Concerned About the Election Results?

ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE ELECTION RESULTS? GOOD!

Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For it you do these things, you will never stumble, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 2 Peter 1:10-11

"That's a trick question! That's not the election we are talking about."

"I know it's not, and that is a big problem."

"Why is it a problem? You're talking about an election in a kingdom off somewhere in heaven; we're talking about the presidential election on November 6th! That's a totally separate thing! Do you know that if th ......."

"What do you mean, 'separate?' What about Matt. 6:10, 'your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven?' Doesn't that relate the kingdom on earth to the kingdom of heaven -- that the Father's will would be done in both?"

"Well, it's sure not being done with those ( &%$... insert party ....&#@) in charge. And if ...."

"And is that somebody's fault? Like, whose fault is it? Why are you praying so earnestly now, when you should have been praying all along?"

"Why do churches pray about a Presidential election with great fervor and intensity; why do they hold meetings and read scripture and compare parties; why does they predict gloom and doom if some particular person is elected; why are these appeals made that Christians should get into politics; why are these hypocritical sermons preached that say, "I'm not being political, but .....'?"

"How do these people get into political office, anyway?

"They're elected."

"By whom?"

By the people."

"How are the people supposed to find out what the kingdom of heaven looks like so that the Father's will can be done on earth? A political party? A history class? The media?"

"The church is supposed to show them."

"How often? Every 4 years the church gives a episodic eruption of how bad things are, and that's it? People wring their hands and bemoan our state of affairs? And they preach against the platform and positions and candidate of the other party as if they're defending Jesus? And if the other party wins the election, they say, 'Well. we tried to tell them.' It doesn't matter who the candidates are or which party, it happens every four years."

"So, you're saying that everything is alright and we shouldn't worry about the government and the trends and those laws being passed and ..... You're saying there's nothing wrong or nothing being done that is against scripture or ..... You're saying that the church should just shut up and be a non-factor and ...."

"No --not saying any of these things. By having these 'worry about the country' prayer meetings every four years, the churches are saying that they have failed to do their job. If the church has to have emergency prayer over political elections and preach against what other political parties are saying, it is because the church has not shown the voting public what the kingdom of heaven looks like on earth."

The more the church has to sound the alarm every four years about a political election, the more the church is confessing to God to the same proportion that it has failed the mission of Jesus for another four years, and this is the result of it."

The church should be concerned about the most important election, or else the church could be mugged while in the voting booth.

"Those politicians need to repent." Yes, but the church needs to repent, first. The church is more concerned about a political election than the church is concerned about its own election in heaven. If the church were busy about making its own calling and election sure all the time, as a witness to the world of what the kingdom of heaven looks like all the time, people would know what to do every four years because the church had trained them all the time. As it is, many people in the church don't know poly from ticks, themselves. But they'll listen to someone who claims they do -- every four years. And that's being apolitical?

Instead of continually living the standard of God as His kingdom on earth for the public to see, the church episodically tries to identify all the political falsehood and counterfeit actions at the time of an election every four years.

When the institutionalized church follows its business as usual activities, going about its own prideful, competitive, greedy, self ambitious activities just like the world does, what credibility does it have to try and act out of self-esteemed righteous indignant every four years?

What is the image that the church is supposed to present to the world? How can the will of the Father be done on earth as it is in heaven?

Love, Peace, Unity

The scripture talks about the laying on of hands, describes using hands to wash one another's feet, and mentions raising holy hands in prayer. There's no scripture that says to practice the wringing of hands every four years because you're failing to do your job in the interim.

The various competitive groups within the church are so busy discriminating between themselves for the four years between elections, it's an easy move to just target a political party or person at election time at the four year interval. After the election, it's back to business as usual.

Which election?

While the church thinks it is making the political election "sure" on earth, perhaps the church is not making its calling and election sure in the kingdom of God in heaven. The church has lost perception of the spiritual realm and the spiritual battle. The church spends its time reacting to the "seen," rather than proactively preparing for the "unseen." If the church doesn't see the spiritual battle, who will? The Federal Reserve? Social Security? The Queen?

Preach by living the standard rather than trying to identify the counterfeit.

