Glenn Beck stirred it up last week, encouraging Christians (or at least Church-goers) to check their church websites and/or other documents, to see if the words, "social justice" or "economic justice" appeared. If so, he said, leave your church!
At issue is Beck's belief that these terms are code words for the liberal, progressive, anti-American philosophy of forced social change and not charity.
Al Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Convention, wrote to correct Beck for his rash statement, claiming it "lacked nuance, fair consideration and context." His thesis was: instead of exiting churches that favor social justice, we should exit any church which has abandoned The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
My opinion is, except for church groups which are ignorant of the terminology and political implications of the phrase, social justice, the two are the same! It's the Liberal Churches, for the most part, that favor Social Justice. These are the same churches which have abandoned The Gospel in favor of a Social Gospel. One that focuses on man's earthly condition and not his eternal soul.
For those pushing for Social Justice, the phrase is but a euphemism for redistribution of wealth. Christian charity gives to relieve suffering. Social Justice seeks to balance society in terms of material things.
Look as long as you like and you will not find the word "social" in front of either "justice" or "gospel" anywhere in the Bible. If you find these phrases, anywhere, you will find they are perversions of the originals.
Religious Social Justice does not demonstrate the love, mercy or justice of God. Instead, it exalts political correctness, multiculturalism, progressive ideals and the advancement of an earthly kingdom instead of the work of Christ upon the Cross.
True Christians have no political agenda. Their purpose is to preach The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, knowing that IT is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe. And in believing, people are transformed, spiritually and morally.
Enough transformed citizens and the society changes....for good.
Along the way, Christians in this country have an obligation to preserve, to the extent possible under law, our political heritage. This is because our political heritage is largely Christian! The Liberal, Socialist, Progressive philosophies are not about justice at all. They are about power and the elimination of Liberty.
Showing posts with label Money And Morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Money And Morality. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
What's Right About A Wrong Goal?
Listen to the cat-fight that is Washington, today. Accusations and condemnations being hurled back and forth, across the aisle. Each political party claiming the High Road of honesty and integrity, all the while illustrating just the opposite.
Of course, it's not limited to Washington. We see and hear it in State Houses and City Halls all across the country. It's become so common that most of don't pay much attention to it anymore. We've come to expect elected officials to be corrupt or at least self-serving.
For Christians, however, the problem has become that we tend to support a policy, a person or a Party, when we ought to be supporting what's Right!
Take Health Care. What's right about the Federal Government taking over health care? The answer is: Nothing! So, why are we supporting one version of the Bill or another?
The Constitution does not support National Health Care. Our Founding Documents point us more toward individual responsibility. Any and all versions of a National Health Care Program threaten both our fiscal well being and the level of service we receive. Listen to the debate: To cut costs, services will be limited and providers will receive less.
Let me suggest something radical: Why don't we just do right?
"Right" is following the rules, being honest, listening to the people, creating a safe, productive environment within the bounds of decency and integrity.
"Right" is a government that protects it's citizens from foreign enemies, illegal immigration, unsafe products or practices and destructive inequities. This includes government intrusion into private affairs, unjust limitations on what citizens can do and say, confiscatory tax structures and "entitlement" programs.
Enthusiastic Christians are at risk of being co-opted and marginalized when they hitch their wagons to one political party or another; one political policy or another. The Bible calls this, zeal without knowledge.
Christians should be advocating for doing right, not for choosing one destructive idea over another. We are able, as a nation, to help those who are truly needy. We are NOT able to take care of everyone and doing so is morally and socially destructive.
No amount of lipstick is going to make this pig look good!
Of course, it's not limited to Washington. We see and hear it in State Houses and City Halls all across the country. It's become so common that most of don't pay much attention to it anymore. We've come to expect elected officials to be corrupt or at least self-serving.
For Christians, however, the problem has become that we tend to support a policy, a person or a Party, when we ought to be supporting what's Right!
Take Health Care. What's right about the Federal Government taking over health care? The answer is: Nothing! So, why are we supporting one version of the Bill or another?
The Constitution does not support National Health Care. Our Founding Documents point us more toward individual responsibility. Any and all versions of a National Health Care Program threaten both our fiscal well being and the level of service we receive. Listen to the debate: To cut costs, services will be limited and providers will receive less.
Let me suggest something radical: Why don't we just do right?
"Right" is following the rules, being honest, listening to the people, creating a safe, productive environment within the bounds of decency and integrity.
"Right" is a government that protects it's citizens from foreign enemies, illegal immigration, unsafe products or practices and destructive inequities. This includes government intrusion into private affairs, unjust limitations on what citizens can do and say, confiscatory tax structures and "entitlement" programs.
Enthusiastic Christians are at risk of being co-opted and marginalized when they hitch their wagons to one political party or another; one political policy or another. The Bible calls this, zeal without knowledge.
Christians should be advocating for doing right, not for choosing one destructive idea over another. We are able, as a nation, to help those who are truly needy. We are NOT able to take care of everyone and doing so is morally and socially destructive.
No amount of lipstick is going to make this pig look good!
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
A Deaf Ear & Blind Eye To Ba'al Worship
The ancient worship of Ba'al [lit: Lord] was widespread throughout Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Carthage, Philistia and Canaan. Also known as Marduk or Dagon, Ba'al was a generic name for an especially horrific form of pagan worship. One that required the sacrifice of infant children.
The Bible speaks of King Ahaz and King Manasseh offering their children to Ba'al/Moloch [2 Kings 16:3; 21:6]. The Bible speaks of making their sons "pass through the fire." History illuminates this practice.
