A Wake Up Call - God is Speaking to Us

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by OBW

Overextension and overapplication. Israel is Israel. Remember that Ishmael was also born of Abraham. And he has become many nations as well. But to presume a blessing upon Ishmael's descendents in the same way as Israel is a serious misunderstanding.

I have no idea what you mean by overextension and overapplication. I made no application. If you are going to respond, it would be nice if you would respond to what I actually wrote in my post.

It strikes me wrongly for you to ask me to remember something that I had already pointed out in the post (about Ishmael).

Please do not ascribe ideas to me that I did not write and characterize them as a "serious misunderstanding." I made no comment, had no thought, and made no presumption about blessing (whatever you mean by that) on Ishmael's descendants.

My point was that God's promise to Abraham was not to make him "a" nation, as you had written.

I also pointed out that Jacob's blessing on Ephraim was that he would become a multitude of nations.

As I said, I do not know what this means, but it means something.

My post contained straightforward observations about the words of the Bible, and as I said, it was food for thought. Of course, I would be interested in what anyone thought about those verses.

Thankful Jane

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

I have no idea what you mean by overextension and over-application. I made no application. If you are going to respond, it would be nice if you would respond to what I actually wrote in my post.

It strikes me wrongly for you to ask me to remember something that I had already pointed out in the post (about Ishmael).

Please do not ascribe ideas to me that I did not write and characterize them as a "serious misunderstanding." I made no comment, had no thought, and made no presumption about blessing (whatever you mean by that) on Ishmael's descendants.

My point was that God's promise to Abraham was not to make him "a" nation, as you had written.

I also pointed out that Jacob's blessing on Ephraim was that he would become a multitude of nations.

As I said, I do not know what this means, but it means something.

My post contained straightforward observations about the words of the Bible, and as I said, it was food for thought. Of course, I would be interested in what anyone thought about those verses.

Thankful Jane

The point concerning Ishmael was that there was not the same promise of blessing for him. He was promised to be the father of many nations. And it is also stated that he would be problem for the family he was exiled from. He was not promised all the stuff that Israel was promised.

As for overextended, it is the reading of the mention of nations with the intent of implying that everything concerning the covenant between Israel and God (which, BTW, was on top of Abraham's covenant, not simply the same covenant) did not flow through any of these verses to other nations. As I recall, God came and asked if they were willing to be for Him and follow Him. Upon their agreement, the law was given. And the promises that attached to any specific nation were also given.

It seems that all of the "national" promises being mentioned are not really the outgrowth of the Abrahamic covenant, but the specific covenant between God and the nation of Israel at the foot of Mt Sinai.

So, once again, there appears to be an overextension of covenant, prophecy, etc. Finding what amounts to a data point in common between two different things does not cause one to flow onto the other.

In other words, I see a lot of dots being called connected when I do not see the connection.

And, if you read my most recent post in the new thread on politics, you will see a related problem for me. One which I have raised here in different terms. But I will rephrase it here within the scope of this discussion.

As this discussion has unfolded, it would appear that it is the lack of favorable treatment of Christian values, even in terms of how laws are made, that is a significant cornerstone of the claim of America's "fall from grace." Our response begins as something benign, or even positive. Repent and pray. That is good. Something we should do without buildings falling. That it took such a thing is a shame to us. Not to the nation, the government, or the laws that allow abortion and refuse prayer in schools.

But if, after our repentance and prayer, the secular government does not reinstate sanctioned prayer in schools, favored status as iconic symbols in our courts (such as the posting of the ten commandments), legal restrictions on abortions, reduction in the rights of gays, very generous reading of the 10th amendment and of the right to bear arms . . . then what does it mean? That the nation didn't really repent? Or that we didn't repent hard enough for it?

Is it, as has been suggested, an invitation to get very active in politics so that we can increase pressure to make those things legally required?

So how does that stack up with "love your neighbor"? With "eats with sinners"? Jesus ate with sinners. He didn't lambaste them, then wait until they were sinning no more. Paul said that even the language of angels can be wielded without love and is a clanging symbol. Do we eat with Zacchaeus first, or demand that he change first?

I do not fear a slippery slope here. It seems to be the unavoidable outgrowth of a movement to insist that a secular nation can repent and pray its way out of bad things happening.

The nation cannot pray. Only the citizens can. And they aren't all praying, therefore the nation is not praying.

And outside of all of this, my second fear with this kind of movement is that it is just as much of a distraction from what is the real call of the gospel as was in the LRC. It sounds so good. But I find nothing in the linkages of scripture that actually arrive at the conclusions about what could be spiritual truth.

