AU replies to the "War on Christmas"

[USIncognito]

I'm not sure if this is the correct subforum to place this in, but it seems right since the culture warriors strum und drang smells of political motivation. I'm on the Americans United for Seperation of Church and State mailing list and this open letter from Barry Lynn to Jerry Falwell was in my inbox today. I thought I'd share it, and see if there are any comments.

Dear Jerry:

Heres some news: There is no "war on Christmas!"

Ive seen you on various television news shows claiming that there is but, in fact, there simply isnt. Even as I write this, millions of Americans are erecting Christmas trees and nativity scenes at their homes, and thousands of churches are planning special Christmas services.

And, if I might say so, most of them are planning their lives without getting permission or encouragement from you.

I am deeply disappointed that you have chosen a time that Christians observe as a season of peace and good will and turned it into a time of religious divisiveness and community conflict. Your "Friend or Foe" campaign may be great for fund-raising and publicity, but it has sown discord unnecessarily.

Contrary to your wild allegations, Jerry, neither Americans United, nor any other civil liberties organization that I know of, is waging any kind of war on Christmas. The First Amendment of our Constitution ensures every Americans right to observe religious holidays or to refrain from doing so. We can wish each other a "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays," and its really none of your business which term we choose. We can call our decorated tree a "Christmas tree" or a "holiday tree," and thats our right. (We can observe the holidays of other traditions as well.)

I think we all know whats really going on with your campaign. You want an America where there is no separation of church and state and where your rather narrow interpretation of Christianity is forced on everyone. If you can convince Americans that their cherished Christmas traditions are under fire, you think maybe they will join your nefarious crusade to tear down the protective church-state wall that guarantees our freedoms.

Well, it wont work, Jerry. Americans are, by and large, a tolerant lot, and they are quite unlikely to join forces with someone like you who is so far out on the political and religious fringes. Many people remember the outrageous comments you made after the 9/11 terrorist assaults, suggesting that America had it coming because of our (in your opinion) sinful ways. They also remember your dire warning that Tinky Winky, a kids TV character, was brainwashing our children into homosexuality! You cant rehabilitate an image like that by trying to depict yourself as Father Christmas.

I am particularly outraged that you are attacking our public schools as part of your misguided project. Our public schools serve children from 2,000 different faith traditions and some who follow no spiritual path at all. They generally do a tremendous job of helping each of these students without imposing any particular religious viewpoint. They steer a careful course, broadly allowing student religious _expression while trying to avoid school endorsement of specific faiths. That means there are sometimes disagreements about what songs should be sung in the winter concert or what decorations should go in the hall. We can work through those decisions by applying common sense, the Constitution and plain old civility.

Thanks to the crusade by you and your allies, however, some of these schools are being targeted for venomous attacks. After the Alliance Defense Fund unfairly maligned a public school in New York for its holiday observance policies, education officials there received hateful mail of all sorts. One e-mail said "You are either bigoted Jews who hate Christians or mindless secularists."

Since I debated you about the Christmas issue on Fox News Channels "OReilly Factor," I have received 66 nasty e-mails, including two death threats. Observed one of my correspondents, "Hope you die soon. Merry Christmas."

Jerry, this is the kind of interfaith and community hostility that you are stirring up, and I implore you to stop it now. You are polluting the public square with animosity and anger. And at Christmas, of all times!! Have you no decency?

Youve dubbed your latest round of antics a "Friend or Foe" campaign. Well, Jerry, I am a friend of the Constitution and a foe of intolerance. You should be too.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays,

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn
Executive Director

PS: I saw on a couple of the news shows that you are again questioning my ministerial credentials. I believe the _expression that you used on Fox News Channels "The Big Story with John Gibson" is that I am "about as reverend as an oak tree" and that I never "preached in" a church. Drop me a line, Jerry, and Ill send you (again) a copy of my ministerial credentials from the United Church of Christ. And by the way, Id be happy to come to Thomas Road Baptist Church and deliver the sermon on the Sunday of your choice. Your congregation might like a change of perspective every now and then.

[melikio]

Roberstson feeds the poor and clothes them too. Lynn wages an endless war to silence Christians. "Fan" means fanatic. I am not a fanatic on Robertson. But he reaches out to people and Lynn does not.

