- How Do These People Live With Themselves?

Last night, I Loretta and I went to Hebron Colony, a local alcoholic rehab ministry, to hear the testimony of Tom Papania. He was billed as a former mafia boss who dramatically came to Christ and now ministers as an evangelist around the world. He was featured on Focus on the Family.

A small but rather significant inconsistancy in his testimony as well as a brief mention of "how the devil is bringing accusation against my ministry" prompted me to do a Google search.

As encouraging as last night’s testimony was, there seems to be quite a lot of evidence on the internet that it was probably fraudulent. Even FOTF has cut ties (though I have an e-mail in to FOTF to double-check that).

A good summary and place to start is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Papania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Papania)

I know anyone can do an “accusation” web site but then Mr. Papania doesn’t work real hard to post irrefutable evidence (such as photos of him with known mob bosses) on his site either. He relies on spinning opposition as the work of the devil preventing many souls coming to Christ.

This doesn't stumble me because I'm well aware of false teachers. What it motivates me to do is to be more determined to speak the truth humbly, as honestly as I can, and without fanfare. Make double-sure you do not take advantage of the gullibility that is often found among Evangelicals who want to believe the best about fellow Christians.

But, how do these people live with themselves?

Here is a letter I sent off to Mr. Papania. If you don't hear from me again, then I was probably taken out by the mob.

-Dave

Dear Mr. Papania,

I enjoyed listening to your testimony this last week at Hebron. It was uplifting and inspiring. Of course, I would enjoy it much more if I knew it was true.

I certainly understand that anyone can put up an accusation website and I appreciate your reluctance to defend yourself and get on with the work of preaching the gospel.

Unfortunately, your accusers seem to have some substantive claims. It would certainly be helpful in removing doubt and opening doors for you to preach the gospel if you would at least address some of these claims specifically.

For example,
1.   You claim that you were put in prison in 1965 for shooting two men for the mafia and you passed the test. However, the court documents posted on your accuser’s website indicate that you were actually in prison for robbing a car yard and a TV shop.
2.   There seems to be no collaborating evidence from anyone that you had any association with the Gambino family. No photos. No statements from any other individuals. You’re on no government lists. You are not mentioned in any books on Gambino family history. In fact the only item available is your sworn testimony of April, 1987 where you said under oath that you had nothing to do with the mafia.
3.   You claimed that your only non-mafia job was when you worked as an operations manager for a dairy farm. During the period where you claimed you were in control of several lucrative businesses (1970’s and 1980’s), sworn testimony that you gave says you were working for places such as Jilly’s Restaurant, Improved Drywall, Fantastic Chicken and United Produce. This is inconsistent with what you said.

I am willing to believe that these accusations are simply a fabricated story by someone who wants to discredit your ministry. However, the documentation seems to be on your accuser’s side. I am really going to need your help if I am going to be able to defend your ministry. Here are some things I would like you to do demonstrate your credibility. Remember, like Paul who defended himself from his accusers, if you deal with this credibility issue, there will be more doors open for you to speak.

Would you consider the following?
1.   If you were indeed jailed in 1965 for shooting two men, could you post on your website copies of the notarized court documents? These are public records and easily obtained.
2.   Could you also post some collaborating evidence that places you together with the Gambino family? The testimony and contact information of some witness? Perhaps an old photograph of you with the Gambino family? Perhaps the testimony of someone who owed the Gambino family money who you intimidating into paying up. I’m sure they would be happy to testify how they could see “their funeral” in your eyes and how much you have since changed.
3.   How about some statements and contact information from the pastor and members of that church you were saved in? Certainly someone would remember how you came in that first day dressed to the hilt and driving an expensive car. You would have stood out so strikingly that it would be in their mind.
4.   Perhaps you could list the exact businesses you ran when you were a mafia kingpin. Also, when you became a Christian and gave it all away, you should be able to obtain a donation receipt. I think if you posted on your website a donation receipt for a million dollars to a charitable organization during that period you gave it all away that would help collaborate your story.

You see, Mr. Papania, I am not asking that you spend all your time and resources defending yourself. It would just help us greatly if you can put forth something – anything - concrete that would collaborate what you are saying is true. After all, if I claimed in my testimony that I was in the band KISS for twenty years, I should be able to at least produce a photograph.

Unfortunately, your website has nothing. It only has God-talk claims of how the Holy Spirit is using your ministry. I’m afraid that won’t do. After all, we have all encountered meetings where the Holy Spirit seemed to be moving only to find out later that the teacher had some sin in his life. Ted Haggard immediately comes to mind as well as Mike Warenke who in his testimony claimed to be a High Priest of Satan until his claim was exposed as fraud in a 1991 Cornerstone magazine article.

Again, I appreciate your response as it would help me greatly in being able to recommend your ministry in the Boone, NC area.

Thank you very much,

-Dave Sable

Dear Friends---

The below posts are very interesting and make one wonder. I am so grateful to God that I learned
to avoid that path a long while ago. You see friends, I used to have a tendency to exaggerate quite
a bit, until one day, a good friend of mine set me straight. I remember it well. It was on Apollo flight
11, and I was telling a story about how I caught a 667 pound sturgeon. Of course, the story was pure
fabrication, but I enjoyed seeing people's eyes grow wide as they hungrily believed my tall tales.

Anyhow, I was right in the middle of telling the story again when Neil Armstrong turned to me, looking
past a wide-eyed Buzz Aldrin, and said "Burt, stop exaggerating. You know you either never caught that fish, or it was way smaller than you claim. If you want to gain people's respect, and want to honor the
Lord, simply tell the truth. How do you expect to be a minister one day when you tell stories like that??"

Boy, did that hit home. I stayed quiet from that moment on. Few people realize I was even on that historic
mission, or walked on the moon with Buzz and Neil, because I tried to stay in the background. I had been truly humbled. So, when I hear a story like this one about Tom Papania, I feel very sad. Too bad he hasn't learned to humble himself and just be who he was meant to be. But if anyone would like to read my testimony in a more detailed manner about how I learned humility that day simply send $37.50 to the address below.

Thanks and God bless, Reverend Burt

Burt O 'Leary
2222 Kingston Lane
Barstow, Ca., 92233

The following is a letter I got back from Papania.

Dave, this will have to do for now for what you ask is too lengthy to put in a E mail but I would like your phone number so I can explain everything to you. I leave for Ohio in the morning and will be back late Monday April 2nd.
To Whom It May Concern:

I am Rev. Fred Kelly a 42 year veteran pastor, most recently having served 30 years as senior pastor of a church I founded in Norcross, Georgia. At Landmark Church it was my joy to welcome and lead to Christ my friend Tom Papania. When he came to our service in 1984 he was serving as a body guard for Carl Coppola, a local restaurant owner who had recently been kidnapped by thugs but had escaped. It turns out that Mr. Coppola was also a drug importer who used his restaurants to launder the drug money. When he called New York for a "connected" body guard, Paul Castalano sent down Tom Papania. One of our members was doing business in the restaurant where Tom was "working" and invited him to church. He came and he was saved over a period of a few meetings. Subsequently Tom was in Atlanta Federal Prison while on trial and there he led Coppola to Christ and I baptized him in the prison chapel. Tom had already been baptized at Landmark; he also went through deliverance.

Coppola was convicted and sentenced to 35 years in the federal system. I have visited him many times at various prisons. Tom was found not guilty! I know Tom's story is a compelling one and I was there for the beginning of his life in Christ. I have been his friend and mentor all of these years. I love and appreciate his desire to serve the Lord through sharing his testimony. We have had him for two revivals at Landmark and the results are powerful. He was a member at Landmark for many years until he moved away from the area.

It is not surprising that the devil has sent people to attack Tom because of his great work in the Kingdom. It is surprising that some in the Kingdom have chosen to stand down in the face of the lying enemy instead of standing up for a brother whose life is precious to God. I will never stand down where Tom Papania is concerned. He is a courageous and powerful brother in the Lord; I know him well and am proud to have been used by God in his salvation!

Rev. Fred Kelly, Founding Pastor, Landmark Church
President International Ministerial Fellowship
pastork@mindspring.com

I did some internet searching and there really was a Landmark church and a Reverend Kelly (www.landmarkchurch.org) who was founding pastor of Landmark Church. The e-mail is the same as on the church's website.

This does bring one bit of confusion:
1. Mr. Tom Papania came to this church in 1984 according to this letter and received Christ.
2. In Mr. Papania's testimony he made a point of how he was dressed in the fancies clothes and pinky ring and was driving an expensive car. He was shocked when he drove up to the church and found that folks were meeting in a double-wide trailer.
3. According to the church website, they built a 250 member accomodation in 1978. Not a double-wide, but a real building.
4. Still no collaboration confirming his years with the Gambino family or explanation about the two accounts concerning his arrest.

I e-mailed Reverend Kelly, the current pastor and their information line asking about this but haven't heard back yet...

: Joe Sperling March 30, 2007, 01:27:07 AM

Is paypal a payment option?

Hi folks,

I keep posting my correspondence about Tom Papania because I am simply astonished at how similar their reasoning is to what I left behind in the Assembly. So far, it comes down to, "Mr. Papania is a man of high character and has a powerful ministry and therefore that is all that needs to be said." Did we really believe that "Mr. Geftakys is a man of God and has an announted ministry so it doesn't matter that everything doesn't add up about his life?" My God! We did! :'(

The following is the response from his pastor Kelly who led him to the Lord followed up with my response.

I am Fred Kelly. My office where we met that night was indeed in a doublewide manufactured building ... we had our first permanent building by then but no space in it for offices. Our campus is quite impressive today, but not then. As to Tom's testimony ... how could you or I either one know about the details? You think the mafia kept pictures? I KNOW Tom Papania. He is a man of God with a thrilling story to tell.about redemption. I also know the nut who is accusing Tom. He is NOT a Christian, is profane, tells lies, and is worthy of no attention from either of us.

I am frankly tired of people who will believe a lie, and then will hardly believe me as I vouch for Tom. You find the pastor who will vouch for "Rocky Scarfone" which is a made up name, by the way. You find the churches who have been blessed by his testimony. Tom has hundreds around the world. What does Rocky have ... a seedy jewlry store and some computers. No churches ... none!

Have Tom and be really blessed or don't ... your call. I know him very well, and I have had him in revival several times. THAT speaks for itself.

Fred Kelly
pastork@mindspring.com

Hello Reverend Kelly,

I sure appreciate your response.

We have had Tom out and were blessed. I would be blessed even more if I was sure that what he said was true. As you know, a man named Mike Warenke blessed many people with his testimony about being a high priest of Satan until it was exposed that it never happened. One has to say a little more than "believe me because I'm a great guy and a powerful speaker".

While I certainly understand that accusers set up web pages. In fact, anyone can set up any kind of web page and make any kind of claim. This is why I am trying to test the claims - whether it be Tom's claim or the accusors - with collaborating evidence. Again, saying "Tom is a great guy and a powerful speaker" is not collaborating evicence. Jim Baker was a great guy and a powerful speaker as well.

The fact that you are the first piece of collaborating evidence is a good thing though to be honest, Tom said that church took place in the doublewide, not just the office but I won't make him an offender for a minor point.

The two outstanding issues that I would like to see resolved before I can argue on his behalf is this:

1. Why does Tom claim that he was arrested for shooting two people when the notorized court records say that he was arrested for robbing a television store and a car lot? Wouldn't simply getting the correct public document and posting it on his website clear that up? This is a big difference and it undermines a key part of his testimony.

2. There seems to be no collaborating evidence that Tom was assiocated with the Gambino family. I know the mafia are not into home moves. However, there are books on the Gambino family with pictures. No mention. There are govenment lists. No mention. There were people Tom collected money from who would recognize how much Tom had changed after he came to Christ. No mention. There were busnesses owned with records and business permits. No mention. Is there really not a single scrap of paper or eye-witness which can tie Tom to the Gambino family other than his own word?

Again, if you and he could clear these two credibility points up, more doors would open up for him to speak. Until then simply retorting, "but look at all the people who come to Christ" is simply sidestepping the issue.

Thank you very much again for responding to my e-mail.

In Christ,

-Dave Sable

This just in. I got a reply back from Mr. Papania's pastor. Again, he completely ignores my questions (1. Why the difference between his story about his 1968 arrest and the court records and 2. Why no corroborating evidence to back up his Gambino family claim). His reference to Carl Coppola has to do with when after he came to Christ in 1984 and was back in prison awaiting trial. It is probably true that he did lead this man to the Lord.

It is his earlier mafia connection that is dubious and clearly unsubstantiated.

I thanked the pastor for his time and response. I will ask those same questions to Mr. Papania and will then wrap things up.

BTW, does anyone have a clue what he is asking me about prayer?

Update: I read this a little too quickly before I posted. There may be some corrobating evidence if Mr. Coppola indeed told the pastor that the Gambino specifically sent Tom as one of his men. This certainly isn't slam-dunk proof but it is a move in the right direction. Since #1 above was not addressed, we may have moved from no involvement to some involvement that is greatly exaggerated.

Okay, once more into the breach: I baptized Carl Coppola in the Federal Prison here in Atlanta. He was the drug kingpin who called for a body guard. (He had been kidnapped by rivals and escaped but was in fear for his life.) Gambino sent him one of his men, Tom Papania. I know that for a fact because Carl told me. Tom was the one who led him to Christ in the cell they shared in the prison. I visited them both many times during the eleven month trial that took place within a year of Tom's salvation. Tom was found not quilty of the drug charges while Carl was sent into the federal system for 35 years ... I have visited him many times in various prisons. Carl is still serving the Lord, by the way. I am so proud of him and his true conversion just as I am of Tom's.

Doubt or believe ... your choice. I know what I know and can't do more for you. What does God say about this when you pray?

Fred Kelly

Dear Friends---

I just wanted to let you know that there were two gentlemen at my door a moment ago. I remembered what the Reverend Kelly said below: "What does the Lord say about this when you pray"? so I asked
these two gentlemen to pray with me about Mr. Papania. I got this strangely warm feeling in my chest,
just as these two men at the door said I would after I read the book they were passing out. They said this warm feeling would be a confirmation of the truth of the book, so I figure that same warm feeling probably confirms the truth about other things too. It really must be the Lord speaking to me. (I haven't had a chance to read it yet, though apparently an angel helped a man find some golden plates used to write it).

After experiencing this warm feeling in my chest I just know that Mr. Papania must be for real. I think these two gentlemen were prophets. I'm going to have to take the time to read the Book and the literature they gave me. They were such nice fellows, dressed nicely too, with white shirts and ties, and they each wore name tags also. I thought that was so courteous. So, I just have to say that this Tom Papania must be a sincere fellow, because my prayers led me to feel that this must be the right thing, and if it feels right it must be from the Lord.

