What Significance Election 2004?

I've seen the inevitable growth of the "Christian Right" since the presidency of Ronald Reagan. I remember most of us were very happy with Reagan because he didn't belittle our religion even while his wife was consulting the stars. Bill Clinton had no trouble being elected to a second term because he spoke the language of Southern Baptists. The fact that he got a BJ in the oval office was consistent with 2 Timothy 3:4-5..."lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."

But only a portion of the "Moral Majority" saw him as a tare and turned away. Or, perhaps he won a second term because they voted according to their perceived economic best interest.

	How long would the Christian sect of the 1st and 2nd century have lasted if Christians had voted their perceived economic best interest? To become a Christian then didn't just mean rejection by family and friends. You could very well end up as the main course of a bloody gladiatorium feast.
Lion

Something changed in the 2004 election. It was as tangible as watching a weather vane turning south. The political pundits first acted surprised, and then accepted the now conventional wisdom that there exists a great moral-religious divide between red and blue voters. The ascendancy of secular humanism in America had denigrated religion, even mocked it, creating a division that was recognized (for the first time) as a major reason why a significant amount of people voted for George Bush on November 2nd.

Walmart VS Sacks 5th Avenue

True Christianity is a holistic, ongoing experience that dominates a person's life. Nominal Christianity can mean anything from going to church on Sunday to believing in a loving God.

The "Moral Majority" is made up of the more than 80% of Americans that call themselves "Christian." Less than 10% of Americans are "Evangelical" Christians. These are the ones that live their lives according to a literal understanding of the words of Jesus. These will vote against their own self-interest if the Bible says "NO." These are the ones that don't get divorced. These are the ones that don't get abortions. These are the ones that pray and read the Bible when nobody's looking. These are the ones that don't watch filth on TV and the movies and the Internet because they have an abiding sense of God's presence within them.

The other 70% of Americans are self-led, with varying amounts of God. Some use a pinch for flavor, others a teaspoon to alter the taste, others apply a thin layer that deceives everyone..including themselves. Among the 80% of Americans that call themselves Christian, over 60% have said a "salvation prayer" because modern evangelism teaches that this prayer is the only requirement for entrance into the Kingdom of God. And they believe they're Christian because of that prayer. These are most of the "Jesusland" voters that Michael Moore wants to secede from the Union.

But private morality and public morality are two different things. The private morality of the "Moral Majority" is mostly irrelevant to the public morality of this voting block.

I watched the election results on ABC Television. Cokie Roberts first cited the exit poll reason why Bush won.....moral issues. Then the ABC international reporter explained how Western Europe couldn't understand this American obsession with religion and objective morality. They fear it almost as much as Islamic Fundamentalism. Now perhaps finally Democratic leadership will listen to Barack Obama's admonition that they must recognize "traditional" values in order to get elected.

I am Happy George Bush was reelected

I am happy that George Bush was reelected. It means the conservative agenda will be advanced. But it also means that the "Christian Right" will inevitably become less Christian, and ultimately diminish the exclusive message of the blood of Jesus. I am reminded that during the Reagan presidency, Christians didn't advance the message of the blood of Jesus, but tried to make the country more "moral." If we are Americans first and Christians second, ultimately we will compromise the message of the blood of Christ in order to "gain power." It is possible to "render unto Caesar," but we must walk a fine line if we don't want to be spewed out of His mouth.

"What profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? Matt 16:26-27

	Jesus spoke of the individual. But I speak of the nation. We must, as mature Christians, present the Gospel even though it might cause us to loose political capital. Would we be better off if our nation was more "moral" even if it means a higher percentage of people will go to Hell? The early church made no such Faustian bargain.
Faust

They preached the exclusive Gospel of Jesus Christ even though they knew it meant persecution and physical death. I'm afraid the Christian Establishment will squander this historic opportunity and protect it's physical assets at the expense of eternal souls.

In The Shoes Of The Fisherman, a Pope commits the wealth of the Catholic Church to the eradicating of starvation and war. What if the Evangelical Church were to commit it's wealth to the eradicating of nominal Christianity?

Home Page