Non-Profit Churches

"The prophetic voice of the Church is almost silent. It is the pastors who have silenced it...Today the Church’s door is shut to the prophets. We have traded the prophets for profits.”

From "Non-Profit Churches" by Coach Dave Daubenmire, posted 11/8/07 at newswithviews.com

Isaiah 56:10 His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter. Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and tomorrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant.

No I didn’t spell prophet wrong. A prophet is “a person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.” Today the Church’s door is shut to the prophets. We have traded the prophets for profits.

I saw it again this weekend. Every time I go I pray it will be different; it is my nature, to believe for the best. But I have to admit, it is very discouraging.

I travel the country standing up for Truth. I’m not sure how this mantle fell on me but I do my best to be faithful to the call. I believe that the Lord is using me to awaken the Church. My message is hard and penetrating. It is a sin-hating, God-fearing exhortation to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded.”

I am a missionary to America, an alarm clock to the Church, which has punched the snooze button far too many times. Like a teenager on Saturday morning most of our church leaders do not want to hear the sound of the alarm. They “love to slumber.”

...Let me offer you a challenge. Do an internet-search of the great preachers/prophets of the past. From Luther (1500) to Knox (1550), Bunyan (1600) to Wesley (1700), Moody (1800) to Sunday (1900), you will be hard-pressed to find one sermon on the prosperity/life-enhancement Gospel. They preached on sin and repentance. What a disgrace the sissified voices of today are to the memory of these Christian-prophets

Read the rest of Coach's commentary.

Amoral Leadership for Amoral America

From "Amoral Leadership for Amoral America" by Coach Dave Daubenmire, posted at Pass the Salt Ministries

Amoral---having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong:

Shallow. That is the best way to describe those who are being paraded before us as legitimate contenders for election to the highest office in the land. Men without chests is what C. S. Lewis coined them.

Has that ever been more apparent than what the two major parties present to us today? Oh, how I long for a man who will "call them as he sees them."

But, unfortunately, the modern political philosophy of the day is that the safest position to take in politics is "no position," or as we have seen in the latest "debates," both positions! Today's candidates have become masters of fence riding and double-speak. Sadly, most of the electorate, dumbed-down by government education and indoctrinated with moral relativism, is unable to fight through the fog.

As I listened to Rudy Guilani waffle-on about how he is "personally" against abortion but for a woman's "right" to make the "difficult" choice it became obvious to me that Truth has fallen in the streets. Murder s now called choice. A-merica is becoming a-moral.

Too bad Rudy is not worried about terrorism in the womb. There will be terrorism in the world as long as we permit terrorism in the womb.

James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

...So the candidates are able to get away with a position that supports the killing of innocent children in the safety of a mother's womb, even though he/she is "personally" against abortion. What a crock. Allow me to extrapolate how vacuous this position is.

Since a candidate "supports" a position that he/she is "personally" opposed to, wouldn't it be safe to assume that he/she applies the same rationale to other issues? Would you seriously consider a candidate who took the following positions?

• I am personally opposed to slavery, but I am for a slave-owners right to choose.
• I personally oppose rape, but I am for a rapist's right to personal choice.
• I personally oppose murder, but I am for a murderer's right to do it.
• I personally oppose lynching, but I am for a white man's justice.
• I am personally opposed to incest, but I am for father's rights.
• I personally oppose suicide bombings, but who am I to tell another how he can express his faith?
• I personally oppose border jumping, but I am for a man's right to choose what is best for his family.

I am personally opposed to............you fill in the blank.

Both positions is no position.

Judges 21:25 "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes".

We have reached a water-shed moment in American history. Double-mindedness will be our undoing. Compartmentalized morality will no longer work. Amorality is no morality.

...If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, they will soon be corrupted . . . If our government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws." [Noah Webster, The History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie and Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, 49]

Stop pointing your finger at the lost and start pointing your fingers at the found.

Read the whole commentary.