God bless, Reverend Burt O'Leary

OK. I think I've got things wrapped up here.

Here is a response from Mr. Papania concerning my question about there being no coorborating evidence tieing him to the Mafia:

Dave, I've waited a few days to respond to some of your questions. First of all, Kiss is a rock group that performs publicly. To compare them to the Mafia which is a secret society is outright ridiculous. Unlike American Express, Visa and Mastercard, the Mafia does not hand out membership cards. They also do not take kindly to photographs or autograph seekers. At the height of its power the Gambino family had 600 to 800 members. I challenge anyone, and I mean anyone to name them all. Only the big bosses and anyone who committed a sensational crime ever got noticed. The smaller people hardly ever get mentioned or noticed. I was one of those smaller people who kept in the background and avoided publicity. If your lack of discernment decides not to recommend me to churches in Boone, that's fine with me. I have others who do have discernment who believe in me and will recommend me in Boone. If I may recommend something to you it would be to read your Bible more and the Internet less.

Here is my e-mail that I responded back:

Thank you, brother, for your answer to one of my questions. Could you also answer my second and last question: Why is there a descrepency between what you say about your Kansas imprisonment (shooting two people) and the public court records say (robbing a TV store and a car lot)?

Thank you for your time and response.

Lord bless,

-Dave Sable

Here is how Mr. Papania dealt with the question:

I asked you for your phone number so I could explain it to you, but you never bothered to send it to me. You didn't confront me face to face at Hebron and now you wont give me your phone number but choose to hide behind a keyboard. When you become man enough to talk to me, I'll answer your questions. Until then, dont bother me with your insidious E mails.

Actually, he is from New York.

Yes, it is a miracle if that is indeed what really happened.

The reason I don't want to talk to him on the phone is because what I learned from the Assembly. The Assembly puts no explanations in writing because they know if they do someone now has something tangable to check out their story. When a leading brother met with you personally, they had the upper hand - they could fast-talk you or smooth-talk you and make you the problem. You can't call them to account because nothing is written down and no one else heard the conversation.

My argument with Mr. Papania is that these credibility issues are set out there for which he had not given an answer. Since they are public accusations against him, for the sake of his ministry, I think he should post some explanation or coorborating evidence on his website. Obviously, he can't "prove" everything and no one is asking him to. But, he can certainly set forth something. Anything?

Instead, he resorts to the Geftakian defense:
1. See how many people are coming to Christ - that says it all.
2. If you read your Bible more, you would have discernment and be spiritual enough to see that God is in my ministry.
3. The real problem is that you didn't ask the question correctly. Therefore, you are the problem.
4. Those who accuse me are not Christians and therefore the tools of Satan.

Sorry, I remain unpersuaded.

Dave----

Thanks for posting everything you have. Though I took the liberty took joke around a bit about this,
I appreciate the investigation you have put into this subject. It seems often to be true that when
questions arise about a ministry, or the leader of the ministry, the Lord himself is pointing to something
of which to beware. Before George was exposed and excommunicated the Lord had been slowly exposing that
ministry (despite the protests) through the original Assembly website and this BB. There are many cases where at first people decried the "investigations" going on, or the detractors pointing at the ministry and the leader/leaders, but afterwards saw that all of it was warranted.

Jim Bakker, Mike Warnke, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, George Geftakys, etc.-- all come to mind in this respect--some investigations and questioning going for longer periods of time (others immediate) before the offenders were "exposed". But every time it appears the Lord himself wanted them exposed, and raised up those to begin asking the questions, such as Brent Tr0ckman regarding the Assembly (though many others had written and spoken about it for some time---"The Noble Inquirer" etc. as examples). This is what is going on, it appears, with Mr. Papania's ministry at present. Only time will tell what the final story is, but if it follows the familiar pattern the end result most likely will not be a good one (at least for Mr. Papania that is).

--Joe

I first heard Tom Papania's incredible testimony about ten years ago, when a brother in a local assembly shared two cassette tapes; one of Papania, and the other of a woman who claimed to be a POW in VietNam, I believe.

The first time I heard it, something struck me as quite odd.

Papania claimed to have a ministry, Grace Fellowship International, I believe, or something like that. I don't recall the exact title of his group. What seemed odd to me was that a guy who was so miraculously saved just went around telling the same story, over and over, night after night...no doubt for money. I mean, where's the ministry?

Since when do we make a living off continually delivering a polished, dramatic recount of our past life and how we came to Christ, over and over again? It just seemed strange, working up sobs and sniffles year after year, reciting the lines.

When I heard the woman's tape, I immediately noticed that both her and Tom had the same dramatic coach. They turned the same phrases, followed the same story line, sobbed, and cried in the same manner, and ended their testimonies with a very similiar hook.

Tom's was, "God reached down to the lowest pit of hell, and pulled out the slimiest thing he could find....sob....sob...sob. That was me."

I don't remember the woman's but it was pretty much the same, with the sobbing.

After hearing the woman, I declared that both her and Tom were phonies. Of course, I was ridiculed for saying that at the time. ;)

However, the brother who procured the tapes from FOTF attempted to contact Papania to have him speak for an outreach in our city. He was never able to make contact, because his "ministry" didn't exist at the time, in spite of the label on the cassette tape.

Reading here, and discovering that he still gives his 'testimony" for a living, a decade later is all the proof I need to declare this guy a fraud. That just ain't normal, folks. It's not Christ like, to tell the story of how we were saved---for a fee--- year after year, speech after speech. His testimony was always more about what a mean guy he was in the mob, full of gangster name dropping and the clever story of how he hustled some mafia guys by taking away their pants at gunpoint.

I'd be more impressed if he became a plumber, or a drywall guy after receiving Christ. A travelling testimony giver doesn't impress me much.

OK.. here we go;

ganglandnews.com and jerry capeci are the top experts in the WORLD on organized crime. Mr Capeci has stated in over 20 e mails and writings that tom was never a member of the mob.

focus on the family stopped supporting tom after paying rocky scarfone $$ to settle a law suit, they simply state something to the fact that publishings and information has come forward that contradicts toms testimny

CBN paid $$ to settle a law suit concerning them and tom , they simply state something to the fact that publishings and information has come forward that contradicts toms testimony

tom lost a law suite in iccan

tom paid thousands to settle a suit wih scarfone

scarfone does not own anything.

there is no seedy jewelry store, rather over 13 companies .. from interiors design (14 years in ga) hosting (14 years 45 awards) jewelry studio (with three shops online and an amazing list of news articles, photos of him with mob members,) commendations from stars mobsters and a whos who of public persona and print..

that PASTOR. well, he has said that he does ot know of anything before tom came t him. what does that say? he cnnot vouch for tom, only tell you how he feels AFTER the fact..

i have read about fake names, but if you knew rocks story and the facts, wel, you would not look at tom as anything but a grand fibber... rock has never hs his history. his father was kiled in a mob hit, his uncle, his grandfather andf on and on, here are facts online

go: youthofamerica.com otom of page

whywould he need a pastor to verify what that pastor has no knowlege about.. besides what tom says!

yet rock can tell you stories that make your blood run cold. he relates to the world , that mob world, like yo canto our mom

he simply is the real deal

i have read about rock and what happened with his brother, rock has little to do with him, has only spoken to him three times in twenty years. the last in1996 for ten mimutes, rock left home and decided to change his name to rid himself of the old world.. tom has been successful in bringing rock back into the fold and rock is not going to play toms game

tom never was a member of the mob let alone third in line to the gambino throne ,, do not believe me? go mafiaministry.com and liste to tom tell what were lies and get caught!

tom stateshe was feared on the streets of NY, yet no one knows his name, tom says he was made in secret, yet fear must have a name that preceeds the fear.. and NO ONE KNOWS HIM!

on the other hand, rock was never a member, he fought the mob all his life, including three wars.. one of them in atlanta

it was the fbi . agent john simmons to be exact, who came to rock in 1992 and warned him that they believed that tony pep had placed a contract on his life , rock went to war for a year, an amazing story

as far as names, scarfone is he real deal. tom is lucky at the least.. that he did not have to go head to head.. take my word or visit rock

now, my uncle who owned rockys pizza, was gambino connected and was the political arm for anthony trenacosta known as tony pep, captain in the gambino family, pep is doing ten year stretch and is to be released in two years. he was THE FIRST AND ONLY mafia member to set up shop in georgia, period. go ganglandnews.com and search his name

tony stated in fact that tom was full of you know what.. Tony was made by Gotti!

rock actually had a war with tony in 1992/3

tom says he was made by gambino himself, in fact, during he period from 1959 to 1975, , NO BODY WAS INDUCTED because the BOOKS WERE CLOSED.. if you take toms age, you will find that hew as never made because the books were closed at any peiod that he claims he was made

in fact, even SAMMY THE BULL said he was upset because even HE COULD NOT BE MADE until 1985! a year before tom says he had left the mob

on the other hand, when you meet rock, he is the real deal, he has tons of pics and other evidense that demonstrate his stories ..

now, tom cliams he is a harley rider.. imagine this, all of a dsdden he is a harley rider.. riders say they are bikers ....

rock has been a biker for 40 years

my uncle, before he passed, once said he was going to visit tom, the word is out,, I am sure that it will catch up with tom, in fact tom once belittled tony pep by telling a friend of mine that tony was a pansey.... that he was made by Gotti then moved to georgia because he, tony pep, feared gotti. Tony was livid!

some count the mob out, but the fact is, at this very moment, tom's name circulates among a few hundred mobsters..

tom has made the mistake of using names like handing out free peanuts.. well, time often comes full circle

anyhow, before you make your mind up about anything, meet the players

tom went to high school

rock lived on the streets from 11 to 17

tom cliams to have owned biz in atl, and gave them up for god-- yet at trial he said he was living in a house paid by a drug dealer..that he had nothing..

rock has pictures, news articles (over 100) and a list of "friends" that dwarf the imagination, the business and things he has done are , well,amazin at the least.

rock did not ask for this, simply wanted tom to stop using things froma book he published.. well, rock has gone back to the old world

he is as he was, tom should take the credit..

rock has left the godly areana and now lives in world of realities.. he has gone undeground, so to speak, resumed old contacts and is handlng this entire picture in another way.

any way, look before you shoot

Bob Russo

This is Brian Karjala. I operate two websites: http://www.christianissues.com and http://www.mafiaministry.com.

A lot of the confusion in this forum is answered in my writings.

I've been very successful in exposing the fraud of Tom Papania. That's why, other than Rocky Scarfone, I'm Tom's primary target.

I am a former employee at James Dobson's Focus on the Family. In 1997 I quit my job there after I discovered that Focus upper-management was lying to its employees and to the public about Tom Papania. I was tipped off by another employee who told me that the Focus management would not rebroadcast their "From Mafia to Ministry" Tom Papania program because they had doubts about him. It was a secret that wasn't supposed to be revealed. At the time this info was covertly given to me Focus employees were told by management that the Papania broadcast would not be re-aired on its radio stations because the large volume of responses the program created was too much for the organization to handle. That was a lie.

The lies and secrecy of Focus on the Family is the bigger issue. Today Focus admits that they have doubts about Papania, as the letter from Dave demonstrates (see also the letter I received from Focus: http://www.christianissues.com/focusletter.html). But Focus leaders are hesitant to give out that information because it reflects negatively on the reputation of their organization. You have to ask for the info; they don't volunteer it. You want proof that Focus operates in deception? Ask the organization to post their statement of doubt about Papania on the Internet. You won't get a response back from them. As Dave also pointed out (from reading my writings) Focus officials won't even issue an apology for their role in promoting this liar.

To false Christians image is everything.

The person who wrote that Dobson "is not an idiot" has not visited my web pages. Dobson is more than an idiot . . . he is a skilled deceiver. Visit my page:

http://www.christianissues.com/focus.html

The above page offers some info not available anywhere else on the Internet and includes a listing of links from other sites that expose Dobson's duplicity and sheer stupidity.

Lawyers for Focus on the Family have studied my writings and have found no weaknesses in them. They don't deny my claims. Confront Focus on the issues that I have written about and they won't answer. They will only respond by saying that I am a "disgruntled ex-employee".

As for Tom Papania, you can prove that Tom is a liar by visiting one of his newest propaganda websites: http://www.tompapaniaevangelist.com.

At that site Tom falsely claims that I was fired by Focus on the Family. Contact the Focus on the Family Human Resources department and they must relay the information that I self-terminated my employment. Tom further lies when he falsely claims that I dressed up in a devil costume and picketed the Focus campus. He actually took the writings of another former Focus employee by the name of Brian Cooper and attributed Cooper's action to me. Brian Cooper admits to dressing in a devil costume to protest the Focus alliance with the Mormon church (see Cooper's page: http://www.focusonthefamilyalliance.org/pages/915491/index.htm).

Confront Fred Kelly (Tom's long-time mentor) about Tom's slander against me and see what he says.

So you see, Tom is pretty sloppy with his lying. He doesn't think you're smart enough to research his claims. At one of my sites (http://www.mafiaministry.com) I offer an NBC video exposing Tom's lies. After being caught lying Tom gives the reporter a ridiculous answer where he states that time pressure causes him to misrepresent the truth.

Do I need to go on? Come on, Tom's deceit is an easy one to figure out.

I've put the pressure on Tom and he's cracking. That's why, in the last year, Tom began to impersonate me by writing under my name. In the past Tom has been charged with identity theft. Tom stole part of Rocky Scarfone's life story and made it his own. Tom settled with Rocky in 2002. You can confirm the current contract dispute between Rocky Scarfone and Thomas Papania by searching for their names in the Georgia court system:
http://www.gwinnettcourts.com

In 2005 Tom's attorney tried to get me to delete my web pages by threatening me with legal action and even offered me a "possible settlement". I refused. Tom has no way to stop me from telling the truth . . . and it's eating away at him.

Despite being threatened by Tom's attorney with a lawsuit for defamation I was never sued. No lawyer can touch me because my writings are true and accurate.

I'm a life-long Christian with no criminal record. In a character debate Tom loses to me.

Thanks for reading.

In Christ Jesus,
Brian Karjala

PS: Be careful with your interactions with Tom and his accomplices. These are dangerous people.

: Dave Sable February 11, 2009, 12:51:02 AM

I'm not so quick to put James Dobson in the same camp as Tom Papania. If Dr. Dobson's ministry told a lie to protect their reputation (or perhaps to avoid legal hassle) then they have fallen into a trap that I have fallen into many times. Not good, but hardly the complete picture of the man and the ministry.

