That problem is numbness to the desperateness of our situation.

If you attended a good church this morning, you no doubt had a positive worship experience and heard a good sermon. But chances are slim that you encountered a sense of urgency about our situation.

Remember the prayer meetings that followed 9/11? None of that anymore. We’re back to life as usual.

Last week’s post listed a number of factors that demonstrate the decline of the evangelical church in the United States. A similar list could be generated regarding our secular society.

If I were making a medical analogy, I would not use the sniffles to depict our problems. For example, precipitous decline in the number of evangelicals and a large segment of our young people buying into relativism would be analogous to terminal cancer.

All the disease needs to kill us is time. Our lack of desperation provides the disease with the time needed.

The Tea Party Movement constitutes one segment of our society that understands the urgency of the situation. On February 19, 2009, Rick Santelli grasped the economic disaster that would result from the Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan announced the previous day, and called people to join him in a tea party to protest this government initiative. Some mark this as the beginning of the movement. Note Santelli’s sense of urgency in the YouTube video of this event. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8k

Why isn’t the church manifesting the desperateness of our situation? Let me suggest several reasons:

• We are so consumed by the issues of daily life that we tend not to think too much about the disaster that surrounds us.
• Here in America, things have turned out okay for a couple of centuries, so we assume that current problems will pass also.
• We can shelter ourselves from many aspects of the current crisis. For example, as Christians we can choose not to view the utterly despicable television programming and movies currently on the market. We should do this, but it blocks our awareness of how bad things really are.
• The news media tends not to reveal the desperateness of our situation, especially during a Democratic administration.
• Liberal authorities use their influence to prevent people from seeing realities that conflict with their positions. Imagine what might happen if abortions were televised!!! What if this atrocity were aired not just once but frequently enough that people could not escape the reality? If people realized the brutality being inflicted on unborn and being born children, (pulling off their limbs, scalding them to death, etc.) abortion would quickly become illegal.
• The government shields us from coming economic disaster by borrowing and printing money, creating the reality that everything is okay at the expense of our children.

Many other factors could be added to this list, but perhaps the major perspective promoting evangelical complacency resides in the assumption that since God is in control we will be protected from disaster.

In describing the disaster all around us my Christian friends often respond, “Well, it is good to know that God is in control,” by which they mean, “If you had faith, you wouldn’t be concerned about these things.”

To this I respond that God was in control when the Babylonians burned down Jerusalem, murdered men, raped women, and carried children into slavery. No doubt some of those were godly people.

How could God allow such things to happen to godly people? I don’t know all the answers to that, but perhaps part of the answer is that though these people were godly in general terms, they were complacent regarding the growing evil of the day, as evangelicals are today, so that in some way they deserved the catastrophe when it came.

Solutions can only begin with a sense of urgency over impending disaster—when the church starts to act like Rick Santelli.

I named this blog Evangelical Reformation because of my conviction that the church is not doing okay—that just as the church during the time of Martin Luther needed reformation, so with the evangelical church in America.

The facts supporting this position are compelling:

• We are losing market share. George Barna provides statistics demonstrating that we are precipitously shrinking. Mega-churches, best-selling books, and other factors camouflage this decline.
• We are losing our identity. George Barna provides statistics demonstrating that we act more like the secular world all the time, in some cases outstripping the world in our worldliness.
• We are losing our marriages. George Barna provides the statistics demonstrating that the rate of marriage breakup among evangelicals is the same as or greater than that of secular society.
• We are losing our children. George Barna provides statistics demonstrating that our children are buying into secular relativism and that once they leave high school they tend not to return to church. Why should they return if they do not believe that the church is the guardian of the truth but only one perspective among many.
• We are losing our effectiveness as salt and light. George Barna provides statistics demonstrating that we are losing the culture war. We don’t need George Barna to tell us that. The designation “post-Christian era” means that we are losing. Listening to the news on any given day should remove any doubt.
• We are losing our compassion. Our indifference to the plight of persecuted brothers and sisters around the world displays our self-absorption.
• Worst of all, we tend to be blind to the devastating symptoms above, believing that we are okay. Just as the AIDS virus disarms the immune system, so our spiritual immune system is failing to activate our defenses.

