Scott Klusendorf linked me this article on Facebook, in which he gives five reasons why Christians should not JUST focus on the gospel, but should instead be good at promoting goodness and opposing evil.
Excerpt:
First, it does not follow that because cultural reformers cannot make a culture blameless before God, we shouldn’t try to make it better for the weak and oppressed. I do not know of a single pro-life leader, for example, who argues that cultural reform can save souls eternally; only the gospel does that. The fact that cultural reform cannot get a man to heaven, however, does not mean that it cannot (in many cases through political means) save him from injustice here on earth. In short, pro-life advocates like me do not work for change in culture to save the world from spiritual death, but to save the most vulnerable members of the human family, the unborn, from physical death.
Second, the goal of cobelligerent cultural reform is not necessarily to change the hearts of individuals (whether saved or lost), but to restrain their evil acts. Martin Luther King, Jr., put it well: “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.”3 The purpose of government, according to Scripture, is not to ensure salvation, but to promote justice (Rom. 13:1‑4). The primary purpose of the church, of course, is to preach the gospel of Christ, but if Christians, collectively, do not also challenge government to fulfill its duty to protect the weak and defenseless, who will?
Third, the notion that “there can be no real cultural impact apart from the transforming power of the gospel of Jesus Christ” sounds good, but it is simply incorrect. Consider the moral evil of slavery in America, which did not end because of mass conversions to Christ. It ended when believers and nonbelievers joined forces to stand against it—and paid for it with the lives of 360,000 Union soldiers. Was the abolition of slavery not a “real” cultural improvement? True, it did not make those who participated right with God, but it did take the physical whips off the backs of oppressed people. That is moral and cultural improvement by any reasonable standard.
Fourth, it is not spiritually unacceptable for Christians to mobilize with non-Christians for causes other than preaching the gospel. Prior to the Civil War, Protestant clergy worked with non-Christians and organized the Underground Railroad to free black slaves. Anyone who thinks that God’s people are wasting their time pursuing social justice may want to take a look at how important it is to God: Jeremiah 5:26‑28; 9:24; Isaiah 1:16‑17, 21‑23; 58:6‑7; 61:8; Psalm 94:1‑23; Proverbs 24:1‑12; Matthew 25:41‑46.
Fifth, why should anyone suppose that pro-life advocacy detracts from the discipline responsibilities of the local church as outlined in Matthew 28? Simply put, the answer to a lack of evangelical fervor for the Gospel is not to withdraw our political advocacy for the weak and vulnerable; it’s to encourage Christians to do a better job presenting the gospel. We don’t have to stop rescuing the innocent to do that.
This is why I try to have a balance of apologetics with other issues. And not just social policy, but fiscal policy and foreign policy. We need to have complete, comprehensive, coherent Christian worldviews. One obvious benefit of this is that we can connect Christianity with any topic when we are talking to others in the workplace, or anywhere that normal conversations occur. And if we study everything very well, people will link our intelligence to our faith. They’ll say “if you’ve put this much thought into economics, then you must have a well-thought-out faith, too”. Being well-rounded makes you more convincing, more influential on moral and cultural issues, and more effective at turning conversations to the gospel.
On Tuesday, leftist lackey Chris Matthews went on a jaundiced tirade against Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s speech for the Iowans for Tax Relief. Specifically, he derided Rep. Bachmann’s citation of John Quincy Adams as one of this country’s forebearers who worked tirelessly for abolition.
First, of all, let’s look at this post on Big Government which explains what John Adams did.
Excerpt:
As a Founder and the second President, it’s true that John Adams put the Republic above what was then an impossible issue to resolve. It is inaccurate to suggest he was a proponent of slavery with no role in its ultimately being eliminated in the U.S. No, he did not sacrifice the forming of a Republic for it, which is precisely what a strong position against it would have meant. But he did make his sentiments known (for more), taking pride in never having employed a slave. He is said to have found it “repugnant” and he argued against the Southern position that blacks not be included in population figures during the Continental Congress.
