Is Christianity under attack?
In recent years there seems to be a mantra raised among evangelicals that Christianity is under attack. I recently saw a debate on this between the the Reverend Al Sharpton and Tony Perkins on this matter.
At a recent gathering of evangelicals, Tom DeLay, former majority leader of the House of Representatives, indicated that he thought that Christianity was under attack. He pointed to the fact that his own legal troubles may be part of that attack, because he supports school prayer and stands against abortion. Many of the evangelical community suggested that DeLay's comments were true.
In recent days, Ron Luce sponsored an event brining together 25,000 teens and younger adults for an evangelical rally in San Francisco, my friend Phil blogged on this. The board of supervisors in San Francisco officially condemned the gathering citing that intolerance and divisiveness were part of the groups' agenda. This is the first time that I can remember this type of gathering being officially condemned.
Christians also have cited that rulings against placing nativity scenes or having the Ten Commandments displayed in public places as signs of this attack. Many believe it all started with the ruling of prayer being taken out of school.
Yet, at the same time, organizations like ours are receiving large amounts of funding from governmental agencies. Jim Wallis is given opportunity to speak in high powered Washington gatherings. Bono preached a sermon recently at the National Prayer Breakfast that was very strong in Christian values and he quoted scripture. Billy Graham is still one of the most revered men in America. John Perkins continues to find favor with world and national leaders.
So I wonder is Christianity being attacked or did we pick fights on issues that we are now feeling the pressure being returned? Did we take the wrong track, as evangelicals, when we began to embrace one party over another instead of looking at each individual and what they stand for on a broad base and not just a couple of key issues? I am not sure.
Many would say that we are a Christian nation in our founding. Our founders were for the most part not so much Christians as deists. We were influenced by Judeo-Christian values not a state religion. In fact, our constitutional constructs guard against theocracies and state religions.
I am wondering whether or not we, as Christians are under attack. Is it religion in general that is under attack? In fact, is it just really hard line, argumentative Christians and others that have caused these attacks or is there really a cultural shift? It is funny though, if it is true that most people see themselves as spiritual and believing in God as statistics indicate, that religion would be under attack. So is it Christianity or Christendom that is causing the problem?
I am wondering how this all will impact missional Christians. Are we as Salvationists really evangelicals?
What do you think?
At a recent gathering of evangelicals, Tom DeLay, former majority leader of the House of Representatives, indicated that he thought that Christianity was under attack. He pointed to the fact that his own legal troubles may be part of that attack, because he supports school prayer and stands against abortion. Many of the evangelical community suggested that DeLay's comments were true.
In recent days, Ron Luce sponsored an event brining together 25,000 teens and younger adults for an evangelical rally in San Francisco, my friend Phil blogged on this. The board of supervisors in San Francisco officially condemned the gathering citing that intolerance and divisiveness were part of the groups' agenda. This is the first time that I can remember this type of gathering being officially condemned.
Christians also have cited that rulings against placing nativity scenes or having the Ten Commandments displayed in public places as signs of this attack. Many believe it all started with the ruling of prayer being taken out of school.
Yet, at the same time, organizations like ours are receiving large amounts of funding from governmental agencies. Jim Wallis is given opportunity to speak in high powered Washington gatherings. Bono preached a sermon recently at the National Prayer Breakfast that was very strong in Christian values and he quoted scripture. Billy Graham is still one of the most revered men in America. John Perkins continues to find favor with world and national leaders.
So I wonder is Christianity being attacked or did we pick fights on issues that we are now feeling the pressure being returned? Did we take the wrong track, as evangelicals, when we began to embrace one party over another instead of looking at each individual and what they stand for on a broad base and not just a couple of key issues? I am not sure.
Many would say that we are a Christian nation in our founding. Our founders were for the most part not so much Christians as deists. We were influenced by Judeo-Christian values not a state religion. In fact, our constitutional constructs guard against theocracies and state religions.
I am wondering whether or not we, as Christians are under attack. Is it religion in general that is under attack? In fact, is it just really hard line, argumentative Christians and others that have caused these attacks or is there really a cultural shift? It is funny though, if it is true that most people see themselves as spiritual and believing in God as statistics indicate, that religion would be under attack. So is it Christianity or Christendom that is causing the problem?
