Larry King Live - Christians Debate War 3/11/03

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Larry King Live - Christians Debate War

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Bump for a fascinating look tonight at who's with us and who's against us.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Try to catch the replay tonight.

Bump for John MacArthur of Grace Community Church and his support of America's "War of Protection."

[chicagolady]

I believe Charles Stanley did a stellar job weeks ago on In Touch Ministries.

[maestro]

This is all Blackmail-Terrorism-Threats by the U.N. itself,.....if the Islamic U.N. doesn't have its own despotic way,....they'll declare a 'Massive Show of ANARCHY" in our streets?

I believe Charles Stanley did a stellar job weeks ago on In Touch Ministries.

bttt

[Delphinium]

It will be those "christians" who believe in murdering unborn babies, and homosexuals being pastors, against those that believe in the Bible as the Word of God.

[LiteKeeper]

Interesting how the priest and the Methodist bishop both left the door wide open for the old - "all roads lead to God" - John MacArthur and Max Lucado repeatedly said that Jesus is the ONLY WAY, in no uncertain terms!

The priest and the bishop also kept saying there were other ways to solve the Iraqi crisis, but short of saying we ought to go into Iraq and build schools and bridges, they offered no other alternatives. They were typical of liberal, comproising clergy that are rampant in the US today.

[Wrigley]

With us: John MacArthur, Jones
Not with us: Methodist Bishop, Catholic Priest.
Not sure:Max Lucado

[RnMomof7]

I watchede it live and HOPE it will be replayed this week end..The Methodist "Bishop" was an embarresment

MacArthur, Lucado and Jones were great..especially the part when Mac Arthur stood up for the gospel...

One thing ya have to admit..Calvinists never compromise the word of God..

[RnMomof7]

BTTT

[churchillbuff]

MacArthur, Lucado and Jones were great..especially the part when Mac Arthur stood up for the gospel...

Isn't MacArthur the guy who preaches that Christians should stay out of politics, and that Dobson should get off the anti-abortion kick? When did MacArthur start to care about public affairs, or suggest that Christians should take a stand on public issues?

[RnMomof7]

I have read that elsewhere..I can not say it is true or not..But I will say that nothing changes without a heart change..you can not legislate morality ..

I believe he was asked to discuss the biblical principle of a "Just War" and as a Pastor that is within his span of authority..He was not gathering a public demonstration, or asking for a petition to the White House..

BTW Every one does not 'love" Dobson..
I am neutral but he too has detractors
http://www.skeptictank.org/fof.htm

[Matchett-PI]

"Isn't MacArthur the guy who preaches that Christians should stay out of politics, and that Dobson should get off the anti-abortion kick? When did MacArthur start to care about public affairs, or suggest that Christians should take a stand on public issues?" ~ churchillbuff

Not quite. Get your facts straight for "next time".

The Foolishness of Preaching the Gospel
(1 Corinthians 1:21)

by Phil Johnson

This excerpt from the sermon addresses the controversy that exists between the ministry of Dr. John MacArthur and that of Dr. James Dobson (Focus on the Family), on the issue of preaching the gospel to change the wickedness of man versus using political legislation to accomplish that end.

We are not to blend the gospel message with human wisdom and think that by doing that we have made it more sophisticated. Notice our verse again, "It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" [1 Corinthians 1:21]. This is God's strategy: preaching the gospel is God's chosen strategy for salvation. "It pleased God" to do this--this was His choice. Verse 27, "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty..." [1 Corinthians 1:27]. This is God's own chosen strategy and we are not permitted to modify it. We are not permitted to substitute our own strategies in its place.

But many people today have modified it, and some Christians, have even made the same mistake I made, before I became a Christian, and that is, they think the solution to society's moral decline is a political agenda, and they have thrown all the energies and their resources into trying to redeem society through politics, which this passages teaches us is an utterly futile undertaking. Our pastor, John MacArthur has had much to say about this over the years---if you have been listening, you know that, because as the energies of the Evangelical Movement have been diverted more and more away from evangelism and the preaching of the gospel, and invested more and more in political lobbying, public protests, and in some cases, all out war on American culture--as we've seen that happen, John MacArthur has spoken out in favor of preaching and evangelism instead. He has consistently said what this passage says, and that is that sin is what ails modern society and so the gospel is the only effective remedy. But that message isn't popular with everybody, even among our evangelical friends.

