The No Kool Aid Zone

Seems like ‘pie in the sky’, but I like pie – alot. If you’re going to dream…dream big.

Mark Merritt ~ Aug 16, 2005 at 10:49 pm

This is pathetic. Where in the Bible does it tell us to remove ourselves from the world just because we don’t like what is going on? Someone help me with the theology on this.

fuds79 ~ Aug 17, 2005 at 8:31 am

Here would be my arguments:

1. How is this a “removal from the world”? Rather, this is an attempt—albeit a radical one—to establish what in the eyes of these folks is a semblance of constitutional law. These folks aren’t talking about rooting out their worldly neighbors, but rather establishing a society with some moral and constitutional sanity. Could these folks not be seen, in some respects, as modern-day Pilgrims or Puritans? Isn’t that what these groups did (and we laud them for it!)? Further, there isn’t some “if you don’t move to South Carolina, then you’re not following God” going on, at least so far as I can see.

2. These folks are using a perfectly legal means in order to accomplish a perfectly legal end.

3. I don’t see anything that suggests to me a nefarious motive on their part; follow my reasoning here: would not a return to actual constitutional law have a net positive impact upon a variety of things, including the promotion of the gospel?

4. This is radical, for sure…but do we dismiss it and call it “pathetic” on that basis (I’m not saying that’s why you used that word). Do not radical times call for radical measures?

5. Theology: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people”. This is an attempt to exalt righteousness and the rule of law in order that our nation might be exalted.

Bottom line: I think that this is an approach that is worthy of discussion on its merits (or lack thereof), at least, without dismissing it merely because it’s radical or pie-in-the-sky. Half-measures don’t seem to be accomplishing a whole lot…

Byron ~ Aug 17, 2005 at 11:41 am

Further amplification, fuds…your analogy doesn’t hold because the folks are not withdrawing from the world into a monastery or something (at which point I’d be with you); they’re not trying to “leave this world”, because there is plenty of the “world” in South Carolina (been to Myrtle Beach lately?). Rather, it seems to me that they are attempting, in a serious and commitment-intensive way, to have an impact for good upon this world, right?

Byron ~ Aug 17, 2005 at 3:11 pm

I was half way done with a magnificent defense of my position when something happened and it disappeared. So, this will have to suffice.

1. I think moving into an enclave in South Carolina is certainly an attempt to remove themselves from our society, if not the world. What happened to being salt and light in the world? You can’t be salt and light from long distance. Relationships take time, energy and proximity. The last thing that this country needs is a large contingent of Christians moving to one location. I would not call them Pilgrims or Puritans; I would be more likely to call them chickens.
2. Legal doesn’t necessarily mean right.
3. I never said they were doing anything nefarious. Frankly, I don’t think God needs constitutional law to promote the gospel. If anything, the Christianity of the constitutional USA would seem to have taken very slothful form.
4. I would love to hear some radical measures. This doesn’t seem like one. I don’t dismiss it because it is radical but because (I believe that) it is ill conceived and will never accomplished its’ desired outcome.
5. There never has been or ever will be a truly righteous nation on this earth before Jesus returns. If this were such a big deal you would have thought Jesus would have encouraged all Christians to run away from Rome.

Bottom line: This seems like one more symptom of our culture of victimhood. Instead of standing up and fighting for what we believe is right, we want to whine that we aren’t being treated fairly. We are going to pick up our Bibles and head to South Carolina. It seems pathetic to me.

fuds79 ~ Aug 17, 2005 at 3:18 pm

OK, back atcha…

1. An “enclave”? Did I miss something?

2. Conceded…merely making a point.

3. I’m not altogether certain what you mean by your last sentence of this idea, but sure, I’ll grant you didn’t suggest that they were acting nefariously.

4. This doesn’t seem radical, to pack up and move in an attempt to help change the direction of the country? Well…I suppose that, contrasted to 9/11 or an assault on Washington, it’s not “radical”, but contrasted to the half-measures that others are trying, I’d say it qualifies. But that’s much ado about words; a greater concern I have is that you lapse, in this point, into a utilitarian mode. It may or may not succeed; I share a healthy degree of skepticism myself over the end result. But there are many things that we might attempt to do as Christ-followers, and/or as committed constitutionalists, which might be seen as tilting at windmills. Do we never try them because they stand a high chance of failure? Do we not, for instance, attempt to amend the Constitution to avoid the lunacy of “gay marriage” simply because the odds aren’t very high in our favor?

5. Fair enough, but I think that this misses the point: we should do what we can to be “salt and light”, and while you think that this leads us AWAY from being such, it seems to me that the argument could be made that this is an attempt to more effectively do just that: be salt and light. Now…they are not advocating, as I said earlier, that EVERYONE move to South Carolina, and if they were, I’d be more concerned; they are not suggesting that a Christian can’t be “on board” if they don’t move there. I’d be concerned as well with this. What they’re doing is martialling a contingent of sufficient size to seek change in a way that they feel is God-honoring and constitutionally-correct.

Bottom line: Disagree wholeheartedly. “Culture of victimhood”, and “whining”? Not from where I sit. It seems clear that the Constitution is being trampled, and has been for some time. It is clear that our culture is going down the tubes morally. What ought our response be? Is this not A valid option? What it isn’t, from my vantage point, is “whining”, because instead of cursing the darkness—which many of us are pretty good at—these folks are trying to light a candle. It might be a pipe dream, but at least they’re doing something to try to fix the situation.

I’m not jumping on their bandwagon just yet, but I think that they raise some interesting points for discussion—so far, that’s what’s happening between us, right?

And why don’t you ever respond to one of my posts to AGREE with me, for goodness’ sake??? I’m almost always right, you know!

Byron ~ Aug 17, 2005 at 3:35 pm

Oh, and for sure, read my newest post and take my poll…

Byron ~ Aug 17, 2005 at 3:36 pm

SWEETNESS! Thanks for the hat tip. If nothing else, if these people come close to succeeding, they will turn some heads! IN DC i hope!

cwv warrior ~ Aug 17, 2005 at 4:36 pm

I realize this comment is nearly three years after the fact, but I came across a recent article on the Christian Exodus and remembering this post, thought I would offer an update. It would seem that Cory Burnell, leader of Christian Exodus, will be moving his little organization from California where he is presently located to Anderson, South Carolina by sometime July. He expects another couple of dozen families to join him by next year. His reason for choosing this part of the country for his little social experiment? It’s because there are already a good number of conservative families living in the area.

There’s one other twist to this story, however, that I don’t think was touched on three years ago, at least not in this post. In addition to having a voice in the South Carolina state government and attempting to nominate and elect candidates that share his views, Burnell eventually plans for his group to secede from the United States to form its own Christian republic. That’s right, I said secede. Still think this is an idea whose time has come?

Don ~ Jun 11, 2007 at 8:12 am