Instead, I see myths of super-spirituality in the founding fathers, linked through genealogies of churches near ground zero, and so many other things. We are aligning our spiritual efforts because a 200+ year-old church was near ground zero and didn't fall. This story of a sycamore tree saving the building is quite questionable. Besides the insiders' writings, where is this published in a way other than repeating what one of these writers has published? Caught a few pieces of stray shrapnel? What does that mean? How does a tree with a diameter of few feet protect a building of many feet in width? If the tree and the church remained standing, the answer is probably that there was not an assault of debris in that direction sufficient to do such damage.

Where do we take a stand to live peaceably? To repent for ourselves? To pray earnestly? To live righteously, but as sojourners, not as if the actual citizens? (Not saying to avoid anything to do with politics.)

If your talk were focused upon me, you, and the rest of us repenting continually for our continual failings without reference to some funny overlay of special nation status, you would find me fully with you. The same for prayer. Even praying for the nation. But not as if it can gain favored nation status, but as if every man woman and child needs to meet the Savior. That we all need to gain freedom from the bondage of sin. Better laws concerning how Christianity is treated in this country is irrelevant to that effort. Making sin illegal civilly does not decrease sin. It just puts it in hiding and/or changes the sin of choice. Why? because we are talking about sinners. And sinners will sin.

The answer is in changed lives. What arises from praying for a return to some presumed Christian status as a nation is legislated lives. But it doesn't change even one of those lives.

[Cal]

But if, after our repentance and prayer, the secular government does not reinstate sanctioned prayer in schools, favored status as iconic symbols in our courts (such as the posting of the ten commandments), legal restrictions on abortions, reduction in the rights of gays, very generous reading of the 10th amendment and of the right to bear arms . . . then what does it mean? That the nation didn't really repent? Or that we didn't repent hard enough for it?

If enough people really pray and repent, eventually there is going to be a critical mass of changed American lives that affect laws. It doesn't make sense that a significant amount of Americans would experience spiritual revival and it not have some repercussions in the halls of state and Federal congresses. Your paragraph seems to be saying that there is no way to pray in a way that would result in more justice in America from our lawmakers. But there is. If the people change the laws will change. And are you so sure Cahn is not talking about people changing first? You don't think he realizes this is a democracy? How can the laws change in a democracy without the people changing?

Cahn is talking about real prayer, real repentance. Yes, change starts with changed lives, but changed lives start with prayer. If we just pray for more just laws without being just ourselves, obviously change is not going to happen. You need people who actually value those laws. Again, we are after all talking about a democracy.

But I think you are kidding yourself, OBW, if you think God doesn't care about just and righteous laws in America. I'm not saying he would have us outlaw every sexual peccadillo, but certainly God cares about what kind of laws we have. I think it's naive and presumptuous to assume he is completely happy with the current laws in this country, or worse doesn't give a whit about them.

No, just laws are not the end goal. But the idea that, all else being equal, God wouldn't prefer the most just laws we can establish, is a bit strange to me. Yes, he uses everything, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a preference.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But I think you are kidding yourself, OBW, if you think God doesn't care about just and righteous laws in America. I'm not saying he would have us outlaw every sexual peccadillo, but certainly God cares about what kind of laws we have. I think it's naive and presumptuous to assume he is completely happy with the current laws in this country, or worse doesn't give a whit about them.

It is a sad fact that often the laws of the land have more impact upon our conscience than the laws of God. This is especially true for our next generation. When the media, the teachers, and their peers at school all convince our young daughters that sex is completely acceptable, then their parents' faith seems irrelevant. When the school and her classmates can arrange an abortion without mommy knowing, she can easily be convinced that she is doing "the right thing." That is, until the "problem" is gone, and she is left to consider what just happened to her.

Fact is, the conscience of our young people is definitely affected by the laws of the land. The same is true with adultery. The laws of the land say there is absolutely nothing wrong with breaking the marriage bond via an extramarital affair. My Discover card is more binding than my legal relationship with my wife. God's word may say otherwise, but today's society seems for more impressed with "short-term" consequences.

If God was not so interested in laws and moral codes for his people, then we would never have heard about Moses at Mount Sanai or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is a sad fact that often the laws of the land have more impact upon our conscience than the laws of God. This is especially true for our next generation. When the media, the teachers, and their peers at school all convince our young daughters that sex is completely acceptable, then their parents' faith seems irrelevant. When the school and her classmates can arrange an abortion without mommy knowing, she can easily be convinced that she is doing "the right thing." That is, until the "problem" is gone, and she is left to consider what just happened to her.

