Friday, September 12, 2008

Necessity of the Supernatural Life

It is amazing to me how society takes such aversion to anything supernatural. Popular culture tries to discredit anything that has Christian morality behind it or claims to be supernatural. I’ve seen two major examples of this in recent news. One is the continual barrage of articles attacking Sarah Palin’s competence based on her adherence to Christian conservative morality and her potential allegiance with ministries that support Christians being endowed with supernatural gifts of healing, miracles, and revelation. It’s interesting that I had no interest in either Presidential candidate until Sarah Palin was chosen as McCain’s Vice Presidential running mate. Actually, it wasn’t until all the negative press that I began to take note of this woman and began to like everything I was hearing about her that was being journalistically twisted as relaying her incompetence. This country was founded upon Christian principals. It’s a sad day to see people appalled by a candidate with Christian morality and theology as antiquated, incompetent, and destructive for the country. I’m not sure our nation realizes what it is asking for when it wants “progressive” liberalized morality with no foundation upon God. Do we really want such a foundation? Let us consider those countries with this kind of secularist anti-God foundation were known for their slaughter of millions of innocent lives. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini are prime examples of government leaders who based their communistic dictatorship on Karl Marx’s atheism.

The second major example is the British host of the MTV awards making fun of the Jonas Brother’s commitment to purity with dripping vehemence. Have we gone mad? Is it not refreshing to see young men wanting to save themselves for their future wives and to care for them only without any baggage of past sexual relationships? We are talking young men in the Holywood spotlight! This is unheard of in today’s normalcy of broken marriages, affairs, fornications rampant in Holywood. Kudos to them for maintaining such a testimony of great character in the face of such immorality.


I say all this with understanding that is not fully society’s fault for thinking this way. It is the Church’s responsibility to shine the truth through the way we love. We have failed to show our society that God has the answers to its problems. The world looks at our problems and doesn’t see any reason to look to us for any answers.


How can we fix this problem and stop the deterioration of our government and country which is fast approaching the rampant secularism of modern Europe?


1) Christians need to take serious their responsibility to be lights in the darkness. Not to rise up in religious outrage, but to be examples of Christ love and the wholeness He produces in our lives. Let us be salt and light in this world by the testimony of our lives lived in open devotion to Christ with love for each other and everyone else being evident in our lives.



2) Christians need to operate in their supernatural giftings and not be afraid of praying for the sick. We must step out and do what Jesus called us to do, “heal the sick, raise the dead, and cast out demons.” There can be no denying God’s existence and the evidence of the supernatural when people are rising from the dead, legs are growing out, cancer is disappearing, and people are being set free from the demonic influences in their lives.


3) G.K. Chesterton, a famous Christian writer, once answered an editorial question “What’s wrong with the world?” with the shortest editorial response “I am.” We need to look in ourselves and see the need for a Savior for the evil in our own hearts. We want to right the world and end injustice, pain, suffering, and evil. We need to realize that we ourselves have a plank in our eye that we need Jesus to restore us so that we can love our neighbor the way we should and see the love of God change hearts and minds. We can’t point the finger at others as the problem of the world. To think this way would be like expecting a child to potty train himself. We know the answer; we are more responsible for the world’s problems than those who don’t know Jesus. If we don’t rise lovingly to help our culture transform to the Kingdom of God, who will?



4) In keeping with that, our culture will not be transformed by physical force, but by the love of God. It will be by loving our neighbors as our self, by going the extra mile, by turning the other cheek, by not returning wrong for wrong, by doing good to those who persecute us, by loving our enemies, by praying for our nation, by healing the sick, and by preaching the Kingdom of God.



Rise up Church. Rise up in love.

20 comments:

Mike said...

You go girl! That was a fantastic post. And I would offer, further proof that Jesus Christ is real and that we are all locked in a real war for the souls of men.

Generally speaking, you don't see real persecution falling upon the heads of those who are part of all the other religions of the Earth, here in America. Our Government, political system, and even our media embrace anybody and everybody except those crazy Christians. What is up with that Anonymous - I wonder why? I'm sure they all think we are crazy, but the venom with which Christians get attacked is indeed amazing. It sort of smells like a spiritual battle of sorts.

Yet, we continue to show compassion, love, mercy and we continue to pour out assistance when there is a genuine need. America contributes the most (bar none) humanitarian, missionary, educational, medical, economic and military assistance to hurting people all over the world. Way more than any other country in the world. Fruit I'd offer, of a philosophy that is rooted in the Christian lifestyle - I know a lot of countries don't like our policies right now, but we can't forget the fact that we are still the world's breadbasket and blessor of the world. Hmmmm, things that make one go hmmmm...

