Home » Posts tagged 'division'

Tag Archives: division

The Important Quality of Loyalty

Trump Cabinet Picks

This last week President Trump started announcing his cabinet picks and what appears to be their most significant quality is loyalty.  The average Trump voter, I would assess, agrees with the strategy.  Choose loyal people.  Definitely don’t select disloyal ones.

What about Abraham Lincoln?  Didn’t he pick a team of rivals?  Loyalty doesn’t mean pushover or doormat.  It does mean among other things keeping the questions and challenges inside the room.  Someone working for Trump knows his position.  He should not join to undermine or cause factions.

Factiousness and Heresy

The Apostle Paul in his epistles deals harshly with factiousness.  The word in the King James Version is “heretic,” which transliterates a Greek term, that speaks of a factious or divisive person.  For a church, heresy diverts off the path of truth as established by the congregation; its doctrine.  The New Testament warns against division again and again.  This doesn’t mean challenges can’t be made, but loyalty is necessary.

When someone defects in the Bible, that defector left the group.  The group coalesced around a particular belief and practice and a person ejects from the group.  1 John 2:19 describes someone who goes out from the assembly, because he was not of the assembly.  He would have continued with the assembly if he was of it.  By going out, he showed he never was of it.

The usages of heretic or heresy in the New Testament indicate a divisive person.  He breaks with leadership just to break with leadership.  The person is a trouble maker.  He never joined with the idea that he would try to get along.

Whose Agenda

People are drawn in magnetic fashion to the power of the federal government.  Booker T. Washington talked about this from his first visit to Washington, DC from Tuskegee, recorded in his biography, Up From Slavery.  The White House is a blazing hot center of the political power of the United States of America.  People want to burrow their way into this honey pot like ants at a picnic.  They aren’t necessarily and probably there to serve the President and with him.  They want to use this as an opportunity for their own agenda.  That is not the idea of a team of rivals.

Donald Trump was clear about his agenda.  He ran on it.  The people saying they want to join him know good-well what he said and what he’s trying to accomplish.  He is right to pick only those who will be loyal to him and his agenda.

For instance, Trump will bring up ideas that maybe have little merit.  He suggests them and perhaps they are stupid ideas or thoughts.  But he wants the freedom to talk about those, what sometimes people call “brainstorming.”  Those around him tell him what they think.  They say they don’t like it and it won’t work, giving their best arguments.  Trump wants that.  What he doesn’t want is to read about that episode in the paper or hear it in the national news on television that night or the next day.

Trump employees join especially in this present administration with full knowledge of what and who he is.  None should expect to leave and write a tell all book for bookoo bucks.  They are serving at his pleasure.  If they join and find out that they don’t like it, that doesn’t mean leaving to undermine his agenda.

Disloyalty

In the recent campaign, the media and the Democrats used the statements of former Trump team members.  They spoke against Trump themselves.  John Kelly gave a personal story in which he claimed that Trump said that Hitler’s generals would have obeyed him.  Kelly used that to harm his former boss.  Mike Pence did the same on different occasions.  In order to justify themselves, these men hit Trump.  Maybe their feelings were hurt.  They should have stayed loyal.  If they were not going to remain loyal, then they shouldn’t have joined Trump in the first place.

When I use Kelly and Pence, as examples, and I don’ think they are equal (Kelly was worse), this is not saying they couldn’t disagree.  Pence said he couldn’t employ a particular application of the U. S. Constitution.  Fine.  Do what you’ve got to do.  But leave it there at least.  I’m living 20 minutes from Columbus, Indiana, Pence’s hometown.  Most are not happy with Pence there.  It is the issue of loyalty.

Just as a related topic, what about the loyalty of Donald Trump?  Maybe Trump himself isn’t loyal either.  It’s not something I’ve seen, based on what I’m writing here.  Trump follows his own principles of loyalty.  He isn’t loyal to those who are disloyal to and remain disloyal to him.  For his business and his goals, I understand it.  How can you give a presidential job to a disloyal person?  The disloyal people are poison to the administration.  I get it.

The Same Thing for Church and Friends

As I did a search on my blog here, I didn’t find one post on loyalty.  Someone couldn’t say that it is a pet subject for me.  However, I believe in it.  It’s a good trait for someone to have.

