"At some point the world will make us choose. And if we choose Christ the world will accuse us of hating, condemning, and judging."

It is entirely our fault, because you see… politically the ball has been in the “Christian’s” hands for the majority of this country’s history. We’ve shown that the only thing we care about is creating a country that makes us comfortable, A country that allows us to have freedom, but so we can live comfortably others’ freedoms are limited.

These are your words, brother. You have claimed an incredible power to discern the motives of generations who have gone before you laboring to create a decent, just, and moral society. You have decided the “only thing they care about” is comfort. If that’s not a slam, as well as completely foolish, then slam’s don’t exist.

We are more worried about our neighbors living moral lives then believing in Christ’s death and resurrection… and in consequence they don’t want our morals, and they won’t and as long as we continue on that path they will only deny our way of life even more.

Another slam…reading contemporary hearts now. You have your worried meter out and know what “we” are more worried about. Most Christians are worried about people’s salvation first and foremost, and then they are worried about the country their children will grow up in. The unbelievers, as one might say, will always be with you. Every generation must be given the Gospel. The current climate of moral decline is at a stage where many fear it is irrevocable. They don’t want to see that happen. It is perfectly rational and good that they don’t. In fact, far from being an obsession with their own comfort, it is a mark of love that they want a good society for their neighbors, believers and unbelievers, to live in. It is not believers defending what marriage has been for five thousand years who started some kind of “fight.” It is those who are dead set on transforming our civilization forever to completely and finally marginalize Christianity. Once you are defined as a bigot for believing homosexuality is a sin, the faith is off the table as a possible choice for most people. Of course, the grace of God can break through that, but you are naive if you think not confronting societal decline will open doors for the Gospel.

Your point about evangelism and hotbeds of immorality doesn’t quite connect. Japan is still not open to the Gospel. Throwing yourself in front of a train is not exactly embracing Christ. What was your point? China is seeing explosive conversions, and so is Korea, but these are far more reticent, morally traditional countries than Japan. Your example is proving the opposite. Conservative cultures are embracing Christ, while decadent ones are not. not yet anyway. Africa is a theological nightmare. I’ve been there.

I grew up in the mid-west as a Lutheran. It was a great place to grow up. Divorce was rare, people didn’t lock their doors at night, children respected adults, rebellion usually manifested itself in relatively harmless ways, people didn’t swear in public, drugs were not very commonplace. By God’s grace I still found Christ because I was still a sinner and I knew it, not by circumstance, but by the Holy Spirit. You don’t need to permit hotbeds of immorality for people to respond to the Gospel. I know a very godly young lady who confessed at her baptism to cheating at Monopoly. For her, it was a big sin, because she was raised where culturally destructive sins weren’t in her experience, praise God.

We are all sinners, but some sins destroy a society, while others don’t. Self-righteousness is a sin, and will keep you out of heaven, but it won’t tear your civilization apart. Probably most “respectable” Victorians were not true believers, but they disciplined their own lives and raised their country to greatness because of it.

Now on that same point…of course you can expect unbelievers to live moral lives. Now that you have revealed your age, brother Payne, where you are coming from is easier to understand. You have never lived in a “moral society” so you have no experience of it. Unbelievers will adopt moral living for a variety of reasons. Every culture that has risen has had a moral base, practiced self-restraint, honored marriage, etc. That’s how nations rise…pagan or Christian. In eastern cultures morality is often followed for family honor (shame being the motive). In pagan cultures with advanced civilizations, philosophy has pointed the way to “the good life” which includes a moral life. In America, Christianity informed and shaped the values that made our society better than most, though as at any time, most people were not born again. Most people did respect the Bible, however, and consequently many led lives in some measure defined by the Ten Commandments. Whether they do so from faith or self-righteousness, external goodness is still better for society.

Would a more peaceful society not be more realizing of proper morals anyway? My teenage years being not far behind me, I find it to be a truth that people think it cool to rebel. I would make a bet that there will be a lot less homosexuals when its an excepted [sic] part of society, because it is not natural. Many people like it just because it upsets people.

You just made this up, so I won’t respond but to say No, not if by peaceful you mean lying down before open debauchery and vice. Most people embrace homosexuality as okay because we live in a decadent pornographic culture, and nothing sexual is shocking anymore. They genuinely can’t see anything wrong with it. Acceptance of homosexuality has very little to do with teen rebellion.

