And what charities are the author saying they give to? This article generically says “all sorts of charitable activities”. Does that mean they give to their churches and Christian colleges? That could be more self-serving than “charity” (which is literally translated “love”). Do they give to the local food bank or “feed the homeless” programs? This article is pretty vague.

Let’s face it, most evangelicals (and I’m guilty of this, too), on a regular basis, do not go out of their way to help a stranger, visit the elderly, take a meal to people who live under bridges, etc.

Speaking of people who live under bridges, here’s a wonderful exception: Candy Hemphill Christmas and her husband Kent have a terrific ministry feeding and clothing the homeless. Check out their website:
http://bridgeministry.org/

And Christians should not expect our government to do it all. In fact, if we did what Jesus requires, maybe the government wouldn’t need to do ANYthing.

And I guess I went back on what I said. I did have more to say.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

And the apostle Paul didn’t say we have to agree on everything. He taught we should agree on the essentials (deity of Jesus, for example), even when we have differing views on non-essentials.

Some Christians seem to think we should spend all our time and effort evangelizing. Others that we should spend all our time and effort getting involved with social issues (feeding the poor, etc). I believe Jesus taught we should do both. Read some of Tony Campolo’s writings. I think he makes a lot of sense. Issues are not always as cut-and-dry as we may think. Some issues are more complex.

I see pastors (at the least) hinting that if you don’t vote their way, you’re not a Christian. There are fine Christian folks on both sides of the aisle. I, too, am one who is tired of this bullying from the pulpit. I really don’t think this is what God has in mind for His church.

While I do agree with some of the political issues conservatives emphasize, there are other issues I feel they have ignored way too long. The liberals have some valid points, too. I probably could be labeled a conservative on Biblical matters, but a liberal on some social matters. The liberal/conservative labels are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

The media does a great job of lumping all Christians into one category. We Christians are smart enough to know they’re often wrong. There is room for diversity in the Kingdom, but probably not room for dissention.

And that’s all I’ve got to say about that.

I do not agree with everything George Bush has done in his two terms, but I’ve prayed for him each day. And I don’t know whether Obama, Mitt, Hillary, John or someone else will be living in the White House next year. But, I do know this: God is in control and he wants me to continue to pray for the next President, too. He or she might be a conservative or a liberal or somewhere in between. But, regardless of tags, people need truth…people need Christ.

I’m a moderately liberal guy and I know and accept that that puts me at odds with many in the SG audience. It bugs me when I attend an SG concert and the performers slide their political views into the performance. It’s their right, but it bugs me anyway because it detracts from the spiritual and worship part of my experience.

We may have our political differences, but there is a place for liberals in Christianity. When I go to worship or enjoy SG music, I don’t want a political argument. I can get that somewhere else.

To repeat and emphasize: It’s the performers’ right to voice their politics on their platform if they want. But I don’t go to SG concerts to hear it, and it’s my right not to like it.

And to digress: If TV news and its oversimplification gets you down, spend more time with newspapers and news magazines. And for a fuller view of the world, read stuff you disagree with. I do, and I think I’m more thoughtful and open minded because of it.

DH - “I do wish you had posted the comment below online though, if only because that’s part of the what the site is about. I think I’ve got a pretty solid record of taking all comers as far as perspectives go, and I really do value the range of views that get an airing on my site in the comments. In fact, I’m proud of it. Plus, it’d be a shame, I think, for others not to have the benefit of your thoughts on the subject. You’d probably be speaking for a lot of others in what you’ve said here. I hope you reconsider your decision to stop visiting avfl. I’ve always valued your comments publicly and privately and appreciate your insights, even or especially because they’re often different from mine.”

———————————

(Joe-) I would like to just tell you privately, that I am greatly disheartened and saddened by your recent posts, ! and by many of the responders.

It seems as if your “longstanding tensions or unresolved ambivalences” about your upbringing in conservative fundamental Christianity, has caused you to lash out at same publicly…and since it is your blog, this is…your right.

But I cannot tell you how intensely I disagree with what you have written.

Any who would add the counsel of God’s Word to a discussion on your blog boards, or bring in the spiritual or Scriptural viewpoint, now are
characterized here, by yourself, as…

1. “A conversation-stopping brand of anti-intellectualism.”
2. “Spittle-flecked bloviators”.
3. Not able to have “a serious conversation with anyone…”
4. Having “disdain for or condescension to dissenting views.”
5. “Hopelessly self-destructive.”
6. Causing threads to be “hijacked by people quoting Scripture…”
7…. “preaching mini-sermons in ways clearly meant to function as conversation-stoppers…”
8. “…narrow- and small-minded”
9. characterized by the “scandously
trifling qualities of the fundamental mind.”

Add to your comments, a few of your posters who took your tensions, and ran with them.

10. …being “blog police”.
11. …”pontificating…”
12….stopping threads by “quoting Scripture”.

