Conservative Pastor steers clear of politics, pays dearly

[Psychoblues]

USMB doesn't have an individual forum for this particular topic so I thought it best to post it here in the WOT forum. I will understand if a moderator chooses to move it to another forum more appropriate for it's content. Might I suggest a USA, a United States or maybe an American forum where discussions that would concern ordinary Americans might be discussed?




Like most pastors who lead thriving evangelical megachurches, the Rev. Gregory A. Boyd was asked frequently to give his blessing — and the church's — to conservative political candidates and causes. The requests came from church members and visitors alike: Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services? Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit? Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortion work? Would the church distribute "voters' guides" that all but endorsed Republican candidates? And with the country at war, please couldn't the church hang an American flag in the sanctuary? After refusing each time, Mr. Boyd finally became fed up, he said. Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called "The Cross and the Sword" in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a "Christian nation" and stop glorifying American military campaigns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/u...0ee7feb1&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

I really do think it such a shame that such a man of the clergy, to which the right wingers so desparately cling, should be treated so shabbily. This is a story that would deserve some research into the why, how, when, where and who, don't you think?


Psychoblues


Psychoblues

 

[Avatar4321]

So what your saying is he:

Thinks we should stop preaching traditional morality
Thinks we should stop being grateful for people who defend our freedom.
Basically give up our right to voice our own opinions in government issues because we are religious

So what exactly about anything this preacher is teaching is conservative?

 

[Psychoblues]

Guess what? Avatar4321 didn't read the article. That would be my guess. Avatar4321 asserts without foundation whatsoever that the Rev. Boyd does not preach traditional morality, or is ungrateful for our veterans and goes beyond comprehension while asserting the Pastor might advocate giving up our very American rights to VOICE our own opinions because of religious persuasions. Avatar4321, all I can say is, you don't read or comprehend well. The Rev. Boyd loves you anyway. Common sense and reading your nonsensical screed would indicate that you are not at all capable of understanding a different point of view other than your own.


Psychoblues

So what your saying is he:

Thinks we should stop preaching traditional morality
Thinks we should stop being grateful for people who defend our freedom.
Basically give up our right to voice our own opinions in government issues because we are religious

So what exactly about anything this preacher is teaching is conservative?

 

[Avatar4321]

Guess what? Avatar4321 didn't read the article. That would be my guess. Avatar4321 asserts without foundation whatsoever that the Rev. Boyd does not preach traditional morality, or is ungrateful for our veterans and goes beyond comprehension while asserting the Pastor might advocate giving up our very American rights to VOICE our own opinions because of religious persuasions. Avatar4321, all I can say is, you don't read or comprehend well. The Rev. Boyd loves you anyway. Common sense and reading your nonsensical screed would indicate that you are not at all capable of understanding a different point of view other than your own.


Psychoblues

Cant deal with actual criticisms so you have to resort to name calling? For a guy who is supposedly so old you act like an 8 year old alot. You specifically quoted this part:

Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called "The Cross and the Sword" in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a "Christian nation" and stop glorifying American military campaigns.

Let's see, the man is preaching against sexual morality, against showing gratitude for people who shed their blood in defense of our freedom, and essentially expressing our views in public. That sounds exactly what I said. Again how is this conservative?

You can claim to be against abortion all you want, but if refuse to support efforts to end it are you really against it? You can claim to be agains homosexuality, but if you preach against speaking out on moral issues are you really? or are you just speaking out both sides of your mouth to start a controversy and get more people to your flock.

The fact that he doesnt want to support any political party is good. I think more Churches should do that. But when you are clearly preaching against good christian principles he is clearly doing, then you arent helping. You can be against abortion regardless of what party, but you cant be against abortion at the same time you preach not opposing it. How ridiculous is that. There is nothing conservative about this guy. To claim he is a conservative preacher is dishonest.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Hmmm. Moralzing on sexual issues is umm...a good bit of what the bible is all about, but on the other hand, it's good that he's cutting out the militant Stateolatry.

 

[nt250]

USMB doesn't have an individual forum for this particular topic so I thought it best to post it here in the WOT forum. I will understand if a moderator chooses to move it to another forum more appropriate for it's content. Might I suggest a USA, a United States or maybe an American forum where discussions that would concern ordinary Americans might be discussed?