Yes, Robertson's organizations DO have some focus upon helping others. And I do not assume that the AU (in it's own way does not help others). As far as I can tell, it IS a voice for many who have a small voice. Get this: Even "sinners" have rights, and I think it's clear that some "Christians" WOULD limit those basic human rights, motivated via intransigence and even abject BIGOTRY. I think that "Jesus" and His overall principles need few checks/balances applied in this reality...but I'm sure PEOPLE (even some who wear the "Christian" label) DO likely need to be watched fairly closely.

Christians who check themselves (as a way of life) through the lens of love, do have the tendency to see things in right and balanced ways. Followers of RELIGION who see there beliefs as a set of RULES to apply to others (far more than themselves), are a part of the collective problems in this WORLD... and bring valid questioning upon their actions; are they actually OF God? If one brings a very HIGH standard to the table, they'd BETTER be following it themselves, otherwise CREDIBILITY is not something they will enjoy in this world. It appears Jesus' LOVE was His bond to everything concerning us (so-called saints and sinners); those who truly FOLLOW HIM, should above all else actually exude LOVE as BOTH their message and/or motive. God was not and is not STUPID... He knew people (HUMANS) would try to TALK UP a great game period (think POLITICS); but it all eventually boils down to LOVING others,

(see 1Cor13) http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... version=45

not the FORCING of conformity that so much (not all) of Christianity has frequently been associated with over the centuries.

And not only has Christianity been guilty of that, but many RELIGIONS or RELIGIOUS FOLLOWERS have been (it's a problem with HUMAN nature). Even abject SECULARISM unchecked, can be quite OPPRESSIVE. Jesus (in the spiritual sense) can certainly be the answer for what ails many; but the RELIGION which many attach to "Jesus", is not necessarily so... and HISTORY has proven that. Checks/balances like the AU have likely always been in order.

-Mel-

[melikio]

Christians have good reasons to be wary of persecutions. That is all that is happening here. Everyone fundraises for whatever they want. Lynn too is using his religion to raise money except he does nothing to further the kingdom of God. I pity that guy on judgment day.

ALL human beings have reasons to be wary of actual oppression (by others), no only philosophical opposition. Checks/balances are REQUIRED.

Christians are part of the remnant. I have no attachment to America other than my birth certificate and my taxes.

I'm willing to bet, that God doesn't define a group of people, as "narrowly" as we humans tend to.

Prove that Christians did anything or stop making wierd accusations. Blacks attacked Korean store owners during the Rodney King riots. ALL Blacks are at blame? Or felons?

Does it ALWAYS take such proof to show that people can be (are) evil or that The Golden Rule actually matters? What is distributed via human relations, eventually comes back around to greet those who "distributed" it (what goes around, comes around).

Just preach the truth. The Gospel has no violence in it to be meted out to anti-Christs. Lynn too.

Preach truth IN LOVE; otherwise, it amounts to NOTHING useful for the furtherance of God's (actual) will; some people only imagine it does. There is little if anything more important than people LOVING one another.

Ever seen the porno in Pompei? A volcano took out those sickos.

Ever took an honest look at the HISTORY of mankind overall? (Who is so blind that they do not see MANY problems the world over?) IF some "Christians" had their way, they would see to it that the "sinners" of their choice were ELIMINATED period; I see the point, but reject the concept.

That proves Satan was talking with God like he did in the book of Job. Now that book takes on a more current role.

Actually, this proves that one must accept that by "faith", not everyone is there with what YOU "believe" (even other "Christians"). There "bumps" (always) between human beings, and LOVE it the ONLY thing that really smooths them out.

Too many Lynn's and not enough preachers calling people to walk the walk.

Christianity is best LIVED, than talked about.

That would apply to a man like Lynn that has myopically chosen secualrism over God.

Many people are myopically-positioned, but I really do not believe Lynn is... not anymore than others who are forcused on specific aspects of this world. I have found that some Chrisitians DO WANT the POWER to define "liberty" for others; THAT will likely never happen.

God chastising His own? Looks like it. The churches made a great impact on the poor and needy and Lynn's secular government is complicit in killing those poor people with its apathy. Lynn is a wierd Christian.

Just remember, that this view you hold, IS based upon your "faith" (what YOU believe God is like, or what YOU believe He will or will not DO); others will not necessarily agree with you. It's more important that YOU pray for those who have suffered, than that you possess some inside-scoop on God's thoughts.

Judging actions is easy. Judging the heart is not. In either case the rules are written in the Bible. It seems gays and lesbians are opposed to Christianity far more than the other way around. Everyone is a sinner in the Gospels except Jesus.

