Here is an incredibly helpful contextual insight into salt and light from Ray VanderLaan:

Salt was very valuable during Jesus’ day. It aided in the preservation of meat and enhanced the taste of food. But another less commonly known use of salt plays a key role in our understanding of what it means to be “salt” on our world.

During the first century, the people of Galilee used dome-shaped ovens made of hardened mud. Salt was mixed with dried animal droppings—a common fuel—because the chemical reaction made the animal droppings burn hotter and longer. Over time, however, the salt lost the qualities that made it effective. So, when it was no longer fit even for being mixed with manure, the “saltless” salt was thrown out.

As believers, God calls us to “mix” with sinful people and yet keep our distinctive Christian identity. God sent his disciples into an evil world to live out the good news. They were not to lose their faith by absorbing the values of the pagan world, nor were they to be isolated from unbelievers.

Part of the neo-fundy habit also seems to come from a Greek worldview that overemphasizes the destination at the expense of the journey, conversion over discipleship, and complete systemic orthodoxy over orthopraxy. It completely misses the point of the kingdom of God.

My arguments are totally Biblical, so Jesus must be a neo-fundamentalist.

Let’s dissect your arguments first.
1. “Stopping wars – “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God” (Matt 5:9). ”
Where does this say that we will”stop wars”? I am a peacemaker (false teachers are the exception.)

Matthew 24:
3As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?” 4And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. 5For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. 6And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. 7For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.

Please no preterist theology. Preterism is off base.

2.Reforming society – “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they see your good works, and glorify your Farther who is in heaven. Do not think I came to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:16-17).

This has nothing to do with “reforming society”
Things are worse and will get worse, so you must be doing a bad job of it. This state exists only in the Kingdom. The nations and their governemnts do not reflect this “economy”
The purpose of the good works is so that men will glorify God not reform the world. Warren and his ilk must be doing a piss-poor job since I see no increase in men glorifying God.

I am not a dispensationalist. Jesus said things would get worse I’ll take His word, not yours.

Now for the shocker my church takes scriptures like Isaiah 58 to very much to heart. We do plenty of Kingdom good works, i.e. not along the lines of Bono, who brings glory only to himself.We simply don’t brag about it. You like the ecm and others point out the problems really well, however your answers suck.

We are the light of the world. However this world is perishing and will die away completely. We are to manifest the King and His Kingdom. They both stand contrary to the world and its ways. They are altogether separate, therfore they exist in this world but not as any part of it; different methods, different rules, different economy.
So you can read Hillel, Hegel, and Karl Marx. I’ll stick to the Bible and its Author.

BTW Chris L. what kind words. Thank you.
Actually I am pro-Kingdom, pro-Christ and his Word, and I am nowhere near the idiot that you are. What a waste of time and cyberspace.

1 John 2:
16For all that is in the world– the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions–is not from the Father but is from the world. 17And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

Neil says, “If a society kills its unwanted unborns – the church opposes.”

He also says, “Reforming society – “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they see your good works, and glorify your Farther who is in heaven. Do not think I came to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:16-17).

So Neil how does someone who seeks to reform society, specifically in the arena of AIDS fighting, “glorify the Father in heaven” while holding hands with abortionists?

Also how does one who seeks to reform society “glorify the Father in heaven” while passing out condoms and working together with those who do not teach sexual purity?
_________
My observations about poverty: There can be no true lasting reform without heart change in many places, because corruption is at the bottom of many poverty issues.

My job is not to reform society, it’s to share the love of God with believers and unbelievers. “The love of God” can include taking care of widows, helping orphans, ministering to people who are suffering because they’ve made sinful choices in life, helping people who’ve experienced natural disasters, etc. But only God can change hearts, and not every heart will be changed, no matter how many “good works” the church does.

Amy, you said,

“The love of God” can include taking care of widows, helping orphans,
ministering to people who are suffering because they’ve made sinful
choices in life, helping people who’ve experienced natural disasters,
etc. But only God can change hearts, and not every heart will be
changed, no matter how many “good works” the church does.

I agree with the part that only God can change the heart but sticking with Chris P’s desire to stick with the Bible and it’s author, James says,

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to
look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself
from being polluted by the world.

There’s quite a few other verses that talk about taking care of the poor, and helping those in need. In fact many of them seem to say that those actions are fruit of a true relationship with Christ.

I truly don’t understand how someone can miss this.

If Jesus came and had no intention to preach a social gospel as well, then he would have never healed the sick, given sight to the blind, made the lame walk, or even bring back the dead. That fact of the matter is that Jesus came and made the world a better place in every aspect. If he was just interested in saving people from hell, then he didn’t need to heal. But he did.

We don’t help make society a better place for the sake of living better lives. We make the world a better place because a. Jesus did, b. we care about people as Jesus cared about them, c. the world sees the power or Christ when we do.

We fight against injustice and evil and pain and suffering because God is against it as a whole. Imagine Jesus walking up to the lepers and saying “death is the cure for leprosy.” Incredible!

“So Neil how does someone who seeks to reform society, specifically in the arena of AIDS fighting, “glorify the Father in heaven” while holding hands with abortionists?”

