Paul Agnew: I rarely meet humble, culturaly sensitive americans
Paul, I could introduce you to a few who were classmates at my seminary. However, they were murdered in a Baptist hospital by a Muslim.
Paul Agnew:the church in the US has suffered due to a lack of engagement in popular culture,
You are exactly right except for the points you are absolutely wrong. The problem in America (and other countries) with "irrelevance," as you call it, is not from a lack of engaging culture but from too much compromise with culture. I've been in ministry in America for 31 of my 52 years so I think I have some understanding of what is taking place.
Paul Agnew:rude.
But, you see nothing "rude" in the remarks of Australians on the Forum? Especially those who presume to be experts in a country the visit once or twice, or "annually." I've been in most of the Fifty states (as well as a couple forum countries). I find your analysis of America (and defense of another Australians Americabashing) somewhat offensive. If, either of you had something other than very narrow anecdotes -- something we call "evidence" in America -- I might not be so offended. I also would be less offended by critics who have actually defended our great nation against foreign enemies.I've decided to continue to post in support of the greatest republic on earth as long as others continue to bash and trash.
By the way . . . I've met a few people from Australia here in America. I would never presume to judge an entire nation by my experience with a few less-than-perfect representatives.
GOD BLESS AMERICA! AGAIN.
This election is historic and the networks are trying to keep their ratings up. Consequently they are going to talk about any and everything they can to keep people watching. Unfortunately their is not much journalism in their approach. For instance....
Evey week there is a "new poll" out with stats that ALWAYS show a slight swing for either McCain or Obama. The reality is that no one really knows the true numbers. The people who are voting for Obama are not using landlines so they are precluded from participating in these "polls"......(I am not a Democrat) The only poll that matters is the poll that people will visit on election day! Why aren't the pundits speaking on the voting records of the two candidates? Wouldn't this shed more light on how they might might govern as president?
One last thought....
Scripture tells us that society will fall further and further away from where God wants us to be. I don't mean morals...that's a word politicians and 'CHURCH FOLK" use to advance their own agendas. The Kingdom is NOT about morals, but about POWER! Morals can't save and they will NEVER bring deliverance nor healing!....Society is falling away from walking in fellowship and obedience to God's Word.
This decline has been legislated by lawmakers of every political party. This decline has been adjudicated by conservative AND liberal supreme courts. (and can we stop defining people as conservative and liberal and/or moderate? what is the benchmark for such comparisions? It sure isn't God's Word)
My thought is...why are some looking for a president or politician to save society. That's not reality. If a man or woman agrees with me on 1or 2 issues relevant to the Bible does that make them qualified to govern? If one is pro-life and does not believe in providing a mother with equal pay in the work place so she can have a place to stay....does that make them qualified to govern? If one is advocating for that mother to have equal pay in the work place in order for her to have that "place to stay" and supports abortion does that make them qualified to govern?
Just a thought....Jesus is comig back soon. The rapture will happen even sooner! But chew on this for a second...When Jesus came to earth as a baby the king was murdering babies AND Mary didn't have a place to stay.
...and why is there a tag "Brack Obama and Slavery reparations"? He doesn't qualify for them his ancestry is NOT a product of slavery.
I've watched enough. Since I pretty much started this string, let me just clarify something:
Josh is a good man. Marked I really enjoy. Paul I know well and believe he is a great man. Jack and John are also good men. (It pains me that I don't live closer to John and Paul. I guarantee you I'd being bothering both of them in person with about every free moment I'd have.) Most any of the internationals in this forum are people I'd be honored to work along side of in real life up-close and personal.
The challenge we have in communicating on these other things is that blanket statements are easy to make, but context is everything. I don't necessarily disagree with some of the statements made about American Christians, but again: context is everything.
I have a neighbor on my street who is a nice guy. Problem is he's a horrible dad. He's super smart and can help you do about anything you need done. But he's a horrible dad to his young kids. He also doesn't seem to be aware of how his words affect others.