Ba'al worshipers brought their infants to the priest. The priest would set the child on the outstretched arms of an image of their god. From here the child would be either rolled backward into the "chest" of the image, where a fire burned, or simply roasted over the flames of an open fire, below the arms.
Why? Well, as in all pagan religious thinking, the gods held the keys to a nation or a family's well-being. They were sacrificing their children for personal convenience. Either they could keep and nurture these innocent babies or they could have rain, or peace, or victory over their enemies. But, apparently, they could not have both.
In 1973, we're told, women won the right to have an abortion. Until then, they had been forced to bear children regardless of how they were conceived, or their own health -- they said.
But, the truth is more gruesome. Abortion was a right in this country BEFORE Roe v. Wade. What happened in 1973 was that women won the right to have an abortion, On Demand. For no reason other than they didn't want to carry the child full-term and have to rear it.
In less than a decade, abortion on demand, in the first trimester, became abortion on demand through the second trimester and, depending on the doctor, any time the woman demanded it. Of course it wasn't long before that meant partial-birth abortions.
You see, Americans want personal convenience too. Even if it costs the life of an unborn, helpless child.
But what can you expect of those who worship self? The humanist is all about doing whatever will make their life easier or more pleasant. Their "god" is the human potential. And unwanted babies just get in the way.
The real problem is the deafening silence of the visible church. Not the real Church, but the one which either supports this idea or takes the "high moral ground" of not judging.
For too many, this ancient Canaanite practice is somehow a woman's Right.
The Bible speaks of King Ahaz and King Manasseh offering their children to Ba'al/Moloch [2 Kings 16:3; 21:6]. The Bible speaks of making their sons "pass through the fire." History illuminates this practice.
Ba'al worshipers brought their infants to the priest. The priest would set the child on the outstretched arms of an image of their god. From here the child would be either rolled backward into the "chest" of the image, where a fire burned, or simply roasted over the flames of an open fire, below the arms.
Why? Well, as in all pagan religious thinking, the gods held the keys to a nation or a family's well-being. They were sacrificing their children for personal convenience. Either they could keep and nurture these innocent babies or they could have rain, or peace, or victory over their enemies. But, apparently, they could not have both.
In 1973, we're told, women won the right to have an abortion. Until then, they had been forced to bear children regardless of how they were conceived, or their own health -- they said.
But, the truth is more gruesome. Abortion was a right in this country BEFORE Roe v. Wade. What happened in 1973 was that women won the right to have an abortion, On Demand. For no reason other than they didn't want to carry the child full-term and have to rear it.
In less than a decade, abortion on demand, in the first trimester, became abortion on demand through the second trimester and, depending on the doctor, any time the woman demanded it. Of course it wasn't long before that meant partial-birth abortions.
You see, Americans want personal convenience too. Even if it costs the life of an unborn, helpless child.
But what can you expect of those who worship self? The humanist is all about doing whatever will make their life easier or more pleasant. Their "god" is the human potential. And unwanted babies just get in the way.
The real problem is the deafening silence of the visible church. Not the real Church, but the one which either supports this idea or takes the "high moral ground" of not judging.
For too many, this ancient Canaanite practice is somehow a woman's Right.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Calvinistic Restraint Or Evangelical License?
David Brooks writes a column for the New York Times. Apparently he has written, blaming Christians for America's economic woes -- at least in part. His argument is that our traditional "Calvinistic Restraint" was sacrificed in favor of social activism. The "Country's cultural monitors were busy with other things," he says.
Like what? Like arguing against homosexual unions, abortion-on-demand and the issues surrounding Church and State.
Chuck Colson takes issue with this observation, claiming Christians do not separate chastity from thrift. They understand man's basic nature and the purpose for which God created us. Therefore Christians, specifically the Evangelical Right, did not isolate these virtues and therefore contribute to our economic mess.
Oh? Evangelicals are thrifty? They are chaste? Moral examples? Has Colson read the newspaper or watched TV, lately. Does he not know any Evangelicals? Divorce? Sexual sins? Misuse of money? And these are just the preachers!
It wasn't 'Calvinistic Restraint' that brought "The Social Gospel," or "The Charismatic Movement," or "The Seeker Sensitive Movement," or "The Contemporary" or "Emergent Church Movements." All of which are the products of self-indulgence and theological ignorance.
These came from Christians who's favorite Bible verse is Matthew 7:1, not John 3:16. Their emphasis is on Free Will, not God's Sovereignty.
I think Brooks is right and Colson has been living a sheltered life!
Like what? Like arguing against homosexual unions, abortion-on-demand and the issues surrounding Church and State.
Chuck Colson takes issue with this observation, claiming Christians do not separate chastity from thrift. They understand man's basic nature and the purpose for which God created us. Therefore Christians, specifically the Evangelical Right, did not isolate these virtues and therefore contribute to our economic mess.
Oh? Evangelicals are thrifty? They are chaste? Moral examples? Has Colson read the newspaper or watched TV, lately. Does he not know any Evangelicals? Divorce? Sexual sins? Misuse of money? And these are just the preachers!
It wasn't 'Calvinistic Restraint' that brought "The Social Gospel," or "The Charismatic Movement," or "The Seeker Sensitive Movement," or "The Contemporary" or "Emergent Church Movements." All of which are the products of self-indulgence and theological ignorance.
These came from Christians who's favorite Bible verse is Matthew 7:1, not John 3:16. Their emphasis is on Free Will, not God's Sovereignty.
I think Brooks is right and Colson has been living a sheltered life!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)