Ethics Daily reports that most "Conservative Christians Support Delay."
If Delay is convicted of the charges levelled against him, and I suspect that he will, history will surely note that conservative Christians were the strongest supporters of the most corrupt political boss in the history of our country. That may hold true even if Delay escapes conviction.
Conservative Christians fancy themselves to be part of a great revival. Predictably, it has proven to be a revival of corrupt politics.
True revivals are spiritual movements, not political movements. Positive spiritual transformations never come by graft, greed, force or coercion.
Posts
New Twist on Stained Glass
6 hours ago
24 comments:
As a conservative Christian, let me be the first to say that I do not support corruption or corrupt officials--be they Republicans or Democrats.
Let me also say that the following is one of the meanest, ugliest things I've yet read on your site:
Conservative Christians fancy themselves to be part of a great revival. Predictably, it has proven to be a revival of corrupt politics.
What you have written here is not just cruel, and spiteful, and malicious (it is all those things), but it's also just not true. Please don't malign all conservative Christians simply because Robertson has a hit list, etc. I'm a Bible-believing, pro-life, exclusivist, Reformed Baptist, and I have nothing but contempt for corrupt, this-worldly politics.
The comment you made was beneath you. I hope.
cks,
If you don't like the associations that "conservative" Christians give the name "conservative Christian," then you need to do something to distinguish yourself from them. At present, they own the label.
That's why I call myself Mainstream Baptist and not Southern Baptist. At the moment, "conservative" political operatives own the label.
John 8:15, 16
Ye judge after the flesh, I judge no man. 16. And yet if I judge, my judgement is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
This is Jesus speaking. Reminding us that we judge after the flesh. I agree with cks, this is a very harsh statement and these kind of judgements are totally inconsistent with our redeemed nature.
cks,
I'm curious, as I truly don't know, what you mean by calling yourself "exclusivist"?
For some reason I cringe at that word, especially as I read about an inclusive Savior, but I could be completely maligning that adjective.
As for Bruce's comments, I for one believe that politics, in any way, shape or form, inherently corrupts anything it touches. Thus, I wonder why so many Christians seem to pass on the Church as God's instrument and instead, believe His Kingdom will come about through politics.
In that light, I read that statement as "Conservative Christians, by placing their hope for a Christian Nation in the basket of shady and corrupt politicians instead of the church, fancy themselves to be part of a great revival. Predictably, it has proven to be a revival of corrupt politics."
Bruce may have not meant that, but merely how I read it.
Additionally, I do not wish to take away from the article Bruce refers too... I hope and pray that true Christians condemn the leaders quoted in the article for lending support to one of the most arrogant, deceitful, and corrupt politicians of our time.
By "exclusivist," I just mean that I believe the Bible teaches salvation in Christ alone by conscious, volitional acceptance of the Gospel. Or, another way to put it: anyone who does not place her faith consciously in Christ will be "excluded" from salvation.
(Few exclusivists, I hope, would suggest that this means infants, the mentally handicapped, etc. are irretrievably bound for hell--I certainly don't hold that position.)
Exclusivism is certainly the traditional Baptist view--and that of conservative evagelicalism in general.
"Inclusivists," in this kind of discussion, would be folks who affirm that all who are saved are saved by Christ, but that they don't necessarily have to place their faith in him directly/consciously. God is free to save them through Christ, even though they have limited/no direct knowledge of him. Or, in other words, they're "included" in salvation apart from conscious knowledge of Christ.
So faithful Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. may be saved (by Christ) through the imperfect vehicles of their native religions. Lots of respectable theologians hold this belief--some notables: Clark Pinnock and John Stott (and Bruce Prescott? <--I'm only assuming this and could be completely incorrect). But this view seems to undermine the Great Commission--at least to exclusivists. And it doesn't seem like the most biblical view on the matter.
Amen, Bruce, And again I say Amen. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. Jesus set the compartmentalization of Religion being separate from Politics, for the good of the believers so that they don't get smeared with the mud slinging that comes with politics.
As for Bruce's comments, I for one believe that politics, in any way, shape or form, inherently corrupts anything it touches. Thus, I wonder why so many Christians seem to pass on the Church as God's instrument and instead, believe His Kingdom will come about through politics.
I think the part about Christians seeming to pass on the Church as God's instrument while in the same post saying that politics corrupts anything it touches, leaves some of us scratching our heads. If politics means so little to this site, why all the Republican gouging while leaving the Democrats high and dry. Also, to imply the part about Christians seeming to pass on the Church is a generality that does not need to be made (why? is it made). I am a former Democrat, so I do not think any one party deserves all the kudos.
Bruce, since cks does not have contact info readily available, the only way I can communicate with him is through your blog's comments.
Would you please be kind enough not to delete my comments directed to cks on the question of exclusivism?
Any comments or critiques I could make about your posts, Bruce -- and there are many I could make -- will be limited to private email.
Thanks,
Bubba
Bubba,
If you need to you can use my site to communicate with cks.
Before you jump on Bruce for his characterization of "conservative christians," I suggest you read the referenced article. The following names, listed as supporters of Tom DeLay, comprise a significant part of the leadership of "conservative Christians." If you so-called conservative Christians don't like it, do something about your leaders.
Former Southern Baptist Convention President Ed Young
Focus on the Family's James Dobson
Jerry Falwell of Thomas Road Baptist Church and Liberty University
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council
Jim Backlin, vice president of legislative affairs for the Christian Coalition
Vision America's President Rick Scarborough
sepherim, Are you the appointed judge and jury to decide if all the "facts" that have been put out there are true? The scripture in John speaks to human judging. Also, it seems that depending on what the political affiliation is determines whether any mercy is alloted. We conservatives are expected to overlook all kinds of mis-behavior for certain former politicians that are now trying to make a come back.