John mentioned, I think, jokingly, recently, that he wrote a book two years ago, titled, Why Government Can't Save You and he was joking from the pulpit recently that "almost no one actually read that book" and it is true that it didn't become a best seller, but some people actually did read it, and reacted negatively to it--Focus on the Family in particular, and they published a book in reply (early this year)--the title of the book is, Why You Can't Stay Silent, subtitled, A Biblical Mandate to Shape Our Culture. The author was Tom Minnery, who is a vice-president of Focus on the Family, and he says he wrote the book at Dobson's urging. Now I presume that James Dobson is well known to most of you. His daily radio broadcast is the most listened too syndicated program in all of Christian radio, and in fact, I don't have statistics to prove it, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Dobson's broadcast is heard by more people than any other syndicated radio broadcast in the world--either Christian or secular. I would imagine that he has more daily listeners and more clout than Rush Limbaugh and Dr Laura combined, and I am not exaggerating when I say that--just from the sheer numbers of radio stations that he is on and the number of people in his constituency.

Focus on the Family began in the early 1970's after Dobson had become fairly well known through the first of several best selling books he wrote. I think his first best seller was, Dare to Discipline, and it was a book about parenting. And the main focus of his broadcasts, in those early days, was parenting and child psychology. He is the best known Christian Psychologist of our generation, and his broadcasts on the radio immediately struck a chord with audiences that were looking for help on parenting and similar issues. As his popularity grew in the decades of the 70's and the 80's Dobson began to use more and more of his influence to address political issues. More and more, with each passing year, he devotes his radio broadcasts and his organization's resources to lobby for legislation against abortion; he campaigns against the gay-rights agenda; he supports conservative candidates for political office. He has poured his full energies into the Religious Right and he has become their best known and most effective spokesman.

Now obviously, we would be in full agreement with the moral standards Dr. Dobson affirms. We share his loathing for abortion. Like him we abominate homosexuality, drug abuse, and all these other symptoms of our culture's moral decline--we do share his hatred for those evils that have infected our society, but we are convinced that preaching the gospel is a more effective remedy than any political solution could ever offer, because we believe these things are symptoms of sin and the only effectual answer for sin is the gospel. But as far as Focus on the Family and James Dobson are concerned, our position, he interprets it as an argument in favor of inactivity, passivity, silence. They have accused us of saying, "Christians ought to remain silent in the face of all these moral evils." In fact, that accusation is even reflected in the title of Tom Minnery's book, Why You Can't Stay Silent. Dobson himself recently echoed that accusation in a letter he sent to all his constituents, and that is why I have chosen to deal with this, this morning, because over the past four weeks, since his letter went out, I have been besieged by people with questions. Many of you have received that letter from him--I did. Many people, in fact, people all over the country have emailed me and phoned me to ask me, "Are we going to respond to James Dobson's remarks about John MacArthur?" And the answer is "Yes," here's my response.

Let me read you first of all what he says. This is from the letter he sent out this month. He writes this,

"This month, I want to say a few words about our culture's continued moral decline and, more importantly, the apparent hesitancy of some within the Christian community to try and stem the tide. Despite the relentless attacks by homosexual activists on the institution of marriage, and of "safe sex" ideology, pro-abortion sentiment, and other forms of immorality that are engulfing us, there are those within the church who remain convinced that it isn't our place to make our voices heard on these issues."

Now, notice the charge: the people he says he's concerned about, he says are, "hesitant to try and stem the tide of immorality, and they believe Christians should not make their voices heard on these issues." That's his accusation. He continues,

"In their estimation, controversy about sexuality, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family are "political" in nature and therefore unworthy of our attention."

Again, he's suggesting that someone is saying "these moral issues are unworthy of our attention. They are things we shouldn't be concerned about." And I read that and I thought who are these Christians who advocate silence and passive acceptance of society's moral decline? Dobson tells us who he thinks they are. He says this,

"Some recent examples of this perspective..."