Like most pastors who lead thriving evangelical megachurches, the Rev. Gregory A. Boyd was asked frequently to give his blessing — and the church's — to conservative political candidates and causes. The requests came from church members and visitors alike: Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services? Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit? Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortion work? Would the church distribute "voters' guides" that all but endorsed Republican candidates? And with the country at war, please couldn't the church hang an American flag in the sanctuary? After refusing each time, Mr. Boyd finally became fed up, he said. Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called "The Cross and the Sword" in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a "Christian nation" and stop glorifying American military campaigns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/u...0ee7feb1&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

I really do think it such a shame that such a man of the clergy, to which the right wingers so desparately cling, should be treated so shabbily. This is a story that would deserve some research into the why, how, when, where and who, don't you think?


Psychoblues


Psychoblues

Did YOU read the article?

Here's the headline:

Disowning Conservative Politics, Evangelical Pastor Rattles Flock

When the New York Times doesn't even consider this guy a conservative in their own headline, why are you calling him one.

That site requires registration. Usually I can plug the headline in at Google and find any article from the New York Times somewhere else that doesn't require registration, but I don't feel like it today. If you really want anyone to read the article, you should c/p it here.

 

[Joz]

I did not follow the link. I did however read what was posted.
Rev. Boyd needs to be defrocked.

 

[Bullypulpit]

USMB doesn't have an individual forum for this particular topic so I thought it best to post it here in the WOT forum. I will understand if a moderator chooses to move it to another forum more appropriate for it's content. Might I suggest a USA, a United States or maybe an American forum where discussions that would concern ordinary Americans might be discussed?




Like most pastors who lead thriving evangelical megachurches, the Rev. Gregory A. Boyd was asked frequently to give his blessing — and the church's — to conservative political candidates and causes. The requests came from church members and visitors alike: Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services? Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit? Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortion work? Would the church distribute "voters' guides" that all but endorsed Republican candidates? And with the country at war, please couldn't the church hang an American flag in the sanctuary? After refusing each time, Mr. Boyd finally became fed up, he said. Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called "The Cross and the Sword" in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a "Christian nation" and stop glorifying American military campaigns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/u...0ee7feb1&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

I really do think it such a shame that such a man of the clergy, to which the right wingers so desparately cling, should be treated so shabbily. This is a story that would deserve some research into the why, how, when, where and who, don't you think?


Psychoblues


Psychoblues

Sounds as if the good pastor will be better off without the 1,000 or so that walked out. He also seems to understand the importance of the separation of church and state as well as a solid understanding of his faith.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I did not follow the link. I did however read what was posted.
Rev. Boyd needs to be defrocked.

Don't be so narrow-minded dearie...You might learn something useful.

 

[Joz]

Don't be so narrow-minded dearie...You might learn something useful.

Dearie?

This man is not talking about the seperation of church & state. He's talking about seperation of church & Bible.
I have learned to stay away from those that are guilty of apostasy.

Where do you think this man is right?
Not moralizing sexual issues? There is no right or wrong?
America is not a "Christian" nation? She is blessed above all other nations on this earth.
Glorifying the military? How do we do that? We are a free nation because of the military we've had. And that's exactly why we're where we are, now. We looked ripe for the picking. But us Christians can put up a pretty mean fight.

What was wrong with the church speaking against abortion?
Oh, & hanging a flag in the Church? You'll find few atheists in a foxhole.
A church that is true to the Bible will speak against homosexuality, the same as it speaks against adultery, murder, covetousness, & gossip.

So, what is it you'd like me to learn, Mr. Pulpit?

 

[5stringJeff]

Like most pastors who lead thriving evangelical megachurches, the Rev. Gregory A. Boyd was asked frequently to give his blessing — and the church's — to conservative political candidates and causes. The requests came from church members and visitors alike: Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services? Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit? Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortion work? Would the church distribute "voters' guides" that all but endorsed Republican candidates? And with the country at war, please couldn't the church hang an American flag in the sanctuary? After refusing each time, Mr. Boyd finally became fed up, he said. Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called "The Cross and the Sword" in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a "Christian nation" and stop glorifying American military campaigns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/u...0ee7feb1&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