We tend to see ourselves as we do our congressman. While Congress has been destroying this nation across the past several decades, congressmen and women have continued to get reelected.

How has that happened? The answer resides in the rationale that while Congress is bad, my congressman is okay. Likewise, though the church in America may be failing, we tend to think that we are doing okay.

Economically our nation has reached such crisis that the Tea Party movement is in the process of replacing congressmen who have created this disaster with candidates who promise more responsible fiscal decisions. I hope they do.

Wouldn’t it be a blessing if we had an evangelical Tea Party that was as sensitive to our spiritual plight as the Tea Party is to our impending economic doom—and if that spiritual Tea Party would promote changes needed to precipitate an evangelical reformation? It is that hope that keeps me posting to this blog.

Agreed, one may speak truth in a reprehensible manner and for reprehensible reasons. For example, comments made about the morality of someone’s mother without due cause, e.g. a court case in which this might be relevant, is inappropriate and would provide sufficient reason to disinvite someone from speaking at some event.

However, Franklin Graham, both because of his personal character and his media experience, is not one to unleash inappropriate tirades.

We ask then, did he tell the truth about Islam?

Our culture asserts that we must differentiate between radical Islam and the mainstream Muslim religion. Almost all agree that radical Islam is evil, but we are told that this should not influence our conclusion regarding Islam in general.

To begin with, we should ask, “Why not.” If a religion produces a movement this substantial and this perverse, does it not reflect on it? Sure, there are bad Christians and bad new agers and bad people from any group. But the issues of how many and how bad are relevant.

A favorite ploy of liberalism consists of finding one bad Christian and shouting moral equivalence. This is sheer sophistry. Quantitative and qualitative issues do matter. That being the case, Islam must bear responsibility for unleashing a horrendous force on the world.

But what about the “typical” Muslim? Overwhelming evidence supports Graham’s pronouncements about Islam in this regard also.

Was it just those associated with radical Islam that danced in the Palestinian streets following 9/11? The left tries to dissociate radical and mainstream Islam, but evidence reveals a kindred spirit. Maybe they don’t commit suicide bombings, but many applaud those who do.

Today Compass Direct reported the shooting of a Coptic Christian couple in Egypt. http://www.compassdirect.org/english/country/egypt/21405/ His sin was seeking to provide help to his fellow Coptic Christians, and hers was being his wife. Maybe we might associate those doing the shooting with radical Islam, though it is hardly legitimate to automatically dissociate those behaving badly from mainstream Islam.

However, the article also reports a celebration in the village when they heard (incorrectly) that the Christian couple was dead.

This is not an isolated incident but the daily experience for Christian living in Muslim countries. Permission to build or even repair churches is often rejected, and those that are built are often burned down. Such burnings are common in Nigeria and Indonesia. Christians are often beaten and raped. (http://www.compassdirect.org/english/country/pakistan/21482/)  Police are reluctant to make arrests in many of these cases. The list of atrocities and injustices inflicted on Christians on a daily basis by Muslims could do on and on.

Franklin Graham’s concern and mine is how it must dishearten these Christians living under such oppression to hear Americans call Islam a religion of peace. President Bush had a habit of doing this while the Iraqi church was literally decimated by killings and kidnappings under his watch.

But no, there must be some mistake. We know that all religions are good—except for Christianity. That is the platform of Michael Weinstein, president of Military Religious Freedom Foundation, under whose influence Graham was disinvited.

Graham had truth on his side. Weinstein had the support of culture. In our society, culture trumps truth every time.

The recent liberal support of the flotilla incident again reveals the romantic bond between the left and Islam.

How can the self-appointed protector of women’s rights embrace a group so demeaning and cruel to women in so many ways? How can those who fancy themselves as advocates for civil liberties swoon over those advocating beheading and other mutilation?

On the surface this couple seems to have nothing in common. But a deeper examination reveals a genuine oneness of heart.

To identify the mutual attraction we go back to the sixties and another unlikely love affair of the left, the embers of which still glow. It used to seem odd to me that those who loathed “the oppressive government of the United States” could hold such warm affections toward the Soviet Union in particular and communism in general—the ultimate embodiment of oppression. How does that make sense?

