Admin
Verse of the Day
The Newsroom
Recent Posts
- We Joined…Will You, Please?
- This is no Way to Treat Our Elderly People
- Yummy Homemade Holiday Treats
- Shhh..Don’t Tell The Taxpayers
- Does Reid Do This On Purpose? Apparently So
Recent Comments
- Sue on Does Reid Do This On Purpose? Apparently So
- ~J~ on Honesty and Civility..A Good Place To Start
- Sue on I Haven’t Deserted You
- ~J~ on Can You Relate?
- ~J~ on Happy Thanksgiving
- Piano Girl on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- ~J~ on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- David M. on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- ~J~ on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- David M. on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
Blogroll
Newspaper Rack
Categories
This is a very interesting story. I don’t think it leans one way or the other but some might.
Written by GussHow Evangelicals Became Part of Washington’s Fabric
To the Bush haters of America, the young Monica Goodling is a footnote of this wretched era, one of the many Washington types that they’ll be happy to get rid of come January 2009: Venal Vice President, Ex-Lobbyists Turned Regulators and, in Goodling’s case, Young Evangelicals in High Places.Until she appeared before the House Judiciary Committee this week to testify about her role in the Justice Department firing scandal, Goodling had been mocked on the Internet and on late-night TV as a certain type: one of a “bunch of hayseeds” staffing the administration, as HBO comedian Bill Maher called her.Goodling graduated from Messiah College (”home of the Fighting Christies”) and the law school at Regent University, founded by Pat Robertson (”a televangelist’s diploma mill”) — both Maher’s terms.But the joke is on Maher: The age of the televangelist is as dead as Jerry Falwell, and the Regent Web site treats Robertson like a fondly remembered patriarch from a bygone era, when it was suitable to call yourself a “fundamentalist” and scream on TV.Goodling is part of a new generation of evangelicals ushered in by Falwell, who insisted that Christians get involved in politics. They are graduates of the exploding number of evangelical colleges, which no longer aim to create a parallel subculture but instead to train “Christian leaders to change the world,” as the Regent mission statement reads.
Andrew Schlewitz Says:
May 25th, 2007 at 8:24 amVisit Andrew Schlewitz
Yes, it’s time we ended the caricatures of evangelicals, but at the same time, evangelicals who are handling the levers of political power should admit that they’ve made a deal with the devil (as David Kuo implies). Ted Haggard, before his fall, admits it, but the devil is really just practical politics. Consider his response to Ayelish McGarvey’s question in an American Prospect piece, “As God is His Witness” (19 Oct 04):
. . .I asked Haggard why, as a man of Christian principle, Bush did not fully disavow Karl Rove’s despicable smear tactics and apologize for the ugly lies the Bush campaign spread over the years about Ann Richards, John McCain, and John Kerry, among others. After all, isn’t getting right with God — whatever the political price –the most important thing for the sort of Christian Bush has proclaimed himself to be?
Haggard laughed as though my questions were the most naive he’d ever heard. “I think if you asked the president these questions once he’s out of office,” Haggard said, “he’d say, ‘You’re right. We shouldn’t have done it.’ But right now if he said something like that, well, the world would spin out of control!
That’s why when Jimmy Carter ran, he [turned out to be] such a terrible president. Because when he [governed], he really tried to maintain [his integrity] and those types of values — and that is virtually impossible.”
The pastor returned to my charges of Bush’s deceitfulness. “Listen,” he said testily, “I think [we Christian believers] are responsible not to lie [sic], but I don’t think we’re responsible to say everything we know.”
~J~ Says:
May 25th, 2007 at 8:44 amVisit ~J~
You quote a discredited man in order to discredit another. That’s kind of like putting a known perjurer on the witness stand as a character witness for an accused murder, don’t you think?
~J~ Says:
May 25th, 2007 at 8:50 amVisit ~J~
I get a kick out of people who don’t know what they’re talking about acting as though being a born-again Christian means we have to tow a certain political line.
When I was an officer in a union I was told how to vote, verbally and in mailings for me to take to the voting booth as if I didn’t know how to vote without someone telling me.
I didn’t take orders from the union then and I don’t take voting orders from any minister now. Political discussions simply do not take place in my church or it would lose its tax exemption.
If you want to see politics in churches follow the Democratic presidential candidates to every black Baptist church in the country and somehow those churches get away with it.