Tom Papania evidently bases his whole life story on something that is completely false. I cannot even imagine how someone gets started down that road. I'm glad I'm not him.

A few months ago I was incredibly startled to hear Focus air a program featuring a new book by former house leader Tom Delay and this after he was already indicted.
This incident was particularly troubling to me and I wrote to Dr Dobson to express my dismay.
It was a classic example of how many American believers have allowed political ideology to injure their Christian witness and judgment and Dobson should have known better.
Maybe Dobson felt he owed Delay a favor, and that in itself is quite revealing if true.
While I agree that Christians have an obligation to make their presence felt in the places God has placed them ( and clearly this can include excercise of civic responsibilites), the association of Christian folk with the Republican Party in this country has been inimical to the clear and uncompromising proclamation of the gospel.
Christians who think the accomplishment of God's purposes will come primarily thorugh the excercise of poliical influence are in for a huge disappointment. The evidence of history speaks for itself and Christians should of all people understand it.
Dobson needs to be very careful in the way he wields his influence or he will certainly loose it.
Verne

: vernecarty February 14, 2009, 05:44:19 PM

Verne,

I think you are right on on this. I believe that God through His people is already causing consequences. As I watch non-profits (an interest of mine since I work for one) and how they are doing in the economy, FOTF immediately was down financially and had to do serious layoffs. They were one ministry that didn't attend the developer's conference with the mutual donor software we use.

I believe this is, in part, that FOTF has an identify crisis. Are they there to help strengthen the family or are they a political organization? In Dobson's mind, I think he sees them as one and the same but I think most folks recognize that Cultural-Warfare politics do not change the heart and bring the hoped-for response.

-Dave

This is a huge subject and often controversial. I can’t comment on Dobson and the other preacher mentioned because I have not been following the events mentioned. However, I’d like to share my perspective that has evolved from my own interaction with politicians.

My main lesson learned is that politicians give support to a cause ONLY if it means more votes. They will cease supporting the cause if it appears that they might lose votes. However, most politicians are expert at double talk – where their comment can be interpreted to mean either support or no support. That way, often both camps are happy. When the comment is scrutinized, it is often full of loop holes.

Before the Lord, I believe we are to remain true to our walk with the Lord. We adamantly refuse to waiver in the issue God has convicted our hearts about. (In my case, the need for human health and life to supercede in value, the economic interests of corporations and governments.) This will automatically lead to fickleness in political support. My political support fluctuates between Conservative (Republican) and Liberal (Democrat) because the attitudes of the politicians change. I lean more towards the Liberals because they tend to be more compassionate to the needy. However, I feel I cannot wholeheartedly support any political party without compromising my Christian values.

The DVD “Amazing Grace” is the story of one politician that was true to God and to the cause God had laid on his heart - the abolition of the slave trade. This politician, William Wilberforce, was highly influenced by John Newton. God used him in the British Parliament to fight for the abolition of the slave trade. God honoured his perseverance and granted him success.

This movie is very inspiring. I highly recommend it.

Lord Bless,

Flora

The question of whether we should get involved in the "culture wars" like Focus On The Family does is not a problem for me as a Christian because I tend to see it as it relates to the "Two Kingdoms" teaching of Jesus (you know, "render unto Cesar etc."). This means our expectations and responsibilities to these two realities, though they are very different governments, can work side by side.

The Founding Fathers of the USA understood that there needed to be a "separation between church and state" (though this statement is often taken out of context and misapplied). They also had a basic mistrust of all politicians and created a system of checks and balances within a constitutional republican democracy--- that means all are subject to the law and that we can vote them out!)

That this country was founded on the the principle that only God grants rights, and he does so to individuals, (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) means this is a govt. that is a whole lot better than Cesar's Rome and one that we have an opportunity as a Christian to have a part in.

As a practical and modern example of this consider which "camp" we should be in as believers and if we should speak out like Dobson does:

ABORTION

Liberals, like Obama, have voted continually to support "the right of the mother to choose to abort their child." Obama in Illinois went beyond just 1st,2nd, and 3rd trimester and voted to support the killing of a baby after a failed abortion!!!--- in other words, the doctor botches the abortion and the baby comes out healthy and fine and Obama supports the killing of this newborn!!! This goes beyond even the "partial birth abortion" method that clearly is infanticide!!! No Christian can remain silent and vote for these kinds of people with a clear conscience!

As Christians what are we to do in a representative republic like ours where our constitution says we make the govt.? ("by the people"). We don't live in a dictatorship where we have no voice, and so our passivity in this culture war means we are not "rendering" what we owe the age in which we live. For those who do live in a dictatorship as believers some have opposed their governments, like Dietrich Bonehoffer did in Nazi Germany, and they did so not on the basis of a theological dispute with Herr Hitler but on moral grounds.

But how does this coexist with our knowledge as Christians that this world is lost and only the Gospel can effect true change in hearts? My answer is that while we must understand that this is the only true hope of the world we still have a responsibility in the time and place in history where God has placed us to be a representative of what is right as human beings--- if you want to dismiss this as simply "culture" then you are walking around with blinders on.

Flora's example of William Wilberforce is a perfect one; he was a politician who worked to abolish slavery. Shouldn't he as a Christian just have stayed out of politics altogether and preached the gospel to the slave traders and owners? After all, salvation is the only thing that is important for the eternal soul and slavery is only a temporal issue in this life----right? Selah.

In the example of Tom Delay that was raised: I'm not sure what he did that was wrong (an indictment is not a conviction), but I don't think he was killing babies! I have no great expectations that any politician is a great servant of God (or even a moral person) but if, like Tom Delay, he was against abortion, gay marriage, etc. then I think I know whom I will vote for (if the choice is between the Obama Democrat and a George Bush Republican!)

Do I expect conservatives to win a "cultural war" by political domination in this country? No, not at all. If I have a choice to make my voice known will I as a Christian be silent and passive in the face of gross immorality? This is the question to answer; not how effective my voice will be. Will it win hearts to God if I make a moral stand? William Wilberforce's political opposition to slavery didn't win the hearts of those entrenched in this immorality, but it did mobilize a nation and a world that may have remained passive in the face of the evil of slavery.

Do I believe everything that Dobson says or supports? No. Do I think he is to be idealized as a perfect person who is incapable of making sinful mistakes? No. Can I agree with him when he urges Christians to stand for human life, marriage between one man and one woman, raising kids in a moral and religious home? Yes.

God Bless, Mark C.

For me, the term "culture war" does not simply mean "should a Christian be involved in politics". This answer has been discussed much since the "fortress mentality until God takes us away in the rapture" era of the church ended and most Christians I know believe "absolutely! Christians should carry their beliefs to all aspects of life."

What I see as "culture war" is that which pits the extreme ends against each other in a lock-horn no compromise battle. To me, it carries the taste of "us vs. them". The "us" are the intelligent, thoughtful godly people who have thought through the issues and the "them" is the out-of-control irrational folks who are out to destroy our country.

While this may hold true to some extent - there are the "abortion in all cases for everybody and no compromise" people out there (just like there are "no abortion in any case and no compromise" people as well), such a generalization seems to me has only caused an impass so that any progress in either direction comes from legal manuvering, filibusters, etc. instead of actually changing and convincing the heart.

In my mind, it seems that most person-on-the-street person believes that abortion is something that should be minimized. Even the pro-choice person would probably rather his or her daughter didn't have to be in a position to get an abortion. Even many who vote to keep abortion clinics available for the woman in a pinch would see it as a sad and tramatic thing for women who actually have to use such services.

So, how do you use that sentiment (which I believe to be the majority of average people) to reduce the number abortions in a way that just jockying to make it illegal won't do? Is it through promoting education? Is it by getting sonograms into clinics so women can actually make a real informed choice? Is it by providing better support for a woman to bring the baby to terms and provide incentives for adoption? Is it by bringing greater accountability to the father? You see, the "culture wars" is the battle of ideals but effective politics is the art of the possible.

Let's suppose we did "win" the culture war. Let's suppose we got a pro-life President in who was able to appoint a judge who believed the words of the constitution instead of attaching meaning to the text that aren't there. Let's suppose Roe vs. Wade got reversed so the decision passed down to the states. Let's then suppose the states made the decision and you have some states that are abortion states and other states that are not abortion states. What did we accomplish? Didn't we just change the geographics of where people get abortions?

So for me, it is not a question of whether Christians should be engaged in culture and politics. They absolutely should be. The question is what is the best way to engage culture in order to change hearts. In my opinion the "culture war" model has not only been ineffective but it completely shuts down communication to the extent that the resentment is so high no one is going to give an inch. Any progress will be through manipulation of the system instead of discussion and engagement as Wilberforce did (who by the way both sides of the "culture war" see him as their hero).

On Feb. 14 Mark wrote: "No Christian can remain silent and vote for these kinds of people with a clear conscience!"

I very much agree that Christians need to speak out and let their voice be heard.

The real dilemma here is the fact that no one political party expresses the Christian perspective on all the issues. Therefore, a person is forced to decide what issues matter the most to them at that point in time. If family values were the only values that mattered, then I would wholeheartedly agree with supporting the Conservatives (Republicans).

However, if we take the value of the right to life, liberty and security of the person, then it is not so easy to decide what party to support. Do you view the unborn baby as the only group of individuals whose lives have been rendered valueless by society? If you do, then it is time you opened your eyes and saw the suffering and death of those whose life is rendered valueless by the lifestyle choices of modern society.

We live in a “Me first” generation, that is not willing to consider the needs of others if that consideration will inconvenience me. Individuals, who have become chemically injured, are sometimes referred to as “Casualties of Progress” or “necessary human collateral damage in our pursuit of a convenient lifestyle.”

God has allowed me to become chemically injured, and consequently I have come to know many chemically injured individuals. I have experienced the suffering, the fight for survival, and the grief when fellow sufferers die. Chemical Injury affects all ages, from infants to seniors, and even the unborn baby.

Reducing the toxins in our day to day environment is often viewed as an environmental issue. Let me state emphatically that I am not an environmentalist. However, I have been rendered disabled by the toxins in the environment. To me and to others suffering chemical injury, it is a health issue. It is the issue of “the right to life, liberty and security of the person.” On this issue, the Conservatives (Republicans) are awful. I breathed a huge sigh of relief when Bush was voted out.

It would be terrific if there was a political party that was against abortion, embraced family values and were good stewards of God’s creation, putting human life and health as a higher value than the economic interests of corporations. However, since this party doesn’t exist at the moment, I have two choices: 1) vote for the party that best supports my main issue, or 2) don’t vote at all.

On Feb 15 Dave wrote: "You see, the "culture wars" is the battle of ideals but effective politics is the art of the possible."

I agree with Dave’s statement.

My argument is not to stop the use of pesticides, etc, although I would dearly love to see pesticide usage banned. My argument is simply: “make room for those of us with chemical injury to live somewhere, a place where we aren’t forced to be exposed to these poisons. Grant us a safe, secure place to live, and effective medical help.”

My hope is in God.

Lord Bless,

Flora

Hi Dave and Flora!

Good discussion!

Flora,
It is very important to prioritize when we think about where to give our political support. To give an Assembly example I've heard from those that say: "I know the Assm. treated some folks very bad, but for me as an individual it was a positive experience. In other words, it is all about me, and I'm unable to evaluate relative moral values. (I know you are not saying this, I'm only trying to make the point that some issues are more important to a Christian than others).

I do view the killing of children as much more extreme than say dealing with carbon emissions--- in the first instance death is instant and complete and with global warming there is (even in the worse case scenario) only long range consequences that are iffy at best.

I'm probably in the minority, but I think Bush bravely stuck to certain very good moral principles as President and suffered as a politician as a result.

Dave,
You are of course right that Politics are "the art of the possible", but our principles should never be. While Wilberforce used that "art" he never wavered in his commitment to the abolition of slavery. What can we "compromise" when it comes to abortion that will bring us closer to those who have no problem with the killing of a child after birth?

I think the term "Cultural war" is a misnomer anyway; the way I see it we have a moral values war that is raging. One culture is not necessarily better than the next, but ones moral values most certainly are. It is also very true that some moral values are more important to a society than others and deserve more attention.

We can and do legislate morality everyday; as an example, murder is against the law. Do people still commit murder even though we have laws against it? Yes, so why don't we just chuck the law as it doesn't seem to work? This is the same with abortion--- yes, abortions will probably continue, but that doesn't mean we as a society shouldn't oppose it's legalization--- and most certaintly when the child could live outside the womb if delivered.

There are those who seem to see the highest good being fulfilled by a politician who takes a stand as the "Moderate"; the one who is willing to see both sides of an issue and come up with a compromise. Their goal is to avoid an ugly war that only drives each group farther away from a peaceful agreement that lies somewhere in between the "2 extremes."

The US faced a dilemma prior to the Civil War where 2 extreme views on slavery were involved in a severe moral values war. Abraham Lincoln opposed the voice of the moderates of his time and instead stuck to his principles that the Uniion must stay together and that slavery was an evil that must end. There ended up being no political compromise that Lincoln could support while still holding on to his principles. His decision brought about a real war, and at a very ugly cost! Was it worth it? Wouldn't it have been better to just drop the whole abolition thing and let the South have their slavery, or even their secession? Even after that war that made slavery illegal it still did not win the hearts of those in the South---- was the war and the new laws against slavery worth it if ,"hearts were not won as a result?"

This battle over abolition had "extremists" on either side, and many who were in between somewhere. Lincoln was a great president because he stuck to what he understood were nonnegotiable moral values that were established in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Yes, he tried to artfully use politics to avoid war, but it came down to either you thought slavery was okay or it was wrong. It is the same with abortion--- either it is wrong or it is okay--- where can we compromise?

God Bless, Mark C.

: Mark C. February 15, 2009, 08:43:48 AM

No Christian can remain silent and vote for these kinds of people with a clear conscience!

God Bless, Mark C.