Now back to Letitia and John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams.
John Quincy Adams: according to biographies of Adams’ life, he repeatedly attempted to introduce bills by abolitionist groups into Congress calling for the abolition of slavery. Such was the opposition to his ongoing attempts, Southern Democrats passed a number of gag rules in order to prevent Adams from introducing any more abolitionist bills.
“Throughout he was conspicuous as an opponent of the extension of slavery, though he was never technically an abolitionist, and in particular he was the champion in the House of Representatives of the right of petition at a time when, through the influence of the Southern members, this right was, in practice, denied by that body. His prolonged fight for the repeal of the so-called “Gag Laws” is one of the most dramatic contests in the history of the U.S. Congress. The agitation for the abolition of slavery, which really began in earnest with the establishment of the Liberator by William Lloyd Garrison in 1831, soon led to the sending of innumerable petitions to congress for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, over which the Federal government had jurisdiction, and for other action by congress with respect to that institution. These petitions were generally sent to Adams for presentation. They aroused the anger of the pro-slavery members of congress, who, in 1836, brought about the passage of the first “Gag Rule”, the Pinckney Resolution, presented by Henry L. Pinckney, of South Carolina. It provided that all petitions relating to slavery should be laid on the table without being referred to committee or printed; and, in substance, this resolution was re-adopted at the beginning of each of the immediately succeeding sessions of congress, the Patton Resolution being adopted in 1837, the Atherton Resolution, or “Atherton Gag”, in 1838, and the Twenty-first Rule in 1840 and subsequently until repealed. Adams contended that these “Gag Rules” were a direct violation of the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and refused to be silenced on the question, fighting for repeal with indomitable courage, in spite of the bitter denunciation of his opponents. Each year the number of anti-slavery petitions received and presented by him increased; perhaps the climax was in 1837, when Adams presented a petition from twenty-two slaves, and, when threatened by his opponents with censure, defended himself with remarkable keenness and ability. At each session, also, the majority against him decreased until in 1844 his motion to repeal the Twenty-first Rule was carried by a vote of 108 to 80 and his battle was won.” (Source: NDDB biographies, http://www.nndb.com/people/370/000026292/)
Incidentally (or not incidentally, if you believe in Divine Providence as I do), in the last year of Adams’ life, he mentored a young Congressman to work toward abolition. This Congressman later went on to become the 16th President of the United States. Oh, what was his name? Abraham Lincoln.
She then links to this Youtube video showing the details of the connection between John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln.
Letitia is a friend of mine, so I recommend that everyone read the rest of her post. Her blog is called “Talitha, Koum”. There’s a Biblical meaning to that phrase.
My thoughts
I’m going to compare Chris Matthews to Michele Bachmann to see which one has more education, more experience and higher moral standards.
Education:
Let’s review Matthews’ academic history. He has a bachelor degree in something, no site will say what, from the College of the Holy Cross. When people don’t say what the degree is in, you can bet your bottom dollar that it is something totally useless like drama or music or education or women’s studies. And he did one year of graduate work in economics before DROPPING OUT. He then spent some time working as a police offer on Capitol Hill.
In contrast, Michele Bachmann has a B.A. and a J.D. and an LL.M in tax law from the College of William and Mary, a prestigious law school. That means she has completed her bachelor degree, doctorate in laws, and a post-doctoral degree in tax law. She worked as a federal tax lawyer before starting a successful career in politics.
Campaigns:
Matthews is a Democrat, who has worked for Democrats and he has even run for office as a Democrat.
When Matthews first arrived in Washington, D.C., he worked as a police officer with the United States Capitol Police. Subsequently, he served on the staffs of four Democratic members of Congress, including Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie. In 1974, he mounted an unsuccessful campaign for Pennsylvania’s 4th congressional district seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, in which he received about 24% of the vote in the primary. Matthews was a presidential speechwriter during the Carter administration, and later worked for six years as a top aide to long-time Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O’Neill, playing a direct role in many key political battles with the Reagan administration.
