BUSH WINS! BUSH WINS!

[LexingtonPethead]

I think it's funny that you call Steve Camp a liberal and then turn to "Dr." Dobson to refute it. Read the article again, S-L-O-W-L-Y this time.

I notice you use quotes to highlight Dr. James Dobson's title. Is this meant to be condenscending in some way?

I mean, Dr. Dobson has far more credibility in these topics than Steve Camp does. You do know that, right?

[SamScales]

I really liked the article from Steve Camp. It's a wakeup call to a slumbering church!!!
I also love Dr. Dobson, he's got great programs on the radio and yes
we are to vote responsibly for those to be in office that hopefully are godly people.

There's some scriptures in Proverbs 29 I'm thinking of:
2 When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice;
when the wicked rule, the people groan.
4 By justice a king gives a country stability,
but one who is greedy for bribes tears it down.
7 The righteous care about justice for the poor,
but the wicked have no such concern.
12 If a ruler listens to lies,
all his officials become wicked.
14 If a king judges the poor with fairness,
his throne will always be secure.
Prov. 28
12 When the righteous triumph, there is great elation;
but when the wicked rise to power, men go into hiding.

Well, that's just a few of them......

We are to vote responsibly and prayerfully. We are to pray without ceasing and seek our Lord daily for direction in anything that concerns our lives, including elections. We as a church have become way too apathetic about way too much stuff - mainly doing what Jesus commanded us, which is to be the salt of the earth, shine his light and share the good news. When we influence our surroundings with a life that reflects Jesus, we influence people's hearts.

Anyways, I like what both men had to say...........

[epdc]

I would realy question the phrase "that he KEEPS seeking God`s leading..."

I would rather say "that he STARTS seeking God`s will"....oh well, that`s just me...

[executioner]

If Steve Camp wrote that article, then I would have to say Steve is a liberal. I would say that would be something John Kerry would write. It sounds just like liberal thinking, and it disgusts me!

[WR1U]

Yess Matthew I do think so. Evil or good god uses them for his purposes. Example. What prophecey in Ezekiel 36-37 was brought about by Hitler's murder of the jewish people? The restoration of Israel in it's own homeland. God puts the leaders in power and will use their good works or evil to his own purpose. The leaders being put into power today may bring us closer to the filfullment of the endtime picture and thus bring about the reign and rule of Jesus on the earth. We can't see the big picture like God can we just have to have faith in his ultimate purpose and will. You may not like the outcome or the person elected but just have faith that no matter what happens during their term God knew before the world was created what would happen and he has it all under his control and it's all for His glory, no one elses.

[LexingtonPethead]

Regarding gay marriage... what Camp is overlooking is that we have activist groups trying to change the definition of marriage - a change that would have a devastating impact on society. Do you really want your kids to be taught that it's normal and acceptable for Johnny to have two daddies? Camp is just flat wrong on this issue. Apparently he would have voted NO for the amendment that passed by about 75%. I am appalled that he would hold such an opinion. Is he being apathetic about homosexuality? I sure looks that way to me.

I also disagree with this statement: "What has happened today, is that we have Christians who are thinking that revival, spiritual renewal, evangelism, moral decency, family values, protecting our religious rights, etc. must be obtained or should be obtained through the legislative process." It is folly to make such a statement. Christians DO expect their leaders to act decently, with integrity, to be role models. Our nation was founded on Christian principles. These, and the Christian emblems we have had throughout history should be protected and not secularized. That's the real issue. I think Camp is way off base by asserting that Christians today seek their spirituality from the government. Who in the world believes that?

And, I suppose Camp is okay with the idea that Muslims are entitled to prayer rooms in our public schools, but a small group of Christian students cannot assemble to pray on school grounds. After all, we can still pray in school as long as no one knows about it. Indifference. Apathy. It's a sure fire way to be run over by secularists.

[LexingtonPethead]

Sorry, RJ. You haven't understood anything I've said. Let me try this again.

In America, we have a Christian heritage. American was founded on Judeo-Christian principles which guide our system of laws and serve as a foundation for right and wrong. We have Christian emblems that reflect our belief in God our Creator. For example, the phrase "under God", "In God We Trust", the Ten Commandments displayed in court houses and so on.

But we do not obtain "revival, spiritual renewal, evangelism... through the legislative process" as Camp has written, nor do they come from emblems. It is impossible to do that because God - not the legislature - is the source. It is a ridiculous assertion to try and confuse these issues.

Camp and other liberals simply have a fundamental misunderstanding on this. Being able to express and act out our faith in public institutions is NOT the same thing as extracting our faith FROM these public institutions. I hope this eventually sinks in.

RJ is right - there's an element of fun in these conversations. I still want to know why Americans cannot look up to their president without international Christians calling us idolators. I'm beginning to think you all just say those things to get the rest of us all stirred up.