A friend whose business was providing automatic money counters to banks once said how banks have training sessions about how to recognize genuine money from counterfeit. According to him, the tellers and other bank personnel are not taught how to recognize counterfeit money. They are not shown pictures of counterfeit money or given lectures about how to recognize that which is counterfeit. There are too many appearances of counterfeit money; they can't all be illustrated because if one could recognize 10 images of counterfeit money, one could miss a new one that is different.

You don't teach against the counterfeit; you teach only what the genuine looks like.

There is only one genuine. There are many counterfeits. Know the standard by heart and the counterfeits will identify themselves because they cannot stand up to the examination of the light. If a person forgets what the standard looks like, a counterfeit can be accepted as if it were real. The counterfeit may look as good as the standard, maybe even better in the perception of the untrained human mind.

If one concentrates on identifying one type of counterfeit, a hundred different types might slip through.

Does the church preach the standard or does the church spend its time trying to point out the counterfeit? Preach against this. Preach why that is wrong. Preach why doing this will send people to hell. No, let us instead preach the love of Jesus -- preach the gospel. Live the love of Jesus and live the gospel for the world to see.

We take the path of least effort. It is easier to preach against the counterfeit than it is to live for the standard.

The church tries to identify political parties or persons as being part of the counterfeit, with particular intensity of purpose every four years. The church points out the counterfeit only as it sees and defines it by human wisdom at election-time, if the church has not preached or lived out the genuine during the previous four years. Because the standard of Jesus has not been continually studied by Christians, themselves, they lose their training and ability to recognize the standard, so they can't recognize the counterfeit either and miss things and make misidentifications. What election is being made "sure" in this church process? The political election, the election in the kingdom of heaven, or neither?

Again, we have to ask ourselves, "Which election are we concerned about?"

Why does the church lose its ability to identify the standard? Because the parts of the body of Christ are too busy identifying one another as counterfeit, they don't have time to train themselves on recognizing the real and true standard. The different body parts pay lip service to Jesus, then make up vision statements and goals that are designed to differentiate themselves from others. By exalting their own creeds and interpretations (unwritten creeds), they label one another as being counterfeit by simple comparison. "We're the true church, and you're not."

One thing that makes this interest in counterfeit labeling more obvious is a presidential election every four years, because some parts of the body, that are usually competitive against one another, begin to sound similar alarms as they both focus on a common enemy -- it's that bad political party, it's that bad person. We're against him. The counterfeit labeling movement rises above the church buildings as people focus on a common worry -- until after the election, when they all return to the "I told you so" and competitive maneuvering.

And, somehow, no one can seem to recognize that the political friction and grandstanding and selfish posturing in the government could in any way related to the church not showing the higher behavior, because the church is too busy dividing amongst itself.

Is the church worried about the election? If so, is it because the church sees the physical election and has lost sight of the spiritual one?

Teach the correct spelling of a word until that image is reinforced in the mind, not all the ways the word can be misspelled.

Frequently, people who are skilled as editors and who have an ability to recognize misspellings and misuses of grammar and syntax have the correct spellings and the correct sentence structures well reinforced in their minds. They have seen the correct standard of how a word is spelled, they catch misspelled words because the words just "don't look right." They may recognize some counterfeit spellings, but is in the context of already having determined a mismatch between the word as used and the word as correctly spelled. People who are only used to seeing misspelled words don't catch other people's errors or their own.

Christians should help one another catch the counterfeit just like people will read one another's paper or manuscript. It's easier to catch misspellings in a manuscript you haven't written yourself. You tend to miss again words that are misspelled or phrases that are incorrect because you "are used to seeing them" and read the same thing over and over. Someone else doesn't do that -- they have their own misspellings in word usage that their brain doesn't recognize as counterfeit.

Christians might help one another and read one another's manuscripts to catch errors that are counterfeit compared to the standard in preparation for turning in an English term paper, and this is good. Why can't they read one another's doctrine and catch the counterfeit in that and work together so the everyone is closer to the genuine? Think about that, and it is almost humorous if it weren't so sad.

If we read one another's manuscripts for misspellings like we read one another's doctrines, it might sound something like this:

"I only have three misspelled words in my doctrinal manuscript, and you have five. My doctrine is closer to the truth than yours."