Amy, we should be holding hands with abortionists! But, we should never hold hands with abortion. The problem is that you see people as the sin, not the sin itself. You see people as either clean or dirty. Jesus saw people as people that needed a savior in their lives! Imagine Jesus rejecting the woman who was to be stoned. I am sure that she would have been part of the “abortionist” crew in her day. But Jesus defended her as a person while condemning her sin. Too often we just see Christians and unclean people, the exact opposite of what Jesus saw.

Bruce,

Do you see any just cause for war between nations?

Chris P,
See you can not have a conversation without calling names.
“I am nowhere near the idiot that you are. What a waste of time and cyberspace.”
That is really sad. Ephesians 4:29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.
Do you consider calling someone and idiot building them up? Just curious!

Bruce and Chris L;
I’m working this out right now. Here’s my problem with the “self defense” thing:
We’re told to “turn the other cheek” when struck, “give up our shirt” when our jacket is taken. Even harder for me to reconcile is “love your neighbor as yourself.”
I’m former Army. I grew up hard core red, white and blue but I’m starting to think I might end up non-resistance.

Joe,

I think non-violent resistance best fits the Biblical standard. There is a difference between non-violent resistance and pacifism. Gandhi wrote an excellent book on the issue of pacifism. Gandhi believed pacifists were cowards. A practitioner of non-violent resistance stands strong but without violence. Many such people served in our nations wars. The Pacifists ran off to Canada. Few people seem to get or understand the distintion

I know man is going to war with man. I don’t have to be party to it. I know the nation I live in is going to live and die by the sword. I have no Utopian fantasies. It is in that vein I make allowance for self defense. If the US defends herself I can at least understand that. I don’t agree with it, but I understand it. Pre-emptive war as advocated by the Bush administration………..is just plain immoral.
It is troubling that Christians advocate this kind of policy.

There are no easy answers. As Chrstians we are to follow the lamb wherever he goes. His way is a way of peace. It is hard to be a peacemaker. I am called many unflattering words by Christians in this area because I am that pacifist preacher. As of today, I am the only one in our area that I know that is willing to publicly take a pro peace position. I am sure there are others but they keep their view to themselves. I have had my patriotism questioned and even my Christianity questioned because I oppose war.

Bruce

I wasn’t going to mention this, but I think it is worth adding to the conversation…

one of the reasons why Christians don’t think that the social aspects of the bible are important is because the Republican party has told them so. All this social stuff is really more of a democrat thing, right? The problem is that most Christians follow the republican gospel more than the follow the biblical gospel.

So, if George W says that war is good, right and justified, so does God. If democrats want to fund social projects, those projects are obviously unbiblical.

And for the record… I am not a democrat

Chris L,
As a former soldier I’m not sure we’re really in “post” war Iraq. That has nothing to do with my Biblical belief just wanted to point that out.

Neil,
I think this might be a great illustration of “conviction” per individual. What I mean is, if a person believes that it is always a sin to take a life then they probably shouldn’t be a police officer. To him or her who it is not sin then they’re probably ok.
Personally, I’m not sure where I stand on this one. I hesitate to do this because it could take us way off target but I’ll illustrate with anohter “hot button” issue. Capitol Punishment I believe is given in Scripture, but I am against it in America. I believe there are way too many loopholes in the system and probably way too many innocent men and women sitting on death row because they were/are poor and not able to mount a defense. So in this case, I want to err on the side of safety and ban all execuations. So, while I believe that certainly God gave state sponsored executions in the Old Testament, and maybe in the New Testament I believe our system is so flawed that it leaves banning all executions as the only equitable solution.

Neil,
You said, “Like the fundamentalists of the turn of the 20th Century, you are creating a false antithesis. It’s not “reform society” or “share the love of God.” It’s share the love of God with hopes of reforming society.

Neil, it’s “share the love of God” because that’s what I do because of the Holy Spirit living in me, and because that’s what the Word instructs us to do. My heart literally breaks over people’s spiritual destitution, over sick people, over abused children, and so forth. Something that I do in “sharing the love of God” may help to “reform society” somewhat, but that is not my goal. If it were my goal, I would just give up.

I have an opportunity to continue working on a project that could bring the gospel, and an understanding of what sexual purity, is to many girls. When I first begin the project it was because I became aware that a lot of girls in a particular area were ending up getting pregnant out of wedlock, many of the girls without any foreknowledge of what sex even is, because they live in a non-Western society (no tv’s, etc) and because their mothers find it shameful to talk to them. When I first started working on the project I was thinking in terms of “how do I teach them about sex without offense.” Then I thought, “I can’t teach them about sex without teaching them about sexual purity.” Then I thought, “I can’t teach them about sexual purity without making sure they understand God’s love for them.” Then I thought, “I can’t share God’s love for them without sharing the heart of the gospel, that Jesus loves them so much that he died in their place.”

The end of my thinking – the gospel – is where the project will begin. It’s the beginning of helping girls lead a pure life that pleases God. My goal is not to “reform society” although some “reformation” could take place through the project. My goal is to help girls understand who Jesus is, to relate to Him, to seek to obey him in the area of purity. It may even help some of them not get AIDS or some other STD’s. If the project even helps one girl to know Christ and live a sexually pure life, it is worth it.

And my goal is to obey in how I carry out the project. So I will not, as someone suggested, try to get an organization that internationally supports abortion, to fund the project.