What I’m talking about with the new Trump administration, I would say the same of a church and those who are your friends.  True friends will show loyalty.  I can say that I’ve had several who called themselves my friend through my life who were disloyal to a great magnitude.  Again, I’m not talking about remaining silent without saying anything.  That’s not loyalty.  What I do mean is someone who treats someone like a friend.  That person will not then trash his “friend” to others, even many others.  He won’t join in with others who will do the same.

A real friend, a loyal one, is someone who will be there for you when you’re down.  What I’m describing goes along with what I’m saying about Donald Trump.  I’ve had a few loyal friends through the years.  Not many, but I have some and I’m thankful for them.  I’m planting that flag of loyalty in the ground too.  Above all of course, I want to be loyal to God and His Word.

Application in the Story of the Rift Between Paul and Barnabas, Starting in Acts 15:35-41

Acts 15:35-41:  Barnabas and Paul

The Jerusalem and Antioch churches settled a dispute in Acts 15.  After that, a rift occurred between long time fellow laborers.  Here is the text (verses 35-41):

35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

36 And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do.

37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.

38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.

39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;

40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.

41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

I have heard at least 3-5 sermons in my lifetime on this passage and listened to many discussions on it.  In addition, I’ve read an abundance of commentaries and articles on this story.  Men take many, many different positions.  They describe it different ways.  The most common overall position I could represent with these following comments.

How To Take The Story

First, I don’t now who wrote this, but it mirrors the next three comments:

Either way, Luke does not write this account in such a way that puts Paul in the right and Barnabas in the wrong, or vice versa. They made a mutual decision to split ways because neither could agree with the other. In a way, they both were right. It wouldn’t have been productive for Paul to take Mark when he didn’t trust him, but Barnabas saw the long-term potential in Mark and gave him another chance.

Robertson

Second, here’s A. T. Robertson:

No one can rightly blame Barnabas for giving his cousin John Mark a second chance nor Paul for fearing to risk him again. One’s judgment may go with Paul, but one’s heart goes with Barnabas…Paul and Barnabas parted in anger and both in sorrow. Paul owed more to Barnabas than to any other man. Barnabas was leaving the greatest spirit of the time and of all times.

Gill

Third, I quote John Gill:

thus as soon almost as peace was made in the church, a difference arises among the ministers of the word, who are men of like passions with others; and though it is not easy to say which was to blame most in this contention; perhaps there were faults on both sides, for the best men are not without their failings; yet this affair was overruled by the providence of God, for the spread of his Gospel, and the enlargement of his interest; for when these two great and good men parted from one another, they went to different places, preaching the word of God:

Spurgeon

Fourth, here’s what Spurgeon said and wrote:

There was no help for it but to part. Barnabas went one way with his nephew, and Paul another with Silas. Mark turned out well, and so justified the opinion of Barnabas, but Paul could not foresee that, and is not to be condemned for acting upon the general rule that he who puts his hand to the plough and looks back has proved himself unworthy.

This separation, though painful in its cause, was a most excellent thing. There was no need for two such men to be together, they were each able to lead the way alone, and by their doing so double good was accomplished.

What Not To Do

What no one should do is to read into the text or the story and argue from silence.  No one should use this passage to show that he’s right and someone else is wrong.  It is a very weak section of a chapter to make strong, dogmatic application.  Even with quotes like the four above, some church leaders will read into Acts 15:35-41 application that just isn’t there.

Someone could say, “I’m Paul in this story, and the other guy is Barnabas.”  Well, how do you get to be Paul?  It reminds me of playing with my brother as a child.  I say, “You are him, and I’ll be this guy,” choosing the favorite for myself.  “Hey, let’s play these characters and I’ll be David and you get to be Saul. How’s that sound?”

The story of the divisive contention between two godly men says essentially the following to me.  This kind of division occurs between even two godly men, based upon differing opinions.  God does not come down on one side or the other in the story.  I could explain both men as wrong, or one or the other wrong, just using speculation.

Something to Learn

When a sad split occurs, one that we really, really wish wasn’t happening, this story with Paul and Barnabas says to us, “It even happened to Paul and Barnabas.”  It isn’t an example for division, an affirmation of fighting and severing a relationship.  God doesn’t leave out of His Word these types of events.  Almost anyone reading here know these kinds of incidents occur.

