Are Attempts to Reclaim the Culture a Pointless Exercise?

[john_rowland]

The problem, though, is the terminology remained the same, but the meaning of that terminology changed drastically. The really only good thing, though, with Obama is that we've finally "hit bottom." so to speak. Certainly not in the continual devolution of the social order, but in terms of political ideology there really isn't much lower that we can go..

From Law and Liberty by RJ Rushdoony:

This points clearly to a seventh aspect of socialism’s perpetual civil war: truth is at all times a central casualty. Since there is no truth apart from the scientific socialist state, any device, any lie, any strategy which will further the socialist experiment is valid. The lie is spoken to delude the masses and the enemy; speech has as its purpose not the communication of truth but utility to the dictatorship of the proletariat as a weapon of warfare. Semantics therefore becomes a major concern of socialism. Language must be used; it is a superb weapon. Certain words have powerful meanings to many men, and one way of using men’s minds against themselves is to misuse the words that have a particular meaning to them. To expect language to have the same content to a socialist as it does to a Christian is a delusion. For the socialist, language is instrumental; it is a tool of revolution. Instead of representing a means of communicating an objective order of truth, language is basically an instrument of power. For the socialist state to neglect to use language as an instrument of power is for it to be guilty of bourgeois sentiments and illusions.

http://www.chalcedon.edu/blog/2009/10/socialism-as-perpetual-civil-war.php

This is very much where we find ourselves. The progressives know our language and know how to use it to keep us fat, dumb and happy.

[MoGrace2u]

As the courts mumble about toleration and diversity, we are beginning to see a pattern: If any law is based on religious assumptions, in particular, Christian religious assumptions, they cannot be by definition part of America’s legal discourse. So what do we do about this? According to MacArthur, not much. Preach the gospel, to be sure, and hope that this will have a leavening effect on the culture. But even if the country were 80 percent Christian, and this majority decided not to involve themselves in the broader culture, the remaining 20 percent would rule us and in the end deny Christians and everyone else their freedoms.

It didn't use to be that way in America when godly men were who sought office. But even in your example of Paul after his conversion, he did not continue to work for the apostate Sanhedrin. Yet thru his gospel preaching, men of that ruling body were saved and continued to serve in the capacity to which they had been originally called. And this was Paul's mission as pharisees, sadducees, centurions, masters and slaves were converted by the gospel and told to remain in the place where they had been called. And it was there a difference was made by those men who had been regenerated. Which did not exempt them from persecution from those who opposed them.

I don't hold out much hope that our political system can be renovated apart from the influence of godly men who serve in it. An unjust judge will never have the same perspective of one who loves to see justice done - unless the gospel converts him. So MacArthur takes the right perspective here, for there is no quick fix to cure a sin-sick society otherwise. The true power lies in the word of God to convert the hearts of men, not merely in the hands of the voters.

A corrupt political system has no defense against our prayers! Which is why the battle is spiritual and not political, as has always been the case. The prayer closet - not the voting booth is where true change begins.