No, proper discernment of anything involving people, is not necessarily "easy". I think that action might be assessed more "intuitively", but motives are not typically revealed until actions support them. And if I were to judge ALL "Christians" by the actions of relatively few, I would NOT be one who seeks Jesus today; I would have rejected it long ago. It is a "miracle" that I believe in Christ; nothing less.

You are presenting your opinion. OK. I have a differing opinion. Metaphor they are not.

It's debatable period. YOU are also sharing an opinion. And fear does not as effective as LOVE in reaching people for Christ.

I have written that Christians should embrace secularism because their political power is immense and they could do more for Christ in cementing freedoms to say anything anywhere. If I am seen as smug I am very sorry for that. But actions speak louder than words and Lynn should be judged on both.

Christians should be out here loving people, and promoting the concepts thereof, NOT trying to gain CONTROL and POWER (that is God's providence). That "Christians" do not have their way (within and outside of themselves) is nothing new, and will always be until the end of TIME (as we know it). Inside of that, we have God sacrifice and love to reach others... that's it.

The President is a Christian that reached out to a secular world. He did a good job. And, why does this O'reilly guy invoke such a hostile reaction in people? I have started watching him more often and he lets anyone come on his show.

I respect George Bush, or ANY many who makes it into that office; it's a HARD JOB. I don't agree that the President being "Christian" is necessarily a "good" thing (even if it can be helpful at times, especially for him as a person). And I agree that O'Reilly's show covers both sides of an issue fairly well, but it's not exactly un-SPUN (as he likes to claim). He has a tremendous amount of influence as it relates to the "perceptions" the program leaves with its viewers; don't be completely fooled.

I'm sure the President sent a Christmas card to his Christian friends. I have a photo of He and Laura. It says God Bless on it.

I have HUMAN friendswho range from anti-Christian atheists, to born again biblical literalists. They are NOT all the same (obviously). But that doesn't mean that I'm not a "Christian" as I deal with them. I have to learn to share (give/take) with all of these people, unless I isolate myself in some retreat in the woods or mountain somewhere.

Love is powerful in the RIGHT WAYS, and just as effective as this in-your-face, (politically) "Conservative-Christian" approach that seems popular today. Christian people will eventually learn that is the case (again), and we will see the tide turn, shift toward what would be considered more "liberal" views overall. And the "control" many Christians mistake for God's "will", is always likely to be fleeting... especially if LOVE does not become the FOUNDATION of what they are promoting. (God is NOT stupid.)

-Mel-

[melikio]

The fact is that AU and Lynn are being called on the crap. They don't like it and that is just too bad. Freedom of expression and freedom of speech goes both ways. If he can't take the heat he should stay out of the of the public forum.

And one FACT is:

People can be wrong yet civil, AND they can ALSO be right but arrogant and/or mean-spirited. Carnal tools garner carnal results; Christians should know that, without subjecting them to big lectures and arguments (it is a "spiritual-posture" or way of life, not merely a concept PARKED in their minds).

I'm certain that Jesus met many people who were "right" (on the surface of things), but as WRONG AS THEY COULD BE inside of who they were (attitude). He chastised those very people far more than most others. IF love isn't your motive, meaninglessness and rejection of the message is typically the result; you aren't going to stop people from being HUMAN. And that's NOT what "Christians" should be trying to accomplish with the Gospel, but that is so often what they can be found attempting to do; that's not love.

-Mel-

[1John2_26]

Quote:
The fact is that AU and Lynn are being called on the crap. They don't like it and that is just too bad. Freedom of expression and freedom of speech goes both ways. If he can't take the heat he should stay out of the of the public forum.

And one FACT is:

People can be wrong yet civil, AND they can ALSO be right but arrogant and/or mean-spirited. Carnal tools garner carnal results; Christians should know that, without subjecting them to big lectures and arguments (it is a "spiritual-posture" or way of life, not merely a concept PARKED in their minds).

I'm certain that Jesus met many people who were "right" (on the surface of things), but as WRONG AS THEY COULD BE inside of who they were (attitude). He chastised those very people far more than most others. IF love isn't your motive, meaninglessness and rejection of the message is typically the result; you aren't going to stop people from being HUMAN. And that's NOT what "Christians" should be trying to accomplish with the Gospel, but that is so often what they can be found attempting to do; that's not love.