Doug- please sit back for just a minute, and reflect on these lines and feelings.

This is a website that deals with southern GOSPEL music. I wrote it that way intentionally- I’m sure you picked that up. The definition of the word “gospel” comes only from Scripture, and i! t is very narrow-minded definition. There is only one way to be saved. There is only one pattern for NT church gathering. Paul enjoined his hearers, over and over and over, to “be of the same mind; be like minded”.

Not a hint of diversity of viewpoints, with the Scriptural ones being excluded, almost automatically. If we, as professing Christians, have now brought ourselves to the point where any and all views, as liberal as possible, are to be accepted and expounded, but Scripture cannot be brought in as guide, counsel, correction, or revision of possible wrong thinking, what then, really, are we? We are no better than the unsaved, who disdain the Word of God entirely.

And this, my good friend, is how your blog has recently been shaping up.

I am really sorry you are “kicking at the goads” of your “puritanical upbringing”. I cannot speak for you. But my brother and I had a very strict and conservative upbringing from 2 very fun and personable and God-honoring parents, and we thank Him every day just for that.

If we didn’t take this seriously, and did not uphold Biblical fundamentalism as we went about our lives for the Lord, we would be no better than the liberal thinkers of today’s post-modern world. Paul repeatedly told Timothy NOT to lose, discard, give up, discount, or devalue the doctrinal ideals with which he was raised.

When I see professing believers rebel against the conservative values of Scripture, and even the very use of God’s Word itself, then my heart is truly saddened. This is simply giving in to “itching ears” - only hearing what I WANT to hear.

I am not accusing you of this, mind you- but your own words put into print are pointing this way. I cannot change your mind, but neither will you change mine. I can only pray for you…and hope that you will get a different epiphany at 30,000 feet the next flight, and understand again that if God’s Word is not used in ALL of our discourse and thinking, then what we think and say really matters nothing at all.

I write this as sincerely as I can, and in a friendly manner. If I were to double my IQ, I would not be as smart in these things as you are, sir. I bow to your intellectual intelligence- this is the main thing that has kept me here.

But if you really do mean to exclude, or to at least repeatedly and publicly discourage Scriptural and spiritual discussion here, then I will not be participating.

————————————-

I have posted this, not to argue with anyone…but to state a point of view, and have done so at Doug’s request. There may be others here who generally agree with what I have written. For those who disagree, you may have at me…I will not argue with you.

As Alan said so eloquently (above)…for those of us who ARE saved by grace, God’s Word is our “Owner’s Manual”. If we now have come to the place where we can disregard this book, and have developed the thinking that our own opinions carry more weight than what the Sovereign says, then we all need a wake-up call.

I like to think for myself. Thus, I’m conservative on some issues middle of the road on others and liberal on others. Following a list some politician made to say that’s what I believe is ludicrous to me.

But enough of this off topic stuff.

Saved me from having to write a 750 word essay. Thanks!

It reminds me of the scene toward the end of Aaron Sorkin’s 1995 film ‘The American President’ in which Michael Douglas’ character, President Andrew Shepherd, finally answers his chief critic, blowhard Sen. Bob Rumson. An excerpt:

For the last couple of months, Senator Rumson has suggested that being president of this country was, to a certain extent, about character…
and although I have not been willing to engage in his attacks on me, I’ve been here three years and three days, and I can tell you without hesitation: being President of this country is entirely about
character…

Everybody knows American isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say, “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free,
then the symbol of your country can’t
just be a flag; the symbol also has
to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest.” Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free…

I’ve known Bob Rumson for years. I’ve been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn’t get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob’s problem isn’t that he doesn’t get it. Bob’s problem is that he
can’t sell it. Nobody has ever won
an election by talking about what I
was just talking about…

We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious men to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, friend, I promise you, Bob Rumson is
not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who’s to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win
elections…

You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and personal character. Then you have an old photo of the
President’s girlfriend. You scream
about patriotism and you tell them
she’s to blame for their lot in life,
you go on television and you call her
a whore. Sydney Ellen Wade has done
nothing to you, Bob. She has done
nothing but put herself through law
school, prosecute criminals for five
years, represent the interests of
public school teachers for two years,
and lobby for the safety of our
natural resources…

We’ve got serious problems, and we need serious men, and if you want to talk about character, Bob, you’d better come at me with more than a burning flag and a membership card. If you want to talk about character and American
values, fine. Just tell me where and
when, and I’ll show up. This is a time for serious men, Bob, and your fifteen minutes are up. My name’s Andrew Shepherd, and I am the President.

It will be interesting when Scott has a choice between a Mormon and a guy who doesn’t seem really religious on his ticket and an African-American with a Muslum sounding name and a (gasp) Methodist woman who had an unfaithful husband. Poor Scott…:-)

I wonder how much money they spent to figure that one out. Nothing ever quite compares to the length intellectuals will go to state what ordinary people already know.