Yet, at the same time in other parts of the world, there is a greater and more violent disconnect in the sense that Christians are violently feuding over things, such as in Ireland for example, or in Rwanda where a very tragic genocide occured not that long ago in human history.
None of these examples have anything to do with "harsh witnessing." They are mostly sectarian conflicts, not against nonChristians but against other Christians.
Faith writes:
I beg to differ with your overall point. I would say it's quite clear that the usual objection to the gospel we are all familiar with is based strictly on the Biblical revelation itself, and completely independent of the manner of witnessing, which may in fact be quite gentle.
That's not exactly true Faith, at least not all the time.
I'm referring to the attitudes on this board and they are specifically directed against the supposedly cruel and irrational God of the Bible.
I've already admitted that there is very little to no salvation in the eternal life of those who reject the gospel message from one who has lovingly presented it.
I have to admit that I suspect this notion of "lovingly" as it usually has little in common with the methods of Jesus and his followers, but usually turns out to involve a sentimentalizing or dumbing-down of the gospel itself so as not to "offend" anyone, which is the opposite of loving.
For instance, was it "loving" of both Jesus and John the Baptist, in their preaching of the gospel of salvation to call the Pharisees a "generation of vipers?"
Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Mat 23:33 [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Luk 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
And what do you think of Jesus' threatening them with Hell? Is that "loving" by your standards?
And how about Jesus' condemnation of the cities who rejected his testimony? Matthew 11:21 - 24 Woe to thee Chorazin.. Bethsaida! etc. ...And you, Capernaum... shall be brought down to hell..."
Just wondering, because it usually turns out to be the case that anything along these lines expressed by Christians is condemned as "unloving" by many Christians today, absolutely missing the point of what love really is. They think it's compromising, getting along. Uh uh. Christian witness is a radical contradiction to the world. If it isn't that, it's salt that has lost its savor.
It is no doubt true that Christians are not loving enough nevertheless -- but you do understand that we are called to LOVE ONE ANOTHER, not the world. THAT is the emphasis in scripture.
However, there are aspects of this whole debate that can be placed under the banner of Christians persecuting others that do not agree with them.
I suspect that what you mean by "persecuting" could be simply telling unwelcome truths or if you prefer, giving unwelcome opinions.
We both know full well what Christ said in John 15:18-25:
NIV writes:
"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own.
As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you:
'No servant is greater than his master.'
If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me.
If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin.
He who hates me hates my Father as well. If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father.
But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law:
'They hated me without reason.'
Many Christians will read something like this and automatically assume that if someone rejects our message then it's because they're unwilling to heed the truth of the gospel. Or, stated more plainly, if one rejects us then they are rejecting the one who sent us in the first place.
But that's not always true -- and you know that. Sometimes we do push our faith unto others, and in a very nasty way I might add too. Even if physical violence is not employed, the push can come in the form of poilitiking, psychological abuse, or even just outright bigotry.
Even if other Christians don't agree with civil gay marriage for example, it doesn't mean they go out and beat the living shit out of them -- which has happened. Or, in the case of an abortion clinic, even if I'm strongly opposed to abortion, it still doesn't give me the mandate to bomb abortion clinics.
YOu reach for the extremes, the oddballs. This is completely unfair. Beating anyone up or killing anybody is not a Christian thing to do and you know it, and it is extremely unfair of you to make such a suggestion. You slander the great numbers of Christians who abhor such violence and yet are trying to impact this sinning world as citizens and as witnesses to the truth, to try to keep this nation from self-destructing even further.
So yeah, sometimes Christians are assholes, including myself by the way. We need to be very careful not to indirectly endorse the adversary's methods when being led by God's Spirit.
You are tarring your Christian brethren with an evil brush, Mr. Ex. and giving fuel to this enemy you think you are warning us against.
So even though our Lord has said...
If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
...we also need to keep in mind the words spoken by people like Ghandi who said something like...
"I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."
With all due respect, I hope, I think this is one of the biggest cop-outs unbelievers pull and Christians fall for. This usually reflects a false idea of Jesus. They like the wishywashy image of Jesus, and they dislike the tough-talking Christians who preach God's law to a sinning world.
Stephen Hand at TCR said the following and it made a lot of sense to me.
Steven Hand writes:
The case for war in even the most difficult circumstances weakens in proportion to the cry for vengeance everywhere today in light of the Christ-Event. Consider: Jesus, Our Lord, was born into and lived His life in a land under military occupation. The Roman occupation of Israel (63 BC.) was the last in a long line of invasions beginning with the Babylonians (539 BC), then the Persians and the Greeks.
Is it any wonder that there were zealots who simply wanted to form an armed insurrection to rid God's People of this Roman yoke and fight their way to freedom?
Yet Jesus would lend them no support for military plans.
You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
In this sense, he's speaking of love for our enemies.