I am wondering how this all will impact missional Christians. Are we as Salvationists really evangelicals?
What do you think?
posted by Larry at 11:33 AM
39 Comments:
I believe we are reaping the results of mislead and misdirected Christians who have spoken out on our behalf. We have many who have fallen, many who have used God as a way to discriminate, those who have hid behind the Christian banner to get close to children for their own gain, etc. I believe this is why their is an outcry from upcoming generations that we need to be more compassionate, more welcoming, more inclusive (not accepting of sinful patterns, but of the person), and more relational. When we stand on soapboxes and not the Rock then we will find it more difficult to influence change.
Why is Billy Graham, Bono, and others allowed such audience and given respect? Because they aren't out writing books proving a particular portion of the population is excluded from God's grace. Because they are loving people for being created by God...not for any personal gain.
Nicole,
Are we in fact reaping the benefits of the commercialization of Christianity? I love the comment about the soap boxes.
Eddy,
Where do you think the attack on Christianity is coming from? Is it just Christianity being attacked?
Jesus was attacked, Paul was attacked, Daniel was attacked. . . It’s just what happens when you start swimming up stream. Yes. I believe Christianity is and has always been under attack. I would begin to raise questions if we weren’t being attacked.
Bret,
Do I take by your comments that for all those years when we were "respected" in this country that we were doing the wrong thing?
Maybe that is the issue now. Are we reaping the benefits of the old practices?
Just a thought
Hmm...after reading the other posts, I guess the answer is yes we are being "attacked", but for good and "bad" reasons. But, when I see why the church is always on the defense it is usually for the actions of the extremists (I'm talking about the placard holding, out of text Bible screaming individuals). The other posts we've commented on seem to all point in the same fashion...how can we minimize the damage we so often cause internally? How can we "clean up" the foolish theology that perverts the real gospel and get to the basics? I do think we are also reaping the benefits of "commercialization" but finding it a stumbling block as well. Is church a fad in this society? We all know what happens to them...so how do we get people to dig deeper? Sorry Larry, it's your blog and I'm asking all the questions!
Were we doing the wrong thing? I think the question concerning this is: Who started the fight? Who initiated the attacks? Were we as Christians simply responding to attacks of others? Were we simply standing up for our right to freedom of speech?
Paul used his rights as a Roman citizen. Should we not use our rights? Why is it that everyone screaming for tolerance doesn’t want to tolerate a Christian worldview?
I think that part of our response should be to “Let our light shine before men that they may see our good deeds and praise our father in heaven. . . To live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse us of doing wrong, that they may see our good deeds and glorify God on the Day He visits us. (Matt 5:16; 1 Peter 2:12)
Blessings,
Bret,
What did Jesus do? Let's remember why Paul used his rights as a Roman citizen. It was not so that he could get his way and his due.
He used it as a strategy to get to the highest places in government so that he could influence them, not argue them to a place where they could meet Jesus.
I don't think he was sticking up for his rights. Therein lies the problem with us. I think we have used the idea of free speech as a place where we can condemn instead of further the conversation. We have met anger with anger.
Just a thought
What do you read when you read, “good deeds”. Because I read, “good deeds”. I’ve seen people attempt to translate this as “be good”, or “try not to sin”, but my understanding is that the literal translation of this is literally “good deeds”. So when the writer challenges us to “let our light shine so that men may see our good deeds” he’s telling us that we’ll be letting our light shine by “DOING good deeds”, and when we do this, men will praise our father in heaven.
There’s no talking involved in that. There are no accusatory statements involved in that. You don’t see the world “attacking” Quakers, because Quakers aren’t attacking them. The Quakers fall short (in my opinion) because their deeds are done in a bubble. Their deeds are done for other Quakers.
Why is the world attacking the church? For the same reason that many young Christians are attacking the church. And for the same reason that Jesus attacked the Pharisees. Judging does not equal righteousness.
"Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” Matthew 15:16-17
I was about to say something similar to Tim - he's hit the nail on the head. While we need to be prepared for people to attack us because we threaten their comfortable little worlds... I doubt that many christians actually gain that level of effectiveness in the world. Sometimes I suspect certain christians of being as irritating as possible just so that people will hate them, and they can point to “All men will hate you because of me...” and feel virtuous :-) I don't remember Jesus saying, "All men will hate you because you're irritating little jerks, and that's super!"
Whoops... OFF the soapbox. I did have a point... that's right. I've never suffered persecution in this country (Australia, not USA) for following the basic tenets of Christianity - loving God, loving other people. I've never been arrested for caring about people or looking after their needs. I've never gotten in trouble for answering people's questions about what I believe.
A number of Christians in Australia HAVE claimed to be persecuted. But in each case I've had a look at the available facts and wondered. Usually it seems to come from Christians wanting more 'freedom of religion' than any other religious group. I'm even sceptical about a highly-publicised court case here about a 'learning about Islam' seminar (because I've seen this sort of material a fair bit here recently - "here's what the Koran says, it's what all Muslims REALLY believe, Islam is evil and trying to take over the world").
PS. Christianity is still in more danger from inside, in the Western world, than outside.
I agree with Tim as well. . . but is posting the Ten Commandments in a court room wrong?
I agree that we should not shove the Gospel down anyone’s throat or trick them into hearing something they don’t want to hear. But Paul was persecuted severally because he taught the way of Jesus. He also publicly challenged (as did Jesus) those who taught and practiced a different way. And, if that wasn’t enough, he said, “Follow my example as I follow the example of Christ.”
Where do we draw the line between freedom of speech and condemning?
I may be wrong here, but the only time I remember Jesus publicly challenging somebody who taught or practiced a different way was when he challenged the Pharisees. Even with Paul, his teaching was generally limited to the church, or to forums where an open discussion was taking place on “religion”. And, in the few cases where Paul did decide to share the gospel with people who might not want to hear it, he was imprisoned. So what is it that we’re griping about?
More importantly, Paul was sharing the gospel during a time when the gospel was not known. He was sharing it with people who had never heard it. And, it must be said, that he was sharing the gospel. He was not condemning them. He was not talking to them about morality. He was not talking to them about anything but the gospel story. Is that what we’re doing? Really? When was the last time you heard a “Christian” on CNN talking about the gospel? I’ve never heard a Christian on CNN talking about the gospel, but I’ve heard plenty talking about morality issues. Why is it that we expect people to “live like a Christian” before they’re even a Christian? That kind of theology is a little backward if you ask me. In fact, it suggests that we don’t even need the Holy Spirit to live a life of righteousness. Is that what we believe?
I've actually heard Billy Graham and Franklin Graham several times on CNN presenting the gospel: that Jesus died for your sins because He loves you and doesn't want you to go to hell and die apart from Him.
I believe that we Christians have greater freedom in the West than Christians in pretty much any part of the world. My friend Kelly posted a video clip of Bill Maher accusing Christians of being paranoid about being attacked. There may be some truth in his ramblings.
However, Christians all over the world ARE being persecuted for their faith. America may not be a theocracy, but we're one of the few countries founded on Judeo-Christian values. Ensuring that those values remain intact will enable us in the future to speak out for persecuted Christians everywhere.
Nobody expects people to behave like Christians before they believe. That doesn't mean that we don't enforce guidelines and set up parameters according to morality which is based on the Bible. You can't legislate morality, true. However, you can legislate BY moral reasoning.
Paul says it best, "The law is a tutor to bring us to Christ."
How will banning gay marriage allow us to speak out for persecuted Christians?
I just read this post:
http://k-thoughts.blogspot.com/2006/04/no-5_01.html#comments
It is a really good example of what I believe to be the difference between preaching morality, and preaching salvation. The moralist would stand at the door of this club, handing out “get right” flyers, but the person who believes in Christ’s salvation walks right in and offers to baby sit for the dancers. Awesome!
Let me know how those flyers work out.
This is some great discussion.
