More Active Posts
Front Page
What is an evangelical?
 |
 65 Comments |
Since many college students define “evangelical” as “anti-homosexual,” it’s worth noting “The Washington Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment” that a bunch of evangelicals signed last week. This Manifesto stresses “the Evangelical message, ‘good news’ by definition, is overwhelmingly positive, and always positive before it is negative…. Just as Jesus did, Evangelicals sometimes have to make strong judgments about what is false, unjust, and evil. But first and foremost, Evangelicals are for Someone and for something rather than against anyone or anything.”
The declaration, developed by evangelicals including Rick Warren and Os Guinness, opposes both “liberal revisionism and conservative fundamentalism.” Liberals “have tended to accommodate the world… to the point where they are unfaithful to Christ; whereas those more conservative tended so to defy the world that they resist it in ways that also become unfaithful to Christ.”
Theological liberals, the declaration contends, typically have “an exaggerated estimate of human capacities, a shallow view of evil, an inadequate view of truth, and a deficient view of God. In the end they are sometimes no longer recognizably Christian.” But the declaration also accurately criticizes the tendency of fundamentalism “to romanticize the past, some now-lost moment in time, and to radicalize the present, with styles of reaction that are personally and publicly militant to the point where they are sub-Christian or worse.” What’s important to remember: “The Gospel of Jesus is the Good News of welcome, forgiveness, grace, and liberation from law and legalism.”
What does all of this mean for public policy? “We cannot back away from our biblically rooted commitment to the sanctity of every human life, including those unborn, nor can we deny the holiness of marriage as instituted by God between one man and one woman.” At the same time, “we must follow the model of Jesus, the Prince of Peace, engaging the global giants of conflict, racism, corruption, poverty, pandemic diseases, illiteracy, ignorance, and spiritual emphasis.”
The declaration also calls for neither a Christian America nor a secularized one, neither a sacred nor a naked public square, but rather “a civil public square – a vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths are free to enter and engage the public square on the basis of their faith, but within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths too. Thus every right we assert for ourselves is at once a right we defend for others. A right for a Christian is a right for a Jew, and a right for a secularist, and a right for a Mormon, and a right for a Muslim, and a right for a Scientologist, and a right for all the believers in all the faiths across this wide land.”
The declaration’s bottom line: “We should neither privatize nor politicize faith; the church should be identified neither with the religious right nor the religious left.” In contrast with “being unquestioning conservatives and unreserved supporters of tradition and the status quo, being Evangelical means an ongoing commitment to Jesus Christ, and this entails innovation, renewal, reformation, and entrepreneurial dynamism…. Evangelicals part company with reactionaries by being both reforming and innovative, but they also part company with modern progressives by challenging the ideal of the-newer-the-truer and the-latest-is-greatest by conserving what is true and right and good.”
 |
Topic: Editor's Choice, Front Page, The Nation |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: Evangelical Manifesto |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Soul searching
All of the quoted material above looks pretty solid.
Where, if anywhere, did they take any wrong turn(s) in the rest of the document?
Here is a good response to the letter by a great scholar.
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1147
All denominations who believe Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of mankind, and their Savior are Christians (dictionary definition). No one branch of Christianity has the right to define out denominations which don’t fit their specific doctrine. E Pluribus Unum.
Mormons Are Christian
Decrease: That was a good link and response - I wish I had known about it to reference on the other Evangelical Manifesto thread. Thanks.
Mormons,
By stating, “No branch of Christianity has the right to define out denominations which don’t fit their specific doctrine” is a statement that seeks to define out denominations. To quote a definition from a dictionary on what is Christianity seeks to define out people. Jesus, when he addressed the 7 churches in Revelation sought to “define out”. The Apostle Paul when he condemned some in the Corinthians Church sought to “define out” and again in Galatians from the first chapter sought to “define out.”
Christianity is not some vague idea of Jesus but a specific revelation of Jesus and is based upon propositional truth. Jesus said this would be the case calling some “Wheat” and others “Tares”.
I would not say that Hindus who believed Jesus is a god are Christians… nor would I say that Mormons who say that the Bible was not sufficient and is not reliable so to need another book in the 1800’s, is Christian.
MAC at #3,
If you say so.
So then Jesus as example so that we can all become Gods, and Jesus as substitutionary sacrifice so that we won’t burn in hell are one and the same?
I don’t think so.
Or let’s put it in even stronger terms…
So Jesus who died on the cross for men who will never be good enough since the fall, and the Jesus who is the example of what we can be if we are good enough are one and the same?
Not possible.
This is the only part I’ve had trouble with:
Thus every right we assert for ourselves is at once a right we defend for others. A right for a Christian is a right for a Jew, and a right for a secularist, and a right for a Mormon, and a right for a Muslim, and a right for a Scientologist, and a right for all the believers in all the faiths across this wide land.”
We assert the right to worship God as our Scriptures require. Do we defend the rights of Muslims to do the same, even though true worship for them includes killing us? Do we defend ritual prostitution? Mutilation of animals?
I’m all for a civil public square, but some people worship gods who proclaim “Thou shalt not be civil”!