I’m not going to defend myself or be put in a position where I feel I have to defend my church over politics. If it came down to it I would die for my faith, but not for my politics, so get yourselves better informed instead of believing the lies told by the self-proclaimed honest media.
Andrew Schlewitz Says:
May 25th, 2007 at 11:04 amVisit Andrew Schlewitz
I’m not a donatist–I don’t believe a leader’s (or minister’s) inevitable failings cancel out any and everything he or she says. I used Haggard’s perspective because I think he was on to something, even if he was testy about it. He’s echoing what the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr said over 50 years ago–(roughly paraphrased)Christians, like everyone else, are too messed up to build a New Jerusalem.
I don’t get your second posting. Just sounds like you had several things to get off your chest.
~J~ Says:
May 25th, 2007 at 2:27 pmVisit ~J~
Fortunately for all of us the new Jerusalem will not be built by man.
newton Says:
May 25th, 2007 at 5:14 pmVisit newton
We also have to take a look at the other side of the coin here.
Just as Evangelicals have become more powerful and are obtaining more influence, there has been a growing movement of atheists in this country. Loud, bold, and I say confrontational also. I can see that, if they had their way, we would be in some forced labor camp in the Alaskan tundra. They don’t think we’re human beings, but a bunch of robots. And they will continue to sick themselves at us with hatred. That will not go away.
We must get ready for what is to come.
Andrew Schlewitz Says:
May 26th, 2007 at 7:38 amVisit Andrew Schlewitz
“. . .there has been a growing movement of atheists in this country.”
A growing number of atheists doesn’t make it a “movement,” that is, an organized body with common interests and engaged in collective action.
According to the most recent US Census data on religious affiliation, the percentage of people who specified no religion in 1990 was 8.2% as compared to 14.2% in 2001. A tiny percentage, .4%, said they were atheist in 2001. Most just said they had “no religion,” which is not the same as atheism, which dismisses the existence of God.
You can find the data here: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/population/religion/
Or check out the Barna annual report, produced by a pro-evangelical research firm. According to its data, there hasn’t been remarkable growth of evangelicals in the US. Here’s the link to the Barna update: http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=271
The Monica Goodling issue suggests that what is remarkable is increased role of conservative Christians (not all of them evangelical) within the GOP.
“Loud, bold, and I say confrontational also. I can see that, if they had their way, we would be in some forced labor camp in the Alaskan tundra.”
Atheists are stalinists? Isn’t that as wild as saying that evangelical Christians are fascists?
Regarding my previous comment comparing Haggard and Niebuhr–I should have said that Haggard confirms, not echoes, what Niebuhr said. Haggard at that time (2004) appeared to believe that Christians in government could advance a Christian agenda (though how many Christians can agree on a agenda is not clear). Though Niebuhr did favor government efforts on behalf of the poor and marginalized (e.g. Civil Rights movement), his approach was what some called Protestant realism: Christian leaders will not always be able to use Christian means to resolve national and international problems and threats. For example, Niebuhr was a bit hawkish on the Cold War. Just as he argued against pacifism in the years leading up to WW II, he maintained that the US could not accommodate the Soviets (though later Niebuhr would oppose the US war in Vietnam).
~J~ Says:
May 26th, 2007 at 8:18 amVisit ~J~
newton is a guest here just as you are, sir, and she has as much right to express her opinion as you have. If that’s what she believes that’s what she believes and you have no right to show her statistics that may or may not matter to her.
Lots of born-again Christians get involved in politics. I suppose you could say that about me because I happen to own a blog that discusses politics and I’m a born again evangelical Christian.
I’m really not sure what you’re getting at as you obviously have more education that I have, but I can assure you this Christian and any I know are not interested in taking over our government. We are not interested in a theocracy. Some of the far wings might be but the mainstream is not.
You see, we have this funny belief that we are in the world but not of the world. We know our kingdom is not on this earth and that no mere man will be our King.
Our Kingdom is the Kingdom of Christ and He is the Supreme Ruler of that Kingdom. We wish for no other kingdom on earth or anywhere else.
Simple to me, but you may have some links for me to follow that try to debunk what I have just said.
Thank you for your comments.