You are completely making your own idea of what I have been saying. First off in nothing I said do I interpret motives or intention. I believe with all my being that those who have come before me in Faith and even out of Faith, were doing the best that they could with there knowledge. My statements were observable historic and sociological fact. What was done in the past by a majority who at least claimed to be Christian didn’t work. The moral majority failed and in my mind was wrong in the first place. In fact I’m not even really saying we should necessarily allow or tolerate sins. We just need to go about it in less selfish and more biblical ways. It is clear from observation that it is natural for man kind to resist differences and it is clear that even the greatest of post-apostolic Christian leaders for the faith, had issues in regards to theology and view of society. I believe fully that prosecutors in Virginia who jailed Baptists for child abuse when they refused to Baptize their infants where doing so in good motives based on their Soteriological beliefs. It is why Roger Williams established Rhode Island as the only completely free colony. Because no matter who was in power everyone would be free to live their lives according to their own beliefs. They were the only colony that was even completely free, and even though it was never fully implemented into American government, it was the work of those Baptists that guaranteed to rights of freedom we have today. (Or are at least supposed to have) Will, if we pursue a libertarian society, liberals push that farther and marginalize Christians? Probably, but let me tell you, that is probably going to happen anyway. The point I am attempting to make is that the reason that will happen is probably because we’ve chosen to marginalize others. Politics is a loosing battle. We will be getting to a point were the only thing we will be fighting for is our rights to exist as Christians. My point is we better find a way to get there that best gives us a chance to hold our freedoms in tact. Liberals will use our past failings as leaders of this country against us when they get full power. The best we can do is to relinquish that attitude of legislating morality, because when Liberals take charge it will be their turn to define morality. My idea is to stop worrying so much about politics and to start worrying about politics, because most of our allies in the conservative realm are only nominal Christians that associate Christianity with morals because that has been the Christian legacy for about the last 50-60 years of Christians in politics. I don’t know the best overall solution, but I know what we’ve been doing is wrong and that has shown in how it is beginning to turn against us.

Also I don’t think your connecting what I said with what I meant about other countries. Japan is very open to the Gospel, The biggest issue in Japan is universalism and lack of missionaries. The Japanese people have been known to historically accept pretty much every religion that comes their way. The issue is not that they are not accepting the message of the Gospel, the issue is they don’t take it alone. They are so hungry for the truth that they won’t turn anything away. South Korea and other asian/pacific countries like Laos have had huge responses to the gospel for quite a long time. Now many of those places have bad theology like Africa due to high Charismatic influence, but my point was not to say that all these countries were full of saints and great theologians, but there are many conversions happening just like in inter city areas in America. These people are starving for spiritual things they are seeking and they are open, far more open then mainstream America, where we have everything and a majority of people claim Christianity nominally and those who don’t have felt marginalized because they’ve been forced to live under Christian morality without being given any idea of what the gospel is. And the funny thing is they’ve also watched as many nominal Christians have been some of the biggest moral offenders. Instead of John 3:16 and the Romans Road unbelievers are being fed OT verses on morality that sit right next to verses that tell us not to wear clothes that share materials and other facets of the Law that those with proper theology know have long passed.

It should be obvious to us now that what we’ve tried in the past has failed and even back fired, despite our best intentions. It is time to rethink things and try something knew, not necessarily anything liberal or tolerant or encouraging toward immorality, but maybe its time to let America reap the rewards of their own desires so they can see for themselves what their ideas of morality will do to them and their country. Lets hold the line where we can practice freely our beliefs. And lets spend our time preparing a strong theologically sound Gospel “net”, to catch unbelievers with as they realize their newfound freedoms won’t be quite what they expected.

This

in nothing I said do I interpret motives or intention.

and this

We just need to go about it in less selfish and more biblical ways.

do not go together. Or do you believe selfishness is not a motive?

Many Christians a very good at quoting Rom 1 and Lev 18, but are at a loss to explain why they are relevant. Why does an OT law have any application to me? “Aren’t we all God’s children?” Too few Christians are able to tie these truths to the holiness of God, and our obligation to pursue holiness as the practical outworking of an authentic faith (Eph 5:1). If we cannot explain why the Biblical is applicable for people, we are not doing our reasonable service. Evangelism is about more than quoting memorized Scripture - we actually have to be able to engage in a conversation about it.

The excuse, “aren’t we all God’s children? Doesn’t He love us all?” is commonly used. Those who use it seem to forget their teenage years, when living in your father’s house meant you were obligated to live by certain rules or suffer the consequences. Adherence to the rules was predicated on (1) an authentic love for your parents, and (2) the desire to honor them because you loved and respected them, not necessarily because they forced you to.

Biblical illiteracy is alive and well. Just check out the SI filing on Americans believing President Obama is the Antichrist …

[Wayne Wilson]

This

in nothing I said do I interpret motives or intention.

and this

We just need to go about it in less selfish and more biblical ways.

do not go together. Or do you believe selfishness is not a motive?

Most people understand the difference between describing selfishness as a motive and as an action.

Name two.