Someone may point out an example I’ve forgotten, but I think I find myself in agreement with the rest of it.
Mormons–
Are we going with the dictionary definition or the Biblical definition? Shouldn’t we go with the Biblical one (since Christians are also of necessity followers of the Bible)?
MORMONS: No one branch of Christianity has the right to define out denominations which don’t fit their specific doctrine. E Pluribus Unum.
Which you are doing, incidentally, in denying us our more restrictive (and we believe, Biblical) definition.
Just out of curiosity, why is it important to a Mormon to be considered “Christian?” I’ve met other Mormons who’ve called themselves Christian, but why not just have your own individual religion?
James K. A. Smith offers his take on the “Manifesto,” which is, for my money, a far richer perspective than Mohler’s (although they are clearly addressing different audiences):
http://forsclavigera.blogspot.com/2008/05/evangelical-manifesto.html
The Manifesto says:
“Christians from both sides of the political spectrum, left as well as right, have made the mistake of politicizing faith… Whichever side it comes from, a politicized faith is faithless, foolish, and disastrous for the church…”
Does this go for Martin Luther King Jr? I don’t necessarily think so. And it also does not go for James Dobson, Charles Colson and others on the right who are speaking out responsibly as evangelicals to inspire us to actively seek social justice (in policies or otherwise) and health for our community.
As a matter of fact, who does this manifest warning apply to? The Manifesto leaves that vague. That way those on the left can cheer as long it applies to Christian activists on the right and those on the right can cheer the statement as long as it applies to Christian activists on the left.
But none of this justifies putting a stop to activism that springs for Christian conviction.
Kyle A has a good response to this question on his blog.
“none of this justifies putting a stop to activism that springs for Christian conviction.”
And if the document called for as much, this would be an important point to make.
Joel Mark writes:
Does this go for Martin Luther King Jr? I don’t necessarily think so. And it also does not go for James Dobson, Charles Colson and others on the right who are speaking out responsibly as evangelicals to inspire us to actively seek social justice (in policies or otherwise) and health for our community.
My problem with Dobson and Colson (and with this “Manifesto,” I guess) is that, in Romans 13, Christians are told to simply be good citizens, even when (as was the case in the Roman Empire) a government is extremely pagan and corrupt.
Paul never invites these Roman Christians (the recipients of this epistle, lest we forget) to attempt to affect the Roman government in any way. I think Culture Warriors like Dobson and Colson conveniently ignore the original context of Romans 13. In the same breath, they ignore Romans 12, where we as Christians are told to love our enemies and to leave vengence to God.
When Dobson and Colson seek to obtain government power over their enemies so that they can force their enemies into compliance with their moral code, I wonder where they find Scriptural support for this?
Let me correct my grammar: “But none of this justifies putting a stop to activism that springs from Christian conviction.”
I agree with you SG. But the point stands. After all, some might draw the implication from the many vague both-and words in the Manifesto that activism is to be avoided and I would disagree with that interpretation. I am responding to a mere implication because the Manifesto itself seems to take pains not to say anything specific at all and tries to stay on both sides of the specrtum at every step. So I was just seeking clarity.
I suppose that it was only a matter of time before intellectually left leaning, Evangelical scholars put their new and improved all inclusive PC notions down of paper.
It’s all about the kumbiya, one for all and none against any. We are good, nearly perfect people except for out sin just like you so we must be the same - mostly and almost except for our differences that make no difference to me if they don’t to you. It’s perfectly OK for you to be included in our group, one way or another, regardless of your or my intentions and what we believe in -if we knew what it was.
I was always taught if it takes more than a paragraph to explain something then what you explained in such detail is wrong and didn’t need so much explaining to begin with.
They have turned the meaningless evangelical into even something less meaningful. Who would have thought that possible? Some would have expected it.
This manifesto is why I am not an can never be an evangelical in its newly defined mold. A mold certainly not in God’s image but I can’t tell whose image it is in either.
Compromise is not always good and i think this manifesto is a good example of this notion.
You first have to stand for something worth standing for to actually be something in the end. I feel like there is nothing one is standing for since it is all things to all people - except possibly Satan and I hope he is not people - but that isn’t spelled out. Sometimes you can define something by stating what it isn’t - like Satan in this case.
Evangelicals are being defined as something not worth all the fine words use to define it.
But, I never was a evangelical so I don’t have dog in this fight (if fighting is still allowed) and they can be what ever they want to be. It’s a free country.
A word of advice. I wouldn’t try to tell people what this manifesto means or how it defines an evangelical. It is best to keep it rolled up and hidden away and then in 1000 years or so, evangelicals can rediscover it as a sacred text
The only problem is that evangelicals then won’t be anything like the old ancient meaning they rediscover but they aren’t much like it now by nearly half either - if you ask me.
How many paragraphs did that take you, Llama?
Douglas,
Actually Romans 13 says to be subject to the governing authorities. It does not tell anyone to ” simply be good citizens.”
In America, being a good citizen means being an involved citizen.
In our participatory system of government, we the people are the authority and no where are we told to stand idly by and allow others to dictate to us.