Then it dawned on me. The left loves everyone but Christians and Jews and has especially deep affection for those who hate Christians and Jews.

Buddhism is profound, new age is exciting, secular Europe is intellectual, in fact multiculturalists assure us that every culture is wonderful regardless of brutality toward the weak and other seemingly unflattering characteristics—every culture that is except ones identified with the God of the Bible.

Am I suggesting a conspiracy? Well no and yes. Though the left has leaders that promote its anti-Christian and anti-Jewish initiatives, none is powerful enough or has sufficient reach to function as mastermind behind all this.

On the other hand, the Apostle Paul explains, “…our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” (Eph. 6:12) The orchestrator of forces hostile to those associated with the God of the Bible is a spiritual mastermind, supported by an army of other spiritual beings.

However, as we witnessed at the cross, sometimes the Devil overreaches. Likewise, this liberal love for Islam and hate for Israel may have a silver lining. It may serve to drive Jews closer to Christians and Christ.

How fascinating that historically Jewish people constituted the driving force behind the left. Yet now the left has turned on Israel in particular and Jews in general. Many Jewish people are waking up to the reality that their best friends, their only friends, are evangelical Christians who embrace their God and their Messiah.

Just maybe God will use this development to draw Jewish people to the Messiah. Perhaps also many Jewish people will now begin to use their special capabilities to wage war against the liberal forces to which they formerly belonged. Actually, this is already happening.

So let the odd couple enjoy its honeymoon on their love boat.

Yes, capitalism works better than socialism, and much better than communism.

That said, though, a factor more significant than the political/economic system resides in the character of the people working the system. Good people working under a socialist system will beat out bad people in a capitalist regime.

Don’t believe it?

Many years ago I read a little book entitled Jesus Family in Communist China. It recounted the experience of Chinese Christians who formed a series of communes.

“During the famine of 1942 the(se) communes gave 90% of the harvest to the poor and still met their own needs. Later the Communists needed one acre per family for life support, yet The Jesus Family was able to feed 500 people from 43 acres and still give away 90% of the produce.” http://www.pastornet.net.au/renewal/journal3/neild.html

On the other hand, Russia recently has had a chance at capitalism, but to date it is failing miserably. The killing off of Christians by the communists has taken its toll.

Sure, the same group of people will do better under capitalism than communism. But the morality of the people represents a more significant predictor of success than the system.

But, you respond, the early church in Jerusalem tried a socialistic style government and failed.

Not really. Their goal was not prosperity but getting out the message. These Christians sold and pooled their resources so that they could expend their time and energies on spreading the gospel. Had their objective been economic success, I believe they would have achieved it.

Alexis de Tocqueville was right. “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

Beyond that we assert that America was good because it was Christian. Since America has ceases to be Christian, it has ceased to be good—and therefore it is ceasing to be great.

Our loss of wisdom and character shows its corrupting influence in all of our major institutes including family, government, education, and business. This corruption is sapping us of our greatness.

The assertions of top military leaders and congressmen that open homosexuality in the military would be a good thing provides the latest example of the decline in greatness resulting from the decline in goodness spawned by our rejection of Christianity. Either these people are grossly unwise or they are lying for political advantage.

The previous two posts asserted that economic recovery without spiritual recovery is not possible. But even if that were possible, we would demonstrate that being rich is not tantamount to being great and does not ensure survival.

Only reestablishment of Christianity as our cultural foundation can restore economic soundness, assure survival, and engender greatness.

Beyond this, think about the financial drain on our society resulting from immorality.

Calculate, for example, the medical costs resulting from crack babies. Just one can cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars. So then, the entire tax burden for how many citizens is required to pay for the care of just one of these babies?

Patrick Moynihan was one of the first to calculate the cost of the dissolution of the family. As it turns out, God’s design for marriage not only is the most wholesome but also is the most economical. A recent book entitled The Marriage Benefit catalogues the tremendous blessings derived from following God’s design. Among them is the financial dividend. Imagine the tremendous financial drain on our society resulting from divorce, cohabitation, and single parenting. No doubt this would add up to billions and billions of dollars.