Most of our founding fathers actually considered those who were 'anti-God' enemies of the state. Just thought I'd mention that... ;) MM

Anonymous said...

As a student of history, I'm surprised at some of the elementary mistakes you've made in your post.

"This country was founded upon Christian principals."

No, actually this country was founded on secular, enlightenment principles. The founding fathers weren't looking to create a Xian theocracy, they were looking to create a secular nation. That's why the Constitution was derided by many religious leaders as being an atheistic document.

"Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini are prime examples of government leaders who based their communistic dictatorship on Karl Marx’s atheism."

Um, no. Stalin used Marx's ideas on Communism, not atheism. Hitler and Mussolini didn't use either one of those. They were fascists, not communists, and they tapped into the Xian hatred of the Jews to incite an irrational nationalistic fervor.

Karla said...

The Founders were not trying to make a Christian theocracy. That is the common misconception people think Christians are claiming. They founded it on Christian principals about life and the fallen nature of man and the reality of our value from God and the necessity of a balanced government.

Anonymous said...

Karla,
"They founded it on Christian principals about life and the fallen nature of man and the reality of our value from God and the necessity of a balanced government."

Where in the Bible does it talk about the necessity of a balanced government? Where did they reference Xian principles in the Constitution? These were secularists, looking to establish a secular state. Why do you think that most religionists derided the Constitution as atheistic if it was derived from Xian values?

BTW, what, specifically, do you like about Palin?

Karla said...

The popular history taught in schools today is strikingly different to what was taught 50 years ago. Much is left out to make it look like we had a secular foundation when in fact we did not. I have not yet read John Locke's books on government, but I do know that he used hundreds of Scripture verses in compiling his thoughts on how government should be considering the fallenness of man and the principals of justice, and rights of man. The Founders borrowed heavily from his works in forming our government. If you read anything by them you will see their Christian principled value system loud and clear.

As for what I like about Palin. I haven't thoroughly researched her yet, but so far I like her integrity, character, family values, conservative ideals, and the church she attends.

However, I am not looking to get into a political debate.

Anonymous said...

Karla,
"The popular history taught in schools today is strikingly different to what was taught 50 years ago. Much is left out to make it look like we had a secular foundation when in fact we did not."

Yes, that is true, but you've got it backwards as to why. 50 years ago we still had prayer in schools, and the curriculum was very Xian-centric, so they invented all kinds of "facts" that would fit what they wanted to teach. They also taught that during the Revolutionary War the British walked around in the open with red coats and the colonists sniped at them all day from behind trees and rocks and we beat them relentlessly all war long. The truth behind the matter is that we marched out and met them army to army in large, open fields and got our butts kicked in just about every engagement by troops that were better trained, better prepared, and better equiped.

Our teaching of history has improved as well to fit the facts better. There's no evil conspiracy here to heap scorn on Xianity or anything of the sort. I mean, c'mon, do you realize the size of the conspiracy that would have to be involved, with Xians as part of the conspirators?

"The Founders borrowed heavily from his works in forming our government. If you read anything by them you will see their Christian principled value system loud and clear."

The borrowed heavily from lots of sources because they were learned men. And, I have read quite a bit from them, especially Jefferson and Madison. Try reading them to see how much they thought they were basing this country on "Xian principles."

"As for what I like about Palin. I haven't thoroughly researched her yet, but so far I like her integrity, character, family values, conservative ideals, and the church she attends."

And, you are convinced that the media is doing a hatchet job on her because of what?

I also don't want to get into politics, but I will point out a couple things that should concern you as well. I think attacking her daughter is out of bounds, let me just say that right now. Kids make mistakes. What I object to is her blatant hypocrisy in telling everyone else to respect her daughter's choice to have the child while simultaneously wanting to take away everyone else's choice. I also have to point to her policy of abstinence only education which has been shown through scientific studies to not be as effective as comprehensive sex education, and her support for creationism, also in contradiction to science.

Karla said...

I disagree regarding history, but I'll let that go for now.

As for Palin: I do dislike the talk against her daughter. Her daughter is keeping her baby and getting married to the father and teens do make mistakes.

As for abstinence. Abstinence education is what is being taught in Africa and is helping to curb the aids epidemic there. It does work and is best for teenagers. But again that's another whole topic.

It really doesn't matter to me if you like Palin or not. I haven't researched her enough yet to even know if she would have my vote. I'm typically a constitutionalist/libertarian in thinking.

And my history sources are primary documents not history book information. I went to Christians schools that taught from secular history books and I disagree with what I was taught because I began to read primary document sources and that paints a different picture.

