Confronting Believers, Loving Non-Believers
According to the Bible, we have a duty to confront fellow brothers and sisters when they sin. First you confront them privately, then you take one or two other brothers and sisters with you to confront them. If that fails, you take it to the congregation. If that last ditch effort fails, then they are removed from the congregation entirely until such time that they repent.
In contrast, we are to provide a loving witness toward non-believers, in the hopes that our testimony and our example will help open them to the Holy Spirit and Christ. We are to leave judgment to God, and do our best to be loving and sacrificial toward them.
Accordingly, I find the attitude in many Christian communities toward many gay folks to be puzzling in the extreme. Is reacting with revulsion a loving response? Is singling them out for punitive legislation a loving response? Is denouncing them and "gay culture" (whatever that is) a loving response?
In contrast, why are we so ready to overlook the sins of many so-called Christians who commit adultery, often without the slightest sign of repentance? Why are we so forgiving of so-called Christians who engage in non-Biblical divorces? Why aren't we confronting these people? Why aren't we holding them accountable, and if they refuse to repent, why aren't we removing them from our congregations?
I do not feel comfortable naming names, but even a cursory review of the news over the past decade will reveal many examples of so-called Christian politicians who have engaged in adultery and non-Biblical divorces, yet not one (and I beg you to prove me wrong on this) high-profile Christian leader has confronted any of these politicians regarding their behavior.
This is disappointing. Just because a so-called Christian politician pays lip service to issues of interest to the Christian community, that does not give such a politician a "free pass" when it comes to church discipline.
We need to confront people who call themselves believers, and we need to love non-believers in the hopes of bringing them to Christ. I refuse to accept the quid pro quo business as usual that is special interest politics...even if that special interest is what a politician claims is Christianity.
D
In contrast, we are to provide a loving witness toward non-believers, in the hopes that our testimony and our example will help open them to the Holy Spirit and Christ. We are to leave judgment to God, and do our best to be loving and sacrificial toward them.
Accordingly, I find the attitude in many Christian communities toward many gay folks to be puzzling in the extreme. Is reacting with revulsion a loving response? Is singling them out for punitive legislation a loving response? Is denouncing them and "gay culture" (whatever that is) a loving response?
In contrast, why are we so ready to overlook the sins of many so-called Christians who commit adultery, often without the slightest sign of repentance? Why are we so forgiving of so-called Christians who engage in non-Biblical divorces? Why aren't we confronting these people? Why aren't we holding them accountable, and if they refuse to repent, why aren't we removing them from our congregations?
I do not feel comfortable naming names, but even a cursory review of the news over the past decade will reveal many examples of so-called Christian politicians who have engaged in adultery and non-Biblical divorces, yet not one (and I beg you to prove me wrong on this) high-profile Christian leader has confronted any of these politicians regarding their behavior.
This is disappointing. Just because a so-called Christian politician pays lip service to issues of interest to the Christian community, that does not give such a politician a "free pass" when it comes to church discipline.
We need to confront people who call themselves believers, and we need to love non-believers in the hopes of bringing them to Christ. I refuse to accept the quid pro quo business as usual that is special interest politics...even if that special interest is what a politician claims is Christianity.
D
posted by Dennis | 1:25 AM
2 Comments:
I definitely have to agree. There's a new acronym going around, that explains part of it: IOKIYAR (It's OK If You're A Republican). The part that “gets” me is that a politician doesn't have to live a moral life, he (it’s usually he) just has to talk about morals. Preferably other people’s morals.
BTW, I’ve linked your site at my blog to remind me to check back from time to time; I hope you keep it going. (Man, I hate saying stuff like that, it sounds like blog spam, but in this case it’s for real.)
Thanks for the compliment, the link and your thoughts. :-) It is really an encouragement. I'm going to try to keep this blog updated at least every couple of days, although work has been insane lately.
D
Post a Comment
<< Home