"Yeah, but my misspelled words have an average of 8 letters and your misspelled words have an average of only 5 letters, so my doctrinal manuscript is more intellectual and better wordsmithed than yours. God likes my doctrine better."

"Whattayoumean? Your whole manuscript is weak! You've looked up words in a modern dictionary that accepts just about anything. We've used a dictionary written in King James English."

"Well, your whole doctrine is disingenuine. It's so full of misspelled words that the whole thing is counterfeit. You wouldn't know a correctly spelled word if it fell out of your brain."

"Disingeuine? Where did you get that word? Show me the dictionary that word came out of. You know, God doesn't like it when people make up stuff. We have to protect the dictionary from people like you!"

So, when the English teacher returns, will she find properly spelled manuscripts on the earth, or will she find a bunch of people with manuscripts full of errors who are arguing with one another about whose manuscript is the most counterfeit? Who will the teacher "throw the book at?"

Examples and consequences of the church not representing the standard

When the light retreats, darkness fills in.

The church failed to teach the role of marriage as a covenant relationship between husband and wife and how this models the covenant relationship between Christ and the church. Marriage is a way in which two people help one another grow to be like God. God set the model up as male and female. Since God set up marriage with that intent, God hates divorce. It should be obvious why -- divorce thwarts the plan and purpose of God. Of course, bad marriages can, too. But if the standard were preached, maybe people would make better decisions about a mate and about what to look for in a lifetime partner in Christ. But the church failed to teach that spiritual principle. So divorce happened. The church still didn't preach the spiritual principle, but instead, preached against divorce. It didn't represent the standard and tried to identify the counterfeit instead. The church missed the mark and the light of the purpose of marriage didn't shine, so divorce became more prevalent. When divorce had affected so many people and families, the church backed off from preaching "against divorce" and went silent for fear of "offending somebody." The church created its own vacuum by not preaching the standard. And if the church didn't identify the standard itself, how should it correctly identify the counterfeit? The church preached condemnation instead of love, and because the church didn't know how to preach in love, the church quit preaching altogether and therefore condemned the next generation to the same mistakes.

What is the escalation of events occurring in Act II of that play? The church doesn't preach the spiritual principles of the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, and homosexuality becomes public, becomes not surprising, becomes tolerable, becomes promoted, and it will be in control. The self stated gay agenda is to be in control. It's agenda is not to just be tolerated, not just to be accepted, but to become the standard. Why should that be surprising when the real standard of marriage has not been represented by the church? There was a period when certain churches preached against the counterfeit principles of the gay movement. Preach against it; preach against sin. That didn't work any more than preaching against divorce instead of preaching for God's covenant in marriage. Now the gay movement is gaining control -- churches that don't endorse gay rights are classified as judgmental and narrow and hateful, and the media loves to promote that. Churches who use the Christian name change their doctrines so that gays can be clergy and can be esteemed as God's standard. Who is there to call that counterfeit -- that judgmental group in the narrow church; that group who didn't ever preach the real standard? The standard, itself, becomes negotiable, and the authority of scripture is questioned and diminished, the Lordship of Jesus is brought down to earth with doubts of His virgin birth or resurrection or being God's Son. The scripture is put under the feet of humans who want to change standards to accept new behavior, instead of the opposite. The gay lifestyle will be the standard, and it will call itself genuine. And the church will bow in submission to that. Anyone think that's far fetched and ludicrous? Think again, because that has already started. The next step will be label those who differ as the opposition and begin vilifying them. That's already started, too.

There is more unity among those in the gay rights movement than there is in the institutional church in America.

So what does this illustrate? It illustrates many generations of Christians in the body of Christ who were more focused on competing successfully (by worldly standards) against one another than on working together in unity to maintain the standard of the Lord Jesus Christ. The church has sown the seeds of the works of the flesh, and the church is going the way of the cycle of entropy, which is destruction. It is a path set up by God in the creation of the world. The principles are given in scripture -- live according to the works of the flesh and reap destruction; live according to the Spirit and reap life. Why should the church be exempted from this principle, when God expects more of His people, not less, because they have been given His Spirit.