As to Phil's point with the Grahams, he is right. I think the reason that Billy and Franklin can speak the truth of salvation on places like Larry King and other secular media outlets, is because they have no other agenda than the gospel. They are not angry or litigious. They are simply servants of God who are not apologetic about their faith. Because of their faith they have not only preached with words, but they have preached with actions.
This proves Tim's point about actions. Once respect is gained for your actions, people are certainly more ready to hear your ideas. Although, I think that the Grahams and others do hold to a standard that would answer your question on gay marriage. I have heard both of them address that issue strongly but not in a way that condemns the people involved. I think they come from a view point that simply disagrees with the gay marriage agenda. They just don't make it their life's work as others, to ban gay marriage.
Mesufo, you are right about Christianity being under attack from the inside int he west.
Bret would you be comfortable with inscriptions from the Koran being posted in a court room or from a Satanic Bible? Isn't that free speech?
I read an excerpt from a book which is just coming out called the American Gospel by John Meachem. He addresses the constructs of faith in the public forum from a view a little to the left of center. It is helpful reading though. It treats religion in America in a historical context.
"How will banning gay marriage allow us to speak out for persecuted Christians?"
The answer to this question isn't as cut and dry as, "If you do A, then B will happen." I know we like those kind of answers, but social constructs aren't always that simple - and I'm no expert in cultural sociology.
First, I didn't say what you're intimating I said. Here's what I said: "America may not be a theocracy, but we're one of the few countries founded on Judeo-Christian values. Ensuring that those values remain intact will enable us in the future to speak out for persecuted Christians everywhere."
But let's take your question, just for scenario's sake. (Notice, I didn't say argument's sake - :).
Gay marriage gets legalized in all 50 states. Homosexuality becomes a viable alternative lifestyle, accepted by most Americans as normal. Marriage is redefined as a documented relationship between 2 individuals, no matter the sex. The next generation of Christians in America grow up believing (as is already happening now) that only certain parts of the Bible are true (AKA, those parts that match their own personal philosophy). Obviously, when Paul lists homosexuality among the sins several times, he was speaking only to a particular situation which does not apply to us today.
And so, the family building block of every major society that has ever existed - heterosexual marriage - is disregarded as no longer being the only norm. Judeo-Christian values move out of the mainstream of the American politic and the values of other religions or the "values" of secularism begin to take hold. "Tolerance" reigns supreme.
People of all faiths and walks of life are to be "respected".
At the same time, Christians in other countries begin taking their Holy Book more and more literally, still loving the sinner and respecting all people, but actually believing the Bible entirely to be the inspired Word of God. In many of these countries, Islam (which condemns homosexuality as well) is the majority religion that influences its politics. Conversion to Christianity is a crime punishable by death. Tolerance is not an option.
So you have an American government that is ultra-tolerant and Islamic governments (under which most of the persecution of Christians today takes place), many of which are intolerant of anything un-Islamic. The problem is, in its tolerance of nearly "everything", the American government must tolerate the practices of other religions as well. It must also not interfere with the practices of other governments which restrict the rights of Christian citizens in other countries.
And so, in our allowance of the erosion of Judeo-Christian values in the American framework of government, we will cut off our legs from under us and render ourselves impotent to speak with any authority to the injustices suffered by millions (not just Christians) around the world.
And that's how keeping the definition of marriage (as a union between one man and one woman) intact will allow us to continue to speak out for persecuted Christians.
------
But just to clarify, that's not the intial purpose for keeping Christian values as an influential factor in American poltics. Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven is at hand. That kingdom must permeate the earth. We have plenty of things that need to be righted - gay marriage isn't at the top of the list. In fact, we need to apologize to the homosexual community for ostracizing them by our actions and words. However, we have to do this in a way which is in line with our desire for the kingdom of God to come on earth.
In that kingdom, there is no darkness. In the light of God, there is no sin. And, clearly, homosexual activity is sin. We must not be apologetic about this fact - we didn't wire ourselves, we didn't decide what was good and evil. God is alone good and He lets us know what is right and wrong.
Is Christianity under attack? Absolutely. But as we're following God, in love of those on "the outside", we can remember what Jesus said about the gates of hell not prevailing against His Church. And we're not at war against flesh and blood either.