He's especially quick to editorialize and tell other dads how to raise their kids or what he'd do in their shoes. That'd be okay if I didn't know him, but the problem is that I know his track record. He has very little (read: NO) credibility with me. I've already successfully raised to kind, Christ-following boys who are on their own now, making me proud. This guys got two boys who don't even know or respect him. He has no right or privilege to tell me how to raise kids. When he gets on to that subject, I'd rather be poking myself in the eye with a knitting needle than listen to him - so I don't. I disengage and leave him immediately.
You see, I don't mind counsel - even unsolicited counsel - from people who have a good, credible history, but when they aren't credible, it causes a bit of a knee jerk reaction on my part. I think most of us are that way.
When it comes to discussing the "American Church," I think Americans have a knee jerk reaction, too - and I think it's based on the credibility of the one making the statements (not the one personally as in the specific person making the statement, but in who they represent).
For example:
The average survey in the US suggest that 40% of the American public attends worship weekly. (I find that number to be an exaggeration, but that's the commonly accepted one. Some surveys place it as high as 60%. I don't think so. I'd guess it's more like 30%.)
I recently saw numbers (I'm recalling these from memory, so be kind) that put that at about 9%-13% in the UK, 12% for Oz, 3% in Denmark, 19% in Germany, 10% in France, 2% in Iceland, and so on.
Nationalities aside, if I can use the baseball concept, a person who bats .400 is not really likely to take seriously batting advice from someone who's hitting .120 or .100, any more than a successful businessman is likely to take advice from a guy who can't keep a business running.
So when someone in a place where the church is not flourishing wants to tear down a place that - in comparison - is flourishing, that's hard to swallow.
The question then, is how do we handle it? Do we demean each other? Do we just reject out-of-hand what's said?
1. I'll tell you straight up that Internationals need to be just as careful in how they handle Americans as they expect Americans to handle everyone else.
(If you want to tell the American Christians what they're doing wrong, you'd probably better preface it with some self-effacing examples of what your own nation's believers are weak in, otherwise it starts to sound like shirll, jealous, childish, playground taunts. In other words, model the trait you're wanting to encourage Americans to implement, or you have no credibility and won't/can't be heard. Treat them with the gentleness and respect you want to be treated with.)
2. Yeah, Americans need to get past themselves and pay more attention to what is said rather than who is saying it. I'm a proud, flag-flying, gun-toting, Consitution-carrying conservative, and while I understand that principle of humility, it's easy to forget it on the playground when the name-calling starts.
3. If it isn't true, you may just need to let it go. You don't hafta throw down on everything you disagree with. Let's face it - the more irritating it is, the less you probably need to actually address it. And honestly, some of this stuff - pro-American or not - just flat doesn't deserve a response.
4. In Christ, there is no Greek, no Jew, no American, no Brit, no Aussie. Playing the nationality card needs to be handled with extreme care. Let me explain:
When an international says to me, "The problem with American Christians is..." - that is simply inflammatory from the git-go and clearly intended to sting - and it WILL draw a reaction from a normal person.
The reality is that none of you internationals knows ALL the American Christians - I'm an American and live here and I don't either - and we don't know all the Brit Christians or Aussie Christians or whoever. Don't make stupid statements about what you don't really know. You don't know ALL Americans, so why would you dare lump them all together? I'm guilty of it, too - including against internationals - but that whole stereotyping thing is just stupid.
Listen: Mike Huckabee does not speak for me. James Dobson does not speak for me. The Republican Party does not speak for me. You don't know what I think unless I tell you. It's the same for every believer in every country.
Let's tread lightly on this stuff. There are a lot of apologies that need to be exchanged in this string.
t
Diligo Deus Vixi Liberum
Tony,
I hear your words but just want to be clear: I don't intend to apologize for being an American Christian. As far as foreigners pontificating on American Christianity it is a little like someone "hitting my little brother" when we were young. I beat up my little brother nearly everyday -- sometimes twice in a day. But, if someone else came after him, they would have to go through me. It is the same way with the American church.
I took an oath when I was 18 years old to defend my country from all enemies foreign and domestic. I may not be able to run as fast or far in that defense, but I've learned to shoot better!
This has been an interesting discussion. I would like to see people play the ball, not the man...if possible.
I am going to blog about something Tony had said here about the differences between Aussies and Americans.