This perspective that he's been describing, this view that we ought to remain silent and not be concerned about moral issues,

"Some recent examples of this perspective are seen in the following quotes:"

And guess where the first quote he cites comes from? It's a quotation from John MacArthur's book, Why Government Can't Save You. Here's the quotation he [Dobson] finds objectionable. John MacArthur writes,

"God does not call the church to influence the culture by promoting legislation." — John MacArthur, Why Government Can't Save You, 2000

Now frankly, if you object to that remark by John MacArthur, it would seem to me that you would also have to object to the Apostle Paul's statement that "righteousness doesn't come by law." But Dobson doesn't quote the Apostle Paul. The next person he quotes is Jim Bakker, ex-convict and former host of the PTL Club. I think there may have been some deliberate strategy in juxtaposing those two quotes. Dobson also blames Cal Thomas, the syndicated newspaper columnist and former leader in the religious right who became something of a black sheep in the religious right when he began to suggest that Christian's time and resources might be better spent on evangelism rather than politics. But Dobson disagrees with that--he is fully convinced that the solution to America's problem is a political solution and he is determined to keep pouring his ministry's resources into political lobbying. And he says in his letter, that he believes, by doing this we are preaching the gospel. I hear in that an echo of my own thoughts before I became a Christian--I thought that was the gospel message. That's virtually the same thing I said to Rob Holtzinger, when he began to argue with me that the gospel was more important than politics. I said, "Politics is the gospel. This is the only way we are going to save our society. This is the only way we can turn things around." That's precisely what James Dobson is arguing.

Now let me sum up quickly by showing you in practical terms why I think this is a serious mistake. Here's why: Because in order to work in the realm of secular politics, you have to make certain compromises. Politics is built on compromise. Anybody who's involved in politics will affirm that for you. There are some things you cannot talk about in the political realm and the gospel is one of them. James Dobson's political allies in the realm of moral reform include multitudes who would not share his commitment to the gospel of the New Testament; who would not agree with him on the exclusiveness of Christ, because in the words of John 3:18, the gospel is the message that, "...he who believes on Him is not condemned," but it also includes the truth that "...he who believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." The message of Christ is an exclusive message--it's either-or, Jesus said, "If you are not with Me you're against Me," and what He meant by that is, "If you are not a believer, you are not on My team." And when your political agenda involves forming alliances with Mormons, Moslems, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, and all kinds of humanistic moralists, you simply cannot afford to speak frankly about the exclusivity of Christ--it's an issue you can't bring up. You have to stifle the truth about justification by faith alone, because Roman Catholics, who are your political allies reject that doctrine. You're better off, in fact, not to mention the name of Christ at all, because Jewish people, who are our political allies, are sensitive about that, and so the gospel is stifled as a consequence whenever people become political activists, they begin to trim away the offensive parts of the gospel. It is the natural and inevitable consequence of moving the fight to the political arena--happens all the time.

Frankly, if I can just speak frankly, you can see the effect of this on James Dobson's own broadcasts. You can listen for weeks, and you'll hear messages about the practical side of parenting; you'll hear lots of discussion about political and moral issues; you'll hear shrill warnings about how the moral fiber of our society is unraveling more and more all the time; you'll hear social critiques and calls for moral reform; you'll hear interviews with people about all kinds of things, including non-Christians who happen to be our allies in political issues; you'll occasionally hear references to God and the Bible, but if you ever hear any actual Bible teaching--it's rare--and rarely will you hear the name of Jesus Christ mentioned, and almost never will you hear a clear and uncompromising presentation of the gospel. The gospel is inevitably stifled when your main concern becomes political issues, and I frankly think that is a dangerous and wrong-headed direction for any Christian ministry to go--it subtly undermines the gospel. It's the very thing Paul is warning about here in 1 Corinthians 1. That kind of strategy diverts the focus of Christian people who listen to and trusts that ministry--they become concerned about and consumed with things other than the gospel.

Now consider the irony of all of this: Focus on the Family has accused ministries of ours of advocating apathy and silence, but they are the ones who have been silent on the issues that matter most. They are the ones who have abandoned the foolishness of preaching and opted instead for worldly methods and worldly wisdom--they are the ones that are out-of-step with Scripture.

Scores of people, as I have said, have asked me, in recent weeks, "How we intend to answer James Dobson's letter?" Well, that's my answer. I hope that he'll get back to what matters, and I hope that his faith does not stand in the wisdom of men and the strategies of the politicians, but in the wisdom and the power of God, because that is the only hope for our society--the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, and if we preach it--those whom God calls will hear it and they will respond, and that's the best hope our society has.

[xzins]

Which bishop did we parade out: Talbert? Sprague?

It doesn't matter. With a very few exceptions, they are all heretics.

They're all such liars that not one of them will mention that the denomination's own rules support war. They all pretend we're some kind of pacifist entity.

[RnMomof7]

Thanks for the post MPI

We share his loathing for abortion. Like him we abominate homosexuality, drug abuse, and all these other symptoms of our culture's moral decline--we do share his hatred for those evils that have infected our society, but we are convinced that preaching the gospel is a more effective remedy than any political solution could ever offer, because we believe these things are symptoms of sin and the only effectual answer for sin is the gospel.

