What most saddens me in this whole raucous debate in the churches is how sub-Christian most of it has been. It is characteristic of our time that the issues most difficult to assess, and which have generated the greatest degree of animosity, are issues on which the Bible can be interpreted as supporting either side. I am referring to abortion and homosexuality.
We need to take a few steps back and be honest with ourselves. I am deeply convinced of the rightness of what I have said in this essay. But I must acknowledge that it is not an air-tight case. You can find weaknesses in it, just as I can in others'. The truth is, we are not given unequivocal guidance in either area, abortion or homosexuality.
Rather than tearing at each other’s throats, therefore, we should humbly admit our limitations. How do I know I am correctly interpreting God's word for us today? How do you? Wouldn't it be wiser for Christians to lower the decibels by 95 percent and quietly present our beliefs, knowing full well that we might be wrong?
I know of a couple, both well-known Christian authors in their own right, who have both spoken out on the issue of homosexuality. She supports gays, passionately; he opposes their behavior, strenuously. So far as I can tell, this couple still enjoy each other's company, eat at the same table, and, for all I know, sleep in the same bed.
We in the church need to get our priorities straight. We have not reached a consensus about who is right on the issue of homosexuality. But what is clear, utterly clear, is that we are commanded to love one another. Love not just our gay sisters and brothers who are often sitting beside us, unacknowledged, in church, but all of us who are involved in this debate. These are issues about which we should amiably agree to disagree. We don't have to tear whole denominations to shreds in order to air our differences on this point. If that couple I mentioned can continue to embrace across this divide, surely we can do so as well.
About the Author
Walter Wink, is Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City. He has also taught at Union Theological Seminary and Hartford Seminary, and has been a visiting professor at Columbia and Drew universities. In 1989-1990 he was a Peace Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, DC.
His published works include a trilogy on the Powers: Naming the Powers (1984), Unmasking the Powers (1986), and Engaging the Powers (1992), all from Fortress Press. Engaging the Powers received three "Religious Book of the Year" awards in 1993. Doubleday Books will publish a condensed version of the Powers trilogy in 1997 under the title, The Powers That Be.
He is also the author of The Bible in Human Transform ation (Fortress, 1973), Transforming Bible Study (Abingdon, second edition, 1990), and other works, including 134 articles.
Dr. Wink is a United Methodist minister, works for a Presbyterian seminary, and attends Quaker meeting. For five years he served as pastor of a church in southeast Texas.
30 comments:
Though Dr. Wink doesn't mention any names it's a 99 44/100% chance the couple he's referring to is Tony and Peggy Campolo. They're both wonderful people in their own right and though I don't know them personally one of my best friends does and he can attest to their Christ-like sincerity and "wonderfulness!"
It would also be nice if as Dr. Wink suggests Xians on both sides of the aisle were to react to each other as Tony and Peggy do. Unfortunately this is rarely the case.
Wherever Tony has been booked to speak (including some Army events)whoever was responsible for booking him has usually gotten what can only be described as "vitriolic" letters and e-mails from disturbed Xians condemning Tony for his own views (which are less "liberal" than Peggy's) and/or for not being able to control his wife. (there's that word "patriarchy" again!) I understand that he's even lost gigs over it.
When one considers that certain big name Evangelical leaders have also tried (and sometimes succeeded) to destroy the careers of well-known evangelical writers who've disagreed with them on the subject or have had friendly associations with gay Xians it is sometimes very hard for me to believe that much is going to change until everyone born before the 1970s becomes worm food. I hope I'm wrong.
Daryl Lach
USA Central
"You Must Go Home By the Way of the Cross, to Stand With Jesus in the Morning!"
I tend to agree with this recent posting.This is about the most that I can agree with this writer. We do need to get along and not be so dogmatic about some issues. I think that we need to start with what we do agree about. I do not agree with all of Salvation Army policy or even doctrine for that matter. I still think that much good takes place for the poor regardless if they are gay or not. I KNOW , because I am one that is helping without discrimination.
I have been married for 38 years and I love my wife very much. We often DO NOT agree on some issues even though we treat one another with respect. That should be happening in the church. I know that it is not quite that simple but we must push forward.
As I have shared before,denominations have started because of disagrements and a focus on certain issues or doctrine. Just look at John Wesley and William Booth !
