The Culture War

[Resha Caner]

Have Christians lost the culture war? | Fox News

 

[Aviela]

If one studies history, one can see varying trends and times when Christianity has had it's challenges. Well, we will always have our challenges. There is evil in this world and it will challenge God's good works and intentions. The Bible sets boundaries for us to keep us safe in various ways...including spiritually safe. Boundaries are not always thought of as the cool thing. I happen to think they are 'way cool' and so necessary.

I think we need to keep fighting the good fight and we need to press on. We all have various gifts and ways God asks us to pitch in. I think we can follow God's calling and turn for support to our fellow brothers and sisters to be edified and uplifted. In short... Christianity being challenged isn't surprising but we can continue to make a difference as God calls us to do.

 

[Tammy]

Have Christians lost the culture war? | Fox News

Thank you for sharing that link, Resha...very enlightening....I do believe Christians have lost the cultural war....

 

[RDKirk]

The military labeled evangelical Christians and Catholics as religious extremists. Christian organizations like Family Research Council and American Family Association were labeled by the military as domestic hate groups. Bibles were briefly banned from Walter Reed Medical Center.

This is actually untrue. Todd Starnes is a hysterical muckraker who generally doesn't know what he's talking about when he gets into military affairs.

If "the military" does something, it will go out in a doctrinal regulation bearing the signature of an active duty commanding general.

A PowerPoint by a single backwater reserve sergeant in Podunkville is no more an example of "the military" position on anything than that same sergeant getting into a barfight downtown is an example on "the military" position on government-civilian relations.

Nor were bibles ever banned from Walter Reed. The policy was intended to prevent people who had no relationship with patients from simply walking into their rooms and handing them religious materials. Scientologists and Mormons were notorious for it in the past, but some Evangelicals had begun doing it to patients who were Muslim.

At no time was any patient's own relative, pastor, or priest ever prevented from bringing a bible or other religious material to him. It never happened. I don't care what some muckraker claims "it says." Nobody's own family or priest or pastor carrying a bible was ever stopped at his hospital door--nobody in uniform ever took it that way.

 

[RDKirk]

There is no "culture war," at least not one that Christ is fighting.

There is no threat to Heaven, and there is no culture on earth that Christ intends to save for Himself. He's going to wipe them all out and institute His own government in His own time.

There are a lot of Christians fighting to capture the wrong hill.

 

[Aviela]

This is actually untrue. Todd Starnes is a hysterical muckraker who generally doesn't know what he's talking about when he gets into military affairs.

If "the military" does something, it will go out in a doctrinal regulation bearing the signature of an active duty commanding general.

A PowerPoint by a single backwater reserve sergeant in Podunkville is no more an example of "the military" position on anything than that same sergeant getting into a barfight downtown is an example on "the military" position on government-civilian relations.

Nor were bibles ever banned from Walter Reed. The policy was intended to prevent people who had no relationship with patients from simply walking into their rooms and handing them religious materials. Scientologists and Mormons were notorious for it in the past, but some Evangelicals had begun doing it to patients who were Muslim.

At no time was any patient's own relative, pastor, or priest ever prevented from bringing a bible or other religious material to him. It never happened. I don't care what some muckraker claims "it says." Nobody's own family or priest or pastor carrying a bible was ever stopped at his hospital door--nobody in uniform ever took it that way.

thanks for clarifying some things.

 

[Resha Caner]

Nor were bibles ever banned from Walter Reed. The policy was intended to prevent people who had no relationship with patients from simply walking into their rooms and handing them religious materials. Scientologists and Mormons were notorious for it in the past, but some Evangelicals had begun doing it to patients who were Muslim.

Yeah, that's bad form.

A PowerPoint by a single backwater reserve sergeant in Podunkville is no more an example of "the military" position on anything than that same sergeant getting into a barfight downtown is an example on "the military" position on government-civilian relations.

I've never served in the military, so I defer to your experience on the matter.

At the same time, one should not depend on the structure of an institution to protect anything. It will only protect what the individuals in that institution are motivated to protect. So, the question would be whether the actions of one individual only portray the attitude of that individual, or whether they belie a larger trend.