“When Dobson and Colson seek to obtain government power over their enemies so that they can force their enemies into compliance with their moral code, I wonder where they find Scriptural support for this?”
Your comment is loaded with terms that are as poisonous as they are inaccurate. It also ignores that laws are intrinsically cumpulsory and project a moral stance. Murder, theft, perjury, and orderly procedures are prohibited or mandated by law precisely becuase they are morally valued.
Evangelical
Definition:
1. of Protestant churches emphasizing personal salvation: relating or belonging to any Protestant Christian church that emphasizes the authority of the Bible and salvation through the personal acceptance of Jesus Christ
2. relating to Christian Gospels: relating to or based on the Gospels of the Christian Bible
3. with strong beliefs: enthusiastic or zealous in support of a particular cause and very eager to make other people share its beliefs or ideals
Manifesto
Definition:
declaration of principles: a public written declaration of principles, policies, and objectives, especially one issued by a political movement or candidate
hey there, Ken,
It also ignores that laws are intrinsically cumpulsory and project a moral stance
I don’t think I ignored the above. I’m highly aware of the nature of Roman law, where emperors raised money for civic building projects by throwing orgies and using their own wives as bait.
Yet Paul instructed the Christian community in Rome to be “subject” to just such a governing authority. My paraphrase (to “simply be good citizens”), I believe, accurately conveys the intent of the Scripture. Paul’s point was that, if your foremost goal is to follow Jesus’ example (to mimic his perfect life to the best of your ability), then worrying yourself with the moral failings of the government you find yourself under is a distraction.
I assume there was much about the Roman government that Paul found morally objectionable. But that was to be expected. Governments are parts of this fallen world. Romans 13 tells us that God may use governments for his own purposes. But whether those purposes involve vengence or blessing, or something else, that’s not our affair. God will take care of those things independent of us.
In America, being a good citizen means being an involved citizen.
That’s a secular definition. And, in my opinion, you are welcome to meet that definition on secular terms. But I don’t think Christians are called to be “involved” in the way you imply.
The case could be made that Roman Christians found themselves under a far worse government than our own. Yet there’s no hint that Paul wanted them to become “involved” in that government.
Indeed, if there was ever a government injustice, then it was the crucifixion. Yet Jesus didn’t rise from the dead and immediately instruct his followers on how best to change the government so that another such injustice could not occur again.
No. But what he DID do is offer a distinct way for his followers to bring about change in the world. Romans 12 is a great help there.
By the way, Ken,
Murder, theft, perjury, and orderly procedures are prohibited or mandated by law precisely becuase they are morally valued.
You should mention that the above are “morally valued” by religious AND secular communities here in America. Our legal system is very good at showing us where those communities generally agree.
But Christians are warned that the world (i.e. the secular) will often disagree with us. It will hate us, in fact. And when this happens, we are to be noted by our love, by our willingness to suffer under persecution — not by our attempts to gain political power over our opposition. True change (the sort that Christ desires) comes from the inside out. Not from the outside in. Laws and other forms of government power only seek to affect outward change in individuals. Whether an inward change has occurred is not a concern.
Although elated by this conversation long overdue, I’ve enumerated my laundry-list of misgivings about the document(s)… http://indychristian.com/2008/05/evangelical-manifesto-whats-all-ruckus.html
However, this phrase exposes the document’s fundamentally-flawed premise… “In a diverse society, it will always be unjust and unworkable to privilege one religion.” How does a Bible-believing Christian leader sign such a statement, while simultaneously asserting that God Almighty is the very definition of pure justice & mercy? Moreover, how do signers simultaneously assert on Sundays that “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord”? How do we pray “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”?
Bottom line: If evangelicals are at all monolithic, it’s in our confession together that “Jesus is Lord”. As such, we’re called to pray and work redemptively, aligned with that certainty. To exempt the ‘civic public square’ as a sterile safe-haven from any religious preference, is to suboptimize our fealty.
The very concept of civility is not an evolved one; it’s a designed one, crafted by our self-sacrificing God and defended by our self-sacrificing forebears.
What is an evangelical? With today’s definition, I’m not one, that’s for sure.
From link in #2, Mohler says, “In the end, I must judge “An Evangelical Manifesto” to be too expansive in terms of public relations and too thin in terms of theology.
I guess that means he can get back to his own definition of evangelical: “anti-homosexual”
Spinoza–
No, it just means he can concentrate on staying true to God’s word (his main priority) and worry less about how people perceive him.
#27 I thought the “manifesto” claimed to be true to God’s word?
” … he can concentrate on staying true to God’s word (his main priority) and worry less about how people perceive him.”
Translation: he can continue to prioritize his anti-gay agenda while the rest of the church tries to move on.
Douglas,
You made it clear in view of #15, that Martin Luther King, Jr., a minister of the gospel was out of line and in defiance of Paul’s letter to the Romans when he worked to try to effect government. How dare minister’s like King inject their point of view in the political or public arena?