Blessings,
Usa former
On this blog there has been a number of articles dealing with the subject of homosexuality. Most of them, and also of the comments, are positive to accepting a homosexual life style.
Walter Wink, Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City, writes a number of blogposts and makes some statements that really surprises me. Wink writes:
"The truth is, we are not given unequivocal guidance in either area, abortion or homosexuality"
Everytime the Bible is mentioning homosexuality it is definitely warning against homosexual acts. How is it then possible to say that we are not given guidance about homosexuality in the Bible?
In another blogpost Walter Wink writes:
"Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct."
Here he clearly admits that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior, but then he indicates that the Bible is unreliable. And if the Bible is unreliable what is Christianity based on?
He also states that we are not building our faith on a book , but on a person:
"And that word is a Person, not a book."
When I read this I remember a former archbishop in the Swedish Lutheran church who said: "I do not believe in a book , I believe in Jesus"
The problem, both with the archbishop and Walter Wink, is that evereything they know about Jesus, they have read in the book, the Bible. All other information they might have about Jesus is produced in their own thinking. But we do not have to produce Jesus in our thinking. God has chosen to reveal himlself in the Bible, and if we do not believe in that revelation our revelation is self-produced.
The archbishop also said that large parts of the Bible should have been thrown in the garbage bin several years ago. If you have that view of the Bible, then you are of course free to adopt any moral laws which happen to be politically correct.
Active Sweden/Latvia
Peter Baronowsky www.rupeba.se
Peter- I appreciate what you have said and I agree. Every time I seemed to use scripture for support or information purposes I have been labeled a Bible worshiper.Of course that is used as an excuse and cop-out for those that live a different lifestyle than I do. Put down the scripture and any authority that it carries and you can do and practice about anything that you want and still call yourself a Christian. I have seen the Bible under attack so much by some people and do they realize that this is what they will be judged by ? Pick and choose, pick and choose. I believe this part of the Bible but I don't believe that part! So to stand up for the scriptures (the expression of God and His Message)through His Prophets and Apostles and the words of Jesus, is to not be a believer because we are idolaters. This teaching and more is an AGENDA and a package deal. It is from the pit of hell. The atheists are having a big laugh on all of this.If I was to believe half of what this author and some of those that have made a rave about him I would doubt scripture and think that there is no God at all.
Who is to say what parts of the Bible should be thrown out? Do we have a conference like in days long ago and review the Canon again ? Who will speak up? Who will judge? Should the gay and lesbian community be in charge of that ? How about some Liberal Christians ? How about some Old Jerry Falwell Baptists? How about some Catholic folk? Who will intervene? Who will be fair? Maybe some folk just need to be upset with God. He never provided a pattern for two men or two women to get married. The Biblical pattern and pattern of God is ALWAYS a man and a woman. ALWAYS. That is from God regardless of how someone feels about it.
I think that the biggest issue concerning the differences some of us have here are not the (gay lifestyle verses heterosexual lifestyle)but the different views of scripture and it's interpretation and reliability. Graeme will say that Scripture has nothing to do with homosexuality.Daryl will say that the Bible is not a science book. But the one who created us is the great Creator and Scientist all in one.
So what does the Spirit say to the churches? What is the Holy Spirit sharing with our spirits. Peter , the Holy Spirit tells me that God made man and woman so that they could love one another and bare children and multiply. They are to raise families and serve God. No where in Scripture do I find any thing else that would contradict that.
USA former
First of all, gay marriage does not contradict heterosexual marriage. It is simply a form that is not talked about, or condemned. But I won't say any more on that thread as we will be going around in circles.
A compromise which another Officer (not on this site) often comes up with on this subject is this:
Sin is sin. Therefore, the sin of glutteny (being obese) is just as equal and damnable as the sin of homosexuality, likewise the sin of vanity (women wearing make-up), or the sin of divorce, is just as damnable, or any other sin you can think of. If then, all sin is equal, then we cannot have one rule for one, and one for another. So... if we are going to allow obese people (who are unrepentent of their sin of gluttony) to be leaders and officers, if we are going to allow divorced persons (who are unrepentent of the sin of divorce) to be leaders or officers etc., then there is no reason we cannot allow GLBT persons who are in a relationship to be leaders and officers. If we are going to exclude GLBT persons in relationships, then we mus also stand down out of uniform anyone who is obese, divorced, wears make-up, etc.
