How Do These People Live With Themselves?

[Mark C.]

 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.

       

[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.
      

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.

  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

[Mark C.]

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. 

     

   

   

[outdeep]

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.

[vernecarty]

  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?

[Mark C.]

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.   

 

         

[vernecarty]

  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!

[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.
 
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. 

[Joe Sperling]

After Obama was elected, the following little cartoon strip entered my
mind:

A large cartoon cell is split into two sections.  The section to the left has a caption above it that says "November, 2008" and shows a group of Obama supporters holding up placards that say: "CHANGE we need!" (Obama's slogan).

The section to the right has a picture of the very same Obama supporters, with a caption above it that says: "One year later".  They are standing outside a storefront, with their hands outstretched, asking those exiting the store: "Can you spare some CHANGE?"

Of course, we do need to give Obama a chance, but so far it looks like he may run the country
into the ground with all the spending he is doing so far.

[vernecarty]

 
  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

[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

  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.     

[vernecarty]

  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]

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

[outdeep]

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

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. 

[Joe Sperling]

Dave--

You said below:

"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 talking about for years". 

Just a side note to the conversation---this sentence stood out to me.  It is so true.   There is an
amazing work going on right now in India. Some of the worst persecution in the world (mainly in the
state of Orissa where Hindus are literally attacking churches and killing christians) right now is in India,
but at the same time there are massive amounts of people coming to Christ!  Statistically, there are very
few Christians compared to the rest of the population there-----but the amount now compared to just a few years ago is astounding! The Lord is really moving in that part of the world.

I may have shared this before but this is just one of many ministries active there:

http://www.indiago.org/

Ask for a copy of their newsletter.  It is amazing to see what the Lord is doing there right now.