The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum James Dobson, Alabama and the 10 Commandments

On my way home from work this evening, I caught a program on a Christian radio station that had James Dobson apparently at some kind of rally in Alabama in reference to the removal of the 10 Commandments. It sounded more like a politcal rally, and while he made several good and valid points, rallying the crowd to 'get involved' by correspondending with their Congressmen/women, I can't help but feel just a bit uneasy about the politics of Christianity. <br><br>I know that the Great Commission commands us to go out into the world and make diciples of all nations, but does that mean that an entire nation should positively react to the call? I'm confused on the call to Christians and I'm wondering if a strong political stand is the way to go, if Christians should wield a militant stand on these things in a secular world, or if it better to take a quiet and gentle stand, stay where we are called, stand firm for what we believe and keep to a minimum the influence of the pagan culture, or if there is a 'middle' that I am missing. Paul, I know appealed to Rome, and used his citizenship to his advantage, but how do I apply this to today's problem? What can I read that would give me a sense of what our Christian forefathers did under similar circumstances?<br><br>Thanks in advance.<br><br>Hannahsmom

I find this unsettling too. When the gospel has transformed societies it was not by an edict from rulers but by the transformation of individuals in a large percentage of the society. And in many cases this happened in the face of opposition by the rulers.<br><br>The irony is that the majority opinion of evangelicals concerning the Ten Commandments it that it is Old Testament and not New Testament. It is law and we are under grace. And various other expressions of practical Macionism. Look at some of the comments on the Sabbath that have been posted in the past on The Highway.<br><br>Why should we insist on the public display of the Ten Commandments in government buildings when we don't do that in our churches?<br><br>There was a big controversy a couple of years ago in the NRB (National Religious Broadcasters) when the incoming president made a statement along the line of there being too much politics and not enough gospel in Christian broadcasting. He immediately came under fire from a number of "heavywieghts" and ended up resigning.<br><br>I look at the titles of the programs in the One Place archive for a nationally known PCA minister and come away shaking my head thinking... What is the difference between Sloan Coffin and X. Well Sloan Coffin preached a liberal left-wing social gospel and X preaches a conservative right-wing social gospel. (There are any number of names that can be substituted for X from across the "evangelical" spectrum.)

Dear Hannahsmom:<br><br>Trusting God, by grace alone, and trusting the Repubican Party, by flesh alone, are two eternally different things, and only a work of the Spirit of God in the soul can, or will, reveal the difference.<br><br>Gerry

Well you see Susan when I look at this little tiff in Alabama I don't see it as a "can we preach the gospel" issue. I see it as a political issue entirely. The first admendment reads: '<span style="background-color:yellow;">[b]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.[/b]</span><br><br>Strictly interpreting this phrase it seems to me that Congress can't even touch religion, they can't have a say whether we do or do not display the Ten Commandments, The Sermon on the Mount, or the entire Bible. And since Congress and not the Supreme Court is the body where laws are made (The duties of the Supreme Court is to uphold the law and to rightly interpret the Constitution) and there is no law on any of the law books that says it is forbidden what right has a Federal Judge to say that what a State Judge did is incorrect? The tenth admendment reads "<span style="background-color:yellow;">[b]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.[/b]</span>". Again strictly interpreting that phrase it seems to me that a Federal Judge with no authority at all over the state in this manner did just the opposite and tell a state judge what he could or could not do. <br><br>So I suppose the question should now be should Christians who are members of the United States stand by and let the Constitution be interpreted in such a manner? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/ponder.gif" alt="ponder" title="ponder[/img]

I give a big, hearty, Baptist AMEN!! to that. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/clapping.gif" alt="clapping" title="clapping[/img]<br><br>However, if the Congress did stuck to the Constitution, about 80-90% of what they do now would be eliminated. Then , how would they buy votes using other peoples money? I seem to remember a speech by Davy Crockett on the subject ,when he was a representative from Tennessee ,concerning members of Congress being willing to spend the taxpayers' money, when they were not willing to spend their own.. Anybody have a copy?<br><br>JDalton<br><br>[color:red]Colossians 2:3</font color=red>

Hi PrestorJohn,<br><br>To your question, I would have to say 'no', I don't believe Christians should stand by and let the Constitution be continually misinterpreted, but neither should non Christians. But when the bulk of the (voting) population hasn't read the Constitution it becomes easy to manipulate them to believe whatever is believable, not true mind you, but believable. But this is a 'citizen' issue and not a Christian one. Why galvanize this to a Christian problem when it is not? And what of those Christians who are led to believe it IS a Christian issue? Isn't it the same kind of manipulation? It is believable, but is it true? <br><br>Blessings,<br><br>Hannahsmom

I'm doing alot of head shaking myself here of late...lots of people in church, not many getting the Truth, and too many liking it that way.<br><br>Blessings,<br><br>Hannahsmom

Yeah.<br><br>It is so sad that "mainline Christianity" is not even Christian anymore!

Well like I said I consider this a political thing not a Christian thing. But at the same time I think Christians should be able to understand the Law of the land and at that point show what it means and up hold it too. If Christians are suckered into believing a lie then it behooves us to point out the truth. We are truth tellers and that should go for not only the Bible (the source of all truth) but the truth statements in founding documents.

Your wish sir is my command ( I really need one of Pilgrim's little genie icons) I believe the speech you are referring to is here: A Tale of Davy Crockett <br><br>Colonel Crockett was a fine man it is too bad we don't have others of similar nature in Congress today.

Many thanks, brother. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/cheers.gif" alt="cheers" title="cheers[/img]<br><br>JDalton<br>[color:red]Colossins 2:3</font color=red>