Andrew Schlewitz Says:
May 26th, 2007 at 10:03 amVisit Andrew Schlewitz
Of course newton is entitled to an opinion! But isn’t this a forum for exchange? Is it not reasonable to be able to question or challenge someone’s opinion, especially if it’s dramatic (e.g., “forced labor camp”)?
I’m sorry that my comment on Monica Goodling was unclear. I didn’t mean to imply that Christians are after “theocracy.” I should have said that it’s interesting that the Bush administration and a particular faction of Christians are allied. And, again, I think this faction has been finding out that getting into the national government wasn’t all they thought it would be. They got dirty in the process. A similar thing happened to left-leaning Democrats in the 1930s under FDR. I suspect Jimmy Carter experienced this in his effort to promote human rights.
But our government was constructed in such a way as to hinder fast, wholesale change. All those checks and balances, along with federalism, make it really hard for a enpassioned group in power to turn its ideals into policy.
~J~ Says:
May 26th, 2007 at 1:53 pmVisit ~J~
Andrew,
I have known newton a long time. I even got to meet her and her husband 2 years ago. She’s a very devout evangelical Christian who believes Revelation as it is written, just as I do.
Now, John described the weapons of war the best way he could back in his day so I doubt those are literal, but they represent weaponry we have today.
As an evangelical Christian, newton believes there will come the day when the anti-Christ will persecute Christians. I happen to believe I won’t be here for that either because I’ve already died or because the Lord will catch His Church up in the clouds after the dead in Christ have been risen.
Given what she believes I think you can see why she said what she said.
Listen to what some say about Christians even now and you know if they could get rid of us somehow they’d like to do that. We’re an inconvenience to them.
But again, I believe she is speaking of End-Times and not present times except in the way that if some could do that they would do that today. We haven’t gone that far yet.
We also believe that during the Tribulation when the anti-Christ is having his heyday there will be people who convert to Christianity (mainly Jews) and they will be the ones to suffer the persecution.
But look at what happens to Christians who preach too loudly in China, or Christians who proclaim their faith in Moslem countries. Their life spans are short or they spend a lot of years in a dank prison.
I think that’s her point, and you won’t change her. Believe me, because I’ve known her too long.
~J~ Says:
May 26th, 2007 at 2:09 pmVisit ~J~
As far as Christians becoming involved in politics, I’m not so sure what the answer is. I wouldn’t do it because by definition it’s a dirty business, but I also believe no one is in any office anywhere in the world without God allowing it.
That is not to say He chose them for the job but that He allows them to hold the job. There is a difference.
You mentioned Ted Haggard, who said some things about Christians in office, but I would argue that if he was doing what he was found to be doing he was not in fellowship with God or other Christians, for that matter, and could have only been speaking for himself, even though he hadn’t been caught yet.
I believe President Bush to be a Christian man because he says he is and who am I to judge his life? He has shown decency in the face of a lot of bashing. He must feel like a pinata at a child’s birthday party and it’s been going on at least since he ran for president the first time, but he doesn’t “go after” his accusers.
He could have taken some of the previous administration’s staffers to court for destroying some of the office equipment and offices in the WH, but instead paid to have the repairs done with his left-over campaign funds.
He’s well-off, but not as well-off as some in our government and yet compare his tax returns to those of the richer members of congress and you will see he not only gives a larger percentage of his money but more dollars of his money to charitable contributions.
This tells me he’s trying to be a good steward to the Lord. When he goes to church we don’t have the press outside the biggest church in Washington DC taking pictures of him coming out holding a Bible thick enough to give him a hernia.
He has said publicly he is born-again, and the rest is between him and God.
We may disagree with his policies but I’m a fatalist. I think there is a Grand Plan by God and things just are working out the way He intends for it to work out. That means I do not think he is pretending to be a Christian and I do believe he had hoped to change the tone in Washington but found out Washington is not Austin.
I wouldn’t want his job for all the tea in China.
cal Says:
May 26th, 2007 at 11:02 pmVisit cal
J,
I think that Newton can take up for her self.
newton Says:
May 27th, 2007 at 1:29 amVisit newton
Well, cal, I’ve been too busy lately to engage in any discussions.
You see, I have a five-month-old baby. I know the world she’s going to grow up into. I can see that she and her generation are going to face even worse difficulties than us when their time comes.