P.S. [edit] Oh, and I took "Culture War" as a politically correct euphemism for a spiritual battle.

 

[Aviela]

At the same time, one should not depend on the structure of an institution to protect anything. It will only protect what the individuals in that institution are motivated to protect. So, the question would be whether the actions of one individual only portray the attitude of that individual, or whether they belie a larger trend.

P.S. [edit] Oh, and I took "Culture War" as a politically correct euphemism for a spiritual battle.

agree

 

[dhh712]

I think this is a very serious issue and I feel it began in a large way when Christians began not to keep the Sabbath day which God commanded to keep holy. Thus began the eroding away of the tolerance of the Christian lifestyle in secular society. I told one person at work I do not believe in working on the Sabbath, and she, a supposed Christian, told me something along the lines of, "Well, that's just how it is today." That is no excuse. We've allowed ourselves to be dragged down into believing some things are "okay" just because that is the way society is today and now look where our disobedience to God has gotten us: Christians are being ordered to take down quotes that contain the name of God in their schools.

Personally, I may be facing my own persecution with the change in our vacation-pay schedule at work. I am told I will not be allowed to deduct pay and must take a vacation day on my days off. I will be speaking with human resources about it and pray to God I will be permitted to keep His holy day without being persecuted for trying to keep His commandments. I may be forced to go to 3/4 salary which I will do if it is the only way--as well as procure an attorney to place this before a court as an example of religious persecution. I will not automatically take that route, yet I am not going to give in just because society now thinks nothing of working on the Sabbath.

 

[RDKirk]

I think this is a very serious issue and I feel it began in a large way when Christians began not to keep the Sabbath day which God commanded to keep holy. Thus began the eroding away of the tolerance of the Christian lifestyle in secular society. I told one person at work I do not believe in working on the Sabbath, and she, a supposed Christian, told me something along the lines of, "Well, that's just how it is today." That is no excuse. We've allowed ourselves to be dragged down into believing some things are "okay" just because that is the way society is today and now look where our disobedience to God has gotten us: Christians are being ordered to take down quotes that contain the name of God in their schools.

Not keeping the sabbath started with the apostle Paul, so I guess it goes a long way back.

Oh, but did you mean Sunday? Sorry, Sunday is not and has never been the Sabbath day.

But by my reading, Hebrews 4 tells us that the entire Church age is our sabbath, given rest because Jesus has done the work of salvation that all the Mosaic Law foreshadowed.

Personally, I may be facing my own persecution with the change in our vacation-pay schedule at work. I am told I will not be allowed to deduct pay and must take a vacation day on my days off. I will be speaking with human resources about it and pray to God I will be permitted to keep His holy day without being persecuted for trying to keep His commandments. I may be forced to go to 3/4 salary which I will do if it is the only way--as well as procure an attorney to place this before a court as an example of religious persecution. I will not automatically take that route, yet I am not going to give in just because society now thinks nothing of working on the Sabbath.

I guess somewhere in there you're saying that your job requires you to work on Sunday.

I would suggest you carefully read 1 Peter as it directly pertains to Christians who come under persecution from pagan masters. But I'll give you the executive summary: You are supposed to take it with joy and not fight back. That's how you show them what Christ is made of.

 

[dhh712]

Not keeping the sabbath started with the apostle Paul, so I guess it goes a long way back.

Not saying there ever was any golden age of Christianity or anything like that. It's a well-known fact however that back around 100 to 150 years ago, it was *very* common and expected for people not to work on the Sabbath, almost every business was closed, etc. Slowly from around that time, things started changing until it is as we see it now, it's just like any other day. Yet it is as to be expected, people hate God's Sabbath.

I guess somewhere in there you're saying that your job requires you to work on Sunday.

I would suggest you carefully read 1 Peter as it directly pertains to Christians who come under persecution from pagan masters. But I'll give you the executive summary: You are supposed to take it with joy and not fight back. That's how you show them what Christ is made of.