I don't agree with this view as I don't clasify homosexuality as a sin, but it's a compromise I can live with until Christ comes and reveals all to us.
Yours in Christ,
Graeme Randall
Former Australian East
Graeme,
Gay marriage is not brought up in the Bible because homosexuality was condemned by the apostle Paul. So why would marriage of two men be mentioned or of two women? There was no reason to go that far. That type of thinking back then was not even discussed. It would not have made sense. As you have said before times change and cultures change. it is all about changing and theology changes. Well I agree, but that does not counteract God and His plan. God never changes. People change and sometimes for the worse. There is a drifting away or falling away in these days. You have to notice some of that . You are also correct that this type of discussion (for you) would go in circles because you do not believe that homosexuality is a sin (except where it is only experimental and was not God's intention for heterosexuals). I find that interesting and I think you have compromised your own thought and lifestyle.
The wearing of make up (that Paul speaks of) was not necessarily sin but Paul was speaking of modesty and godly examples because harlots of the day wore gobs of makeup so that you knew what they were up to. It is a sin if some women do not wear make up ! Some may need it. LOL
USA former
Peter (and to a lesser extent USA Former),
I can certainly understand and sympathise with your dilemmma as I was once there myself. We who grew up in Protestant traditions often have a hard time wrapping our heads around the idea that what the Bible reads on any given subject is not always what it means or meant in its original historical, linguistic and cultural context. If you delve into Wink's writing deeper I believe that this is what he is getting at. The Bible (especially as it is written in many of today's modern translations and paraphrases) does read negatively concerning the subject of homosexuality. However there is very little evidence that it should. There is also much scholarly evidence that it is totally unconcerned with the subject!
Fr. Helminiak (a fellow contemporary of Wink's)in his writing for instance gives the illustration of someone today writing in our modern idiom using the term "out in left field." If what this person wrote were to be considered part of sacred scripture and someone read it in two thousand years and never heard of or knew anything about baseball they might come to all kinds of conclusions that have nothing to do with the original meaning---and I might add if they were fundamentalists they might come to the conclusion that there's something terribly sinful about being out in left field!
When we read any modern translation we tend to forget that the Bible has been edited through the years and very recently concerning homosexuality. The word was first put in the RSV in either 1946 or 1958 (1 Cor. 6:9) when a scholar from that time period decided that that's what the word in N.T. Greek probably meant. (This has been disputed over and over again by many other scholars!)
Other biblical prohibitions that were once condemned by the church for centuries as horrible sins have been completely edited out to make modern day Xians feel more comfortable in their (what would have at one time been considered deviant) lifestyles.
Usury comes to mind! In fact the NIV has totally edited the condemnation of usury(of which there are at least four more verses on the subject than there are on homosexuality)out to now read as "excessive interest"! They had no business doing this but did it they did!
I won't go on about editing anymore as all of this has already been covered already and at some great length. Any thing more would just be redundant. Suffice it to say once again that to believe in the first doctrine of TSA (and to believe in it as strongly as I do) is not the same as having a fundamentalist view of scripture.
As far as the bishop goes I suspect that what he was referring to was the belief that Christ was the perfect Word in the Flesh and that's who his faith is in. The Bible on the other hand is the Word also but in human language and thus limited by the constraints of human language, editing through the ages, etc. (I need to do one more quick posting!)
Daryl Lach
USA Central
continuing....USA Former
I don't believe that I have ever once called you or anyone else on this site a Bible worshipper. (though maybe I did in my anger and don't recall having done so---but I just don't think that I ever did!)I merely explained what I believe is the correct definition of bibliolatry. The fact that it seems to bother you so much still after all of this time is a reflection on something that is going on inside of you. It is not a reflection on what I think of you. You really should look into it.
The truth is my feelings toward you are neutral since I don't even know who you are or what your name is. In fact, I even like some of the stuff you write from time to time though I realise we're worlds apart in several areas---including I suspect politics---though I can't be 100% sure!
Lastly, I noticed in your posting that before you mentioned my name you wrote something that may have been directed at me and Graeme (if I'm wrong please let me know) about the people on this site who disagree with you coping out and making excuses because of their different "lifestyles."
I can't speak for Graeme but I can certainly tell you that in my case you may be assuming an awful lot more than you should. Let me clue you in on my "lifestyle."
