonstrates that charity is something that should happen locally where the one in need is known and those helping can determine if the one in need has the ability to provide for themselves.

Throughout Scripture, the tenor is one of personal responsibility on the part of the one in need in a community environment and varying levels of responsibility on the part of those around the individuals in need.

… all of these distinctly Christian stumbling blocks have been questioned by the Culture Driven Church. Grace and Hell have long been disparaged. Grace has either been watered down into universal salvation or thickened with concepts of good works. Hell has been disparaged by even venerable dons of theology. Evangelism has been abandoned in favor of a social gospel and Brian McClaren’s religous pluralism. And sexual ethics have been simply and quietly ignored in favor of discreet trysts or transformed into political debates. All of this in an effort to remove the skandalons that offend.

As we have continually emphasized through the series on the Culture Driven Church that nothing happens in a vacuum. We got to this point through processes in the past which bring us to where we are at today, in culture and the church as well. A physical analogy may be helpful.

A fine line exists between personal rights and public safety. A small retrovirus, 90 nanometers in size, invisible to the naked eye and even to a high-powered microscope, now straddles that line. In this tug of war, people are walking wounded and dying in large numbers.

America has already lost 400,000 people to AIDS; another 600,000 to 900,000 are HIV-infected and will meet the same fate. Around the globe, 16,000 people become newly infected each day; according to the most recent data from UNAIDS, one woman becomes infected every 12 seconds.

The lack of leadership in controlling the AIDS epidemic is a national disgrace. Fifty-two communicable diseases are reported by name. HIV, the most deadly communicable virus, is off this list in California, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Georgia (the backyard of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and in a number of other states.

In case anyone is still wondering, the cure rate for AIDS remains locked in at zero. There is no AIDS vaccine, and there may never be one. HIV should be at the top of the list of communicable diseases in all states and partner notification a must, not an issue for debate. Our only hope in saving lives is through prevention, and that opportunity is being squandered.1

When AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) was first brought to the attention of the public at large, it was viewed by many as a “Gay” and/or drug abusers disease. A terrible one, no doubt, but after all hadn’t the cry up to that point been: “What goes on behind closed doors is none of your business. Any satisfactions or consequences are ours and don’t affect you!” Suddenly the outcry from within these communities was “AIDS cure now!” and militant Gay activists made sure it was in the public view demanding that all tax payers be penalized for the consequences of the behavior which happened behind closed doors. As time went on AIDS moved into the heterosexual community and the nation began getting more concerned. With the exception of the few innocents who contracted AIDS through blood transfusions, when a spouse brought it home after a bit of “recreational” sex or some similar reason. Most, however, contracted it through bad behavior, behind closed doors, in privacy.

Prior to the sexual revolution of the ‘60s sex outside the bounds of matrimony was looked upon with disdain. That is not to say it didn’t occur, it did, but there were social consequences to pay. Today, morality in this area has been lowered to the equivalent of going to a basketball game, baseball game or bowling. It is now “recreational.” “Checkers, ping pong or sex anyone?” Self gratification has come to rule the day. The cry-baby boomer generation has carried their motto, “If it feels good do it” to its logical extension. Divorce rates have climbed:

About 50% of first marriages for men under age 45 may end in divorce, and between 44 and 52% of women’s first marriages may end in divorce for these age groups.2

This statistic, according to some researchers is no better in the church and in fact may be worse. Abandoning the sacredness of marriage and monogamous relationships has resulted not only in broken families and shattered lives but a deadly disease which is being spread around at a staggering rate (16,000 people become newly infected each day3). There are dangers in basing one’s decision primarily on self gratification. It brings great cost to those who so act, to those they become intimate with, their families and ultimately to all of us who end up paying the price, emotionally and financially.

The role of public health is to prevent disease and save lives, not to serve as bean counters. We can no longer allow the CDC to sit on the sidelines, a spectator to this epidemic. Testing the political waters before formulating sound public health policy is unacceptable.4

In other words, being “Politically Correct” is not only not helping it is an “unacceptable” way to “protect” public health. Some things are more important than looking the other way and allowing wrong behaviors to go unchecked because we don’t want to make people feel bad.

AIDS in the Church

As we continue addressing the question, “How does the disparagement of heaven, hell, evangelism, sexual morality or the acceptance of a false teacher like Gwen Shamblin so widely in the Church. How is it that this has happened virtually unchecked, given the implicit and sometimes explicit denial of essential doctrines of the faith?” We need to also ask, how is it that the theological ramblings and heretical descriptions on the nature of God and salvation pass the editors of what is considered a mainline Evangelical publishers? Why were the sales of Shamblin’s book, Rise Above, reaching 185,000 on their way to 1,000,000 until Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc., brought her views to public attention? How did it happen that McLaren and others in the emerging and Contemplative Prayer movements so widely embraced and promoted? The answer is that there is a different kind of AIDS in the church. It doesn’t necessarily affect the physical health of individuals or the group but something far worse. Spiritual health, well being and potentially for some, eternal separation from God are the result of spiritual AIDS. This spiritual AIDS is Acquired Ignorance of the Doctrines of Scripture.

Are we overstating our case here? We don’t think so. Pollster George Barna has shown repeatedly in research studies the gradual abandonment of essential Scriptural doctrines. For example:

The poll provides evidence of a “very considerable diversity within the Christian community regarding core beliefs,” according to the Barna Research Group of Ventura, Ca. But what alarms Hinlicky is the “erosion of the church’s foundations this study seems to expose.”5

In talking about the increase in the belief that good works contribute to salvation and the growing rejection of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone the article states:

“If this figure holds up it signals a complete breakdown of catechetical practice,” said Hinlicky who teaches religion and philosophy at Roanoke College in Salem, Va.

His colleague Gerald McDermott, an Episcopalian, agreed: “This happened because in the last 30 years American pastors have lost their nerve to preach a theology that goes against the grain of American narcissism. What we are witnessing now is what (evangelicalism’s premier thinker) Francis Shaeffer predicted over 20 years ago — that the American church of the future would be dedicated solely to peace and affluence.” 6

How has this played itself out in public and in the church?