I'm having a hard time understanding what your point is. "People can be wrong yet civil?" Lynn is wrong and civil . . but he is wrong. He claims to be a Christian Reverend but where is his evangelization? Being a nice Christian supporting people going to hell is not a good thing. If love was his motive he would preach the Gospel when he had the air time. Christians know all too well about humans and their behavior. Love would be trying to reach a hurting world following secular lies. That is a big difference in fighting against secularism and not allowing people to choose what they want to but it is a Christian Ministers responsibilty to bring the Gospel to that searching world. If they refuse it then their future is up to them. Lynn is a far cry from Falwell on that. Falwell is completely correct that it is an us versus them situation when it comes to the kingdom of God. Lynn seems to be loudly supporting the worldly world.

[1John2_26]

Meliko, Here is the AU in their own words. They are a political force and organization. Where is the Gospel from this organization led by a Christian Minister? A Christian should go along with secularism but not promote it as a business or political venture. AU is clearly doing that. It seems that they are against very beautiful Christians like James Dobson and the people at the Alliance Defense Fund.

They fight against private religious schools receiving tax dollars although the people sending their children to private schools pay taxes and are sending their kids to private schools at great hardship finacially. Very odd for a Christian Minister to find his place among the opposition to religious schools.

They do not appear as wolves in sheeps clothing but openly are wolves. See the stuff I put in bold.

About AU

The Americans United Story
Americans United for Separation of Church and State was founded in 1947 by a broad coalition of religious, educational and civic leaders. At that time, proposals were pending in the U.S. Congress to extend government aid to private religious schools. Many Americans opposed this idea, insisting that government support for religious education would violate church-state separation. The decision was made to form a national organization to promote this point of view and defend the separation principle.

AUs leaders wanted a group with a nationwide focus that would be active on several fronts. The organization worked to educate members of Congress, as well as state and local lawmakers, about the importance of maintaining church-state separation. At the same time, state and local chapters of Americans United were formed, and the organization began publishing Church & State magazine and other materials in support of church-state separation to educate members of the general public. These activities continue today and form the core of Americans Uniteds operations.

As the years went by, Americans United tackled new issues as they emerged. In 1962 and 63, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down landmark rulings striking down government-sponsored prayer and Bible reading in public schools. Calls soon began emanating from Congress to amend the Constitution to protect the "right to pray in school." But Americans United defended the rulings, pointing out that no branch of government has the right to compel children to take part in religious worship and that truly voluntary student prayer remained legal.

In the late 1970s, the Religious Right began its rise as a political force, and Americans United responded. Throughout the 1980s, Jerry Falwells Moral Majority and other allied groups unleashed a torrent of attacks on church-state separation and assailed the principle in the halls of Congress and the federal courts. They also targeted public schools for "takeover" campaigns, attempting to saturate the curriculum with fundamentalist theology.

At the same time, "education choice" advocates began demanding tax subsidies for religious education through vouchers, tuition tax credits and other avenues. Americans United rallied the opposition to these schemes and helped secure a string of court victories that turned back the Religious Right and their pro-voucher allies. Americans United also organized Americans to speak out against the extreme and intolerant agenda of the Religious Right.

In the 1990s, Religious Right forces regrouped under TV preacher Pat Robertsons Christian Coalition. This organization focused heavily on local politics, playing special attention to public school boards. Its supporters brazenly demanded an end to public education and the "Christianization" of politics. Through a series of in-depth reports and by working with the nations media, Americans United exposed the radical agenda of the Christian Coalition.

The rise of other Religious Right organizations such as Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defense Fund has kept Americans United busy in recent years. At the same time, the organization continues to oppose misguided voucher initiatives in the states and seeks to block so-called "faith-based" initiatives in the federal government and in the states.

Americans United believes that all Americans have the constitutional right to practice the religion of their choice (or refrain from taking part in religion) as individual conscience dictates. The government must remain neutral on religious questions. This has been a guiding principle of Americans United since the organization was founded.

Today, Americans United is based on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. with a professional staff of more than 40 employees. Americans of all religious and philosophical backgrounds have joined forces under the Americans United banner to defend the separation of church and state.

Americans Uniteds current executive director, the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, is a United Church of Christ minister as well as an attorney long active on behalf of civil liberties. Through the years, many members of the clergy have been involved in the work of Americans United. However, Americans United is officially a non-sectarian and non-partisan organization. Americans United is happy to work with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Humanists and those who profess other religious beliefs or no belief. We welcome Democrats, Republicans, Independents and those of other political affiliations who share our belief in religious liberty.

