Bad news, Navigator. I was going to give tapes of the shows you showed me to the only moderate religious station in town, and then found out that it was changing to a non secular format. Any thoughts on how to get the message out?
The Bible says that we should lift people up to God in prayer and there are some who will never believe. Some who will only be saved by fasting and prayer. There are many who will be turned away that proclaim to be Christians, but Jesus will say I knew you not. If someone does not behave like a Christian, but confesses to be one, he or she is not necessarily a true believer. A true believer is striving towards perfection through Jesus Christ. Admittedly, we will never be perfect in this life, but always striving towards perfection through Jesus. We can not and should not do anything about people who confess to be Christians, but do not exhibit the traits, except give them to God in Jesus’s name, intercede for them, fast and pray for them. It is difficult enough to keep focused on living in Christ and not in this world.
So, first things first. Slythe, and Glitch, and any others who are not Christians, please be welcome to comment, complain, carp, or otherwise participate. I don’t think you were invited out, but if so, you are now specifically invited back in.
The problem of evangelism is that it is very hard to do it effectively, in a world which measures effectiveness by market share, and income generation. I think evangelism is a trap for many, very much including myself. Being a man of words, and a lover of wit, I easily slip from the way of Christ, and into the way of Triskadecamus. So, I know that I must not become a preacher, but try to be a silent witness. There have actually been some people in my life that I thought were holy. You never heard of any of them.
In one case I was asked if I could provide spiritual guidance to one of those very people, by a minister of a church. He felt that the person in question was too passive, too compliant to the desires of other people. He asked me to help keep that person “On the path of Salvation.” He specifically suggested that I influence his choice of associates to those who would not misguide him spiritually. I cannot exaggerate my response. I very literally fell to the ground, laughing.
The Right Reverend Doctor Pretentious was rather upset. “If you think you cannot be of help in providing spiritual guidance to XXXXXX, then what do you think would be a better choice?” he asked. “Should we simply let him go his own way?”
“Yes,” I said, “And when we have followed him all the way to the gates of Heaven, we can ask XXXXXX to tell the Lord he knows us. It might help.”
XXXXXX never finished elementary school. He doesn’t speak all that well, but people listen, none the less, for he is unfailingly humble, kind, generous, and honest. He has never mentioned religion to anyone I know, aside from “God bless you.” He has never failed to apologize for losing his temper, that I can recall, and I assure you, I recall no times when it was not he who was entitled to the apology. He doesn’t understand the concept of a grudge. “I don’t want to be mad at you, no more, OK? I’m sorry.”
He loves getting presents. You know what he says, every time? He shares with the person who gives the present just who he intends to give it to in turn. The idea of keeping it simply doesn’t come up. He watches television evangelists, now and again. He laughs. He laughs at me, too, when I get ahead of myself. He is my source of spiritual guidance, not vice versa. I help him with the intellectual stuff.
So, that’s what I think Christians should do about evangelists who don’t give the message of Christ to the world. We should go out and live the Word of Christ, as if we had never heard them. We should minister to the needy, including those made needy by thieves of the soul. We should love them as much as their hearts can accept, in our own names, if some heart thief has blackened our Lord’s name. If I must do good in stealth, still it is my task to do it. If the Church is closed to them, then I must go forth from the Church, and bring the love of the Lord to them outside of it.
And if they will not have the love of Christ, we must be satisfied by the love of Triskadecamus, although it is a poor imitation, and not in the least made of the same stuff. Take it if you must, but know that I cannot recommend it. The real thing is there, should you wish to find it. I cannot give it to you, but take heart, no one can deny it to you, though they stand on a golden pulpit, in a diamond Cathedral.
<P ALIGN=“CENTER”>Tris</P>
Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good.
– H.L. Mencken
I would have to be away all week while this thread was going on. I’ll be commenting in more depth later, but for now, I need to say that I looked at Jon’s links (bottom of p.2) and I had a hard time finding what I would have expected to find.