More than four out of five Americans claim to be Christian and half as many can be classified as born again Christians. Nine out of ten adults own a Bible. Most adults read the Bible during the year and a huge majority claims they know all of the basic teachings of the Bible. How, then, can most people say Satan does not exist, that the Holy Spirit is merely a symbol, that eternal peace with God can be earned through good works, and that truth can only be understood through the lens of reason and experience? How can a plurality of our citizens contend that Jesus committed sins and that the Bible, Koran and Book of Mormon all teach the same truths?

“In a sound bite society you get sound bite theology,” Barna lamented. “Americans are more likely to buy simple sayings than a system of truth that takes time and concentration to grasp. People are more prone to embrace diversity, tolerance and feeling good than judgment, discernment, righteousness and limitations. People are more focused on temporal security than eternal security and its temporal implications7

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to…

The Christianity of the 1940s and 1950s tended to be denominationalized and dry with a focus primarily on the distinctive doctrines each denomination held. Although each of the conservative and fundamental denominations affirmed the essentials of the faith the primary teaching and evangelism was aimed at bringing people into one’s own denomination. As a result, it was rare that different denominations worked together on issues where they were actually in agreement. In many cases they didn’t even realize they were in agreement, at least at the lay level. Lutherans viewed Baptists, Presbyterians, etc., with a distrustful eye and vice-a-versa. Even within the general denominational headings there were sub-denominations which viewed the others as possibly Christians but certainly less informed or spiritual.

‘I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, ‘Stop! Don’t do it!” “Why shouldn’t I?” he said. I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!’ He said, “Like what?” I said, “Well, are you religious or atheist?” He said, ‘Religious.” I said, “Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?” He said, “Christian.’ I said, “Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?” He said, ‘Baptist!” I said, “Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?’ He said, “Baptist Church of God!” I said, “Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?” He said, ‘Reformed Baptist Church of God!” I said, ‘Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?” He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!’ 1 said, “Die, heretic scum!” and pushed him off.’8

There were clearly drawbacks to this practice in the sense that denominational distinctives approached being idolatrous. The core of the faith, although officially affirmed, took a back seat to other things. Denominational lines were rarely crossed. Reading works by authors of other denominational affiliations really “wasn’t done.” On the other hand, the core doctrines of the faith were at the very least affirmed and as they were part of the respective denominational teachings they enjoyed some measure of protection. However, for the previous one hundred and fifty years or so theology itself was being changed slowly from being God centered to being man centered. Theology had classically been the study of God and as we knew God we knew more about His creation and the nature of man.

Even books on theology changed their order of things so that the theology of man took on greater and greater importance. Theologians previous to Friedrich Schleiermacher of Germany generally considered theology to be the study of God, and that from knowing God one could gain insight into His creation, including the nature of man. However, Schleiermacher included self-consciousness in his theology, whereby subjective experience gained a foothold alongside revelation.9

A more human centered theology, the mass marketing of Finney, the alter call tradition that was now so much a part of the fundamentalist church and the ever growing acceptance of psychology in nearly all of the Bible believing church as well as all other facets of culture reshaped how the church thought and taught. The result of this was that:

…many pastors assumed therapeutic roles and provided acceptance and understanding in place of confronting the sinner and guiding him to repentance. By the middle of the century most seminaries offered classes in psychology. These included seminaries of conservative, as well as liberal, denominations.10

Fundamentalism’s emphasis was on evangelism and the external marks of being a Christian. Such notables as John R. Rice and Jack Hyles spent a great deal of time in their preaching and writing on soul winning. A common element of preaching revolved around hair length, clothing, drinking, smoking and other external behaviors which served to maintain the “us vs. them” separation between true Christians (fundamentalists) and all other non-Christians (anyone that was not a fundamentalist in affiliation and behavior). To their credit, they were attempting to hold the line against liberalism, communism and other boogie men both real and imagined. However, their theology had become fairly anthropocentric (human centered). What things we need to do to be accepted by God, if not for salvation (most still affirmed salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone) at least for sanctification. There was a fairly rigid outline of behaviors, modes of dress and persons and things we shun in order to become more sanctified. Very little teaching regarding God’s work of sanctifying the believer or of the growing personal relationship with God was present if even considered.

In the meantime, neoevangelicals were very busy attempting to gain credibility among their academic peers. Although they too affirmed the essentials of the faith the focus was more on how to make the faith academically acceptable to educated non-believers. In writing about the pastor/theologian Carl F. H. Henry, Timothy George says of this period and split between fundamentalists and evangelicals:

The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (1947) breathes with fire – rejecting the failed theology of liberalism, discredited by the devastation of two world wars, but also calling fellow conservatives to a positive engagement with society and culture. Looking back on this manifesto years later he wrote:

What distressed the growing evangelical mainstream about the fundamentalist far right were its personal legalisms, suspicion of advanced education, disdain for biblical criticism per se, polemical orientation of theological discussion, judgmental attitudes toward those in ecumenically related denominations, and an uncritical political conservatism often defined as ‘Christian anticommunism’ and ‘Christian capitalism’ that, while politicizing the Gospel on the right, deplored politicizing it on the left.

Henry had been a strong supporter of the National Association of Evangelicals since its formation in 1942, and some of the ideas in Uneasy Conscience first appeared in the NAE’s United Evangelical Action. Like Ockenga – the impresario of “neoevangelicalism,” as he called it- Henry promoted the ideals of unity, education, evangelism, and social ethics while maintaining the absolute truth claims of historic Christian orthodoxy. This combination would become a mark of Henry’s leadership in many other evangelical ventures across the years.11

This split is actually pretty understandable as conservative intellectualism was growing and beginning to make an impact on the general culture. However, this was not making the left of center educators, religious leaders and politicians happy. Psychology swooped in to save the day for them and decided conservatism and by extension fundamentalism and evangelicalism, was actually a mental illness. To the psychological and sociological researchers and writers from the mid to late 1950s all of this challenge to the “educated” and “informed view” was little more than:

The response of a frustrated, maladjusted, status-conscious, neo-populist Radical Right, led largely by fierce (and implicitly suspect) ex-radicals, to a complex modern world with which they were unable to cope.12

This tendency to perceive conservatism as a problem of abnormal psychology rather than rational politics was further exemplified by Herbert McClosky of the University of Minnesota, in a 1958 article detailing his research on “conservatism and personality.” According to McClosky’s controversial findings, conservative beliefs were most frequently held by “the uniformed, the poorly educated, and …the less intelligent.” Conservatives tended to be submissive, alienated, lacking in confidence, “bewildered” by modern society, hostile suspicious, compulsive, intolerant, mystical, and fearful of change. McClosky contended that “conservative doctrines” were “highly correlated” with certain distinct personality patterns and suggested that their doctrines “may tell us less about the nature of man and society than about the persons who believe these doctrines.”13

The onslaught of these sorts of attacks seems to have aided in the hardening of fundamentalists against intellectual pursuits and loving Christ with their minds as well as their hearts and souls. On the other hand, evangelicals increased in their fervency to gain acceptance in the halls of academia and in spite of psychology’s overt attacks on the faith, church leadership pressed on in their zeal of embracing and attempting to “christianize” this new religion.