Michele Bachmann meanwhile has run for office at the state and federal level and won numerous times, in a blue state, no less. In all, she has spent six years as a state senator, and 4 years as a congresswoman, and was just elected again. She has not ruled out a run for the Presidency in 2012.
[…]the conservatives will find the evils of sodomy, the evils of, uh, uh, infidelity, the evils of sex of any form. It seems like the conservatives don’t like sex and they’re very focused on that and the liberals are focused on social injustice.
So he rejects Biblical morality on sex. And why should we be surprised? He is a Democrat -the party of John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Gary Condit, Eliot Spitzer, etc. For Democrats, affairs are OK – they never resign because they think that there should be no rules around sex. My opinion is that he is an atheist like most Democrats, although he is not going to come out and say that.
Note what being pro-abortion really means. Being pro-abortion means that one group (adults) can choose to kill another group (the unborn) simply because it makes them happier to do so. To make this sound more palatable, they marginalize an entire group of human beings to being non-human trash. As Frank Turek recently noted, this is EXACTLY what slave-owners did. Slave-owners marginalized an entire class of human beings to trash because it made them happier. If Matthews had been alive during the time of slavery, he would have been a slave-owner. He would have called abolitionists “terrorists”, just like he calls pro-lifers “terrorists”.
In contrast, Michele Bachmann is an outspoken evangelical Christian. Her views are consistent with the Bible across the board.
On a recent installment of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Chris Matthews could not contain his mocking laughter as he announced the breaking news that Michele Bachmann had been appointed to the House Intelligence Committee. Matthews does not make any case to support the idea that Bachmann lacks the competence to be on the intelligence committee; to him it is simply a forgone conclusion based on her gender and political leanings. Matthews has made trivializing remarks about Christine O’Donnell as well. During O’Donnell’s campaign, Matthews dismissed her as a “cute” girl that is “just having fun.” Somehow, conservative women are inherently bimbos.
However, the most glaring examples of the bimbo narrative are focused upon Sarah Palin. Matthews, along with many in the mainstream media, have repeatedly accused her of lacking intelligence. From the outset of her emergence upon the national stage Matthews has questioned her intelligence: calling her an empty “vessel” that lacks “independent thinking” which will be filled up with conservative rhetoric. When Palin’s first book deal was announced, Matthews was quick to dismiss: “If she can read, if she can write, she’ll make money.”
Last Friday, preemptively criticizing an upcoming appearance on Hannity, Matthews compared Palin’s appearance to an infomercial that would be “selling makeup foundations.” Palin was to discuss the recent blood libel comment she made in response to accusations that she incited the Arizona shootings.
On “Hardball” Thursday, Chris Matthews responded to critics who claim he recently made sexist comments about Hillary Rodham Clinton, which they say is part of a history of similar conduct.
Controversy erupted after Matthews made remarks on Joe Scarborough’s “Morning Joe” on MSNBC that “the reason she’s a U.S. senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That’s how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn’t win there on her merit.”
Naturally, Michele Bachmann won’t do this – she is an intelligent woman. She knows how hard it is to actually finish graduate school and win election campaigns… unlike Chris Matthews. She actually finishes what she starts… unlike Chris Matthews.
Here are some of the things the calculator considers:
how many hours each person works
how much child support is being paid by the father
what is the cost of day care
eligibility for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
eligibility for Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program
eligibility for food stamps
eligibility for Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children
eligibility for public and subsidized housing
eligibility for Subsidized Child Care
It helps people who are considering marriage see all the benefits they would lose by marrying.
Sometimes, it is not worth it to work in a real job (dealing drugs doesn’t count because you don’t declare that), and sometimes it is not worth it to get married. And the government likes it when people don’t get married, because fatherless children are more used to being dependent on the state, and they are more malleable in the public schools.
The calculator is linked by the United Way, a radically leftist organization that provides funding for all kinds of anti-Christian, anti-marriage, anti-family, anti-child social programs – including funding abortions. They also cut funding to the Boy Scouts of America.
WINTERY KNIGHT 