And yes, if I saw RJ at a Petra concert, I'd shake his hand. Hey, we'd even hang out for a while.

[winterlens]

So God wanted Clinton in power ... and EVERY democrat AND republican who has ever held office?

Yes. In fact, it extends to every single ruler ever.

"17 This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men" (Daniel 4).

"21 And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will" (Daniel 5).

[Petrapraise]

Anyway..........I'm glad Bush won too!

[LexingtonPethead]

Apparetly Camp is a Bush supporter.

from an email through his website:

What a week it has been.

Post-Election Comments
Do we realize what happened this past Tuesday? President Bush has virtually won the culture war on morality, family, faith, the war on terror, gay marriage, etc. Tears from the left: Michael Moore has been rendered culturally irrelevant; Springsteen and Company (still like some of his music) have been rendered politically insignificant; Streisand, Sarandon, Robbins, Penn, etc, has been rendered "who cares anymore?" in their constant attacks against America and family values. Most importantly, ladies and gentlemen, is what has them all quaking their shoes... is that our President in his next four years of office will most likely be given the opportunity to appoint as many as four Supreme Court Justices to the court. This is profound. And as a reminder, President Bush�s criteria is that they uphold, defend, and interrupt rightly the Constitution of the United States of America. This is absolutely staggering in our lifetime to have witnessed the turning of the nationa! l tide as never before. In the very articulate and benign words of former governor Howard Dean, all that I have to say is� yeeeeeeehaaaaaaaagggghhhhhhhh!
--

If you think he's a liberal, does that dismiss his criticism of the CCM industry? What of his music? Should we burn his records?

Well, the exerpt that you quoted earlier does sound liberal in tone to me and obviously others here agree. I've already stated the case for my assertion, so I won't repeat it here. You must have thought so too or else you wouldn't have posted it.

In your latest quote, Camp sounds more like an evangelical conservative like the rest of us. It really comes down to one question: how can anyone be a Christian and have voted for a liberal, or in this case voted for Kerry?

Also consider that people who were "fence riders" on some issues will now side with Bush because they are following the crowd, and that's where the crowd went.

It would be interesting to have read Camp's response to a Bush defeat.

[winterlens]

Well, the exerpt that you quoted earlier does sound liberal in tone to me and obviously others here agree.

For what it's worth, the reason that Camp is liberal today is because the conservative church is a lot more liberal than it used to be. It is, for instance, a liberal idea that God isn't absolutely sovereign over the affairs and wills of men.

We're a lot less dour than Protestants used to be--but our theology is a lot worse, too. I think Steve Camp's 107 theses are quite possibly the best thing ever to come out of the contemporary christian music industry.

[LexingtonPethead]

Well, the exerpt that you quoted earlier does sound liberal in tone to me and obviously others here agree.

For what it's worth, the reason that Camp is liberal today is because the conservative church is a lot more liberal than it used to be. It is, for instance, a liberal idea that God isn't absolutely sovereign over the affairs and wills of men.

We're a lot less dour than Protestants used to be--but our theology is a lot worse, too. I think Steve Camp's 107 theses are quite possibly the best thing ever to come out of the contemporary christian music industry.

Not to borrow a phrase from Bill Clinton, but it depends on the context in which you use the word "liberal".

For example, if you're referring to how Camp appeared to be siding with the liberal agenda as discussed earlier in this thread, I think it's repulsive and he deserves to be refuted.

Sure, God allows us to make our own choices, whether political or personal. I consider that to be free-will, not being a liberal or endorsing a liberal agenda.

I don't think Camp can blame his being liberal on the church. He can blame it on himself for the decisions he makes and what he chooses to believe. We are all responsible for what we do and what we believe.

Now on the other hand, you could say that a church may be progressive, or dare I say - liberal - if it is open-minded in a biblically sound way in how it reaches the lost. For example, an aggressive evangelism outreach to the inner city or suburbs. Or it could be a contemporary worship service. The church I attend here in Lexington could be considered liberal by those definitions. But I assure you, the message and principles are squarely based on the Gospel and is anything but liberal.

Where Camp has gone awry is in his philisophical views about homosexuality and our Christian heritage as presented earlier in this thread.

[winterlens]

Not to borrow a phrase from Bill Clinton, but it depends on the context in which you use the word "liberal".

That's true. I meant in reference to his theology.

His political persuasions seem to be that the church hasn't much business running the government (a statement I mostly agree with, since God chooses our leaders for us; in some cases, he uses voting, in others the Supreme Court).

I don't think Camp can blame his being liberal on the church. He can blame it on himself for the decisions he makes and what he chooses to believe. We are all responsible for what we do and what we believe.