1 Cary B. Savitch, “Why Too Many Are Dying of AIDS at the Alter of Privacy,” ACP-ASIM Observer, March 1999; http://www.acponline.org/journals/news/mar99/toomany.htm
2 Rose M. Krieder and Jason M. Fields, “Number, Timing and Duration of Divorces: 1996, Household Economic Studies,” Current Population Reports, February 2002, p. 18, http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p70-80.pdf
3 Cary B. Savitch, “Why Too Many Are Dying of AIDS at the Alter of Privacy,” ACP-ASIM Observer, March 1999; http://www.acponline.org/journals/news/mar99/toomany.htm
4 Cary B. Savitch, “Why Too Many Are Dying of AIDS at the Alter of Privacy,” ACP-ASIM Observer, March 1999; http://www.acponline.org/journals/news/mar99/toomany.htm
5 Uwe Siemon-Netto, United Press International, “Barna Poll on U.S. Religious Belief – 2001,” (Original Headline: Poll shows Protestant collapse) http://www.holytrinitynewrochelle.org/barna.html
6 Uwe Siemon-Netto, United Press International, “Barna Poll on U.S. Religious Belief – 2001,” (Original Headline: Poll shows Protestant collapse) http://www.holytrinitynewrochelle.org/barna.html
7 “Barna Identifies Seven Paradoxes Regarding America’s Faith,” December 17, 2002; http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=128&Reference=B
8 This was sent via email under the title ie Heretic Scum” and ascribed to an Elmo Phillips
9 Martin and Deidre Bobgan, Against “Biblical Counseling” For the Bible, EastGate Publishers, (Santa Barbara, CA; 1994) 34-35
10 Martin and Deidre Bobgan, Against “Biblical Counseling” For the Bible, EastGate Publishers, (Santa Barbara, CA; 1994) 42
11 “Inventing Evangelicalism” by Timothy George, Christianity Today, March 2004, Volume 48, No. 3, 48-49
12 George H. Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America: Since 1945, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, (Wilminton, Delaware: 1996) 125
13 George H. Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America: Since 1945, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, (Wilminton, Delaware: 1996) 125

“What Christian critiques of the culture are truly scandalous?”

By “scandalous”, I don’t mean which ones fit the Pulitzer Prize nominated National Enquirer’s definition of scandal. I mean those aspects of our proclamation to the culture that are stumbling blocks that non-Christians simply cannot abide. Even with this clarification, I find that I must clarify again because “stumbling blocks” are usually bad things. After all Paul says,

” Let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way (Romans 14:13)”

If we present a stumbling block to the world, its something we should remove not investigates. But the term “stumbling block” or in Greek “skandalon” has another meaning. It can be something that offends those it should offend. Consider Isaiah 8:14 and its description of Messiah:

. . . He will be a sanctuary; but for both houses of Israel he will be a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall. And for the people of Jerusalem he will be a trap and a snare.

Messiah will offend the people of Israel because of what he does and says and especially because of what he is. As Michael Card illustrates in his song “Scandalon”

He will be the truth that will offend them one and all/A stone that makes men stumble/And a rock that makes them fall.

The purpose of this kind of scandal was to bring people to repentance. To shake them out of their complacency and their misconceptions about Messiah. Some would accept this paradigm shift because they “had ears to hear” and others would not.

Many will be broken so that He can make them whole/And many will be crushed and lose their own soul/Along the path of life there lies a stubborn Scandalon/And all who come this way must be offended/To some He is a barrier, To others He’s the way/For all should know the scandal of believing

We have written about the bad kinds of stumbling blocks but I’ve been wondering what are the good stumbling blocks that Isaiah and Michael Card are describing? What are the good stumbling blocks that we need to concentrate on?

Grace and Hell. By themselves the doctrines of Grace and Hell are odious to our society but combined to create a theology of salvation, they are formidable stumbling blocks. The concept that no amount of our own personal accomplishment (even moral accomplishment) can render us worthy of God’s grace simultaneously assaults our sense of deserving based on merit and the contemporary cult of self-esteem. Likewise the concept of eternal exile from God for not accepting that grace offends these same sentiments of desert and personal worth.

In many discussions with non-Christians I have heard honest consternation surrounding the possibility that if Jeffrey Dahmer did repent and if my good friend who volunteers at the local shelter didn’t, that Dahmer enjoys heaven and my friend endures Hell for eternity. Of course this is related to the doctrine of grace above. In short Hell assaults our sense of justice (people getting what they deserve). Dahmer “deserves” hell and good people don’t. As Rabbi Harold Kushner (of Why do Bad Things happen to Good People fame) asks How Good Do We have to Be? Rabbi Kushner is offended by the Christian answer: “Infinitely Perfect” to which we fall back on Divine Grace.

Evangelism: The philosopher Robert Nozick once said that trying to get someone to believe something whether they wanted to or not is not a good way of behaving toward them. But then Nozick admitted that any good persuasive argument has the effect of forcing us to acknowledge it or endure the charge of being irrational. Evangelism offends our sense of religious pluralism. If all religions are legitimate ways to God, then thumping for one of them is seen as arrogant. Combine that with caring for the poor, providing education, and fighting hunger in third world countries and “arrogant” becomes “manipulative” or worse “wicked.” But as Nozick recognized good reasons are coercive; they force us to confront our ill-reasoned beliefs. The persuasive act of offering those reasons is not coercive or even manipulative. (for more on this see “The Ethics of Proselytizing” in the Midwest Christian Outreach Journal.)