One can be selfish without the intentions of selfishness.

Your professors taught you that? Where do you go to school?

Mistakes that we can see stemmed from personal logic that used their own hearts to develop theories they at the time thought would be most glorifying God. Clearly those ideas came from selfishness,

Give us an example of where such actions “clearly came from selfishness” –another judgment about motive.

For a moment I was certain you had to be wrong, but I have since confirmed that “ridiculousness” actually is a noun.

I honestly do not understand your perspective, either, but it seems to advocate pragmaticism. I find it distasteful and thoroughly un-Scriptural. I beg you to consider that fundamentalism as a movement would not even exist if great men of the past had adopted your views 120 years ago. There would have been an outright capitulation to theological liberalism and secular humanism.

I understand how one could see pragmatism in my view and perhaps without a greater understanding of my thoughts beyond this issue it makes it difficult to really understand what I’m coming from. Perhaps on another day and in another thread I could elaborate on that. (due to orals being around the corner my time to put together a full article on my views of Christians in government would not be wise.) I promise you that the pragmatism in my view is purely a “benefit” and not the intentions or idea behind it. In short see that the government should be a peace keeping organization. Protecting the lives, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness for all mankind regardless of there beliefs. Only step in to regulate things when there is no other choice. Financial prosperity is determined by those willing to do the work to earn it. In my mind that allows so much more for fundamentalism. Churches have the right to covenant freely together, establish their own moral systems as well as evangelize freely. It really isn’t tolerating or being okay with any immorality of any kind. At worst its ignoring immorality for those who do not wish to be a part of your church and the community of people it has created. In my mind that is almost another form of separation. It says the government has no right to tell me what to do, or anyone for that matter. At best it becomes a society where churches govern their own people in regards to morality and reach out a helping hand to the world around them drowning in their own sin. I think it would be very scriptural for one to examine the Bible and see how God calls his people to holiness and obedience and leaves sinners to their own sin until they realize that they are lacking. The Bible very clearly shows throughout especially the NT, that when a sinner is left to themselves he experiences the fullness of the fruitlessness and agony of their own sin. We see all over the world that those who are hungry for spiritual things are those who’ve been allowed to live out the consequences of the desires of their own hearts. For years we’ve fought within government to tell those who are unbelievers to be moral, yet they are left without a true moral standard. All of mankind has the natural law of God written in their very beings. I think we must give them space to be realize their condemnation through their own immoral condition. They will grow desperate and hungry for the truth, they will see the difference in the lives of godly Christians and become curious to why they are different. The message of God is stifled when delivered through political means. When “Christian” politicians put down laws they detach Christian morals from God and deliver morality as an end within itself. Most of Christian politicians today are just nominal anyway. They become by definition false teachers as they deliver a message of social conservatism that explains the essence of being Christian as being moral. My heart sinks whenever I watch Fox News. The messed up view of Christianity that they portray to the world reeks of universalism and other false theology that arises when one is more familiar with political moral code then the Holy Bible. These views are shared by a vast majority of those who call themselves Christian throughout our country and our world. What has that left us? Moral obedience to God and the commandments of his Sons are our modern day offerings to him. We make sacrifices to take leaps of Faith and go to God in prayer with personal worship and obedience. We do this through heartfelt love and desire to appease and please a holy God. What then is made up of stripping down this moral code and asking others to participate in it. Are nominal Christians and unbelievers not in some way participating in a obedience and sacrifice that is similar to sacrifices of nominal Jews in Malachi 1 or Pharisees in the days of Christ? Does verse 11 not say that there will be a day the God will be great among the gentiles and they will offer a pure sacrifice? Are we not dirtying that sacrifice when we ask unbelievers to abide by the same obedience too a God they’ve never fully heard about. A theocracy will be great, but a theocracy can only work when God’s direct physical presence is with us, and without God himself as a ruler we can’t even come close to legislating morality in a way that pleases God. It just doesn’t work. There are too many sects and ideas of theology out there to make that happen. If we have anything less the a true theocracy with the Son of Man on the throne then we can’t ever possibly hope to create a society that can truly discern where to draw ethical lines. In my mind if one wants to have a Theocracy, it must be an all or nothing deal. You can’t regulate what sins are okay and what sins are not, and I highly doubt any of you think that we should try to establish a pre-kingdom theocracy that puts someone other then Christ on the throne. In my mind the only way one can have a decent government is to have a government that allows one to use their own discernment and convictions to understand their beliefs according to the Holy Spirit working in their lives… And to have that one must also accept that those who don’t believe must be granted similar freedoms of decision making.

We shall never learn what school teaches that men can be well intentioned in their selfishness. A pity.