Americans United celebrates the rich religious and philosophical diversity of the United States and seeks a nation where all people may peacefully pursue the truth as their consciences dictate

[MagusYanam]

That is a big difference in fighting against secularism and not allowing people to choose what they want to but it is a Christian Ministers responsibilty to bring the Gospel to that searching world.

Exactly. I don't see Falwell doing that. I don't think Lynn does much better at it, but he's not being counterproductive the way Falwell is.

Lynn is a far cry from Falwell on that. Falwell is completely correct that it is an us versus them situation when it comes to the kingdom of God. Lynn seems to be loudly supporting the worldly world.

Well, then, Falwell's not preaching the Gospel as I read it in the Bible. The Kingdom of God is not about 'us versus them' - it's about quite the opposite. We are commanded not only to love our neighbours but to love our enemies as well, and to pray for those who would persecute us. We are commanded to gather together in God's name to do God's will in the world and to recognise no tribal distinctions in so doing - no Jew nor Greek nor rich nor poor in the Kingdom. This doesn't sound like 'us versus them' to me.

Falwell seems to be taking two steps back for every one forward he makes on preaching the Gospel. He seems to be confusing (as so many fundamentalists now do) a political agenda for the Scripture he claims to be using. Never mind that Jesus said nothing about either abortion or homosexuality - nowhere are these mentioned in the Gospel - but for some reason, these pet political issues seem to be the only thing driving people like Falwell. Not God's grace and not the Gospel.

Preaching the Gospel means - point-blank and first-order - affirming to people, regardless of any superficial or cultural differences, the grace that God has bestowed upon them, convincing them of their worthiness to show that selfsame grace to others and urging them to do it, regardless of any superficial or cultural differences. That is the way Jesus conducted himself; that's the way the early Church conducted itself; that's the way we should be conducting ourselves.

[melikio]

They do not appear as wolves in sheeps clothing but openly are wolves. See the stuff I put in bold.

I USED to be supportive of people like Dobson and Robertson.

There are things that both have said/promoted, that I DO NOT find to be "Christian".

But along with that, since the last couple of elections, what some see as "conservative" or "Christian" has infuriated me. The rhetoric and the combining of religion, Bible and politics is NOT something I'll ever promote again. I realize it's problematic, because it generally tends to FORCE (yes, social pressure is a true "force").

And when the so-called "conservatives" happened to make "gay-marriage" their primary focus, I knew things were quickly going the wrong way. It seems to me, that they wish to socially and morally STAND upon people's necks, what at the same time tell them that "Jesus Loves You". It's virtually BOGUS.

And just because someone is "homosexual", it doesn't mean they are going to "HELL", anymore than the nearly 50% of people who get divorces for all the WRONG REASONS are going. YOU, like si many who have bought into the "GAY IS BAD" mantra, can't even expand to see that sin is a STRUCTURE, and that it cannot be "right" or "effectual" to FOCUS so adamantly upon homosexual people (or their sins).

What is going on, is similar to a magic trick... attention is diverted from so many MASSIVE issues (or the essence of society's actual problems) to what is may be easily defined as THE "enemy". People do not see "SATAN" sitting at the threshold of their very own HEARTS, yet seem to be able to detect him doing things a thousand miles away from their lives.

I'm NOT here to say homosexuality is "good" or "bad", but I do recognize the HYPOCRISY that is being promoted on a GRAND scale. Each era in this society (and in history) has seen some unique forms of hypocrisy, but the effects upon the spiritual well-being of mankind is similar.

Maybe if I WASN'T GAY, I wouldn't be watching to notice how people talk about and treat homosexuals; just maybe I wouldn't notice that heterosexuals (even Christians) take their HUMANESS (nature) in stride and casually accept that God's grace is what they live in. But then again, I just MIGHT notice it. Yes, there are "Christians" who understand the VALUE of treating even GAY PEOPLE like...er...well..."people".

As far as "Christians" THINKING or BELIEVING that their faith or religion gives them the special right to DOMINATE others, I will always contest actions or proposals to take that BEYOND mere thinking or believing.

As for the AU or Rev. Barry, I am certain that at the very LEAST, God has allowed such views as "filters" or "crucibles" to TEST mankind or perhaps "Christianity" itself. You know, I read everything in BOLD (from 1Jn226's post, and I have no problem with them.