There are issues in the elections that are stir up cultural, social, doctrinal, and political waters. There are many other issues that are related to corruption and greed, irrespective of a person's political positions or the particular party that Christians may want to complain about. Hypocrisy runs wild -- in politics and in the church.

Should churches have some special services and pray about the election? Sure, that's good. That's positive, for the most part. But we should recognize that the problem is not our political choices every 4 years -- the real problem is the spiritual choices we are making all the time.

How can you say all this? How can you say the church is falling down on the job? How can you say the church is not showing what the genuine standard of the kingdom of God looks like?

THE MESSAGE THAT NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR --

How is the church doing with representing the genuine in the following areas --

Unity. The world understands unity better than does the church. The world doesn't differentiate between what it considers insignificant differences in doctrinal beliefs. If you attend services in a building that says "Christian" in some way, that's what you are. The world associates Christians with Christ more than Christians do. Christians differentiate themselves with other names like Calvin, Knox, Campbell, Wesley, etc., or with their doctrines which dictate how one must approach Jesus. The world doesn't care about that, but Christians sure do. They have to distinguish themselves from the regular ranks.

Love. Jesus said "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:34-35). Is the church (all of its parts, all of its denominations, all of its groups, all) known by the world for its love? Not only love for the world, but love for Christians for one another within the church? John said if one does love his brother, he hates him. (1 John 2:9-11). It's digital, not analog. Love and hate are not on a sliding scale. What is the church's grade on love? What image is presented to the world?

Peace. Jesus said, "Peace I leave you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives." (John 14:27). Does the world recognize the peace within the church is different from that in the world? James said, "Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness." (James 3:18). Does the church teach the world the meaning of the peace of Christ? Does the church, itself, even know the difference between passivity and peace? Does the church understand that conflict destroys peace, but peace is not the absence of conflict? Those who think that sounds like a riddle do not understand the peace of Christ.

Relationships between Christians, not only in the universal church, but even within a smaller group?

The divorce rate in our society is about 50%. Is it any better in the church, or is it the same? No difference? Then what benefit does the church present in showing the world the genuine standard of the covenant of marriage?

How is the church showing the world how to teach the spiritual generational values to it children? How much youth retention does the church have? All groups except the Mormons lose more of their youth than they keep. Perhaps the youth are not keeping the faith of the parents because they recognize it more as personal doctrine than faith in the truth.

Does the church show the world how to resolve conflict because of the love of Jesus Christ and our reconciliation to God the Father? Or does the church go to the world in counsel and lawsuits to get the world to solve the church's problems? Who influences who? Does the church show the world how to resolve differences without splitting and division and animosity? Even war? When interviews are done on the street and people are asked whether Christians are unity or divided, what do the people say? It's almost 100% "They're divided," "They fight," "They don't love each other."

So, in the period of time between four year cycles of Presidential elections, what sort of genuine standard of the truth of God does the church show to the world? Love, unity, peace, marriages, inter-body-of-Christ cooperation for the common good? But get some political rhetoric going and the "religious right" will start clanging some cymbals.

"So, are you against conservatism; are you against the religious right; are you against praying for the elections, even if it every four years; are you saying that the church shouldn't influence the political process in this country?" No, I am part of this group.

But, just because the church gets interested in becoming vocal about this every four years doesn't mean the church is doing its job. In fact, it is demonstrating the opposite. I'm not against the religious right; I am for the principles of the truth of Jesus Christ. I'm not against praying for the elections; I'm for the church showing people the truth all the time to the world so that every four years we can have a praise service instead of a "woe is us-let's pray ourselves out of a jam" service. The church is operating in the wrong sphere if it is is trying to influence the political process. The church needs to live the genuine gospel in such a way that the people who are the political process know what the truth is - or else they know who to ask. What we have now is more like spiritual anarchy.

How can anyone claim that the church is doing its job in showing the world what the genuine truth of the kingdom of God looks like? Even a small group of people who have selected one another to be worthy of mutual acceptance because of some degree of uniformity cannot demonstrate to the world what it means to "keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." (Eph. 4:3). You can easily predict that the group will eventually split over something. Similarities of uniformity come apart when someone starts to deviate from the unwritten social codes of the group. Jesus said that the world would see the love of the Father by the unity of believers, which is based on the unity between the Son and the Father. How is that one working for us?