Nathan,
Jesus healed the sick to demonstrate His power, that He was indeed the Messiah. Jesus healed the sick, because he IS compassion. He wants us to “let our light shine for Him” to demonstrate that there is a God who is loving, who is compassionate. We may never be able to completely stop AIDS, – if a cure is found, something else may come along for which we have no cure. We cannot make all the impoverished rich. We live in a fallen world, we cannot make everybody and everything “good.”

Amy,
Is there a reason you somehow never respond to my comments that addressed to you?

Yeah, like I said Amy, forgive me.

Joe,

The thinly-veiled hypothetical given by Amy deals with Rick Warren, ‘World AIDS Day’, and allowing Barak Obama to speak at the event.

Amy – my response would be the same. I don’t share the automatic bias (based on personal circumstance, I recognize) against Warren that you do. As such, my response would be the same. Mr. Warren is crystal clear that he does not support abortion, but believes that compassion and providing solutions to the AIDS crises would be most efficiently served by partnering with a central effort to alleviate the crises (even if that effort is ’secular’ in nature), rather than creating a separate organization.

Have you read ‘The Externally-Focused Church’ by Rick Rusaw? It deals with this tricky subject of partnering with public and non-Christian non-profit agencies, and taking the long view of evangelism, rather than looking for instant results (or avoiding GBA attacks from within the church) – all the while making it clear that the goal of the work is to provide for the poor/sick/oppressed even if you don’t support other ideas/beliefs of people within those agencies/non-profits. Change does not happen over night.

Being ‘in’ the world but not ‘of’ it is not always clear-cut. I have friends working in Africa (and stateside), dealing specifically with this crisis, and I can tell you that this particular pandemic and the slaughter in Darfur need to be addressed before we as Christians have any hope of spreading the gospel to these people.

Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? James 2:15-16

Sorry, Amy, but I think that your distaste for Rick Warren is clouding the issue. If there was an impanding Tsunami on the coast of India, I don’t think it would matter most to God that the church rushed to aid the evacuation, even if they worked side-by-side with another human being who was outside of His Kingdom to save hundreds of thousands of people who are worshipping the false gods of Hunduism. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. And so we, too, are to be Christ to the world – willing to lay down our pride, our lives, our agendas and our egos for those who are lost that Christ died for.

Everyone,
I would really like some input on my 4:53 post addressed to Chris L. If you haven’t kept up with the conversation, you’ll need to go back aways to understand what’s being said.

I would especially appreciate comments on this: “When does the passage about not being unequally yoked apply in a Christian’s life? Just when does a Christian stop working hand in hand with a person who calls himself a Christian but disobeys the word of God?”

And this: “If you think that it would be just fine to work hand in hand with a person who wants to exterminate people who have AIDS, and that it would be alright to give such a person approval even though it may lead him to become the next President of the US, then you are going way beyond what Chris P said. You are not just saying, “the cure for AIDS is death.” You are saying, “It’s not really that big a deal to terminate people who have AIDS.” “

Chris,
You can assume that my “bad personal experience” has led to extreme thinking. Could it be that all through my “bad personal experience” I constantly used scripture to compare what was being taught to what is biblical and that there really isn’t anything but my understanding of scripture to blame for my “extreme thinking?”

I would have the same opinion of the whole Obama/Warren episode no matter what I previously knew of Warren. Based on scripture, based on thinking of what this “yoke” could do.

Let’s don’t turn this into a complex discussion. Let’s look at the specific example in question, both the real one, and the hypothetical one.

The real one: Is it biblical for Warren to be yoked to Obama? “Yoked” as in, seeming to give support, so that Obama has felt free to use his name and even his picture, as someone who is a friend. “Yoked” as in, invited to speak at his church and speak out for fighting AIDS even though he has played roles in supporting abortion? “Yoked” as in, here we are buddies, working for the same cause. “Yoked” as in, “let’s pass out condoms together if necessary” seems to be the current thinking. Obama also claims to be a Christian, so how do the principles of separating from false teachers apply? Or is teaching that it’s okay to murder not false teaching?

Hypothetical example: Is it okay for a pastor fighting against abortion to be “yoked” to someone who supports exterminating people with AIDS? Is it okay to “work alongside” of that person for a good cause such as fighting abortion, even though by giving “approval” to that person he may become the next President of the US and be able to enact legislation that will kill lots more people? The person who wants to “terminate Aids patients” also claims to be a Christian. How do passages about not associating with false teachers apply? Or is murder not false teaching?

What kind of “reformation” is this, that mixes truth and lies?

Neil, sorry for the confusion – I never intended for the hypothetical story to be veiled. I wrongly thought you and others would know what I was referring to.

I’ve been reading this site for a while now and the last few days have had me shaking my head, made me angry, made me sad and made me rededicate myself to the social gospel, but Neil, your comment “Obama wants ‘to exterminate people with AIDS’” made me laugh so hard that I had to delurk for a moment.

Sorry Neil, that’s what happens when you type while eating ice cream.

I should also say that my comment or laughing was in no way directed against Amy, I guess that with all the back and forth on these serious issues the last few days, Neil’s question released the pressure valve for me.

I would also tell a true story with the names, places, etc. changed.

It is 1974 and Jim has just graduated from Med School. He has been hired at a metropolitan hospital which offers, in very limited circumstances, abortions. Jim is a Christian, but he chooses to work there, anyway. It is an inner-city hospital that has a hard time keeping staff, and he will never have to participate in an abortion, and he does not have to refer patients or recommend them for that service, either.