Larry,
Good point about the Koran and the Satanic Bible. I have to agree with you.
Phil,
You have articulated a very strong position. I don't disagree with you. My point is that some people have made this their life's work. They have taken an angry position and a position of condemnation while doing it.
In the case of the Grahams they have credibility because of who they are. They are not angry in their tone. They are passionate and cling to the truth. They, however, engage the person first and not the behavior. Unfortunately, many of our brothers and sisters are so angry in their approach. They never engage the people who see the different perspective, except in an adversarial way.
The brilliance with of the Grahams is the respect and grace with which they treat all people. They are in favor of a ban on gay marriage, in fact, so was Bill Clinton, who signed the defence of marriage act.
My point is that there can be a more graceful way.. When people like the Grahams speak, people listen because they have credibility and Spirit-filled lives. Isn't that the way we need to live?
Absolutely, Larry. You have said it perfectly. Email, blogs and the internet are often poor ways of communicating tone and spirit.
"Let your speech be seasoned with salt," the Bible says. Gracefulness is key. Cliche but true, "The world will never care how much we know until they know how much we care."
Grace,
Phil
No one has answered my question about us as salvationists being evangelicals. Does anyone want to give that a try?
I am not sure it is part of our heritage.
Hi Larry,
To the question: Are Salvationists evangelicals? I would reply that it depends on what your definition of evangelical is.
As I have argued elsewhere, there are a multiplicity of representations of evangelicals. We are not all clones who believe the same things, act the same way, have the same tastes, priorities, political convictions etc. There is difference within this very broad umberella term under which so many of us stand.
The traditional def. of an evangelical is boiled down to two important theological priorities:
1. An emphasis on the authority of Scripture as redemptive narrative.
2. An emphasis on the centrality and Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Beyond that, the convictions begin to differ - from basic sacramental issues/eccelssiological practices to missiological priorities etc. etc.
Therefore, according to the narrow definition of evangelical, I would say that we are. However, that does not mean that Salvationists are the same in New York, Colorado Springs, and Mexico City!
So, my answer (to keep this from turning into a disertation) is yes and no.
Steve
Evangelical? I'm a first genernation salvationists. I have no history. I'm not so sure I trust the history that i read. . . I sometimes wonder what the heck William was thinking. . .
I do think we need to prioritize a few things regardless of our history.
Larry, I appreciate your neutral stance on Phil’s take that homosexuality might, in fact, be the death of Christianity around the world, but I’m sorry, I happen to think its religious extremism. I mean, I’ve heard people say that homosexuality is the death of the family, but that it might actually threaten Christians around the world is just…well, quite a stretch.
And I completely agree with Steve’s take on evangelicalism. By the dictionary definition, we are, in fact, evangelicals. By the world’s modern day definition, however, I wish we weren’t.
tim,
I am not sure that Phil did say the gay marriage threatens Christians around the world. However, I think the point he raises about family is valid. As to the tolerance issue he raises, I wonder if tolerance means blind acceptance or graceful challenging of anti-biblical standards? We tend to beat up the homosexual community, this is true. We do not need to beat people up, but isn't there a point at which we express truth. The truth is gay marriage is not biblical. In not challenging a behavior gracefully, are we not in fact endorsing it?
As to the definition of evangelicals, as Christians shouldn't we be thinking about the world thinks an evangelical is? After all, aren't we the representation of Christ? If that is true, then don't you think it is not our definition that matters, but the worlds'? If we put credence into what they think, if we are grouped as evangelicals, shouldn't we show them a different lifestyle than that which they perceive?
tim, thanks for once again misquoting me and attributing mean-spirited two-second comments to my lengthy and well-planned out answer to your question. it doesn't take much thought or brilliance on your part to put into words that you disagree with me or that you think I'm a closed-minded bigot. However, might you offer a rebuttal in the future that actually intelligently addressed the issues at hand, instead of ad hominem attacks?
Just a thought.
Exactly. Thank you Mesufo.
“In not challenging a behavior gracefully, are we not in fact endorsing it?”
