Prayer Summit 2007
October 6, 2007

9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Vets Memorial North Exhibition Hall
300 West Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio

An Invitation to the whole church to bless the whole city. Prayer Summit 2007 at the Vets Memorial.

"The good influence of godly citizens causes a city to prosper...."Proverbs 11:11a (The Living Bible)

Every Christian denomination and association is welcome!

Call 614-823-7270 for more information or click below.

Details. Info Letter Download Bulletin Insert

This, brothers and sisters, is what it is all about.

The roots of these movements can be traced to the 19th century and the heated debate between liberal and conservative theologians on the authority of Scripture and its interpretation.

The Christian left, on the other hand, celebrates the diversity of the world's religions while affirming our own commitment to the Christian tradition, we value and affirm the religious experience of our fellow Americans as well as their right to worship (or not worship) according to their own conscience, and we reaffirm our commitment to the principles of the Enlightenment and of the Founders - reason, tolerance, respect for science, personal liberty, and religious freedom.

Secondly, historical and sociological studies of the world's religions, beginning in earnest in the 19th century, have shown that Christianity did not, in fact, emerge in a vacuum, but shares many of its characteristics with other ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern religions.

The Senators who condemned MoveOn do not seem to realize that it's their job to protect free speech, not tell people how and when to exercise it.

And yesterday, in a really disappointing moment, she caved:

"I think it's important that we end these kinds of attacks on the patriotism of those who serve our country," Clinton said on NBC's "Meet the Press" program. "This is not a debate about an ad. This is a debate about the direction we should pursue in Iraq."

Introduction
It is held by many that the Religious Right has accomplished something new. This group is accused of remaking the historical Jesus into something political, a tool for conquering the world by way of a neo-conservative agenda. The assorted merits and failings of this conclusion are not the direct topic of this essay. Rather, the nature of the religious battle within politics is my concern, and specifically how the presence of liberal theology and liberal politcs have operated hand-in-glove, largely above criticism, for decades longer than the Religious Right has existed.

There are some who say this isn't new -- that it's just a revival of the old Nazi regime's manipulation of religion in order to establish racism and intolerance -- to kill and harm people in a sick and twisted desire for world conquest.

Liberalism's History with Jesus
A bit of history regarding the Left and religion is the goal, and the foundations of liberalism are not to be ignored. The philosophers behind much of the modern Liberal movement deserve a quick review.

Kant
The idea that one person might bear the responsibility for another person's action was an affront to Kant. After all, the ethical life is one of personal responsibility, not one where a substitutionary atonement has any place. It is the individualism that defines our era -- there is no need for Christ's work.

Hegel
The next founder of the modern Left presented Christ's work as merely an example and some form of social construct. History is ignored for the sake of philosophy.

Marx
Completely in line with his predecessors, Karl Marx saw Christ's work socially, especially with respect to rights and rebellion. Jesus was, to Marx, the first true socialist.

Liberal Politics and Jesus

The Religious Left
Even while speaking flowery words of "pluralism" and "tolernance" where religion is to be kept out of the political realm, the Left has made full use of religion in promoting its positions. It's no secret that politicians on the Left (like some on the Right) see religion as a tool to social and political ends.

Revolution & Feminist Theology
In Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross: Reappropriating the Atonement Tradition, Hans Boersma provides a summary of the Marxist influence within these venues.

What Difference Does All This Make?
When someone from the Left complains about too much religion mixed with politics, this person is either extremenly naive about their movement's own history or the person is being intentionally deceptive.  The social movements ont he Left have always held their clear and discernable religious components.  They have all disregarded the history of the Bible and instead wrap a philosophical construct around around Jesus, producing the desired result instead of the facts of history.

Today's Issues
The work of Christ is not the property of the Left or the Right.  The Right has made political hay directly from Christian theology.  The Left has made its hay for a much longer time using a modified Jesus wrapped in philosophical constructs.

Today's Campaigns and Elections
In The Hijacking of Jesus, Dan Wakefield rewrites history.  He takes a cleary Pelagian postion and reduces Jesus to a mere example of how to live.

Christianity in this country has become almost synonymous with right-wing fanaticism, conservative politics and -- courtesy of Mel Gibson -- a brutally sadistic version of religious experience.  Millions of Christians like me are appalled by this distortionof our faith ...

The Jesus of the Gospels had no possessions, ministered to the poor and the sick, befriended society's outcasts, blessed "the peacemakers," and told a wealthy young fellow that a rich man had as much chnce of getting into heaven as acamel did of passing through the eye of a needle. (pp. 1,2)

The Marxist flavor is impossible to miss, along with the moral influence theory.  And like the Left's progenitors, the same seeds are being planted today as they were 150 years ago.  (I'll consider writing a thorough review of the book at a later time.)

Patisans are expending a lot of energy to downplay and denigrate religious involvement in conservative politics and complain that evangelicalism is out of line with its current level of influence.  But one cannot avoid history -- it is the Left which has first redefined Christ to its own ends and continues to distort history for political advantage.  This is the substantial historical lie and religious bigotry of certain Left hate sites.