It is only required that we work whatever schedule we have, there's no particular day. Up till next year, we can work as little as we like and just deduct pay. Next year, we will have to work forty hours and any days we do not work will be taken as vacation. I'm just not going to work it or take vacation pay on that day. I'll probably end up going to 3/4's time.

Personally I feel we are supposed to take whatever happens without putting up a fight until we are expected to break God's laws. It would be the same if formal worship services were being suppressed. Don't be surprised if it gets to that point. If the government forcibly shuts down organized worship, are we to take it with joy and not fight back? This is just what people are being killed for in other countries. My life may not be at risk for not working on the Sabbath, but I don't consider it any less of a reason not to go along with what businesses are trying to force people to do against their religion.

I am not going to just go along with the new vacation pay-schedule. I am going to fight back for being able to act out the commandments which my Lord and Saviour has given me (understanding that not many feel He has actually commanded people to keep His Sabbath anymore. I, however, feel that He has and I'm not going to be easily talked into that He hasn't). I feel it is just the same as the early church fighting to be able to worship God. They didn't fight back in the literal sense of the word, many were put to death for it. But they were put to death for continuing to worship God in the way He has commanded them. I am doing no less, in insisting that I continue to worship God in the way He has commanded me.

 

[RDKirk]

Not saying there ever was any golden age of Christianity or anything like that. It's a well-known fact however that back around 100 to 150 years ago, it was *very* common and expected for people not to work on the Sabbath, almost every business was closed, etc. Slowly from around that time, things started changing until it is as we see it now, it's just like any other day. Yet it is as to be expected, people hate God's Sabbath.

It was not common for those early Christians who were slaves or wives of pagans in the first three centuries. It didn't become common until Constantine ordered it--and even then he made Sunday the "day off" instead of the biblical Saturday.

Even then, it wasn't common, except to the wealthy...but not their servants and serfs.

Even 100 to 150 years ago, it wasn't "common" except in certain Western nations.

It is only required that we work whatever schedule we have, there's no particular day. Up till next year, we can work as little as we like and just deduct pay. Next year, we will have to work forty hours and any days we do not work will be taken as vacation. I'm just not going to work it or take vacation pay on that day. I'll probably end up going to 3/4's time.

Personally I feel we are supposed to take whatever happens without putting up a fight until we are expected to break God's laws. It would be the same if formal worship services were being suppressed. Don't be surprised if it gets to that point. If the government forcibly shuts down organized worship, are we to take it with joy and not fight back? This is just what people are being killed for in other countries. My life may not be at risk for not working on the Sabbath, but I don't consider it any less of a reason not to go along with what businesses are trying to force people to do against their religion.

I am not going to just go along with the new vacation pay-schedule. I am going to fight back for being able to act out the commandments which my Lord and Saviour has given me (understanding that not many feel He has actually commanded people to keep His Sabbath anymore. I, however, feel that He has and I'm not going to be easily talked into that He hasn't). I feel it is just the same as the early church fighting to be able to worship God. They didn't fight back in the literal sense of the word, many were put to death for it. But they were put to death for continuing to worship God in the way He has commanded them. I am doing no less, in insisting that I continue to worship God in the way He has commanded me.

Your problem is you want to "fight." That's not the instruction we're given.

I pointed you to 1 Peter, which is specifically the biblical manual for citizens of Heaven living as pilgrims and sojourners in the nations of this world.

To those Christians working for pagan masters, Peter says ‘be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward’ (1 Peter 2:18).

This is not just a matter of being a goody-two-shoes for Christ. People cry out, "Lord, I asked you for a hedge of protection against my boss!" The Lord can as, "Well, did you follow my instructions?"

Look at our examples: Joseph was subject to Potiphar, the best servant Potiphar had. When Joseph was accused of attempted rape, Potiphar yet protected him, keeping Joseph in his own prison for political offenders instead of the prison for rapists and murders.

Because Joseph had been such an excellent governor of the rest of Potiphar's household--including Potiphar's prison--the warden of the prison (who had before been subject to Joseph) yet gave favor to Joseph.

