Weak-kneed liberals who CAN'T teach with authority

It's often said that Jesus didn't come to found a church. If understood as a dismissal of Christianity, as is often said by theological liberals like Rudolph Bultmann, it's annoying but true in a way. But not in the way the "Christian" liberals mean it:
Because Jesus DIDN'T come to start just another religion.

HE CAME TO RULE THE WORLD!

He is the King!

Already!
The only place he doesn't reign completely is the social and political realm, and in rebellious human hearts. He rules the stars and the planets. (Why do you think they stay in their orbits?) He rules you and me if we let him

(I think that's what the book's about but I'm about 320 pages short of finishing)
Dallas Willard, "The Divine Conspiracy" pp.20ff.

See also "Redeeming Science"

According to Poythress, PHYSICAL LAWS AREN'T JUST LIKE DIVINE LAW, THEY ARE PART OF IT!

Legalism v. Antinomianism

"The measure of righteousness, but not the means of righteousness"

.

Legalism is the default of all religions. Even mine. I've been there. Following Jesus is different. The Law is still the MEASURE of righteousness, since Jesus (the MEANS) is the only human who ever followed it perfectly, and completely, as a human. Sinful humans (me, for example) cannot follow God's moral law. Our frustration at our obvious failure is what must drive us to Jesus and his complete, sinless perfection before the Law.
Misuse of the Law comes in several forms:
1. If I compare my own transgressions with other humans, it leads either to pride or despair, but never to Jesus.
2. If I ignore God's Law, I thereby create my own law, which I still disobey.
3. If I view the Law as a path to God, I fail. I fail in an especially miserable way if I THINK I followed it, for then I deceive myself much like #2. The legalists and the antinomians make EXACTLY the same mistake. They just look different while they stumble.
Only by turning to Jesus am I freed from the sin which makes Law-following impossible. But the moral law is still holy, righteous, and good, as Paul wrote, and "perfect" as David declared. It's using it as a means to Jesus that is wrong.
Finally, even our reason is fallen and we have a tough time teasing out the moral law from the Old Testament law. It takes work, but it's not really that hard. Anything repeated in the New Testament, like the Ten Commandments, is binding, morally, on Christians today. That includes rules about sex, which go back to Genesis 2--many centuries before the Law was given at Sinai!

David, prompted and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, said
"The Law of the LORD is perfect."
What part of "perfect" don't some of us get?
Have you never read "..as we gaze intently into the PERFECT LAW THAT GIVES FREEDOM"
Disobedience is the sign of bondage. Obeying God's Law is the sign of our freedom. By grace, we are freed from sin, and THEN we can freely obey.

I especially recommend "The Prodigal God" by Tim Keller. It is one of the best books I've ever read.

Saying "God is Love"
is very different from saying that "Love is God" (Love being subject to subjective definition.)
It's also very different from "God is indulgent" which, as an overarching attitude, is anything but loving. (Especially if it means unhealthy and indiscriminate giving.) Instead, truly knowing that God loves us, in spite of our very real sin, and at the unimaginable cost of his very own Son . . . THAT is a love worth celebrating.

Anticipating a defense of Modernism. . .

You can live the rest of your days in denial, if you can get away with it. But remember Niemoller: At first they came for the Jews&I didn't speak up, then for the Communists...Catholics...and when they finally came for me, there was no one left to speak up.
We are still on that continuum. Nothing, philosophically, has improved. Modernism [and the equally pernicious post-modernism] rules here as much, if not more, as it ever did. Into this vacuum of truth, power always intrudes: Germany, Russia, global corporations, China, whomever. The “salting” which held back the tide of wickedness is losing its savor. And all this was predicted by a certain outcast in the Gospels. Our so-called “progressive values” are nearly irreversibly moving us towards perdition and the final, richly deserved judgment. We can pray like Hezekiah for a break “in our time” but he was no more perfect than I am.
You, by God's grace&the color of your skin, may have received a temporary burst of freedom, but it's an illusion. Try speaking up about abortion and homosexuality, and see where it gets you. NOwhere—all you can manage is a futuile attempt to blame everything on the Religious Right. (which does share plenty of blame, but in a way that lessens your own responsibility not a whit.)