No. And as Mesufo said, what is the point in challenging a non-believer to live according to the beliefs of believers. Believers don’t even live according to the beliefs of believers. How many of us are involved in helping the orphan and widow? How many of us are gossips? How many of us are divorced? As Paul says in 1 Corinthians chapter 5, it’s our job to “judge” those inside the church, not outside of the church. God will judge those outside of the church.
The body (church) is full of sin, yet we seem to be absolutely preoccupied in pointing out the sin of people who don’t even claim to be believers. It is absolutely what we criticize Muslim extremists for doing, yet somehow, we don’t see it. It is as if we are really disappointed in the job that the Holy Spirit has done. In fact, it is as if we believe that moral living will lead people to surrender. That type of theology is backward.
Phil, if I misquoted you, I truly apologize. So let me quote you exactly.
“And that's how keeping the definition of marriage (as a union between one man and one woman) intact will allow us to continue to speak out for persecuted Christians.”
That is your own summary of your post.
I'm sorry, but, Tim, if "that type of theology is backward", then you are in fact advocating anarchism. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, we should not enforce or make laws period. After all, everyone is a sinner and they are not going to live up to God's holy standards, not even the Church, so why have standards at all. Someone has in his heart to kill someone - we shouldn't expect him not to do it because he's not born again. Someone else has it in his mind to rape children - we shouldn't stop him because he hasn't had an experience with the Lord.
The argument that we shouldn't expect non-believers to live up to believers' standards flies directly in the face of what Paul says about God's law in general, "The law is a tutor that brings us to Christ." Laws show us what is right and good. It is in the face of our absolute inability to live up to those laws that we accept God's grace and He then writes His laws upon our heart.
But His standards are good and they are not just for Christians. They are for the world!
mesufo,
interesting point. I agree that we need to make people feel welcome, no matter what they believe or how they live. belong first, then believe, then behave. Jesus made people feel welcome and accepted long before the grace of God changed their hearts and made them live differently.
Having said that, it doesn't mean we can't advocate for biblical principles in the mainstream of our culture.
So then you don’t believe that there are different “laws” for different people? What about the laws mentioned in Timothy that are specifically for deacons and elders? What about Paul’s idea that women should remain silent in the church? Even in the Old Testament, many of those laws we still live by, many of them we don’t.
I think that there’s a clear difference between laws having to do with spiritual surrender, and laws having to do with societal harmony. And that, incidentally, is why even non-believers have certain “laws” ingrained in their hearts. In fact, it is what many people use to argue the fact that there is a God. The fact that we know right from wrong. But, just as some argue that, as we are made in the image of God, we are born with certain spiritual gifts, but those gifts are not fully realized until we’ve surrendered to the Spirit, so there are spiritual laws that we do not surrender to until we’ve surrendered to the spirit.
Hi there all,
For more on the representation/ perception of evangelicals - particularly in the media, check out my posting:
http://stevebussey.blogspot.com/2006/03/representation-of-evangelicals-in.html
I think that the world unfortunately has an essentialized their view of evangelicals - reduced us down to a bigoted stereotype. This is unfortunate because it's not necessarily true - particularly when we think of the multiplicity of representations... However, we so often confirm their assumptions of us by doing things and saying things without thinking about our action/discourse.
For example, the debate on homosexuality currently taking place here on the blog. Discourse - and even disagreement CAN take place with civility, respect... even on heated issues. However, this requires more listening and less theoretical noise-making.
The more we turn on one another, the more we remain a spectacle to our culture.
This medium can be a fantastic witness to intense dialogue that isn't reduced to back-biting...
Isn't there a song about coming from the 'left' and coming from the 'right' and sitting down in the kingdom of God...? :)
Steve, you're right on civility and mutual respect. I hope my comments were not entirely in the realm of "theoretical noise-making". I was trying to articulate precisely how it helps to pray and work for Judeo-Christian values in America, and outline some of the benefits we'd have worldwide from that course of action.
I don't want to be a noisy gong or a "clanging cymbal". Let me apologize for anything not done in love.
Ah... a subject that has been a matter of prayer for me for over two years now. The media doesn't help our cause. But neither do we!