What I will say as a pre empter to that is, this forum has been great for me to understand that most American Pastors are nothing like the media portrays them as. Most of them are hard working passionate Christians that I would glady minister with.
Marked Post
and here are some great quotes from Mark Batterson...
"
When someone new arrives at National Community Church, how do you encourage them to leave their politics at the door?
Loud silence. In a city that's always talking about politics, it's noticeable when we don't talk about it. We want church to be a safe place to hear a dangerous message, and it's not a political message. It's the message of the cross. We're very intentional about avoiding political stuff or anything that will distract from our core message. So, we're screening our bulletin, we're analyzing what we say up front. We keep it pretty simple. And I think that's what's really protected us from being distracted by the politics around us.
You want to focus on the gospel and avoid politics, but is that possible when the gospel has political implications?
I agree, the gospel does have political implications, but what was Jesus' intent? Was his intent for his followers to pass government laws and policies to create programs like welfare, education, and healthcare? Or was his intent for the church to take ownership of these issues and care for people? The early church didn't focus on getting Rome to pass laws to alleviate problems. They saw the church as the solution to the world's brokenness. Sometimes I feel like our focus on politics is a copout. We need to focus on how the church can be the solution to the problems around us and not just look to the government to solve everything. Government has an important role, but I think it's gotten out of proportion for many Christians
rest of article
I love America, so much i intend to move back at some point (probably when my american son can get me in ;) )
I love American christianity, most of the books i read and people who influence me are American.
I've considered this a lot over the weekend and have come to a conclusion.
It is good for a believer to be in the world and not of the world. It is important that our citizenship of the Kingdom trump all other claims.
For us here in the UK we live in a secular environment that is Unchristianised it's very easy for me to see my kingdom residency and care little for my national identity as our society is very self effacing and not very patriotic, it's a cultural thing.
In the US national identity and patriotism is very important, it is a quality considered good and true and ranks up there in peoples attributes. Faith and christian values also rank up there. Because of this as an outsider looking in it appears the 2 are completely intertwined. For many US believers they are.
As someone who is not so patriotic i see clearly that they are distinct and separate. No one can serve 2 masters. In the US you have been blessed that on not too many occasions have you had to decide one or the other, but i guarantee you that one day you will. I pray that the distinction between these qualities would be clear. I further pray that Overseas missionaries from the US would also be sensitive to this, American values do not always=godly values (this is only an issue as often they do mirror each other, which is a good thing).
I hope this has made my point clearer. I don't do american bashing.
I don't intend to apologize for being an American Christian.
Jack that's a bit of a red herring. No one has asked anyone to apologize for being an American Christian or a British Christian or any nationality of Christian. The apology should be for the way reactions and recriminations have been based on nationality.
As to discussions on politics in this forum, it's gonna come up in an election year. It can't not come up. We in America are dealing with some real national issues in this election that have heavy duty spiritual implications. We have one candidate that doesn't seem to get it, and one that wants to turn us into socialist, post-Christian Europe. We have to talk these things out among our peers in order to learn better how to correct those spiritual deficiencies.
Case in point: poverty. Regardless of what you internationals see on the TV specials, we simply don't have it here in the States - not like compared to other nations. Our poverty here is pretty much tied to intentional self-destruction. Poverty here is pretty much a personal choice. Yet I've always reacted so heavily to that intentional choice that I've neglected the kids and the innocent people dragged into what poverty there is by their loved ones...and I've not taken time to understand how to help the innocent victims not become perpetual victims.
Guys like Robs have really made me pay attention to that. He's ALWAYS seen it, and because he has a high stock value in my eyes, I was finally able to see it through his - but for the first few years I knew him, I didn't agree with him. I kept having to ask myself why his comments on it bugged me so much. I finally came to the conclusion that the problem wasn't his, it was mine.
That would have never happened without the discussions here, and now my congregation and I are better for it. But Rob never once said, "You conservative Christians are always...{whatever}." He respectfully and patiently made his case and kept his focus even when I did my "***-throwing monkey" imitation. I owe him big time for that.
ROFLMBO! I found a censored word and it isn't even profane! LOL! Do I get some kind of prize?!!!!
now i want to know what your monkey was throwing
F - E - C - E - S
tonyliston: F - E - C - E - S
Isn't that one of the high school cheers out there in the land of corn and hogs?