It will not be easy to explain to her that people are going to think of her anything from “crazy” to “non-human” if she choses to believe in Jesus Christ. It is not easy to imagine what is to come when you can see a t-shirt somewhere in California that says, “SO MANY CHRISTIANS, SO FEW LIONS.”
You get my drift.
newton Says:
May 27th, 2007 at 1:31 amVisit newton
Oh! I also have to say this.
This guy, Andrew… just made my point.
cal Says:
May 27th, 2007 at 9:55 amVisit cal
I only meant that I had seen you in action on HRP and I know you can take up for yourself.
cal Says:
May 27th, 2007 at 9:57 amVisit cal
By the way, congratulations.
Andrew Schlewitz Says:
May 27th, 2007 at 10:43 amVisit Andrew Schlewitz
I have some questions that I ask out of curiousity, not meant to challenge.
Since this thread started with Monica Goodling, the questions are linked to her.
If God moves or allows things to happen in US politics, is Goodling’s situation providential? More broadly, is all the opposition to Alberto Gonzalez and his staffers like Goodling a part of some sort of corrective? Or is it the other way around, the hostility toward Gonzalez and Goodling is an evil force that divine providence will overcome in its own way and time?
Or are these questions irrelevant because there’s nothing to be done anyway? If that’s the case, why should Christians argue or engage in politics?
~J~ Says:
May 27th, 2007 at 11:00 amVisit ~J~
We are all responsible for our own actions. It is not God’s will that put her in the position she was in, but He allowed it. How she handled it is her responsibility. And it’s not just US politics but global politics.
Maybe it is corrective. It would seem so if you mean corrective of behavior in office that should not have happened.
No, it’s not an evil force in my opinion that God is going to swoop down and rescue them from it.
You are beginning to play word games with me and I don’t like “gotcha!” moments, so let’s leave it at that.
~J~ Says:
May 27th, 2007 at 11:04 amVisit ~J~
Now that I’ve played your word games with you let me state my belief that the Executive has the power to hire or fire any political appointee regardless of reason or no reason.
Instead of just doing it that way Gonzales went about trying to justify the firings of the US Attorneys and then was not honest about it when questioned by Congress.
Because he has proven himself to be incompetent in even something as routine as this, has not served the president well, and has made the situation worse by not being entirely forthcoming, he should resign or be fired.
Andrew Schlewitz Says:
May 27th, 2007 at 11:23 amVisit Andrew Schlewitz
Interesting. If I question a dramatic assertion, I’m trying to silence an opinion. If I bring up evidence to support my point, I’m being unfair. If ask a question for the sake of clarification, I’m playing a word game.
You’ve constructed quite an unassailable intellectual world for yourself, J.
~J~ Says:
May 27th, 2007 at 11:45 amVisit ~J~
Andrew,
Why don’t we stop beating around the bush and you ask what it is you really want to know and I’ll be most happy to give you my best opinion.
I am not accusing you of anything but when you start to selectively quote what I said I sense some kind of trap. Call me paranoid.
Andrew Schlewitz Says:
May 27th, 2007 at 12:08 pmVisit Andrew Schlewitz
Okay, let me ask it this way.
What is the definition of providence? How does it work? Given the definition, how is one to engage in politics? How is one to interpet events like the Monica Goodling episode, especially since she is a representive of a particular Christian movement that seeks to reshape US government?
These are broad questions, I know, not easily answered in a few lines. But they are straightforward. I realy am interested in people’s takes on providence and how that affects their political ideas and action.
~J~ Says:
May 27th, 2007 at 12:31 pmVisit ~J~
Andrew,
I assume you are talking about these definitions of the word “providence”:
The care, guardianship, and control exercised by a deity; divine direction: “Some sought the key to history in the working of divine providence” (William Ebenstein).
Or, perhaps, simply:
God
How do I define God is what you seem to be asking me? My answer should be a simple “I don’t define God; He defines me.”
You see, all my life I have tried to understand where God came from because I have a finite mind and I cannot yet grasp no beginning and no end, but that’s what I believe.
You have been blessed with intelligence. I have not been blessed with as much as you, but I count that a blessing because I’m not trying to “figure out” God.
Jesus said we should believe as a child believes. Think of a child and how he believes and has confidence in his father and mother. He knows they will care for him and watch over him and they love him.
Like that child I know God cares for me, watches over me and loves me.
