[OBW]

While I would probably prefer that this particular thread stayed buried in the past, Dancing has been reading through the archives and came across it. From the last post (before Dancing) the writer quoted this little sound bite from me for comment:

So it would seem that the goal of whatever spiritual activity Cahn and others are calling for is to reduce the tendency for sinners (unsaved) to sin.

To which the following reply was made.

Again, these comments are too vague to be of any value. The only concrete example that Cahn gave that I can recall (please help if you can recall other examples he used) was abortion. This is not a matter of the "slow elimination of the tendency toward social Christianity" it is about an abrupt action that completely violates the laws of this land. This is not about "reducing the tendency for sinners to sin" because once this issue is given to the States the States can still vote to allow sinners to continue to sin. It is about short circuiting the laws of the land and pushing through an agenda that 7 people support.

The problem with this kind of comment is that it claims that mine was too vague. That's what happens when you only quote one sentence out of a paragraph, out of a complete post. Without context, the one sentence just doesn't tell much.

But based on the response, it would seem that a political solution is the issue. There are those who are thwarting the constitution (at least in their mind, and I have to admit in my mind as well) and the solution is to reclaim the "Christian Nation" and force the righteousness of God upon all the heathen who would not follow God's laws.

If that is actually the will of the people (ignoring the Christian Nation part since there has never been such a thing), then the people will do it. They won't have to argue "Christian" rhetoric to shame others into joining them so that they get a majority and then get what they want.

But if it is a political endeavor, then the real issue is why we are fighting the sins of heathen through taking political authority. Why do we justify doing what we chide the winners in the days of Constantine when they took on the ability to use the government's force to rid the world of heretics. When it became a civil offense to not agree on all aspects of the latest council and creed down to the smallest point.

Now it has gone from religious fervor to civil fervor. We want to attack not only the Christians (or alleged Christians) who are not on board with our specific creed, but the heathen who don't buy into any of it.

No, what is completely missing in the response to my original comment is the rest of my comment. They did not comment on my post, but on what they wanted to comment on. And what better way than taking a single sentence out of context (just like we often do scripture) and argue about something that it does not actually say. My original comment was about the salvation of people. It was not about the laws of the USA or the belief that some are hijacking them.

I said:

So it would seem that the goal of whatever spiritual activity Cahn and others are calling for is to reduce the tendency for sinners (unsaved) to sin. (In other words, it is not about us repenting for our own sins, but for the sins of others.) That is only accomplished through salvation, not laws. And even when making more righteous and moral laws, we must always be careful that we are not essentially targeting only the different morals of other people. It is irrelevant during this life that we honestly (and correctly) believe that their morals are corrupt and/or deficient. Forcing our views upon them is simply contrary to our call to love.

Which brings me back to one of my broken records. America is a kingdom of the world. It may be a very good one, but it is nevertheless a kingdom of the world. Yes, it is our charge as its earthly citizens to be involved in its government. But within our living as the people of a different kingdom, it may just be to our disadvantage (or even spiritual harm) to take the position of ruler rather than servant. (And there has been at least one suggestion that we should be using this as training for "ruling cities" in the next age. I think that is quite a stretch — especially to think that learning about American democracy is a reasonable proving ground for Millennial "ruling.")

But I do agree that we need to repent. Repent that we have turned the gospel into propositions and checklists. Repent that we have not loved our neighbor as ourselves. Repent that we have neglected justice related to the widow, orphan, homeless, alien, etc. This kind of repentance coupled with prayer for the will and power to take on those tasks might change our respect in the community. It might cause many to ask what it is about those Christians. That is so much more important that any kind of national benefit we could seek for ourselves (and for others) that does not move them toward Christ, but just makes our collective lives better.

The gospel is not better lives. It is different lives.