In "an incredible heart-to-heart conversation...he may not have left Christianity behind."

Sadly, impatience, judgments and hypocrisy have driven far too many away from the Jesus they were really hoping to find.

mysilentscream.com/

Part of having the truth is recognizing our own sin and acknowledging and asking forgiveness for that sin. The buzzword for that amongst Christians is "transparency." Whether non-believers care or not does not matter. We were not told to confess our sins if and only if it impresses other people.

If you're not a believer, it doesn't really matter to God.

Great letter Shane -- you expressed very eloquently and forcefully how I and many others I know feel. For an example of someone who lives his life as an exemplary Christian, please read, "A Saint in the City: The Life, Faith, and Theology of John Steinbruck" at http://ehlersoneverything.blogspot.com

Blue, I agree with a lot of what you say. All sorts of inconsistencies and problems with we Christians, me included for sure. I was just saying that the Bible is clear on those things, which it is. God bless. Winston

Thank you, Shane. Great letter.

Well, look at it this way. Some of us who are not political/ideological
conservatives certainly aren't "peaceful" by those standards -- we're
passionate and try to live what we believe. This one tries his best not to
confuse Bible with culture -- which has been a problem in Western society,
even thanks to the Protestant Reformation, which was as much about power
politics as, if not more than, reclaiming the historic Christian faith. There
is a lot, in retrospect, that Calvin got wrong and we're still paying the
price for that.

For this reason, you simply cannot pull out a few verses or chapters and
construct an entire theology on behavioral or moral issues. For openers, the
spirit of God cannot work properly when you do that because the focus ceases
to be on Him. Then, when you argue that certain sins are particularly bad --
which just happens to be the ones you generally don't commit -- you actually
undermine the whole of it. And one thing I personally resent is the entire
"culture war" argument, that we would "lose our place" if we don't somehow
defend "Christian values" in the public square; if that be the case, we need
to ask then how did we get sucked into the "world system" in the first place.

Yes, Jesus says, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated Me
first." That said, let's not give the "world" any ammunition and be willing
to accept legitimate criticism because it might be from God Himself. That's
one thing I have always hated about the "religious right" -- it doesn't
understand that non-believers have real gripes about its attitude towards its
perceived enemies. After all (and I intend never to forget this), I was once
one of God's enemies, and there but for the grace of God ...

I think all y'all would do a whole lot better to read "The Shack" and quit creating rules and regulations and "the law" all over again.

I think all y'all would do much better to read "The Shack" and put something on your minds that doesn't have to do with rules and regulations and "the law".

"I find that a lot of this new
Emergent Church stuff that appears to be widespread of late dismisses
the actual gospel message for a lot of social and worship activity
devoid of substance. "

I am replying here because there is no room to reply to the actual comment.

So the message that God loves you and wants to be part of your life is superficial. And you had to hijack this thread with the real gospel, which is to preach against abortion and gay marriage. In fact, it is those two issues which are social and cultural.

Jane

We disagree on Christians and pluralism then. I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

As to your attempted summation of my comments, you're getting closer, but if I've left you with the impression I think I should be the judge of Christianity's integrity, I apologize for my arrogance.

As for love: it may be a verb, but it's also a feeling, and some days we feel it more than others. That's true even for our closest loved ones, much less those whose lives we would not choose to live. And when love fails, the result can be exceedingly ugly.

With that in mind, I mean it when I say this. Whether love is real or "pretend," I would rather that Christians (and all people) decide to treat each other with respect and civility than that they try to each love everyone else. Where Christian integrity fits into that is another issue.

Dr. King did the right thing in following his convictions, which, in
hindsight, may have been right. Chuck Colson, who wrote part of the
Manhattan Declaration, mentioned that Dr. King had made one of the
most profound legal statements ever when he said "unjust laws are no
laws at all," or something along those lines. I got the reference
about Dr. King from listening to Colson on a talk show recently.
Regarding our involvement here or there in the world (and, by the way,
I am a Vietnam Veteran); in hindsight, I do not think we have been
very wise as a country in many of these decisions. I don't have all
the answers. Our country certainly is not perfect, but neither are
any other countries. We need to vote for leaders that have some
measure of God's wisdom. I do believe we need to maintain a strong
military. Ronald Reagan said, "of the four wars in my lifetime, none
came about because the U.S. was too strong." This world is a
dangerous place, we need to be strong to have peace.

You are correct that the Manhattan Declaration only condones
resistance and civil disobedience for the God issues. The government
is not God, contrary to what secularists and many liberals believe.

You confirmed what I thought. The signers of the Manhatten Declaration are only supporting resistance and civil disobedience against the government in certain instances where they feel that "God has detemined" that the law is unjust. Otherwise they are not supporting civil disobedience or resistance.

I'm surprised that you cited Dr. King in one of your earlier posts. He was very much opposed to the illegal war in Vietnam and he supported those who refused to be deployed in an unjust war.