Anonymous said...

Karla,
"As for abstinence. Abstinence education is what is being taught in Africa and is helping to curb the aids epidemic there. It does work and is best for teenagers. But again that's another whole topic."

Please provide some evidence that abstinence only education is curbing the AIDS epidemic in Africa. And, please note that the scientific studies done have shown that abstinence only is NOT as effective as comprehensive sex education at reducing the spread of diseases or teen pregnancy. Asserting the opposite puts you in contadistinction to what the data shows.

"It really doesn't matter to me if you like Palin or not. I haven't researched her enough yet to even know if she would have my vote. I'm typically a constitutionalist/libertarian in thinking."

What I personally feel about her is irrelevant. What I'm concerned with is her apparent disregard for facts. This is not limited to science either it turns out.

"And my history sources are primary documents not history book information."

For instance?

Anonymous said...

Abstinence only vs. abstinence plus

Anonymous said...

More info on abstinence-only studies

"Abstinence-only programs show little evidence of sustained (long-term) impact on attitudes and intentions. Worse, they show some negative impacts on youth’s willingness to use contraception, including condoms, to prevent negative sexual health outcomes related to sexual intercourse. Importantly, only in one state did any program demonstrate short-term success in delaying the initiation of sex; none of these programs demonstrates evidence of long-term success in delaying sexual initiation among youth exposed to the programs or any evidence of success in reducing other sexual risk-taking behaviors among participants."

Karla said...

I'm not looking to debate this. My post was a call to Christians.

Anonymous said...

I'm just giving you some information for your edification. I hope that you don't debate it, because the debate has already happened and it's already over and abstinence-only education lost that debate, much like creationism has lost that debate to cosmology and evolution.

Anonymous said...

In talking about the founding of our nation, I recently happened to notice that you have David Barton's "Wallbuilders" site linked to on the side panel. Is this where you got your ideas that this country was founded on Xian principles? Barton is well known for using quotes out of context and quote mining, among other things. I found a good takedown article that addresses many of Barton's arguments. And, it's from a religious source no less, so you don't have to dismiss it out of hand. I strongly urge you to read it.

I would also ask you this. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that this country was founded on Xian principles. Would that make it all right to enforce Xianity on the populace?

Also, you mention that Palin is being attacked for her "Xian morality and theology" but in earlier comments you mentioned that being a Xian doesn't necessarily make one a more moral person. This seems rather inconsistent to me.

Karla said...

No, I found David Barton's ministry years after I had already studied primary documents for myself. Actually David Barton himself has a section on his website where he list quotations that float around the internet that while in favor of Christianity are not found in any primary documents and he gives that information himself of there not being trustworthy quotes to use.

No, I don't think Christianity should ever for any reason whatsoever be forced. The Founders were emphatic about that as well for they knew that Christianity was about freedom and no one could compel another to be a Christian or to worship a certain way as a Christian as they were being forced to do in England. They therefore out of that Christian worldview of freedom pronounced that we ought to have freedom of religion. It was from that not from secularism that that freedom was granted. In contrast the atheist today say it is tantamount to child abuse to teach religion to children and advocate parents should not do this. Whereas the Founders said we have freedom of religion and did not have concerns about allowing that freedom.

As for morality and Christians. I said that salvation is not dependent upon morality. We don't earn it by good works. God's grace is freely given, we merely accept that reality and He welcomes us into relationship with Him. When we have that relationship it empowers us to live righteously. We are called as Christians to live in holiness and righteousness doing all things from His love and because of His love. Being self-controlled, and compassionate etc. So Christ does transform us to live life morally, however, that's a byproduct not the end all of what it means to be a Christian. And like I said you have Christians on all different levels of maturity and some haven't fully stepped out of their old life yet and there is grace for that. But ultimately the perfect example of what it should look like to be a Christian is Christ Himself. We are a work in progress. In His eyes we are without sin for we have been redeemed and He sees us purely. We still have struggles with sin, but the closer we get to Him the more we take on His nature and live a life of love.

Anonymous said...

Karla,
"No, I found David Barton's ministry years after I had already studied primary documents for myself."

Which documents?

"Actually David Barton himself has a section on his website where he list quotations that float around the internet that while in favor of Christianity are not found in any primary documents and he gives that information himself of there not being trustworthy quotes to use."

He only does this because he got caught red-handed using made up quotes (that he himself might have made up). He still lists a lot of the quotes that he used as "questionable" instead of simply saying they are false. Due to his unscrupulous behavior (and others) he is now at least doing something to clean up his own mess, but not really that much. He still makes bad arguments, etc.

"No, I don't think Christianity should ever for any reason whatsoever be forced."