THE CONCLUSIONS THAT NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR

How is the church impacting the political cycle in America that is following a historical course toward entropy (the result of works of the flesh)?

The verse in Prov. 13:34 "Righteousness exalts a nation; but sin is a disgrace to any people" is well documented in history in terms of sociopolitical cycles of civilizations that rise and decline. In spite of all the denials of those who are in control and don't want to lose power, the denials of those who think things are or will go their way, isn't America going through identifiable phases of such a cycle? What impact is the church having on these trends -- redirecting the trends, or following the trends?

Who bears the greater responsibility?

So, are we saying that gay rights people are bad and corrupt and driving the church into entropy? No, to say that would be judgmental, and the job of the church is to present the standard and let God take care of the rest. If the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, what is the Holy Spirit going to use as the standard for comparison? Just let them read the Bible.? What if the response is, "Why? I don't see how the Bible helps you much, why should I want to read it?" That's why the Spirit of God lives in the church - to make the church the genuine standard of truth for the world to see. What's the quality check on that? Are we at Six Sigma yet?

If God is going to judge people regarding their sin, what about those people who were supposed to show the standard, but didn't? Who do you think God will be harder on, people who are in sin or people who claim to be right but do not represent the truth so that the people in sin will know better? The people who claim to be right do not represent the true standard, and they criticize others and call them counterfeit.

Jesus may have addressed that issue in talking to the Pharisees. In the healing of the blind man in John 9, Jesus gives a lesson concerning people who are self-righteous and also spiritually blind.

Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind." Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?" Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin, but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." John 9:39-41

A man is born blind, and Jesus heals him. The Pharisees, who in their pious self-righteous nature, considered that they knew the standard well enough to hold everyone (else) to it and to label as "counterfeit" everyone but themselves. While Jesus opened the eyes of a man born blind, He said that the religious leaders were guilty of their sin because they claimed that they could see the truth when they couldn't.

So, what about it? Does the organized church claim that it can see, while it fails to live and show the true and genuine standard? If it were living the standard, why doesn't the world recognize it? Is it because the world is blind? Maybe. What about the possibility that the church is blind to itself and to how far it is missing the standard because parts of the church are using themselves to compare to other parts. So what valid standard does the church have to compare anyone else to? Yet the church claims that it can see.

Let's ask the question again. Who do you think God will be harder on, people who are in sin or people who claim to be right but do not represent the truth so that the people in sin will know better?

Concerned about the election? Make sure it's the right one.

Well, that's all fine, but what are we supposed to do about it? There are the "steps of salvation" that are diverted into legalism by some people, but they do serve as a useful model for steps of change. The expanded steps are (1) preach the word (2) hear the word (3) believe the word (4) compare yourself to the standard of the word (5) recognize your sin and your inadequacy to save yourself (6) see the need of Jesus as Savior (7) repent of the former ways and accept the forgiveness of God through Christ (8) receive the promise of the Father and be added to the church (9) be transformed into the image of the Creator by the Holy Spirit (10) live in the body of Christ that brings glory to God and shows the love, peace, and unity of the Father to the world to see the kingdom of God on earth. This is not a list to be checked off, but an operational method of considering change in the church.

But, the church hasn't even started on the "list." The church hasn't asked the question, "What must we do to be saved?" Why should it? Isn't the church already saved? Isn't it saved because of its doctrine, because of its Pope, because of its 12 apostles, because of its hermeneutic for correctness of worship, because that's what we've always thought? And lastly, and most deadly, parts of the church think they are "saved" because they compare themselves to other parts and think they come out better because they hold themselves and their doctrine up as if these things were God's standard. They place themselves and their doctrines as an idol above the love and unity of Jesus Christ.

The church may be saved, but it because of the blood of Jesus and not because of its human doctrine. But being saved doesn't mean exempt from discipline. It means all the more discipline when needed, as determined by God.