Sexual Ethics In the contemporary bifurcation of Jesus and Christianity where Jesus is portrayed as merely an ethical teacher (a sort of Jewish Buddha) and Christianity is portrayed as having diverged from the simple teachings of its master, the Christian preoccupation with moral absolutes such as (honesty, reverence for life, etc.) are treated with aplomb. However there is one line, when crossed, causes many non-Christians to balk, sputter, and stumble–Sex.

The contemporary world can take us admonishing people to love one another, care for the poor, and even curb our lying, cheating, stealing, and carousing. But suggest that sex is anything more than a pleasure to be enjoyed between any combination of loving individuals and our morality becomes a giant stumbling block. The same goes for the enjoyment of pornography.

I’ve been trying to figure this one out. Here’s what I’ve come up with so far. One question separates ethical from unethical when it comes to personal satisfaction in the modern liberal state–”Does it harm anyone?” Sexual gratification is the ultimate harmless and gratifying activity. There simply is no secular reason to curb this gratification provided it doesn’t harm anyone. That’s a stumbling block because given the above principle, there is no distinctly sexual ethics, there is only harm and non-harm.

It occurs to me as I look back over this list, that all of these distinctly Christian stumbling blocks have been questioned by the Culture Driven Church. Grace and Hell have long been disparaged. Grace has either been watered down into universal salvation or thickened with concepts of good works. Hell has been disparaged by even venerable dons of theology. Evangelism has been abandoned in favor of a social gospel and Brian McClaren’s religous pluralism. And sexual ethics have been simply and quietly ignored in favor of discreet trysts or transformed into political debates. All of this in an effort to remove the skandalons that offend. But as Michael Card warns us:

It seems today the Scandalon offends no one at all/The image we present can be stepped over/
Could it be that we are like the others long ago
Will we ever learn that all who come must stumble.

I invite you dear reader to provide some other stumbling blocks for me to consider.

I ran into one of our supporters this week and we got to talking about this project. They wanted to know if this would only be a historical treatise or is there another reason that we are working on this? Is this mostly to point out the problems in the church and culture or to also offer solutions? Those are valid questions and concerns. I thought it would be good to try to paint a general picture and set up a framework of understanding and direction.

First, I don’t think it would be generally beneficial to simply write a book of grievances and complaints. It is easy to find imperfections and complain about them. On any given Sunday many families have roast preacher for lunch. Most apologists can fit a phrase Spiro Agnew once coined about something else, Nattering Nabobs of Negativity. To be honest, expecting perfection in the church is doomed to leave disappointment. The church is made up of imperfect people, many of which are trying to do the right thing, some of which are more focused on making money, building a power base or some other less than altruistic motive.

Second, if we read the Scriptures with any care at all we find that the history of God’s people is a history of having God’s clear direction and will on certain matters and then turning away from that. If began with Eve and Adam and continues to this day. God said, they became persuaded that God had with held some amazing thing from them which were rightfully theirs for the taking and they abandoned God’s command. We find this repeated in the history of Israel. There were periods of loyalty and closeness to God followed by long periods of going to and listening to false teachers and wandering away from what God had said. Although remaining religious and keeping the trappings of Judaism they incorporated pagan worship into their lives in an effort to be like other nations. They demanded a king, in order to be like other nations.

Third, in the church this swing between faithfulness and embracing false teachings, false teachers and attempting to be like the pagans around them is visible even in the first century. It is not the case, as many cults try to make believe, that there was this pristine, unadulterated faith in the early church. Most of the New Testament was written to address, expose and refute false teachings and false teachers who had invaded the church as well as bad behavior on the part of believers.

In spite of all of this there has always been a faithful few. They are not generally popular or large in number. Today some of those faithful few may be in market driven or fundamentalist churches or something in-between.

Fourth, in many cases, the decisions and actions which have brought us here today were not made maliciously. They were often made with good intentions and in reaction to creeping evil of various kinds without real consideration of the outcome of those decisions. For example, the church largely abandoned the universities in the 1930s due to the creeping Marxism and Darwinism which was proliferating in those institutions. The Christians did so in an effort to protect their children and preserve the faith. The result was Christians were less prepared to challenge culture, marginalized themselves out of culture and allowed the growth of the ideas they were opposed to unchecked in those institutions and eventually they took over cultural thinking. The motives were understandable, protecting the youth. The consequences were catastrophic.

Fifth, when we get to offering solutions it is necessary to define what the church should be if it is something other than that presently. Rick Warren said that the biggest mistake the church makes is that we think sermons will produce spiritual maturity Warren then goes on to do some artful Scripture twisting. Is the church supposed to be the place where believers have gone out to find and persuade, drag in or trick in to attending in order for the professionals to sneak up on them with the gospel? We have written on this in the past with articles such as An Indistinct Sound. In reality the ministry of the church is the very thing Rick Warren throws under the bus. First, Scripture assumes non-believers aren’t going to be in the church. In 1 Corinthians 14:23 in talking about church practices (in this case speaking in tongues) he points out that if and unbeliever comes in they will think the church is out of its mind. The “if” assumes that as a general rule non-believers would not be there and the church service is geared to believers. The next verse uses the same “if,” assuming that as a rule non-believers won’t be there but in this case that if one should come in they would be convicted because the word of the Lord is being proclaimed and they would be convicted as a result. In Acts 2:42 we find the believers gather for four specific things, the Apostle’s teaching, the breaking of bread and prayer. It should be noted that all of this focuses on teaching (sermons) in order to bring about spiritual maturity, contrary to what “America’s pastor” contends and moves on to eating and praying together as believers. There is nothing about evangelizing in the church. In fact, that is the mission of the church and is done by the believers after the church meeting once they have been taught, fed and prayed for. Evangelism is the mission of the church and where the church interacts, intersects with and challenges culture. The first century church which tried to be most like the culture was the Corinthian church and Paul sent them scathing letters to address their behavior and bad name they were giving Christ as a result.

The purpose of what we will be doing is to layout in Reader’s Digest form several threads, in some cases disconnected from each other early on, which converge in the 1970s to give us what we see in culture and in the church today. We will also offer suggestions on ways to address and remedy, on local levels, some of the problems and build spiritually healthy churches.

