Are we too worldly minded?

[Ian Gentles]

I love the debates we have on the board, love discussing polotics etc. But, are we too engrossed in the things of this world to be truely spiritual? I will leave folks to take up this subject in any way they wish!:fav18

[Barbara Moulton]

I love the debates we have on the board, love discussing polotics etc. But, are we too engrossed in the things of this world to be truely spiritual? I will leave folks to take up this subject in any way they wish!:fav18

We can be I am sure. But I think of C.S.Lewis when he wrote of the sin of gluttony in The Screwtape Letters. He implied that gluttony is not just the sin of overeating. Gluttony is obsessing over the things we eat until it controls us. Similiarly, being too engrossed in the things of this world may not only mean wanting to have the things of this world...it can mean obsessing over everything in the world as well.

For example, speaking honestly, I get a little frustrated this time of the year because many people seem obsessed with making my enjoyment of the Christmas season subject to criticism.

If people don't like the lights and the gifts and the Christmas music playing in November, I respect that. But just as it would be wrong for me to obsess over all those things to the point that it becomes the entire focus of my celebration, surely it is just as distracting to the celebration of Christ's birth to indulge in rants against those things at every opportunity?

I believe God wants us to be in the world but not of the world. This doesn't mean walking through this world with a consistently critical and condmenning eye. Neither does it mean we engross ourselves in the affairs of this world. I believe it means walking through this world with a spirit open to redeem what the world has to offer us, for God's glory.

So if a store owner wants to play Christmas music to boost sales in November that's her business. Regardless of her motivation, I'll dance a jig to Feliz Navidad as I push my shopping cart and exchange smiles with the people who chuckle at my joy.

Is it more spiritual to shun all the worldly aspects of Christmas or to let God redeem them for you and use them as a way to connect with people who don't know His Son?

So I guess my answer to your question is, yes...we can be too engrossed in the things of this world. But engrossed does not necessarily mean simply indulging. We are engrossed when thoughts of this world consume us in ways that negatively impact our spiritual journey and the journey of others.

[Sharon Isley]

I'm not willing to speak for the church as a whole, because this is one of those times where Jesus's warning to take the beam out of your own eye before removing the speck in your neighbor's applies to me.

Yes, I constantly battle being too engrossed in the world. I'm aware of this tendency, and its one of my daily prayer concerns.

[Marsha Lynn]

I assume that everyone here is too worldly-minded except for those who are too heavenly-minded (but aren't SO heavenly-minded that they have eliminated internet discussions from their lives as not being spiritual enough).

Maybe some of the heavenly-minded people are too worldly-minded sometimes. And maybe some of us who are too worldly-minded occasionally stray into too heavenly-minded territory. Assuming that there is a perfect balance between focus on matters of temporary importance and matters of eternal significance, I doubt that anyone manages to keep the bubble perfectly between the lines.

If someone focuses on achieving the perfect balance of being in the world but not of the world, do they end up neglecting both the temporal and eternal aspect of their life while obsessing over the balance?

It looks to me like the questions raised by this question are endless. Whether they're the questions that will lead us to better balance is another matter.

[Barb Bouldrey]

Barbara!

So you are tempted to jig to Felix Navidad, too??????????

That is one song that gets in my head and stays there a long time.

LOL

Barbv

[Marsha Gupton]

You can look at my avatar and see how worldly minded I am during this Christmas Season.:cs02

[Barbara Moulton]

You can look at my avatar and see how worldly minded I am during this Christmas Season.:cs02

I like your signature :-)

One of my favourite Christmas songs.

[Belinda Y. Edwards]

i think it is interesting when Christians get nervous about the world. We were placed in the world, when we were created - we weren't placed in a heavenly cloud. Earth/World is our home.

Christ helps us to know how to live in our home, but while we are here - this is our home.

[Ian Gentles]

We do sincerley get nervouse..and I would note, from my own perspective, that its political debates that devide us most here!

[Bruce Carriker]

Isn't our Christianity supposed to inform how we think about the world? I could not vote for John Kerry largely because he said that he didn't allow his religious beliefs to influence his political decisions. Huh? How can that be?!

If you are a Christian, IT MUST inform how you think about issues such as abortion, the death penalty, war, social programs, taxes, and just about everything else on the agenda. In fact, while there are issues that may truly be "morally neutral", most are not. That's why we use the term "Christian world view", although it's obvious here that there is no monolithic "Christian world view". Still, if our Christianity doesn't shape our views, why have it? It is simply "fire insurance", totally devoid of informing our daily lives in this world? I don't think most Christians believe that, though many live that way.

So, where Ian says that it's political debates that divide us most, I would understand that to mean, it's debates about what it means to live as a Christian in a fallen world that divides us most.

[Ian Gentles]

No, I just note thats often where most fall outs amoungs us come from political debates!

[Barbara Moulton]

No, I just note thats often where most fall outs amoungs us come from political debates!

You are right there.

I have decided to go back to lurking when it comes to all political discussions :-)

[Billy Cox]

No, I just note thats often where most fall outs amoungs us come from political debates!
Political debates are the ones most likely to descend into name-calling and personal attacks.

Seems that would be a very powerful argument for politics and religion not 'bunking' together.

[Ian Gentles]

Bill, you have a very good point!

[BobHunt]

Bruce, we think about the world, but not like the world....I think that is a vast difference.

[Gina Stevenson]

... is one I like, too. ;)

Feliz Navidad,
Feliz Navidad,
Feliz Navidad, Prospero Ano y Felicidad,
Feliz Navidad, Feliz Navidad,
Feliz Navidad, Prospero Ano y Felicidad ...

I want to wish you a merry Christmas,
I want to wish you a merry Christmas,
I want to wish you a merry Christmas
from the bottom of my heart.

[jose feliciano ... whether he wrote, or just sings it, I don't know] ;)

don't get me started singing in Spanish; love to do that! ;)

[Bruce Carriker]

Bruce, we think about the world, but not like the world....I think that is a vast difference.

That would be a vast difference if it were true. In fact, numerous surveys conducted by different groups over the last decade (especially the ones done by the Barna group) indicate that the church pretty much thinks exactly like the world.

[Bruce Carriker]

Okay, Billy. Let's sample a few issues and see if it's really possible for religion and politics to "bunk" separately.

Abortion. Political issue or religious issue?

Homosexuality?

Granting benefits to unmarried partners (same sex or opposite sex, either one)?

Death penalty?

Paying for tax cuts by dropping children from food and nutrition programs?

Suppression of religion in China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, etc?

Forced labor? Child labor? Slavery?

Are these merely politial issues, where we can have our own personal moral/religious opinions, but accept (or even endorse) a contrary public policy?

Religion and politics can only "bunk separately" when we accept the false dichotomy between our public/political and personal/spiritual lives.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Okay, Billy. Let's sample a few issues and see if it's really possible for religion and politics to "bunk" separately.

Abortion. Political issue or religious issue?

Homosexuality?

Granting benefits to unmarried partners (same sex or opposite sex, either one)?

Death penalty?

Paying for tax cuts by dropping children from food and nutrition programs?

Suppression of religion in China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, etc?

Forced labor? Child labor? Slavery?

Are these merely politial issues, where we can have our own personal moral/religious opinions, but accept (or even endorse) a contrary public policy?

Religion and politics can only "bunk separately" when we accept the false dichotomy between our public/political and personal/spiritual lives.

Not political or religious... political and religious.

While the issues you cite concern both religious and governmental institutions, it is difficult to bring the two into collaboration. One can argue,
(notwithstanding the Barna reports, which I believe), that the Church should
be better suited to address these issues than the government (any
government).

The question of Christians involving themselves through governmental
processes is a tricky one. It raise the hackles of those who think
the role of government is not to send a religious message. (I'd be one
of those.) How about Christians involving themselves through church,
at least at first? Then perhaps more Christians could involve themselves
through political avenues to influence our government along Christian
ideals.

I don't think I agree that it is a false dichotomy because a cup of cold
water is different than a cup of cold water in Jesus' name.

Mark

[Ian Gentles]

I'm always afraid of church being seen as taking a particular political stance, as when that occurs we become a political voice and not a spiritual one.

[Billy Cox]

I am generally in favor of keeping politics out of religion since politics is based on acquisition of power and is a corrupting influence. I also consider the ministry of Jesus and how silent he was on the political realities of his day.

As followers of Christ, our political participation will inevitably be informed by our faith, but politics is not a kingdom priority. The gospel is about changing people from the inside out...not enforcing behavioral conformity by means of legislation and the interpretation thereof.

[Bruce Carriker]

Not political or religious... political and religious.

I don't think I agree that it is a false dichotomy because a cup of cold
water is different than a cup of cold water in Jesus' name.

Mark

If it's a Christian offering the cup of water, then it should ALWAYS be offered in Jesus' name. For the world, it is not a false dichotomy. For a Christian, it is. For the same reasons I question John Kerry's commitment to his Catholicism, I will question - without apology or reservation - the commitment to their faith of anyone who says, "I believe thus and such, but I don't let it influence my political thinking."