By lamenting that we aren't taking Palin seriously because of her faith and by targeting that faith as a reason to vote for her, isn't that what you are doing to some extent?

"The Founders were emphatic about that as well for they knew that Christianity was about freedom and no one could compel another to be a Christian or to worship a certain way as a Christian as they were being forced to do in England."

Partially right. They knew that compulsory worship or religion is not true freedom, but they certainly didn't think that "Xianity was about freedom."

"They therefore out of that Christian worldview of freedom pronounced that we ought to have freedom of religion."

No, they wanted freedom of religion because of the oppression of Xianity that they experienced.

"It was from that not from secularism that that freedom was granted."

What are you talking about? That IS secularism. It came from the Enlightenment. At that time, Xianity did NOT mean freedom. It meant oppression. Many sects of Xianity were maneuvering to subdue all the others and become the dominant sect. Thus, you had the persecution of the Quakers and others by European nations.

"In contrast the atheist today say it is tantamount to child abuse to teach religion to children and advocate parents should not do this."

I don't know of anyone who says that. I do know of some dishonest apologists that claim that Dawkins says that, but that's based on a false quote mine of what his actual argument is.

"Whereas the Founders said we have freedom of religion and did not have concerns about allowing that freedom."

Including the freedom to NOT be Xian, which was not part of Xian principles, nor is it today.

"As for morality and Christians. I said that salvation is not dependent upon morality. We don't earn it by good works."

You also said that not all Xians are automatically moral. That's what I was referring to.

"So Christ does transform us to live life morally, however, that's a byproduct not the end all of what it means to be a Christian."

So, are you going back on your earlier claim? Are you really going to claim that Xians are magically made more moral than others?

"And like I said you have Christians on all different levels of maturity and some haven't fully stepped out of their old life yet and there is grace for that."

So, you aren't going back on your claim, and my question still stands.

"But ultimately the perfect example of what it should look like to be a Christian is Christ Himself."

So, you should whip people that offend you?

So, if Palin is not necessarily more moral than anyone else simply by being a Xian, why bring it up?

Karla said...

Jesus didn't whip anybody.

I never said I was voting for Palin. I only said I'm liking her so far, I mean as a person. I see as positive what the media is spinning as negative.

My post was more about Christians rising up in their calling to love the world and show Christ love to the world then it was a political matter.

You don't automatically become a super moral person at the moment you accept Christ. You learn to walk in Him just like a baby learns to walk in the natural. Some people are instantly freed from drug addictions and the like and others take time to come out of their old life and some hang on it it. God doesn't over power our will even when we accept Him. He will help us with all that we surrender to Him, but sometimes we as humans like to hang on to junk we ought to let go of. We are all works in progress.

Karla said...

P.S. I've read much of the Federalist Papers, some of John Locke, some George Washington, some Ben Franklin, some case law from the justices of old. And other random documents. I love reading things that are written in antiquated vernacular. I wish people wrote like that today.

Anonymous said...

Karla,
"Jesus didn't whip anybody."

He did fashion a whip and chase people out of the temple. Where I'm from, this is called "assault."

"I see as positive what the media is spinning as negative."

What is the media spinning as negative? I've seen nothing that indicates they are spinning her Xian faith as negative. What I've seen is talking about how her bias against reality is a negative, meaning her willingness to ban books, push for creationism in schools, he push to misreport findings about polar bears, etc.

"You don't automatically become a super moral person at the moment you accept Christ."

Then, simply because Palin is a Xian you can't automatically assume that she's moral.

"I've read much of the Federalist Papers, some of John Locke, some George Washington, some Ben Franklin, some case law from the justices of old."

And which parts of those documents make you believe that those people wanted to base a government off of Xian principles? It's certain that Madison and Jefferson were both very secular, as was Washington. Franklin was back and forth depending on his mood.

Karla said...

"He did fashion a whip and chase people out of the temple. Where I'm from, this is called "assault.""

He didn't hit anybody with it. He only chased them out of misusing his Father's house for their own gain. It's only an assault if you strike someone. He didn't hurt anybody.

Even when the soldiers came to take him into custody and Peter took out his sword and cut off one of the soldier's ears. Jesus told him he would have none of that, and he picked up the ear and replaced it -- healing the man. And when they had beaten him and hung him upon the cross he asked the Father to forgive them for they knew not what they did. Even upon the cross His attitude towards his persecutors was one of forgiveness.

As for the government stuff, it really doesn't make a difference to me what you believe about that topic so I'm not going to debate it.

Anonymous said...

"He didn't hit anybody with it."

Threaten someone with a weapon and see if you don't get arrested.