There are two issues here.
On the question of remaining silent, clearly no God-fearing Christian can sanction the act of abortion.
It is certainly true that in main part, the democrat party by and large subscribes to the troubling notion of the "right" of a woman to choose to abort her unborn child, but not every democrat holds that position. Some Republicans are pro-choice.
How ironic that you will face federal charges in this country for the destruction of a baby eagle, but not a human child.
Even more reprehensible, is the position that Obama and others have taken that the gruesome partial birth abortion practices of the industry is somehow defensible under the some umbrella "right" to choose
Having said that, your statement about who can vote for whom with a clear conscience bears closer examination.
I think that position is exactly the kind of thinking that has allowed leaders of the Republican party to take Christians for granted, and presume that as long as they were on the right side of certain hot button moral issues (abortion being a main one), they could engage in any and all other kinds of reprehensible conduct with impunity.
Untold numbers of Christians voted for Obama and the democrat party this last elction cycle because of the blistering hypocrisy, wanton greed, and corruption of the Republican party. They had had enough.
Has anyone noticed how many supposedly "moral" Republican leaders over the past decade (including men like Newt Gingrich and Bob Barr) have been guilty of very serious moral and ethical lapses?
Let me play devil's advocate for a moment.
Let us assume that your argument against voting for any non-Republican is based on the notion of the sanctity of life.
You will then have to face the question of this past Republican president's conduct in the prosecution of war.
I know it is easy to latch onto abortion as an obvious and ready issue in defense of the policies of George Bush.
It becomes a much more compicated question when one applies the principle consistently.
It is not my attention to make an argument for or against the wars prosecuted by Bush and company.
We Americans can be sometimes very limited in our perspective.
The vast majority of people asked will tell you that 50,000.00 people died in the Viet Nam war.
Few remember that number is generally applied only to American casualites.
Non American casualties numbered in the millions.
If the sanctity of life will be the ultimate factor that determines a clear conscience in the casting of one's vote, you will have to make the prosecution of war a part of your assesment.
I am afraid under those circumstance Republican/Democratic lines become somwhat blurred.
In my humble opinion, on the question of righteousness, there is absolutely no difference between these two parties, the mistaken notion of many Christians to the contrary.
Verne

Mark, I agree with you 100% regarding the value of the unborn child. However, my scope has broadened to human life at all ages – from conception through to old age. Murder is murder no matter how old the individual is.

: Mark C. February 16, 2009, 03:05:12 AM

I do view the killing of children as much more extreme than say dealing with carbon emissions--- in the first instance death is instant and complete and with global warming there is (even in the worse case scenario) only long range consequences that are iffy at best.

This statement reveals your lack of understanding of chemical injury. Please don’t confuse chemical injury with environmentalist jargon.

In my mind, stating that “the consequences are iffy at best” is equal to a pro-choice person stating that a fetus is just a bit of tissue. Both statements deny death of a human being and consequently deny the value of human life. For someone chemically injured, exposure to pesticides, diesel fumes, paint solvents, household cleansers, etc. could mean instant death for them or serious illness taking months or years to recover from the exposure.

We need to be aware of the effects of our actions on another person’s life.

For more information about chemical injury, I highly recommend Dr. Grace Ziem’s web site. www.chemicalinjury.net

My own web site also has information about chemical injury under the general information section. www.hrni.ca

: vernecarty February 14, 2009, 05:44:19 PM

Christians who think the accomplishment of God's purposes will come primarily thorugh the excercise of poliical influence are in for a huge disappointment. The evidence of history speaks for itself and Christians should of all people understand it.
Verne

I agree completely with Verne's comment. God's ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. God's ways are not restricted by the laws of human government. He is able to fulfill His plans through human government or through whatever other means that He chooses. For nothing is impossible with God!

Lord Bless,

Flora

Flora,

I apologize for the display of my ignorance re. chemical injury. It is true that I am not educated re. these things and assumed that there was a connection with the leftist "environmentalist" movement. I do believe, however, that your comparison between my ignorance and pro-abortion folks view of a fetus is not a fair one. Sins of ignorance and those done consciously are not equal.

I can understand why you would be angry with Bush, or any other govt. figure, if you believed that they knew toxic chemicals were killing people as a result of either their policies or indifference. Before you believe that, however, you should consider that they may be ignorant, or unconvinced, that such a public danger exists. I don't think you will see any changes implemented from an Obama administration in his practical policies that are any different from Bush in the area of your concern. He may talk nicer about these things, but action is what you're looking for not words.

Verne,

I'm not trying to be the voice of the Republican party nor do I equate voting Republican as having a "good conscience." I've already stated that politics is not the place for a believer to put their hope. The only thing I did say is that voting for someone who openly supports abortion will only increase abortions and this is something we should act against. Whether a govt. leader is only voting against abortion in an attempt to win my vote, and in actuality doesn't care about abortion, isn't the issue because it is his actions as a legislator for which I'm supporting him/her.

You seem to believe the unintended killing our nation has done in the war in Iraq (I think that's what you're talking about) is in some way morally equivalent to the intended killing of the innocent in abortion? There is a big difference between those that plan to kill innocents and those who do so as a result of accidental collateral damage in war.

I do not share the rather disgusting view of some that Bush, or our armed forces, ever had an intention to slaughter innocents as the means to advance some secret evil agenda. You may disagree with the war, but to put Bush on the level of a Hitler, Mao, or Pol Pot takes some pretty twisted thinking. I actually think that Bush's intention for involvement in the war was a noble one and that those that are serving are involved in an very honorable task!

If Bush really wanted to just wipe out the country he could easily have done so from the air with bombs. Instead he risked the lives of our own ground personnel in an effort to minimize the death of innocents. If he had an evil agenda, such as wanting Iraqi crude, how come we spent 1/2 a trillion dollars and still have to buy the oil just like everyone else does? The Iraq war has been a successful response to the war on terror and has been one of the main reasons we have not been attacked since 9-11. The courage and self sacrifice of our military has reaped a huge reward for the US, Iraq, and the whole world. We should be very thankful for those who have sacrficed much (some their lives) to make us safe and secure!

So, in conclusion, though I put no confidence in the fidelity of politicians if they want my vote they will at least have to support the laws I see as important to me as a Christian--- Pro-Life, traditional marriage, responsible economic stewardship, etc. The exact opposite now control our country and though it doesn't threaten my eternal security it does make me wonder where the U.S. is going to end up: abortion on demand, gay marriage/gays in the military, an extended time of a Jimmah Carter styled economy?? If there were Christians who voted for this last group they did so out of a considerable amount of either ignorance or insensitivity to moral priorities.

God Bless, Mark C.

: Mark C. February 18, 2009, 07:02:06 AM

Mark, I accept your apology. I agree that sins of ignorance and those done consciously are not equal.

Over the years, I have become used to hearing similar types of comments regarding chemical injury / chemical sensitivity. When I feel verbally attacked, I tend to attack in return. It is something I have to keep looking to the Lord to help me with. The comparison I made between your comment and pro-abortion activists is a valid comparison when the statement is made by those aware of the facts.

I owe you an apology for assuming you made the statement while being aware of the facts. Please forgive me.

: Mark C. February 18, 2009, 07:02:06 AM

I can understand why you would be angry with Bush, or any other govt. figure, if you believed that they knew toxic chemicals were killing people as a result of either their policies or indifference. Before you believe that, however, you should consider that they may be ignorant, or unconvinced, that such a public danger exists. I don't think you will see any changes implemented from an Obama administration in his practical policies that are any different from Bush in the area of your concern. He may talk nicer about these things, but action is what you're looking for not words.

Mark, you may have made your statement in ignorance; but you will never succeed in convincing me that the politicians are ignorant of the facts.

There are many organizations in the US that are actively fighting for the needs of the chemically sensitive. Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida, was one of many Governors to declare May as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) Awareness Month. Hilary Clinton endorsed a booklet about accommodating the needs of the MCS patient in a hospital.

In 2007 / 2008, The Chemical Sensitivity Foundation sent every legislator in the US a copy of the book: Amputated Lives - Coping with Chemical Sensitivity. This book went to every member of Congress, every member of the Senate, every Governor, every legislator in every state; and it also went to the heads of government agencies, such as the EPA.

In Canada, there is almost no medical research happening regarding this devastating health condition. However, research is happening in other countries. Three leading researchers in the US are: Dr. William Meggs in North Carolina, Dr. Grace Ziem in Maryland, and Dr. Gunnar Heuser in California. These three, plus others, advise governments and have appeared before Congress.

Politicians globally are aware of this health condition. However, the chemical industry wants the knowledge of it and the validity of it to be suppressed. It is an acquired condition that is preventable by reducing one's exposure to toxic chemicals.

At this point in time, regarding chemical injury, the economic interests of the chemical industry trump human health and human life. Politicians change their tune and their support when they receive pressure from huge corporations. Human health and human life are secondary to economic interests of huge corporations. This is happening globally.

As I said before, my hope is not in the politicians, but in God - our Creator and our Deliverer.

Lord Bless,

Flora

Flora,

Thanks for your apology and I have responded out of a feeling of frustration on this BB more times than I would like to admit. Your willingness to quickly apologize shows what a good heart you have and I will try and learn more about the health issues you have attempted to alert us to.

There are things, like being a former member of the Assm., that most people would have difficulty understanding what in the world could provoke such an intense interest in us because this topic never enters their own day-to-day lives.

Even among former members there are widely different responses based on how deep the hurt has been from their involvement. There is a danger that we can think that our pain and need for vindication are all that matters in life. We can't demand that those outside of our experience of victimization express sympathy or even understanding for us as they are truly ignorant, and in fact the world is a much bigger place than our own individual feelings.

We were victims of the cruelest kind of fraud--- where so called "servants of God" manipulated and abused us by deceiving us into thinking we were serving God when we actually were meeting the leaders' own perverse needs. The worst part of this damage is that it can "stumble" the faith of simple trusting souls and turn them into deeply cynical unhappy folks.

This does have something to do with the original topic---re. Dr. Dobson and his alledged "lies"-- in that we have trouble trusting any Christian leader. In order for us to function in a more healthy way with the wide world around us without falling into the constant feeling of victimization we have to adjust our thinking.

Lower our expectations of men and women--yes, even Christians:

What hurt me the most from my association with GG and Company was my disappointment between my ideal of their presentation vs. who they really were.

You can tell the guy who brought up this topic was expressing his great shock at discovering that a Christian organization like FOF could be so dishonest. So much so that he has mounted a crusade to expose their alledged deceit.

Knowing, the way that we do, how people and groups can't be idealized as perfect servants of God how then can we ever join any group in support of those values we hold dear as believers? How do we determine the "possible" that Dave was talking about without violating our conviction that bad leaders need to be held accountable?

I ask these questions knowing that I don't have all the answers and yet realizing social interaction requires that the pursuit of a life career where I demand that all that I meet sympathize and acknowledge my own victimization can only isolate me. However, if my only goal is to "get along", I will just fall into my old Assembly mindset of turning off my conscience in an effort to move "the cause" forward.

If I was smart enough to figure it out maybe I could design a rule book that would provide all the answers to the above conundrum. Since I have such a natural tendency to want to just "submit" and avoid confrontation I have found it best to try and think through what are my core convictions that I refuse to compromise on---- my principles.

It is important, as Dave pointed out, that we also realize that we can't idealize ourselves as well by thinking we are immune from the foibles of a fallen humanity when we criticize leaders/govt. but it would be just as serious a mistake to practice a false humility by avoiding speaking up against immorality or supporting the good.

God Bless, Mark C.

Thanks, Mark. I think your post shows forth the internal conflict that I get myself into often. While the "Culture War" is no doubt a needed stand for truth (I think, for instance, how disingenuous the phrase "a women's right to choose" is when the implications of her choice far exceeds herself). On the other hand, the culture war has often brought out the worst in me. There is something wrong with me when I dislike a person I never met based upon a bumper sticker on their car or I assume a politician is an immoral, idiotic person due to their political beliefs or policy. On the other hand, there were many times where I knew exactly what was wrong with some Assembly teaching but wouldn't dare say a word (due to fear of losing favor or wonder if my lucid thinking was a result of my "evil self-life" ???)

So these are things I have to work out each day in thought and prayer - if I do speak out, am I doing it in purity of heart and motive avoiding character assassination? If I don't speak out is it because I truly believe that I am withholding out of a higher goal such as keeping communications open or not hurting someone needlessly or giving my energies to a more important cause? These are always hard questions and ones that I will never do right every time. Progress, not perfection.

You are right about lowering expectations (in the context you meant it, not in the sense that we are happy with a lousy job). One person said "high expectations is simply a pre-requisite for a resentment". In seeing George as a sick man instead of "God's Annointed Servant", I am able to let go of the fact that he took me as a confused, mixed-up youth and led me into his destructive system of values.

: Dave Sable February 26, 2009, 08:49:38 PM

On the other hand, the culture war has often brought out the worst in me. There is something wrong with me when I dislike a person I never met based upon a bumper sticker on their car or I assume a politician is an immoral, idiotic person due to their political beliefs or policy.

I truly admire your candor and insight on this point Dave.
I think you have put your finger squarely on the real issue.
It is not enough for us as believers to only be on the intellctually and Biblically correct side of an argument.
Our manner of life speaks far more loudly than our words.
One of the things that really distressed me over the past few years is how those with a conservative voice (with which I in the most part agree) absolutely squandered an incredible opportunity by immoral and hypocritical conduct despite their conservative rhetoric.
As Christians we are called to be salt and light in a dark and dying world.
No amount of persuasive rhetoric can overcome unrighteous behaviour.
I don't know about the rest of you gentlemen, but I absolutely cringe when I hear people associating the Christian world view with men like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich (look at how they have lived!!)
I am reminded of the Biblical warning about people having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof (which of course is the self-control made possible through the enabling power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.)
In short Dave, I absolutely agree with you that a correct world can be entirely undermined by the absence of a righteous and Christ-honoring example.
I think this is, in the main what has happened to Christianity in America and that the so-called culture wars are primarily the direct result of the failure of believers to evangelise even their own children! A truly sobering thought...
Verne

p.s. Mark's cocmmentary about our perspective as former assembly members reminds me of how we should especially be wary of the danger of rhetoric without righteousness. George Geftakys was quite an example in this regard was he not? :)

: vernecarty March 04, 2009, 05:08:12 PM

p.s. Mark's commentary about our perspective as former assembly members reminds me of how we should especially be wary of the danger of rhetoric without righteousness. George Geftakys was quite an example in this regard was he not? :)

Hi Verne,

Yes, GG was "quite an example in this regard", and it is a constant danger for all of us too.

There are several distinctions I think we should make, however, re. judging Christians and political leaders of a secular govt. The biblical teaching on the "Two kingdoms" tells us that we live in a world of the here and now (that is passing away) while understanding there is a separate eternal kingdom that is still in the process of being established. Jesus said, "render under Cesar the things that are Cesar's, and to God the things that are God's," and this acknowledges these two relationships we have as believers.