The organized institutionalized church is blind, but it claims that it can see. Every part of the body of Christ acts as though it is the eye of the body. Therefore, there are many eyes and few of anything else. Each set of eyes of the body claims to have 20-20 vision and claims that all the other eyes need glasses, but they are too stubborn and vain to get them.

So, on one front, each of the components of the church compete and judge the other components visually challenged because they fail the eye chart test -- with the chart being their own written or unwritten human doctrines. On the other front, the church tries to put down what it considers to be dissenters -- those who challenge the comfort rut of the status quo of the defend the faith as we see it.

What if all of those who claim to be the eyes of the body of Christ are themselves so visually impaired that they are legally blind. What is the result of the blind leading the blind? They all fall into the ditch -- or how about -- they all fall into the rut of the preservation of their human doctrine.

Jesus said to the Pharisees, who were the chief doctrinal rut-makers of the day:

"If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin, but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."

It's difficult to help a person who doesn't think they need any help -- a person who considers themselves to be "above" your level of help. Don't we say about such people, "Oh well, I guess they'll have to find out for themselves -- the hard way."

To what extent does this characterize the organized church in America today? To what extent has the church abandoned the standard of Jesus while, like the Pharisees, justifying itself? To what extent will the church have to find out "the hard way?" God's proud people were once led into captivity with hooks in their mouths, strung along in a line like a catch of fish. There is a Babylon today. Think it can't happen again?

Part of the organized church has diluted the standard of Christ to accept those of the world who have risen to the power of public opinion by promotion of the media, and they have accepted and justified this apostasy as being "loving" and "tolerant" and "forgiving." This is the worldly media definition; there's nothing "loving" about letting people continue in ways that are outside of God's plan. But because the church doesn't live out God's plan, itself, there is nothing of God's plan on earth except human opinion about what it is. God's plan is moved into rhetoric called vision objectives to be unpacked and advertisements and colorful web sites to drill down. It's something to be competitive in the media, rather than lived in the Spirit. It is spiritual blindness.

In the lessons from the thermodynamics of an isolatedbacterial colony, we know that there reaches a point in the life cycle when recovery is not possible. There are too many "end of life" factors being released. Too much cell death. Too much accumulation of waste. Too much release of toxic factors. Too much starvation from lack of proper resources. The decline is not reversible.

Has the church reached the point where the parts of the body would rather allow the whole body to die than all be in unity? What does it take for the church to quit using God's grace as freedom for division? Does it take people on the floor of a concentration camp, trying to remember scriptures they once memorized and whispering them to one another because if they were overheard everyone would be beaten? Do people draw lines in the sand of the bamboo hut to segregate the Baptists from the Pentecostals from the Catholics? They do that on the outside in the freedom of a capitalistic society in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Rather than complaining about the election results every four years, let Christians get busy keeping the lamps trimmed in preparation for the coming of the bridegroom, Jesus Christ, and show the voting public what love, peace, and unity looks like in the kingdom of God in heaven. The church is made up of the elect, and we are expected by God to live in a way that personifies our election in the name of Jesus Christ. Christians are to live in such a way that is consistent with our election being sure and certain rather than striving in competition within the church as though we are trying to earn election by coming in first. Rather than compete, all the parts of the body help the other parts to be filled with the Spirit in increasing measure, so that we can together grow up into the full knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.

That method of operation would make earthly elections turn out better, because the voting public would expect the candidates to meet a standard of the elect of God. It may sound idealistic from where we are now, but the alternatives that are before us are not good. We may still have a choice.

THE APPLICATION THAT NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR

Take comfort in knowing that "God is in charge."

Often around election-time there are blogs and church bulletins and sermons given that are meant to encourage Christians to remember that "God is in control of everything," that "the civil governments operate according to His bidding," and that even though those bums were elected to public office "God has a plan" and "God will take care of us" because "everything works out for good" and "just trust Him." Yes, just sing and be happy because it's all good.

