Posted on 04/17/2003 6:12:40 PM PDT by Gamecock
"They call Tom DeLay "The Hammer," but do you know what he talked with Marta and [me] about the other night? Ninety percent of the table conversation [at the dinner for newly minted Congressmen] was about foster kids and all the [orphanages] around the country he is trying to set up. That's his charity. He knows what matters to the nation he serves -- and it's not winning a few House races."
Don't you just love it? A delinquent collecting welfare bennies. Hey now, some kids are really being abused, but they're the ones who don't report it because of fears of reprisals. It's the brats with the emotional and behavioral problems who set up Mom and Dad because they don't get things their own way.
As Lady Eileen reported, they're indoctrinated with this stuff at the government schools.
Parents these days are forced choose between "free" education for their kids and protecting them from state socialism.
In economic terms, the taxes wasted on socialist education are "sunk costs." One reason we keep our kids in government schools even though we know better is that we want to get something for our money. But when we take this approach we overlook just what that something is.
You will find the members of the invisible church working to do the very things that God commands. They are working to prevent this type of horrible abomination.
This distinction is useful for a many theological issues but not, in my opinion, very helpful for clarifying matters of public witness. It's similar to the die-hard Marxist, watching the changes in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, continuing to insist that those countries didn't practice real socialism or real communism, and so their failure doesn't mean much.
Non-believers should be able to accept, more or less at face value, the public everyday witness of the visible church rather than be asked to first accept the visible/invisible distinction.
Otherwise, all that happens is that the question simply shifts to: Why don't individual members of the invisible church, i.e. true believers, publicly rebuke, and call for the repentance of, visible church leaders who teach falsely and ignore the plight of the widows and orphans? These false teachers' sin is public; so should their rebuke be.
Some may say that invisible church members, by definition, don't have the platforms or positions that visible church members do. That's true, but surely at least some of the visible church leaders are also members of the invisible church. Thus they are not only able but also, presumably, willing to speak out for truth and justice in a public way.
That only a handful of such men is currently speaking out on the wickedness of foster care issue (and, correspondingly, on the wickness of the church for neglecting the issue) is, in my mind, extremely telling. It means that the invisible church does need to repent. Not only of this injustice but also of the equal or greater injustice of permitting the visible church to drag Christ's name in the mud with so little opposition. The real church isn't impotent, after all: "If God is for us, who can be against us?"
The conclusion of the matter, then, is that we members of the real church need to (1) repent of blaming others for our disobedience, (2) repent of that disobedience, and (3) start obeying again. If we do that, we'll quickly recapture those parts of the visible church worth saving, and God will bring destruction on the rest.
And threads like this on Free Republic will receive considerably more attention than they do presently.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.