Apr 20, 2009
The End of Christian America? Not Really
"The percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 points in the past two decades. How that statistic explains who we are now--and what, as a nation, we are about to become." This was a lead-in to a cover story by
Newsweek magazine.
The article tries to imply that America is becoming a "post-Christian" nation. Even though 76 percent of the people polled identify themselves as Christians,
Newsweek implies that the God of the Bible is on His way out. The only real change in the poll is the number of people who chose not to identify their religious belief--up from 14 million to 34 million.
Christianity is in good demographic shape. The American Religious Identification Survey that
Newsweek cited estimated there are now 173.4 million self-identified Christians in America, up from 151.2 million in 1990. The percentage declined, but the actual number increased.
In March, CNN ran a similar story about the downfall of Christianity. The two stories tell me there is a liberal agenda at work.
To have Newsweek and CNN predicting the end of Christian America is like the dinosaurs telling the cockroaches that their days are numbered. In the past two years, Newsweek has lost 52 percent of its readers. The magazine's circulation now stands at 2.6 million. The Wall Street Journal reported that a 21 percent decline in ad pages could soon drop Newsweek circulation by another 500,000 to 1 million readers. In February, the magazine said it would probably drop to 1.9 million by this July and 1.5 million readers by January 2010.
Columnist L. Brent Bozell may have found the reason for Newsweek's plunging sales, "One has to wonder whether
Newsweek's financial gurus really think it's a smart business strategy to greet the Easter season with funerals for ‘Christian America,’ and greet the Christmas season by making the ‘religious case for gay marriage?’ (That's not to mention all the reverent Obama worship in between.)"
CNN has seen even larger declines. Its viewership has plunged from 3 million to around 1 million. A lot of those eyeballs have switched over to watching Fox News.
I'm not hearing these two liberal media outlets crying about the death of journalism. I read one report by a head honcho at CNN who said he was happy with the network's numbers, and he described the 66 percent plunge as just a natural cycle of viewership.
The liberal media is trying to foster the idea that Christianity is no longer part of the mainstream. Their aim is to damage the Church's ability to work against the immorality sweeping over the land. They particularly seek to discredit the politically conservative influence that believers exert in matters such as abortion, pornography, and gay rights.
Many Christian leaders are buying the idea that their "antiquated notions" need to adjust to a new reality. Rather than standing up for truth, they often gravitate towards the stance that promises them the most favorable press coverage.
I was stunned to hear Rick Warren back-pedaling big time over his support for Proposition 8 - a California ballot that changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples. Here is what he said on Larry King's program, "I am not an anti-gay or anti-gay-marriage activist. I never have been, never will be. During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never-never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going." This remark baffled me, "I wrote to all my gay friends--the leaders that I knew--and actually apologized to them."
The new Rick Warren was probably apologizing for a statement made by the old Rick Warren of just a few months ago, "Let me just say this really clearly. We support Proposition 8. And if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8" (Rick Warren in an Oct. 23 video to church members).
I have some very good news for the folks in the liberal media. The day is soon coming when the percentage of true believing Christians in America (the most troublesome variety) will drop by a tremendous amount. It won't be a decline of 50%, 60%, or even 70%. At the rapture, 100% of believer will turn up missing. And best of all, the decline won't take 19 years to happen, it will occur in a blink of an eye.
Unfortunately, the respite won't last very long. When millions of people realize they missed the rapture and come to faith in Christ, the liberal media will quickly find itself confronted with a group of Christians with a profound level of dedication.
-- Todd
Eerie Iranian Intrigues
Realities of the hour in the land demonically reigned over by the prince of Persia, according to God’s Word (Dan. 10:13, 20) look more eerily ominous by the moment. That Iran, which is the modern name for much of the land of ancient Persia, is front and center in the headlines of today’s news should, perhaps, not astonish the student of Bible prophecy. However, things stacking up on the prophetic horizon flood the news. The frequency and intensity of apocalyptic-like crises make those spiritually attuned to Christ’s words come to the alert: “What I say to one, I say unto all; watch” (Mark 13:37).