Jim and his family attend a church on the outskirts of the city, where they are approached by an elder and told that if Jim continues to work at that hospital, he will need to leave the church, because working at that hospital, they believe, is sinful.

Jim chooses to take his family to another church, despite the hardship to his family. While he could get a job at a suburban hospital, he chooses not to, because he believes he can make a difference where he is.

In 1981, Jim becomes a board member of the hospital, where he is able to eliminate this (admittedly limited) “service” from the hospital in 1985. Additionally, two doctors who originally instituted the practice at the hospital in 1971 after Roe v. Wade, in part due to Jim’s witness, come to know the Lord.

So, was Jim ‘unequally yoked’ in 1974 when he chose to work at the hospital? Was Jim ‘unequally yoked’ when he accepted a position in 1981 on the operating board of a hospital that provided abortion services?

Joe,
I never thought of holding your remark against you; I just thought it was a misunderstanding. I don’t feel like there’s anything to forgive, but if you feel like there is, then I’ll just simply say, “I forgive you.”

Amy,
I’m going to let Chris answer for himself but I have to ask you a question based on the verses you just quoted. Do you believe that the KJV is the only way to go? The reason I ask is your quotation of I Thess. 5:22 seems to come from there. I think it is almost universally accepted that they did a poor job with that verse and appearences should be translated kinds. I don’t know how that impacts your argument but I wanted to point that out.

Joe,
I probably did quote King James because I didn’t look that verse up, but quoted it. I memorized lots of scripture in King James when I was a child.

When I was in my early 20’s I read NIV and have used it almost exclusively since. Even NIV isn’t natural English. I used NLT for awhile – it’s more natural English – but I found it tended to translate ambiguous passages one way or another – I would rather have them left ambiguous and come to my own conclusions, or simply conclude that I can’t be certain of the interpretation, than have someone make the decision of making the translation say one thing or another.

I am aware of many of the issues surrounding the KJ controversy. Unfortunately even overseas, in some places where people know only a little English, where an English bible is the only one available, they use King James. My educational background is in linguistics and Bible translation. Because of that, I would be one of the last people on earth to be a KJV -only promoter. Our goal is to translate the Bible into “heart languages” of people. I don’t know anyone today whose “heart language” is KJ english.

I am thankful that, as a child, I was encouraged to memorize scripture, and am glad that I have many verses “stuck” in my head, even if they are in a form of English that is a bit outdated.

Joe,
So Joe, what do you think about A.F. Pasteur and Senator A. Field? Do you also find comparing them to Warren/Obama apples and oranges? It really try not to lump “all of you” together, although again and again you all – Neil, Nathan, Chris L, and yourself, seem to have opposite opinions than me, and agree with each other, on most things.

NIV says “Avoid every kind of evil.” NLT says “Keep away from every kind of evil.” Without getting out my Greek interlinear and taking a lot of time studying it and other books, I couldn’t say what the better translation is. But I would guess that “kind” is more on track simply because NIV is usually a more accurate translation than KJV.

I don’t know if you’re actually interested in this verse or if you’re going to use the different meaning of the verse to “unsupport” my argument. Just in case the latter is true, here’s my reply:

You could take either of these translations “Avoid every kind of evil,” “Keep away from every kind of evil” and apply them quite easily to the situations I brought up. In fact “Keep away from every kind of evil” sounds even stronger than “avoid” in my opinion.

So, keep away from partnerships if one of the partners is promoting evil would fit quite well under this statement, especially if you care to believe that the partnership is actually “the evil” to be avoided, according to the scripture II Corinthians 6:14-18, or scriptures about not fellowshipping with disobedient brothers, or if you care to listen to warnings about false teachers, or, if you care to heed verses about corrupting friendships. No matter what the state of Obama or the hypothetical “Field,” Christian, or non-Christian, there are many scriptures that apply to these kinds of situations.

“Let not your good be evil spoken of” sounds like a pretty good equivalent of “Avoid all appearance of evil” by the way. (Sorry I don’t know the reference for that and can’t find it in another translation. Context would be nice to have as well.) Passages on doubtful things are also encouraging that principle.

How does “Hate what is evil” (Romans 12:9)apply here? Would I really be hating the whole idea of exterminating patients with AIDS if I, as a pastor, had such a person speak in my church, work with me on a mission? Would I really hate that behavior or would I be tolerating it? What if my relationship with that person gave him more power to carry out more exterminations?

In II Cor.7: 2, the continuation of the ideas in II Corinthians 6:14-18 (unequal yoke passage) Paul says “We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one . . . . He also said, in II Cor. 6:3 – “We put no stumbling block in anyone’s path, so that our ministry will not be discredited. “This is a difficult model to follow. But if we don’t even think it’s necessary to consider, we are especially open to corrupting many by alliances that don’t please God, and the results of those alliances.

I don’t believe I will ever “win” this argument because no matter what scriptures I bring up (and there are many), someone will try to show me how they don’t apply. If that is the case, it matters not. I am happy to “lose” the argument and hold on to what I believe.

Amy,

I will respond to two comments. This subject has already been exhausted on the comment section.