It would be one thing for an organization or religion to PROHIBIT the actual free expression of faith; but advocating for people to have the right or freedom to NOT have certain morals or religious practices pushed AT them or promoted by GOVERNMENT... really isn't a BAD thing. I'm sure that America's founders understood the general guidelines they laid down. People (humans) haven't changed so much, that the things they signed for especially concerning "state/religion" are no longer relevant. Actually, those things are AS relevant today, as they ever were.

The SAME LAWS which keep ATHEISTS from outlawing "Christianity", are the SAME LAWS which keep CHRISTIANS from outlawing "non-belief" or "disbelief". THAT to me, is FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Remember: in SOME nations, the laws are based upon THE "religion"...those are places where you MUST believe (or else).

We need to be very careful (as history has shown us), about the role of the believer's FAITH individually, as opposed to the role of the society in which the believer lives. Some people only want trouble; they LIVE for it and using RELIGION to stir the pot (according to THEIR WILL), is right in line with what they believe or think is "correct".

LOVE isn't soley about "permissiveness", nor is JUSTICE about mere "power" or "control" (as many believe).

-Mel-

[micatala]

Looks like there has been some good debate going on here. I won't try to respond to everything, given limited time, but just a few points.

Roberstson feeds the poor and clothes them too. Lynn wages an endless war to silence Christians. "Fan" means fanatic. I am not a fanatic on Robertson. But he reaches out to people and Lynn does not.

A few responses here.

How is working to see that certain Christian groups don't violate the constitutional rights of other Christians or non-CHristians the same as waging a war to silence Christians?

In my view, this is not at all an accurate characterization of what AU is about. In quickly looking over your bolded excerpts from AU's site, I don't see that AU is at all advocating that anyone not be allowed to practice their religion or be able to exercise their free speech rights.

I don't particulalry like their rhetoric, but the fact that they disagree with Falwell's or Dobson's views does not necessarily make them anti-CHristian at all.

Opposing the implementation of a theocracy associated with a particular religions does not imply that one is against that religion, or even that one is not a follower of that religion.

Consider that in the OT, aliens living among the Israelites were not made to follow the Israelites religious practices. By allowing this, was God working against himself or against the religion of the Israelites? Of course not.

Now, I am not a member or even a close follower of what the AU does. However, I do support the concept of separation of church and state, not because I am anti-Christian, but because I think in the long run this is better for the continued health and growth the Christianity in this country, and is more likely to further the production of good fruit in society by the larger church body. I completely reject the notion that activities like AU is engaged in cannot be a method of furthering the kingdom.

I'm having a hard time understanding what your point is. "People can be wrong yet civil?" Lynn is wrong and civil . . but he is wrong. He claims to be a Christian Reverend but where is his evangelization? Being a nice Christian supporting people going to hell is not a good thing.

One question: How is supporting the separation of church and state the same as supporting people going to hell? I don't follow this at all.

Now, you criticize Lynn for his lack of evangelization. I am not going to try and speak on his behalf, but would say that, in general, just because person A is not doing the same work as person B to further the kingdom does not mean we should criticize person A. As the Bible says, we all have our roles in the body (we are not all eyes, etc.). If Lynn, through his own Christian walk and in good conscience sees what he is doing as a service to God, then we should at least accept his motivation, if even we disagree with his strategies or actions.

Romans chapter 14 says we should not judge our fellow servants with respect to their walk with God. It is to God they are responsible. This chapter goes on to say that when there is disagreement about debatable issues among the faithful, we are not to judge each other about these, but always work as we can to our brothers benefit.

Again, I am not trying to speak on Lynn's behalf, but I could see the kinds of positions advocated by AU as being beneficial to the body, in that they provide a correction or counterbalance to certain aspects of Christianity which might be characterized as 'Pharisaic.' I know this is a harsh word, but I think we all need to be aware of the danger of falling into such attitudes and behaviors.

In my view, some of what is advocated by Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, et. al. amounts to the placing of 'undue burdens' upon people of faith or those who we might hope will join us in the faith. These burdens they either are unwilling to lift themselves, or are such that they are not a burden to them because of their own nature or pre-existing attitudes.

One closing comment. Yes, I agree that one can find many people who advocate 'anti-CHristian' positions or otherwise have a negative view of Christianity and Christians. In the U.S., we have freedom of speech, so these people are and I think should be allowed to speak their mind. Similarly, Christians are and should be free to speak their minds.
Looking at what goes on every day all across this country, one can only conclude that there is no 'war' on Christmas or CHristianity.