I agree evangelicals have been hijacked by politics. I also believe evangelicals have gotten too entangled in theater. I see too many Christians acting like two-faced theater characters; one time with the image of Christianity and another with the deception of the devil. This inconsistency alienates people from Christianity because the two-faced behavior is more a characteristic of NAZI Germans, white segregation, and other elitist behavior. Remember Hitler had the best theater arts. It is like Christians got sold a new image and they wear these two faces like the Emperor’s New Clothes.
As a result of this behavior when encountering a Christian I ask: Does this person who claims to be a Christian act with two-faced deception like a wolf in a sheep’s clothing or do they stand and act like Jesus when people wanted to stone Mary Magdalene?
I believe if Christians would stop taking deceptive theater/political acts to the work place and streets and once again consistently act with the kindness of Jesus, society would change for the better. Christians would gain respect, there would be less civil unrest in America, there would be better communities, and probably even fewer abortions. Until then society continues to grow distrustful of all Christians.
America needs a strong sign from Christians as a whole unit, a public recognition that their two-faced deceptive actions had caused harm to many and that they are going to implement an awareness program to help prevent harm like that from happening again. Something like the Catholic Church did in response to the sexual abuse harm. A manifesto is a good first step.
Douglas, are Culture Warriors like Martin Luther King, Jr, ignoring the original context of Romans 13? With Christian conviction, he tried to effect government you know.
William Wilberforce was a Christian who found some things morally objectionable about slavery. He put his Christian conviction into action to stop it politically, legally and otherwise. M. L. King Jr found some things morally objectionable about racial discrimination. Why didn’t King just say that such things are to be expected in a fallen world and leave those injustices alone? That’s what you seem to expect from James Dobson.
Regarding government purposes, Douglas wrote, “that’s not our affair. God will take care of those things independent of us.”
Well, God also has the full freedom to take care of those things and use us in the process.
Joel, you wrote:
[A]re Culture Warriors like Martin Luther King, Jr, ignoring the original context of Romans 13? With Christian conviction, he tried to effect government you know.
Broadly speaking, MLK Jr. followed Paul’s example. There are examples in Scripture where Paul appealed to the Roman legal system so that he might benefit from his rights as a citizen — rights that every Roman enjoyed. MLK Jr. made a similar case. African Americans were U.S. citizens, but did not fully enjoy the rights of U.S. citizens.
Dobson isn’t doing this at all. He has set himself up as a modern Pharisee. He tells the culture he intends to protect the institution of marriage. Yet the worst sinners in our culture know full well that evangelicals have divorce rates equal to (and sometimes worse than, depending on the survey) the cultural average. This is hypocrisy. And hypocrisy is the “yeast” of the Pharisees, as Jesus teaches in Luke 12:1. Dobson is failing to remove the log from his own eye before reaching for the speck in someone else’s eye.
Another example of Dobson’s hypocrisy: Dobson preaches that it is “Christian” to vote for a politician as long as that politician is pro choice and against gay marriage. Again, even the worst sinners in our culture can see that Dobson effectively writes a blank check to politicians who ignore many other sins like: greed, gluttony, neglecting the poor, etc. These remaining sins, of course, are mentioned much more often by Jesus than the ones on Dobson’s priority list.
But I’m not saying that Dobson needs to lengthen his list. I’m saying he’s responding to a “call” that can’t be found in the New Testament. Yes, Paul asked that his rights as a citizen be honored. But was this a Christian-based argument? No. Paul made no appeal to his Christian beliefs when requesting his rights be recognized. It was a secular argument made in a secular sphere.
In Romans 13 it is likely that Paul is restraining the Roman Christians from succumbing to a temptation. They are in a pagan society under pagan law (as is Dobson today). They likely have many moral objections to Rome’s culture and government. Yet Paul tells them to be “subject” to this law. And he assures them that on some level God is still able to work through governments (even in Rome!). At the least, some semblance of order is maintained via government. They can take comfort in THAT, at least. But Paul does not invite them to get involved in Rome’s politics. That would be a distraction from — and even a road block to (I think) — the sort of Kingdom life participation he described in Romans 12.
You also wrote:
Well, God also has the full freedom to take care of those things and use us in the process.
But how does He use us? Under the Old Covenant He used His Law and His prophets to influence Israel’s theocracies.
But under the New Covenant, there’s no call to set up a theocratic government. In fact, we are to notice that an important purpose of the Law was to show how external forces don’t change hearts. It is an inside-out process that changes hearts, made possible by the Spirit.
Under the New Covenant, we are to spread the Kingdom through our love, our suffering, our service. We are to be “lights,” that is, beacons (examples) of Kingdom living. Those with eyes to see will wonder where we find such peace (God’s supernatural peace!) in this fallen world. Those with eyes to see will wonder how we constantly seek to live holy lives but cast NO judgment on outsiders in the world who haven’t yet found the path.
Sadly, Dobson’s hypocrisy harms this process. It is very hard to display the Kingdom when the yeast of hypocrisy is present. (which is why Jesus spoke so strongly — even angrily? — against it in Luke 12.)
Joel… let me point you to a good YouTube discussion:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tuw7rjEJBsM
Charles Colson, Greg Boyd, and Shane Claiborne recently took part in a public radio program and weighed in on all sorts of topics related to government, culture, politics and Christianity.
The above link is a nice highlight from the show, but the full hour-and-a-half video can be viewed here (at the bottom of the middle column):
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/evangelical_politics/
It is just as courageous for a Christian like Jame Dobson to participate in various political (and other) forums to protect human life itself and the sanctity of marriage as it was for a Christian like Martin Luther King’ Jr. to seek political means to end legal (unfair) racial discrimination.
Douglas wrote; “Broadly speaking, MLK Jr. followed Paul’s example.”
Right. And so do James Dobson and Charles Colson and other Chirstians who care about human beings and social justice.
If some Christians also want to seek various social and public avenues to curtail divorce too, fantastic! High divorce rates in society, however, are NOT an argument against Christian activism in support of marriage. They are more an argument for it! Go Dr. Dobson!
Douglas, you are simply slandering Dobson without basis. He does not ignore or want people to ignore sins like: greed, gluttony, neglecting the poor, etc. That’s simply a falsehood from you.
But if he focuses more on the saving of human lives, and preventing the brains of human babies from being sucked out of their heads just before birth, then that’s his calling and he should be free to pursue it.
Douglas wrote; “But Paul does not invite them to get involved in Rome’s politics.”
So. He does not ban it either.
And what does setting up a “theocratic government” have to do with anything in this conversation? Martin Luther King, Jr or James Dobson (neither one) have ever come close to seeking that.
Barack Obama may be a different story.
Joel, you wrote:
Douglas wrote; “But Paul does not invite them to get involved in Rome’s politics.”
So. He does not ban it either.
Given the context of the Scripture, I think it’s more noteworthy that an invitation isn’t extended by Paul. The Roman Christians have a low opinion of the government under which they find themselves. They’d like to be told that, as Christians, they should probably just ignore the government and its laws. It’s a pagan government, after all.
But Paul won’t allow that.
Furthermore, this would be the logical place for Paul to say, hey, don’t ignore the government, change it so that it reflects a Christian world view!
Again, Paul does not.
Rather, he reassures them that, not to worry, God is at work in all governments — including, of course, Rome. This work is taking place apart from them. (And, actually, insofar as the Roman government maintains order, here is evidence of God’s work in an otherwise pagan government.
Joel, you also wrote:
High divorce rates in society, however, are NOT an argument against Christian activism in support of marriage.
I wasn’t focusing on the divorce rates in society. I was concerned with the divorce rates among evangelicals.
Evangelicals like Dobson say they want to “protect” the institution of marriage. And they want to do so by re-writing the laws of this secular society. But what if secular members of society take a closer look at marriage within the evangelical community? Won’t they find that, far from protecting it, we’re no better at marriage than anyone else!?!
Is it wise for Christians to willingly take part in such bald-faced hypocrisy? And regardless of the wisdom involved (or lack thereof), is it Christian to do so? Not according to Luke 12.
Douglas - 33
YOU WRITE:..
“Dobson isn’t doing this at all. He has set himself up as a modern Pharisee. He tells the culture he intends to protect the institution of marriage. Yet the worst sinners in our culture know full well that evangelicals have divorce rates equal to (and sometimes worse than, depending on the survey) the cultural average. This is hypocrisy. And hypocrisy is the “yeast” of the Pharisees, as Jesus teaches in Luke 12:1. Dobson is failing to remove the log from his own eye before reaching for the speck in someone else’s
eye.”
Dr. Dobson is an honorable man, — there is no ’speck’ when it comes to abortion or ’same-sex’ marriage - Thats a LOG in your eye.
Statistics have not proven that Evangelical’s have more divorce than others. Many people claim they are Christians, but when asked have answers such as “I was always a Christian” or “I was born a Christian” or “my parents always took me to church. Many don’t attend church, but if asked in a survey if they are a Christian they answer yes.
One would have to ask, were they a Born Again Christian before they married, while they were married? If they weren’t, or they don’t honestly know the meaning, they probably aren’t/weren’t. If they do decide to obtain a divorce they can be put in the section of Evangelical divorced - which isn’t true.
There are many churches which have ’singles groups for any age’ many became Believers after their divorce, or they were Believers, however the spouse was not. Just taking a survey without checking other important facts, isn’t factual, but it does entertain the ears of the liberals, and those who want to discredit the Evangelical Church.
I have been affiliated with Evangelical Churches my entire life, … I have not found your comment to be the case, in fact its off the track.
YOU WRITE: ..
“Under the New Covenant, we are to spread the Kingdom through our love, our suffering, our service. We are to be “lights,” that is, beacons (examples) of Kingdom living. Those with eyes to see will wonder where we find such peace (God’s supernatural peace!) in this fallen world. Those with eyes to see will wonder how we constantly seek to live holy lives but cast NO judgment on outsiders in the world who haven’t yet found the path.”
And that of course would include not judging those who take the lives of their very own children, or those who help them? We should avoid speaking out, trying to remove the law which allows abortion? If we are to have nothing to do with urging law makers, then maybe we should all STOP VOTING? Interesting….
We as Believers should stand by, say nothing, watch the knife against the unborn continue, as we stand by as cowards?
Should we have gone to war to help stop the holocaust? They were being murdered by the millions. Since they were “outsiders” we could stay SILENT -
Joel, you also wrote:
Douglas, you are simply slandering Dobson without basis. He does not ignore or want people to ignore sins like: greed, gluttony, neglecting the poor, etc. That’s simply a falsehood from you.
I really don’t mean to slander anyone. And I don’t think I have. I was careful to say that Dobson’s advice on voting “effectively” allows politicians to support policies that result in egregious levels of sinning, as long as those sins aren’t related to abortion and marriage.
Unfortunately, this Catch 22 is pretty obvious to almost everyone except evangelicals.
Hi there, Victoria. I’m discovering that you folks are really good about posting the number of the comment you are replying to. I’ll try to get into that habit. (39)
Dr. Dobson is an honorable man, — there is no ’speck’ when it comes to abortion or ’same-sex’ marriage - Thats a LOG in your eye.
Only he can know that, of course. But I should backtrack and concede that, as you say, there is no justificatoin for saying that Dobson himself is a hypocrite in that he is personally guilty of abortion or same sex marriage.
Joel… from 36:
Douglas wrote; “Broadly speaking, MLK Jr. followed Paul’s example.”
Right. And so do James Dobson and Charles Colson and other Chirstians who care about human beings and social justice.
Colson has done some work in the courts, and I can see an analogy to Paul in that work. But how do you see Dobson as following Paul’s example?
Douglas wrote; “I wasn’t focusing on the divorce rates in society. I was concerned with the divorce rates among evangelicals.”
So what? Either way, that is no answer to my point whatsoever. You don’t have an argument, sir.
Douglas wrote; “Evangelicals like Dobson say they want to “protect” the institution of marriage. And they want to do so by re-writing the laws of this secular society.”
Oh really? It’s the homosexualists who are demanding to re-write our laws, even if the voting public is clearly against it.
The desire to have a marriage amendment, however, is a legitimate response to the fact that homosexual activists were the first to try to re-write our laws.
And you are wrong about evangelicals and divorce rates. If you are citing George Barna, he was wrong because his survey just asked people if they were “born again” and that was indeterminative. Those who actually attend church regularly have a much lower divorce rate than the norm.
No hypocrisy. You are making that up as a smear.
Joel… in 44 you wrote:
It’s the homosexualists who are demanding to re-write our laws, even if the voting public is clearly against it.
The desire to have a marriage amendment, however, is a legitimate response to the fact that homosexual activists were the first to try to re-write our laws.
When you say “our laws,” do you mean “we” as U.S. citizens? Or “we” as Christians? It’s hard to know when you mean one and when you mean the other. And each would require a different response.
For the record, I’m married and I’m a Christian. I became married when a pastor in a church pronounced my wife and me “man and wife.”
The fact that I have a government issued marriage certificate doesn’t mean much of anything to me. What a secular government defines as marriage does not (and will not) define my Christian understanding of marriage. If the government starts handing out gay marriage certificates, that won’t affect my Christianity, either.
How will it affect yours?
Joel… in 44, you also wrote:
And you are wrong about evangelicals and divorce rates. If you are citing George Barna, he was wrong because his survey just asked people if they were “born again” and that was indeterminative. Those who actually attend church regularly have a much lower divorce rate than the norm.
I just looked up the Barna survey and he had information on various denominations, as well as “born again” vs. “other christians” vs. “athiests/agnostics.”
Bolstering my point, the athiests/agnostics had a lower rate than the “born again” and “other christians.”
Mainly, it’s noteworthy that none of the rates are dramatically better or worse than others. No group seems to be in a position to brag.
In 39, Victoria wrote:
If we are to have nothing to do with urging law makers, then maybe we should all STOP VOTING? Interesting….
I don’t know if you are dismissing this as absurd, but I’ll take it seriously: Honestly, I could see how a Christian might come to that conclusion. I suspect every vote results in some evil or another. And who among us can really offer a quantitative assesment of the good vs. evil that results from a vote for a particular politician?
Over in Iraq, 80,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the start of the war. Civilians. That’s innocent blood. If I voted for a member of congress who authorized the war (or for Bush), is their blood on my hands?
I think James Dobson would have me believe that, if I vote for a pro choice politician, then the blood from abortions is on my hands. And maybe it is. If so, then, either way, I’m culpable at some level. And so obstaining from voting might be prudent.
I haven’t come to a firm conclusion on that.
Douglas,
george Barna is the single most intellectually dishonest church- basher and slick Christian smear artist in our generation. I have come to believe the exact opposite of nearly anything he claims.
Douglas asked; “When you say “our laws,” do you mean “we” as U.S. citizens? Or “we” as Christians?”
Don’t fake ignorance, Douglas. I was responding to YOUR words when you said, “And they want to do so by re-writing the laws of this secular society.”
So, I mean our laws in the USA, obviously. Please follow the line of thought. And the Christian right was not the ones re-writing our secular laws as you falsely charged. It is the homosexual militant who are demanding to re-write our laws, even if the voting public is clearly against it.
Douglas wrote; “If the government starts handing out gay marriage certificates, that won’t affect my Christianity, either.”
Who said it would? But it will devalue marriage and deconstruct it toward becoming a meaningless “anything goes” sham. It would legally allow millions of children whom God clearly intended to have a mother and a father living together in a loving home to be DEPRIVED of that blessing ON PURPOSE!
Abortion is a more deadly and egregious evil than slavery, and that is pretty bad. God bless both James Dobson and William Wilberforce for opposing each of them respectively. I wish Dobson can be as successful as Wilberforce was. But I admire his moral courage greatly, success or not.
And God bless M. L. King, Jr and Charles Colson and James Dobson all for stepping up in public and political arenas to seek social justice out of their Christian convictions.
From 48,
george Barna is the single most intellectually dishonest church- basher and slick Christian smear artist in our generation. I have come to believe the exact opposite of nearly anything he claims.
Ha! Well, Joel, so much for that. From your previous post, I wasn’t able to gather how firmly you reject his survey.
Did you have a survey in mind whose results you trust?
But, really, that’s neither here nor there as far as the main discussion goes. I’m assuming you can see that, even if evangelicals had a zero percent divorce rate, I still wouldn’t believe there’s a Scriptural justification for Christians acting as police of the culture. I was just listening to a podcast with Chuck Colson at the Web site for the book unChristian, and he seems to think Christians are to help “redeem” a culture.
I’ve referred to Romans 12 and 13 to explain why I don’t think we are called to that. In fact, as I’ve written, it seems to me that Paul intentionally avoided pursuing that line of thinking.
Joel, can you refer me to Scripture where you think Christians are called to fix the culture or government?
Douglas (reference comment #51):
If Joel will forgive me and with your kind permission, Matthew 5:13-16. Notice the term “good works”.
Now … get to work.
Douglas - 45
YOU WRITE:….
“If the government starts handing out gay marriage certificates, that won’t affect my Christianity, either.”
Are you a liberal Christian, do you care about abortion being an option, or kids going to a school nurse and getting directions to an abortion clinic, NOT having to let their parents know they are getting an abortion?
Do you attend a church which the members take no stand against abortion or ’same-sex marriage’ or homosexuals who live the lifestyle. and join the church openly? Or pastors are homosexual?
YOU WRITE:….
“How will it affect yours?”
How does sin affect children, young adults?
How many parents have already taken their children out of public schools OR, are taking them out this next year?
How does blatant homosexual lifestyles affect kids in schools?
Boys and girls bathrooms used for ages K-12?
Choose your sexual choice and learn about it in the 1st grade?
Same-sex married homosexuals teaching children in school?
Douglas - 46
YOU WRITE: ..
“Mainly, it’s noteworthy that none of the rates are dramatically better or worse than others. No group seems to be in a position to brag.”
The Barna Group, as far as many strong Believers are concerned, believe next to nothing that is delivered from their so called survey’s being true. Strange how the Barna Group has found everything wrong with Believers, tearing down the Church, it hasn’t gone un-noticed.
Most of the churches I have been affiliated with are not rife with divorce, in fact most of them have few divorces. The reason for this is; the people getting married go through counseling, the pastor’s won’t marry anyone who comes and asks to be married, when they are not both Believers.
There are churches which have wide spread divorce, they have huge singles groups, and most of the people are divorced of any age. I’m glad the groups are in place, but that doesn’t mean that the people attending these groups, (now part of a church were Believers when they married or when they became divorced.) they are now Believers and they would count as divorced Evangelicals, but it would depend on when they became Believers, BEFORE THEY WERE DIVORCED or AFTER - Many statistics have not made this plain, and it twists the results, making everyone think that vast amounts of Evangelicals are getting divorced.. WRONG!
From 52, Bough10 writes:
If Joel will forgive me and with your kind permission, Matthew 5:13-16. Notice the term “good works”.
Now … get to work.
I’m familiar with this Scripture. But where do you find a reference to culture-fixing or government-fixing there? I’m interested in your interpretation.
From 49, Joel wrote:
the Christian right was not the ones re-writing our secular laws as you falsely charged. It is the homosexual militant who are demanding to re-write our laws, even if the voting public is clearly against it.
I should have nipped this in the bud the first time you challenged my characterization. I live in Texas, and if memory serves, the Texas Legislature passed a defense of marriage act of some sort. I don’t recall that there was ever an attempt to make same-sex marriage available in Texas. If I’m wrong on this, it’s not deliberate. But I think I’m right.
Douglas - 56
YOU WRITE:….
“I should have nipped this in the bud the first time you challenged my characterization. I live in Texas,”
There are more states than Texas. California has just made it OK for “same-sex” in this state. We will continue to fight against it, since the ‘bud’ seems to try very hard to blossom and spread its weeds around the state, not to mention the country.
In 53, Victoria wrote:
Do you attend a church which the members take no stand against abortion or ’same-sex marriage’ or homosexuals who live the lifestyle. and join the church openly? Or pastors are homosexual?
Victoria, are you more interested in condemning homosexuals? Or trying to provide them an open path to the Gospel?
Jesus welcomed sinners with open arms. Why are you looking for ways to make them feel unwelcome?
Are you also on the lookout for people guilty of greed or gluttony at your church? Do you allow the greedy to “join your church openly”?
If you follow this link, you’ll find a panel discussion (including Chuck Colson), where one of the panelists quotes Billy Graham as pointing out that: It’s the Holy Spirit’s job to convict; it’s God’s job to judge; and our job to love.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkWk1ATYHno
Are you “loving”? Or are you convicting and judging?
In 36, Joel wrote:
And what does setting up a “theocratic government” have to do with anything in this conversation? Martin Luther King, Jr or James Dobson (neither one) have ever come close to seeking that.
To me, anytime members of a religion seek to change the laws of a secular society so that the new laws will reflect the beliefs of that religion… then THAT’s a theocratic move.
If you can make a case to secular society (i.e. including lots of people with different, or NO religious beliefs) that doesn’t rely on your own religious beliefs for support, THEN you are no longer pushing a theocratic agenda.
Douglas, you have asked questions, why aren’t you able to answer them? I asked you honest questions in post 53 which you AVOID answering, WHY?
The Word of GOD condemns homosexuality, that is where the condemnation originated from, not from me or any other human being. Most homosexuals know what the Bible says about that sin, it is their choice to engage in such a lifestyle.
Douglas why do you condemn me? You have no clue as to how I have reached out to homosexuals. It’s one thing to ask a question as you do above, its another to then ASSUME I am not welcoming to homosexuals.
Yes Jesus told everyone who would listen about himself, and what they had to do to obtain Eternal life. However, if they didn’t believe in HIM. Jesus also told them after they had been forgiven sin no more which would mean they were to turn from their sin.
Jesus said below:
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. Mark 6:11
Homosexuals are welcome in our church, and many other churches. The problem arises when they want to join the church, living a homosexual lifestyle, - the church will not accept it.
Douglas, homosexuality is spoken of directly in the Word of God. Douglas, do you look for people who are obese and greedy in YOUR church to excuse the sin of homosexuality?
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Romans 1:28
It would be wise if YOU ask yourself that question!
Douglas, I asked you a variety of questions in post 53, why not TRY to answer them. If you want people to answer your questions, then it would only be fair that you do the same.
From 60, Victoria wrote:
Douglas, you have asked questions, why aren’t you able to answer them? I asked you honest questions in post 53 which you AVOID answering, WHY?
Except for your question about sin and how it affects children and young adults, all of your questions are on the topic of government policy. Since I reject the notion that Scripture invites Christians to police the culture, what more is there left for me to say in response to those questions?
Victoria, you also wrote:
The Word of GOD condemns homosexuality, that is where the condemnation originated from, not from me or any other human being.
But you won’t allow a homosexual to join your church. Where is your Scriptural justification for that?
Which leads to my follow-up in response to this:
Homosexuals are welcome in our church, and many other churches. The problem arises when they want to join the church, living a homosexual lifestyle, - the church will not accept it.
Douglas, homosexuality is spoken of directly in the Word of God. Douglas, do you look for people who are obese and greedy in YOUR church to excuse the sin of homosexuality?
I’m not looking for reasons to excuse sin. I’m wondering if your policy towards homosexuals extends to other sinners. Do you make sure that greedy people aren’t allowed to become members of your church? I think this is a reasonable question.
And, finally, Victoria wrote:
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Romans 1:28
If you’ll notice in Romans 1:27: “…men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.” (NIV version).
This is talking about men who had been living as heterosexuals, but then switched. And as verse 28 incicates, their sin was a result of not thinking “it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God.” (NIV)
I don’t think this applies to many homosexuals who are seeking God’s word in church. By being at church, they are showing that they DO think it’s “worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God.” But like all of us, there are sins in their lives remaining to be confronted. It’s the Spirit’s job to convict us all as we grow as Christians. The important thing is that we NOT exclude people from Church membership based on a particular sin.
I admire the way C.S. Lewis characterizes our lives after our conversions. We are all works in progress, growing into people who look more and more like Jesus. This is a process that continues throughout our lives. And, on our death beds, some of us still won’t look that great to a judgmental observer.
But we must remember that not all of us are in the same condition at the time of our conversion. We all have different issues and temptations. Those of us already in the Church need to trust that the Spirit is doing this work inside our brothers’ and sisters’ hearts.
Douglas,
The games people play to EXCUSE homosexuality, are transparent, among other transparencies, when posting, they’ve been played before.
Have a nice day!
I hope your day is a good one as well, Victoria.
Ah, I see I can rest assured that evangelical still means “anti-homosexual.”
Spinoza, in order for a person to understand the true definition of something in the spiritual matter, that person needs to seek salvation for their own soul, and accept God’s Word into their lives. Otherwise how can that person interpret the value of what’s being addressed?
The term evangelical has nothing to do with anti-homosexualism.
It arrives from the same root word as evangelize……that is to share Jesus’ truth where-ever your placed in this world. We christians have a biblical mandate from the end of Matthew’s gospel to go and make disciples of all nations. That, my friend, is what the bible tells me the meaning of evangelical.
I do hope this clears things up a bit for you.