The learning styles of adults are, if nothing else, generally more consistent than with children. Among children there is an ability to learn well by reading, hearing, or by hands-on experience. But learning styles change as people mature, and as adults grow more mature they often require more material that relates to practicality tied to real-life experiences. It's a variation on the tactile learning of children. It may be hand-on, but it is event-related and important for adults of all ages.

Adults may still learn very well through both reading and hearing. Because adult learning still maintains these learning faculties from childhood, they should not be avoided. They can be built upon effectively by using writing and out-loud reading experiences. And they also tie directly to the desire and need for real-life applications.

These may be combined effectively by employing workbooks and reading assignments. Your adult students bring an intelligence from both their educational backgrounds and from life experience that can be communicated on paper. They're willing to study especially when it is (a) new and refreshing and (b) not threateningly challenging. By taking adults just a little further you can build on their hunger to learn and provide them with a growing opportunity.

When adult learners are free to communicate how a difference has been effected in their lives, the practicality of the benefit resonates to the others. By allowing the adult learner to freely share, especially in a directed environment, respect and learning both take place. The students who listen gain the practical solutions important to life's problems and the presenting student grows in communication skills. In addition, this builds more closeness, more intimacy in the Body of Christ -- a benefit that we're constantly working to improve.

It's easy to minimize the value of life experience, thinking of it as only anecdotal. But as teachers we should keep in mind that this can go directly to the Word's power. Not only are these testimonies as to the fact that the Lord changes lives, they are also practical applications of how a Scripture passage can change a life.  Application may be easily stated in terms of principle in a class, but personal examples can help people apply these principles effectively. Make the best possible use of the practical example opportunities that come your way.

As you local church sets its agenda for the Fall (you have probably already begun and are already thinking ahead toward the next quarter/period), have you asked yourself some hard, evaluative questions? It's easy to just go on and on with the same thing. The material in the standard quarterly (International Sunday School Lesson) is dependable, like any good curriculum. But have you asked yourself "Is there more?"

Evaluating curriculum is commonplace. "Find a good one and go with it" (the usual approach) gets the job done, but doesn't address the equally-important question: How hungry are my students? Are they being challenged to develop a Christian mind and world view? Are they being challenged to develop a greater burden for ministry? Are the teachers being challenged or is it just the same ministry repeated weakly? Are the teachers as hungry as they are (most certainly) dedicated?

For those of us in evangelical and fundamental circles, I'd like to present a novel challenge. Maintain contact and interaction with a local Bible institute, Bible college, seminary, or other respectable institution and bring in a prof for a periodic lecture. Take a Sunday a.m. or p.m. and give 'em something really special.

Over the years I've been big on consistency. That's worked well, but I've forgotten that besides just the meat and potatoes, people like a little dessert once in a while. By scheduling special speakers who are quality teachers you've got the ability to increase the spiritual hunger and spiritual burden of a great deal of your fellowship.

In most metro areas there's not much of a need to transport teachers a great distance. I suspect that most people in a major urban metro area go to church within 50 miles of such an institution, so availability is not too difficult.

Don't worry too much about the topics. You may have a favorite, but something different, something outside of your comfort zone may be very helpful. For instance, we all appreciate quality exegesis -- good Bible study. But have you ever had an historical perspective on how theology, even evangelical and fundamental theology, has developed and changed over the past centuries? (Take a look at the theologies of Whitfield and Wesley -- Calvinist vs. Arminian -- and how they cooperated.) Or how difficult questions were answered in order to develop orthodoxy? History is rich. The history of theology is equally rich.

So, Christian Ed director/leader, get your creative juices flowing. Make your educational program something greater than you ever thought it could be. Take a step of faith. (What would your pastor do if the Adult Ed program were more popular than his sermons? It might challenge him just the same.)

Some thoughts on the relationship between the state and society's religious beliefs.

Should the state be enforcing morality? Certainly. That's how civilization is defined. But nothing is as simple as the fundamental principle -- applying the princple generally requires qualifying the terms.

Should the state be enforcing sectarian morality? Generally not. But even this requires some qualification We don't want the state to enforce things like "You must go to church" or "You must not eat meat on Friday." At the same time, without the Christian ethical influences in our history, "You must not own slaves" carries a wealth of Christian morality. "You must not abort your unborn" carries the same weight.

Should the state be defining culture? There's a point where the state has duty to curb social activites that are detrimental. But to what degree? I was talking to a woman from Canada in the airport a few years ago. She wondered why we need the KKK. My response was that I'd rather have the problem of the KKK than the problem of a state telling me what to think. There are fine lines on some matters (beliefs) and clear lines on other matters (practices). So, are there some beliefs that the state should challenge? When the matter is meant to result in violence or revolution, then the state has the authority to ensure domestic tranquility.