Most of us get involved with a variety of things without considering the end result, or what Scripture describes as counting the cost (Luke 14:23-35. What will be the end result of your decision and what will be the sacrifice or cost required to get there?

As Christians in the United States we live fairly comfortable, protected lives. We often think of persecution as someone making fun of our beliefs and/or practices. The ridicule or rejection “hurts our feelings.” Pastors have a particularly difficult task. Many of them are hired with the idea that they will “grow the church.” The meaning of that is bringing in more nickels and noses. More people and more money, but not necessarily more spiritual maturity for that might really cost with diminishing numbers, less money or both. For the pastors who teach verse by verse through books of the Bible, they will often have folks that come to them and say, “Pastor, you hurt my feelings and I think I will have to leave.” Ergun Caner, President of Liberty University, says he does not have the gift of pastoring for when people said that to him his response was “…so leave!”

I have often said that I am concerned about the state of the church today. There is so much emphasis on being culturally sensitive and non-offensive. The drive to eliminate Christian symbols and replace them with “spiritual practices” which are largely pagan in origin. Programs, books, conferences and even specialists abound to meet the churches “felt need” without regard to or even consideration of the end result. There are also real needs and those who see them tend to think that everyone should be just as involved and passionate as they are in those issues. However, not every individual can be as passionate or involved in every facet of ministry as every other individuals. I think we even see that being implied in Ephesians 4 with the gifts God gave to the church:

And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the (AC)knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. (Eph. 4:11-13)

Not all are prophets. Not all are evangelists. Not all are pastors and teachers. All perform some of each of the functions in what they do but have particular areas of passion, emphasis and pursuits. The end or “future sight” has been thought through and expressed. Paul then explains how this impacts the current and immediate future focus of individual believers:

As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

Notice the language, “every joint,” “each individual part,” “cause the growth.” There is stability because sound doctrine and critical thinking are employed by at least most of the believers and they say hard things when necessary (the truth) and they do so because they love those who need to hear the hard things. All are involved and are involved with different things which the body needs.
Don’t get me wrong, there are good churches and solid pastors. I count several as my friends. The pastor of my home church, Mike Wiley, a group of pastors in my area that I met with on Thursday mornings for prayer before Joy and I started truck driving. My friend, Pastor Dan Cox, MCOI Advisory Board members, G. Richard Fisher, Gino Geracci, Phil Ballmaier and many others. These leaders are also concerned about the future of the church and the larger portion seems to be lurching ever farther away from its moorings without consideration or realization of the end result of where it is going.
I am persuaded that we cannot really understand the present condition or future or either the church or culture without a good understanding of the past. Philosopher George Santayana is attributed with having said in volume 1 of his 1905 book The Life of Reason:

Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it

He is correct. What can give good future sight is a solid grasp on the past which brought us to the present. In future blogs Jonathan Miles and I will be looking at five areas which have shaped the church and culture in the present. The church, science, psychiatry/psychology, economics and politics. Many of the issues were not connected initially but their individual trajectories converged in the 1970s with devastating impact on culture and the church. I am persuaded that a grasp of the past and present helps us answer the questions of “What’s next?” and develop a solid “Future Sight” and direction for the church and individuals within it.

Evangelicals seemed to be split into four segments which I think made all the difference in the outcome of the election. One segment, the Emerging Church represented in Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Donald Miller and others in the merging Evangelical Left. They supported Barack Obama because his plan was to redistribute the wealth. They favor Socialism over capitalism (even though they personally have done quite well in their book sales and speaking fees). Another segment worked hard against Mitt Romney in order to prevent a Mormon, someone from a New Religious Movement or what is regarded by Evangelicals as a cult, to be president. Mike Huckabee did remarkably well with little money but a great grass roots movement and remained in the race up to the bitter end a week or two before the national nominating convention. Another group worked against John McCain who is viewed by them as a traitor to conservatism, many of them simply boycotted the election and thus didn’t cancel out any votes for Barack Obama. The fourth segment worked for conservative candidates in the Republican and Independent parties but didn’t seem to have as loud of a public voice. All of this is interesting to me but MCOI is not a political activist organization. Government won’t save us but God may use it to bless of punish a nation. As long as MCOI does not advocate for a candidate or party we are legally free to comment from a religious perspective on issues of ethics and morality. The online article The IRS, Churches, & Politics helps to clarify this point. Barack Obama’s followers and the main stream media give him a nearly messianic allegiance and defense. Nearly everything about his presidency derives from a religious worldview ( Black Liberation Theology ) and commitment to carry it out in the world. While Obama says US cannot impose its values: BBC interview he now has the power to force his views on the citizens of the United States against their will and to their detriment. Currently the Congress and main stream media support him in his mission and implementation of his wonderful plan for your life, to remake America into a Socialist State.

Obama’s beliefs are what one of MCOI’s Advisory Board members, Dr. Jerry Buckner calls, “The Cult of Black Liberation Theology.” Talk show host, Glen Beck (Mormon) did one of the better jobs in the national media of a thumb nail expose of Barack Obama’s Black Liberation Theology. In it Beck quotes from one of the key leaders which Trinity’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright, states he gets his views from, James Cone. Cone writes in his book Black Power and Black Theology:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the Black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then He is a murderer and we had better kill Him. The task of Black Theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the Black community…

It is interesting that Obama has found so much support from Pastor Rick Warren (opened the DNC convention in prayer), Donald Miller (he opened one of the DNC session with prayer) Brian McLaren (headed up a large group of the rising Evangelical Left). I wonder if they noticed they are the wrong color. Cone continues:

Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of Black People to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity we must reject His love.

Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council states:

It is an alternative doctrine of the church that embraces big government. It advances a collectivist idea and it says the state not the individual is central to society and that is very disquieting but it also gives you a better understanding of the undergirding of Senator Obama’s big government liberal philosophy that would increase spending, would increase taxes, weaken our military and out position in the world.

Ken Blackwell explained this prior to the election but very few listened.