Later Paul and John Mark

Rather than depend on speculation, which is not rightly dividing or practicing scripture, the Bible gives non-speculative truth concerning the rest of the story.  A quite well-known fact, the rest of the New Testament says many good things about John Mark.  He wrote the gospel of Mark, which some call the gospel of Peter, even as the Apostle Peter was close to him (1 Peter 5:13).

The Apostle Paul also later speaks of John Mark well, working closely with Paul during his Roman imprisonment (Colossians 4:10, Philemon 1:23-24).  ,When the Apostle Paul is at the very end of his life, he writes 2 Timothy.  In that final state with his execution imminent, he says about John Mark in 2 Timothy 4:11:  “Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.”  In his final hours, of the few things he could request and of all people, he wanted John Mark.

Later Paul and Barnabas

The events of Acts 15 and the split between Paul and Barnabas occurred around 49-50 AD.   Paul wouldn’t have written 1 Corinthians until a few years after that at least, so at least 53, if not 55.  When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, he wasn’t traveling with Barnabas anymore. Yet, in 1 Corinthians 9:6 Paul writes the church at Corinth:  “Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?”

The Apostle Paul wrote for the continued financial support for the missionary work of Barnabas.  He treated Barnabas as an equal to him in the work of the Lord, not something lesser.  Pay Barnabas.  He had the right to forbear working.  Muzzle not that ox that treads out the corn (1 Cor 9:9).  For sure, Paul wasn’t laboring toward the discontinuation of support of Barnabas, arguing to the church at Corinth that Barnabas should not receive money from churches.  Just the opposite.  He uses his name in the argument after the rift between them.

Whatever the rift in Acts 15 between Paul and Barnabas, it wasn’t there in 1 Corinthians 9:6.  He advocated for Barnabas as a missionary and for his receiving support as one.  That didn’t mean they still didn’t have a difference between each other.  Men have differences.  I’ve never met a man that did not have at least one difference with another man.  Some men think they’re always right in every single difference.  Everyone needs to submit to them.  They’re pretty close to stop listening to anyone else.

Judging Situations

I know my heart, that I’m sincere when I look at situations to judge them.  In addition, I’ve prayed and maybe even fasted.  Everyone else has got to be wrong.  And then later I find out that I’m not always right.  This is why the Apostle Paul could write in Romans 7:19:

For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Paul gets it wrong.  Everyone gets it wrong.  It’s even a law, a principle.  He writes about that in Romans 7:21:

I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

When Paul would do good, a principle resides in him, like gravity, that opposes his doing good.  Always that law functions in his body parts when he would do good.  This is why everyone needs mediation, something Paul certainly understood by the time (60-62AD) he wrote Philemon.

Acts 15:35-41 is a wonderful group of verses in the Bible.  Everyone can learn from them.  At the same time, anyone could speculate about them too, and then go ahead and use them for personal reasons.

My Vaccine, Etc. Take

This is my take on the Covid-19 vaccine, etc.

In 2020-21 Brother Ross has written everything on vaccines and conspiracies on his day on Fridays.  I wish they weren’t controversial, but I knew they would be and I know they are. I allowed all of them.  I’m fine with the position he takes.  He’s never explained, but I think I know why he wants to write on this subject so much.  I’ve supported him. So, I haven’t written on the subject.  I don’t want to write on it.  But I’m going to write about it now.  I think I should.

I understand why people won’t take the vaccine.  There are several reasons for it in no necessary order.  As I write these, I’m not looking up anything in research.  These are off the top of my head.  Each of these, I believe, is a reason.

One, the vaccine isn’t like anything else produced.  It’s a new technology.  How can we be sure about this particular technology?

Two, the vaccine was rushed through without the usual testing.

Three, the government has been lying from the start.  When I say, government, I want you to understand that I don’t mean all of the government, mainly the unelected bureaucracy with cooperation of the media.  All things have not been the same as it relates to the government, but the swamp is large.

The government wasn’t honest about China.  It wasn’t honest about masks.  It wasn’t a pandemic.  The fear of a “pandemic” helped botch the 2020 election and made it easier to cheat.  With total respect for those who died and those who knew people who died, people died at a lesser rate by definition than a true pandemic.  Yet it was called a pandemic.  The media has pushed the lies of the government.  The government still lies on a daily basis.