Tonight I drive to a ventilator/trach case 30 miles away from home to take care of a man all night who is totally bedridden, was born years ago with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and has the body if an eight year child---as I have done working 10 to 12 hour shifts with cases all over Chicagoland, southern California and southern Nevada for the past 25 years!)
Tomorrow I come home to (along with my brother)take care of my 85 year old mother all day long who has an an advanced case of dementia---as I have done for the past nine years his coming November. I will repeat this process on a daily basis which will also include keeping up a 10 room house, laundry, running to 5 different stores every week and making sure all of her medications are ordered and together. I will do this with whatever sleep I can get wherever I can. I have several evenings alone with my mother from 5 p.m. on. Even on evenings I don't have her I always have to be home by 9 p.m. to watch her until 10:30 p.m.
To keep from going bonkers I will read, pray and write as much as possible while watching her drool. This will all be done in a now human growth hormone depleted 60 year old body.
If your concern USA Former is about my "LUV" lifestyle don't waste your time. Unless sneaking off to close the bedroom door whenever the need arises to roll around making out with two pillows constitutes some kind of BIG SIN I'm probably O.K. in God's sight. (I'm not Catholic so I don't particularly care what the Pope thinks.) That dear USA Former is my "lifestyle!" (Graeme can speak for himself.)
Daryl Lach
USA Central
Daryl,
Well, I can certainly appreciate your sharing of part of your life and I think that your commitment to your mom and work are very commendable. We probably agree with more than you think. Your lifestyle is not my business. I have shared before that what someone does behind closed doors in their bedroom is no ones business ( unless it is illegal or dangerous behavior) and I guess that could be a matter of opinion also.
Daryl , I am a conservative but of course NO ONE takes "everything" as literal in the Bible as some other topics. I do take very serious and literal that Jesus is Lord. As far as stoning, that was the old and we are now in the new. You have also seen from me about "Rightly Dividing the Word". I think that we both believe that but we do have different opinions on some things and most of it may not amount to a hill of beans. We all have repeated some of our disagreements or even agreements. We all communicate with various people on here and I am guilty of repeating myself and I will think later (been there ,done that). This topic has been discussed quite a bit and I appreciate various comments and opinion.On a couple of points or subjects you and I will probably disagree until we take our last breath. That is not all bad.
Thanks for your response and I do hope that you get some rest. I do not want you to be cranky and call me a Bible worshiper. LOL
I am more of a moderate in politics but slide to the right. I must say I would like to see our Congress get along and be productive or they can ALL be fired. Some things are compromised and that is not always a bad thing. I am a mixed bag and I am sure you are too.
USA former
Dear Daryl
Thank you for your comment on my comment.
You write that you can understand my dilemma since you have been there yourself. I do not think you understand my dilemma since i am not aware myself of being in a dilemma.
I was quoting Mr.Wink when he writes:
"Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct."
Firstly I do not believe that Mr.Wink is referring to any particular translation when writing this. He is reluctantly admitting that the message in the Bible is that homosexual behavior is wrong, either it is called homosexuality or any other expression describing homosexual acts.
Secondly Mr.Wink is using a lot of space trying to explain that what is written in the Bible is not the real opinion of the Bible. And if what is written in the Bible should be the opinion of the Bible, then the Bible is wrong.
I think that is a dilemma, but it is not necessarily my dilemma.
Blessings
Peter
Peter and others,
I don't see that either this article's writer, any other article on this subject on this blog nor any other commenter of all articles, has stated they doubt the bible they simply believe in interpreting it correctly (linguistically, historically and culturally). Concession has been made that there may be some doubt as to its interpretation to which they are prepared to keep an open mind. Are you? (or do you think only your shared views are right)?
What I'm sure we can all agree on is the condemnation the bible gives to licentious lifestyles whether accordingly to sexuality or other behaviours (such as gluttony, vanity or idolatry - of which I fear there is large scale in TSA when it comes to banding for instance).
heterosexual married, former UK officer, but current active SA soldier (now trying again to learn to play the baritone)
Dear H.M.former.UK O,
I was going to write Peter back again but you said it ALL and very succintly! Peter and USA former---I'm glad you giuys are not in the "dilemma" I originally thought you were in and hope that what H.M. former UK O has written helps you with your question(s). I for one always enjoy your contribtions to the discussions and our bantering back and forth!
