Baptist Standard Editor
Marv Knox's statements, etc.
We disagree with his position, and those of some other people who have leadership positions in the Baptist Church as editors and writers for the Baptist Standard and the Associated BaptIst Press, on many issues. We find their positions and views to be much more Liberal / Progressive / Socialist than most Baptists we know.
How does the same Liberal Editor write both of the following statements?
Marv Knox wrote on May 7, 2011:
“Thoughtful, faithful Christians affirm feelings of relief, if not outright jubilation. Based upon principles of justice, bin Laden deserved to die for his role in 9/11, as well as other terrorist activity. And given his ongoing leadership of al Qaeda, principles of utility support his death now, before he could direct his forces to kill even more people. If the world is a safer place and fewer people will be victimized because he is gone, then relief is justified.”
Marv Knox wrote on May 16, 2009:
“Some people defend torture because they believe torturing a small number of foreigners can be justified to save the lives of a larger number of Americans. This argument should be dismissed on two counts. First, it’s based on a questionable assumption. Considerable evidence suggests torture is less effective than many other interrogation methods. More significantly, however, this is a utilitarian approach to ethics. At root, it means the ends justifies the means. Americans, not to mention Bible-believing Christians, historically have taken pride in being better than that. We must avoid such flimsy ethics, even when we approach something as scary as terrorism.”
The Liberal mind is indeed an amazingly inconsistent thing.
05/07/2011 Marv Wrote:
"Although the Navy SEALS practiced their mission for months, Obama’s death came as a complete surprise to most of the world. This has been quite a year for surprises. The earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis in Japan. Political revolution and the fall of dictators in the Middle East. Tornadoes and floods across the South. And, inevitably, more personal shocks, such as the diagnosis of advanced cancer and the debilitating fall of friends."
(I know, this one was a bit petty. But Marv is supposed to be the professional with a degree in Communications.)
03/25/2011
After years of insisting on an absolute "Separation of Church & State" view, the editor of the "Baptist Standard" still promotes the use of Tax Dollars at his personal favored "Baptist Institutions" through TEG's.
Nope...no vouchers! Yep...tax payor dollars for his personal favorites. The Liberal mind.
READ READ
At "Ameritianity," we believe in Freedom of Education. Give each student in a school district an amount equal to whatever
money is used on a per student basis in the district or state and allow them to use those funds to attend the educational
system of their choice.
(This article by Marv on the same topic contains other opinions. Marv is "ranting on the same topic" again - which is grounds for being denied access to the "BS" and "Associated Baptist Press" unless you are the editor or an official "Leader" or "Ethicist")
OTHER DISCUSSIONS WE HAVE HAD
|
Marv Knox, Liberal / Progressive editor of the "Baptist Standard," in his article seen here asks the following questions:
So, what do we think about a democratically elected Islamic state? This raises several questions, some very closely related and some less so:
• If Americans historically and philosophically believe in democracy, what is our responsibility to help ensure democracy for others? (We must define Democracy)
• Specifically, what is our obligation to nurture democracy that could turn an ally into an enemy?
• Beyond that, what is our greater obligation: The U.S. national interest, or the good of other people as human beings? (A strong America is in the interest of all who seek to be free)
• Would Jesus compel us to preserve our national security, standard of living, borders and worldview if releasing or relaxing all of them would secure a higher standard of living and greater freedom for an even-greater number of people around the world? (Marv, those in this world who have a lower standard of living and less freedom are not in that position because America has excelled in these areas, any more than those who fail to attain Salvation and eternal life fail to do so because of those who do accept Christ by Faith. It is about CHOICES, of the individual and people groups. America today is the result of people making choices, many of which were very costly and which involved sacrifices for the greater good and the future of Americans and mankind. Americans have not always had a higher standard of living and greater freedom. They fought, died, and prayed for what we have. As we still are doing today. Interesting that many of the worlds wealthiest individuals and families live in the same countries that house some of the people with the lowest standards of living. Mexico. Egypt. Libya. Most of the oil producing countries in fact.)
• And what should we do when democracy and evangelism come to cross purposes? Imagine a strong leader who would repress his people but allow missionaries to minister with freedom and security (Where have you ever seen this?) , contrasted with a democratically established Islamic state that does not allow missionaries.
I don't see these issues raised clearly in the secular media, but they're important questions to be answered in Egypt and, perhaps, throughout the Middle East. (Marv, is this one of those days where you believe in your oft defended absolute separation of church and state? How about church and press, or press and state?)
Our response:
Once again, Mr. Knox, Liberal/Progressive editor of the Baptist Standard, leaves out the most important and obvious fact which is simply that what we mean by "DEMOCRACY" as defined by most Americans, and other free people in the world, is not compatible with Islam by definition or practice. Our "DEMOCRACY" goes beyond simply "MAJORITY RULE." Americans and others believe that "DEMOCRACY" is based on something, a set of values, a set of standards, beyond majority / mob rule.
In the United States of America, we have a Democratic Constitutional Republic. Our Democracy is based upon our founding documents including the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Included within our Declaration of Independence is the belief in a Creator God from Whom we have attained Inalienable Rights, and under Whom our elected officials serve as Stewards.