The government used the pandemic to shut down and threaten churches.  It’s still doing it in countries less free and without a Constitution like ours.  The vaccine has been a political hard ball.  It’s tossed all over the place to cause political damage in a dishonest way.  When people were dying in the last administration, fast balls thrown at the head every minute at the President.  Now when it’s spreading like wildfire and this President makes multiple errors, the media is silent.  He wears the mask like a chin strap in public, coughs all over people, coughs into his hand, breaks every one of his own rules.

By the way, if you can’t understand why people don’t trust their government and in a big way, then please read Victor David Hansen’s recent column at American Greatness, entitled, “The Truths We Dared Not Speak in 2021.”  This government is a clown car, trying to force people to put something in their body that they don’t want, except it’s not a fun clown car but one that is weaving all over the road with two wheels hanging over a cliff.  Think about a clown and then think of President Biden and then Jen Psaki. It’s not a difficult reach.  Put her hair on his head.  It’s difficult to parody, (1) because it is its own parody without changing anything, and (2) it’s a nervous laugh because they are dangerous.

Four, the vaccine has the worst side effects I’ve ever seen.  I admit that I haven’t taken many prescription drugs in my lifetime, but these are some weird reactions.

Five, President Biden opposed the vaccine until he became president and now he wants everyone vaccinated.  He is willing to mandate it for anyone that he can.

Six, people are getting fired for not getting the vaccine.  People are having their positions threatened.  Some see themselves as marked people because they aren’t cooperating.

Seven, the vaccine sets a pattern of government control that reminds people of passages in Revelation where the Antichrist takes over.  It isn’t the Antichrist and it isn’t the mark of the beast, but the Antichrist won’t allow those to buy or sell without the mark, and the present government has pushed a vaccine passport.  When I was in San Francisco, held over there trying to get to a funeral, a coffee shop asked to see my vaccination card or I couldn’t get a coffee there.

This government locked everything down and would monetary fine those who broke their arbitrary, non-representative rules, and then the main executives of the rules broke them themselves with total hypocrisy.  They also allowed leftist protestors to break them without interdiction or discouragement.  Now they let people illegally into the country, who are breaking their Covid rules.  They don’t really care about stopping the disease, not with the conviction of someone who really believed it was serious.

Eight, I’ve thought that a health crisis would be the basis for breaking down the boundaries and distinctions between governments.  It was Rahm Emmanuel, Chief of Staff for President Obama, who said, “Don’t let a crisis go to waste.”  Some seem to revel in the crisis.  It creates great situations to pass a biggest spending bill for all of history.

Nine, the government says the vaccination works and then requires masks and social distancing as if the vaccination doesn’t work.

Ten, Israel does a study saying natural immunity is better than a vaccination and our government gives no equal favor to natural immunity.  It is essentially silent on natural immunity.  This itself is a sort of lie.

Eleven, politicians by nature make money from Pharmaceutical lobbyists, which seem to be involved.  The more vaccinations, the more money to corrupt lobbyists.  The cost is spread over everyone who pays taxes.  What a boon!  The give-away system itself is corrupt.  This is a form of corporatism.

Twelve, cheap drugs that could help Covid patients aren’t allowed those drugs.  They are safe, legal, and inexpensive, so why aren’t they allowed?  Why are they being attacked in the media?  Many testify to being helped by them and yet in many cases, the medical community doesn’t have them when they are needed.  These are the same people saying to get a vaccine.

Thirteen, the wrong people are putting unreasonable pressure on people to take the vaccine.

Fourteen, other ideas besides the vaccine are not easily accessible.  When someone has a criticism, it’s being censored in social media and on the mainstream media.  Why is that?

Fifteen, more people look to the government for help, adding just a little bit or even a lot more dependency on big government.

Sixteen, just one more booster, no one more, just a second, you’ll just need one more.

Seventeen, this works at 95%, sorry to tell you now it’s at just 25% efficacy.  They really didn’t know how long the efficacy would last.  It looks like they’re trying the vaccine out on us.

Eighteen, people aren’t sure if aborted baby materials weren’t used in experimentation to create the vaccine.