And, the price tag attached to the demise of the family does not stop there. Studies reveal the toll that marriage breakup takes on children, increasing their likelihood of alcoholism, depression, dropping out of school, and a host of other maladies. All these cost money both through the behaviors they produce and the attempts to fix them.

What about the cost of pregnancy out of wedlock? Or venereal disease? Or AIDS?

Imagine the price tag for drug abuse? Think about the legal apparatus maintained just to deal with this problem, including prevention and arrest and judicial processing and incarceration. Then there are hospital beds and rehab centers. Add to that the loss of work and the cost to hire and train replacements. Beyond that are Social Security benefits awarded those who have diminished their capacities through drug abuse. Your tax dollars support many of these people for the rest of their lives. Calculate also the costs resulting from robberies committed to buy the next fix. In addition there are automobile accidents, investment in education that never turns a profit, and the cost of the drugs themselves and the related industry that is counterproductive to society. The tentacles of this octopus reach out and grab hold of vast quantities of our financial resources.

Part of the price tag of immorality resides in increased insurance premiums. How much lower would automobile insurance be without the influence of drunk driving and drugs? How much cheaper would our homeowners insurance be without robbery and arson?

How much money do we spend in welfare payments to support irresponsibility? We are glad for a system that cares for the needs of the genuinely needy, but it is no secret that a significant portion of welfare spending goes to those who could be gainfully employed but choose indolence at our expense. Likewise, how many recipients of Social Security disability actually could pay their way? Our economy is also drained by recipients of unemployment who view this benefit as a paid vacation and milk it to the maximum rather than hustling to find a job. This common practice soaks up billions of dollars.

This survey of the cost of immorality admittedly represents a shotgun approach. It fails to include many other expenses engendered by immorality. A systematic analysis would require volumes and reveal a staggering economic burden that is loaded on our shoulders by immorality.

I realize that under the best of circumstances we can’t eliminate all immorality from our society. But imagine the savings if immorality were substantially reduced. My guess is that if we could return to the levels of immorality that our society experienced prior to the 1960s, we would all enjoy substantially more money and have a national economy that was living within its means.

The question, then, is whether any economy can sustain the monetary burden added by the sins of the 1960’s that have become a part of our culture. Even if it could, which is doubtful, immorality would still rob us of many economic benefits that we could otherwise enjoy.

Therefore, to fix the economy we must first deal with morality.

One conservative political commentator recently predicted that President Obama will not get any more of his major economic initiatives past Congress before November, but that he will keep his liberal base satisfied by throwing them small favors such as the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which would allow gays to serve openly in the military. The implication is that the economic issues are the big ones. Moral issues are not that important.

This attitude of economics over morality reflects the general orientation of our society, even the conservative segment. The murder of about fifty million babies did not mobilize the right, but mess with the economy and the Tea Party emerges. Likewise, money issues during the Carter presidency brought us Reagan. Our actions reveal our values.

Putting aside the propriety of giving priority to money over morality, let’s consider the practical issue of whether economic reform is possible apart from moral reform.

My answer is “no.” I will describe one reason in this post, with more following.

We cannot achieve economic reform without moral reform because moral decline causes economic decline. For example, if we had a moral Congress we would not be in this economic mess.

Elected officials know what people want, tend to run on that platform, and then break their word when they get into office. The campaigning Obama promised, “We are going to get those bills to the American people way ahead of time on the internet so that they can read them, and then we will have the debate on C-Span. Transparency is our middle name.” How interesting to watch John McCain morph into a conservative as Election Day approaches.

Had Congress made decisions aimed at promoting the nation’s economic wellbeing, we would be economically strong today. Instead, they have voted to advance the self-serving objective of their own reelection rather than the on economic vitality.

The mechanism works like this. Congressmen get reelected based on directing pork to their home states and districts. Therefore, spending benefits reelection. Fiscal responsibility does not. Therefore, Congress votes for reelection rather than fiscal responsibility. Of course, this process also reveals immorality on the part of voters also.

This breach of faith with the American people constitutes moral failure. The six years of Republican dominance revealed the spread of immorality to both sides of the aisle.

“But the new group, those elected in November 2010, they will be different.” Maybe for a brief time. But they will produce lasting change only if they are more moral than their predecessors. Otherwise the mechanism described above will ultimately drag them down.

Therefore, moral reform must precede economic reform.

However, no one is talking about moral reform, or even recognizing that we have a moral problem. Rush, Sean, Glenn, and Fox News virtually never address the moral problem, and the mainstream media limits their moral concerns to drilling in ANWR.

Congressional immorality represents just one arena in which economic recovery demands moral recovery. More reasons to follow.

An interesting evangelical trait is to brand books that convey concepts already embraced by the popular evangelical culture as bold and prophetic and groundbreaking. That’s what Peterson does here. I must admit that I am not a sufficiently adequate historian to know what Pilgrim’s Progress did for that generation, and I wonder what Peterson thinks The Shack will do for ours.

It has sold so well because it expresses in fiction form the contemporary evangelical mindset. Its popularity rests not in its presentation of some theological truth that we need to embrace but in conveying so graphically what we already believe.

We find God reduced to a jiving black woman. How more politically correct could he make God out to be? I am not suggesting that God is white. However, neither do I find Scripture characterizing God as being hip and cool.

And no doubt Young wants us to get in touch with God’s feminine side, even though Scripture portrays Him as a male. Yes, He can relate to us as a nursing mother at times, but if this inclination represented the essence of who He is, the Bible would have presented Him as a woman.

I had a professor at NYU that observed that, “God created man in His own image, and man has been returning the favor ever since.” Though this view of God does not reflect the one given in Scripture, it does match the God of today’s evangelical community.

This portrayal of God constitutes just one aspect of The Shack that corresponds to contemporary Christian culture. The whole book might be considered a commentary on the current evangelical mindset. Note, for example, the distain for the church. Even the format, the narrative, reflects the contemporary culture.

Therefore, what the book serves to do for us is further petrify us in our unbiblical view of God and life. The book is not ground-breaking but ground-hardening.

This acceptance of The Shack despite its unbiblical orientation reveals another facet of the evangelical approach to life. Of course, as with the secular world, the hallmark of contemporary evangelical thinking is acceptance. God accepts unconditionally, and so should we. Therefore, even though some aspects of the book might miss the scriptural mark, we are not of the narrow-minded, Pharisaical orientation that makes an issue of such minutia.

Rather, the wizened response of the thoughtful evangelical reader looks past those theological misrepresentations and reflects, “I believe I understand what he is trying to say.” In other words, if his intentions are good, we can overlook some heresy for the sake of making the point.

This approach to sanctioning fiction or nonfiction literature makes for a toxic theological climate. In our commitment not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, we have left the baby to wallow in some very polluted water.

But the worst issue resides in our failure to apply this spirit of understanding and acceptance and tolerance evenly. While we have all he toleration in the world for someone advocating heresies compatible with our culture, secular and evangelical, we extend no such latitude to those who are out of step with the culture.

When is the last time you heard someone say, “I don’t agree with some of the positions they take at Bob Jones University, but I think I know where they are coming from”? Contemporary evangelicals possess the capacity to swallow the heretical camel to their left, but strain at the gnat to the right.

This bias in toleration toward the left relentlessly shifts our thinking in that direction. Just as the frog in the kettle, the baby is not aware of how toxic the bathwater has gotten even though it has inflicted on him a life-threatening disease.

In a large sense, losing wisdom is tantamount to losing one’s mind. The essence of wisdom is the capacity to respond to the practical issues of life effectively. Knowing how to deal with life is the ultimate function of the mind. Whatever else our mind does, if it can’t do that our lives will be messed up.

In this practical sense our society has lost its mind. We lack the wisdom to deal effectively with the practical issues of life. A glaring example is found in the choice of a President totally lacking in experience for the job. I hope President Obama succeeds, and he might. However, even if he does, it was still a foolish risk to elect someone without the necessary qualifications. A person might spend all his money playing the lottery. Even if he wins, it was still a foolish idea.

Other examples of our societal loss of wisdom abound. Our economy is out of control, and no one seems to know how to fix it. More government spending seems to be a recipe for long-term decline rather than a solution. We lack the wisdom to establish and maintain marriages and families. We have more marriage and relational support than any time in our history, and yet we have never done worse. In fact, it’s difficult to think of a major facet of our culture at which we are not failing—where we do not manifest a lack of wisdom.