But that whole long paragraph is just a red herring. Brother Payne, you are talking about politics, and the rest of us are talking about much, much more than that.

“Logic!” said the Professor half to himself. “Why don’t they teach logic at these schools?”

Bro. Payne:

Won’t you admit there is a very dangerous tendency to be sucked in by secular mores? The Israelites experienced this, with their weakness for sexual fertility cults. Christians today experience this when a firm line is not drawn between being “in the world, but not of the world” (Jn 17:15-19).

Won’t you also admit that acceptable behavior becomes an acceptable standard? What is taboo yesterday is socially acceptable today, and Christian morals in general don’t usually lag too far behind the culture.

I essentially see your view as a recipe for spiritual disaster. Read Eze 22, and consider how far Israel had fallen from the halcyon days of the Mosaic Covenant (Ex 19:1-6). This was because they did not practice firm separation.

You wish to see government stop legislating morality and see authentic compliance to God’s word as the practical outworking of a real love for Him. I understand. Your methods, however, will produce nothing more than a modern day version of Eze 22.

Christians everywhere have an inherent obligation to stand fast for God’s truth, and to make this stand on His Word. The fact that is is not politically acceptable to stand on His Word in public forums is not my fault and I don’t care that it offends people. The truth must be made known. People already know the truth anyway, you know - they just suppress it in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18-32).

I’m not worried about offending people and I will always stand on his Word. My issue is using the power of governmental authority to make that stand I think is a misuse of power. I also agree and understand when you say that acceptable behavior becomes and acceptable standard, and that Christians often are just 3 steps behind culture. but, I never would ever say the culture’s behavior is acceptable. Christians are 3 steps behind culture regardless. I think regardless what we as Christians do we need to step outside of culture and need to stop trying to fit in. I actually think that my view may help that. I think that if my view of things happened there would be come a sharp distinction between the way people lived their lives. I think it would prevent the slow downward follow the leader slope that leads Christians into worldly practices. I think that it would basically eliminate the middle ground of society. That group that claims Christianity will not longer have any need or desire to claim it. It is very difficult I think for Christians who truly believe in the Word of God and desire to please Him to fall down the slippery slope of liberalism quickly. In my mind I think my view would create such a sharp distinction between Christians and non-Christians by removing the middle ground of nominal Christians, that one would literally have to give up their entire belief structure to jump across the gap. Will people still fall and go into liberalism… yes, but I think it would be more difficult for those who do to lead others to follow their path, Yet we know that it would be different for unbelievers to cross that gap. Because the power of God can easily bring the unsaved the other way. Culture would be so rotten that very few are going to take anyone wanting to use the culture to reach culture seriously. Creating that super gap I think could provide a Christians who live a distinct life, but still provide opportunities to reach down and be used by God to help pull a drowning sinner searching for true out of the sea of his own depravity. If it were to work it would need to create that chasm of difference that almost forces a militant fundamentalism.

Bro Paynen:

Suppose I decide to advocate for legalizing bestiality in the township where I live. Suppose I sincerely believe that any man and woman has the inherent right to a loving, mutual relationship with their pet turtle, iguana or gerbil. I also believe the turtle, iguana or gerbil should be entitled to be covered by my insurance, etc. I also want to the ability to press murder charges if any punk teenager decides to run over my gerbil accidently … two or three times. After all, gerbils have rights, too.

Would you encourage Christians to mobilize and formally protest this ridiculous initiative?

Would you sit at home, content with the knowledge that you are not forcing Christian morals on someone?

You must recognize that the very concept of morality is grounded in God’s holiness. Our conscience, which tells us right from wrong, is written on our hearts by God (Rom 2:14).

Would you advocate not “forcing” morality on people, out of a desire to not “impose” Christianity upon them?

I suggest that your motivations are correct, but your execution is seriously flawed. People must be lovingly but unapologetically confronted with their sin and their state before a holy God. Part of sanctifying God in our hearts (1 Pet 3:15) is a willingness to stand for God’s Word in every aspect of our lives. I believe you want to do this, but your ideas about the place of Christian morality in the public square is wrong. It is not merely Christian morality - it is God’s holiness.

It is very difficult I think for Christians who truly believe in the Word of God and desire to please Him to fall down the slippery slope of liberalism quickly.

They do not fall into liberalism - they fall into secularism. They fall back to their old sins. They return to drugs. They return to alcohol. They return to pornography. They return to adultery. They can rationalize doing so because they’re living day by day in a wicked, secular society which (in your version) is devoid of any Christian influence upon the political process.

We are called to be strangers and pilgrims in this present world (Heb 11:13; 1 Pet 2:11). We live in the world, but are not of it (Jn 17:16). We are called to separation - never isolation. We must be engaged in our society at every level, not withdrawn from it.