I don’t need anymore explanation than that because I am at peace with faith. I can’t see the wind but I know it’s there. When I sit down in a chair I have faith it will hold me. I can’t describe it because it’s too simple. It’s innocent faith.
You seem obsessed with Monica Goodling. She was an employee of the Justice Department and, as far as I know, was no representative of any movement that seeks to shape the US Government, Christian or otherwise.
Some Christian people work for the government. Some don’t. Some non-believers work for the government. Some don’t. Does that make them a part of a movement to reshape the US government?
Both major parties in the United States feel their ideas are better for the country than the other party’s. When they get power they try to reshape the US government.
Witness the statements by Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid that there’s a new Congress and the president isn’t going to get a blank check anymore. Look at the programs they are trying to get passed and you will see it is 180 degrees from what the Republicans want.
Is this right or wrong? No. To the victor go the spoils.
So, let me ask you if you think Christians should not serve in the government and if so, why do you feel that way? If you believe it’s OK then why do you believe it’s OK?
Do you believe there is some vast conspiracy by Christians to take over our government when we feel it is just as much our government as the non-believer’s? We don’t want to take over our government, but we want our government to be honest with us and respect our voices just as they respect the secular voices.
That’s the best I can do for you and if it’s not enough then I’m sorry.
Andrew Schlewitz Says:
May 27th, 2007 at 4:43 pmVisit Andrew Schlewitz
Thank you, J, for the extended reply.
No, I wasn’t asking for a definition of God, though, yes, you’re right, it’s connected to the definition of providence.
I think of providence as refering to the way and extent to which God intervenes in its creation. So in some definitions of providence, God controls every aspect of creation (Calvinist predestination), while in others, God has just set the universe going (deism). Most Christians, seem to be in the middle of that spectrum.
At some time or another, most people will ask ‘why?’ of God. And when events seem to make no sense, when they seem so unfair, they resort to faith–the hope in things unseen, as Paul says. And as you suggest, one can’t reason out that sort of thing.
Still, there are political ramifications. I read one Christian author who says that the US plays a providential role in the world. Just as God used Rome to spread the Word, God uses the US to spread political and economic systems that aligned with Christianity (democracy and free markets). Another author argued the inverse. God’s providence is seen in that, despite all of Americans’ misdeeds at home and abroad, the US may self-destruct if it does not attend more carefully to God’s Word.
So in one version, providence is an affirmation of the US; in the other it is judgement. The first version implies we should be very careful about critizing the current administration and its actions; the second implies criticism is necessary.
In short, the definition of providence shapes the political opinion. Think too of newton’s worries about atheist attacks on Christians. Newton’s understanding of God’s providential actions in the end times leads to a particular critique. That is why I asked my earlier questions.
As for Monica Goodling, I’m not “obsessed.” I was just trying to keep this thread in line with the initial statement.
You ask whether I believe that Christians should or should not serve in the government. That is not my issue at all, though my answer is, of course Christians (of any stripe) may work in government. I do not share the conspiracy theory of some that right-wing or “dominionist” Christians are out to take over the government.
I think there are a couple of misunderstandings here. To question something does not necessarily mean criticism or opposition. The other is I don’t think Goodling, or her alma mater set up by Falwell (Regent University) represent all Christians, just I don’t think you believe you speak for all Christians.
Finally, I’m doing research on the relationship between Christian ideas and institutions and US foreign policy. I’m just interested in the how, what, when, and why of all that. I have my opinions of course, but right now I’m just after the story of it all, past and present. That is what motivated my participation in this blog.
~J~ Says:
May 27th, 2007 at 11:52 pmVisit ~J~
Andrew,
First of all, let me apologize for your last comment getting caught in the spam filter and my not taking it out of there before now. I just found it.
Secondly, a correction. Regent University, as I understand it, is a Pat Robertson project. Jerry Falwell founded Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA.
There are a lot of writers who are scholars and think their views are correct. My answer to that is the Bible is the inerrent Word of God and that is the overriding authority on anything. The Bible has been completed and modern men are not the writers who were inspired by God Himself to write what they write. What they write are their own thoughts which come from trying to “think it out” rather than just accept it by faith.
Many are respected and have studied the ancient languages in which the Bible was written in order to get the real meaning of a passage and if their interpretation is correct they have served a good purpose in explaining in context what a certain passage of Scripture means.