For instance, I searched the ‘Bible Answerman’ site for the phrase, ‘Christian Coalition’, and came away empty. I was able to find some comments on Pat Robertson - criticizing his fostering of anti-Semitism by his reliance on and repetition of long-discredited anti-Semitic sources - but that’s fairly peripheral to the main aspects of what troubles most of us about Robertson and his ilk.
Jon, can you provide any better for-instances of where to go in those sites, or what you found? I may just not have looked in the right places, or used the sites’ search engines effectively.
Tris, your posts go down like warm cocoa on a cold winter night. Thanks for sharing that.
What were you expecting to find?
Hank’s deal is pointing out false teachers, like Benny Hinn and his ‘ilk.’ I don’t think ol’ Pat is a false teacher so you won’t find much on him there.
My intention was not to demonize ‘ol’ squinty’ but to point out that some people do peak out against false teachers.
I don’t base my beliefs on the teachings of Pat, but I do watch his show from time to time. I don’t anything inherently wrong with what is on his show. I’m not sold on the ‘word of knowledge’ bit, but that is not the sole purpose for his ministry. He is an evangelical, and so his show has evangelical tendencies. There is nothing wrong with that.
Peace.
Tris, great post! Thanks for sharing.
† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13
Jon - the Christian Coalition’s underhanded tactics have been well documented for years at www.pfaw.org , People for the American Way’s website. Americans United for Separation of Church and State ( www.au.org ) probably has a few things to say, too - don’t know their website as well, though.
Since the CC is Pat Robertson’s baby, anything they do that oversteps the bounds reflects on Pat too, AFAIAC. But since the purpose of this thread isn’t to enumerate a bill of particulars against Pat Robertson or anyone else, I’ll leave it at that.
I may have misinterpreted your purpose in posting those links. The OP raised questions of conduct, rather than false teaching; I assumed your references were with respect to that. If I misunderstood you, I apologize.
Tris, thanks for the wonderful post. And…no one here told the non-Christians they were welcome. Ever. That idea was generated from someone’s imagination.
No one told them they were not welcome. Sheesh, I needed to proofread that better before I hit “submit reply”!
I’d like to put forward a more general rule that relates to this particular thread. I call it the Farrakhan rule, for reasons that should be obvious, and it goes: every group is morally responsible for taking a stand with respect to their own extremists, if a stand is necessary.
So just as black leaders are more or less expected by mainstream America to be upfront about opposing Farrakhan’s anti-semitism, and it was up to gay organizations that desired respectability to denounce NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, it’s up to Christians in general to speak up when Christian leaders of any stripe act in a distinctly unChristian way that attracts ongoing public notice.
But especially, mainstream liberal denominations (such as the Episcopal Church) might reasonably be considered more responsible for responding to excesses of left-wing Christian leaders, if there are any left, and mainstream conservative denominations (such as the Southern Baptist Convention) should be similarly responsible for analogous excesses on the right.
That’s my way of looking at it, anyway. It’s easy for preachers in conservative pulpits to denounce Clinton, after all, but when they overlook the Falwell in their eye while doing so, that’s where they undercut their own moral authority. Or if the Episcopal Church speaks out against the duplicitous Christian Coalition voter guides, but remains silent while one of its own bishops makes it plain that he doesn’t believe in the Resurrection, it loses moral standing.
The manner of response is extremely important. As Pariah put it, if corection comes before love, it is useless. As Tris said, countering demogaugery with more of the same makes things worse than ever. As Poly said early on, while holding firm to what we believe is right, we must try to see things from the POV of the people whose conduct we’re responding to. As Christians, we are called to respond to hatred, hypocrisy, and hardness of heart by speaking the truth in a spirit of love.
While prayer and response at the level of individual Christians is a necessary component of the Christian response to the sort of behavior phouka raised in the OP, a corporate and visible response is also necessary.
I’m no expert on gaining visibility in the media, but I’ve noticed that when Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, LaHaye, Wildmon, or any of those other…well, whatever you want to call them…says something extreme, the media don’t tend to print a response from the Episcopal Church. However, they print responses from outfits that have managed to set themselves up as the anti-Religious Right, if you will - groups like PFAW and Americans United, that I mentioned in my response to Jon.
A few months ago, in a long-forgotten thread, I suggested that what’s needed is a specifically Christian organization to respond in an appropriate manner to excesses by Christians at any extreme. Maybe we should consider starting one. 
Hadn’t had a thread-killing post in awhile…
So I’m watching the news last night, seeing yet another terrorist hijacking of a plane and it got me thinking of this thread.
With the exception of a few nut-jobs who go around shooting up abortion clinics (and the doctors within them), the worst that we are talking about is how the so-called Christians talk - what they say. Sure it’s an infuence on others, but ultimately, they are mostly just words.
I’m a person who believes that actions speak louder than words. And the actions of the extremist Muslims is abhorant - they use terror to justify their faiith (or vice versa might be more accurate), and the news covers these stories intensely, and the media isn’t going to a Mosque in Brooklyn to get the opinions of more moderate Muslim followers.
So why is it we feel that Christians have to defend themselves against “bad” Christians, but we do not feel that same accountability towards people of other faiths who are doing far more damage in their extremist views?
Yer pal,
Satan
'Course, there was a time when so-called “Christians” did that too — Crusades, Inquisitions, witch hunts, etc.
I can recall Muslim clerics pleading on news shows before that these terrorists violate the Koran. But guess how much coverage they got compared to the terrorists?
I believe the same standard should prevail with all groups, but it’s basically a self-defense sort of thing, IMO. If mainstream Muslim leaders don’t make it clear that they oppose the actions of Muslim terrorists, the Taliban in Afghanistan, etc., they can expect mainstream Americans to believe that all Muslims support the Muslim terrorists, and have no right to get upset when they come to that conclusion.
Since I’m a Christian, I have a personal stake in responding to the impression of Christianity left by Pat Robertson & Co.
At a certain point, words become actions. The Christian Coalition, for instance, affects elections with its underhanded use of voter guides. The elections, in turn, affect public policy. In 1994, the CC voter guides had a significant impact on a number of close races, and in the following Congress, legislation that I would consider harmful to the well-being of the country was passed that otherwise probably wouldn’t have had a prayer. So I’d disagree with your ‘just words’ evaluation of what the fundies are peddling.
It would be ‘just words,’ of course, if they had merely expressed their views in fair and open debate. However, the voter guides are embargoed until two days before the election, and are released in fundamentalist churches, rather than to the public at large. The election is over before anyone outside their intended audience has the opportunity to see and correct the (usually substantial) distortions they contain. The Coalition asks hundreds of questions, but only puts the ten or twelve questions on a voter guide that, in the eyes of the typical recipient, will make their candidate look most like an angel, and the other guy look most like a devil. All this while claiming to be impartial and informational (and, until recently, having the tax-deductible status appropriate to nonpartisan organizations).
In short, the Christian Coalition voter guides are slanted to the extreme, although the Christian Coalition claims to be nonpartisan, and long benefitted from the claim. Much of the information on the voter guides themselves is wrong, but they release them in a manner that gives no opportunity for recourse or correction. Rather than trying to get out a message to the general public, and persuade those that can be persuaded, they try to reach a target audience with a message that will send them to the polls in a fit of rage - while nobody else sees what they’re doing until it’s too late. The whole thing has the morality of a boxer getting in a sucker punch just after the final bell rings.
Just words? I disagree. I think it’s dirty pool, and it’s dirty pool that has resulted in the U.S. having a more conservative Congress in the 1990s than is reflective of the electorate. It’s made a real difference in policy. It’s more like a subtle coup using the trappings of democracy.
You get the idea. Sorry about the rant.
My Jesus fish and my Darwin fish get along fine, thank you.