Fact is, the conscience of our young people is definitely affected by the laws of the land. The same is true with adultery. The laws of the land say there is absolutely nothing wrong with breaking the marriage bond via an extramarital affair. My Discover card is more binding than my legal relationship with my wife. God's word may say otherwise, but today's society seems for more impressed with "short-term" consequences.

If God was not so interested in laws and moral codes for his people, then we would never have heard about Moses at Mount Sanai or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.

How can anyone read the Bible and miss the fact that this is important to God. If it is important to God how arrogant and proud to claim that we can ignore it.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If enough people really pray and repent, eventually there is going to be a critical mass of changed American lives that affect laws. It doesn't make sense that a significant amount of Americans would experience spiritual revival and it not have some repercussions in the halls of state and Federal congresses. Your paragraph seems to be saying that there is no way to pray in a way that would result in more justice in America from our lawmakers. But there is. If the people change the laws will change. And are you so sure Cahn is not talking about people changing first? You don't think he realizes this is a democracy? How can the laws change in a democracy without the people changing?

I would not say that God does not care about our laws. But his concern is more about the lives of people. And if we are so certain that "doing it on your own" is meaningless, then all the laws we can dream up is not the answer. Accepting the Savior is.

I did not propose that it could not happen. But I have doubts at the kind of levels that we are talking about here. I said "what if." If at our best, and at the actual rate of conversion of people to Christ, we don't arrive at "critical mass" to begin to move the pendulum, what have the Christians of America lost?

Favored religion status. That is it. And we should never presume that of any government, even one that is supposedly based on Christian principles. Even with those principles in place, it is secular and is full of secular people.

Originally Posted by Igzy

But I think you are kidding yourself, OBW, if you think God doesn't care about just and righteous laws in America. I'm not saying he would have us outlaw every sexual peccadillo, but certainly God cares about what kind of laws we have. I think it's naive and presumptuous to assume he is completely happy with the current laws in this country, or worse doesn't give a whit about them.

I don't think I made any comment on God's happiness with or care about our laws. Or those of other countries.

I would agree that just laws are always preferable. Even in our own eyes. But decides what is just? For a secular nation, a question that we as Christians might answer one way might be answered differently by a sufficiently large number of people that to outlaw their position might not actually reflect justice or righteousness. I am required to live according to God's righteousness and justice. We can say that everyone is required. But that is semantics. They are not required to do so in this life. But their choice in the matter is subject to penalty in the next.

So when does life begin (to take the abortion question as an example)? We quickly point to the Bible and realize that God refers to us a known in the womb — even at conception. And you don't "know" inanimate objects. But for those who reject God and/or the Bible, how do you force the answer to conception so that they are legally required to obey the Christian perspective? I am not saying to give up. But you need to find the way to move it from nearly at birth back to significantly toward conception with an argument that they will accept. And you may not get that all the way back to conception.

Then you have the issue that this nation does not allow the taking of a life "without due process." So there will be legitimate petitions for termination of pregnancy where a mother's life is in serious danger. And if it requires a lengthy process, then no petition will be meaningful. So there will need to be some level of legislation providing guidelines.

I would prefer that we had an army of doctors (all of them) that had morality that we could simply trust to do the right thing at all times.

But even with this kind of process in place, how do you keep from requiring people with honest differences of opinion on the subject from becoming subject to civil/criminal penalty because of the insistence of Christians? I'm not saying is it not the "right way" if we were Israel of the Old Testament. I question whether it is not entirely contrary to the command to love our neighbor. Whether it is not at odds with the example of eating with the sinners and inviting them into a relationship with Christ that changes their lives. That ends the life of prostitution, or being a cheating tax collector. Or thinking that homosexuality is just "who I am" therefore OK. Or thinking that my financial comfort requires an abortion and it is OK.

I am not talking about something that could happen if we are able to get the laws the way we want them. It will be what we create by getting those laws.

Now if the government, on its own, moves toward better laws and administers them without favoritism and without reference to Christianity or God, then we will have obtained what we want without setting that chain of events in motion.

Or will we? We also want prayer in the schools. And the claimed references to God and Christianity in history to be returned to prominence. If we manage to get those, then we will find that we have failed to avoid the taint that comes with the change in laws.

Originally Posted by Igzy

No, just laws are not the end goal. But the idea that, all else being equal, God wouldn't prefer the most just laws we can establish, is a bit strange to me. Yes, he uses everything, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a preference.