And besides, if someone does say something nasty about Christians or Christianity, we might ask the WWJD question regarding how we should respond. Personally, I don't think responding by crying at the top of our lungs 'Christianity is under attack, circle the wagons, man the battle stations, the war is on!' is what Jesus would do. He certainly wouldn't, IMHO, mis-characterize other people or their motives, or encourage people to react out of a sense of fear.

[/i]

[1John2_26]

Micatala, I'll respond to your post after this one. You make excellent points.

MagusYanam, here goes a point for point.

1John2_26 wrote:
That is a big difference in fighting against secularism and not allowing people to choose what they want to but it is a Christian Ministers responsibilty to bring the Gospel to that searching world.

Exactly. I don't see Falwell doing that. I don't think Lynn does much better at it, but he's not being counterproductive the way Falwell is.

Falwell always quotes scripture and almost always invites people to follow Christ every chance he gets on TV. He has founded an outstanding University. DC Talk isn't exactly a bad by-product. Lynn does nothing but fight Christians and joins together with non-believers and is a politician plain and simple.

1John2_26 wrote:
Lynn is a far cry from Falwell on that. Falwell is completely correct that it is an us versus them situation when it comes to the kingdom of God. Lynn seems to be loudly supporting the worldly world.

Well, then, Falwell's not preaching the Gospel as I read it in the Bible. The Kingdom of God is not about 'us versus them' - it's about quite the opposite.

I have many differeny versions of the Bible. Which one does not have the us versus them in it? That is the message although the goal is to get as many of them into the kingdom of God. Lynn works to keep Christianity like abortion safe, legal but rare,

We are commanded not only to love our neighbours but to love our enemies as well, and to pray for those who would persecute us.

How un-politically correct that is. That would mean actually identifying enemies and those that er really persecuting us. Us versus them MagusYanam.

We are commanded to gather together in God's name to do God's will in the world and to recognise no tribal distinctions in so doing - no Jew nor Greek nor rich nor poor in the Kingdom. This doesn't sound like 'us versus them' to me.

You are mentioning those in the church and applying it to everyone. Non-members don't gather with memebrs.

Falwell seems to be taking two steps back for every one forward he makes on preaching the Gospel. He seems to be confusing (as so many fundamentalists now do) a political agenda for the Scripture he claims to be using.

I agree with you very much on that point up to the two steps back. Falwell has a good track record for evangelizing and supporting people.

Never mind that Jesus said nothing about either abortion or homosexuality - nowhere are these mentioned in the Gospel - but for some reason, these pet political issues seem to be the only thing driving people like Falwell. Not God's grace and not the Gospel.

There is no reason for Jesus to dwell on settled issues. Homosexuals and abortion are well-defined. Morality IS a big issue. Both the things you mention dwell in immorality. Falwell is just a good preacher doing what he has to do. Jesus wasn't popular either with anti-Christs so to speak.

Preaching the Gospel means - point-blank and first-order - affirming to people, regardless of any superficial or cultural differences, the grace that God has bestowed upon them, convincing them of their worthiness to show that selfsame grace to others and urging them to do it, regardless of any superficial or cultural differences.

It means a call to conversion. That is the main thing. It means standing up for morality and the truth in the Gospel not political correctness. Falwell is a better example of the Gospel message then Lynn is.

That is the way Jesus conducted himself; that's the way the early Church conducted itself; that's the way we should be conducting ourselves.

You may want to re-read the Gospels and the letters. There is no where a tolerance towards members doing things and supporting things that are against the Church. Lynn is against the church. He wants it seperated from state but no one is stupid enough to not see what he is actually representing. Falwell is a good check for Lynn's imbalance.

[melikio]

You may want to re-read the Gospels and the letters. There is no where a tolerance towards members doing things and supporting things that are against the Church. Lynn is against the church. He wants it seperated from state but no one is stupid enough to not see what he is actually representing. Falwell is a good check for Lynn's imbalance.

Are we talking about taking a stance against "The Church" or against certain ideas or things coming from "a church"?

And just because "members" of God's family have differing points of view (which are most likely inescapable) and/or opinions, does not not mean that they are against THE CHURCH.

So... who is against THE Church; Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, United Church of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, Presbyterians...? Who? Who has it "RIGHT"?

You see, I think the problem is that many have learn to PREACH/TEACH as if that leaves a person with no choices, no personal views, no thoughts of their own. They must align their thoughts/views with that of THE COLLECTIVE (as the "Borg" on "Star Trek" live).

