Who Decides

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I agree with your comments but not your conclusion.

Consider that I did NOT say we don't mention sin or even address sin when preaching the gospel.

I said the gospel does not preach sin.

Jesus did tell us that we are sinners. But we want to actually preach about these sins instead of sharing the gospel.

What do we need to provide as contest? Simply that we have all sinned (giving personal examples is good here) and because of this we die. But we can be reborn, that even though we die yet shall we live.

Then share the gospel.

My point was that the argument is being taken too far. We probably agree much more than disagree on this. Saying that in preaching the gospel we mention sin but don’t preach sin isn’t semantically helpful.

We agree that preaching against sin without preaching the forgiveness of sin would not be preaching the gospel. It would be more akin to Satan’s role as accuser.

But preaching forgiveness without preaching against sin is to omit what that forgiveness is about. It would make no sense. It would not be preaching the gospel.

Preaching Christ crucified, preaching the power of the cross, necessarily involves preaching sin—personal guilt (due to sin), the need for forgiveness (of sin), the need for salvation (from sin).

 

[JonC]

My point was that the argument is being taken too far. We probably agree much more than disagree on this. Saying that in preaching the gospel we mention sin but don’t preach sin isn’t semantically helpful.

We agree that preaching against sin without preaching the forgiveness of sin would not be preaching the gospel. It would be more akin to Satan’s role as accuser.

But preaching forgiveness without preaching against sin is to omit what that forgiveness is about. It would make no sense. It would not be preaching the gospel.

Preaching Christ crucified, preaching the power of the cross, necessarily involves preaching sin—personal guilt (due to sin), the need for forgiveness (of sin), the need for salvation (from sin).

I think we agree (at least more than disagree).

What I am talking about are people who preach to the world against specific sins. This dies not make sence. The World is set against God. Making the World act morally is not going to accomplish anything except to create a culture of nominal Christianity.

For example, there are people who in the name of Christ rejoice that sinful people were murdered recently at the LGBTQ club. In so doing they say they stand against sin, but in reality they are working against the gospel.

I hate to say this, but one reason many believe Christians are hypocritical hate mongers is we have hypocritical hate mongers within our congregations.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I think we agree (at least more than disagree).

What I am talking about are people who preach to the world against specific sins. This dies not make sence. The World is set against God. Making the World act morally is not going to accomplish anything except to create a culture of nominal Christianity.

For example, there are people who in the name of Christ rejoice that sinful people were murdered recently at the LGBTQ club. In so doing they say they stand against sin, but in reality they are working against the gospel.

I hate to say this, but one reason many believe Christians are hypocritical hate mongers is we have hypocritical hate mongers within our congregations.

Understood. Yes, we cannot afford to promote hate, nor does merely condemning sin accomplish the task of preaching the gospel.

However, the LGBTQ movement isn’t just in clubs. It is working to infect ever younger school children. Should Christians be involved in combatting that?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Back to the OP. The original issue was using “queer.” Some time ago a TV show specifically applied it to its stars with no hint of stigma. This indicated a definite shift in societal norms. It’s also a main label in LGBTQ.

However, this is not just about labels, but about lifestyles and how they are being promoted. Some want to force them down the throats of society in general, and school children in particular.

Perhaps the real question is, who should decide if that is allowable?

 

[JonC]

Understood. Yes, we cannot afford to promote hate, nor does merely condemning sin accomplish the task of preaching the gospel.

However, the LGBTQ movement isn’t just in clubs. It is working to infect ever younger school children. Should Christians be involved in combatting that?

Christians should not be condoning any sin in their lives or their churches.

The LGBTQ movement is nothing new. Paul wrote of the sin in particular. They not only sin but they advocate their sin. Then he lumped it in with all sin to simply state that all are on an equal footing apart from Christ.

We saw Paul actively combating the sin in the congregations, while reminding his audience that some of them once lived that same life.

My point is that we are to guard our selves, our families, and our congregation.

When we cast pearls before swine we suffer at our own hand.

 

[DaveXR650]

I know personally right now two individuals who are in a homosexual lifestyle and have Christian friends and colleagues who are there for them if they have questions or need help. The biggest problem for one of them is that he is an active member of a "church" that condones and supports that lifestyle. If you notice, there are a lot of well meaning (at least I assume they are) Christians who are very quick to point out how damaging we can be if we don't show enough love yet they NEVER write articles for the Gospel Coalition or blog about the churches leading confused folks into this lifestyle. There is something really wrong here. Al Mohler has warned that we will either confront this or we will celebrate their lifestyle. There is a difference between some young person who in a lonely search for acceptance that young folks tend to do gets caught up in such a lifestyle - and cynical, politically savvy activists who we can watch in real time as they hound some poor cake baker until Hell freezes over.