As we sat and watched the nationalization of some of the major banks, the dismantling of U.S. auto manufacturers and many wondered why. Did he not understand what he was doing they answer is, he did and does. His worldview, which directs his plan for our lives us as citizens and the nation as a whole is to eliminate individualism and make the collectivist “state central to society.” As much as Obama is overtly denying what he is doing the consequences of his actions are clear for all to see. Even the Russian news agency, Pravda, is shocked that American Capitalism Gone with a Wimper. They even recognized the role of the church in assisting in this process, something we have been pointing out for several years:

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different “branches and denominations” were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the “winning” side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the “winning” side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America

I think their prediction on where this is all heading is right on target:

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America’s short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

The moves to eliminate freedom of speech for radio, television and Evangelicals are in the works. Barack has been successful as most false teachers are, at creating and maintaining a sense of urgency in his followers to implement his worldview and wonderful plan for your life. This will very much change how the church carries out its mission for America, for the first time, will be controlled by a New Religious Movement. Apologetics will become essential to pre-evangelism and challenging the worldview which is being embraced by so many. Is your church ready or will they embrace Barack’s love and wonderful plan for their lives as well?

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

He does not seem to be fairing well on the moral front. Robin Phillips comments on the economic front with:

SPEND, SPEND, SPEND: OBAMA’S SOLUTION TO THE ECONOMIC CRISIS

I had hoped that after Obama was sworn in as President the hype would settle down, reality would set in and the public would begin to realize that this man, for all his pretensions, is really only a man.

It turns out that my hope was naive. If a routine trip to our local shops is anything to go by, Obama has already achieved the kind of mythic significance that has normally been reserved for assassinated presidents.

For example, at our supermarket you can buy Barack and Michelle trading cards (the political equivalent of American baseball cards). Not to be beat, our local craft store is selling Obama wall posters and calendars. And finally, the toy stores are selling Obama action figures, complete with a hand gun and light sabre.

Amid all the Obama hysteria, far less attention is being given to his actual policies. I will leave the reader to judge whether the policies pursued during the Presidents’ first months in office have done justice to his reputation as a guru of wisdom and sagacity.

STIMULATING TIMES

Obama took the oath of office at a critical time in American history. Following years of oppressive taxes and careless spending under Bush, America is now facing the worst economic downturn since the great depression.

From the very beginning of his administration, Obama’s applied himself to the economic crisis with a vengeance. Following a Keynesian approach to economics, his solution can be summarized in three words: spend, spend, spend.

Obama’s spending plans culminated in what Charles Colson has called ‘one of the biggest grab-bag boondoggles in American history’, namely the $800 billion ‘stimulus package.’ Known now as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, it aims to revitalize America by pumping unprecedented amounts of tax-payers dollars into the national economy.

Ever since the plan was enacted on February 17, it has been possible to track where all the new money is going through the government’s website www.recovery.gov/. The results are interesting.

It seems that everyone is getting a piece of the pie. For starters, Government employees will be receiving pay rises in April, while the 12.5 million workers receiving unemployment benefits will also start seeing a boost in their weekly payments. Those whose employment was involuntarily terminated during the period between Sept. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2009 will qualify for the 65 percent health care premium subsidy. The Social Security Administration’s website has promised a one-time payment of $250 to the 55 million Social Security and other supplemental income beneficiaries.

That is not all. Obama is sending $200 million for a clean-burning power plant in Mattoon, Ill, $500 million to the National Institutes of Health offices in Maryland, $750 million to the National Computer Center in Maryland, $275 million to flood prevention, $200 million to public computer centres at community colleges and libraries, $650 million to the public in the form of digital TV converter-box coupons, $8 billion to an investment fund for building high-speed rail, $1 billion to administrative costs and construction of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration office buildings, over $2.2 million to Virginia for programs providing meals to low-income seniors.
I wish I could say that the spending spree stopped there. $100 million has been set aside for constructing U.S. Marshals office buildings, $1.3 billion for NASA, $300 million for hybrid and electric cars for the federal government (including golf carts for federal workers).
I was myself surprised when I went to my post box early last month to find a $2,600 check from the government. There was no covering letter or explanation for why they were sending me the money.

I guess Mr. Obama just likes me.

RED-INK AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE

Obama’s $800 billion ‘stimulus package’ is just the first stage and doesn’t even include the $3 trillion-plus budget that he will be bringing forward in a few months. Nor does it include the $15 billion a year that he has promised over the next ten years for children’s healthcare, computerized health records, educational reforms and developing resources for solar and wind power.

Altogether Obama is proposing to spend a staggering $3.6 trillion in the 2010 fiscal year, making previous irresponsible deficits look like child’s play. (In reality, it will probably be a lot higher. Even as I write, headlines have broken that the President’s climate plan alone could cost as much at $2 trillion, nearly three times the White House’s initial estimate.)
Few people are asking where all the new money is actually going to come from. To Obama, the answer is straight-forward: simply increase taxes on the wealthiest 2% of Americans.
There is a slight problem, however. According to IRS figures for 2006 (the most recent year for which sufficient tax data is available), even if the government confiscated 100% of the taxable income of all Americans earning over $500,000, Congress would only get an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That’s less than half the 2006 federal budget and only a quarter of what Congress will have to fork out in fiscal 2010 under Obama’s spending proposals. And this doesn’t take into effect the collateral impact that burdensome taxation will have on the businesses government plunders and the jobs those businesses might otherwise have been able to create. It also doesn’t take into account that 2006 was a good year for the economy, whereas this year the economy shrunk by 6.2% in the 4th quarter and continues in a state of meltdown. That means that Congress will have significantly less revenue in their coffers than they had in 2006.

The cold reality is that Obama’s spending plan will have to be financed almost entirely by debt. Indeed, under his $3.6 trillion budget proposal, deficit spending for 2009 will increase to 12.7% of the Gross Domestic Product. That is twice as large a share of the economy as any deficit has run since World War II. By 2019 this pattern will have brought the federal deficit to 82% of the overall economy, according to analysts with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Now consider that America’s resources are stretched almost to breaking point, that the nation is already crippled with unpayable debt, and that the influx of new money is poising the nation for serious hyperinflation. When we factor in these considerations we have to question the sanity of a spending policy that gives us red ink as far as the eye can see. We also have to ask: even if all that money was available in Uncle Sam’s coffers, why not give it back to Americans in the form of tax cuts in order to re-stimulate business and investment?