Daryl Lach
USA Central
P.S. Btw, H.M. former UK O: Good luck on the baritone. (within the confines of NEVER commiting idolatry with it!) What would that be anyway---brassolatry? What would it look like--the ISB 120 Celebrations??!! lol!
I was there for the whole 7 1/2 hours at the RAH and then on the Mall and at Buckingham Palace the next day and LUV'D every minute of it!
A friend who grew up in another holiness denomination and went to London with me because he grew up playing the trombone among other instruments also enjoyed it all. He did however later say to me, "What is this band insanity you people have??!!" lol! Another friend once said to me, "You're the only person I know who if someone stole your Ipod they'd probably send it right back!"
Oh well, that's one of the reasons why idolatry is and has always been so popular. It's SO MUCH FUN! I'm betting on there being enough grace to cover even SA brassolatry because if there isn't I'm probably headed straight for Hell when I die! (which will be O.K. as long as they have brass band concerts there.)
Former Uk
I appreciate your comments. I think that what we face concerning scripture at times is a difference of interpretation of even the Greek or Hebrew or various traditions or practice of the cultures. Some people can slide more to one interpretation than another. I wish that some issues were more black and white but we often major in the minors and look to stretch our own opinions. (Human nature)
I agree that there is much vanity , gluttony and idolatry in various forms. That would be in all the churches. We all fail at times. So we need a Savior to guide us. Christ is a sure thing. It is in Him , I do not doubt.
USA former
Daryl,
Back to the "Usery". That was a practice of other nations or tribes of the day and much like today, high interest rates broke the backs of needy people. The Hebrews were to be different and were to follow a higher standard. They were to follow Yahweh and not the strange gods and practices of the heathen. Today I saw a short term loan that a low income family agreed to. It was 121%. $400 every two weeks was to be repaid over a three month period. Talk about Usery ! Some of those (rules , ordinances directives) were to the Hebrews not to us (specifically) for today. I would agree that the spirit of the law here is to not cheat your fellow man but how could a bank (investors and people with savings) make any earnings. We would all be in trouble if we could not search for a low interest loan for college or a home.
Rightly dividing the word would dictate that we are under grace not under law ( or man-made Hebrew rules).Moral law remains but we are not killing sheep or doves anymore except for meat !
USA former
I think we are finally beginning to reach common ground. We have done all the 'thrashing about' and both sides have felt offended and insulted, but now we are finding common ground. I do appologise to those who have felt insulted and hurt by my words. I was simply trying to portray how insulted/hurt I (and many people in the GLBT community) have felt by other posts and expressions of thought on this subject.
The common ground I think is that we all believe in God, we all claim Christ as Saviour, and we all look to the Bible as the revelation of that salvation. Where we differ is in our interpretation of the ancient languages and culture, and application of those in a modern context. But that's OK. So long as neither of us denies the other their right to Christian fellowship and practice as a result of this.
Yours in Christ
Graeme Randall
Former Australian East
Hi Graeme,
I trust you are right that progress is being made, however I think there is still some hard thinking and praying ahead.
This is because though we each want to be true to God, Christ and the Bible, the outworkings of our present differing understandings, particularly regarding practice, will still be in tension.
As we go forward we will continue to need to trust in God, rest in Christ our Saviour, look to the Bible as God's revelation of His will, and show true love to one another.
Personally, I think the way ahead will be very challenging as some of us will have to change our thinking and practice, but travel it we must ... for our good and God's glory. May we each do so with His grace.
Regards.
Bernard (Martin)
Former UKT
Sven, I would like to thank you for the series on "Homosexuality and the Bible" on your FSAOF-blog.
I have studied the subject through the years and read the Bible and many articles on the subject, but it is clear now, the importance for us in the SA to take a position on the issue and openly give gays their due; full human dignity and inclusion.
You have a large and interested following and I am one of them.
IHQ
recently retired Officer
Graeme,
We all have much in common. We are all sinners. You have a right to be upset with people that treat gays and lesbians in a mean spirit. I never have and I have had a few aquaintances over the years and a friend years ago that was HIV positive. I have served people from all backgrounds without question and treated them all with respect. Maybe I am an exception in some cases.I am sure that you have seen much mistreatment.