Bryan
tonyliston:The apology should be for the way reactions and recriminations have been based on nationality.
If this is the criterion then I don't need to apologize because I'd never presume to paint all nationalities with a large brush.
tonyliston:we simply don't have it here in the States - not like compared to other nations. Our poverty here is pretty much tied to intentional self-destruction. Poverty here is pretty much a personal choice.
Tony, I'm going to assume you are using hyperbole. I'm sure you would never want to suggest that someone who is hungry in America is less hungry than someone in a foreign country. I live in a major metropolitan strip city and I see truly poor people all the time. They are not all lazy bums or degenerate drug addicts, or irresponsible drunks as your post suggests. Having worked as one of a team of ministers on skid row in a major Bay Area city for several years, I can flatly reject the hyperbolic statements that "we have no real poverty, " and most poverty is a matter of self-choice. I'm not talking about one or two encounters from a sociological distance but more than a few years up-close and personal.
I've also been involved in an extended ministry to a slum in Quatamala. You might think that the people in such a slum would be "poorer" than the homeless in America. The problem I discovered was: "how do you compare these two groups?" It is like comparing apples and oranges. Do you use the local context to compare poverty, or do you use some hypothetical "world standard?" I will give my observation: Almost to a child the "poor children" in the Quatamala slum were happier than the poor children in my neighborhood in many ways.
I am still quite involved with feeding hungry people -- many of them children. In contrast, I just turned a man away from my door without giving him anything because he is what might be referred to as a "personal beggar." Because I live in a parsonage next to a church (until they choose to ask me to leave), I have people knock on my door for help. Sometimes it is the mother up the street who has no milk for her baby. I do what I can. Sometimes it is the occasional "professional beggar" making the rounds.
Please, let's not paint with too broad of a brush when we do a portrait of the poor. This is one category Jesus specifically targetted for ministry. While there is one verse that speaks about "if a man does not work neither does he eat," the bulk of the references to the poor are calls for non-judgemental care and concern. There is nothing in most passages that emphasize a call to "evaluate relentlessly," but to "love unconditionally."
As a side note: there is an interesting story in the nose about a "modern-day Jesus." His name is Brandt Russo. He is a friend of my daughters and has lived with us in our house. A couple years ago he devoted himself to ministering to the poor. He travels in a "veggie-bus" (converted to run on cast away vegetable oil from restaurants). The veggie-bus is converted to use as a campsite feeding station. Food for this feeding program comes from dumpsters. Brandt eats what the poor eat -- when it is available. The link below refers to an unpleasant encounter with the Church in Lakewood. It borders a swamp. Brandt was in the swamp feeding the homeless and giving them insect repellant when the church had him arrested. An interesting, real-life story about one young man trying to do his part.
http://endtimespropheticwords.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/evangelist-brandt-russo-released-from-lakeland-jail-after-strader-spat/
Jack, stop reacting and listen. Stop extrapolating comments to the worst possible extreme. You're getting to the point where you're not making sense in the discourse. You're better than that, even if you were a Navy guy. :)
Tony, I'm making perfect sense. I just tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. Your argument is an old and tired one that does great harm to the American poor. It is also an argument I had before I actually started living and working among the American poor.
Taking an argument to its extreme is precisely the way in which philosophers evaluate an argument. Many lines seem parallel unless you extend them a bit and then you see that they are not "true" or parallel at all.
Your argument that most poor and hungry people in America "do it to themselves" is simply wrong in my experience. Over half the American homeless are people who have severe mental problems but do not have the health-care or home support to deal with it adequately. The still get hungry and cold. Is it their fault they have a mental illness?
Also, many of the hungry and poor in our society today are the elderly. Some, like my mother, spend their entire savings on necessary prescriptions and then have to spend half their monthly income on medications to keep them alive. Just one of my mother's many prescriptions cost over $500 a month. My Dad was no lazy bum but worked 38 years in a chemical factory only to see his savings and pension depleted by health-care needs.
So, I'm sticking by my challenge to your statements - implicit and explicit - as much as I love and respect you.