Is America Christian? In some senses, No. We were never defined as a nation directly under the Bible. Never a theocracy, never a church state. But in other senses, we were, are, and may continue to be. Our national ethic is clearly Christian, with clear influence from some Pietists (via Wesley and the Great Awakening), the revival eras, and western European society in general.

There are forces at work who would modify our culture, our continuing ethical heritage, to be something secular rather than something Christian. These should be opposed.

Marjorie Signer gives us a clear example of the unnecessary purge that the secularist would enjoy.  Her concluding, summary remark makes her point clear:

Bottom line: Unless anti-theocratic progressives speak out about the interweaving of bogus medical fact on reproductive issues, fundamentalist religion, and political goals, this worldview will be enshrined in our laws and policies.

As secularists work to remove the influence of religious values in law (reflecting the culture that defines the government) with what will they fill the void?  Can cultural secularism maintain the level moral certainty necessary for both stability and concensus, those things that define morality for a culture?  No, it cannot because it denies the moral values necessary for that very end.  What remains is a society that is empty, ripe for the picking.

Interestingly, Signer, like her compatriots at TalkToAction, isn't honestly interested in separating religious conversation from policy.  The dialogue is quite exclusive -- evangelicals and fundamentalists are to be excluded (based on their fear of theocracy) but liberal theology is to be accepted (with no fear of a demand secular pluralism, an anti-religious liberty position).  Singer maintains this conversation, just as others on TalkToAction maintian this conversation with United Church of Christ personnel.

The prescient Catholic theologian Daniel Maguire wrote, 25 years ago, that the attack on abortion is actually “the start-off point of attack on a whole range of civil liberties and human rights” that go far beyond motherhood. Yet too many liberals and progressives ignore the attacks on abortion rights and contraceptive availability that are ongoing in legislatures, courts, the press and the pulpit. My theory--which is based on years of observation--is that there's a feeling among some men and women that this is a a health problem or a "choice" for women, not a serious political or religious freedom issue. And now, the Democratic Party and the Supreme Court can no longer be counted on to protect abortion rights.

Promoting this level of fear-mongering would actually promote their own clear restrictions on regligious liberty.  But I don't know that they would be willing to acknowledge the character of the changes that they are promoting.

Signer makes one of those statements that shold hall-mark the abortion movement as one of Death, not Choice.   And this requires no argument from inuendo or nuance.  She includes among those elements of pro-life where she differs, the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act."  Sad, but it's not just the pre-born that she would like to see dead.  She is truely pro-death.

But back to the initial question -- Can America be Christian?  We may, someday, have a concensus on those values necessary for protecting life and liberty.  But I believe that a revival is necessary, on a grand scale, to alter our current status.  Until then we remain with a tense pragmatism, and no real solution.

So let's address dhr's point.  The first is whether or not an absolute stifles dialogue.

If a book is considered perfect, debate ends with holders of this belief.  When debate ends, conflict often follows.  To help reduce conflict, a robust discussion of inerrancy itself is called for.

Almost.  We all, except for the most exotic thinkers, we have many agreed-upon absolutes.  One plus one equals two. The earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun.  And a book which proclaims thes, and other established facts, may be considered "inerrant."  But is a discussion on inerrancy what dhr is honestly looking for?  It clearly is not:

Theological scholars also warn that simplistic readings of these texts lead to false interpretations.  This discussion will ignore that warning - because the vast majority of the readers of these books are not theological scholars.  Millions of people shape their views and behavior based on a straightforward reading of the words.  If we read the text "like a child", perhaps we will better understand how the words actually influence thought and action.

"Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."  -- Mark 10:15

What dhr is looking for here is a disregard for clear thinking.  Theological thinking, clear understandings of a passage, and thoughtful research are dismissed in favor of a complete lack of knowledge, a childish approach to the Word.  Here is where D. A. Carson's challenge to the postmodern comes in rather handy:  How can we accept dhr's simplicity in any understandable, intelligent sense when dhr is unwilling to accept the Word and intellligent interpretation in any clear sense?  The answer is that we cannot, and dhr is here misleading the reader with a false sense of innosence.  It is especially self-contradicting because dhr proceeds to ask questions that require an intelligent response.  Such is the nonsense of this manipulation.

The questions are open-ended. They are very simple, intended to set up an argument, not to make any point more clearly understood. It's not a Bible study, it's a polemic against the Bible and for homosexual recognition. There is nothing of intellectual honesty here.  It's not a discussion about inerrancy but a manipulative discussion about this particular passage.

I'll dare say that any morality is based on a standard.  A culture's morality is based on the concensus of right and wrong. Transcendent morality is based on understood absolutes and universals that apply to all, regardless of concensus.  But dhr throws out all morality by declaring (through a rhetorical quesiton and without a framework) that moral law has ended.

It is amazing what a little intentional dismissal of intelligent analysis can do for drawing a desired conclusion.  But why, really, does responding to dhr's little post make any difference?  It's important because communicating the Word accurate is an imperative for the cause of Christ and error demands correction. (II Tim. 3:16)