First you said:
“The end of my thinking – the gospel – is where the project will begin. It’s the beginning of helping girls lead a pure life that pleases God. My goal is not to “reform society” although some “reformation” could take place through the project. My goal is to help girls understand who Jesus is, to relate to Him, to seek to obey him in the area of purity.”

Your problem is that Jesus did not use this method. He didn’t make people believe in Him before He healed them. It was through the healing that they came to faith. Imagine Jesus saying, “Ok, I will heal you, but first you must accept me as your savior.” You are looking this as an “either, or” subject. The fact is it is both. You can give someone a drink of water in the name if the Lord. YES, the gospel is where it begins. It inspires and encourages those of us who are followers of Christ to be more like HIM. To show HIS love to the sick, broken and downhearted.

You said
“Jesus healed the sick to demonstrate His power, that He was indeed the Messiah. Jesus healed the sick, because he IS compassion. He wants us to “let our light shine for Him” to demonstrate that there is a God who is loving, who is compassionate. We may never be able to completely stop AIDS, – if a cure is found, something else may come along for which we have no cure. We cannot make all the impoverished rich. We live in a fallen world, we cannot make everybody and everything “good.””

So just becasue we cannot solve all the problems in the world doesn’t mean that we don’t try. Should we just overlook passages in the bible about “feeding the hungry” and “caring for the orphan and the widow” because we will never be able to solve that problem? Heavens NO! We obey and we continue to fight against evil in the world. Man! If we always just said “the problem is too big, just forget about it”, the world would be in a horrible place.

I’ve got a few minutes here, so I will at least start to answer, though my thoughts may not be nearly complete.

First, the AIDS-extermination vs. pro-abortion argument is FAR too simplistic, and IS apples to oranges. There are more issues in politics than those. I would be willing to bet that a good number of the politicians I have voted for in my life do little more than pay lip service to Christianity, and that they would hold views just as un-Biblical as being pro-abortion. You have chosen this specific issue and made it EVERYTHING that there is to say about Obama. Based on your argument, I would be “partnering with” him if we both served lunches in a soup kitchen together.

(You also didn’t address my question about working for a supervisor who is a homosexual.)

Obama was not “given the pulpit” at Saddleback. He spoke at an event in the middle of the week to support a cause (stopping the spread of AIDS in Africa. I do not see this as having anything to do with “fruitless deeds of darkness”. Did Obama say anything in his speech about abortion? Did Warren say anything in support of abortion? I believe I’ve heard Warren speak AGAINST abortion on at least a couple of occasions on Fox News (which would count, in my book, as “exposing the fruitless deeds of darkness”), and I suspect that if there was an event to raise awareness and to rally support against abortion that Obama would not be invited to speak at it.

You are confusing an issue with a person. They are not one in the same. Your way of exegeting “avoid every kind of evil” seems to imply that they are synonymous, when they are not.

Unless you completely withdraw from the world and start your own country, you cannot participate in the US political process without voting for someone who would disagree on some topic with you on what constitutes ’sin’ – whether it is abortion, gambling, sex education, evolution/ID… the list goes on.

You’ve chosen one stance taken by Obama (abortion) and made that the sum total of what he is. Then, you have taken a church leader who works with Obama on a completely unrelated issue (AIDS) and equated working with Obama (who, I might add, is one of 30+ people who spoke that day) on AIDS to implicit support of abortion – which Warren is on record as strenuously opposing. This is a really weak GBA thread to create.

It is this view (Politician X = their view on abortion = how I vote) that has led to the decline of Christianity in politics and to the lack of any progress on the issue in the past 20 years. I am complicit in this, because I can think of a number of elections where this was my ONLY issue of importance.

So tell me, in 2008 if the presidential race is Guiliani vs. Hillary, will you just sit it out? What about Mitt Romney – could a Christian vote for him without giving implicit support to Mormonism? What about Christians living in Utah who have voted for Orrin Hatch (a Mormon), who is staunchly anti-abortion?

(I won’t even justify the Godwin’ing of this thread with any comment. The comparison isn’t there.)

2) Do the ends justify the means? No, they do not.

I do not believe that this is a case of such, because I do not buy the premise that Obama=abortion and Warren+Obama+30 others (on AIDS) = Warren+Obama+30 others (supporting abortion).

If I want to start up a soup kitchen to feed the poor and an atheist volunteers to help serve the food, do I promote his denial of God by serving food along side him? No, I do not. I serve out of obedience to God – caring for the poor – in a way that I can be ’salt and light’. The atheist serves for his own conscience, nothing more. I serve to pass God’s blessings on to others and to glorify Him. Is He glorified by my service? Yes, he is. Is He glorified by the service of the atheist? Only insofar as that the man would not be there were it not for the blessings God provided in the kitchen, itself.

I see no “means” here – there is no “yoking” (attempted mixing of religions) or implicit/explicit support for anti-Christian beliefs (or “deeds of darkness”) by others.

If I work next to Obama while serving God, I work next to Obama because he is another human being who has, out of coincidence or unknown divine purpose, aligned himself with a cause that glorifies God IN SPITE OF whatever unGodly beliefs he might hold. The only person viewing me as ‘having the appearance of evil’ is a legalistic or immature Christian who is unable to distinguish between a sin and a sinner.

Your hypothetical situation with AIDS, like most hypotheticals, fails because it does not make a parallel comparison.

Chris,
Thanks for your answer. Don’t bother taking time to answer further, unless you clearly find scriptures to support what Warren has done with Obama. I can see that we’re far apart on this issue.

Regarding the Warren/Obama issue goes way beyond some “harmless” GBA argument. Christian leaders are to be especially careful that they are above reproach. I think that scriptures that talk about shepherds apply to pastors: to local pastors, how much more to pastors that have huge leadership/influential possibilities. A number of things that Warren has done I find difficult to perceive of as happening in a small local church. I don’t know if you’re aware of how Obama uses Warren’s name, or if it matters to you. This is what people warned Warren against.

I also don’t know if you’re aware that Warren sent out a letter before the Christmas Saddleback program offering to help “advertise” churches by having their names registered on the site, so someone looking for a PDC in their area could find one. Along with that “invitation” to Pastors came Warren’s explanations about Syria and Obama. I saw it as a way of saying, “This is my defense. Sign on the dotted line to support me.” I can’t go into it, but one of the churches that signed on that I have a personal connection with, and the whole thing really disturbs me. I think that Warren could very well “help” Obama get support. I could easily have been an aborted baby if I lived in this generation. All those are “personal” issues. It doesn’t change that a pastor violated scriptural principles.

I fail to see how the hypothetical situation is not a parallel sitiuation. I fail to see why I can’t say, according to your philosophy, “If I work next to Senator A. Field while serving God, I work next to Senator A.Field because he is another human being who has, out of coincidence or unknown divine purpose, aligned himself with a cause that glorifies God IN SPITE OF whatever unGodly beliefs he might hold.

Also, I believe that if there was a person like Senator A. Field, then Field = AIDS patient termination would be acknowledged in big red letters to practically all Christians, as well as the rest of the world. He would be all over the news; if CRN wrote an article that talked about John Mcarthur having him at his church for an abortion rally you guys would have a heyday. Because you would think that “Field =Aid’s patient murder and Field +McArthur + 30 other who are anti-abortionists = Mcarthur+Field + 30 others (supporting Aid’s patient extermintation. )

I think that you would think that way because that’s how the world would think of it. The world doesn’t view abortion as a horror any more, so a pastor can “support” a political candidate who is for abortion and many in the church will think nothing of it. This IS the same kind of thing that happened in Germany with Hitler. The church got numb to wrongdoing and some pastors went along with it – they had a different kind of pressure on them to compromise their principles. The pressure today comes from outside and inside the church, from leaders who refuse to listen to biblical concerns of other Christians.

As far as the other examples, I said at the beginning that I wanted to stick to these two examples, so that the discussion didn’t get complicated, and because these two examples relate to the whole “leadership” of the social gospel.

Amy,

I didn’t realize you were posting at the same time I was (which might have changed your answer slightly, but maybe not).

Do I think it was a wise and well-thought-out decision to allow Obama to speak at the event on World AIDS day? No, not really – but I don’t think I would have had ANY politician speak at it, regardless of party or position on abortion.

Do I think Warren should be tossed under the bus for it? No.

Amy, you said:

As far as the other examples, I said at the beginning that I wanted to stick to these two examples, so that the discussion didn’t get complicated, and because these two examples relate to the whole “leadership” of the social gospel.

I’m sorry, but intellectual honesty would require that the answers to the other questions be the same as the answer to your hypothetical, no matter how complicated.

If I am a Christian, can I work in a job where I report to a non-Christian? If BOTH major-party candidates in a presidential election are pro-abortion, can I, as a Christian, vote for either of them? If my only choice for a pro-life candidate is a believer in Mormonism, can I vot for him? Can I work side-by-side in a soup kitchen serving the homeless with a non-believer? Can I work with an organization to provide relief for people suffering in an epidemic that has wiped out a huge chunk of the adult population if there are people in the organization who disagree with me on abortion?

These are all the same question… You can’t wish them away just for the purpose of throwing Rick Warren under the bus.

As far as “relating to the ‘leadership’ of the social gospel”, I fail to see how Rick Warren is the leader of the social gospel here on earth. I thought that was supposed to be the church – leading in both the individual gospel and the social gospel.

Again Amy, you are making this an “either” “or” issue. It is both. I don’t know anyone among those who believe in a social gospel who would say that social work is more important than changing someone’s heart with the gospel. But, we are still commanded to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and help the sick and broken. If you are denying that we should do that, then we are reading two different bibles. No one said that social justices comes before someone’s heart is changed. Again, I am just taking Jesus’ example of healing and helping regardless of whether or not they accepted him.

Two things strike me about CRN (and quite frankly your answers Amy). First is that they have allowed their reformed theology to create within themselves COLD hearts towards people. They basically say that people who aren’t “called by God” are going to hell, so who should give a flip about them! If God elects SOME, then we only care about SOME.

Second Amy, It seems like your search and your open heart is now closed. You once simply had questions and ideas. Now you seem to be a full fledged Ken support drone. That makes me very sad for you.

Amy,

Once again (with pedophilia) you have created a false comparison. Pedophilia is easily and directly from scripture defined as sin. Abortion is not so clearly defined as such (and it is interesting that the Catholics and Protestants come from two completely different and conflicting scriptural bases to arrive at the same conclusion – with which I only agree with the Protestant argument).

Until you answer my other questions, you cannot claim any intellectual/scriptural honesty in this discussion – they all are about the same thing. This has nothing to do with Nazism or a “slippery slope”.

1) Can you work for a non-Christian supervisor living in a sinful lifestyle without condoning that lifestyle?

2) Can you work in a soup kitchen next to someone who says they are a Christian but supports the right of a woman to have an abortion without condoning their belief (with which you disagree)?

3) In an election between two pro-abortion candidates, can you vote for either without condoning the “fruitless deeds of darkness”?

4) In an election where the only pro-life candidate is a Mormon, can you vote for them without condoning Mormonism?

In the case of AIDS in Arfirca, Amy, the issue goes FAR BEYOND a “cool cup of water”. A friend of mine working over there has talked to me about entire villages where the oldest person is (maybe) in their 20’s and many “families” are 10-year-old girls raising their younger siblings, all the while some or all of them were infected with AIDS by their mother. It is not an issue of “well, they made their choice and they’re living with the consequences” – it is the basest need for survival. The homeless on the streets of America have it easy compared to these folks.

If you saw a man in the bottom of a well, with the water filling up and only you and Barak Obama were at the top of the well and it would require both of your effort to get the man out of the well, would you really quibble about his position on abortion – which has nothing to do with the matter at hand – while the water continues to rise? Would you piously say “well, I need to witness to the person in the well, and their physical needs aren’t all that important”? OR – would you work with Barak to pull the guy out of the well, and then, while he is recovering, share your reasons for helping him and how to be saved from more than a fate in the bottom of a well?

You asked:

Have you ever really done a long bible study on your own – and tried to prove the social gospel?

Actually, yes. The WHOLE gospel is both based on individual obedience (Love the Lord your God) and on a social gospel (love your neighbor as yourself).

Contrary to the seemingly prevaling view, “Love your neigbor as yourself” is infinitely more than “correct your neighbor’s theology and tell him when he screws up”. ALL people are our neighbors, and the poor, the sick, the widows and the orphans are among those who are most in need.

Nathan,
I absolutely believe in helping the poor, the sick, etc. Realize that you come across on this so strongly, talking about the “whole gospel, condemning my project as something that “makes people believe in Jesus before they are healed,” telling Ken that he emphasizes the cross too much, and more that I won’t say because we’ll get into another big discussion – all things together that make you come across as a social reformer. And there ARE plenty of people who talk about social reform without heart change.

I would like to go back to something you said earlier: You quoted me as saying, “The end of my thinking – the gospel – is where the project will begin. It’s the beginning of helping girls lead a pure life that pleases God. My goal is not to “reform society” although some “reformation” could take place through the project. My goal is to help girls understand who Jesus is, to relate to Him, to seek to obey him in the area of purity.”

You responded by saying, “Your problem is that Jesus did not use this method. He didn’t make people believe in Him before He healed them. It was through the healing that they came to faith.”

You say that “Jesus didn’t use my method.” You act as if I am “making people believe on Christ.” You have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ve lived with those people for about 5 years. Lived with them, endured the sicknesses and deprivations of their country, wept when I hear their women being beat up, slept on the floor when there is gunfire at night. I see their young men drunk at 9 in the morning; I see people who don’t try to work because the foreign government that supports them will save them, I see young girls getting pregnant at 14-15, their “illegitimate” babies seen as second class citizens. I see a country where AIDS will cause great devastation when it comes, if it isn’t already there.

I see people who need Christ as Savior and who need to learn to obey the principles in scripture. I see young girls who need to know that the beginning of purity is a relationship with God. No one has to “believe in Jesus” to be exposed to the whole project. Anyone can learn from it. But why leave the gospel out of a project on sexual purity? Why not just present the basic facts of “don’t do this and you won’t get pregnant, ” or “do this so you don’t get AIDS.” Any government project can do that, and inform people about abortions as well.

Chris,
If you were intellectually honest you would quit calling my 2 examples “apples and oranges.”

Chris, none of your 4 questions is dealing with a pastor supporting a political figure, giving “support” to that figure by not only having him in his church, but working together in a project that is supposed to include sharing the gospel. So there are differences, major ones. I think that asking me these questions as if they are somehow parallel to mine is a bit of “apples” and “oranges.”

1) Can you work for a non-Christian supervisor living in a sinful lifestyle without condoning that lifestyle?”Warren and “Pasteur”do not have to be “under” Obama or “A. Field,” as in this situation. They have chosen to “partner” with that person. I would be under the authority of the work supervisor. Also, remember Obama and A. Field are both claiming to be Christians. And how do you know Warren isn’t condoning that lifestyle with his actions if not his words? One of the issues with he and his wife sending $25,000 to the mission board the Southern Baptist pulled out of is that the Cooperative Baptists were accused of supporting abortion.

Can you work in a soup kitchen next to someone who says they are a Christian but supports the right of a woman to have an abortion without condoning their belief (with which you disagree)?
To make this parallel, you need to ask if I could have the soup kitchen woman appear on television with me, come speak at my church, etc. Also, she needs to play have played some role in promoting abortion, not just being a believer in it.

These bear little resemblance to the examples, because my choice would simply be “vote” or “not-vote” Warren and “Pasteur” have many choices of who they can choose to work for them.

3) In an election between two pro-abortion candidates, can you vote for either without condoning the “fruitless deeds of darkness”?