I have been outraged by the “religious” fanatics who, under the name “Christian,” have threatened to picket the funeral service of Sgt. Corey Dan, a Maine soldier killed in action in Iraq. Not only in this instance, my blood boils when abortion clinics are burned down and those who go by the name “Christian” wave their fists in the air with hateful or graphic picket signs around their necks. Under the guise of “religion” there are many forms. May I say, in my own true form, to call these fanatics Christians would be a mistake. I am not a judge. I believe wholeheartedly that someday we will be judged according to what we did to promote the Gospel of Christ to the world. What we did with JESUS. Did we keep his commandment to love one another? Did we follow His gospel of peace and offer hope to a dying world?
I emphatically believe the media and our society as a whole is not fair or tolerant of the American Christian … and, at times, the worldly view is accepted on a much wider scale than our faith. Many in our society march to justify their sins, but when the Christian speaks out the media attention is extremely negative.
However, this does not give us license to act like idiots, waving our fists in the air, marching for our cause in anger and retaliation, or killing or burning down. The Bible that I read is very clear that we are to love one another, just as Christ loves us. It isn’t about “religion,” it is about a real intimate relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
Christians are commanded by God to love and to generate peace not by condoning sin, but by loving the sinner. It will never be in the things a Christian says or does in the name of justice, it will be our actions of love and sacrifice for our fellow man that we will win the world one at a time. We live in a time when truth is anyone's guess. And in many cases that's all it is -- a guess. We all have heard, during a discussion of religion, the statement: “Well that may be true for you, but not for me.” It makes you wonder how many versions of truth are out there. And if that's true, then Jesus (who, by the way, said he was the embodiment of truth) is up for grabs, too.
Read the gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) a few times over until you think you have a handle on who Jesus claimed to be, what he did while he was here and what he said. And if, as you are doing that, your heart is leaping out of your chest and everything in you says: “That's him alright!” then you've got the real Jesus.
It's that Jesus whom we believe and follow -- the one who healed the sick, raised the dead, gave sight to the blind and had the power to forgive sins. The one who cast the moneychangers out of the temple and had harsh words for the religious leaders of the day. The one who claimed he was from God and was going back to God. The one who said he would die and rise again on the third day and then went and did just that. The one who said that the poor and hungry were better off than the rich and satisfied. The one who told us that the most important thing we could do was love God and secondly to love our neighbor. The one who said he was the truth and the life and thus the only way to get to His Father in heaven. That one! That's the real Jesus, and what you and I do with that Jesus is the real crux of the matter.
We are not persecuted here in America. We are free. But we are still fighting an underlying battle because Satan wants his way with America. Let's pray the guy out of here.
The difference between those of us who have a true relationship with Christ and those who wave their fists in the air is that we know the answer to love... to love... to love... to love. And to pray... pray... pray. We know who wins in the end!
Esther,
Thanks for stopping by. It is good to hear from you. I like what you said about calling people fanatics. Are we just as judgemental as they are, by calling them fanatics? That is a good question.
Thanks for some good thoughts.
Wow! This discussion rocks! Seriously, I've followed it for the past couple of days and I want to say that I don't think either Tim nor Phil were disrespectful of one another. (If that matters!) These issues are heated, and of course there may be some words typed that may come across wrong. But without discussing face-to-face what can we expect really?
So thanks to you both, and others who have commented, in helping me to think more deeply about an issue that is very close to my heart and my family.
My only comment is that it genuinely hurts my heart to think that we (Americans) have to pass a law that "condemns" a group of people. Is there not a better way to win them to Christ? We as Christians don't want to be persecuted, but are we not persecuting homosexuals? There has got to be a better way...
I think all "conservative" religions are under attack, not just Christianity. Any religion that encourages you to hold to specific beliefs and not succomb (sp) to the post-modern beliefs is attacked on a regular basis.
Phil,
No problem, bro. I don't think what you were doing would be considered theoretical noise-making. I was speaking more generally about how debates can often be reduced to this.
I think it's important (and necessary) for us to debate. I just want to make sure it's give and take.
Thanks for your thoughful comments.
Steve
Post a Comment
<< Home