 

[JonC]

I know personally right now two individuals who are in a homosexual lifestyle and have Christian friends and colleagues who are there for them if they have questions or need help. The biggest problem for one of them is that he is an active member of a "church" that condones and supports that lifestyle. If you notice, there are a lot of well meaning (at least I assume they are) Christians who are very quick to point out how damaging we can be if we don't show enough love yet they NEVER write articles for the Gospel Coalition or blog about the churches leading confused folks into this lifestyle. There is something really wrong here. Al Mohler has warned that we will either confront this or we will celebrate their lifestyle. There is a difference between some young person who in a lonely search for acceptance that young folks tend to do gets caught up in such a lifestyle - and cynical, politically savvy activists who we can watch in real time as they hound some poor cake baker until Hell freezes over.

1 Corinthians 5:9–13 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.
But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.

I wonder if part of the problem is we misdefine the congregation. Rather than reaching out to the world it seems we often seek to let the world in, make them a part of our congregation.

I'd much prefer to bake a cake for a gay couple and let them know while I don't advocate the sin I care about them, sharing the gospel with them, letting them know that I operate a Christian business and if they are in need to stop by.

Then I'd prefer to be able to tell them that is what Christians do, that we shun sin but pray the sinner comes to Christ. That Christians are not bigoted, self righteous hate mongers but instead were once just as lost and in need of a Savior as are they.

I guess I couldn't do that last part as that would be lying. But that would be my preference.

 

[DaveXR650]

Well, 2 things. One. I think I see your point in the sense that there is a limited use in bringing what some other group of people, maybe even in another state are doing. At our church, we won't be hearing anything about these recent events at all because we are slowly plodding through Leviticus and don't do politics from the pulpit. But I do think a certain amount of political activism is appropriate for Christians living under our form of government and in our time (but maybe not from the pulpit on Sunday).
Two. Not to get off track but the cake baker was more than happy to bake a cake for gay people. That was never the issue. He was not willing to take part in a blasphemous mockery of what many Christians call a sacrament or at least a sacred ceremony. There's a big difference. If you would have handled it differently I support your right to do that - but he has a right to do it his way too.

 

[JonC]

Well, 2 things. One. I think I see your point in the sense that there is a limited use in bringing what some other group of people, maybe even in another state are doing. At our church, we won't be hearing anything about these recent events at all because we are slowly plodding through Leviticus and don't do politics from the pulpit. But I do think a certain amount of political activism is appropriate for Christians living under our form of government and in our time (but maybe not from the pulpit on Sunday).
Two. Not to get off track but the cake baker was more than happy to bake a cake for gay people. That was never the issue. He was not willing to take part in a blasphemous mockery of what many Christians call a sacrament or at least a sacred ceremony. There's a big difference. If you would have handled it differently I support your right to do that - but he has a right to do it his way too.

I'll address the two points.

1. We will never agree on this part because I do not believe the church should try to change the world via political means. This is a personal conviction for me as well (I don't vote).

But that's fine. I just wanted you to know that we disagree and each of us should follow our convictions. That at least may give a little more perspective on my comments (why I see things as I do).

2. I agree the cake makers should not be forced to participate in any ceremony. I was just dealing with it as if they were just baking a cake for a gay union (something a cake really has nothing to do with...people get married all the time without cakes).

If I made plastic wedding figures I would allow them to be sold to anybody wanting them. But I certainly would not participate in a gay union.


That said, people should follow their conscious. If they believe baking a cake for an atheist wedding is wrong, then they shouldn't bake the cake. But they also shouldn't complain if consequences come due to that decision.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

…Two. Not to get off track but the cake baker was more than happy to bake a cake for gay people. That was never the issue. He was not willing to take part in a blasphemous mockery of what many Christians call a sacrament or at least a sacred ceremony. There's a big difference. …

Yes, and in America a confectioner should be able to retain the right, based on his own religious convictions, to refuse to design or decorate a cake that honors homosexuality, or anything else objectionable, and the courts should unanimously uphold this right.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It is the goal of the radical left to sow chaos in the country. What better way than to pervert the language to the point words mean whatever you want them to, which is just another way of saying words have no real meaning at all.

