My last thread got off topic but what I was trying to get people to see is that I believe Evangelicals should become as bold as they once were. Teaching about Christ unashamedly through love. A perfect example is Billy Graham. Graham went around the country preaching truth unashamedly. He also met with presidents and did not shy away from government. American history is rife with spiritual movements. Examples being the great awakenings. The modern Christian has been taught to stay in his corner. I think this is because of the plurality of ideas in the world and the egregiously liberal universities. This idea of separation of church and state has morphed into a battering ram to quiet religious people. America needs a Christian revival of Christians with courage to speak the truth in all areas of life. Including the government.

Agreed, except would say all Christians need to be active in faith.

Interesting how some things never change. In OT book of Maccabees we see the Jews struggle with same issue as Christians today. Do I keep my faith or conform to the popular secular culture which tells us there is no God, shut up and be quiet. (back in day it was Greek culture).

Quote:

---

I think this is because of the plurality of ideas in the world and the egregiously liberal universities.

---

The real issue is that we've embraced our comfort and prosperity. We've become fat and lazy, unwilling to risk what we have to serve Him. We don't want to be outliers in society, and we've embraced the world's obsession with "winning" and material wealth. We're afraid to suffer for His sake.

The world has always been counter to the way of Christ. Nothing has changed. What has changed is we have been seduced by comfort, even to the point of using violent institutions to maintain a grasp on that comfort.

Yes. Too many evangelicals are intimidated by the protests and critiques from theologically liberal mainstream Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who try to connect their theology to their politics. Guess what? The world is offended by the very name of Jesus Christ. That is why there is such opposition to the very evocation of the Savior's name unless it is in the context of a curse.

But these people will have to give account for themselves on that Day, and Jesus tells us that whoever is ashamed of Him, that Jesus will also be ashamed of them also. Man's opinions therefore hold no weight.

Before there's a misinterpretation of her comment, obviously she's not saying to not we aren't to share the gospel, but that the biggest hindrance to the gospel today in America isn't a lack of knowledge of Christ, but a church that's drug its own witness through the mud.

A good article a friend shared today:

Pastor: Actions of many Christians today would 'frighten Jesus'

Quote:

---

That is why there is such opposition to the very evocation of the Savior's name unless it is in the context of a curse.

---

Most of that is self-inflicted.

Quote:

---

A good article a friend shared today:

Pastor: Actions of many Christians today would 'frighten Jesus'

---

Is it wrong that I spent most of the time in the article trying to figure out who each of those pastors were?

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

A good article a friend shared today:

Pastor: Actions of many Christians today would 'frighten Jesus'

---

Is it wrong that I spent most of the time in the article trying to figure out who each of those pastors were?

---

I don't believe so.

I'm pretty sure the one who bought his books to boost sales was Mark Driscoll. The planted "spontaneous baptisms" pastor is Steven Furtick. I'm not sure about the others.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

A good article a friend shared today:

Pastor: Actions of many Christians today would 'frighten Jesus'

---

Is it wrong that I spent most of the time in the article trying to figure out who each of those pastors were?

---

The title of that article makes me not even want to read it. Why would Jesus be frightened by anything we do?

Edit: Reading now, he mentioned in his post it is not possible. I'm glad he did but I wish he would change the headline.

Edit 2: I actually really liked the article after reading it.

I agree with the OP and with many posters here.

On one hand we go all in on truth but fail to love. Or we go all in on love but brush aside truth. We have to learn how to balance truth and love.

You might research the "Know-nothing" party and the Catholic response to it.

Also, the Catholic response to the Ku Klux Klan (which was as anti-Catholic as they were racist)

Doc Daneeka said:

---

My last thread got off topic but what I was trying to get people to see is that I believe Evangelicals should become as bold as they once were. Teaching about Christ unashamedly through love. A perfect example is Billy Graham. Graham went around the country preaching truth unashamedly.

---

On your previous thread, you were advocating Christians using political power to promote Christianity. That makes it seem a bit ironic, then, that you'd use Billy Graham as an example given his warning against the very thing for which you were advocating:

"I don't want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it."

Quote:

---

I'm pretty sure the one who bought his books to boost sales was Mark Driscoll. The planted "spontaneous baptisms" pastor is Steven Furtick. I'm not sure about the others.

---

Yes, and Yes.

The anger/alcohol person is Perry Noble.

The church consulting guy is Pete Wilson.

Quote:

---

On one hand we go all in on truth but fail to love. Or we go all in on love but brush aside truth. We have to learn how to balance truth and love.

---

I think you mean this what I am going to say: we should go full love and full truth. I think it's a loss to try and do less love and and less truth to try and stay balanced.

I only bring this up because I've heard many preachings on true, love and the balance and many Christians seem to walk away with the idea that they are opposite ends of the same spectrum...or that showing love comprises truth and vice versa.

(I dont think you were saying this, tho)

Agreed. If we go too much on one spectrum and not the other then we cause issues.

All truth/No love = "You are a sinner, repent!"
All love/No truth = "Good for you, whatever makes you happy"

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm pretty sure the one who bought his books to boost sales was Mark Driscoll. The planted "spontaneous baptisms" pastor is Steven Furtick. I'm not sure about the others.

---

Yes, and Yes.

The anger/alcohol person is Perry Noble.

The church consulting guy is Pete Wilson.