THE NECESSITY OF BANKRUPTCY

Frank Borman once noted that, “Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell.” In economics, as in religion, if people have the possibility of reward but not the potential for loss, then there is little incentive for prudence and discretion. As I have noted previously, this explains what happened to America during the period known as the ‘Great Depression.’
The economic crisis of the 1930s did not occur out of the blue, nor was it caused by a series of runs on the bank. Rather, it was caused by government intervening to cushion the consequences of imprudent investments, very similar to the way Obama is now trying to use the stimulus package to dampen the results of the foolish financial policies pursued in government and the private sector.

Leading up to the Great Depression, the American economy had experienced massive growth but much of that growth was illusory, propelled by investment in companies exceeding their actual profits. Because many companies had a value higher than their earnings (in some cases no earnings at all), people began to grasp that their shares weren’t worth as much as they paid. The banks realized this too, and so they began to call loans. Now naturally when banks begin to call bad loans, this creates losses. But this is not a bad thing. In a free market, both loss and growth are necessary components for stability, since bad business practices are then allowed to suffer their natural consequences. However, instead of letting things to take their natural course, the government stepped in to try to doctor up the economy. From 1923-29, the American money supply was increased 61 times by the Federal Reserve, not dissimilar to the unprecedented amounts of debt money Obama is now pumping into the national economy. This amplified inflation which accelerated the boom market, perpetuating the illusory sense of prosperity. Naturally the new money supply encouraged more imprudent investments.
Things could only be put off for so long and in February of 29 the stock market ceased to expand, causing Wall Street to collapse. President Herbert Hoover responded by doctoring the market again. In ‘31 he launched the greatest peace-time deficit spending program in history to try to prop up the economy. All he achieved was simply to perpetuate the vicious cycle for longer.

During America’s recent economic boom, the Federal Reserve deliberately kept interest rates low in order to encourage investments. As in the 1920’s, this distorted the market because it allowed entrepreneurs to engage in malinvestments – investments which failed to take into account actual resource availability. America is now facing the necessary fall-out of such foolishness, and that is a good thing. However, instead of allowing the consequences of imprudence to play out, Obama is following the example of Hoover in trying to artificially prop up the market. By removing the consequences of bad business practices, he is setting a terrible precedent.

If unchecked in fulfilling his promises, Obama will push government spending to approximately 40% of the Gross Domestic Product, up from about 33% in 2000. This would put the size of the US government within reach of Europe, where government spending currently eats up 46% of the GDP.

Now here’s the crunch: when Government reaches those kinds of colossal proportions, people begin to think of themselves, and God, differently.

Recently political scientists at the University of Washington studied 33 countries around the world and discovered an inverse relationship between state welfare spending and religiosity. Countries with larger welfare states had markedly lower levels of religious attendance with a greater number of citizens not subscribing to any religious affiliation. As the report notes, “Countries with higher levels of per capita welfare have a proclivity for less religious participation and tend to have higher percentages of non-religious individuals.”

The implications of this study are clear: as government grows, people’s reliance on God seems to diminish. This has already proved to be the case in Europe, in particularly in the Scandinavian countries where the Nanny state provides cradle-to-the-grave care for all its citizens.

Under Obama America seems to be headed towards Scandinavian-style socialism. As it becomes increasingly difficult to say no to government funds, everything from health care to energy to all the nation’s primary industries could become semi-nationalized. Indeed, this has already occurred with education and is in the process of happening with the financial and auto industries, thanks to government bailouts.

The state-dependency invoked by this kind of semi-socialism naturally orients citizens to think paternally of the state. However, unlike a responsible human parent, the paternal state thrives on dependency and is inescapably parasitic on the very persons whom it turns into parasites. This should not be a hard point to grasp, seeing that the government can only give away what it first takes from someone else (even deficit spending and arbitrary money-printing are essentially processes of confiscation, since the inflation these processes spawn removes value from the currency already held by the populace). The net result is that both the state and its dependents march symbiotically to destruction.

How does this destruction play out in practice? Again, you only have to look at the Scandinavian countries to see. W. Bradford Wilcox observes that “many Scandinavians, especially young adults who have grown up taking the welfare state for granted, are markedly less likely to attend to the social, material, and emotional needs of family and friends than earlier generations. As a consequence, social solidarity is down and social pathology—from drinking to crime—is up. In Wolfe’s words, ‘High tax rates in Scandinavia encourage governmental responsibility for others; they do not, however, necessarily inspire a personal sense of altruism and a feeling of moral unity toward others with whom one’s fate is always linked.’”

Wilcox goes on to note that even if Obama’s audacious spending agenda provides short-term relief to the economic and social challenges that now beset the American people, in the long run the ‘Obama revolution’ is likely to speed up the erosion both the religious and the civic fibre of America and he is doing it with the help of many leading voices within the Evangelical church in the name of cultural recognition and acceptance.

What do I mean by that? Obama’s answer to Joe was pretty straightforward, as President he would take money which Joe earned and redistribute the wealth to others who didn’t work for it. This is clearly in keeping with Donald Miller’s view which we find in Blue Like Jazz on page 208:

The resort we were working at was Black Butte Ranch in Central Oregon, and we were living about a mile off a ridge, beyond the cattle fence, down in a gully where stood stately pines and remarkable aspen. There was also a family of deer and a porcupine. The boys from New York worked at Honkers Café, named for the ducks, and Paul and I would merely have to sit ourselves on the deck off the lake and within minutes we would have a burger or shake or a slice of pie, always delivered with a smile, always for free. They were stealing from the rich to feed the poor. We were eating food from the wealthy table of the white man. This is how I thought about it, even though I was white.

I believe it is in Augustine’s Confessions where he talks about stealing an apple from a neighbor and expresses remorse as well as seeing that as an example of depravity. In Miller’s case there is no apparent repentance or remorse but rather a sense of pride for participating in class warfare and striking a blow against the wealthy white man.

I would like to say I am surprised that someone with such a low view of the inspired inerrant word of God is so popular a writer and conference speaker in the Evangelical community but with the severely low biblical literacy rate, I am not. Many will even read the above quote and not recognize the problem so let’s break it down a little more. First he tells us “…we were working…” That would typically indicate he was being paid for his labor. Of his friends and compatriots who were working at a restaurant he wrote, “They were stealing…” That is a clear enough admission. What were they attempting through what was by his own admission a regular practice of theft? Redistribution of wealth “…stealing from the rich to feed the poor.” In other words, restaurant employees were taking that which did not belong to them and giving it to friends who were working elsewhere and preferred to eat free at the expense of a victim who was being robbed by his or her employees rather than use their hard earned income.

We could ask questions like, were the owners of the restaurant actually rich or does simply being a business owner makes one fair game for pillaging? Was the owner or owners taking advantage of or ignoring the plight of the downtrodden in their community? If they are not Christians are they under any obligation to provide for the poor or did Miller and his comrades consider it their duty to lighten the potential load of largess of wealthy white men? How widespread was the employee theft which Miller is so obviously proud of benefitting from?

It seems to me that if we are going to speak to the church and/or culture about issues of morality we should be consistent in following what God has clearly said and He has already spoken quite authoritatively to the issue of stealing:

You shall not steal (Lev. 19:11)

To make sure He was understood He stated two verses later:

You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him. (Lev. 19:13)

Miller’s very popular book seems to demonstrate utter contempt for the word of God on this issue at least but then that seems to have become a low priority in much of the church these days which might explain why so few recognized that there is something wrong with stealing even if it is from white men.

The problem is that Americans, as usual, focus on the celebrity rather than the deeper and more troubling issues the note’s fate presents. Its leak offers just another tidbit about those Obamas—a sacred variation on how cute Michelle Obama’s dress is or whether she yells at her husband about picking up his socks or his older daughter’s mortification when he shakes her friends’ hands. After all, to the celebrity-struck, don’t-bother-me-with-real issues average American, these are the details that matter.

Many in the church are trying to figure out how to minister to the post modern culture but don’t realize that as Dr. Ergun Caner has pointed out in his talk Christians Coming Out of the Closet that since September 11, 2001 we have lived in the transmodern culture. In the transmodern culture the spokesman for culture is celebrity. It is driven by feeling and the desire to be near or at least emulate celebrity. Real issues are set aside where they interfere with celebrity stuff and as it plays itself out in the world we are seeing that Young Adults and Liberals Struggle with Morality.

The “faith” vote is playing big on both sides of the aisle this election and Evangelicals are divided as can be seen in Evangelicals say McCain’s the one while Brian McLaren and others in the Matthew 25 Network claim that Barack is the one and act as an Evangelical advisory group to Obama’s campaign. As part of that coalition Donald Miller to Give DNC Benediction.

As those who are born again by grace alone through faith alone in Christ’s death, burial and resurrection alone, how are we to decide such important issues? The answers are not easy and I certainly do not have the inspired, inerrant and infallible understanding of the inspired, inerrant and infallible Scripture but perhaps we can lay out some basic guidelines for consideration.

Government will not save us but God uses government to preserve a relatively peaceful society (Romans 13:1-7). As I pointed out in Who Shall Rule? sometimes God allows a people to have the government and leadership they demand which results in being put into bondage. In other words, be careful what you wish for. Change is not necessarily a good thing and the celebrity may bring more harm than good. I do understand that there are some who are of the view that we are not to be involved in the elective process at all. I am approaching this question from the stand point that God often uses human beings to carry out His will and this would include elections in a republic such as the one in which we live. God uses non-believers to do good for His people (Nehemiah 2:1-8) and at times uses His people in high positions of non-believing governments as He did with Joseph and Daniel.

The fundamental issues seem to stem from the candidate’s worldview for that informs their legislative decision making. In a more liberal worldview man is thought of as basically good and legislates to protect the individual from society. On the more conservative side man is not viewed as basically good and legislation is put in place to protect and preserve society from the individual. Both sides see the same problems but their solutions are radically different.

For example, on the issue of protecting life, liberals view persons as deserving of having their lives protected no matter what they may have done. Whatever they did probably wasn’t their fault but society caused them to act in bad ways. Capital punishment is viewed as unfair and harsh treatment from this perspective. The life of the guilty must be preserved regardless of the carnage and damage they have inflicted on others. The unborn on the other hand do not merit the same protection, for the mother’s right to choose capital punishment trumps the human life of those regarded as non-persons.

Conservatives on the other hand view those who have been found guilty of heinous crimes as deserving of capital punishment but the innocent unborn as not deserving of capital punishment. The question comes down to two things. 1) Person hood and 2) does one person have the right to do whatever they want to an innocent person who cannot defend themselves? On point 1 conservatives view the human as a person at the point of conception. Liberals on the other hand view the conceived human as not a person. Ultimately this position is held based on only two criteria which are a combination of geography and age. Geographically the human lives inside the womb vs. outside the womb and its age is less than nine months old vs. more than nine months old. So, if an infant changes geography to outside the womb at 7 months they are now officially a person due to that geographical change and now have protection of life as a result.

Without getting too far afield in the pro-choice/pro-life argument the worldview principle becomes apparent in question 2) does one person have the right to do whatever they want to an innocent person who cannot defend themselves? By enshrining the woman’s right to terminate the life of another human who cannot defend themselves liberals are demonstrating that the answer to this question is a resounding yes!

These opposing worldviews also impact one’s answer to other social issues. Should the poor be provided for? Both sides would say yes but take different approaches as a result of their worldview. The solution for liberals is to take it from those who have, and give it to those who do not. The Federal government produces no income and so continues raising taxes on the working citizens to fund these endeavors no matter how much of a failure their programs prove to be. The conservative solution is to attempt to provide short term assistance for those who have no other option with a view to have those who are able to willingly begin providing for themselves and their families. Odly enough, this is biblical. In discussing this issue in 1 Timothy 5:3-16 Paul was clear that not all widows were to be supported but those who are “widows indeed.” That would who are not able to support themselves and have no one else to provide for them. In that same section Paul states:

But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (1 Timothy 5:8)

Paul is protecting the group from the individual by not allowing the individual to take advantage of the group.

By applying the worldview question to each of the issues we may be able to come to a more clear understanding of how each candidate came to their solution. The sets of problems are the same for the candidates. Which ones they will focus on and the resolutions they decide on will be determined by their view of the human condition. On that score either the Apostle Paul was right or he was wrong when he wrote:

THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;