Because Joseph had been such an excellent servant to Potiphar, when the time came Potiphar gave him a good recommendation to Pharaoh. We can say God protected Joseph, and that is true, but it's because he obeyed God's instruction to be obedient even to a froward master.

We see the same thing happen with Mordecai and with Esther. You want God's hedge of protection...then follow God's instructions.

I was in a circumstance in which our team worked seven days, but also had one month out of four in which two persons had to work graveyard shift as well. Everyone despised the graveyard shift, and complained incessantly when they had to work it.

I approached my supervisor with this proposal: I would be glad to always be one of the two people who worked graves, if he would otherwise schedule me around Sundays. His response was, "If it'll cut the griping I have to listen to in half, you've got a deal."

 

[rsduncan]

Matthew 10

1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,
10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
11 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.
12 And when ye come into an house, salute it.
13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.
25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?
26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.
32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

I always have believed that this passage is a good litmus test for where one stands with G-d, especially today. If we are really serving G-d, then the world will hate us because it hated the L-rd Jesus first.

It seems that, nowadays, the world, and especially America and Secular Israel, is enamored with those who take "liberal" positions e.g. abortion rights, gay rights, et al. If one is beloved of the secular world, then just maybe it is that person who truly has the problem...

 

[RDKirk]

I always have believed that this passage is a good litmus test for where one stands with G-d, especially today. If we are really serving G-d, then the world will hate us because it hated the L-rd Jesus first.

That only applies if we have been acting like the Lord. If they hate us because we've been acting like jerks, it doesn't apply.

For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. -- 1 Peter 2

 

[rsduncan]

That only applies if we have been acting like the Lord. If they hate us because we've been acting like jerks, it doesn't apply.

For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. -- 1 Peter 2

When I read this I thought of the Family Research Council shooting, which was motivated by the organization's opposition to gay marriage. Floyd Conkins planned to kill as many as he could and then stuff Chick-fil-A sandwiches in their faces. Is it your position, then, that the Family Research Council guard, along with others in the building, were to be shot because they were acting like jerks?

All you have to do these days is to express opposition to Liberal moral positions in even a Christian manner, and you are subject to attack...

 

[Simon_Templar]

Regarding the culture war...


What the culture war really is, in my opinion, is the anti-christ system trying to destroy Christendom. The #1 mistake most Christians make is that they think the culture war is a phenomenon of the last 50 years or so, maybe the last hundred. In reality it has been going on for more like 500 years(at least this particular phase of it). In the beginning it was subtle, chipping away at the foundations. A little here, a little there. What people today think of as the culture war is simply the beginning of the end-game. The enemy is no longer hiding because he doesn't have to anymore.

From a human, and historical view point, there is no question that we have already lost. It would literally take divine intervention to turn our culture around.

But... we happen to believe in divine intervention don't we?

Cardinal George of Chicago made this oft-quoted statement
"I will die in my bed. My successor will die in jail. His successor will die a martyr in the public square."

He said this to highlight the dangers and consequences of the drive towards a completely secularized culture.

But people always leave off the last line of his quote. It is as follows.

"His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history"

We may lose for a time, but final victory is always Christ's.

 

[RDKirk]

Regarding the culture war...


What the culture war really is, in my opinion, is the anti-christ system trying to destroy Christendom. The #1 mistake most Christians make is that they think the culture war is a phenomenon of the last 50 years or so, maybe the last hundred. In reality it has been going on for more like 500 years(at least this particular phase of it). In the beginning it was subtle, chipping away at the foundations. A little here, a little there. What people today think of as the culture war is simply the beginning of the end-game. The enemy is no longer hiding because he doesn't have to anymore.

I'd say the war began in 312 AD.

From a human, and historical view point, there is no question that we have already lost. It would literally take divine intervention to turn our culture around.

What do you mean by "our" culture? The culture of the United States? The culture of China? The culture of North Korea? The culture of India?

This is a Christian forum. When we say "our culture" here, we should be talking about the culture of the kingdom of Heaven, which is the same for Christians in the US, China, North Korea, and India.