[Mark Metcalfe]

If it's a Christian offering the cup of water, then it should ALWAYS be offered in Jesus' name. For the world, it is not a false dichotomy. For a Christian, it is. For the same reasons I question John Kerry's commitment to his Catholicism, I will question - without apology or reservation - the commitment to their faith of anyone who says, "I believe thus and such, but I don't let it influence my political thinking."

Hi Bruce.

Certainly the way I believe influences how I vote for politicians. Unfortunately,
no politician or political party agrees with all of my beliefs. We have seen how
political choices cause frictions between Christians with accusations that
voting for candidate A means killing the unborn while voting for candidate
B means killing the poor - or some similar argument.

"Political thinking" can also have several definitions. Do you mean as in
which party I choose to affiliate with? Or do you mean, how I as an
individual exert my influence on the secular political scene at local,
state and federal levels? Some have come close to saying that being
a Democrat is like sleeping with the enemy, and as much has been said
about being a Republican. I think why we want to separate politics and religion
may be similar to why we want to separate Nazarene from Baptist; we
don't easily fit into one category so we need further and further
distinctions.

By the way, I choose to be Nazarene, but I confess to be attracted to
some things in other churches. ;-)

Mark

[Mark Metcalfe]

I believe that historically, where Christianity and the state have been joined, it has been more harmful than beneficial to the cause of Jesus Christ.
- Bruce Carriker

I found this in one of your other notes, Bruce.

I know that you must have a distinction in mind between this statement and
the one where religion and politics should be bedfellows (my paraphrase).
It would help our conversation if you can elucidate.

Mark

[Bruce Carriker]

I believe that historically, where Christianity and the state have been joined, it has been more harmful than beneficial to the cause of Jesus Christ.
- Bruce Carriker

I found this in one of your other notes, Bruce.

I know that you must have a distinction in mind between this statement and
the one where religion and politics should be bedfellows (my paraphrase).
It would help our conversation if you can elucidate.

Mark

This post was made concerning the state sanctioning of a particular religion. That is a very different thing than individual Christians acting in the public arena. I do not believe we want the government declaring that we are a Christian nation. Historically, that has been disastrous for the church.

I do believe that Christians should be guided by their Christian values and their Christian world view in determining how they will cast their votes, whether that vote is for a specific candidate, or for a policy question on the ballot. I believe that Christian politicians should allow their Christianity to inform how they vote on the matters that come before them.

[Jim Franklin]

We cannot be the "salt" if we do not try to influence our world through influencing our society. Some even think that evangelism and missions are politically incorrect yet we have examples of both by Jesus and His disciples.

[Mark Metcalfe]

This post was made concerning the state sanctioning of a particular religion. That is a very different thing than individual Christians acting in the public arena. I do not believe we want the government declaring that we are a Christian nation. Historically, that has been disastrous for the church.

I do believe that Christians should be guided by their Christian values and their Christian world view in determining how they will cast their votes, whether that vote is for a specific candidate, or for a policy question on the ballot. I believe that Christian politicians should allow their Christianity to inform how they vote on the matters that come before them.

I suppose it is a delicate balance.

I've already mentioned that good Christian people cast their votes for
candidates and policies on opposite sides of the spectrum because of
the issues that tip the scale one way or the other, depending on what
they feel are the greater issues. Our last national election was a prime
example (and still is a sore subject for many). (I voted for GWB,
and against John Kerry, despite impassioned reasons why some thought
that it was a bad idea and might even put me in danger of apostasy. I
seem to recall as much or more passion against those who chose Kerry
or other third-party also-rans.)

When we link our politics and our Christianity too closely, we begin to judge
the Christianity of others whose one vote places them into a very large
bucket of issues and policies (i.e. killing babies/killing the poor), when in
fact that their vote does not mean that they support killing babies or
killing the poor.

I like to draw a fatter line in an attempt to render unto Caesar that which
is Caesar's (and so I vote) and to God that which is God's.

Mark

[Bruce Carriker]

(I voted for GWB,
and against John Kerry, despite impassioned reasons why some thought
that it was a bad idea and might even put me in danger of apostasy. I
seem to recall as much or more passion against those who chose Kerry
or other third-party also-rans.)
Mark

You remember correctly. Students at the seminary who openly opposed GWB...even those who did not vote for John Kerry...had their Christianity called into question. That is not hyperbole. That happened.

[Mark Metcalfe]

You remember correctly. Students at the seminary who openly opposed GWB...even those who did not vote for John Kerry...had their Christianity called into question. That is not hyperbole. That happened.