I’m going to stop at eighteen.  I could write thirty or more.  What I wanted you to know was that I understand your concerns.  If you didn’t get the vaccine, you’ve got reasons.  I think especially cumulatively, people see what I’m writing.  They know it.  Even if they trust the vaccine, they don’t want to support this.

With this list of eighteen, if you want to get the vaccine, you should be at liberty to get it.  I don’t agree with writing that calls it genocide and a death shot.  Good people support getting the vaccine.  I got the vaccine and a booster.  My parents got the vaccine and the booster.  I didn’t push the vaccine at all, but if someone asked me, I told them why I got it.  No pressure.

I had my reasons for getting the vaccination, that I believe are legitimate reasons for getting it.  I’m not ashamed for getting it.  It wasn’t so that I could travel, like someone lied.  I didn’t need it to travel.  I don’t think people should be shamed for getting the vaccination.  It’s a liberty issue.  Because it is a liberty issue, I believe Brother Thomas can write about it with liberty.  It’s obviously not a liberty issue for some.  You should think about the principles in his conspiracy series.  He cares about scripture more than most people I know.

I thought the reward outweighed the risk.  I thought the vaccination was a risk.  Not getting the vaccination, I believed, was a greater risk.  To me, getting it was a greater reward.  It should not be causing division in churches.  For sure, it should not be a church discipline issue.   I know several unaffiliated Baptist churches where a majority of the people received the vaccination.

When I list of the worst things happening in 2021, I think those on the list should be taken into consideration.  With my eighteen reasons people could legitimately use for not getting vaccinated, that doesn’t mean I think the vaccination issue gets into the top five or even the top ten.  That doesn’t mean the vaccination issue and others like it aren’t important at all.  I’ve never written that.  I did not make that point at all.  However, if you don’t think my top five were important or even true, be my guest for making the case that there are bigger issues than the five I wrote.  Feel free to argue the vaccination into the top five.  Do not rehash what has already been written under other posts.

****************

You can comment, but I’ll shut it down if I think it’s uncivil.  On this post, I have the right to delete any comment without giving you a reason.

What Is the Primary Cause of Division in the United States?

Our country is divided.  Many say it is more divided than any time since the Civil War.  Most of you readers live here, so this is no surprise to you.  Many articles and even whole books have been written in the last decade on the division in the United States, but the present situation provoked some to write in the last month on the subject.  The following paragraph represents writing in the last month on severe division in America.

The City Journal published an article by Andrew Klavan, titled, “At the Heart of Our Divisions.”  Klavan, part of Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire, tries to explain the division as others have. Newsweek reports that a “Majority of Trump Voters Want to Split the Nation Into ‘Red’ and ‘Blue’ Halves.”  The Las Vegas Sun reported it this way:

A new political poll offers an alarming look at the state of American unity and our population’s respect for some of the nation’s core values.

The poll, conducted by the University of Virginia’s nonprofit Center for Politics, shows that 52% of respondents who voted for former President Donald Trump were in favor of splitting the country into red and blue states, while 41% of voters for President Joe Biden agree with the idea. More than 2,000 voters participated in the poll, nearly equally divided between those supporting Trump and Biden.

Ed Kilgore at The Intelligencer, part of New York Magazine, writes, “No, We Can’t Get a National Divorce There’s growing sentiment for secession, particularly on the right. It should be rejected.”  At Substack, Claremont senior fellow David Reaboi writes, “National Divorce Is Expensive, But It’s Worth Every Penny.”  Karol Markowicz writes at the New York Post, “Sorry, but a national split up just won’t work.”  Steven Malanga at the City Journal writes, “The New Secession Movement.”  Conservative commentator Rich Lowry writes at Politico of all places, “A Surprising Share of Americans Wants to Break Up the Country. Here’s Why They’re Wrong.”  Dan Rodricks writes at the Baltimore Sun, “Civil war unlikely, but the nation’s present course could still be disastrous.”  Most of these were written in the last week, and there are more.

Okay, so there’s division.  Everyone can agree with that.  Putin of Russia and Xi of China smile.  Why though?  I’ve read or heard a lot of different reasons:  media, tribalism, the education system, the deep state, and more.  Klavan lists reasons in the first paragraph of his post.  Those are typical, whole books written about them, but I believe these are surface reasons, I would call, non-worldview reasons, that are superficial and don’t dig deep enough.