Marriage means whatever you want. “Equity” means grooming your children for sexual exploitation. “Merit” means discrimination. Math means white supremacy.

Just look at how this administration has turned definitions around. A “recession” used to have a clear meaning… two quarters of negative growth. But it’s an election year so redefine it. Claim the border is “secure”, despite 5 million illegals in 18 months that are caught plus hundreds of thousands never encountered.

“Nonconformity” speech is “violence” and violence is free speech.

Total chaos when words have no meaning.

peace to you

 

[DaveXR650]

That said, people should follow their conscious. If they believe baking a cake for an atheist wedding is wrong, then they shouldn't bake the cake. But they also shouldn't complain if consequences come due to that decision.

They should complain and use every legal means for their defense, just like Paul did with the rights he had as a Roman citizen. I fully respect a decision to be completely apolitical but there are only two ways that works. One is that you have someone else around who is willing to get political. The other is that you keep moving away from areas where that is a problem.

 

[JonC]

They should complain and use every legal means for their defense, just like Paul did with the rights he had as a Roman citizen. I fully respect a decision to be completely apolitical but there are only two ways that works. One is that you have someone else around who is willing to get political. The other is that you keep moving away from areas where that is a problem.

Paul didn't use legal means as a defense. He used legal means to get to Rome in order to spread the gospel.

That motivation is the difference. Paul (and many Christians who have gone before) were focused not on themselves, their rights, their safety but instead on the work of the kingdom. Today we are fo used on defending our rights, our interests, our safety above all.


There is a third choice (one I have taken). It is to abstain from participating in secular politics, not moving, and not having anyone around me who "gets political" on my behalf. I do keep up a little bit so that I am not unaware.

At one time I was very much into politics. I was a Republican (still hold those values). But what I have found since abstaining from politics is that much (on both sides) is inflated. And this to a degree that many Christians cannot understand how the church can be a force for good in this world except via politics.

But to address your points, I live in a very political area. I do not have anybody else around me willing to get political for me.

 

[DaveXR650]

There is a third choice (one I have taken). It is to abstain from participating in secular politics, not moving, and not having anyone around me who "gets political" on my behalf. I do keep up a little bit so that I am not unaware.

Of course other people get political on your behalf. Any rights you have are the results of someone else's work. I know what you are saying and you don't owe them any allegiance in my opinion. If they want to fight for free speech, and get it, you also get free speech but you don't owe them special thanks because you didn't demand they do that. I respect that. There is a lot of room for differences among Christians as to how to influence for good and how to respond to bad laws.

In the 1850's the Christian response to the Fugitive Slave Act ranged from saying that you had to obey the magistrate and turn in fugitive slaves, to passive resistance where you might look the other way, to helping them with shelter and food and money, and all the way to claiming outright armed resistance would be the only way for a Christian to act. I'm going from memory but I think the guys name was Icabod Spencer who wrote a lot on this. I have the papers somewhere. And of course there is William Wilberforce. And Bonhoeffer, who went from being a pacifist to actively helping in a plot to assassinate Hitler. This stuff is not easy to figure out.

 

[JonC]

Of course other people get political on your behalf. Any rights you have are the results of someone else's work. I know what you are saying and you don't owe them any allegiance in my opinion. If they want to fight for free speech, and get it, you also get free speech but you don't owe them special thanks because you didn't demand they do that. I respect that. There is a lot of room for differences among Christians as to how to influence for good and how to respond to bad laws.

In the 1850's the Christian response to the Fugitive Slave Act ranged from saying that you had to obey the magistrate and turn in fugitive slaves, to passive resistance where you might look the other way, to helping them with shelter and food and money, and all the way to claiming outright armed resistance would be the only way for a Christian to act. I'm going from memory but I think the guys name was Icabod Spencer who wrote a lot on this. I have the papers somewhere. And of course there is William Wilberforce. And Bonhoeffer, who went from being a pacifist to actively helping in a plot to assassinate Hitler. This stuff is not easy to figure out.

No, people get political on their own behalf - supporting what they believe to be the best political outcome.

I benefit from their actions. There is a difference.

I understand why people would disagree with me and seek to influence the world through secular politics. I respect that decision. Everybody should act as they believe God is leading them.

It is interesting to read different positions. We can read the early Christian position (around 200 AD) defending the reasons Christisns do not vote or serve in public office. And we can read about politicians who were godly men working to make our nation better.

In the end, however, we must be obedient to God's direction in our lives and encourage our brothers to be obedient to God even if our obedience is different.