Links to many blogs and sermons containing this general message could be inserted here. So the above description really is representative, and it probably sounds like sarcasm in the contest of things said in this post, but sarcasm is not the intention. Everything in the above paragraph is true -- God is in control and God will take care of us and we should just trust him. But, how does he "take care of us?" Do passages like "men shall revile you and persecute you for my sake" (Matt. 5:10-11) or "the world will persecute you" (John 15:20) or "They called in the apostles and had them flogged" (Acts 5:40) sound like today's American society version of being "taken care of?" Isn't the idea of "being taken care of by God" in the minds of many Christians is more like, "I'll keep my affluent lifestyle?" There may be a side of the "take comfort- it's going to be okay" messages that do the future of the church a great and dangerous disservice and endanger the quality of life of those who place too much confidence in those words.

On one hand, we need to trust and have faith in God for good things according to His bountiful grace and mercy. Absolutely, yes. On the other hand, we may someday be surprised to find that God's definition of "good things" is not the same as our definition of "a comfortable life in the land of the free." The Jewish nation developed a relatively comfortable lifestyle, at least for many of them, and they went on their satisfied way without reference to God. God was in control, all right. He used foreign nations to overrun His people and to take away their affluence and civil freedoms and to put them into slavery and bondage until they repented. Jesus said there was a difference between earthly treasure and heavenly treasure.

God is in charge! Yes. In charge of what? How is He in charge? Does He exert direct influence or control or does He work through something or someone else? Even if God in charge of the final outcome, has He turned the responsibility over to another entity, an entity in the physical realm, into which He has poured His Spirit and His power of authority? Did God every say that He would step in and take over if this physical entity messed things up, taking control temporarily before the events known as "end times?" Certainly, God is sovereign and God can do whatever He wills to do, but outside of that, does the scripture reveal a divine backup plan just in case things go downhill in the physical realm? Or, could it be, that going downhill is His will, as a consequence of natural law that was set up at the beginning of creation?

Sometimes one hears the story about how God doesn't have any "plan B." God just has a "plan A" which is categorically the hands and feet of the Christian. That's close, but perhaps it is even more accurate to say that God doesn't have a "plan A," either. Using English words and the English alphabet, God doesn't have plan A; God doesn't have plan B. God only created plan C -- the church. One may say, "Well, that's the same thing as saying the hands and feet of Christians." No, it's not the same, and that misidentification is why the church in America is headed for discipline and judgment -- because God is in control!

Now, who's in charge? A whole bunch of hands and feet? Not unless they're all functioning in the unity of the Spirit. That is a characteristic of the church (1 Cor 12, Rom 12). A bunch of hands and feet functioning in small groups who are independent and even competitive with other groups, each of which claiming they have their own unique and independent connection to the head, Jesus Christ, is not functioning as the body of Christ. This amalgam of uncoordinated and competitive effort is not "being of one mind in spirit and purpose" (Phil. 2:2). This is not the same church that God founded on Pentecost, that was described in the book of Acts, and that God put in charge of His kingdom on earth.

So, what if a blog said, "God is in charge and He put His church as the steward over the His kingdom on earth and gave the church His authority. Good will come in the long run -- eternity, but whether or not you think it is good -- pleasant -- in the short run is up to you and your obedience to My commands for love, peace, and unity that are My character, clearly made known to you by Jesus Christ."

Jesus had all authority (Matt. 18:18), and He charged his followers with carrying out His commands (Matt. 18:19-20). He chose the apostles (Acts 1:2) to lead the church into unity, and He poured out the Holy Spirit to empower salvation and to live in the church, the body of Christ (Eph. 2:20-22).

What is "everything is going to be good and just fine and okay" was proportionately and directly related to the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace in the church? THE church -- one body -- not a body under 1000 different definitions. When do we get this message? Will Christians continue to divide and bicker with one another as they are led to captivity with fishhooks in their mouths? "Well, my fishhook is shinier than yours."

Not a good prognosis. Even less, a happy outcome. But, somebody's gotta say it.

Think about it. The other option is THE OUTCOME THAT NO ONE WANTS TO OCCUR --

"They" need to do something about it!

We have met the people who are responsible, and they are us.

An A-slop fable: The Newspaper Conversation

[a] "Did you see the "Today's Prayer" in the newspaper?"

[b] "No. What about it? You got something against prayer?"

[a] "No."

[b] "You got something against newspapers?"