Such a siren call is certainly in our ears at the moment. The shrillness of the geopolitical alerts sounding across these stormy pre-tribulation skies are filled with forewarning that one of the key end-of-days prophetic players is contributing mightily to the brewing tempest.
“Iran has condemned the latest Israeli threats to ‘strike’ Iran as Tel Aviv releases news of its biggest ever joint war games with the US. In a letter to the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council, Iranian Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee urged the body to exercise its power and put an immediate stop to what he called ‘unlawful and insolent’ Israeli threats against UN member states.
Israeli President Shimon Peres launched into a tirade against Tehran in an interview this week with Kol Hai Radio and threatened Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
He said if the Iranian president does not act during speculated talks with the US to soften his stance, ‘we'll strike him.’
Peres also confirmed that Tel Aviv ‘will’ launch its much-predicted military strike against Iran, should the alleged overtures sought by Israel's staunch ally Washington fail to force an end to uranium enrichment in Iran…’” (“Iran takes Israeli war threats up with UN,” Press TV, 4/16/09).
The strange hawkish behavior coming from Peres, who is one of Israel’s most noted doves, adds to the mixture of developments in matters involving a primary Gog-Magog player (Ezekiel, chapters 38-39). Another of the weird convoluting movements toward war within Middle East polemics is Iran’s threatening Islamic states surrounding God’s chosen nation.
“…UPI reports not only that Israel will bomb Iran later this year, but also that ‘many now assume’ that Iran will then retaliate against Persian
Gulf states such as Dubai and Saudi Arabia. The UPI report states that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, and Oman have deployed Patriot missile batteries along the Persian Gulf to deflect incoming Iranian missiles. The members of the Gulf Cooperation Council are ‘getting ready for what many now assume will be retaliation from Iran following Israeli bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities later this year,’ UPI reports…” (“Iran Protests and Prepares for Israeli Threats,” Hillel Fendel, IsraelNN.com).
Iran’s hate-filled leadership is angry with Saudi and other states of the region for their mutually beneficial dealing with the United States, Israel’s close ally–to this point, at least. Iran has threatened on numerous occasions to react in what they consider to be a properly punitive way with their fellow Islamic states if they continue to allow American bases and other military operations within their various territories.
While Israel threatens Iran and Iran threatens its Arab neighbors, another eerie ingredient is thrown into the mix. Iran’s leaders suddenly are hinting through U.S. diplomatic channels that they now might want to possibly back off their bellicose nuclear talk, and even are making noises of sitting down with the United States for reasoning their way through the volatile situations Iran’s leaders themselves have created. FOX News reported Thursday, April 16, that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to be backing off of his intransigence with regard to Iranian nuclear development. This comes on the heels of U.S. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton reportedly agreeing to sit down and talk, with no prerequisite stipulations, with Iran’s leadership. If true, these are very strange intrigues indeed. Ahmadinejad to this point has shown no such movement toward compromise. All of the foregoing is topped off by news within the same article first excerpted above:
“Israel’s largest newspaper, Yediot Acharonot, reported on Thursday that the Obama Administration is hinting that if Israel gives up Judea and Samaria (Yesha), the U.S. would help in dismantling the Iranian nuclear threat. The paper reports that Administration officials are speaking of a ‘Bushehr in exchange for Yitzhar’ plan, implying that if Israel gives up Yitzhar and the other approximately 170 Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria, the U.S. will help in neutralizing Iran’s Bushehr and other nuclear plants.
The paper further reports that Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s hard-hitting Jewish Chief of Staff, recently told a Jewish leader in Washington, ‘In the next four
years, there will be a final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, based on “two states for two peoples,” and we couldn’t care less who
the Prime Minister is…’” (“Iran Protests and Prepares for Israeli Threats,” Defense/Middle East/Israel News/Israel National News, 4/16/09).
The prophet Ezekiel foretold that Persia (Iran) will be a major part of the Gog-Magog force that storms into the heart of the Middle East. It seems that nothing of a major destructive sort would happen to Iran prior to that attack, if that nation is to be a part of the Russian-led contingent. The question that is pertinent is: Might Iran’s backing off of its determined course to become a nuclear power–at least at the surface level—be to preserve its strength for a much larger plan of action?
--Terry
