prisonchaplain

I was going to take your post and start a new topic...but I think the original has run its course. So... in the Assemblies of God our congregations are mostly independent, financially. Each church supports missionaries, domestic drug rehabilitation (Teen Challenge), emergency response efforts (Convoy of Hope), etc. In fact, every year my church cooperates with Samaritan's Purse Shoebox program, and Samaritan's Purse is not an Assemblies of God program. That said, my congregation went virtual and has been following the governor's guidance. We expect to return to in-person services mid-July, since drive-in doesn't make sense for us. Some of our members are struggling financially. Fortunately, Union Gospel Mission (again, not Assemblies of God) has been working with local churches to distribute food items. We maintain a small food/clothing bank, as well. I've not heard than any churches are closing. However, our smaller churches are often led by pastors who also work outside jobs. So, depending on the type of job, I imagine some of them were stretched quite thin. Those of us in chaplaincy are mostly working essential jobs, and many have the opposite problem--12-hour shifts, plus working in places in which the stress level is sky high.

@Traveler I actually considered LDS history--especially the MO Gov's extermination order--as I wrote my words. It's true that your ancestors were treated badly. Mine were too--though much less so. Our preachers were tarred and feathered, and occasionally an evangelist would be jailed for practicing medicine without a license (faith healing). I don't pretend to know or feel the animosity your people have felt from fellow Americans, and I certainly don't want to disrespect that difficult history. What we do share is that there was a lengthy period of time in U.S. History during which the culture embraced our mores. Sex before marriage was sin, gambling was considered a weakness by many, drunkenness the same. Cussing was crass. And, of course, Christmas and Easter included civic observances in public parks, often with politicians nodding and smiling. The culture's affection was never deep, and the politicos were seldom sincere, but it was still kinda nice. :::sigh:::

We've all heard about how the Romans used to feed Christians to the lions. There is actually an interesting historic document--a letter written by an early Christian leader to a Roman Caesar. In it he asks the Caesar to please tell citizens to stop saying "Christians to the lions" every time there is a natural disaster (the people believed that the Christians could stop the disasters by praying to their God, but chose not to). I doubt that this leader expected praises and adulations from the Caesar. However, he seemed to have hope that his appeal my carry some traction. The United States, for most of its history, had a very broad and shallow deference to Judeo-Christian morality. It's only in the last 40 years or so that this has declined. So, praise? No. Traction? Perhaps a little.

I am amazed at how quickly the left abandoned the "You can't legislate morality" mantra that was so prevalent not so long ago. Today they oppose free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly/association--well, just freedom in general. Why? They wish to impose anti-racism, anti-genderism, anti-capitalism, anti-classism, etc. They are more than happy to also impose racial/gender/orientation preferences. We on the right might be guilty of wanting to use government to protect unborn lives, etc., but our inclination towards liberty restrains our totalitarian impulses (power does corrupt). Liberalism offers no such qualms or hesitations.

small-c conservative. :-)

The Oregon case was real, and I figured some may come my way. So, our chapel obtained a few books--Parenting Without God, etc. Ironically, back in the 70's and early 80's Rev. Jerry Falwell (Sr.) would often warn about the secular humanists. Perhaps he had a bit of prophetic anointing on him--or he was a forward thinker.

This is the problem. The 10 churches will probably react responsibly by practicing social distancing, etc. However, since the governor's authority was stripped, others will go back to partying. Then, when even one person gets COVID-19 it will be those selfish churches that endangered us all.

If I were in Catholic hierarchy, and had the authority, I would declare Joseph the patron saint of prisoners. Perhaps it's enough that I agree with you.

I was not aware of this. Thank you. Your reaction makes perfect sense now that I have this missing peace.

People are often surprised at what I do know and what I don't. Today, I learned something new. 🤷‍♂️

Hebrews 11: 31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace. 32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: 33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions. I don't disagree with your facts @Scott. Nevertheless, the writer of Hebrews includes him in the chapter of faith. Also, religious Jews consider him the greatest Jews. Jerusalem is the City of David. Jesus is of the line of David. You do make my point, though. We can stumble into tremendous sin and yet repent, and accomplish great good. At the same time, even after great accomplishments, we can stumble, fumble and fail. Our solution is "Just a daily walk with Thee."

It just dawned on me that there are a group of apostates in Oregon. They used to be atheists but switched over to being Humanists. They claimed it gave them more to talk about.

The overall lesson of King David, since this series focuses on failures, is that David committed the big 3 (adultery, deception, murder) and yet became a man after God's own heart. This is the first of two lessons and focuses on David's early blessings and initial sin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cff_w80da68

You probably have to subtract mine...only members can become apostate.

To summarize the story: A judge ruled that the governor's (Oregon) extension of a 28-day executive order by 60-days was null and void since she did not get consent from the state legislature. Further, the judge seemed to agree with many of the plaintiff's contentions--mostly from churches. I first read this in the Epoch Times, a conservative publication. So, I checked to see if the mainstream media had suppressed the story or not. To my positive amazement, both Time and ABC News reported on it. Here's the ABC version: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-tosses-coronavirus-restrictions-oregon-governor-70751385 So...were the churches bad actors, protecting their church budgets by threatening members and the community at large with rampant spreading of COVID-19, or were they religious liberty guardians, assuring that the balance between free exercise of religion and state emergency powers be maintained with great care?