Included within these Inalienable Rights are found our belief in Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of the Press, etc. Islam is therefore incompatible with what we view as “DEMOCRACY” because it does not accept the Rights and Freedoms that we as Americans view as essential to a true Democracy.
(1) We should assist other people who seek Democracy when what they seek is in agreement with what we view as real Democracy. Unfortunately Presidents Carter and Obama have ignored the plea from the people of Iran, and others, in the past;
(2) Our primary interest should be the survival of the USA, which we do believe serves the good of all human beings. "Our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor" - Marv, you have previously stated that you do not believe that Christianity has a special place in America. Nor do you agree with our Founding Fathers regarding "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence." Thank God most Americans have not in the past and do not now agree with you. We are not called to be fools or to be self-destructive. The USA has been the source of assets and power FOR Freedom and Democracy, and their Defender, in the world for many years. If we fail, who will fill the void? Compassion is not required to be weak. Weak compassion will lose its ability to show compassion;
(3) We are not called by God to be self-destructive nor to ignore and belittle God's Blessings upon America. You can feel guilty for success, for God blessing America, but hopefully other Americans will not be so foolish. There has never been a people in the history of the world who have sacrificed and given as much for the freedom of others, for work in the Great Commission, as have Americans. Most Americans who understand our history, and who have had family members serve in the military of our Nation on foreign soil, know this. Weak believers in true Democracy will lose their freedom, just as those who trivialize God's Purpose and Blessings He so richly pours out upon His People, His Children.
Definitions have consequences – as do elections. Democracy and Freedom do not have the same meanings to all people. Some Muslims believe that "Freedom" comes through absolute rule of Sharia Law which they may believe protects their followers from the "Evils" of "Freedom" as seen in the West. Democracy and Freedom also differ in the minds and philosophy of some relative to how they should relate to and interact with others on the planet. For some, Democratically elected or not, their goal is to "DESTROY" those who they see as "EVIL" or who stand against themselves. "Free Choice" is a Christian principle. It seems not to be an Islamic principle.
For example, the USA does not generally state that our national objective is to destroy nations and people who do not agree with us ... even though we are the one nation that actually has the power to do so. When we are confronted by another nation or people whose stated objective is the destruction of America, and what we view as Democracy and Freedom, we begin to deal with self-preservation and self-defense, whether our enemy was Democratically elected or not.
Phil @ Ameritianity
|
|
Our FOCUS for 2011 must be to uncover "Liberalism, Elitism, Centralization, & Progressivism" wherever it exists!
01-15-2011: We believe that "leaders," whether political or religious, must be held accountable for what they say, their views, and their agenda. We were warned about their plan for the Christian Church in America
Much in the same way that we are seeing a "Grass Roots" movement in America to reclaim America for the 80% of Americans who love America, our culture, our history, "Americanism," our economic system, our political system, our Constitution, our military, our Judeo-Christian based freedoms, our role as Leader of the Free World, we should also be concerned about what has taken place in America's Churches in the past few years. Perhaps we also need a "Grass Roots" reclamation of the Church and our moral and spiritual foundation as well. Here are some public comments recently made by “Christian Leaders” about their views of America and the place Christianity and Christians have had, and should have, in America. We disagree with the following statements and views they have expressed. What say you?
"Do I think Christianity should have special status in our nation? Absolutely not." Marv Knox, Editor, The Baptist Standard
"People who embrace this system of belief call themselves 'conservative Christians'. But when I try to exegete their faith, it presents itself as a mix of rigid-right politics, American Exceptionalism and a kind of cultural Christianity that’s at least as much about middle-class suburban U.S. culture as it is about Christ." Marv Knox, Editor, The Baptist Standard
“I think that the general ideology of the Tea party is not a Christian one,” said David Gushee, professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University and co-founder of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, a faith-based nonprofit. LINK
"The person who commented on my Tebow blog thinks I’m a liberal because I don’t agree with him, as if his positions are the bona fide, handed-down-directly–from-Jesus truth." Marv Knox, Editor, The Baptist Standard
"Those behind the billboards refer to the separation of church and state as a “lie” and say our country’s Judeo-Christian foundation is the reason that this country has prospered for 200-plus years. The only lies being told are featured on the billboards." Brent Walker
"Yes, we still grieve the deaths of 9/11. Yes, we wish the Manhattan Muslims would exercise restraint and exhibit compassion by moving their mosque farther away from Ground Zero. But we dare not participate in denying their right to build their mosque. If we tolerantly undermine religious liberty, who will stand up for churches when Christians no longer comprise a majority in America?" Marv Knox LINK
NOTE: For more on "Religious Freedom for Christians in Islamic States" LINK
"First, Christians who agree with Hume should not be debating whether Hume had the right to say what he did (it's a free country, after all) or whether the people who have criticized him are fair to Christianity (some are; some aren't). Instead, the discussion should be about whether Hume's approach was the best way either to answer the plaguing problem of infidelity or to spread the gospel. The answers are no and no." Marv Knox, Editor, The Baptist Standard
"So, if you believe what Jesus said as recorded in Matthew 25:31-46 and then take Beck at his word, you've got to conclude Beck is the opposite of an evangelist. He's shooing his followers straight to hell." Marv Knox, Editor, The Baptist Standard
Liberalism, Socialism, Marxism, Statism, Communism, have all had an impact on Religion and Faith in America, it's impact on our Society, and on our Government.