Rom. 13 also makes this distinction and talks about our responsibilities as Christians under a secular govt. It gets a little complicated with a govt. like the USA because we are "supposed" to be self-ruled. It is also a bit complex because of the Christian moral foundation for our government that has become the basis for this "culture war." We tend to expect those that support that original founding (conservatives) as politicians to also be in submission to the Kingdom of God, but this isn't always the case.

Between the secular fading kingdom we live in today, and the eternal kingdom of God, we need to have two separate expectations. If I have a choice of voting for an Obama vs. a Romney (a Mormon) I think I have a responsibility to make a choice that I think best reflects a more wise and moral govt. This is a totally pragmatic action that I take, just as Jesus' commanded the man to "render under Ceasar" his taxes. Jesus abhorred Cesar's immorality, but left such judgments to God when faced with the immediate situation because he recognized that he lived in Cesar's Rome and that God had allowed him to rule.

In respect to "the culture war": Here we also need to make a separation. This one is between our emotions and practical wisdom. Just because a person has an "Obama" sticker on his car doesn't make him "a bad person" that I must hate and demonize. However, if a Christian has such a sticker on their car they are either ignorant or foolish. There are some "evangelical" church leaders who supported Obama who are beginning to realize that they have been taken. Obama told them he "was supportive of an open dialogue with pro-lifer's," but they now understand he isn't interested.

Really, a non believer is also not wise to support liberal policies on the purely pragmatic view that these policies are destructive to their own well being. It's difficult not to get emotional when you see your investments heading south due to pure idiocy by an elected govt., but what is worse than getting emotional would be to take on a kind of insipid neutrality where I refuse to get involved in a resistance effort to what our govt. is doing!

There are some very clear differences between conservative and liberal political views and what effect these will have on our nation and the world. Does it make a difference that Obama wants to give 900 million in aid to a terrorist organization like Hamas? I can give a loud amen to Rush Limbaugh (though he has deep personal faults) when he points out the foolishness and immorality of such a bad decision by our govt. (by the people?)

God Bless, Mark C.

: Mark C. March 08, 2009, 02:29:19 AM

However, if a Christian has such a sticker on their car they are either ignorant or foolish.

God Bless, Mark C.

Mark this is quite a remarkable statement. I am sure you are aware that millions of Christians supported Obama in the last election cycle and your assertion that they were all either ignorant or foolish is interesting.
Is it possible that many of these individuals after a careful consideration of the performance of Bush/Cheney over the last eight years concluded that the country could not endure another cycle of Republican leadership and would have voted for change regardless of who was at the top of the Democratic ticket. The voting public is shrewder in this regard that you give them credit for I suspect.
It is also entirely possible that the ignorance and folly resides in the mind of any Chrisitian, regardless of political stripe, who concludes, and votes on that basis. that Republican candidates (in general) are any less Godless or corrupt than Democratic ones or vice versa, rhetorical platitudes not withstanding.
I suspect that many Christians who voted for Obama the last cycle did so as a direct repudiation of the conduct of the previous administration which squandered an incredible opportunity. Frank Schaeffer (son of prominent Christian leader and activist Francis Schaeffer) who supported Obama is such an example.

As a Christian who believes that God is in absolute control of history, I conclude that Obama is where he is today by divine fiat and that the last eight years was a stunning rebuke to those Christians foolish enough to equate Republican rule with righteousness.
The truth is that fate of our society has far less to do with who holds political power, than with the manner in which we Christians conduct our personal lives.
The former is fact, is under direct influence of the latter. Too many Christians are looking in the wrong places for change. :)

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 1 Tim 2:1,2

p.s. I happen to believe that the political and social direction of the country now reflects a course of divine judgment that has already been initiated, and that will be fully executed regardless of which party holds political power for it has nothing to do with them. We Christians have a brief window of opportunity to continue to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ but need to prepare ourselves for the coming loss of many liberties we hold dear...

pps for what it's worth, I too believed that Romney was probably the best qualified candidate in the last cycle and would have been far better for the country than Obama.(Clearly neither of these men are saved)
Apparently God had other plans! :)

: vernecarty March 18, 2009, 12:00:01 PM

Mark this is quite a remarkable statement. I am sure you are aware that millions of Christians supported Obama in the last election cycle and your assertion that they were all either ignorant or foolish is interesting.
Is it possible that many of these individuals after a careful consideration of the performance of Bush/Cheney over the last eight years concluded that the country could not endure another cycle of Republican leadership and would have voted for change regardless of who was at the top of the Democratic ticket. The voting public is shrewder in this regard that you give them credit for I suspect.

I suspect that many Christians who voted for Obama the last cycle did so as a direct repudiation of the conduct of the previous administration which squandered an incredible opportunity. Frank Schaeffer (son of prominent Christian leader and activist Francis Schaeffer) who supported Obama is such an example.

It is not possible that these individuals you mentioned above made "a careful consideration" before they supported Obama or they would have been able to separate his rhetoric from his actual voting record, close associations, and philosophical leanings. If you thought Bush and Cheney were evil characters (which I don't, though I may disagree with some of their policies) wait till you see what Obama does as President.

These "thinking Christian voters" had all the evidence they needed, if they cared to look past his cool speeches:

1.) Twenty plus years in the church of Jeremiah Wright, an incredible racist preacher. (would a Christian vote for a white candidate who was involved with the KKK? Same kind of evil, but from an African American perspective.)

2.) Voted for the killing of children who accidentally lived through an abortion while an Illinois Senator.

3.) The most liberal voting record of any Senator while he served in the US Senate.

Again, Republicans could be insincere in their support for issues Christians hold near and dear, but I don't care as long as they vote to support the conservative values that I believe are the most wise. Only God knows their hearts' and will judge their private behavior. I am voting for their public positions and we should judge them on their behavior (how they vote).

Also, it is not "careful" to vote for someone based on your dislike of a former candidate who wasn't even in the race---- this is not intelligent thinking. As I wrote, Some Evangelical pastors who voted for Obama were conned by his promise to them that he would listen to them re. abortion and are now realizing they were lied to.

:)p.s. I happen to believe that the political and social direction of the country now reflects a course of divine judgment that has already been initiated, and that will be fully executed regardless of which party holds political power

I am in complete agreement with the above statements you have made, and would never suggest that politics is the answer to our Nation's problems. However, in this country we have an opportunity to affect who holds power via a political process and need to at least try to influence that process as best we can.

We are to be both "salt" and "light", and in a secular "two kingdoms" world in which we live I believe the "salt" aspect has both an individual and public duty that we must try to fill. This, in my opinion, has to do with standing up for what the bible says is good and opposing what is evil.

The public policy positions of the Republicans are clearly closer to what is supportive of a morality aligned with the bible. Democrats support: abortion on demand, Gay Marriage, open Gay's in the military, etc. It is the public policies that make it into law that you are supporting, and we are not trying to judge the motives of those who are candidates.

Yes, people voted for "change", but the kind of change they got is nothing but good ol' fashioned leftism and that means a "progression" to a belief system and set of values that rejects the biblical standards of salt and light.

As a contrast, consider Winston Churchill vs. Neville Chamberlain, who were politicians at the start of WW 2. Chamberlain, by all accounts, was a very kind and thoughtful individual, while Churchill was a master manipulator who could be rather nasty at times.

One, out his belief in the basic goodness of men allowed Hitler to slaughter many innocent people in Europe, while the other, based on his belief that there was evil to resist, urged England to enter this war. Back then I would have voted for Churchill, though I knew as an individual he didn't characterize Christian values because of my support of his public stance for the nation he was leading. Though Chamberlain was a sincere, open, positive, and kind individual his public positions were very bad for all of Europe.

God Bless, Mark C.

: Mark C. March 20, 2009, 06:49:23 AM

The public policy positions of the Republicans are clearly closer to what is supportive of a morality aligned with the bible. God Bless, Mark C.

This indeed was the cornerstone of that great cynic, Karl Rove and boy,did he sucker untold numbers of well-meaning believers into voting Bush/Cheney.
Your statement indeed does prove my point, Mark.
Their much vaunted "public plicy positions" notwithstanding, have you ever seen a more despicable cabal of self-seving, dishonest, immoral, and corrupt assembly than those leading our country these past eight years?
Count the sheer numbers indicted for flagrant corruption and criminal misconduct.
Poor James Dobson was gullible enough to parade an indicted Tom Delay on his show on the basis of those same public policy positions and crippled his ministry as a result.
The point is that public policy positiions of politicians have little to do with how they actually behave once in power.
If we did not learn that lesson after Bush/ Cheny, we will never learn it. They are all the same in the end. All the same...
Verne

: vernecarty March 24, 2009, 06:04:50 AM

Verne,

"Flagrant corruption and criminal misconduct"?! Are you sure that you're not confusing the Bush/Cheney administration with the 8 years of Clinton? Or, I'd even put the couple of months of Obama/Biden as exceeding any other administration's level of immoral actions, if we're going to try and rate a presidency.

I guess you're going to have to be specific re. your accusations against Bush because I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how he is so evil and departed from from his stated policies of:

1.) Appointing Supreme court justices who are in support of life, traditional marriage, etc.--- (Alitto and Roberts).

2.) His willingness to support Israel and stand against the murderous "cabal" of Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. that surrounds them. (Obama sent 900 million to rebuild Gaza without condemning Hamas!--- talk about a despicable act!!!! Support for the nation of Israel finds biblical support and acting against Israel earns God's curse!)

3.) His strong efforts to protect this country from the threat of terrorism and calling nations that support it "evil". (Obama wants to try the Neville Chamberlain method with Iran by talking nice).

I know the far left hates Bush and accuses him of the most heinous wickedness (such as plotting the 9-11 attacks), but I wouldn't expect these kinds of views from you Verne. This kind of thinking tries to assign bad motives to those who support conservative causes because they view things like Christianity, biblical morality, etc. as something evil--- they are very open about this fact!

You are very correct that "policy", in and of itself, means little, but you've taken my quote above out of context. Policies must be followed with actions, but it is the actions in the public sphere that I care about as a Christian voter (appointing judges who support life vs. those who don't, as an example). Actions must flow from some kind of policy, and so we must have both good public "policy" and good public "actions."

There is a phrase we could substitute for "policy" and that is the phrase "world view"; and it was this phrase that Sarah Palin used in explaining why she would make a better Vice President than Biden. Do you think that all of these Republicans are nothing more than charlatans who put on a false mask designed by the likes of Karl Rove? Do they all have a lack of any kind of sincere belief in a right and wrong course for our Country? I know Rosie O'Donnell believes this, and we both know why.

Jimmah Carter had a world view that led our nation to take certain actions and the results were devastating, not only to our nation, but for the rest of the world as well. Obama has a world view, and this has led him to take the actions he has taken----as in voting for the killing of new born children who survived an abortion!

Conservative Republicans have a different view of the world and as they take actions that support that view they deserve our support. When they stray we need to hold them accountable. I think I asked you before what Tom Delay has been convicted of, but I don't recall reading your answer. I know there are a lot of folks who hate him, like they hate Bush, but I wouldn't be throwing around the strong condemnations you have used against him without being specific (I still send financial support to Focus On The Family).

Our former involvement in the Assembly understandably causes us to question anyone advancing an agenda (policy) that claims to "speak for God's values". In the political realm we should be sceptical of being manipulated by the insincere leader, and as such need to hold their feet to the fire so that their words are backed up by actions. But with the Left, they have been very clear as to their intentions; so we not only need to fight against their actions we need to resist their thinking---- because their values are set directly up against biblical standards of morality!

God Bless, Mark C.

: Mark C. March 25, 2009, 05:32:15 AM

Verne,

"Flagrant corruption and criminal misconduct"?! Are you sure that you're not confusing the Bush/Cheney administration with the 8 years of Clinton?
God Bless, Mark C.

Not at all. When Clinton was in power he certainly got his share of criticism.
Right now I am talking about the Republicans who claim the mantle of conservatism.
Look at how many influential Republicans were involved in the Abramof scandal.
Consider the indictment of Majority leader Tom Delay.
Consider the SEC and Justice Department investigations of Senate Republican leader Bill Frist.
Consider the indictment of long standing Alaska senator Ted Stevens.
Consider the even more incredible assertion by Arlen Specter that Stevens is the "most honest" man he knows.
I am not even going to mention some of the more tawdry and immoral goings on of serveral well known individuals.
Speaking about Cheney, there has never been a more vicious attack on the consitutional rights of Americans, and a reckless disregard for the rule of law ever evidenced by an elected official than by Dick Cheney.
Look at his pompous and arrogant display of peevishness over Bush's refusal to pardon his convicted chief of staff.
Have you read the incredible millions of dollars his company ( Oh I know he was supposedly not involved in the business once he became V.P. wink wink) Haliburton had to return to the Federal Government after being caught red-handed engaging in outright theft of tax-payers' money?
Please don't misuderstand my point Mark.
It is not to beat up on Republicans.
As a Christian I most certainly qualify as CONSERVATIVE, for the Bible clearly is.
What I strenuoulsy object to is other believers equating the Republican party with either the Christian perspective, or even as a model of conservative conduct...
Verne

: juststarted March 25, 2009, 11:53:54 PM

This is an interesting ongoing conversation. It's hard when you can't separate political views with christian morals. Here is a good article.
The coming evangelical collapse | csmonitor.com

Here is the link to that article:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html)

I think the article says in a dramatic way what we have observed through most of church history. Movements start, swell, overextend, and die out with only the best remaining. To say that the church will look different in twenty years is only parroting what we saw in the last twenty years. There was a big boom in the Jesus movement but only two major ministries from that time remain. There was a great boom in hymnology in the past but only the best ones are still sung. The fact that the majority of Christians in 20-30 years if the Lord tarries will be African, South American and Asian is something folks have been taking about for years.

I don't think we can say it is all because we can't separate political views with Christian morals. Its much larger than that. I think it is simply the fact that the church over long periods of time changes shape, is influenced by culture (even those who claim they are not), and seeks to correct itself by oversteering. The bad and wasteful ideas begin to die out as people are stirred to seek the Lord afresh. However, that "fresh seeking of the Lord" becomes the bad and wasteful 50 years later. For example, I may be tempted to criticize the original "Moral Majority" today but it certainly was a fresh movement set against the "isolate yourself in church-fortress and hunker down for the rapture" mind-set that was accepted 20-30 years before that (which was instrumental as to why non-Christians have gotten such a majority in education and media).

Ultimately, God will not leave himself without a witness. For me, it is walk with the Lord daily, serve others the best I can and not worry too much about the state of the church. The church will not do everything right - mark it down . In fact, much will be done wrong. Nevertheless, God will take care of His church in ways we could never predict.

: Dave Sable March 26, 2009, 06:11:21 PM

Thanks for the link Dave.
I felt a real sadness as I read that article (which is well worth the time).
I felt sad not because what is asserted in that article is untrue, but because it is.
Several years ago Francis Schaeffer observed that we were not simply in a post-Christian era, but actually in an anti-Christian.
I must say that I have to agree that allowing the wonder of the gospel message to become indentified with political ideology has eviscerated its inherent power.
That article is right on the money.
Increasingly we Christians are going to be despised because of the terrible compromise we have made in this regard.
Nonetheless, God is faithful.
We now have the possiblilty of living the kind of Sprit-energized lives which need no political or socio-cultural affiliation to glorify our Heavenly Father.
The circumstances with which we will all be faced will absolutely leave us no other choice.
God bless and keep all those who love Him.
Verne

: vernecarty March 28, 2009, 03:04:49 AM

I like much of what the author of that above link says at Internet Monk, but re. this particular article, as he states himself toward the end of it, "I am not a prophet, and may be wrong." I'm glad that he said this because up to the point of his disclaimer I thought his forecasting of the future of the church a bit arrogant.

I don't agree that "Christians are going to be despised because they've become identified with a conservative political movement". As a matter of fact, I would say very few Evangelical Christians would see political support for a conservative "cause" as anything more than just trying to take their place as a voting citizen in the USA.

Most born again folks understand that all the kingdoms of this Earth are going to be crushed by the coming kingdom of God. Even the one nation that God established himself (Israel) failed miserably and points to the only resolution to Man's need found in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I think the founders of this country understood this and clearly designed this govt. on the basis that men are basically corrupt and expected that it's survival depended on the involvement of those committed to biblical moral values.

No, we are going to be hated because our values afflict the consciences' of those who wish to have Gay marriage, abortion on demand, etc. Those that hate us don't do so because we preach, "Jesus loves you", or because of our theology. They might ridicule us for our preaching and beliefs, but "hate" comes from a deep fear on their part that they may face judgement for their sin.

As I said before, I think "culture war" is the wrong word because this conflict is not about whether I eat hamburgers or tacos but a difference in moral values. Imposing moral values, by itself, won't save anyone but it does perform the function of convicting a conscience (God imposed a moral code on Israel). George Bush was against a "progressive morality" and so he was hated for that, not because he believed in tax cuts.

Coming up with a definition of Christian practice that removes us from the public square-- where we all flee to our church affiliations-- will head us in the direction of the Amish where we will do little good in serving the generation in which we live. Just go to Europe and you will see what happens when Christians are not involved in the public sector (politics)---- they have no influence at all and the general populace are quite at peace in their rejection of biblical morality.

I realize this is a difficult issue, and it is so because it is a balancing act between what we know as the only true hope-- the Gospel of the everlasting Kingdom--- and our day-to-day lives "rendering unto Ceasar." Remember, John the Baptist lost his head for pointing out immorality from a govt. leader, not because he preached the coming of the Kingdom of God.

God Bless, Mark C.

: Mark C. April 01, 2009, 05:12:56 AM

I realize this is a difficult issue, and it is so because it is a balancing act between what we know as the only true hope-- the Gospel of the everlasting Kingdom--- and our day-to-day lives "rendering unto Ceasar." Remember, John the Baptist lost his head for pointing out immorality from a govt. leader, not because he preached the coming of the Kingdom of God.

Thanks, Mark. In reflecting on this "Culture War" discussion some more, I realized how easy it is for me to get moved by what is popular at any one time. You are right about it being a balancing act and as I said before blaming the demise of the church because we are "political" really ignores the diversity and resilience of the church throughout history.

In my peanut understanding of history, I see this:
1. In the 1800's it was really popular to believe in a post-millennium eschatology that through the salt-and-light of the church, society was going to get better and better and the kingdom of God would arrive.
2. The horrors of the civil war as well as the depression kind of killed the "society is going to get better" idea and things kind of swapped around to a pre-millennium "the world is getting worse" mindset popularized by J. N. Darby and the Scholfield Bible (not trying to argue escotology - just stating a fact that the sediment within Christian circles changed). Couple that with WWII where there was clear ideas of the evil enemy personified in Hitler and there was a lot of acceptance of the idea that we need to separate ourselves from society, pursue holiness and put our hope in Christ's return when he will make things right.
3. This mindset lasted until the early 1980's spurred along with the idea that the fig tree (Israel becoming a nation in 1948) plus one generation (40 years) would return Jesus to us in 1988.
4. In the 1980's we realized we had screwed ourselves with this retreat-from-society mindset and allowed secularism to take over the universities, government, judicial system and entertainment. So this is when the moral majority and such groups sprang to power. The clear recognition that the Evangelical vote helped Ronald Reagan get elected seemed justification that we were on the right track. We were coming out of our fortresses and engaging society. Did we go overboard and fall into the trap of arrogance? Sure, but we were new at this and made mistakes.
5. Now, we realize things have not gone as we had hoped. Roe v. Wade has not been overturned. We have ticked alot of people off. The media zeros in the cameras not on the most articulate and thoughtful Christian but on the ones that supports their cartoonish image they have of Evangelicals.

So we have a choice. Do we swing the pendulum back and go back into our fortresses and focus only on personal holiness? Or do we continue to engage culture in a way that takes into account the lessons and mistakes from the past in order to do it in a more mature way?

N. T. Wright in his book Evil and the Justice Of God says "We are called to live between the cross and resurrection on the one hand and the new world on the other, and in believing in the achievements of the cross and resurrection, and in learning how to imagine the new world, we are called to bring the two together in prayer, holiness and action within this wider world."

In other words, we affirm that the atonement and resurrection did not deal only with "how I get forgiven" but dealt in a complete and through way with the problem of evil. He secured a new world in which is righteousness in peace. In the meantime, we look back to the victory and look forward imagining this coming new age and seek to approximate this vision in the world today. We do it though growing in personal holiness and Christian spirituality, through social activism, through expressing our worldview in art, etc. As Mark pointed out, this will all be crushed when the true kingdom comes, but we are still called to express the kingdom through any means we have at our disposal as inadequate as that expression may be.

: Dave Sable April 01, 2009, 06:04:12 PM

.

So we have a choice. Do we swing the pendulum back and go back into our fortresses and focus only on personal holiness? Or do we continue to engage culture in a way that takes into account the lessons and mistakes from the past in order to do it in a more mature way?

We must do both!

and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it....Mat 6:18

This verse is too often mistakenly interpreted to present the Church as being on the defensive, the "fortress mentality".
The imagery is more accurately that of the Church storming the gates of hell and smashing them to bits.
The gates of hell give way to the assault of the church.
Having said that, it must be understood that the primary nature of the battle is spiritual, not social or political.

: Mark C. April 01, 2009, 05:12:56 AM

.

I realize this is a difficult issue, and it is so because it is a balancing act between what we know as the only true hope-- the Gospel of the everlasting Kingdom--- and our day-to-day lives "rendering unto Ceasar." Remember, John the Baptist lost his head for pointing out immorality from a govt. leader, not because he preached the coming of the Kingdom of God.

God Bless, Mark C.

In fact, Mark powerfully makes this point in his reference to John the babtist and his criticism of Herod.

What made John's challenge so weighty (as to result in his death) is exactly the fact that the man lived a life of holiness!

In my humble opinions dear brothers, we can never have any impact of lasting significance in either the political or social arena, unless our actions are accompanied by lives of true holiness.

In this regard Francis Schaeffer was a stellar example and this is why I believe he was so effective in his ability to stir our consicences on the matter of abortion for example
.
Is it possible that we have neglected this critical fact in all our social and political activism?
The fact is we have had far too many espousing views that perhaps reflected our own, yet whose manner of life has brought shame and reproach on the gospel we proclaim.
My own view is that this has badly hurt our credibility in these matters, right though we may be.

Mark my friend this is absolutely not directed at you for I know you love Jesus Christ.
I suspect that when most people think of politics and the "christian" perspective on the so-called culture war, (remember Ralph Reed?!) holiness in not the first thing that comes to mind.
Great food for thought...
Verne

Verne and Dave,

I'm finding this to be a very interesting discussion. There is a lot to chew on here: I really appreciated your church history synopsis Dave as it does help to consider how the church dealt with these issues in the past.

Can you imagine being alive during the Civil war where there were truly godly Christian men on either side? Either Christian man could have had an identical level of faith and piety yet had very strong differences between them about what was "right" (policy?) as to a course for the nation.

What do you think of this paragraph above Verne? I ask because you raised the necessity of personal "holiness", to the which I think we all agree that it is crucial---- but, how about a unified set of values for our entire society to go along with it?

In the Civil War the battle was for emancipation, and preservation of the Union. These kind of larger societal goals are worked out in the political arena, not via personal spirituality and holiness.

We know that Stonewall Jackson prayed and we also know that Abe Lincoln did too. I've read biographies of both men and I would say that Stonewall was the more spiritual of the two, though only God really knows the hearts of both.

My point is that there are two levels of "being right" and that one did their level better than the other one. I would say Abe was wiser re. the social/civil righteousness area and that Stonewall had a better grip on personal discipleship.

Stonewall's blindness to the evils of slavery and the importance of a national unity caused him to engage the world around him in a wrong way, even though he was a devoted follower of Jesus Christ. How about the white church in the South after the war? Their racism was a very ugly stain that came from an inability to perceive morality as more than just personal piety and a preservation of the status quo.

As another example, to this day there are Christians who still think that believers should be pacifists and that all war is immoral. They just don't believe that there are larger societal moral issues worth resisting. As in: should we have fought a "cold war" against the USSR?

Ronald Reagan saw the USA as an instrument of God to resist an international organized evil like communism and that our nation was founded on principles that better reflected who God is and how he would like us to live our lives. Was Reagan a born again believer who followed Jesus? Or was he more like a Cyrus of old who God called and used to establish certain temporal civil goals?

The age of "enlightenment" brought about an experiment in civil govt. which was founded in the understanding that there is a God and that he has given a certain kind of dignity to each individual that superceded the state--- We were the first country to do this and God has used it's establishment to resist the organized evil of things like Nazism and Communism.

You are right, we need both personal holiness and involvement in the public square, but for a President of our country I would take a Ronald Reagan, who didn't go to church, over a Jimmy Carter who did.

God Bless, Mark C.

: Mark C. April 04, 2009, 07:57:54 AM

On the question of a "unified set of values for our entire society", I like the concept but I am afraid that history weighs heavily against us my friend. When the world had a population of exactly only two people, and only one directive to observe, they totally blew it. They also had the advantage of no in-dwelling sin!
Of course my response is partly tongue in cheek but J Vernon McGee does have a point about the Lord directing us as believers to fish in the fish pond, not clean it up. :)
We certainly should espouse a standard of holiness (not just morality), but do we expect that sinful men and women will be able to keep it? Think about it.
I agree that an orderly society absolutely requires just laws, but we in the West have been really spoiled by our Judaeo-Christian heritage. I believe that legacy is now lost.
The individuals we have in leadership today are nothing like the ones of the past, when aknowledgement of divine authority was almost universal.
Trying to change our society for the better through political and social means will always ultimately fail. It always has.

The reference to Jackson and Lincoln is an insightful and thought-provoking one and it merely confirms that Godly men can be guilty of great sin. One has to question the piety of any man who sanctioned the system of slavery, and what it did to an entire race individuals created in God's image. Remarkably, while it is true that Christians led the fight for abolition, many a preacher defended the practice from the pulpit, (from Scripture no less!) We now of course look back with pity and contempt for anyone, Christian or otherwise, who defended the enlavement of other human beings.
Another startling example of this kind of anomaly is Andrew Murray, a truly gifted and pious man of God, who apparently silently countenanced the unspeakably cruel, and Christ-dishonoring system of apartheid in the church he pastored in South Africa where the Dutch Reformed church taught it as part of their doctrine.
I do not have an answer for men of God who make these kind of choices for that is what it is - a choice.
David had the same problem.
So did Moses. So did Peter.
In my personal life I often choose to sin although I know better.
The outcome of the civil war from the perspective of God's sovereign rule over the course of history should give some insight in this regard.
With this in mind, we Christians need to stop and carefully think about the reason our society is in the state it is in today.
My own view is that we are seeing God's immutable law of sowing and reaping at work, and not just that we as Christians have not been more politically vocal or active.
We can have a far greater and more lasting impact on the world in which we live by securing our own lives and that of our children for God's purposes. I contend that it is a failure to do this as believers that has led to the level of depravity we see today.
The absence of Christian influence (and I don't mean political influence!) has always culminated in the decline and death of every society. The US will not be an exception. We are seeing manifested in the physical creation, results of battles waged in the spiritual realm. If we believers do not understand this what hope is there of influencing this generation for Jesus Christ...?
Verne

From the article:

"It requires voting action to thread one worldview or the other into our rule of law and the Christian right has chosen the Republican Party as its needle."

I would say the views of this writer quite accurately reflect the so-called "Christian right".
From her statement above, she apparently remains convinced that the proper vehicle for the achievement of her aims (the Christian world view threaded into our rule of law), is the Republican party. There is not a single mention of the church or the lifestyle of Christians.
I wonder how Christians living under a repressive Roman regime would view such a notion.
Most revealing, she goes to great lengths to outline the differences between the viewpoint of Republicans and Democrats on various moral issues:

"On particular "values" issues, according to Gallup, Republicans and Democrats are night and day.

Some 59 percent of Democrats say out-of-wedlock births are morally acceptable, compared to 39 percent of Republicans. And with recent data showing 40 percent out-of-wedlock birth rates, what if any public policy should regulate this behavior?

Abortion is morally acceptable to 51 percent of Democrats compared to 25 percent of Republicans. And with 48 million abortion deaths since Roe v. Wade, should no political concern address the societal costs of this law?

Homosexuality is morally acceptable to 55 percent of Democrats and 30 percent of Republicans. And 52 percent of Democrats are ready to legalize same-sex marriage compared to 22 percent of Republicans. We only need to look at 30 years of inner-city data and see the impact of coupling government social engineering with unbridled sexual impulse.

Without a moral compass in politics and law, where do we go to answer the hard questions?"

I would like to humbly suggest that this is a meaningless exercise.
What difference does it make if we as Christian parents (or Republicans) pontificate about the wrongness of bearing children out of wed-lock, when we have not raised our own daughters with the moral rectitude to avoid this mistake?
What credibility do we have in inveighing against the evils of homosexual marriage when the divorce rate among believers is now indistinguishable from those who do not know Jesus Christ as Lord. I take no comfort whatsoever in the above statistics nor should any thoughtful believer.
Holding political viewpoints that are starkly at variance with our personal conduct and manner of life opens us to the credible charge of being despicable hypocrites and this is what so many believers eager to enter the political and social activist marketplace fail to consider. The true source of power to change this world comes not only from what we say, but also who we are!

To really understand what is happening in American society, one must compare statistics (the data regarding the family being of utmost importance) regarding those who profess to know Jesus Christ as saviour, and those who do not.

While I admire the author's confidence and bravado, and even agree that the Christian viewpoint must be intelligently articulated and even more importantly modeled by our manner of life, I have to conclude that this individual does not truly understand the nature of the battle with which we are engaged.
She clearly views the conflict as primarily a social and political, as opposed to a spiritual one. She asserts:

"So I would suggest that the naysayer put away their shovels because the religious right is not dead nor in a coma. Christian conservatives are not and never will withdraw. In fact, we are just getting started."

I suspect her lofty expectations are going to be disappointed...the tools she prescribes, mere political and social activism, are unequal to the task.
Christians entering the arena of politics to try and change society without looking to put their own spritual house in order will find themselves with their noses badly bloodied...

: vernecarty April 14, 2009, 02:07:18 AM

Very thoughtful reply Verne and thanks Tom for providing the link.

I will try and respond to a couple of the things you've mentioned above; mostly with what I hope are thought provoking questions.

1.) How did Christians view their lives under the oppressive Roman govt.? Paul told them in Rom. 13 that they were to view that oppressive govt. as "appointed by God" and the govt. as "ministers of righteousness."

I can guarantee you that the Roman govt. was not regenerated and that their level of personal morality was very low indeed! How then did the Roman govt. serve God's purpose in the world?

2.) Is it possible to have "2 levels of conflict" where on one it is spiritual and on the other it is a moral one?

Why do you think Jesus said, "render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar's and unto God the things of God"? Is their such a thing as civic duty for the believer? What should that civic duty involve for those who live in a country where we can influence how we are governed?

3.) Was Lincoln (who was not a member of any church and didn't seem to embrace a clear profession of faith) serving any purpose of God in fighting against slavery, or were his actions essentially worthless in God's sight?

Remember God's servant "Cyrus", the heathen king who knew not God, whom God called into his service to perform a purely temporal, and civil function?

God bless, Mark C.

: Mark C. April 19, 2009, 07:31:14 AM

Great questions Mark. I will try to give my perspective on each separately.
In the larger historical sense of how God used the Roman Empire, there is broad agreement among historians that the so-called Pax Romana (Roman Peace) was absolutely critical in preparing the then world for the advent of the gospel.
The remarkable military and political success of the regime imposed a certain order in the world that made some measure or civilized society possible. The infrastucture was certainly instrumental in allowing the dispersal of the gospel message throughout the region. So one can take a sort of macro view of the course of history and see how God orders events in accordance with his larger purpose.
More central to our discussion I think though is how Christians lived under this regime.
You are quite right that Paul instructed believers to be subject to those who were in authority and the fact of the matter is that Christians with far less political freedom and influence still managed to exhert a tremendous influence on that culture.
Remember countless numbers of them were savaged in Roman arenas and provided human torches for Nero's gardens, which we as Christians do not have happen to us because of our faith (at least not yet).

This raises a sobering question:
How is it, that with far greater freedom and political influence, greater affluence and material blessing than the Christians of the Roman era could have ever hoped to achieve, we Americans now find ourselves in the sad position that we are in as believers so far as our influence on the culture is concerned?
Is it possible that God has permitted this situation to arise to highlight the fact that we as believers have not been all that we ought to be, despite the remarkable blessings and privileges accorded to us by Almighty God?
The apparent assumption by some Christians that our primary problem is political, as opposed to spiritual files in the face, in my view, of the lessons of history.
Think about it.
I will try and tackle your second question a bit later...
Verne

: vernecarty April 22, 2009, 03:43:03 PM

How is it, that with far greater freedom and political influence, greater affluence and material blessing than the Christians of the Roman era could have ever hoped to achieve, we Americans now find ourselves in the sad position that we are in as believers so far as our influence on the culture is concerned?
Is it possible that God has permitted this situation to arise to highlight the fact that we as believers have not been all that we ought to be, despite the remarkable blessings and privileges accorded to us by Almighty God?
The apparent assumption by some Christians that our primary problem is political, as opposed to spiritual files in the face, in my view, of the lessons of history.
Think about it.

Verne

Verne,

Getting back at me by asking a question in return? ;) Like in a tennis game, it's no fun if you can't get a good back and forth rally going--- I think we got one!

It would be a problem indeed if Christians thought that politics were their only resource to effectively impact the culture. I also think it would be a problem if Christians thought that their theology and personal piety should be the exclusive means to achieve God's will in the world in which they live; we need wisdom in both.

Many groups ( Roman Catholic monks, Amish, Quakers, etc.) calling themselves Christian thought that devotion to God via separation from the world was what God was calling them to.

A Christian's life is not a separated "spirit" life, in that we have the exact same humanity that everyone else has. Though we are regenerated, and strive to please God, we are painfully aware of how sinful we are. Sometimes the Abimelech's of the world catch us in our sin (as in the story of Abraham, Sarah, and Ambimelech-- Gen.20) and they will shame us.

How holy we are is not the means of salvation for those around us, because we will always woefully fail to accomplish this goal. We can try and be the best phonies possible ( GG and company anyone?). As with Abe above, coming clean and renewing our faith in God is true spirituality.

My point is that a Christian can be saved and very pious, but make some big blunders in his/her life. Christians need to be wise in how they live their lives in the day and age in which they live. If they choose to just ignore certain realities around them and live in "spiritual awareness" only they will be a kind of Extra Terrestrial who can live a pretty dumb life.

Here's 2 illustrations of what I mean by being wise in the two realities that we live in as believers: If one of your children needed to have a very difficult brain surgery performed how would you choose the doctor? Would you look for the holiest Christian you could find or the best and most competent surgeon? If you had to elect a President would you vote for a "born again Christian" like Jimmah Carter, or a non-church attending Ronald Reagan?

Reagan pursued a govt. that identified and fought evil doers--- This is God's design for civil govt. as described in Rom.13. To understand this, and to aggressively fight for it, makes you "a minister of God." This is not a "Christian" ministry, but a ministry nonetheless. This nation's govt. was not formed to be a Christian church, but to fulfill a completely different function as God always intended a civil govt. should.

Carter practiced as one who sought to blur the lines between good and evil and thus pacified evil instead of fighting against it. This led to huge blunders in the world and at home. He may have been theologically sound and a holy man but his decisions were very foolish as a leader of the nation.

God Bless, Mark C.

: Mark C. April 19, 2009, 07:31:14 AM

2.) Is it possible to have "2 levels of conflict" where on one it is spiritual and on the other it is a moral one?

Why do you think Jesus said, "render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar's and unto God the things of God"? Is their such a thing as civic duty for the believer? What should that civic duty involve for those who live in a country where we can influence how we are governed?

God bless, Mark C.

This is an awesome question.
I will try not to blow it in giving you my opinion because I think our understanding of how to correctly answer it more than anything else distinguishes believers from everyone else and also distinguishes believers from one another.
This question is awesome because it raises the issue of a kind of dualism in the life of the Christian that is tacitly assumed, even if not explicitly stated.
In other words, are we safe to make the assumption that there is indeed a distinction to be made between that which is "spiritual" and that which is "moral"?

The following verse strongly influences my view on this point:

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Heb 11:3

If we assume that this verse has reference to not only the physical creation, but also the various forces that operate within that creation, "the worlds" as it were, then we have to immediately conclude that it would a fatal error to attempt to separate the "spiritual" from the "moral".
Someone once referred to the great Christian J.N Darby as a man who "lived in the heavenlies" and I think I am starting to understand a bit of what that means, especially in the context of our current discussion.
I would submit Mark, that it is exactly our tendency as Christians to compartmentalise our lives into categories that in fact may not be warranted, that so often leads to confusion and divergence on so many issues.
How would one distinguish for example, among issues that were moral, but not spiritual or vice versa?
I think the Christian would have to conclude that he cannot for no such distinction exists.
Every "moral" decision, no matter how seemingly trivial has "spiritual" implications for it is from that realm that the Christian understands that he draws his very existence!
Now here is the thing.
The Christian understands this, or certainly should.
The unbeliever generally does not. Those who do, frequently employ this knowledge to advance their practice of evil for if they will not be subject to Christ, they will necessarily be subject to another.
We must understand that there is always spiritual forces at play, when issues of morality are. Can any one doubt that there is an uncanny power and genius behind the way, for example, the homosexual community is advancing its agenda in this country?
It is the failure of so many of us, both Christian and non-Christian alike, to take into account the ever-present weight and power of the spiritual, unseen though it may be, that adds incredible significance and consequence to choices we make daily.

We therefore have to keep in mind that every aspect of our civic duty, is subordinated to the larger reality of our being also citizens of another country. We may differ on how this plays out for each of us personally but if the proper predicate is in place, I believe God will honor that which the Christian endeavors, including social and political involvement. There is no question that this was the case with a man like William Wilberforce and many others.
This is also why countless numbers of believers loved not their lives unto the death.

I believe the vast majority of Christians pursuing moral social and political objectives, noble as they are, are folk in the midst of a ferocious battle with no amor whatsover...they are likely to get slaughtered...
I know I may be getting a bit deep here but this is worth some serious reflection...

Verne

: vernecarty April 24, 2009, 08:18:17 PM

Verne,

You are getting deep, but this is a topic that deserves the kind of serious reflection we are trying to give it. I wish I had the ability to give a thorough response to all you so ably develop above. I will take a shot at a few points you raised in the last post and try to clarify some of my earlier ones.

I think we probably are very close in how we think of a Christian living his life in the here and now in the good ol' USA. Whatever the differences, they could be due to how we define the words and phrases we are using. I most likely could have used better words than "spiritual" and "moral" when describing the two different worlds that a Christian lives in. In earlier posts I made reference to "the two kingdoms" that are referenced in the bible. I used Rom. 13 where Paul calls the Roman civil authority "Ministers of Righteousness" that seems to paint a picture of some kind of "dualism." (also Jesus' words, "render under Cesar, etc.")

I think the words "spirituality" and "holiness" need to be defined because their meanings can get very distorted. This distortion can affect the way we relate to the world we live in--- ie, how we look at our interaction with the secular world around us.

I'm glad that you brought up J.N. Darby because he can provide an excellent illustration of what true holiness looks like.

1.) He was a brilliant man and a bible scholar: This, in and of itself, did not make him holy I think we both can agree.

2.)He was very dedicated to his view of scripture and refused to "compromise" those views: Now, this can be either good or bad, depending on the particulars. With JND it led to him separating from all who did not agree with him and causing a tremendous party spirit among the brethren whom he previously associated with. Is this true "spirituality", or was it a holy result to his convictions?"

When "spirituality" becomes some kind of adherence to "purity" of doctrine that can't admit the fact that "we all see through a glass darkly", it can take the ugly face of pride. I put the word, "purity" in quotes because in my use of it I want to convey the sense that there are those who believe they perfectly understand all mysteries (or at least understand them better than others).

Yes, I understand there is a true orthodoxy, like the Gospel of the grace of God and the nature of God, that we can't give in on. However, the kind of conduct (holiness?) that accompanies these foundational truths should be exemplified in an attitude of humility.

I view holiness/spirituality of life much differently now then I did in the past; though my past still tends to haunt my daily life. The distinction between false and true holiness I've come to realize is the difference between pretense and honesty about oneself.

What does the above distinction re. holiness have to do with our topic of a Christian's involvement in the world around him/her?

One view encourages a very self centered life where "inner reality" is all that there is---- this life "in the Spirit" is (like JND in the Heavenlies) actually based on ones own "vision" that denies anything that seems to threaten that view. This belief embraces the idea that The Eternal Kingdom of Christ through the Spirit can be perfectly understood and practiced in the age in which we live now.

The other view recognizes that these Kingdom realities are "not yet" and that we live in the world as those looking forward to the coming of "that which is perfect." The bible recognizes this "dualism" and also (as in Rom. 13) explains that we must in wisdom function in both realms.

God Bless, Mark C.

: Mark C. April 26, 2009, 10:22:21 PM

I'm glad that you brought up J.N. Darby because he can provide an excellent illustration of what true holiness looks like.

1.) He was a brilliant man and a bible scholar: This, in and of itself, did not make him holy I think we both can agree.

2.)He was very dedicated to his view of scripture and refused to "compromise" those views: Now, this can be either good or bad, depending on the particulars. With JND it led to him separating from all who did not agree with him and causing a tremendous party spirit among the brethren whom he previously associated with. Is this true "spirituality", or was it a holy result to his convictions?"

When "spirituality" becomes some kind of adherence to "purity" of doctrine that can't admit the fact that "we all see through a glass darkly", it can take the ugly face of pride. I put the word, "purity" in quotes because in my use of it I want to convey the sense that there are those who believe they perfectly understand all mysteries (or at least understand them better than others).

Yes, I understand there is a true orthodoxy, like the Gospel of the grace of God and the nature of God, that we can't give in on. However, the kind of conduct (holiness?) that accompanies these foundational truths should be exemplified in an attitude of humility.

I view holiness/spirituality of life much differently now then I did in the past; though my past still tends to haunt my daily life. The distinction between false and true holiness I've come to realize is the difference between pretense and honesty about oneself.

What does the above distinction re. holiness have to do with our topic of a Christian's involvement in the world around him/her?

One view encourages a very self centered life where "inner reality" is all that there is---- this life "in the Spirit" is (like JND in the Heavenlies) actually based on ones own "vision" that denies anything that seems to threaten that view. This belief embraces the idea that The Eternal Kingdom of Christ through the Spirit can be perfectly understood and practiced in the age in which we live now.

The other view recognizes that these Kingdom realities are "not yet" and that we live in the world as those looking forward to the coming of "that which is perfect." The bible recognizes this "dualism" and also (as in Rom. 13) explains that we must in wisdom function in both realms.

God Bless, Mark C.

You are quite right.
How sobering that even men of great spiritual gifts can suffer from the sin of spiritual pride.
Interestingly enough, the comment about Darby living in the heavenlies was made by George Mueller to someone who was apparently trying to curry favor with Mueller by criticising Darby.
Your point is well taken.
True spirituality will always evidence itself in Godly deportment in the practical areas of our lives, including how we interact with both our brethren and the unsaved. I agree that Darby was less than exemplary in this regard.
Verne

: Mark C. April 26, 2009, 10:22:21 PM

I view holiness/spirituality of life much differently now then I did in the past; though my past still tends to haunt my daily life. The distinction between false and true holiness I've come to realize is the difference between pretense and honesty about oneself.