This is why I see politics and religion as a dangerous mix.
The two do intersect from time to time, but I think it is
best to keep those intersections to a minimum. (They are
each "third rail" conversations on their own!)

It is better to pour one's energies into religion than politics.
GWB won't save us; and Kerry wouldn't either. The best we can
hope for with our one vote is that our most important things that
we care about will be promoted, or not destroyed, by the person
or party in elected government.

Politicians and governments redistribute wealth (through taxation)
for programs that sometimes help (and sometimes do not)
but all of the programs are supposedly for the common good.

By contrast, Christianity calls its representatives to act in the best
interest of the Kingdom.

Mark

(Edited to try and say it better.)

[Mark Metcalfe]

This conversation somewhat reminds me of the old joke:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the
edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "stop! don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
He said, "Like what?"

I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious."

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
He said, "Christian."

I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!"

I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
He said, "Baptist Church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist
Church of God?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879,
or reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"

I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.


Are you republican, democrat, independent, green, or liberatarian?
Regardless of how I voted, can't I just be Christian?
(Now re-read the joke.)

[Bruce Carriker]

"Politicians and governments redistribute wealth (through taxation)
for programs that sometimes help (and sometimes do not)
but all of the programs are supposedly for the common good.

By contrast, Christianity calls its representatives to act in the best
interest of the Kingdom."

So why don't we do that? Frankly, I don't see the representatives of Christianity (the church?) being any more effective in helping or addressing the common good than the politicians.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Frankly, I don't see the representatives of Christianity (the church?) being any more effective in helping or addressing the common good than the politicians.

Where are you looking?

Jesus fed the thousands on occasion; why didn't he set up a feeding
program for poor people all the time? Didn't he care that people were
poor and starving? That was the charge that Judas made when expensive
perfume was "wasted" on Him.

The "common good" is apparently disputed territory. For example, it
it for the common good to expand a roadway (which intends to bring
about economic expansion, thereby increasing revenues, thereby getting
more money to fund other programs including feeding the poor) or should
that money be used now to feed the poor? The debate over effectiveness
of each approach complicates matters further.

The common good that Jesus talked about was the coming (and imminent)
kingdom of God. "Whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have
everlasting life." This is NOT to say that Jesus ignored the poor. Far from
it! I think the "worldly-minded" issue can extend to "good things" that
we should do but does not meet real eternal needs. God's kingdom
should be sought first, and then these other things.

Mark

[Bruce Carriker]

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat...Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you...The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat...They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry...and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Jesus



"Many of your brethren, beloved of God, have not food to eat; they have not raiment to put on; they have not a place where to lay their head. And why are they thus distressed? Because you impiously, unjustly, and cruelly detain from them what your Master and theirs lodges in your hands on purpose to supply their wants." John Wesley

[Bruce Carriker]

Where are you looking?
The "common good" is apparently disputed territory. For example, is
it for the common good to expand a roadway (which intends to bring
about economic expansion, thereby increasing revenues, thereby getting
more money to fund other programs including feeding the poor) or should
that money be used now to feed the poor? The debate over effectiveness
of each approach complicates matters further.
Mark

"How many have less will when they have more power! Now they have more money, they love it more; when they had little, they did their diligence gladly to give of that little; but since they have had much, they are so far from giving plenteously, that they can hardly afford to give at all."
John Wesley

[Mark Metcalfe]

"How many have less will when they have more power! Now they have more money, they love it more; when they had little, they did their diligence gladly to give of that little; but since they have had much, they are so far from giving plenteously, that they can hardly afford to give at all."
John Wesley

I am glad you used Scripture in the previous note. (We see too little of it.)
It is good stuff, too, that speaks of a person's responsibility, not about
putting trust in government to do the job of the church.

May we each hear the Master say, "Well done."

Mark

[Jim Franklin]

I gave up on being specifically connected to the Republican Party. As I have stated in these forums before, I am the one and only chairman and member of my own party, the Western Independent Conservative Party. I support Dubya to a certain extent on his foreign policy of taking the fight off of our shore to the terrorist locale but I am very much disenchanted with the runaway spending domestically particularly that bridge in Alaska. Conservatives are supposed to conserve their resources not be spendthrifts. I am independent because I will not allow a party line dictate my voting pattern. And I am Western because of my location and upbringing and as a trained geographer I understand the issues of the Western states that are not even considered by Easterners such as water rights, open range, sther areas of the West should not have to give up their water so that Los Angeles and Phoenix can just grow bigger and bigger. Even Boise at 200,000 and with the neighboring Canyon county with Ada County at near 450,000 total is getting too crowded for me.