My problem is the sin issue. I among others believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Now that covers a broad area. I am not picking on gays and lesbians. I believe that is what the Bible teaches and I believe that it is meant for us in the here and now. Reasoning used that we are in a different culture to excuse behavour can be used for many reasons. For example men and women living together and having children and not being married. I believe that is wrong on many levels. I have more of a problem with that since I work with families and I see many children that are siblings and they all have different last names because of several live -ins over the years. It is terrible.
A difference of opinion on the words (concerning homosexuals) in the Bible in the OT and NT is another area that comes up.There is disagreement among Bible scholars of the true meaning of those words in Greek and Hebrew. That is where we probably differ.
The area of church leadership and pastoral positions is where I have another issue. If a man and women lived together outside of marriage, most churches would not let one of them be a leader or pastor. I agree with this.
You can see where I am going with this but we have already discussed these issues. That is where the biggest differences remain with some of us. A major reason-what we glean from scripture (without idolatry). You glean one thing , I glean another. That may be so on many topics but in most cases it would have nothing to do with our standing with God.
A final disagreement is that of people being born in a specific sexual state or make-up. We are all sexual beings. Some people are more sensitive than others.The thought of some (like myself) is that if we are male then we stay celibate ,or marry a female. That is it. No other options. Any other choices are not God's plan. That is where we differ. Laying aside all feeling and using dry words that is how I believe and any other choice will cause issues for life. I am not against feelings and having a good relationship with another person of the same sex. I do not see why a man would want to marry a man. To say that we are all wired differently and God made me the way he did could go for murderers also . The list could go on. Yes, we are all created in God's image. I guess that means something different to various people. Again(as this has been discussed several times) the Bible has no provision for marriage of people of the same sex. But then, (reasoning and deduction for some)that was then and we are living in a new age and different culture. I see it as a reverse- literal explanation.
It has been interesting and I think that all of us have learned much.
USA former
Romans 14:13–23
Oh no ! A food fight now. I guess the point may be judging ? But if that is the case , Paul talks about us judging angels one day and that we should be able to judge in the here and now and handle church matters.
Another thing to remember is that some feel that certain practices negate one being a Christian or a bad Christian.
Romans 9: 14-21
USA former
Romans 9:14-21
Why USA former do you always knock other people down - even when they try to be conciliatory to you?
Anonymous,
Knock people down. No. Stress a point maybe. I am not sure where you are coming from. Not enough detail. Too much presumption. Just throwing out some verses makes for question of intent and wonder as to what is really intended. That is all.
UDA former
Sorry, USA former
[Dear FSAOF, I found this on the net. Reactions?]
WHAT WILL DESTROY AMERICA
Jesus predicted 2000 years ago (in Luke 17) that just before His return to earth as Judge, there will be a strange worldwide fad notable for its speed, boldness, violence, and impudent in-your-face openness. He called this craze the repetition of the "days of Lot" (see Genesis 19 for details). By helping to fulfill this spontaneous worldwide mania quietly coordinated by unseen forces, gays are actually hurrying up the final Judgeship of Christ. What's really scary is the phrase "reprobate mind" found in Romans 1:28. One can ignore one's conscience so much that God finally turns that person over to the "reprobate mind" of the most diabolical leader of evil in the universe. When this happens it's almost as if the brainwashed human being has signed a statement saying "I don't ever want God and don't care if I end up in Hell!" The entire first chapter of Romans explains why God is forced to eventually and sorrowfully abandon certain individuals who constantly choose evil over good and ignore their conscience! If you're laughing at this message, you may have almost reached the point of no return. Be sure to keep on laughing when God allows entire cities to be suddenly destroyed. Revelation 16:18-19 describes the greatest earthquake of all time which will level the "cities of the nations" - a quake that's never achieved this in the past. There's only one thing that can destroy America - no matter who becomes President - and that's a four-letter word: EVIL. Change the letters and you can become totally VILE (and thus do your part to force God to send America even more disasters). Or better yet, you can turn to Christ (He's the "Creator" that America's founders referred to). And He's alive and promises to reveal Himself to you if you will just pray to Him in your own words and tell Him what you need! If you decide to partner with Him, He can change the letters in EVIL and show you how you can really LIVE - and you'll kick yourself for not checking Him out sooner! Remember, He can forgive and erase from His records ANY sin - even murder - since He's the only Saviour who can do this! I write this in the spirit of love because I care for the part of you that will live forever in either Heaven or Hell!
