Christianity Today Op Ed

[KingsGambit]

Where do we get the idea that we should not preach against specific people? Jesus called out a sexually immoral woman "Jezebel" in one of the seven circular letters in Revelation. And Paul calls out specific people throughout his letters (Hymenaeus and Alexander, as well as publicly calling out the incest guy in 1 Corinthians 5). The idea that specific people should be off limits, even in a political context, doesn't make sense here. Since Trump publicly claims to be a Christian, then he should be fair game for the church to criticize as well.

[Charles]

Yes, Charles. That is what that means. And who cares. CP answered your question and there is no need to harp on it.

Sheesh.

Relax, English is not my main langauge. It works a bit different where I live. I am aware he answered my question and was not claiming he had not answered it.

[One Bad Pig]

Response by the son of the founder of CT:

source

[KingsGambit]

Furthermore, I'm not certain what moral authority Jerry Falwell Jr. has at this point in time. He went on a bizarre Twitter rant several weeks ago about how Russell Moore should shut up about moral issues because he is not a job creator (Falwell being a lawyer himself). He seems to be making up standards of play as he's going along.

Jesus wasn't a job creator either.

[KingsGambit]

Response by the son of the founder of CT:

source

My understanding was that the elder Graham had repented of the extent of his involvement in politics after the release of the Nixon tapes with the anti-semitic statements, right? I think he made the right call in keeping to his end of the bargain given his circumstances, though by his last few years he was essentially out of the spotlight altogether anyway. This of course doesn't bind his son, who made no such statements or promises.

[One Bad Pig]

My understanding was that the elder Graham had repented of the extent of his involvement in politics after the release of the Nixon tapes with the anti-semitic statements, right? I think he made the right call in keeping to his end of the bargain given his circumstances, though by his last few years he was essentially out of the spotlight altogether anyway. This of course doesn't bind his son, who made no such statements or promises.

I don't follow Franklin Graham (or CT), but IMO he is entitled to voice his opinion regarding it.

[KingsGambit]

I don't follow Franklin Graham (or CT), but IMO he is entitled to voice his opinion regarding it.

Right, I'm only speaking about Billy here.

[Charles]

I don't follow Franklin Graham (or CT), but IMO he is entitled to voice his opinion regarding it.

Yes. I disagree but of course he is entitled to voice his opinion.

I am actually glad he shared his opinion. No matter if you agree or not it is extremely easy to see that he is talking in an "US vs. THEM" logic along the lines of what Trump himself has been doing. It seems it is hard for them to accept any discussion about a Republican president and if someone questions Trump they they immediately want to imply they support the left. It does not follow logically so it is quite obvious that they have got a very weak case.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, I think if CP addressed the current politics as your pastor, I don't think you would still be convinced of the coup being done by Congress.

No - I wouldn't, but addressing THAT issue - I would think - still sits under CP's 'not talk about politics'

As I said, I think that's a good rule most of the time. There has to be something explicitly immoral or some overtly anti-scriptural principle about what is going on and there needs to be the possibility people in the congregation are being led astray by it.

So, I don't quite understand your point. You still would see things as just extreme partisan politics -- or that Republicans are so blind that they would accept an evil person as President. I think you forget Satan's efforts to blind the people. You are accepting the message of the world, of the atheists, of the socialist atheist democrats.

The issue is not politics like 'should we be moving towards a carbon free transportation system'. This issue, in this case, is the Christian community standing behind a person that has abused the power of the office and trampled on basic moral principles codified in both scripture and the constitution. Thus, the risk here is that the moral witness of the Church to the world is compromised by that support.

Without trying to compare Donald Trump to Hitler, just looking at how this principle plays out in a situation where no one would disagree action is warranted, the holocaust and the silence by the church in Nazi Germany has compromised the witness of the Church in the world tremendously and for quite some time. So in principle, when the Church (especially its leadership, but also a large number of people that are a part of it) accepts or explicitly supports entities that are violating clear moral principles, it compromises the witness of the Church for Christ in the world. And so it is important when that is happening that Christian leaders step up to the plate and offer leadership to the church and to the world as to what is and is not acceptable and good and right.

When they don't, then their moral leadership is compromised. And their voice on other issues is silenced. Like, say, abortion on demand.

[oxmixmudd]

This is an argument from silence.

And that is avoiding the issue.

[One Bad Pig]

Yes. I disagree but of course he is entitled to voice his opinion.

I am actually glad he shared his opinion. No matter if you agree or not it is extremely easy to see that he is talking in an "US vs. THEM" logic along the lines of what Trump himself has been doing. It seems it is hard for them to accept any discussion about a Republican president and if someone questions Trump they they immediately want to imply they support the left. It does not follow logically so it is quite obvious that they have got a very weak case.

Fascinating psychoanalysis, Charles. You might want to reconsider using language such as "they" and "them" in an adversarial matter while complaining about "US vs. THEM" logic, however.

[oxmixmudd]

I already conceded, Jim.

About that - keep trying. Just understand that to keep it from becoming personal, you can't turn the conversation from being about the objective topic to it being about some perceived fault in the person you are talking to.

[seer]

No - I wouldn't, but addressing THAT issue - I would think - still sits under CP's 'not talk about politics'

As I said, I think that's a good rule most of the time. There has to be something explicitly immoral or some overtly anti-scriptural principle about what is going on and there needs to be the possibility people in the congregation are being led astray by it.




The issue is not politics like 'should we be moving towards a carbon free transportation system'. This issue, in this case, is the Christian community standing behind a person that has abused the power of the office and trampled on basic moral principles codified in both scripture and the constitution. Thus, the risk here is that the moral witness of the Church to the world is compromised by that support.

Without trying to compare Donald Trump to Hitler, just looking at how this principle plays out in a situation where no one would disagree action is warranted, the holocaust and the silence by the church in Nazi Germany has compromised the witness of the Church in the world tremendously and for quite some time. So in principle, when the Church (especially its leadership, but also a large number of people that are a part of it) accepts or explicitly supports entities that are violating clear moral principles, it compromises the witness of the Church for Christ in the world. And so it is important when that is happening that Christian leaders step up to the plate and offer leadership to the church and to the world as to what is and is not acceptable and good and right.

When they don't, then their moral leadership is compromised. And their voice on other issues is silenced. Like, say, abortion on demand.

Jim who will you vote for in the next election? Trump or a pro-abortion leftist? Or stay home or vote third party which will help elect the pro-abortion leftist?

[KingsGambit]

Jim who will you vote for in the next election? Trump or a pro-abortion leftist? Or stay home or vote third party which will help elect the pro-abortion leftist?

He doesn't live in a swing state so it doesn't particularly matter.

(And the idea that a third party vote helps elect one candidate but not the other in the absence of other factors is nonsense.)

[Cow Poke]

So, you mean to imply that if someone asks if we have more bananas and I answer: "No, we have no bananas" then I imply we have more bananas?

Sorry, you're not familiar with that meme..... it's a song....

If somebody asks, "we have no bananas?" the proper response, assuming we, indeed, are out of bananas, is "yes, we have no bananas".