As long as "we" is everybody and not just the Christians marching in the streets demanding that those evil abortionists and homosexuals be stopped, then you may be at least partly right.

But I think that God would prefer that men turn to Him more than that secular kingdoms of the world have the most just paws possible. And if getting the second results in antagonism of the people that God would like to turn His way, then is seems we have gone out of our way to push them further away. Of course, if we take "God works in all things" to its extreme, we can argue that God can even use our browbeating of the heathen. I guess that makes it all better. God can work through it anyway.

But if we are sojourners in this world, how is it that the laws of this passing world are so strongly on our radar that we drop almost everything else to go after them?

And more than that, we go after the best set of laws there are and try to make them better while horrible laws exist elsewhere. Laws that even deny the open preaching of the gospel.

If there is a mark, this is not it.

I have said enough. If you don't see it, then you don't see it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

But even with this kind of process in place, how do you keep from requiring people with honest differences of opinion on the subject from becoming subject to civil/criminal penalty because of the insistence of Christians?

Why just Christians? Why not also atheists or liberals or conservatives or Muslims, or any group with an opinion?

I think you are losing sight of the point that this is a democracy. Ultimately we are not going to get anything that is not the will of the majority, because ultimately that's what politicians respond to. You might say we do have laws most people don't like. Maybe. But not ones they dislike enough to want to be bothered with trying to get them changed. If a vocal and motivated majority petitions the government, you can bet the government will hear them.

Who decides what is just? In a democracy the people do. So why can't Christians join in the debate? You keep talking like there is this oligarchy of Christians who are going to force their laws on everyone else. How are they going to do that? So that is really a red herring. We can't force anything on anyone, unless we are the majority and vote as the majority. And if we do then, well, we were the majority and that's the way a democracy works.

How did we get the laws we have? Because by and large the people approve of them. Now you wouldn't know that by the way people gripe, but basically Americans get what they want. They want Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid and they don't really want to have to pay for them. Well, that's what we've got. So you can be sure if we outlawed abortion, like we just outlawed single-use plastic grocery bags in Austin, it would be so because (1) the majority wants it OR (2) the majority doesn't want to bother with trying to fight it.

So your scenario about forcing Christian laws on Americans is really irrelevant because Americans can't force laws on anyone without being the majority, and a motivated majority at that, OR because the real majority doesn't care enough to do anything about it. And if they don't care, you really can't say anything was forced on them.

Are you saying we would still be wise to keep abortion legal even if the majority wanted it illegal, just so we wouldn't offend the minority that wanted it legal?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Why just Christians? Why not also atheists or liberals or conservatives or Muslims, or any group with an opinion?

I have the same problem when those people push agendas that would insist on their position to the exclusion of mine (where mine is not unrighteous).

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think you are losing sight of the point that this is a democracy. Ultimately we are not going to get anything that is not the will of the majority, because ultimately that's what politicians respond to.

Like I said to ZNP, I have not said to avoid the political arena. I have warned in favor of a different approach.

Originally Posted by Igzy

You might say we do have laws most people don't like.

I don't think I ever said that. I'm sure that there are laws that some people don't like.

But responding forward to at least one of your comments later in the post, there are many issues in which people find themselves in favor of a certain way but not sufficiently to oppose others who have reasons (whether we like them or not) to take a different position. A lot of it falls inside of the "it only hurts me" category, or is a matter "in private without harm to others." There are people who would like to outlaw public displays of romantic or lustful expression between members of the same sex. I find it repulsive. But unless it is of a nature that I would similarly deny such public display between a "normal" couple, I believe that it should not be outlawed. Just an example. That is very different from just not being bothered enough to want to change them. I find a just reason to refrain from such action (writing a law) as a matter of tolerance.

I do not see Christians being able to simply force their desires on others. But if Christians were to become the majority voting force (and managed to all be on the same page — doubtful) there are still many things that, in love for neighbor, that we should not do even though we could.

It might be that insisting on opening schools back up to prayer over the PA each morning is really too much — unless we are also going to permit an Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, etc., prayer, and a brief statement from the resident atheist.

Same for returning the 10 commandments to prominent display in capitol and court buildings. I don't think it is a problem to allow it. But it might be.

It gets murkier as you start into the laws that are so religiously and politically charged. Abortion. Homosexuality. EEOC. Even immigration laws.

I think you can get to more significant restrictions on abortion. Even to a rationale for restricting government funding of it due to the general outrage of to significant a part of the population against the practice. But if you think you can make it simply go away and not slam the Christian influence in the process — and find the repercussions severe when we cease to be the majority — then you are mistaken.

