RE: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

[ShieldsFamily]

Why is the anti-church bias so prevalent among the left? Some of what you said is true, but the bias is overwhelming and distorting of your opinions IMO.  Izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 8:21 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah   The church is being forced to its collective knees by a world (US of A)  that has had enough of the gross inconsistencies of a church that sought to force itself upon a part of society that did not care to be so dominated.  Such is not solely an American pursuit, of course.   The Established Church had been doing this for centuries.   The biblical principle of evil vs righteousness is used by the Cultural Church to justify or explain the growing separation, when, in fact,  a part of the blame can and should be laid at the feet of a church trapped in a culture bias -------    a bias that continues to influence and even blind the church form seeing what it must do to continue its influence  (read:  the full gospel on evangelism) in a meaningful way in a changing  society.    Prohibition was more the result of the Cultural Church's political influence than for any other reason.   It's defeat was a clear assault against that church.    Racism ala the KKK  had as its moral base the Cultural Church.   Those who are qualified judges of humanity may argue that this was not the real church but such an argument is nothing more than an attempt to defend the indefensible.    I went to school in the South and saw first hand the prejudice that existed in the Evangelical Church.  It was everywhere (in 1970) No one argues that all in that church were bigots  ---   but the power base was clearly present.     JD       -----Original Message----- From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 06:58:54 -0500 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah IMO the moral deterioration of America began with the hedonism of the '60's.  It involved Women's Lib, the anti-war movement, and abortion "rights" being legalized.  In short, the liberals took over the country due to hedonism and rebellion against tradition and authority.  When I was in elementary school in the 50's the Gideon's were welcomed to give out little New Testaments to each child--that was my only Bible.  Today they would be imprisoned.  We have fallen a long way.  BTW, "public schools" began in the infancy of America, and in them the Bible was the main textbook.  It was expected that public schools would teach Christianity and the 3 R's.  It was that way until the 60's.  I have an old copy of a home economics book for "young ladies" of high school ag e in which the preface notes the lack of proper Christian teaching in the schools was deplorable!   The civil rights movement was not a reaction to religion and the church.  True followers of Christ were never were racists.  Churches simply reflected the more's of those within their walls.  The southerners thought God was on their side in the separation of the races. The Northern churches never thought such a thing.  A major pro-civil rights activist during the civil war was a Presbyterian man who owned a newspaper in Alton, Illinois, just across the river from St. Louis.  He wrote against slavery in his editorials, and he was greatly persecuted.  I can't remember his name at the moment.  But there were many such devoted Christian activists. Most were just quietly living decent lives, as it should be.  It is a false belief to think that Christians were responsible for racism.  But there were plenty who were wrong on that account--just like there are plenty of liberal Christians today who are wrong.  Time will tell.  BTW, slavery was never considered a sin in the Bible--but that's a whole different topic.  It was one way to make a living for many throughout human history, including Biblical times.  Today we are often slaves to the "Corporation" whoever our employee is, or to the "welfare" state.  But hatred or mistreatment of anyone for any reason, including race, is a sin. Izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 6:03 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah I have been some  critical of the seeker friendly movement in this country.   Currently,  I am into the fifth hour of a graduate course entitled Empowering the Church for First world Re-evangelism.    The two professors who recorded this course have spent the time laying a foundation for this "re-evangelism "  (to be explained at a later date) including a review of the societal and cultural changes that have occurred in this country over the past 50 years and beyond.  For 170 years years,  this country was "Christian" in a legal sense of the word.  Our schools reflected that influence.   Our founding documents reflected that influence.  Even many of the laws of the land were reflective of the Christian power structure of this country.   I do not know when all this began to change.   Perhaps it was with the institution of the "public" school. & ;nbs p; The rejection of prohibition played more of a role than most will give it credit.   And society's negative review of just where "religion" had gotten us in those days played no small role, as well.     The civil war was as much a holy war as it was about states rights.   the KKK was strongest in the religious South   ....   a circumstance that wedded ignorance to religion by many who did not live in the South.  It was, in fact, my generation that rejected  Southern born intolerance and supported radical changes in the culture.   The death of the three voting rights workers in Mississippi in '64 was the single event that did me in with regard to any romantic view of the southern "mentality" reg arding human rights and considerations.   And so things have changed   .......    a rebellion against all that was unfair or intrusive caused by "religion.   cultural Christianity was not the only culprit, but it was a seen as a major villain.      The days when we can force people to live the kind of lives only the Spirit can mandate are coming to an end  --- not quickly enough.   The church will actually have to depend upon its devotion to the feeding of the thousands, the actual proclamation of the good news to those who are so in need of it, and a vital and dynamic  explaining of God's intent to those who have no frame of reference with which to understand.  What we see as an erosion of Christian values and faith is probably a good thing.  Ju st as many people today, in this country, avow a faith in God while fewer are attending "church."    It is safe to say that in today's cultural,  Christ would draw no greater a crowd than Benny Hinn or Billy Graham.   His personal ministry accomplished a number of things that set the stage for the work of ministry in those who would follow Him.  And that ministry is given new meaning in the seeker-friendly churches.   It would be a sorrowful mistake to  conclude that the seek-friendly ministry is the only vital presentation in town.   Much of what is seen as "traditional" still has value in an evangelical sense of the word, no doubt.   but we need to challenge our holy imaginations  to deal with problem of sharing the gospel in a changing world   ----  a world that grows more intolerant each day.   Satan is not a God   --  He has no real and lasting powers.   If some of this cultural cha nge is the result of his influence,& nbsp; it rises to the level aof a mere challenge.   God is great than Satan    -----  heck, WE are greater than Satan (with the power of the indwelling God,) in a world that is being reconciled to Him.      JD