4) In an election where the only pro-life candidate is a Mormon, can you vote for them without condoning Mormonism

To make these parallel examples, these people would all have to be on a mission with me to somehow “reform the world. Also, I would have had to be warned, confronted, by a number of other Christians about my actions. Also, whatever I chose to do I would need to defend to all my followers so they could continue to support me.

I know this isn’t what you wanted, but I guess I don’t like to be pushed . . .

And honestly, I don’t care to discuss this anymore with one whose thinking goes like this: “Once again (with pedophilia) you have created a false comparison. Pedophilia is easily and directly from scripture defined as sin. Abortion is not so clearly defined as such”

Amy,

Maybe, then the question really needs to come down to this:

Can a person believe that abortion is not murder and still be a Christian?

I fully 100% believe that abortion is murder. I can give a scriptural ‘proof’ of it, as well, but it requires my own interpretation of Psalms and the Gospel account of Jesus’ birth. I can also argue that the sacrificing of children to Molech was an abomination (but I can’t deny that these children had already born). I can refer to Exodus 21:22-25, but this only refers to a case where someone injurs a pregnant woman and harms her child – and I have heard Christians who do not have a hard stance on abortion argue that v.22 shows that the crime is against the husband of the woman – not the woman or the child in this case.

If one’s stance and action on abortion is salvific, then your reasoning stands. If it is not, it does not.

I am intellectually honest, and your examples comparing support of extermination of anyone infected with AIDS (which can easily be proven murder in scripture) with support of abortion (which can only tangentially be shown as murder) are DEFINITELY apples and oranges.

Just to reiterate:

1) I don’t think it was wise for RW to have ANY politicians speak at the AIDS event. He could gather their support without having them speak at the event.

2) From seeing a portion of the list of folks that were lobbying him solely to drop Obama, were I in his shoes, I probably would have sought counsel from less radical church leaders before making any move. I am guessing that he probably did, and that he took their counsel. When I am given the choice of losing credibility with those I am witnessing to and losing credibility with pharisees who hold me in no esteem in the first place, I would most likely choose the latter.

3) I have not been tracking any of this particular issue since the hubub last November, and aside from healing the sick and preaching the good news to them, I’m at a point I could really care less what Rick Warren does, so long as he is honoring Christ. Walking in faith out in the world is going to be messy, and nothing is easily cut and dried. I hope that he does not give official support to Obama’s candidacy – I hope that he does not give political endorsements to any candidate. If he did, would it make him no longer a Christian? Sorry, but no. Would it hurt his credibility and witness? Certainly with me and with a number of other Christians, and with the world, most likely, as well (taking the long view).

Do not get me wrong. I love Jesus and I want his Good News lived out and taught. I hate abortion, and I want it wiped out. The messyness of the world requires us to constantly weigh decisions, and it often means one of two approaches:

1) Take no prisoners, give me all-or-nothing.
2) Accept part of a loaf today and part tomorrow – two steps forward and one step back.

Unfortunately, Christians like to go for approach number one, and often (as we have with anti-abortion legislation the past 34 years) come up with “nothing” instead of “all”.

Other Christians go for approach number two, accepting that they will have to shoulder the defeats of “X steps back” along the way, along with the Christians who will only accept approach number one and try to bully them (or hypothetical them) to death for actually doing something tangible about an issue.

There are currently millions of people at the bottom of a well in Africa and the water is rising. We can sit around and piss and moan about a step-wise approach, only accepting a “‘True’ Christians ONLY” all-or-nothing effort. OR we can be salt and light, taking Christians and any non-Christians who will come along to meet the IMMEDIATE/EMERGENCY needs and to prevent recurrence, trusting God along the way to make way for the gospel to be preached.

Chris,
I forgive you for any unbrotherly tone and appreciate the apology.

“Can a person believe that abortion is not murder and still be a Christian?” I believe that God is always the judge of whether or not a person is a Christian.

I believe that any Christian who is walking with Christ – reading the word and trying to live each day to please Him through the power of the Spirit – who has had an abortion, will feel the need to repent from that action. I believe that abortion is clearly murder and that the Holy Spirit would convict someone of that sin.

I believe that any Christian who “believes” in abortion, who is walking with Christ – reading the word and trying to live each day to please him, immersed in Christ and not in politically correct thinking – will be led away from that belief, because believing that abortion is okay is a form of believing that murder is okay.

These beliefs are based on the conviction that abortion is a sin, and verses in I John that talk about a believer not continuing in sin.

I believe that Satan is a great deceiver and will do whatever he can to get Christians to not see abortion as a sin, including stating that there is no specific reference to it.

I believe that selfishness is at the bottom of abortion. If we just redefine it as “a choice” instead of “a sin” we don’t have to deal with our own selfish nature. I think that’s what has happened in our society.

By the way I wonder if abortion could fall under one of those “inventions of evil” that are discussed in Romans 1.

Amy,

I want to apologize for my harshness towards you in my last response to your question. I was very frustrated over this blog and took our some of my grief on you. I feel very strongly that we as Christians are called to help people in need, care for the sick and the less fortunate. I also feel that at times you over analyze and over investigate situations, creating mountains out of molehills. But, I suppose that it good for us here. It keeps us on our toes and keeps us accountable for what we write.

So, I retract the statement that you are nothing but a Ken drone. I hope we can continue the discussion and hopefully lear from one another.