The issue is not what is possible, but what is prudent.

And it is not to refrain from politics.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I do not see Christians being able to simply force their desires on others. But if Christians were to become the majority voting force (and managed to all be on the same page — doubtful) there are still many things that, in love for neighbor, that we should not do even though we could.

I agree with this. But you have to look at the likely scenarios. If America gained an overwhelming majority of real, committed Christians (as opposed to nominal), how would that come about? It most likely would be through real life change, rather than simply religious fervor. So some kind of cultural revolution enforced through law is unlikely. Although zealous Christian restorationists get the grease, most Christians are pretty reasonable. They understand that the freedom they enjoy must be extended to others.

But simply because someone wants America to turn to God and receive a blessing does not mean the other shoe dropping is to round up all gays and abortion practitioners and hang them from the nearest tree. Frankly, I think it would be sad commentary indeed if Christians got significantly more political power and used it to persecute gays or something like that.

The Christian Coalition experience showed that bare knuckles politics is not the way to bring in the kingdom of God. At the same time, grass roots citizenship informed by the knowledge of God is completely legitimate.

The danger of oppression from a Christian majority is one reason why Christians should not be "one" and organized in the way the LRC envisions it. Can you imagine what would happen to freedom if that group came to power? Holy moly!

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by OBW

The point concerning Ishmael was that there was not the same promise of blessing for him. He was promised to be the father of many nations. And it is also stated that he would be problem for the family he was exiled from. He was not promised all the stuff that Israel was promised.

....

If your talk were focused upon me, you, and the rest of us repenting continually for our continual failings without reference to some funny overlay of special nation status, you would find me fully with you. The same for prayer. Even praying for the nation. But not as if it can gain favored nation status, but as if every man woman and child needs to meet the Savior. That we all need to gain freedom from the bondage of sin. Better laws concerning how Christianity is treated in this country is irrelevant to that effort. Making sin illegal civilly does not decrease sin. It just puts it in hiding and/or changes the sin of choice. Why? because we are talking about sinners. And sinners will sin.

The answer is in changed lives. What arises from praying for a return to some presumed Christian status as a nation is legislated lives. But it doesn't change even one of those lives.

Mike,

I did not finish reading your post. I tried twice and the second time my brain exploded. It is a miracle that I can write these lines.

I feel that you are talking at me with a waterfall of words that I'm sure make sense to you, but don't make sense to me. I simply don't have the time it would require to try and get your meaning, much less respond. Sorry.

Please be at peace. You don't need to rescue me from beliefs that I don't hold.

Jane

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Mike,

I did not finish reading your post. I tried twice and the second time my brain exploded. It is a miracle that I can write these lines.

I feel that you are talking at me with a waterfall of words that I'm sure make sense to you, but don't make sense to me. I simply don't have the time it would require to try and get your meaning, much less respond. Sorry.

Please be at peace. You don't need to rescue me from beliefs that I don't hold.

Jane

Wow, how many times have I wanted to say that!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow, how many times have I wanted to say that!

Those who disagree only for the sake of disagreeing, usually do not provide the most logical of explanations. You sure had fun with it though. AL is an easier read, but no less frustrating, since he also desires only to prove you (and me) wrong.

Untohim seems to think politics is the problem, but we could discuss movies or cooking or the weather and have the same issues develop. There just seems to be no way to find common ground with some folks, no matter what we discuss.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Untohim seems to think politics is the problem, but we could discuss movies or cooking or the weather and have the same issues develop. There just seems to be no way to find common ground with some folks, no matter what we discuss.

No I don't think politics is the problem and I never said it was. What I have said is there is only so much time most of us have to post and read on an Internet forum. I think the subject of Witness Lee and the Local Church (teachings, practices and history) can and should keep us all busy enough. Don't we all get to tone up our argumentative mussels enough on this subject alone? There are TONS of forums that cover and discuss politics. I don't think having one thread here covering political matters is that big of a deal, I just would not like to see it become the dominant subject. We have 2 or 3 new members who are probably getting discouraged from posting because of all the political stuff.

Anyway, this is why I posted that Jesus was very conservative and at the same time very liberal....all in the very same chapter of the Bible.

My main point, my main concern is that we "render unto God what is God's and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." In MY VIEW the discussion of politics and political matters is rendering unto Caesar. As I just said, there are many places on the Internet to render unto Caesar. My hope, my prayer has always been that this little forum would be a place where we could at least try to spend a little time rendering unto God what is God's.

Ok, I will now return ya'll to your regularly scheduled programing....