The Narrow Path Ministries

I have a friend whose ministry had a profound impact on me in my 20's. Under his leadership thousands of lost people came to faith in Christ. Many have gone on to ministry themselves.

He is older now, and doing consultant work. I've helped him somewhat.

Lately, I've noticed words creeping into his blog/Facebook page entries. "Militant homosexuals." "Communists." "Seven cultural mountains." All of a sudden, I realize that this spiritual leader whom I admire, has been caught up in the conservative/Christian political agenda that thinks cultural change happens when Christians and conservative's agendas are legislated.

So, how should Christians seek God's Kingdom in the world? I can tell you that from my vantage point, the testimony of the gospel is being damaged by Christians who are aligning their convictions with political and media powers.

And a second question, when you've lost the legislative battle, what do you gain by continuing to fight it?

I agree 100%.

The Church needs to get its own house in order first. Then maybe the rest of the world will be interested in what we have to say.

So, how should Christians seek God's Kingdom in the world? I can tell you that from my vantage point, the testimony of the gospel is being damaged by Christians who are aligning their convictions with political and media powers.










Paul said it's the goodness of God that leads to repentance and he nor any of the other disciples got involved in the culture wars of Jesus day. I recently heard the Pope respond to a question about homosexuality say "who am i to judge". At first i thought that answer to be disingenuous but he went on say that he wanted to bring the message of the love of God.
I'm still not sure what i think about his answer about homosexuality but i think he is on track about the message of the love of God.

steve7150 wrote: I recently heard the Pope respond to a question about homosexuality say "who am i to judge". At first i thought that answer to be disingenuous but he went on say that he wanted to bring the message of the love of God. I'm still not sure what i think about his answer about homosexuality but i think he is on track about the message of the love of God.

If the question was about homosexuality in the secular world...
And his answer had the end of 1 Corinthians 5 in mind...
Then I think it was a brilliant answer

If the question was about homosexuality in the church...
And his answer meant to accommodate the culture...
Then I think it was a terrible answer

This debate has been around a long time. It has been my impression that one side says that sinners ought to be compelled, by laws, to behave morally. The other side says we need to make Christians of them, then they will behave morally. One side is mostly reformed/Baptist/Calvinist, the other Methodist/Arminian. Generally speaking, that is....

Time once was, very early in the settlement of this country, where there was a colony on an island off the coast of Virginia. Anyone caught not in church on Sunday spent Sunday in jail. (Story told by guide during tour of old church at Williamsburg, Va.)

If the question was about homosexuality in the church...
And his answer meant to accommodate the culture...
Then I think it was a terrible answer









I didn't realize it but the Pope did qualify his response. The question was about gay priests and he responded "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am i to judge."

steve7150 wrote:If the question was about homosexuality in the church...
And his answer meant to accommodate the culture...
Then I think it was a terrible answer









I didn't realize it but the Pope did qualify his response. The question was about gay priests and he responded "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am i to judge."

So he was thinking of celibate men with attraction to other men (but not acting on it)?

I didn't realize it but the Pope did qualify his response. The question was about gay priests and he responded "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am i to judge."



So he was thinking of celibate men with attraction to other men (but not acting on it)?









Presumably searching for the Lord and having goodwill incorporate your description, at least i hope it did.

morbo wrote:Lately, I've noticed words creeping into his blog/Facebook page entries. "Militant homosexuals." "Communists." "Seven cultural mountains." All of a sudden, I realize that this spiritual leader whom I admire, has been caught up in the conservative/Christian political agenda that thinks cultural change happens when Christians and conservative's agendas are legislated.

I'm not at all certain that Christians should avoid being "caught up in the conservative/Christian political agenda". How far will we let worldly political agendae become implemented without involvement? Consider the political agenda of Nazi Germany: "Conquer the world and eliminate the Jews". If Chamberlain had become involved he may have been able to prevent or delay Hitler's attack on Britain. But fortunately Churchill took action and saved the day. Legislation does often prevent a lot of problems. Notwithstanding, we need to walk the tightrope between anarchism and totalitarianism. Somewhere in the middle, we will find true freedom.

Paidon,

I agree that there are some instances in which we should get involved.

I would include matters that involved life. Opposing abortion for example. Opposing the death penalty if you disagree with it. Genocide.

I would also include civil rights and racism. Religious people were justified in fighting for the rights of blacks during the civil rights movement.

Things I would not include: Protection against taxation. Legally binding relationships, such as polygamous and gay marriage.

Drug legislation is a grey area for me.

In the "not include" category, I would think voting for or against those issues would be fine. But not campaigning. Because it (inappropriately) associates the gospel with those issues. Unsaved people can't (and shouldn't be expected to) discriminate between a person's social/political beliefs and the purity of the gospel. The result is that they see hypocrisy and judgmentalness which turns them off to the gospel. The Jesus we see from the gospels wouldn't get tied up with these.

What do you think? Obviously, there are a lot of possibilities there to agree/disagree.