Is the media anti-Christian

[An online friend insists the media is trying to reach out to Christians, esp. the "Emergent Church" and is even a sincere believer himself]http://disq.us/xgpho


No doubt that's how it looks from your perspective. “Common grace” extends in all directions, and I'm sure you and even some who aren't believers are sincere in at least trying to be open minded. But I'm referring to a number of specific affronts, which we've discussed here (the persecution of the California gynecologists, for example), and more broadly to worldview. Modernism is our state religion. (Read Machen's “Christianity and Liberalism” for a classic statement of the specifics, long before the Religious Right “got a-holt” of the idea.) This religion is taught in our schools quite specifically. Since it is a way of thinking, it is more pervasive than what is thought of as religious rituals, which can be superficial. The MSM media never questions whether modernism is true, or whether it ought to be taught to our students and the basis of all political deliberations.
So it's much worse than "sentiment"--it is a pervasive, unquestioned falsehood that is incompatible with Christianity and freedom itself.

A New Right Entirely

To the Editor, Boston Globe:
Adrian Walker is entitled to his opinion about Senator Brown, but, in fact, Massachusetts voters didn't “give gay marriage” to anyone. Gay people are free to marry in all 50 states, consistent with their various rules concerning degree of consanguinity, and the number, age & sex of partners. Massachusetts voters were denied a chance to be heard on this issue in 2008. The only votes that mattered were those of four unelected, unaccountable justices who imposed their personal views on us in the name of progress. This includes the Chief Justice, who, according to Mass Lawyers Weekly, neglected oversight of the corrupt probation department—a duty actually within the purview of our judiciary.


"...Chief Justice for Administration and Management Robert A. Mulligan and Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall, have neglected their duties by allowing the corruption to continue."


http://masslawyersweekly.com/2010/11/26/corrupt-probation-system-stain-on-judiciary/


http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/12/11/how_now_brown/

Jim Wallis v. Religious Right, cont.

I've been asked 3 questions:
Q1. "In what manner were these people [Calif. fertility clinic, whose persecution only Pastor Jeff seems willing to defend]
following the direct commands/example of Christ" (Pastor Jeff asked this one 3 times):
A1.When Jesus was asked "What must I do to inherit eternal life" the first part of his answer was the straightforward part that many of the posters here seem to be ignoring:
JESUS TOLD THE MAN TO OBEY THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.
That is so basic that it's embarrassing to have to repeat it here. Then, in the more memorable part of the answer, Jesus cut to the heart of the matter: the man's possessions were standing between him and Jesus. (A common problem for Americans of any political stripe.)
"Go, sell your possessions” was NOT a command to supererogation, or a statement that helping the poor, or forcing others to do so via taxation, releases you from the basic obligations of the Ten Commandments.
Q2. “What party believes in forcing people to do things against their consciences?”
A2. The party that supports suing Christians who won't fertilize a gay couple. There are many perfectly good citizens who identify as GLBTG. But I say the clinic made the right call in not fertilizing a couple so filled with hate that they took the clinic to court for following Jesus. (Note that the Republicans, most of whom support Obama's war in Afghanistan, still allow for conscientious objection to military service.)
Q3., this one from BlueDeacon “What difference will just one more voice make?”
A3., Again, Jim should be that “just one more voice” speaking out clearly against abortion—not to make a difference, but because it's the right thing to do. He does seem rather too concerned about his public image; I'm afraid I can't help with that. But supporting the Stupak Amendment was his big chance to stand against the tide of partisan divisiveness. Last March he left Stupak hanging, and joined with Nancy Pelosi, who might not even know who Jim Wallis is.