CNN article on Christianity
I found this as I was scanning the headlines today. I was very impressed that this comes from the son of Jim & Tammy Faye- considering how super-conservative they are. I think the article speaks for itself, but goes along well with some of what i've been more recently feeling from a political standpoint as a Christian.
i'd love to entertain any thoughts...
10 comments:
An interesting article.
I walked away, however, not entirel sure what Marc and Jay believe, nor what specifically they are disagreeing with.
I think they painted some very broad brush strokes. I see that they think the church has had hypocrisy. Ok. But the rest gets kind of sketchy.
It's similiar to the modern day Methodist commercials. He wants, as CNN put, "inclusion". Yet, he quotes 1 Cor. 13 as saying "It does not rejoice in injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out." What is the truth he being preached in this article? I'm not entirely sure.
"So when did the focus of Christianity shift from the unconditional love and acceptance preached by Christ to the hate and condemnation spewed forth by certain groups today?" Jesus' idea of unconditional love and acceptance means nothing if we do not understand our own sin and depravity. Are these guys telling people that they are sinners, cut off from a holy God, awaiting His wrath? If not, "unconditional acceptance" easily becomes "You are justified as you are."
It's very easy to say something abstract like, "So many people spew forth hate -- we need to accept people." Well, define that. Break it down. Show us exactly where all the hate comes from. Point specifically. Is it in all churches in this country? Is it one specific ministry or institution? Where is it? How is it acted it out? In what ways have you seen it acted out? How does that not align with the Bible? What can we do to be more submitted to the Word of God? Those are the harder questions, and the lack of depth in this article seems to assume much and not edify and build up, but rather, simply complain in a way that will hopefully attract non-Christians.
Their summary of Jesus' message seems incomplete. If they want to include all people in *this* fashion, then the doctrines of sin, Christ, His death, atonement, justification, and sanctification aren't really major players in what is preached. And that is neither Christian nor Biblical.
The focus of this article didn't seem too policital, although there obviously was some political stuff in there. I'm curious what thoughts you had, Reid, that you were refering to that this article went along with well? What were you focusing on that connected with you?
i think the line "Why are Christians supporting laws that force others to live by their standards?" from the beginning of the article is what really drew me in. i was suprised this came from the son of such politically "right" Christians- because the truth is, as Christians, we can't force others to live by the moral code we've been called to- especially not force those who do not believe. i think there needs to be a balance between accepting people as they are when they come, but still holding rigorously to God's call to each of us to be holy. While we can encourage other believers on in the pursuit of holiness, we should by no means force that on a non-believing general public.
oh, sorry- forgot to mention, in case the lines weren't connected well- what i like in the political sense of this is simply that we cannot legislate morality to people- especially legislating a Christian moral code to a non-Christian general public
While we cannot legislative that people love and worship God, I think Bakker is trying to take a political view like that and use it as the basis of his preaching. It's hard to not see that as relativistic and unbiblical in that setting. He's effectively Joel Osteen's acceptance theology with tatoos and and piercings. It's all been done before.
There's a very overlooked difference between loving and serving someone and OK-ing their sin. We don't control others, but at no point should or message be unclear: you are a sinner. What you do is wrong and THE Judge will judge you one day.
All that being said...question for you...
If we can't legislate morality and force our views on others, on what basis do you think we can outlaw murder?
i hear what you are saying- and i agree to point. after reading the article a couple more times, i definitely see the "Joel Osteen with tatoos" thing.
however, to answer the point of the murder question- for the government (and i mean SOLELY the government) in a democratic society creates laws based on the people. it's the system- of the people, by the people, for the people. sounds relativistic, but from a non-religious standpoint, it kind of is. if all the people are Christian, then the laws will reflect those values.
churches and Christianity pull their morals, laws, etc- from a higher source. something outside of itself. one problem Christianity has had in the past was that by legislating Christian morals (back in a few hundred years) and there was "Christendom", "everyone" was a Christian and it became a meaningless thing to be a Christian.
And I actually appreciate your notation of the subtle difference between saying "come as you are" and basically "winking at sin". (i think my senior pastor has a tendency to wink at sin a lot... in an effort not to offend). But if someone does not claim Christianity, then it's not "winking" at their sin- i think it's a recognition that their actions do not save them so why force them to be "more like us"? if salvation comes by faith, then does making a person "a better person" make any difference if they still do not repent and believe?
So you're saying that democracy is by the people and for the people. The law isn't created by the Bible (that might be a hard case to prove based on the origins of this country), but by the desires of the people.
So, the law is created by the people. But Bakker is tired of Christians who want to use their votes and influence to shape this country to match their moral beliefs.
If they are the majority -- what's the issue?
You're right -- legislating Christian morality won't make anyone more saved than they were before. I even think of Liberty University's rules in that light. But, in democracy, one group (the majority) will be telling all the other groups how to live -- and those minorities (uh...not racial) will have to accept that.
If the Christians' goal is to turn this country into a country of Christians by using the power of legislature, then that's just not going to work, and we'd agree there. But, we're free to use democracy to vote as we see fit. I think much of Bakker's position is to be pacifists, universalists, relativists, and it seems to (if you follow-through with his logic of "don't tell people what to do within this country's laws") lead to "don't be involved at all", because we all cast votes for someone and something.
Anyway...
It's interesting to see how one's eschatology actually affects some of this government / politics stuff (it does).
i actually was just discussing with someone this morning- you're right, Christians have the right to- and actually, almost duty to use their vote. And I think they should use that power. what i don't agree with is when the country is split on the issue of whether marriage should be defined as solely man and woman (to use a relatively recent example), then we shouldn't push to make it so- it's obvious that even with a potential slight majority, it's not in line with most... we should vote. I just feel that if we're talking about something that is more or less evenly split- even if Christians are the majority, should we then condemn non-believers by making laws that perpetuate the "Christian hate" stereotypes?
as for the origins of the country- yes, i think that back in the founding days of the country, the majority of people were in line with Christianity in terms of laws and morality. some of those things are the same today, but some of things are not the same today.
glad you took the time to comment- you're probably my only reader, but it's helped me to wrestle with this some more.
Hey, my pleasure.
"I just feel that if we're talking about something that is more or less evenly split- even if Christians are the majority, should we then condemn non-believers by making laws that perpetuate the "Christian hate" stereotypes?"
I'll answer that this way...
I don't think we can outlaw homosexuality. I don't think we can outlaw men living with men.
I do think the government can say, "You know, that's your prerogative and your right. However, we don't recognize that to be the definition of marriage. So all the laws and taxes about marriage don't apply. Sorry."
The issue of definition is the biggest issue. And the church -- not the government -- is the one who should be sustaining that. And much of the church is condoning sin (Episcopal church) and enabling it and encouraging it. The church is where marriage first and foremost has its being.
The second issue is this: children. The government protects the rights of others. Gay couples adopting children is an issue for me in regards to protecting those children.
So, with those things in mind, my answer to your question is this...
If the law protects the God-given rights of others and secures the well-being of our country ... then yes, let us be hated.
last thought- and it's more definition than anything else- by "Christian hate" i don't mean hating Christians, I mean the appearance that Christians are hating others. i have no problem with being hated by someone for doing something that is right- what i have a problem is others thinking/telling others that I am hateful in my actions.
Yeah, I got what you meant by "Christian hate". Still, my answer is: if it's best and right, then we can't be concerned about stereotypes.
Post a Comment