What does the above distinction re. holiness have to do with our topic of a Christian's involvement in the world around him/her?

One view encourages a very self centered life where "inner reality" is all that there is---- this life "in the Spirit" is (like JND in the Heavenlies) actually based on ones own "vision" that denies anything that seems to threaten that view. This belief embraces the idea that The Eternal Kingdom of Christ through the Spirit can be perfectly understood and practiced in the age in which we live now.

The other view recognizes that these Kingdom realities are "not yet" and that we live in the world as those looking forward to the coming of "that which is perfect." The bible recognizes this "dualism" and also (as in Rom. 13) explains that we must in wisdom function in both realms.

God Bless, Mark C.

I think "living in the heavenlies" in no way means some kind of pretension that the world around us can be dismissed. I agree that these two extremes tend to manifest themselves in believers. Those on the one hand who imagine themselves so "spiritual" that they feel no impetus to excercise any influence in the sphere in which God has placed them, and those on the other hand who allow themselves to become so worldly minded and spiritually dull, that they go about their existence as if this is the only world that is, and that Democrats and homosexuals are the enemy.
I believe we see the latter attitude in many politically motivated Christians.
So while I agree we have no choice but to be actively engaged with the world around us, our perspective is nonetheless solidly rooted in the great reality that our wrestling is not with flesh and blood...in other words, while we do indeed live as it were in two realms we recognize that events in both are inextricably connected.
In fact I would go so far as to say that you cannot have a true understanding of what is taking place in the physical realm, unless you are familiar with what is taking place in the spiritual...
Verne

p.s.
I have a few thoughts about dealing with issues from our past that tend to haunt us that I wil maybe share a bit later. The fact that you recognize these kinds of influences (I remember the first time it dawned on me how much of my father's influence remained) is more than half the battle won my friend...

: Mark C. April 26, 2009, 10:22:21 PM

The other view recognizes that these Kingdom realities are "not yet" and that we live in the world as those looking forward to the coming of "that which is perfect." The bible recognizes this "dualism" and also (as in Rom. 13) explains that we must in wisdom function in both realms.

God Bless, Mark C.

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Matt 6:10

I believe this prayer of the Lord Jesus suggests at least the possibility of the present display of kingdom realities.

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Matt 28:18

The Lord's final assertion here in Matt 28:18 confirms this.

Now few Christians would quibble with what these verses are saying, but therein lies the dilemma.

So much of the believer's experience appear to contradict the above.

How frequently do we fall into personal sin that is clearly not in keeping with "Thy will be done"?

How frequently do we observe events of such unspeakable horror that we cannot help but ask ourselves whether indeed all power in heaven and in earth has been given unto Christ.

I think the very raising of these questions is the thing that draws us closer to an understanding of this seeming dilemma and I think the answer is this, at least in part:

The coming of God's kingdom must be the personal and relentless pursuit of every Christian still in the flesh.

Some may not think this possible in this life.
Most of us have not experienced such victory and power.
I do however think with God all things are possible.

In fact, I would argue that the incredible darkness of the world in which we now live, has as its exact purpose, this remarkable display of God's kingdom authority in our own lives as we seek to glorify Him.
That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; Phil 2:15

I must say in all honesty that this is not a reality that I now personally enjoy as God well knows. It is however my earnest prayer that God would make it so....

. And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you Matt 17:20,21

Amen...
[/quote]

Verne,

I am not aware of a "deleted post". However, the way my tired old brain works maybe I punched a "delete" when I meant to punch an "enter." ??? I'd would like to keep this conversation going though, as I'm finding it very helpful (I hope other readers are too).

I greatly appreciate your honesty re. your own personal dilemma and contradictions. It doesn't do us any good, nor the cause of Christ, to claim an experience we just don't have. The things you mentioned above do prove one thing: there is a Spirit that is creating a desire in us for an inner experience, not natural to us, that can only be called "holiness."

I think every truly born again believer has asked the question: " why can't I just be free of all vesitiges of sin?! Aren't the promises of God ones that include complete sanctification?!"

The answers are "yes"---- and "absolutely yes"---- to both questions above, but not fully in this life.

I understand this, but like you, I wonder exactly what my expectations for this life should be. I mean, how much sanctification can I really expect? Naturally, we should try our best to avoid sin and pursue righteousness, but do some do better than others? If they do better, why is this so? And, even if we tried to figure this out, how exactly would we know what something like "inner reality" would look like?

Some would say one of these:

1.)"Your behavior alone demonstrates true separation of heart toward God--- ignore your inner life."

2.) "The great feelings of devotion when caught up in worship to God show true surrender--- all that matters is within."

3.) "The ability to crucify ones self-life completely via the exercise of faith."

4.) "Behavior transformation via daily discipleship techniques that release God's powerful inner working."

There probably is something worth considering in the list above (when looked at in the proper context), but I don't think any of them are "secrets" to laying hold on the Kingdom. As a matter of fact, I think there is a lot of bad thinking/acting that can come out of our pursuit to be holy. That good desire for "my utmost for His Highest" can't be separated from the fact of the Gospel of the grace of God or we end up creating a phony and neurotic replica of the true.

After all, God has given us the Kingdom by his grace---- why are we trying to lay hold on what is ours already? What makes us think that there is any kind of work we can do that will bring us closer to perfection anymore than it could bring us forgiveness of sins? This doesn't answer the whole question re. holiness, but I think it points us in the right direction.

God Bless, Mark C.

I know this topic has kind of wandered a bit from a Christian's view of politics to a discussion of "duality" (is that a real word? ;)). Of course, it started with a complaint re. Dr Dobson and his involvement in "the Christian Right."

Now it's progressed to the point where we're talking about living a holy life while trying to be wise in how we live in this present age.

This has led the question into a less philosophical one and into a discussion that is more personal in nature. This makes me ask: What does it mean to be holy?

As I thought about this I realized that I had many preconceived notions about what holiness is and along with this all the psychological residue that comes with those notions. A good example of this is what Joe has posted recently re. certain bible verses (Yes Joe, I know exactly what you are talking about).

In the above thinking that I mentioned I came up with a kind of test that might help us to know if we wandered from the general path of holiness. The "test" isn't the typical kind of self evaluation stuff (think Lordship Salvation) where we check to see if we're really saved or not. And, certainly not some kind of higher life test!

Anyway, I'm open to any who want to clarify or criticize my opinions on this.

Gal. 5:22 says, "But the fruit of the Spirit is Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control."

I'm sure a word study of the above verse would add to my understanding of the above, "fruit of the Spirit", but even without this what stood out to me was what is not in this list----- Guilt, shame, fear, depression, anxiety, self hatred, and all of the related inner struggles that go with these!

Knowing this we can be assured of what is not from the Spirit but is trying to present itself to us as "holiness." I would contend that many of the ways that we try to achieve holiness as Christians is nothing more than some version of self improvement.

How does the Spirit get this fruit in our lives? Is it by "full surrender", a 2nd experience, the breaking of the self life, my personal resolve, by making Jesus Lord of my life, etc.?

That the above spiritual character in my life is not immediate and perfect is pretty clear. However, I think Paul's point here is not to offer a magic pill for "victorious living", but to invite us to look at holiness from a different perspective than a typical religionist might.

That different look is not evaluating how well I'm doing--- in other words, mine and others' failings and how to correct them---- but looking outside of myself to a place of perfect completion in God. This kind of resting place for the soul is not threatened by sin in myself or in others, and so replaces condemnation of self and others with an acceptance of others the way they are, that is, in an expression of Love.

Of course, we will all fall short of loving others and fall into the negatives we want to avoid--- but my point here is that when we start to feel guilty or judgemental we know the cure is not the methods whose fruit is self hatred, anxiety, depression, etc.

And, it's not turning the above list into "goals to strive for", but seeing them as indicators if we really know who God is and what he's given us by his grace. Now, this is the kind of test that I think can really be a strong positive in our lives! Please notice Paul tells us what "the fruit of the Spirit is, not what we need to be as good Christians.

Yes, I've diverted the topic some more here, but I think as we better understand holiness maybe our view of the world around us might become more balanced as a result.

God Bless, Mark C.

: Mark C. May 08, 2009, 07:06:44 AM

This has led the question into a less philosophical one and into a discussion that is more personal in nature. This makes me ask: What does it mean to be holy?

God Bless, Mark C.

You will probably get as many different answers to this question as the number of people it is posed to.
I would hazard a guess that many of the answers would be nothing more than a kind of legalism disguised as piety
When I think about holiness I think about what the word actually means and in the purest sense as we all know, it means literally to be set apart.
The question that naturally follows is of course, set apart for what?
I would like to suggest that it is failure to really understand this definition of holiness, and to ask the question that should naturally follow, that gives rise to the confusion and misunderstanding surrounding the matter of holiness.

Is it possible that the very essence of true holiness is the recognition that God has a specific purpose for each of His redeemed, and that ANYTHING that interferes with that objective must by definition be considered unholy?

Think about it. Viewed from this perspective, we can easily see that holiness has absolutely nothing to do with our personal preferences or that of our brethren, nor even anything to do with our conceptions of piety, but rather to do with the destiny to which God has called each of us.
Christians who confuse legalism with holiness I think miss this important distinction.
Something that interferes with God's purpose and calling in my life, may in no way hinder that same objecive in the life of my brother and so we need to be so careful on this score.
True holiness will always serve to produce a vessel fit for the Master's use.
A holy individual, one set apart, therefore in my view, is an individual fulfilling God's purpose for his being.
How many of us can say with confidence that we are indeed, set apart..? it surely makes me think a bit differenly about what it means to be holy when I consider it from the perspective of service to God...
Verne

I would hazard a guess that many of the answers would be nothing more than a kind of legalism disguised as piety
When I think about holiness I think about what the word actually means and in the purest sense as we all know, it means literally to be set apart.
The question that naturally follows is of course, set apart for what?
I would like to suggest that it is failure to really understand this definition of holiness, and to ask the question that should naturally follow, that gives rise to the confusion and misunderstanding surrounding the matter of holiness.

True holiness will always serve to produce a vessel fit for the Master's use.
A holy individual, one set apart, therefore in my view, is an individual fulfilling God's purpose for his being.
How many of us can say with confidence that we are indeed, set apart..? it surely makes me think a bit differently about what it means to be holy when I consider it from the perspective of service to God...
Verne

[/quote]

You make a very good distinction above in seeing "holiness" as an individual calling vs. just a set of rules to live by. But even knowing this difference I find that I fail to live-up to anything close to "a vessel fit for the Master's use."

"Separated" to God?---

1.) Does this mean I make my inner life free from sin?

2.) Or, could it mean just controlling my sinful actions?

3.) Or, is it that holiness really isn't something believers self actualize?

I believe it must start, continue, and end with #3, because only God can take a sinner and separate him as a "vessel that is fit."

I just listened to an MP3 that is available at the Internet Monk's site called, "The Gospel For Those Broken By The Church" by Rod Roseblatt. I would highly recommend former members of the Assembly listen to this and then listen to it again and again!

The speaker's point is that the church preaches the Gospel to bring people in and then switches to a mix of law and Gospel for believers that can either break a Christian or make him/her mad (as in angry). Holiness can never come to believers by their own efforts to "lay hold" on it.

I know there are a ton of arguments against "easy believism", that try and say many Christians are shallow and lazy. If that is true, and it may be, what is the solution? Lordship salvation? GG call to holiness? Higher standards? Baptism in the Holy Spirit? Having more faith?

The answer given by the above speaker is that the solution for making Christians what God wants is the same as what saved them in the first place: The Gospel of the grace of God! Anything else will either make us phonies, broken, or angry.

The Jesus who would not break a bent reed or snuff out a dying flame does not want to place the burden on his children of producing their own holiness. I believe the Gospel of the grace of God, and that it is God's complete and perfect solution for any and all sin in my life.

God Bless, Mark C.

: Mark C. May 17, 2009, 08:01:23 AM

You make a very good distinction above in seeing "holiness" as an individual calling vs. just a set of rules to live by. But even knowing this difference I find that I fail to live-up to anything close to "a vessel fit for the Master's use."

"Separated" to God?---

1.) Does this mean I make my inner life free from sin?

2.) Or, could it mean just controlling my sinful actions?

3.) Or, is it that holiness really isn't something believers self actualize?

I believe it must start, continue, and end with #3, because only God can take a sinner and separate him as a "vessel that is fit."

I did not start thinking like this until I too became so aware of how unfit a vessel I am.
What is so important about this is it not only forces us to wrestle with the issue of our motivation for holines, it also forces us to wrestle with the question of the means.
If our primary motivation is to be set apart for service to God, as opposed to just enjoyment of some sort of self-righteousness so others compliment us on how holy we are, we begin to see the matter of holiness as not just optional but absolutely essential- we cannot serve in demonstration of the Spirit and power apart from holiness of life!
One of the things that most discourages me today is how little power and annointing there is today in the lives of so many of God's servants. So many of them seem to be just going "through the motions".
I believe it is the conditon of seeing how utterly unworthy and unable we are to do anything for God, that finally prepares our hearts to receive the means by which he accomplishes this in our lives. Mark I think you are right on the money in your comments in this regard. More on the means next post...
Verne

And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.
And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?
Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel.
And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment. Zechariah 3:1-4

While it is true that as Christians, we often are plauged with a sense of our own unworthiness, at no time is our condition brought home to us with such startling clarity as when are called to serve.
In fact I would argue that if we find oursleves lacking in desire for holiness of life, it may be because we have not responded to God's call to serve Him.
I previously suggested that service therefore is one thing that provides powerful motivation for holiness.
Having said that, just because we want to be holy does not make it so.
Neither does our call to service in and of itself.
Motivation for holiness is one thing, the means by which God does this is quite another.
We have the reamarkable instance of Joshua, in the verses above, standing before he angel of the Lord, yet clothed in filthy garments!
The remainder of the verse gives powerful credence to Mark's assertion earlier that God alone has the power to make us holy. Just as we are justified by faith, we also must be sanctified by faith in my view.
I think the arena in which God goes about this is in fellowship with other believers. The Lord's instruction to others around Joshua to remove his filthy garments is startlingly like the command the Lord Jesus gave concerning the removal of Lazarus' grave clothes in John 11:44.
God Bless.
Verne

AssemblyBoard

Post Assembly Life => The Assembly Experience => : outdeep March 28, 2007, 07:33:40 PM