Like Alinsky, Gorbachev, Obama & Hilliary Clinton follow Gramsci, not Lenin. In fact, Gramsci aroused Stalins's wrath by suggesting that Lenin's revolutionary plan wouldn't work in the West. Instead the primary assault would be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish. Malachi Martin gave us a progress report:
"By 1985, the influence of traditional Christian philosophy in the West was weak and negligible.... Gramsci's master strategy was now feasible. Humanly speaking, it was no longer too tall an order to strip large majorities of men and women in the West of those last vestiges that remained to them of Christianity's transcendent God."
Liberalism and Progressivism at times seems to share certain characteristics regardless of the venue in which they are found. Whether it is in the area of politics or religion, it often contains the elements of (1) elitism, (2) intellectual superiority, (3) centralization, (4) "change,"
(5) Psychological deflection and transference, to name a few.
"Elitism," which can come from wealth accumulation, often via unsavory means, is often inherited. How often do we have "leaders" who themselves have no real personal experience in what they seek a leadership position in? How often do they attain a position of power or influence because of who their daddy was?
"Intellectual Superiority" which often comes from many years of indoctrination by other elites. Progressivism and Liberalism are "movements" and "belief systems." They have been willing to accept a gradual implementation of their beliefs. It often involves controlling education, the press, and redefining long held principles like "Religious Freedom," the theory of "Separation of Church and State." the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the Bible.
"Centralization" because their feeling of superiority causes them to want to take control of decision making because of the intellectual inferiority of others. They thus seek to quash open debate, especially through means they have not been able to control like Conservative News outlets and talk radio, regardless of their popularity among the citizens, because they feel compelled to share their superior insight with other.
"Change" because whatever exists must always be "improved upon." They hate the idea of a Constitution that could possibly possess all that is need to provide for a successful, prosperous, well governed nation. The really don't like the Bible and the fact that "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever" because that would leave no room for their need for superior insight and revelation, which they require for their personal validation.
"Psychological Deflection and Transference" is often seen. How often do we see Liberal / Progressives accuse their "enemies" of doing exactly what the evidence shows they themselves are guilty of, and which they often invented? How often do we see the Liberal / Progressive insist that they know best how to help the less fortunate, which often includes the redistribution of wealth, while they have themselves accumulated millions and billions and rarely make real contributions to such causes? How often have we seen a decline in employment, income, health, faith, church attendance, giving, voting, and other factors, while these very Liberal / Progressive people have been in power, yet they still insist that they have all the right answers to fix what is wrong? Wrongs and failures which their actions created, on their watch. These people don't understand the concept of "Stewardship, Public Service, or Allegiance."
Our FOCUS for 2011 must be to uncover "Liberalism, Elitism, Centralization, & Progressivism" wherever it exists because the evidence is that it has failed historically and has proven to be destructive to individual freedom including the Christian Principle of the "Priesthood of the Believer.'
Phil at Ameritianity, also a Christian Baptist
COMMENTS
|
02/09/2011
 Marv Knox, Liberal Editor of the Baptist Standard, on people leaving churches: READ
“I tend to tilt away from agreeing that ‘not being fed’ is sufficient reason for leaving a church. But then again, I'm pretty sympathetic to preachers, since (a) I'm a ‘preacher's kid,’ (b) a preacher's brother and (c) good friends with tons of preachers, and I (d) know from experience how hard it is to preach.”
“Reasons to leave: About good reasons to leave a church: I lean the other way. People go through seasons in their lives, and sometimes it's probably best for them to move on to another church, whatever the background reasons. Life's too short—or too long, depending on how you look at it—to be unhappy and to make other people unhappy. So, if folks can't get reconciled and be joyful and productive in Church A, then I'm in favor of them moving on to Church B. But they also should practice selective amnesia.
When they make the move, they need to forget the frustration, anger, resentment or whatever emotions they associated with the previous church, or else they'll just carry toxic feelings into their new church. This is serious, complicated stuff. Christians of goodwill can, and do, disagree. But we should be honest with ourselves and each other as we deal with vital church issues."
RESPONSE: Why do preachers leave churches? Quite often they will tell you that they felt the leadership of the Holy Spirit on their lives and felt LED to move on to another place of ministry. Your article implies by omission that our fellow Christians only “leave” one church for another because of unhappiness, frustration, anger, resentment, and toxicity. Choosing to follow the tug on one’s heart by God should not indicate that someone was not joyful and productive where they were prior to moving on.
You were correct when you stated “…we should be honest with ourselves and each other as we deal with vital church issues … .“ Have you lived up to your statement in this article? No.
Why are those who leave called "they?" Have you ever chosen to leave a church? Why did you leave?
MORE KNOXISM
|
|