This is true. As Matthew noted, however, the church today is not grounded in theology or discipleship. The leadership in the church has the responsibility for educating the flock in the word, not telling them how to vote or run their lives. That's between them and the Lord.

Unfortunately, though, their goal is not an educated congregation, it is an emotional congregation. The two aren't diametrically opposed, I don't think, but the church by and large seems more concerned with the sale than actually teaching anything of substance.

Now on the other hand, you could say that a church may be progressive, or dare I say - liberal - if it is open-minded in a biblically sound way in how it reaches the lost.

You lost me right here. I thought Christ said he came to seek and save the lost--and that he did it. (Or what does John 19:30 mean?)

Immediately upon hitting this phrase, you have run into a theological problem. I'm not saying that you are wrong--and I don't want to argue the point. But to take this tack, the church must assume that Jesus didn't really mean what he said--or that his work is somehow left undone (a thought that cannot be Scripturally supported).

In other words, it requires theology to get to this point. We have to go back further, cast aside presuppositions about the gospel, and really learn what it is before we start this.

For example, an aggressive evangelism outreach to the inner city or suburbs. Or it could be a contemporary worship service.

Neither of these particularly bother me, though I think contemporary writers stink (to put in bluntly). Give me the hymn lyrics any day of the week! Again, it's a personal opinion, not gospel truth.

The important thing is that the word is proclaimed as it stands written (not as we want people to hear it, or in a manner that makes more converts). As a whole, the church has lost her appreciation for the power of the Scripture; God tells us that the word is alive that it is powerful and that it accomplishes whatever he sends it out to do.

Our job is not to pack the halls of the church. Evangelism is a proclamation, a fishing expedition with nets, not bait.

The church I attend here in Lexington could be considered liberal by those definitions. But I assure you, the message and principles are squarely based on the Gospel and is anything but liberal.

With all due respect, a gospel which is centered in the belief of man rather than the faithfulness of Christ is a liberal gospel (and I argue, not the gospel at all).

A theology that uses the word "saved" to mean one thing (eternal life) instead of many things (it is used in a variety of senses and occurs in every tense, with the possible exception of the future perfect) is a liberal theology.


Liberal, as it pertains to our beliefs, should be meant to mean loose or uneducated (both accusations we may level at the political parties in this country, of course) as opposed to immoral. The church on the whole is extremely uneducated about their faith and relies on transient experience rather than the eternal word.

This is why Steve Camp is so upset about CCM. Not because of the musical style, but because theology is neglected in favor of half-truths coated in slick production.

His theology is reformed, pure and simple, and it predates our current church phenomenon by several hundred years. It is a very conservative theology, as best as I can tell.

[LexingtonPethead]

I guess the main thing I want to clear up is that just because we have in America a government - ideally - that is inspired by God's presence, the Ten Commandments, and displays Christian emblems in its currency, etc... does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that a church, or "religion" is running the government.

I don't know about all the international Christians out there, but I LIKE knowing that the leader of my country seeks God's wisdom as he makes tough decisions. How in the world this can be extrapolated into a non-separation between church and state is just ridiculous.

Though our government was founded on Christian principles, its people can practice whatever religion they choose. Those who cannot accept this simple fact are certainly welcome to leave and live elsewhere.

What I can't figure out is why international Christians accuse American Christians of "idolizing" a President just because we respect his judgement and his positions. Why do international Christians insist on confusing a God-inspired government with one that mandates a state church? It's crazy.

[LexingtonPethead]

I don't think Camp can blame his being liberal on the church. He can blame it on himself for the decisions he makes and what he chooses to believe. We are all responsible for what we do and what we believe.

This is true. As Matthew noted, however, the church today is not grounded in theology or discipleship. The leadership in the church has the responsibility for educating the flock in the word, not telling them how to vote or run their lives. That's between them and the Lord.

Unfortunately, though, their goal is not an educated congregation, it is an emotional congregation. The two aren't diametrically opposed, I don't think, but the church by and large seems more concerned with the sale than actually teaching anything of substance.

We have a difference in opinion here. Matthew can say all he wants about how he thinks the church today is not grounded in theology or discipleship, but that doesn't make it true. How in the world can anyone make an all-encompassing statement like that?

Maybe the churches in Canada are like that, but in America, we have many churches - various denominations - which are VERY grounded in theology and discipleship. I guess it reflects that America is a much more conservative country than the rest of the world, and it shows in our churches and in the message we proclaim.

Looking at it in another way, if you live in a socially liberal culture, DON'T be surprised that your churches are way off the mark in theology and discipleship as well as other evangelical traits.

Now having said that, there are also some very LIBERAL churches in America that are nothing more than social clubs. Their members are no more Christian than the people in your local Planned Parenthood. But these churches do not characterize the church as a whole - at least not in America.