Bill's Column Today Really Hits It!

For a long time I've kept my eye open to anybody who could put down in writing, or even in a speech, what began in the 1960s and how it has impacted America today. Well, I think I found it. No matter what you feel about Bill O'Reilly, I believe he has really hit the nail on the head in his recent column. Here is the part I felt was so very right-on:

The collapse of tradition began in the late 1960s when the Vietnam War raged. For the first time, Americans could see the horrors of combat in their living rooms. And that war was largely undefined, especially for younger people. What the hell was the USA doing in southeast Asia? Why were young men being drafted into a conflict few understood? In order to win any war, you need dynamic leadership. President Lyndon Johnson failed to provide it.

Out went the baby with the bathwater. In came drugs, free love, and a suspicion of authority. No longer was the United States a noble nation in the eyes of many of its own citizens who began to see their country as an oppressor. America became a divided nation. Traditions eroded quickly as many people began doing their "own thing." No longer was there a widely accepted code of conduct.

Self-reliance remained the key to success in our capitalistic system, but for those who declined to compete, the federal government stepped in to lend support. As the family structure collapsed, entitlements became more common as children and single mothers had to be supported. The vexing issues of racial inequality and persistent poverty brought about ultra-expensive social engineering. Liberal Americans looked to the Western European model of cradle-to-grave support as a panacea for "income inequality." The view that Washington has a moral obligation to provide a decent lifestyle for everyone took root.

That philosophy, currently embraced by President Obama, has led to massive debt, which, in turn, has created chaos in the private marketplace. In this world, a strong economic base is the foundation of power. America has lost that base.


His entire column can be read here.

The Progression

I see the current progression in many evangelical churches, especially younger ones, like this:

In the first stage, instead of beginning with the fact that all have sinned and Jesus bore our sin and took it away, these churches start with the humanistic premise that we simply need to give people a hand up. Social justice can also be a part of this. The understanding and acceptance of original sin is being lost. Then when church members get burned out and discouraged because the poor and disenfranchised don't seem to improve through these Christians' well-meaning, but ineffective and even destructive means, the leaders will begin to go into stage two, which is to put laws and rules on the poor. When this doesn't work well, then more laws and rules will be put on them. The ones who originally said they were for the poor end up oppressing them. By the way, this is exactly the progression that most communist countries went through. The solution to this is to put the gospel of Christ's bearing our sin as the center of our faith and allow helping others come out of that, remembering that leading people to Christ is our central goal, not a distant one.

The Christian Right, on the other side, did the same type of progression. First they tried to get people born-again. Then when many people didn't, they could only put rules and laws on them. As a result of this, people rebelled, including Gen X and Y Christians. And that is where we are today. Lawless and rebellious.So what should Christians at that time should have done? Their message was all right but their method was shallow and manipulative. It was a hit and run evangelism instead of a relational evangelism. Acts 1:8, which was often quoted, doesn't say "you shall witness;" it says "you shall be witnesses." The first word, "witness," is an active verb and is probably why we all ran around with our head cut off trying to "witness." The second instance of the word, and how it's used in Acts 1:8, is a noun with the passive verb "be." It suggests that either you are a witness or you are not. If you are, then just relax and allow God to open up opportunities for you to tell THE story and also your story.

Before them, this progression was also what the Fundamentalists did. Their own church members weren't toeing the mark so they put laws and rules on them and today we are eating this bitter fruit with many having left their faith over this and many younger evangelicals completely leaving the essence of true Christianity (which isn't legalistic). So what should have they done? Somehow the Holy Spirit wasn't much in this theology to help people live the Christian life. Also, they dumped the Reformation understanding of justification and sanctification and got them confused and all mixed up.

All of the above shows us that doctrine is very important and if we Christians get it wrong, not only do we suffer, but the world suffers.

Quote of the Week

We must understand that the problems we are seeing in America--such as wildfires, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods--are actually the fruit of a root problem. Changing a law or political party is like putting a Band-Aid on a deep-rooted cancer. God is calling Christians across our nation to their knees, to humbly unite and lead the church in massive repentence.

_________CindyDeville


Amen! Everything she said is my core philosophy of what is wrong in this country. It's the church that is causing this problem, not the "Demoncrats or the Re-Publicans." The only thing I would add to her "prophetic word," is better foundational teaching.

Whoa!-Part 1

In the early and middle 20th century Christians were told NOT to do certain things, such as smoking, drinking, dancing, etc. This was supposed to make them better Christians and also to help them please God better. This has now been named legalism. In the 1960s and '70s there arose a new type of legalism. Christians were told that to be better Christians and to please God they had "to witness." Witnessing classes were held in churches throughout the land. Many pastors and other leaders "guilted" people into "witnessing," including church groups going door to door. Sadly, this didn't seem to work well in bringing people to Christ, but it certainly did do a lot to discourage Christians in their faith, with some leaving churches. However, there seemed to be a huge surge in numbers of people who came to Christ and filling churches. I seem to be making two contradictory statements here. First I said all of the "witnessing" didn't accomplish that much and then I said many came to Christ. The discrepancy here can be explained by reporting what people said who came to Christ and then subsequently to church. Very few said they came because someone had "hit and run" them, to use a term I like. Most had what today is called relational evangelism. This is where people get to know other people and then WHEN God opens the "door," the Christian shares their story and God's story of salvation. Hit and run doesn't really do much; getting to know people does. So, I do applaud today's preaching of relational evangelism. But there is anotehr BIG problem.

There is really no content in the message. So we can be relational all we want but if there really is no message of substance, what good is it, except people feeling liked. So, what is the message? Help the poor. Now we are told that to be good Christians and to please God we need to help the poor and that social justice is really the gospel message. Another legalism.....for today.

One of the problems with the "doism" legalism of "witnessing" as well as today's "help the poor," is that most Christians were then and are now ill-prepared emotionally and spiritually to do these things. Why are we sending out dysfunctional Christians to help the poor? Don't the poor deserve better? I think they do, so I say to these eager beaver young pastors, Whoa! Let's pick and choose very carefully WHO will be helping the poor. And, also, let's give them a bettr message than, "I love you." Even atheists and New Agers can say that. That'certainly a part of the message but not all of it. There is also that matter of salvation. We also need to get God's plan for helping the poor with their material needs AND how to get them to a place where they can be self-sufficient without the do-gooder overeducated white middle class young adults alwyas having to lead them by the hand.