Addicted to Mediocrity, Chapter 6: True Spirituality (Revisted)

Again, more rhetoric. This book almost reads like propoganda. Instead of giving solid examples, Scaheffer makes broad generalizations who's source is hidden from the reader. Schaeffer asks the question, "Why is america a pagan state?" (p.55) My question is, "Is it?". The first edition of this book was written in 1981. The revised edition was written in 1985. If we assume a slope of moralim in the united states, than 2004 should be more immoral than 1985.

This past election was a good gauge of the morality of the country. On the line was the ban on gay marriage. This bill was put up in 11 states. And in each state, it passed with room to spare. The issue of homosexuality is probably one of the most polarizing in the country. Without some sort of moral law telling you that homosexuality is wrong, you would have no objection to gay marriage. But in every state that the bill was put to vote, it passed.

George W. Bush won re-elction with both the polular vote and the elctoral vote, winning a 52% majority of the nation. Granted, there are other issues and other reasons to vote for a particular person but when you look at who the liberal pagan media favored, it was as if John Kerry was their savior.

Now, this is not to say that political affiliation has anything to do with how moral someone is, but the out come of the election was generally attributed to the religious right.

Without formal studies, it is difficult to see the entire religious/political climate of the country. When looking at political maps, there is a strong corolation of blue or liberal areas with urban settings such as major metropolitan cities. These small pockets make up the vast majority of the progressive liberal movement. It doesn't help that media outlets are located in these settings.

With organizations such as CBS and the New York times spouting its liberal propoganda, you would think the whole country fell in line with their opinions.

The most interesting part of the chapter was when Schaeffer talks about Zacchaeus, "Consider the two tax collectors of the New testament, Zacchaeus and Matthew. Christ called one to be an apostle; Christ told the other to go back and collect taxes honestly." (p. 54) But Schaeffer doesn't stay on this for very long. In the next paragraph, he goes back to spouting his rhetoric again.

One can argue that the work that Matthew was doing as an apostle was far more important than what Zacchaeus was doing. This isn't necessarily to say that it was better. The modern analogy would be to compare Matthew to a full-time missionary and Zacchaeus to the full-time working schmoe. Both are important and necessary roles in different ways. The missionary is doing direct service for God, as such, needs funding. The working schmoe still loves God but doesn't serve Him in the same way. Finances may not be abundant for the working schmoe, but is enough for him to live on. Through his tithe and other donations, the working schmoe funds the missionary to do the work of God. Through his prayer support, he supports the missionary in his work for God.

You could argue that the missionary's work is more important. And in some ways, it is. But without the working schmoe, the missionary wouldn't be able to be as effective as he could be. Ultimately, both people are the same, because they both love God.

Amidst all of Schaeffer's rhetoric, this point comes across. That true spirituality has nothing to do with the specifics of what you do, but rather, your love for Him and your obedience.