Here we have a nation that is OBVIOUSLY more than "Christian", yet lately I hear people stridently pointing out that this IS a "Christian Nation". Come on folks... a TITLE ALONE (one which the founders DID NOT apply) doesn't mean that we are all "Christians". And I think Jesus would know who was/wasn't against Him.

NOT ALL people here are "Christians", and NOT ALL CHRISTIANS are thinking in the same ways, about the same things. Through painful (and sometimes not) experiences, I've found that Christians can/do differ greatly on what are considered pivotal and/or essential truths.

I see people who wear the "Christian" label FREQUENTLY doing things against Christ in their daily lives. Is anyone shocked by that? Don't be... people are neither CLONES nor anywhere near PERFECT.

Jesus Christ may certainly honor the FEELINGS in a person's heart that are evoked when they see a nativity scene, pray silently/secretly in public or school, read a passage to find a TRUE meaning, or most importantly direct goodness or kindness toward another person. But the idea that going through some RELIGIOUS MOTIONS brings us any closer to The Church (the gropus of believer-followers in Jesus), is a fallacy.

As I implied, nearly 37 years of studying and looking at church-stuff, has convinced me that this nation is better off, having people as Lynn and Falwell BOTH battle certain things in the open. IF we had listened to those who believe the GOVERNMENT should support "Christianity" exclusively, I doubt that we would be as peaceful "internally" as we are. I can't say too much for us "externally", as I have questions about the present WARS we are involved in abroad. But I do tend to applaud America for its humanitarian efforts overall; this IS a great nation in part because of "Christian" contributions... but as a minority who saw a significant part of the struggle for CIVIL RIGHTS (60's-70's), I cannot help but understand that we really are not a "Christian" nation.

Now, I see in this era, that gays and unbelievers have been unofficially designated as "THE ENEMY"; I'll grant that terrorism is a REAL threat in this world, but the scapegoating of sinners (a sin) by Christians is no more "acceptable" to God (or THE Church), than the rampant and damaging hypocrisy running through THE Church.

Personally, I'm all but DONE with brand name "Christianity", because I know the goodness, fairness, justice, compassion, righteousness and LOVE of Jesus, goes FAR BEYOND the BRANDS of Christianity many people IDENTIFY with.

Is unconditional LOVE a MYTH or not? (John 3:16, 1Corinthians Chapter 13) Are we PAYING ATTENTION to how often "CHRISTIANS" ARE NOT ASSOCIATED with those verses? It tends to be something churches mention, but DO NOT propagate in the most BASIC of ways. I know this, because I quietly listened to my fellow Christians comments and expressed thoughts over time. MANY were "religious", few made (unconditional) LOVE their way of life.

So, I'm not shocked that we now live in an era, where "Christians" (or those who wield the most influence), want the society to be (forcibly under law) CONFORMED to their views/beliefs. Yes, there ARE people more friendly TOWARD Christians sounding the same alerts that I am, but in a world where something extreme tends to get attention, things are being said and pointed out in ways that likely DO NOT SEEM pro-Christian.

Finally, the main problem I notice, is that far too many "Christians" have the attitude that they must BE IN CONTROL. While I agree that a certain type of power comes to those who are "Christian", it does NOT promise or authorize believers to necessarily have AUTONOMY over other human beings. Love encapsulates and distributes that "power" for God's use, and the reason I constantly share 1Cor13 as a reference amongst "conservatives" and "legalists", is because I realize readily that people who see the Bible as a RULE BOOK, are very apt to pull LOVE, COMPASSION and GRACE literally out of the hands of others; THAT will never be "right" (no matter what we may "believe").

As I said, I may not agree with Lynn or Falwell completely, but I think there is something from EACH SIDE that is worth considering overall. There is NO PERFECT "Christianity" coming from the minds/lives of human beings. Anything that is actually "right", is something that we should thank God for (if we truly "believe"). It is our LOVE that will draw and convert; that's God's power working properly through us as human beings. We were never meant to be religious lawyers and policemen of this world, God is THE ONE who has authority to direct hearts and minds where He will; it's His providence... not a power we should be playing God with. "Faith" is for the individual "believer", not some category or ranking of POWER to be wielded upon others. And if "Christianity" (the brand name, not THE Church) doesn't learn that, then it/they will be dissatisfied and frustrated indeed.

-Mel-