[a] "No"

[b] "You outta be thankful that the newspaper printed a prayer at all and even mentioned the name of God. It's not many newspapers that would do that, anymore, you know."

[a] "That's true. That's a good thing this newspaper did."

[b] "I'll bet you're going to criticize the prayer because it didn't mentioned the name of 'Jesus.' It does the best it can, you know. If they mentioned 'Jesus', there'd be a bunch of people who'd complain and they'd probably have to remove the whole thing. Jesus just isn't PC in today's world, you know."

[a] "Not going to criticize that, and you're right about Jesus and attitudes in today's world."

[b] "Then, why did you bring this up? Come on, I know you're going to criticize something!"

[a] "Why do you think that Jesus isn't PC in today's society? What has Jesus done to be 'un-PC'? Has Jesus changed something?"

[b] "No, Jesus hasn't changed -- it's just that people think they get along fine without that judgmental, competition, division stuff."

[a] "So, are you saying that is Jesus judgmental and competitive and divisive?"

[b] "No, it's those Christian groups that do that. Didn't Mahatma Gandhi say, 'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ?'"

[a] "So, why is Jesus 'un-PC'? Is it really Jesus, or is it what people see in Christian groups? How are people supposed to see Jesus, anyway?"

"People have to see Jesus in the life of Christians, right? They have to see Jesus in the church. The body of Christ is the church. The body of Christ has to be made up of a bunch of people who act like Jesus."

[a] "Now, read the 'Today's Prayer' from the newspaper."

"O mighty God, we ask that You rise up and rescue the helpless and the poor who long for You. Amen."

[b] "Okay, what about it?"

[a] "Doesn't it seem strange to ask God to 'rise up' and do what He has already said that we are supposed to do? Is God supposed to take care of the church's business while we sit around and watch TV, or what? Or, while we argue with one another about who is the greatest? Are we too busy being about our wonderful activities to fulfill the anointing of Jesus (Luke 4:18-19), which is the same subjects as that newspaper prayer and which He assigned to the church to accomplish? Jesus told us to do it, and we pray that God does it for us? Like, what is this? Gandai said Christians are unlike Christ; Christ can't be mentioned in a newspaper prayer because He isn't PC enough; and we pray that God does the work He assigned us to do. Isn't there a connection in all this? Besides that, Jesus Christ has already 'risen up' and He doesn't need to be resurrected again. We're the ones who need a resurrection. It's the church who needs to get off its padded pew and rise up."

[b] "So, why isn't that happening? Is this similar to the church not showing the world what the kingdom of God is like through relationships of love, peace, and unity and then getting worried about the political elections every four years?"

[a] "Of course it is. It's like praying, 'Oh, God, why don't you do something about this?' 'Oh, God, why don't you show yourself in a mighty way?' 'Oh God, deliver us from this mess we're in.' And we claim to have faith in God and believe the things in the Bible. The word says that God has already done something about it, and He established His church and placed His Spirit within the church as a dwelling place so that the church can operate in His power. But we say, 'Yeah, yeah' to that and then go about competing with one another and saying that people find God through our group and get judgmental about one another in order to protect our traditional doctrine that we feel safe with."

[b] "Well, you just preach it, brother. So, I guess you're saying that the church today is climbing into the handbasket of entropy to make a hot trip down the sides of the tube to the city at the bottom? When the Blackwood Brothers sang, 'I'm Bound for that City' I don't think they meant 'Tube City.'"

[a] "Just check Google Maps and click on the icon that says "spiritual layer."

[b] "Was that printed in the newspaper, too? You got a free app for that?"

[a] "God saved Nineveh and God would have even saved Sodom and Gomorrha if there had been just a few righteous people, and God might in His mercy save us if a faithful remnant could be found. The problem is that those situations were under the Old Covenant, before revelation was complete. 'Not knowing any better' could have been an acceptable excuse then. We say that revelation is complete through Jesus Christ, so, therefore, we should know better and we have more to be accountable for. If we claim that we have the complete revelation, why aren't we doing something with it besides wringing our hands every four years?"

[b] "Well, it's sure a good thing that my group is around to be the faithful remnant. Compared to those Christian-claiming people over there, we are .........."

[a] "You still don't get it, do you?"