I am not a Calvinist and do not believe in pre-destination. I think that is a major stumbling block to a lot of people and I wonder how God will deal with Calvin for leading so many away from the flock instead of to the flock.
I believe God allows things to happen but that He does not necessarily “make” things happen. He didn’t “make” Adam and Eve sin, but because of free choice, He “allowed” them to do as they wished. I wish He had made it impossible for them to sin because life would be so much more pleasant.
I don’t know if God “chose” GWB to be president and Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker of the House and Harry Reid to be Senate Majority Leader, but He “allowed” that to come to pass, and I’m sure He has a reason for it.
From reading end-times prophecy I see no place for the United States at that time. We will be marginalized for some reason as yet unknown. Some speculate it is because so many Americans are Christians (born-again) that so many will be caught up in what we call the Rapture there won’t be many left to make a difference.
That sounds good, but even though we are more Christian than the Europeans, I don’t see us being vanished due to so many of us being saved.
So, a military defeat that would render us helpless? The thought is repugnant as an American, but I must accept whatever God’s overall plan is for the world. It’s playing out before our very eyes.
Look at Iraq and Iran and all the countries that would wipe Israel off the map. Iraq is not mentioned in Ezekiel as one of the countries in the confederation to try to destroy Israel, but Russia (Gog) and Iran, along with other countries in the area are. Look at what is happening in that part of the world that is so overwhelmingly Muslim, including parts of the old USSR.
These things interest me, but I don’t have the answers. And you know what? That’s OK with me because I believe I will be raptured or if I’m dead I will be risen to my new body and will not experience the horrors that are going to come, in my belief.
This may sound foolish to you, but I have the peace that passes understanding because I’m not trying to “figure out” God. I just know He’s God and there is none other. None before and none after.
I have seen too much proof in my own life and family to not believe it, but the biggest miracle is He revealed Himself to me through Christian people who cared enough to come to a small Indian reservation in Maine and teach us what God is all about, and it’s not just fire and brimstone.
It took me until I was in my mid-twenties to realize I should love Jesus because He loves me and not because if I don’t I’ll go to hell. Both statements are true, but when I realized the perfect love of God for me and everyone else, I was brought to gut-wrenching sobs of praise and gratitude.
Let’s talk some more. I’m getting to enjoy this.
Andrew Schlewitz Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 9:54 amVisit Andrew Schlewitz
Thanks for the correction. Mixing up Falwell and Robertson is sort of like confusing Bush and McCain.
Andrew Schlewitz Says:
May 29th, 2007 at 8:07 amVisit Andrew Schlewitz
I appreciate, J, your explanation of your faith.
Is this a fair rendering of your position (drawing on the entire discussion thus far)?
You believe that history is in the hands of God, who permits people to go their own way (free will) though in the end, nothing can alter God’s master plan. It’s a mystery as to how that works, but humans don’t have the capacity to comprehend, to figure out, the ways of God.
Given that, you may have political opinions, you may vote for this or that candidate or this or that ballot measure, but you are responsible only to stay true to your Christian principles. Your charge is to bear witness to your faith, not change the world through individual or collective political action.
There may be true Christians that engage in politics, that do attempt to advance a particular agenda (e.g., put “intelligent design” in the curriculum, permit Christian prayer or allow Christian groups to minister in public schools), but their successes or failures are in the end irrelevant. Jesus, not humans, will be the founder of the “New Jerusalem,” and that kingdom is “not of this world.”
~J~ Says:
May 29th, 2007 at 10:11 amVisit ~J~
I think you’ve summed it up quite well.
I do think Intelligent Design should be at least mentioned when teaching the various sciences.
Speaking a prayer aloud in schools doesn’t bother me the way it did when that right was first taken away because I know we can pray without speaking it out loud. In fact, Jesus told us to pray in private.
I believe the New Jerusalem will be set up at the end of the Tribulation period when Jesus once again steps foot on this planet, and since His Kingdom, the Kingdom of Heaven, is eternal I am not as attached to human government as I am to the Eternal Kingdom.
The things of earth are just temporary but the things of Heaven are eternal and that’s what my eyes are focused on.
Yes, definitely witness to those who are lost, but if they won’t listen after a while walk away and pray the Holy Spirit will work in their hearts. I can’t force anyone to believe as I do. That’s their free choice, but I am obligated to tell them the Good News of the Savior.