Steven Hand writes:
You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Matthew 5:38f
Instead Jesus spoke of a cross we must "take up" and "carry" which, He promised, will lead to resurrection. It sounded preposterous to logic itself, and certainly to a pragmatic, zealous people. Yet Jesus taught that bearing the suffering of the unjust, of the "enemy," along with a vital non-cooperation with evil, was the only radical alternative to "an eye for an eye ... until the whole world is blind".
Yes, this message I definitely agree with. As Christians we all need to learn better to suffer the accusations and injustices of others against us. I certainly need to learn this as I'm hotheaded and it is a huge effort not to retaliate and often a losing battle.
But this is a far different thing from diluting our message to appeal to carnal ears, which is what your view unfortunately sounds like.
The Sermon on the Mount is the oldest tradition of the Church. God's progressive revelation had already taught that responses to injustice, at the very least, were to be limited in proportion to the crime (an eye for an eye only!); no longer would people be allowed to dish out mayhem for lesser infractions, much less against innocent civilian populations.
The Sermon on the Mount is given to INDIVIDUALS, and to BELIEVERS. The biggest mistake people make these days is to apply it outside of this context, as if it applied to governments for instance. That is sheer foolishness, a recipe for social destruction.
But now, in the "fullness of time" (Heb 4:4) with the Christ-Event, the great, the highest, ideal was put before the world: Love, forgiveness, bearing the suffering of those who inflict injustice, without cooperating with it, until the "enemy" is converted in heart.
This was something new upon the earth. And it inspired Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King who showed it could work in the most oppressive situations.
"We will match your capacity to inflict suffering...with our capacity to endure suffering. We will meet your physical force with soul force. We will not hate you, but we cannot in good conscience obey your unjust laws... And in winning our freedom, we will win you in the process"
--- from The Spiritual Roots of Protest by Jim Forest)
Bearing suffering is a crucial message, I agree. But there's also a way of being aggressive about this which is not really bearing suffering at all. Depends. A big subject.
"When I read the history of Mahatma Ghandi alongside the history of the Christian church, I cannot help wondering what went wrong. Why did it take a Hindu to embrace the principles of reconciliation, humility and vicarious sacrifice so clearly modelled by Jesus himself? Ghandi credited Jesus as his source for these life principles, and he worked like a disciplined soldier to put them into practice. What has kept Christians from following Jesus with the same abandon?"
----- Philip Yancey, Christianity Today
Well I have to admit to finding Yancey to be a compromiser and dumber-down of the truths of the faith. And again, I really don't think passive resistance is truly suffering for the faith because it is an aggressive act as practiced by Gandhi and King. Effective politically and far better than violence, I'm all for it, but I'm not sure this can be said to represent true Christian dying to self.
It has broken our hearts to see so many orthodox Catholics beat the war drums and imbibe the spirit of bloodlust with George Bush since 9-11. Rather than radically limit the use of force in response to that horrible attack ---i.e., go after and seek the arrest of the actual perpetrators and look to understand the complex causes for it---the United States all but withdrew from the community of nations to launch shock-and-awe provocations and breathe a new spirit of "preemptive" wars (which Eisenhower called insane) like a raging wounded Beast.
I'm going to refuse to get into a political discussion here, but I will say that applying Christian principles to nations is utter foolishness. God's Law, the Old Testament, applies to nations, not the gospel of salvation, which can't apply to unbelieving nations.
The Way of Jesus, the Word Incarnate, is the Way for us in a nuclear world, lest we put out the light of life altogether on this planet.
This is ONLY true for individuals, NOT for nations. There are situations where if you do not make war against the enemy, the enemy will destroy you and everything good. I think we are in danger of that right now as we are treating an implacable enemy with kid gloves who needs to be subdued by unanswerable force, not cruelty, merely enough force to subdue them. But this stupid political correctness that refuses to call evil evil is going to invite the worst violence and bloodletting this world has ever seen. End of political speech.
It takes courage ---the courage to suffer, to love, and to forgive, even as we refuse to cooperate with evil and unjust laws--- as it seeks the conversion of the heart of the enemy.
For INDIVIDUALS alone to do. If a nation seeks to convert others, if you try to do this on a national level, you simply abandon the protection of your citizens against murderous enemies.
Faith writes:
Schrafinator is not complaining about witnessing methods but about the character of God as presented in the Bible, which is what we are discussing, the God who saves whom He will. She finds this God to be cruel, not the methods of witnessing about Him.
Yes, but since we Christians are supposed to be considered "evidence" for God's existence, I do believe that this subject is fair game for discussion.
Sure it's fair game but it is not the topic. She is not complaining about witnessing methods, she is complaining about God.
In other words, if we are displaying characteristics that are inconsistent with the God we profess, then is that considered a valid reason for rejecting the God we've witnessed our faith in?
Speak for yourself. The complaints against God here are complaints against God, and it is wrong of you to try to make that the fault of your fellow Christians.
I've actually touched on this subject already within this thread. I think it's any interesting topic and well within the confines of this discourse.
It is a tangent at this point.
),
™ Version 4.2