Politics is built on compromise. Anybody who's involved in politics will affirm that for you. There are some things you cannot talk about in the political realm and the gospel is one of them. James Dobson's political allies in the realm of moral reform include multitudes who would not share his commitment to the gospel of the New Testament; who would not agree with him on the exclusiveness of Christ, because in the words of John 3:18, the gospel is the message that, "...he who believes on Him is not condemned," but it also includes the truth that "...he who believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." The message of Christ is an exclusive message--it's either-or,

This was clear last night as the Methodist Bishop of a "sister Wesleyan church" (Dobson is a Wesleyan as a Nazarene) spent his TV time telling the audience that Christ was not necessary for salvation..any ole god will do. He was afraid of offending Larry King..

MacArthur was unashamed of the gospel he preaches

Compromise will damn people to hell..The Gospel saves

[RnMomof7]

I forgot his name Xzins . He was an older black man..he was pathetic..Jesus is HIS way to heaven but God loves everyone..The RC priest was also an embarrassment  to the gospel.

[Porterville]

If my church hides from their reponsibility for supporting this war; I no longer have a church.

[editor-surveyor]

Whenever I see Larry King Live and Christians in the same sentence, the odor of long deceased whale wafts through my nostrils. - No exception here :o)

[xzins]

Some are less pathetic, but I know of no methodist bishop who is not pathetic.

Also, by no stretch are any of them followers of wesley.

[RnMomof7]

I am impressed by the number of churchs addressing this issue from the pulpit or as in the case of my new church in Sunday School..I have no memory of this being done in the past..

[Matchett-PI]

It's like Dr. Steve Brown has said, I agree with many of their issues, but I don't ever want to see them gain power."

He is in agreement with America's Calvinist Framers who drew up our Constitution precisely in order to prevent that from happening.

For our Founders, one man’s liberty did not rest upon another man’s (religious) conscience.

Each citizen had the right to program his conscience according to the standards he felt were true and to live his life as his conscience dictated in his pursuit for happiness. Blackstone speaks on the subject of pursuing happiness.

"For he (God) has so intimately connected, so inseparably inter-woven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former; and, if the former be punctually obeyed, it cannnot but induce the latter."

They believed that God gave life to all men and with that life the opportunity to follow him. As believers, they believed that they had a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of their fellow Americans against all tyranny and that each citizen should have the right as a priest to pursue happiness according to the dictates of his own conscience.

"League of Friendship" identified the religious and political principles that were in their Confederation as colonies. Those same principles are identified when they again refer to their Confederation of free States as a"League of Friendship" (see Articles of the Confederation). As Christians, they defined the obligation of their sacred friendship in the following manner. In John 15:13 of the New Testament, Jesus made this statement to his followers:

"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."

Those founders considered the cost of belonging to the Union that they had created and determined that the treasure for their children was well worth the price. Thus they asked God for the following condition as they pledged their support to one another to protect the Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness of their fellow Americans. They asked God to keep them honest by holding them accountable for what they were about to pledge. They then pledged the following:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare:

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Rights of Conscience is the foundation of American Politics. Many Christians in America were worried at the time when the U.S. Constitution was passed and feared that their right to let God govern their conscience might be replaced by the authority given to Congress as the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Thomas Jefferson was aware of their concerns and wrote the following:

"No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the power of its public functionaries..."

To go with my #12, here is more:

RAZORMOUTH ARTICLE

Excerpt:

We have (at least) two competing visions about how America should be Christianized. Mine is non-statist. I want greater liberty and greater obedience, not less liberty in the attempt to politically guarantee such obedience.

This dilemma is highlighted by the critics on the Left that we are “The American Taliban.” After all, some contend, don’t we agree with most of the Taliban’s criticisms of the decadent United States? Don’t we believe in a union of church and state? Don’t we advocate an enforced Christianity, as they do an enforced Islam?

In a word, no. The Taliban are (were!) godless political tyrants bent on protecting a murderous international cartel. The fact that they opposed Buddha and adultery and miniskirts and feminism and homosexuality and rock music and porno are coincidental. They practiced a medieval morality, not a Christian morality. I’ll take America’s low morals and free institutions any day over the Taliban’s high morals and tyrannical state because (a) we can address the moral problem by a full-orbed gospel as long as we have the political freedom to preach it and (b) a high morality that must be enforced by a tyrannical state is a hypocritical, godless morality.