I read the report. That's a pretty impressive list of conservative leaders in support of Delay. I live in the heart of Delay country and he has widespread support among christian conservatives here. That's a fact. These guys may have to eat their words. Bruce, remember when Scarborough ran for president of the BGCT and that mail out he sent to all the churches? I had a face to face meeting with him a few years ago about that. He stuck by his words. I shook the dust off my feet and walked away.
mom2
I make no claim to be judge and jury but in a case like this the facts will speak for themselves. I will not try to speak for others, but I have never called for anyone to overlook the moral faults of any political leader regardless of party. I believed and still believe that Bill Clinton should have resigned.
The problem with the conservative leaders is that they have claimed for themselves and their constituents the moral high ground and then make the rules to suit themselves.
Why am I reminded of Matthew 23:27-- 27"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
Why am I reminded of Matthew 23:27-- 27"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness
Now, just who is this scripture being directed to and how do you know who is guilty of this? Sounds like knowledge that I thought only belonged to God.
Mom2, it doesn't take God-like knowledge and insight to recognize plain, old, ordinary hypocrisy. Loudly proclaiming to support family values (whatever that means) while continually skirting the edges of legality on campaign finance is hypocrisy. If you don't know what I'm talking about you need to read more about Tom Delay's history.
sepherim, Maybe you need to quit reading the same old liberal sources. It doesn't take a lot of wisdom to see a deliberate bias when you see one. It does take a willingness to seek the truth. You can believe whatever you want to, all one has to do is make up their mind without hearing all sides to issues. Remember, I am a former Democrat so I have been looking for the truth. Political parties will never solve the problems of this world. Truth is truth and needs to be sought out.
I think the purpose of Bruce's post here was lost on some of you so I will repeat his words here:
"True revivals are spiritual movements, not political movements. Positive spiritual transformations never come by graft, greed, force or coercion."
"True revivals are spiritual movements, not political movements. Positive spiritual transformations never come by graft, greed, force or coercion.
The first sentence here, I will agree with. If this site really believes this, why is it consumed with political reviews (negative when related to Republicans) and being posted under the heading of Mainstream Baptist? It is degrading to the denomination.
Mom2,
Bruce does not speak for any denomination. He speaks for himself. It's Mainstream Baptist, singular, not plural. Plus he is President of the Oklahoma Chapter of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. I would expect it to have a political slant. As far as Republicans....well...they are the ones in charge and calling the shots and seem to claim they are on mission for God and by God. I would suspect if it were the other way around, Bruce would still find plenty to blog about. The Democrats don't have such a good track record either. To me they are a bunch of spineless cowards.
I was waiting either for Bruce to delete my comment or explicitly say that it was cool for me to reply to cks in this comment thread.
Since neither happened, I will assume that it's okay for me to continue posting here, if only to reply to cks on the subject of exclusivism.
The subject is one I've been wrestling with for a long, long time. On the one hand, denying people like pre-Columbian American natives from even a chance of salvation because the church did not reach them (and arguably could not have reached them) seems unmerciful. Perfect grace is diminished if it is inexorably tied to an imperfect vessel.
On the other hand, cks, it is understandable to conclude than any position other than exclusivism "seems to undermine the Great Commission," unless the Commission isn't about salvation, but about discipleship.
At the moment, my working theory is this: God's plan is for each of us to become mature adopted sons and daughters in His family -- that is, mature disciples of Christ. Being saved is a prerequisite for discipleship, but earthly discipleship is not a necessary consequence of salvation. It's possible that God does extend the gift of salvation to those we do not reach, but since they do not all of who He is (e.g., the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Trinity), the "savage" who is saved can't move very far along the path of discipleship. God has entrusted the mission of discipleship to us. Imperfect as we are, He has given us the honor and responsibility to help others become mature disciples of Christ.
Such a theory is supported by the fact that the Great Commission (as recorded in Matthew) is to go and "make disciples," not "save the lost." In order to do the former, we must do the latter, but I've never seen any clear indication that we are the only mechanism through which people learn about the saving offer of grace.
It's a theory; while I've studied Scripture to try to ascertain whether it fits or not, I haven't been able to come to any clear conclusions. I'll keep looking.
One more thing...
Bruce, if you have in fact allowed me to post to cks, I am grateful. Thank you.
Marty, The word Baptist does not have to have an "s" on it to be plural. Even if Bruce is saying this is only his opinionated site, he could mislead a lot of people because the Baptist denomination may be associated with his opinions. My Baptist church has Baptist members, but the word Baptist still can be plural.
Mom2,
It didn't used to be that way. I was a Southern Baptist for over 50 years. I come from a long line of preachers. The old saying goes you could put 10 Baptists in a room and get 10 different opinions. That's the way it used to be. It's not that way anymore. Even the Baptist Faith and Message has been changed to reflect the difference. And it's just another reason of many why I'm no longer Baptist. I speak for myself, not my entire denomination. And so... I've moved on to one that allows that freedom of thought. And it has a creed. Go figure. I would like to thank you ever so much for the prayers you have offered for my son. Please continue. I am in the process of posting his letters from Baghdad on a blog I just recently started. You are welcome to read them.
Marty, I will continue to pray for your son. I do pray daily for our military men and women and I will pray specifically for your son as I pray for others that I know personally are in the service. God Bless!
Post a Comment