What is the cause of this bankruptcy of wisdom? Both David (Psalm 111:10) and Solomon (Proverbs 9:10) tell us that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. One implication of this assertion is that every major field of study and every major component of culture requires a biblical beginning or foundation.

Ethics, for example, must be founded on scriptural wisdom. If our ethical system is built on the sand of our own understanding, our moral edifice will collapse. Sanctioning abortion, celebrating homosexuality, and having school children put condoms on bananas represent just some of the more flagrant examples of our ethical ruin.

Psychology requires a biblical foundation. Some Christians are hostile toward psychology; however, the problem is not with psychology (literally a study of the soul) but with bad psychology, that is, psychology not founded on biblical principles. This “we can do it ourselves” psychology has produced a full array of misguided remedies from primal scream to the bankrupt self-esteem movement.

Likewise, every field of study and endeavor, philosophy, science, etc., requires biblical underpinnings. That foundation leads to wisdom and its lack to foolishness. Our post-Christian culture, being too wise to need the wisdom of God, now wallows in its own foolishness and failure.

What led us to abandon the fountain of wisdom for the polluted waters of our own devices? For the answer we must go back to the assertion of David and Solomon that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. A failure to fear the Lord cuts us loose from the guidance of Scripture to follow our own impulses. The recognition that we cannot abandon God’s wisdom and get away with it keeps us on track. The absence of that fear results in an arrogance of intellectual self-sufficiency.

The lack of fear of the Lord by our educational system, news and entertainment media, government, and other elements of our society, has led to the abandonment of His principles that has produced the cultural foolishness that is destroying our nation.

Hopefully, our failures on every front will turn us to the fear of the Lord and the principles of His Word.

For those who think that fear is always bad, think about how different the “stimulus package” would be if Congress feared the Lord.

What if Jesus, clothed in His majesty, was seated at the committee table as bills were being formulated or at the front of the House and Senate when they were being debated and voted on?

According to Rev. 1, the scene would look like this. “His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.” (Re 1:12-16 NIV)

When He walked into the room, they would probably not need a gavel to call the session to order. The response of the Apostle John is recorded in the next verse, “When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead.” (Re 1:17 NIV) I would say that this response conveys some fear, wouldn’t you? If the apostle closest to Jesus at the Last Supper, the one who stayed near Him at His trial and at the cross, responded with such dread, how much more might those who have substantially more reason to fear?

Imagine the scene in the Senate if Jesus walked in at the beginning of the session on the stimulus package!! Sen. Barney Frank suddenly remembered another meeting that took precedent. However, he got trampled while trying to get through the door and ended up in the emergency room.

As the senator arose to introduce the bill for the funding of abortion, the flaming eyes turned toward him and a quavering voice was heard saying, “Mr. Chairman, we have decided to send that bill back to committee.”
The sponsor of the pro-homosexual bills could not be found. A colleague reported that he had to use the restroom.

By this time, fear of the “Presence” in the front of the room had cleared heads and focused minds to the awareness of their ethical responsibility to make decisions for the benefit of the country and not their self-serving agendas. This led to the tabling of the political payback bills such as those funding ACORN.

The “pork” bills began to be introduced, but when the a senator began to list reasons why these were really for the benefit of the country, it appeared that Person in the front of the room was about to stand to His feet. The debate stopped immediately and the remaining 52 senators, just one over the quorum, unanimously voted down the bill.

It was now 9:30am, and it appeared that all of the discussion on the stimulus package ready for discussion had been addressed. Senator Harry Reid looked anxiously over at the glorified Christ and asked nervously, “Do you plan to be joining us tomorrow.” His burning gaze turned toward Senator Reid as He pronounced, “I plan to be here every day.” Senator Reid wilted under the gaze and with the all his remaining strength mumbled that the committees had a lot of work to do and that the session was adjourned.

The reality is that Jesus is at every session of the Senate and House. But because the members of Congress cannot see Him, most do not fear Him. Just think of the difference that it would make if they did. That would provide that ultimate stimulus for our nation.