I'm a retired Air Force Lt. Col. We take a pledge to obey "lawful"
orders. Scripture does not oppose killing in war. There is a phrase
in the Old Testament that makes a distinction between shedding blood
in general and shedding blood in war -- the phrase "shedding the blood
of war in peace..." is mentioned in 1 Kings 2:5 is an example. Human
beings are fallen, sinful creatures and because of that there will be
war. It stems from the human heart. God realizes that. Jesus never
confronted the Roman soldiers about being part of a military force
with all of the known killing that accompanies such a force. The last
few chapters of the Book of Numbers make it clear that the death
penalty for certain things is to be enforced, and that position is
upheld in the New Testament by inference. If a person opposes killing
in war, that person should not join the military, or take a
conscientious objector position, which I think our country
accommodates. The Bible says, "let every man be fully persuaded in
his own mind," and "blessed is the man whose heart does not condemn
him in the thing that he allows." If an individual has a problem with
a certain law, that individual needs to stand against it. The
Manhattan Declaration encompasses any issues where what God determines
conflicts with what governments determine. It is not selective in its
thrust even though not every possible issue is mentioned.

Blue has understood me correctly, and your reaction is also what I'm talking about. You seem to see it as failure even to sit down at a table with pro-choice Americans. If pro-choicers are happy, you see that as a failure. And when you believe that, you're believing an illusion.

Very few people actually want all terminated pregnancies to be treated as murders. Are you, for instance, ready to send a woman to jail for ten years or see her executed for taking a "morning after" pill? Your all-or-nothing position doesn't help anything, including your own cause.

By being so unrelentingly "pious," you unnecessarily alienate Americans who might compromise...agree to limit third-trimester abortions, for instance. Why? Because they know that yielding to extremists on one point is only going to make them more zealous.

You didn't answer the questions I posed. What about soldiers who, in good conscience, oppose an illegal and immoral war and by doing so, refuse to be deployed? What about a pastor or a justice of the peace who, in good conscience, conducts a marriage ceremony based upon lifelong love for a couple whose genders are the same rather than different? Even when this would be against state and federal law?

Here's a 3rd scenario, one which a church that I used to belong to, actually did take on. This church participated in the "sanctuary" movement that shielded immigrants considered "illegal" against federal agents who sought to deport them.

The Manhatten Declaration seems very selective as to which acts of civil disobedience they would support. Which is of course their right. But to describe this declaration as a general call for civil disobedience against unjust laws doesn't seem very accurate and could be misleading.

If the lives are not defended before they are born, there would be no
"after they are born" issue. The declaration does mention giving
attention to women who are pregnant with at least the inference to
after birth issues. Bottom line of the declaration is what I wrote
the first time.

"Wave -- The declaration has to do with taking a stand against those who would use the power of government against people who in good conscience cannot go along with certain laws."

You describe this declaration as a basic statement that would support civil disobedience to unjust laws. I remember signing similar declarations back when segregation laws existed and also when the U.S. was conducting illegal wars. I didn't see this sort of spirit in this declaration.

If a soldier decides that he/she cannot accept deployment into an illegal, immoral war such as the one in Iraq, would the signers of this declaration support such a soldier? Because this soldier, in good conscience, cannot go along with certain laws. I can just about guarantee that Dr. King would go along with this sort of civil disobedience.

And if a priest or minister or justice of the peace, in good conscience according to his/her beliefs, conducts a marriage ceremony for two women or two men who have pledged lifelong love for each other till death to they part; even if the state that this pastor or justice of the peace resides has legislated against such marriages -- would the signers of this declaration support this person? After all, this pastor, in good conscience, would not be able to go along with certain laws. I don't know about Dr. King, as he was assassinated well before this issue came up. But I do know that his widow, Coretta Scott King, would support this pastor.

Somehow, I can't see the signers of this declaration as being willing to support those people of conscience who would oppose these unjust laws.

I read the declaration very carefully. Much of it focuses on how physical and biological aspects of the sex act are necessary in understanding intimate relationships based upon love and fidelity. This great emphasis on the necessity of the flesh and biology is what I don't understand. What about unselfish love and fidelity? According to this declaration, these seem to be secondary to biology.

As for the pro-life section, the declaration focused almost exclusively on defending lives before they are born, not after they are born.

Blue, Scripture is clear on those issues. Legalism is another issue.
Winston

By the way, I support the position of Scripture on the death penalty, homosexuality, abortion etc.

That position isn't as clear as you may think. As I have argued elsewhere, it's not so much about specific "moral" issues as a distinctiveness from the rest of the world; the Old Testament "Holiness Code" falls into that category. When Leviticus declared certain sexual practices off-limits, the assumption is that the other, God-ignorant tribes around them were engaging in them, and Paul reiterated that in the first chapter of Romans.

To take this to an extreme, John Calvin had banned (among other things) card-playing in Geneva, and to this day some Reformed congregations do not allow musical instruments during worship and sing only Psalms. But that gets into legalism because the intent of the laws is often ignored.