"The primary reason for this war against [Jesus] is He is interfering with the plan to make this a socialist nation. Mark it down. It is the truth."

I think there are a number of preachers that are deeply concerned that our Nation is on the verge of catastrophic collapse. Just as the prophets and Jesus expressed concerns before collapse, so will preachers do so today. Here are a couple of potential problems when it comes to the issue of expressing such concerns:
1. Preachers express the political issues more than the spiritual issues.
2. Other preachers believe that a collapse is not much of our concern.

Just for curiosity… I think we’re agreed that in the work of preaching and teaching you not only have to exegete the text, you have to apply to where you live. Am I right about that? In that case, would the primary objection to Stanley’s message be that the application he is making is
a. ill informed?
b. something we’re kind of tired of?
c. damaging to what ought to be higher ministry priorities?
d. results in powerlessness?
e. is a topic that we should ignore?
f. or what?

I like to know what I’m disagreeing with when I disagree… or maybe discover that I don’t really disagree.

[Pastor Joe Roof] I think there are a number of preachers that are deeply concerned that our Nation is on the verge of catastrophic collapse. Just as the prophets and Jesus expressed concerns before collapse, so will preachers do so today. Here are a couple of potential problems when it comes to the issue of expressing such concerns:
1. Preachers express the political issues more than the spiritual issues.
2. Other preachers believe that a collapse is not much of our concern.

…or that the REAL causes of collapse are spiritual, rather than the mere symptoms such as creeping socialism, etc.

[Aaron Blumer] Just for curiosity… I think we’re agreed that in the work of preaching and teaching you not only have to exegete the text, you have to apply to where you live. Am I right about that? In that case, would the primary objection to Stanley’s message be that the application he is making is
a. ill informed?
b. something we’re kind of tired of?
c. damaging to what ought to be higher ministry priorities?
d. results in powerlessness?
e. is a topic that we should ignore?
f. or what?

I like to know what I’m disagreeing with when I disagree… or maybe discover that I don’t really disagree.

I vote for C and D.

Clears things up a bit for me. Would you say there’s any kind of causal link between c and d?
Reason I ask is that it seems to me like “what are the results?” is not all that good a question compared to “Are we supposed to do this ?”
About “c,” would you say that making these applications automatically damages higher priorities? What if you do it twice a year on Friday? In this case, the message was in addition to all the usual pulpit work (I’m assuming he doesn’t usually preach on Fridays).
So the damage to priorities… would it necessarily be due to neglect or damaged in other ways?

“…or that the REAL causes of collapse are spiritual, rather than the mere symptoms such as creeping socialism, etc.”

Though being interested in political machinations though not a political adherant to any political dogma, in my opinion creeping socialism is as much a symptom of fallen man’s attempts at improving his lot as creeping capitalism.
One thing very obvious to the non American is what appears to be an excessive amount of paranoia in Americans as soon as the word “socialism” is mentioned. This seems to be a reflex action response irrespective of context as if the very word is synonymous with evil.

I would suggest that the paranoia is a ray of hope. Though I’m not in favor of reflexive reactions to buzzwords, to the degree people are aware of the dismal failure of socialism everywhere it has been tried and are frightened by the prospect as a result that’s wisdom at work.

[Richard Pajak] Though being interested in political machinations though not a political adherant to any political dogma, in my opinion creeping socialism is as much a symptom of fallen man’s attempts at improving his lot as creeping capitalism.

Good luck with selling that idea here!

There is a sense in which I agree with you.

Socialistic/Communistic systems run up against the barrier of sinful human nature. I will never work as hard to feed my neighbor as I do to feed my own family. Thus socialistic/communistic systems tend to fail because they to not provide incentive to produce.
Capitalism, on the other hand, moves with the grain of human selfishness and greed. Yes, incentives exist because hard work is rewarded. But greed and selfishness are sometimes rewarded even more.

I do not set the two as equally evil, for a variety of reasons. And of course I recognize that there are many in a pure capitalism system who give charitably, and that there are some in a socialistic/communistic system who work hard. But I think the generaly tendencies mentioned above are pretty good general rules.

Rather than picturing our Lord as a flag-waving Republican, I think we do best to picture our Lord as sighing at our systems, aware that we sinful humans will eventually mess up anything we create.

The biggest reason to favor capitalism is probably the reason people most dislike it. That’s how strong the popular mythos is. But in reality, a free market creates wealth with the result that even when “the rich get richer” the poor do not get “poorer.” The latter is often incorrectly assumed by looking at “gap” statistics. That is, if you look at the distance between the richest and poorest in a society with a relatively free market, the gap may grow in any given year or even multiple years. It’s common to look at the gap and conclude, “See, the rich just get richer and the poor just get poorer.” But it doesn’t follow. If the economy grew in that year by margin larger than the amount of gap increase, the poor, in fact, got richer, too. This is actually what usually happens in free markets.

(By the way, a “free market” is not one where sellers or corporations can do whatever they want. It’s one where trade and property are protected by laws that are predictably enforced. Where cheating, stealing, etc. are rampant, the market is not free.)

So, to put it another way. In the long run, a free market grows the size of the “pie” folks want a slice of.
It seems logical to say “But helping the poor that way is too slow. Wouldn’t it be quicker for those who have to pool some of it and give it to those who do not have?” It’s quicker on a small scale, but in the long run, it doesn’t turn out to be quicker. The surge proves to be fleeting. The reason is that in a centralized economy, the pie is usually shrinking. Though the “gap” between rich and poor may shrink, it comes at the cost of everyone being poorer.