There is a problem with forgetting that Christians are citizens of Heaven, and that wherever we happen to have been assigned by the Lord, we are pilgrims and sojourners, and the culture of the natives is not our culture, nor should we assimilate into it.

It will be alien to us, and we will be alien to it, thus:

In all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excesses of dissipation, and they malign you... -- 1 Peter 4

 

[Simon_Templar]

RDKirk, you are correct. By our culture I meant American specifically and western/christendom more broadly. My apologies for the confusion.

I would say the culture war began with the first coming of Christ. But I think we transitioned into a new phase with the advent of the modern era. In my opinion modernism is essentially antichrist philosophy. I think it was essentially crafted to destroy Christianity, and to rob people of the fullness of being.

By your choice of 312 AD it would appear you are no fan of Constantine. Are you one 95 the many Constantine conspiracy theorists?

 

[RDKirk]

RDKirk, you are correct. By our culture I meant American specifically and western/christendom more broadly. My apologies for the confusion.

I would say the culture war began with the first coming of Christ. But I think we transitioned into a new phase with the advent of the modern era. In my opinion modernism is essentially antichrist philosophy. I think it was essentially crafted to destroy Christianity, and to rob people of the fullness of being.

By your choice of 312 AD it would appear you are no fan of Constantine. Are you one 95 the many Constantine conspiracy theorists?

Only if you count Roger Williams as one of the first. Roger Williams was the person who originally coined the phrase "separation of Church and State" shortly before the English Civil War, and he traced the issue back to Constantine.

The problem with Constantine is his conjoining of the Church with the State. He gave the Church a stake in the fortunes of the State, which obligated the Church to support and justify the State (such as enlisting in the military to fight the States wars and devising theories to justify them). It also obligated the Church for the first time to blend Church culture with the surrounding pagan culture.

Prior to that point, "my kingdom is not of this world" was still true.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Only if you count Roger Williams as one of the first. Roger Williams was the person who originally coined the phrase "separation of Church and State" shortly before the English Civil War, and he traced the issue back to Constantine.

The problem with Constantine is his conjoining of the Church with the State. He gave the Church a stake in the fortunes of the State, which obligated the Church to support and justify the State (such as enlisting in the military to fight the States wars and devising theories to justify them). It also obligated the Church for the first time to blend Church culture with the surrounding pagan culture.

Prior to that point, "my kingdom is not of this world" was still true.

Most of the "conspiracy theories" regarding Constantine take some form of "Constantine invented X aspect of Christianity". What X is depends on whatever the particular group dislikes. Some of the more common ones, Constantine invented Sunday worship, Constantine invented the Trinity, Constantine invented the divinity of Christ, and so on and so forth. Of course all of these are charged as Christianity being corrupted by paganism etc. Most of the charges of paganism influencing Christianity are false. The only ones that are really true are generally things that aren't doctrinal, but are more cultural. For example the Church often took over pagan buildings and re-purposed them.

The discussion of conjoined state and Church is an interesting one. The edict of Milan issued by Constantine is often pointed to as making Christianity the state religion in Rome. However, technically it didn't make Christianity the state religion. All it did was make Christianity legal and end persecution and confiscation of Church property.

But, on another level, Christianity because of its Jewish roots has always had a concept of the state and the Church being one and the same thing. It's obvious of course that Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world, but, the Kingdom he was speaking of is the fulfillment and continuation of the Davidic Kingdom. So in a very real sense, the Church IS a "state".

As you point out the idea of separation of Church and state is a modern idea. It basically didn't exist in the ancient world. In every case, including Israel, the state and the religion were intimately linked. Kings and Emperor's held their authority by divine appointment (something which Christianity actually upholds in scripture) and as such they were directly responsible for the maintenance of religion in their state.

The uniqueness of Christianity in this respect is not so much that it was separate from the state, but rather that it superseded the state. The problems that often arise from joining Church and state, arise primarily from limiting Christianity down to the state level, thus making it merely politics.