Sometimes current events collides with gospel discussion. I've noticed headlines from more liberal and Democratic sources that seem openly biased--mainly in which stories are chosen. Any church, clergyperson, or religiously-oriented COVID cases get billed as foolish Christians opposing health and science, putting community at risk, and dying from COVID-19. No discussion of circumstances, rates of infection/death, etc. Sometimes just individual cases that build the anecdotal evidence that the closers are right and the openers are dangerous. In contrast, more conservative and Republican sources portray governors who are irreligious targeting religions, and most especially, they are pitting LGBT advocates against Christians (they're using the virus to get revenge). I just read an article from heterodox academy that suggests people's perspectives on the virus are much more predicted by political ideology than by experience. It marveled that conservatives are usually the more cautious, but in this case the script is very much flipped. I shake my head at the political divide of this health crisis, yet see that I too feel the more conservative way. Our leaders are doing well to keep our congregations in compliance with state guidelines, but I really wonder if we will take the time, when this is over, to figure out what really happened, where lines should be drawn, and perhaps most important, how we can heal the broken lines of trust that used to be America. It was not so long ago that our politicians fought like cats and dogs during lawmaking debates, but treated each other like loyal Americans otherwise.

The gambling/fornication bit was mildly funny 30 years ago, because no one took it seriously. Of course you can't fornicate in moderation. That's foolish. Oh, I see...if gambling is wrong we should not do that recreationally either. Okay, I get it. . . . Today, the whole thing is just sad.

There is a saying that if you have to explain a joke it is no longer funny. The gambling/fornication episode was a common joke 30 years ago. Gambling and fornication do not compare--at least they didn't. That is what made it funny. Alas, today, far too many compromised Christians believe that "love is love," some marriages are loveless so it would be better to divorce, and that perhaps it is wise to make sure about compatibility before marriage, etc. Then there is the whole same-sex attraction discussion. In other words, the whole point is that what used to be a jest has become an actual discussion: 1: I think gambling is okay in moderation. 2: Really? I suppose you think it's okay to fornicate in moderation, too! 1: Well, it depends. Do the two love each other? Do they feel reasonably committed? Is there no coercion? After all, love is love . . .

30 years ago two people (one was a Fundamentalist Christian, the other was not committed to religion, though was respectful) were discussing gambling. The non-religious one loved bingo and said, "Some Christians believe it is okay to gamble in moderation." The Fundamentalist replied, "I suppose they're okay with fornicating in moderation too." I thought that was funny 30-years ago. Sadly, today, too many supposed believers would say it depended on the circumstances (were they really in love, etc.).

Purely local perspective here--but we live in a highly politicized era. You get that this is a bad look. We have casinos that never closed. The reason? Native lands. Liquor stores--like you said, curbside delivery, social distancing followed, etc. Walmart--essential items for sale. We all get it. However, put together, our blue state allows casinos, liquor stores and Wallie World, but declares the church NON-ESSENTIAL. If I were a conspiracy nut I'd suggest that drunkards, stoners and gamblers vote Democrat and church-goers less so. I'm not that cynical, but your have to get that this is irksome. To answer your direct question, yes we would have the discipline. We did so before the total shut down. In our church's case the drive-in approach would not work, so we're totally virtual until the opening is complete (mid-July). Otherwise, the chairs get pulled and spread out, or we add services and obey limits. Honestly, part of our theology is to be law-abiding.

Because they don't shop at Walmart. Personally, plan B is to go into Walmart with a hazmat suit on. Plan A? Walmart.com.

Indeed, that's what we're doing. It is enough, if liquor stores and marijuana shops are treated likewise. We're all about rendering unto Caesar. I'd even argue that we erred (quite badly, actually) in not supporting the Civil Rights movement more passionately due to our predisposition to obey governing authorities. Long-term, most religions are relational. We want to gather--to be together. We are told in the New Testament not to forsake the assembling together. I'll argue further that I do not truly believe most state and local governments (leaders) are intentionally being dismissive of faith communities. However, it is a bad look when churches are named specifically for the most stringent requirements while others are just as specifically exempted. It's even worse when the leaders of those communities have a record of difficult relationships with faith communities (read: they believe they don't get many votes from them).

I love 2A. My bias favors 1A even more. RFRA expands and defines it. "Compelling government interest" does not, for example, mean that Gov (D) gets no votes from church-goers and so decides to shut churches down. However, it can allow for temporary restrictions during a pandemic--if those are applied broadly. So, again, s/he should not be able to specifically shut down churches while keeping liquor stores open. Again, the article does a much better job of laying this out. However, there are emergencies that allow government to temporarily suspend certain liberties.

@anatess2 I get that answer, but, social pressure can be deadly. Scared people will literally beat someone to death if they think government is right about restrictions and some liberty-nut is threatening to kill all the neighbor kids with his/her COVID-19. So, short of arming to prove a point, the article offers some great insights . . .

Those who seek God will find Him. Ultimately, it's between each soul and Heavenly Father. However, as you say, one who reads scripture will sincerity and intentionality presents as (I like this psychology phrase) one who will find the Almighty.