I just posted "What Will Destroy America" (above) and failed to mention that I live in America (the midwest). Carl
I don't know who posted it Carl, but the fact that there are people who really do believe that is really scarry. People like that are the real dangers. They have no idea who God is, have obviously barely (or not at all) read the Bible, and proclaim their ignorance on just about everything as loud as they can from the highest hilltop. Whilst we allow people like that to call themselves Christian, and not members of a cultic sect, there will never be unity within the church, or agreement on controversial topics, or even a sane, inteligent discussion on any topic.
Yours in Christ,
Graeme Randall
Former Australian East
One thing that stands out about "what will destroy America" in my mind is that you have people with total different ways of interpreting scripture.We see extreme differences of thought and what I try to do is to see where the person is coming from. I may not believe all what someone else does but it helps to know where the belief came from.
This particular article does make a point that I would agree with. That if America was to fail , it would be because of the people being evil. God deals with us as individuals. I believe that He still deals with nations as a whole also as we have seen in the case of the nation of Israel. I am not saying how or when.
We all need to be careful with the book of Revelation. There are verses that may be literal and some are figurative. Care is neded to know the difference ! Some verses dealt with what was happening in John's world at that time and some verses described the future. Some of that future would now be some of mankinds future.
If Israel was not a restored nation as Jesus predicted over 2,000 years ago I probably would not even comment. At this point my thought is that we will not be in eternity saying " I told you so". I hope that we would want to take as many souls with us into eternity to serve the Lord as well as in the here and now.
USA former
After monitoring and archiving on "the Voices of the Xian Right in American Politics and Culture at the Turn of the 21st century" for sixteen years now (the archive covers more than a decade of material) if I were a betting man (which having grown up in TSA I'm not!) I would bet that the "What Will Destroy America" statement came from either the mouth or pen of John Hagee of Cornerstone (?) Church in San Antonio, Texas! If not Hagee himself then certainly a clone of his whose been unduly influenced by his preaching!
Anyway, what gets me is that whoever wrote or spoke it (and there are millions who think likewise in the USA) seems to be part of a crowd who are overly, overly obsessed with what they consider to be other people's (not so much their own)sexual sins---which to them also includes biological orientation.
Yet their list of nation destroying sins has nothing to do with such evils as starting a pre-emptive strike war (unless it's another country that did/does it like Nazi Germany) and giving huge tax cuts to the filthy rich while trying to dismantle any economic safety net that benefits the most vulnerable of their fellow citizens. In fact they're the first to vote for and applaud any politician who does so as a wonderful born again Xian as long as he/she throws out all of the correct verbal platitudes! Go figure.
I've also given up trying to figure out how and why pre-millenial dispensationalism attracts so many religious Americans and has gotten so mixed up in all of this bizarre thinking and social and political behavior---and yet it has! Go figure again!
Daryl Lach
USA Central
"You Must Go Home by the Way of the Cross, To Stand with Jesus in the Morning!"
Daryl,
Have you noticed that like pre-millenial dispenationalists , many people believe in a package of beliefs ? Many liberals seem to believe a series of beliefs and conservatives do the same. I am surprised when I see a mixed bag but it does happen. The thought in this article does sound like Hagee.Hagee like the prophets and even pastors today will be judged by truth and fullfilled prophecies.
I do think that there are at least two dispensations. The OT and the NT. I am more a premillenialist then anything else but I do not dwell on it. I am open to what will be of course. As Keith Green stated years ago the end-times will all pan-out in the end. Regardless it is an interesting subject and I see more of a mixed-bag in prophecy these days.
USA former
Maybe God’s idea of the church has nothing to do with our view of an organisation, be it pseudo-military or otherwise, and everything to do with a Christian community in which Jesus is Lord, in which we seek together to find the mind of Christ, in which we can respect the wisdom or experience of individuals who help to encourage and advise us, or who assist in keeping good order, but in which we reject the notion that the Christian community is about submitting to human authority?
In this sense, in our concept of an army, it is fundamentally mistaken to think that God has delegated authority to the General, in which the General has the responsibility to rule and govern the army. Rather, the General (as a respected person with wisdom, leadership and experience) is called to serve, by encouraging us to seek the mind of Christ, and to be obedient to God’s will, as it is discerened within our community, in which everyone is equally responsible for hearing and discerning that voice?
David (from a response to Joe Noland)
Post a Comment