My take on the acute and bitter division between states, people, and parties in the United States, I want to give credit, corresponds to something Nancy Pearcey writes about in her book, Total Truth.  She explains a division portrayed by the lower and upper stories of a building or house with the lower story being “facts” and the upper story being “values.”  Today you hear a lot about facts in the media, news, and schools.  This is the “science is real” at the top of the leftist value sign.  In this upper and lower story bifurcation, values are probably not what you think they are.  Let me explain.

God is One.  Truth, which proceeds from God, is also one.  Pearcey’s proposition is “total truth,” the title of her book.  There are not two stories that treat facts different than values, where values are constructed, personal and subjective.  You can’t really know these with certainty.  No, with God His natural laws, facts or science, are no different than moral laws.  If you fall from the edge of a cliff, gravity sends you down to destruction.  Breaking moral laws also destroys.  Worse even.  God is the Author of both.

Premoderns took a transcendent view of the world.  Truth, goodness, and beauty, the transcendentals, all related to God.  God transcending the world is the basis of the transcendentals. He’s not part of the world.  He created it and having created it, He is separate from it.  As James 1 says, that with God there is no shadow of turning.  God is holy.  He is Self-existent and immutable.  Nothing affects Him.  All meaning comes from God, so truth, goodness, and beauty, the transcendentals, are objective.

This world is God’s world. Even if someone doesn’t believe in God, they are living in His world.  This is reality.  The division breaks down into those who live in reality, recognition that this world functions according to laws according to which everyone must live, even if they reject the God of the Bible, and then those who don’t live in reality.

The ones not living in reality, which are one side of the division in the United States, see the top story, values, how they want to see them.  It’s one reason they are called “values,” and not “morals” or “moral laws.”  Using “values” is using language with power.  Incidentally, part of critical theory is perfecting this language for use in reconstructing reality.

Looking at the world like two sides of the campus, religion, art, etc. on one side and then science, math, and engineering on the other, the blue part of the country thinks they can assign their own meaning on one side of the campus. They ultimately don’t want God in charge.  They don’t want objective values that clash with what they want, so they make up their own and dismiss God or make up their own god that approves of their values.  This is the basis for the Democrat party booing God when voting on their political platform in 2012.  This is also how they justify killing babies.

The truth is that the blue states, people, etc. now assign their own meaning to science as well.  They call it science like hanging out a shingle, pulling science out of a Cracker Jack box.  Their subjectivity on the upper story, think of it as bad plumbing, has burst through into the lower story like a broken pipe.  That side can’t tell you that a girl is a girl.  This is one reason why many don’t want to go to college in this country anymore.  They know it’s a racket that is not living in reality.

One side of the division in the country wants the nation to be called like it really is.  Borders are representative of this.  You can’t be a nation when you don’t protect, not just protect — how about acknowledge that you have a border.  Whatever one thinks about the virus and masks and the vaccination, it’s understandable why a big chunk of the country doesn’t trust authority on this.  I’m not going to even get into what Fauci has said.  He doesn’t speak science and this is demonstrative on multiple occasions.

The government, the media that supports it, and now even corporations are all in on the lies. They allot whatever meaning they want and they expect you to receive it.  If you don’t, now they’ll even prosecute you.  They’ll fire you.  If you don’t put on their particular pin, which supports whatever lie that they deem correct, you might lose your job.

I believe most churches too have succumbed to the two stories I’ve described.  They put beauty, music, dress in the personal, the subjective, the top story.  They capitulate on basic doctrine and practice to accommodate for popularity and numbers.  Their targets see the world according to the lie of these two stories.  They know it and they concede to it.  This does not bode well for the country.  Even if the nation does split into two parts, what will happen to the red side when the churches have taken the same basic approach to truth?  This is the most fundamental aspect of worldliness in churches today.

Another metaphor to demonstrate what the division of truth, the two story view, does to the country is a rudderless ship.  The country has no certain belief to hold it together or to give it direction.  It moves according to whatever current or wind produced by the world, like a float or a bob on an aimless sea.  The force of popularity, what scripture would call lust, the combined desires of the population, decides what is it’s truth, it’s goodness, and it’s beauty, whatever each of these is in their own eyes.

Everything above explains the division in the country.  Maybe the next question is, what is the solution to this division?  That, my friend, is much more difficult.

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives