Jesus' Example Of Lobbying Against Gays

[Guest]

Burying our heads in the sand does not seem to be an appropriate response.

TK,

This is not what Boyd advocates. You should check out his sermon series, The Cross and the Sword. It's free on his churches website. He covers most of what he talks about in The Myth of a Christian Nation in this series.

Here it is.

http://www.whchurch.org/content/page_726.htm

God bless,

[Guest]

thanks derek- i'll check it out.

i didnt mean to imply that greg b's approach was to ignore the problem. i am sure the sermon series you reference will have some good practical applications.

TK

[Guest]

just came across this article:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=55821

TK

[Guest]

as far as christians being associated with right wing politics, it only makes sense. the liberal side of many of the main issues are decidely non-christian.

Hi TK, I realize you are just making a general observation (so this is not a rebuttal per se) but I wanted to express my concern about aligning ourselves with political parties. Unfortunately you end up adopting issues that have nothing to do with Christianity like, tax cuts, gun rights, hyper-nationalism etc..

Also, other parties, like the Democratic Party in your country, often have very Christian ideals like helping the poor and universal health care.

Often times I see Christians talking about the importance of tax cuts and the evils of universal health care simply because of the party that originated the idea.

I don't see Jesus as a Republican or a Democrat..... or even a Canadian!

[Guest]

just came across this article:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=55821

TK

You know, I really disagree with what the students did there. Of course, I think they should be free to do it, which I guess is what the article is about, but is wearing a t-shirt such as this necessary?

If our goal is not to mearly "make our opinion known", but is rather to glorify God, and win converts to His kingdom, is this really the track we should take? Are actions such as this really the only option besides "sticking your head in the sand"?

Would not a more effective way be to show them that we care about them, try to develop some kind of repoir with them, so they will take us seriously when we tell them they are in sin? Maybe eat dinner with them, and let them know, "hey, there's a better way, Jesus". Instead of beating them over the head with how much we don't like what they do, (even though we're not supposed to judge them), so we just wind up yelling at each other.

Someone may say "well that's what they do". To that I would say "so". Are we to return evil for evil?

Agian, all these students are doing is alienating the group that we are supposed to reach. They are making themselves the last people on earth a gay person would want to befreind. The opposite of what they need to do.

I am not saying we are to be soft on sin. I am not. I have many people who I am currently witnessing to, that are living in sin, and I make no bones about it when we talk. However, they certainly wouldn't take me seriously if they saw me with a t-shirt condemned their particular sin.

I am reminded of 1 Corinthians 5:12-13:

1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

According to this verse, we should be wearing our "call out people on thier sin" t-shirts to church, instead of the world. If we did that, and cleaned up the church, perhaps the world would stop thinking we're a bunch of kooks!

I agree that free-speech should be upheld, and to be kept from expressing yourself becuase "it may offend someone" is ridiculous, however, lets express ourselves in a way that glorifys God, and doesn't unnecessarilly (sometimes it is necessary) offend and alienate the people we are seeking to win.

Just my 2 cents.

God bless,

[Guest]

Hi Derek,
Since there is not much information in the article I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. Based on the information we have in the article, I definitely agree with you! You pretty much reflected my thoughts.

[Guest]

Derek,

Last nite after my last post I loaded the Q&A session from Boyd's site. I heard part of one...but fell asleep.... Otherwise, as the thread goes:

I don't think it's a secret that the Republican Party came up with a strategy some time ago to "lure" Bible-believing Christians. The ticket? "Morality". How many of us voted Republican simply for the moral issues in the last few presidential elections? I know I did.

In the 1960's when I was growing up I asked my Dad, "What's the difference between the Republicans and Democrats?" His answer was, "Republicans are for the rich man; Democrats are for the working man."

I'm a working man (blue collar, barely making it). And though I have cast my vote for Republicans due to the moral issues; as I vote I always think, "This will hurt my pocketbook, the rich will get richer, I will get poorer, but Christian moral values will be upheld."

What Christian values? Opposition to abortion and homosexuality. But doesn't the Bible talk about oppression of the poor? As I work doing hard manual labor in a sweaty factory with hot, smoky, unbreathable, air for 9 dollars an hour...and come home sick...and have to go back tomorrow while still sick: You get the picture. Isn't something about this immoral? I *blankety-blank* think so!!! (I quit swearing a while back).

From my perspective there isn't a political party that I can really support, not fully -- they don't fully support me! If the Democrats hadn't gone liberal on morality; in the 1960's the Bible Belt was like, totally Democratic!

It's coming to the point that I may go ahead and vote Democratic. If it weren't for the Veterans Administration I would have no health care. I haven't been able to afford health insurance (and just for myself folks!) for about 10 years!

If there was a political party that was conservative on morals, that gave working people a livable wage, and also got heavy on "corporate crime" (like the yearly slaries of most CEOs is criminal! (just like the yearly salaries of many famous preachers...)....

Ok, I'm about done with my rant. I'm opposed to abortion and homsexuality. I'm VERY opposed to working for: just enuf gas to get to work and back, barely enuf to pay the monthly bills, and well, "dialup" is actually the only real "luxury" (entertainment) I can afford right now. For 20 bucks a month I have something to do other than go to the "sweat shop": Done, Thanks

[Guest]

Let me throw this out there for discussion:

of course we are to be Christ-like in dealing with others. But there are biblical examples of Godly men being fairly aggressive in dealing with sin around them (elijah, samuel, John the Baptist, Jesus himself, etc).

Is there ever a time for more aggressive action?

TK

[Guest]

Let me throw this out there for discussion:

of course we are to be Christ-like in dealing with others. But there are biblical examples of Godly men being fairly aggressive in dealing with sin around them (elijah, samuel, John the Baptist, Jesus himself, etc).

Is there ever a time for more aggressive action?

TK

Hi TK,
That's an interesting question. Could you narrow down your examples a little bit? Like, could you mention one or two specific incidents that you believe provide guidelines for 'aggressive action?' Thanks!

Michelle

[Guest]

Hello, gentlemen,

TK: just came across this article:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=55821


Derek: You know, I really disagree with what the students did there. Of course, I think they should be free to do it, which I guess is what the article is about, but is wearing a t-shirt such as this necessary?

...

I agree that free-speech should be upheld, and to be kept from expressing yourself becuase "it may offend someone" is ridiculous, however, lets express ourselves in a way that glorifys God, and doesn't unnecessarilly (sometimes it is necessary) offend and alienate the people we are seeking to win.

I would throw into this strand of discussion the old "to everything there is a season" argument. The issue at hand is standards for student behavior at a public school.

I've worked in public schools for several years, and the basic purpose of that environment is not to give a platform for student expression, but to provide an opportunity for education. In this environment, freedom of speech is secondary to avoiding offending someone, because the offended party's privilege of learning without being socially/emotionally distracted pre-empts the offender's privilege of expressing their opinion. If students wish to moralize, politicize, and/or proselytize, they have plenty of opportunity to do so without roiling the waters of an enivronment that already has to reckon with a lamentable number of distractors and obstacles to the educational process.


Shlamaa,
Emmet