---

Interesting that I saw this today re: Perry Noble: Former NewSpring Pastor Perry Noble Incorporates Second Chance Church

Dr. Watson said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Yes. Too many evangelicals are intimidated by the protests and critiques from theologically liberal mainstream Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who try to connect their theology to their politics. Guess what? The world is offended by the very name of Jesus Christ. That is why there is such opposition to the very evocation of the Savior's name unless it is in the context of a curse.

But these people will have to give account for themselves on that Day, and Jesus tells us that whoever is ashamed of Him, that Jesus will also be ashamed of them also. Man's opinions therefore hold no weight.

---

The ingrained persecution complex is tiring. It allows for a "heads I win, tails you lose" approach to any discussion of religion, politics, and the public square. It also allows a lot of sanctimonious *******s to justify their behavior.

---

It ain't a persecution complex. It is recognition of simple reality. I could write passionately of Marx or a Stoic philosopher with few critiques, but Jesus' name is offensive to the world. You would retort that it is His believers who are offensive, but that would be disingenuous since we all lack perfection. And, the first time he came, the world killed him before his 34th birthday.

The overanalyzing and overthinking is strong with this thread.

I disagree. I have more faith in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit helps/convicts modern day followers of Christ as to how to appropriately behave in public.

What we have are men without chests.

Doc Daneeka said:

---

What we have are men without chests.

---

Huh? How does this have anything to do with masculinity, which is what I'm assuming you're referring to here? Rejecting the comfort of life in an empire, refusing to make "winning" or material wealth a focus of one's life aren't related to masculinity. Being bold in the Spirit isn't a masculinity issue.

It's a reference. You haven't read it.

Doc Daneeka said:

---

It's a reference. You haven't read it.

---

Can you explain how the reference applies, since not everyone has read what you're referring to?

Retired did you take your son to church when he was growing up? Why?

Why not trust the holy spirit...

And stop using coercive tactics to force belief on him...

Doc Daneeka said:

---

Retired did you take your son to church when he was growing up? Why?

Why not trust the holy spirit...

And stop using coercive tactics to force belief on him...

---

How does this explain how your previous comment applies?

I know you are a pacifist but I feel like your view of what constitutes coercion is a little skewed. Its hypocritical of you to decry a tactic as coercion on this board if you took your son to church (according to your definition.)

The reference to "men without chests" is that moral relativism has become the norm. Objective values have been eviscerated by society. And Christians shirk from their duties because of the 1st amendment or pacifism or whatever the case. Spreading the truth is not coercion. Taking your son to church is not coercion. Trying to make society and government follow objective truth is not coercion. Its our duty. Otherwise we will continue to be a nation of men/women without chests.

Quote:

---

Trying to make society and government follow objective truth is not coercion

---

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Quote:

---

I know you are a pacifist but I feel like your view of what constitutes coercion is a little skewed. Its hypocritical of you to decry a tactic as coercion on this board if you took your son to church (according to your definition.)

---

We don't force our children to go to church. They actually want to.

Quote:

---

The reference to "men without chests" is that moral relativism has become the norm. Objective values have been eviscerated by society. And Christians shirk from their duties because of the 1st amendment or pacifism or whatever the case. Spreading the truth is not coercion. Taking your son to church is not coercion. Trying to make society and government follow objective truth is not coercion. Its our duty. Otherwise we will continue to be a nation of men/women without chests.

---

LOL Christians shirk their responsibilities because of pacifism? Are you serious? Government is inherently violent. It is based on coercion. You cannot separate government from coercion and violence. You cannot coerce people to embrace Christ. Heck, Christ didn't even coerce people to embrace Christ. We imitate Christ and model a different way to the world, and let the Holy Spirit work in their hearts. We don't coerce people to Christ.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Trying to make society and government follow objective truth is not coercion

---

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

---

Exactly. When you start with "trying to make" and end with "is not coercion", then you clearly do not understand the term.

If you want a government that will promote the way of Christ, you'll never find it.

Doc Daneeka said:

---

I know you are a pacifist but I feel like your view of what constitutes coercion is a little skewed. Its hypocritical of you to decry a tactic as coercion on this board if you took your son to church (according to your definition.)

The reference to "men without chests" is that moral relativism has become the norm. Objective values have been eviscerated by society. And Christians shirk from their duties because of the 1st amendment or pacifism or whatever the case. Spreading the truth is not coercion. Taking your son to church is not coercion. Trying to make society and government follow objective truth is not coercion. Its our duty. Otherwise we will continue to be a nation of men/women without chests.

---

I might be wrong, but I think this might be at the core of some of the disagreements lately. Can you please elaborate and say what specifically you believe the duties are of a christian?

RetiredAg said:

---

We don't force our children to go to church. They actually want to.

LOL Christians shirk their responsibilities because of pacifism? Are you serious? Government is inherently violent. It is based on coercion. You cannot separate government from coercion and violence. You cannot coerce people to embrace Christ. Heck, Christ didn't even coerce people to embrace Christ. We imitate Christ and model a different way to the world, and let the Holy Spirit work in their hearts. We don't coerce people to Christ.

---

The kids wanted to? So I guess you first took them to church when they were 6 or 7 and not when they were babies and had no choice? Your answer seems like a cop out.

So you are completely against spreading the gospel to someone is in government? Or are you completely against spreading the gospel at all?