Let's take this bit by bit:
1. Rev. Boyd didn't announce a pro-marriage rally. No crime in that. I can't remember ever hearing an announcement for a pro-marriage rally at my church.
2. Rev. Boyd didn't introduce a politician from the pulpit. Good. Church isn't about announcing who's there and who isn't, it's about worshipping God. The offended politician needs to have his/her ego deflated.
3. It doesn't say whether Rev. Boyd approved or denied the request for the table in the lobby promoting "anti-abortion work," but those ministries (also known as adoption or crisis pregnancy ministries) are fairly common. We support a couple of them from our church.
4. Voter's guides. Regardless of whether a voter's guide "all but endorse Republican candidates," (nice slant, NYT) or whether they relate a candidate's positions and/or voting records on issues important to churchgoers, there's nothing wrong with voting guides in church, so long as they are available to take voluntarily.
5. Hanging an American flag in the sanctuary. I understand how people can have mixed feelings about this. After all, the sanctuary is a place of worship where God is to be honored, and an American flag is not necessarily a part of worship. We have an American flag and a Christian flag in our sanctuary, but they are off to the sides, on 6' flagpoles, and if you weren't looking for them, you'd barely notice. I have no issue with that, but again, I can understand why people would frown on a flag in the sanctuary.
6. Rev. Boyd's series about steering clear of politics, giving up moralizing on sex, stop calling America a Christian nation, and stop glorifying American military campaigns.
- I agree with the first two points to the extent that politics and sexual morality are not the primary purpose of the church. I certainly think that Christians can have differing political beliefs, and I think that as a church, we tend to focus more on sexual morality than saving souls. That's not to say that sexual immorality is not a problem, but that there are other issues that the Church should put some effort into fixing.
- As to whether America is a Christian nation, I think it's actually more accurate to call America a post-Christian nation. There are a lot of non-believers in America, and I think it's important that the church recognize that.
- As to glorifying military campaigns: our church has two veterans of the current conflict. One Sunday, our pastor interviewed them both, talking about some of the struggles they went through without discussing the larger political issues. I thought it was a great way to go about the topic.

Overall, while I might not agree exactly with everything this guy did, I don't find any of his actions to be contrary to Scripture.

 

[Psychoblues]

5stringJeff, I agree totally with most you say. The only exception here, however, is in your item #4. Voter's guides. Regardless of whether a voter's guide "all but endorse Republican candidates," (nice slant, NYT) or whether they relate a candidate's positions and/or voting records on issues important to churchgoers, there's nothing wrong with voting guides in church, so long as they are available to take voluntarily.

Voting guides in church should totally exempt the church from taxation exemptions. In other words, if a particular church presents itself as an interested party in political decisions it should also exempt itself from special tax considerations or altogether tax exemption. Given that a particular church enjoys exemption yet interferes in the political process, such church has crossed the line separating church from state and therefore exposes itself to normal taxation imposed by the state for services rendered and benefits claimed as would any other business or other organized monetary transaction entity.

Personally, I think it appropriate that the church indoctrinate it's members on subjects concerning the church's own perceptions of morality, history, the gifts of their Gods and the afterlife. As they delve into personal or party politics then they have also relinguished themselves as liable citizens of the state in which they exist. Statehood is not free and should be supported by every entity that demands the fire and police protections, voting influence they command and ability to commerce as afforded by the states, as in United States Of America. Corporations pay taxes even though they are not citizens. Admittedly, however, they influence politics. As churches influence politics they should also be taxed.

I think the good Reverend knows what he is talking about. Don't you?


Psychoblues

Let's take this bit by bit:
1. Rev. Boyd didn't announce a pro-marriage rally. No crime in that. I can't remember ever hearing an announcement for a pro-marriage rally at my church.
2. Rev. Boyd didn't introduce a politician from the pulpit. Good. Church isn't about announcing who's there and who isn't, it's about worshipping God. The offended politician needs to have his/her ego deflated.
3. It doesn't say whether Rev. Boyd approved or denied the request for the table in the lobby promoting "anti-abortion work," but those ministries (also known as adoption or crisis pregnancy ministries) are fairly common. We support a couple of them from our church.
4. Voter's guides. Regardless of whether a voter's guide "all but endorse Republican candidates," (nice slant, NYT) or whether they relate a candidate's positions and/or voting records on issues important to churchgoers, there's nothing wrong with voting guides in church, so long as they are available to take voluntarily.
5. Hanging an American flag in the sanctuary. I understand how people can have mixed feelings about this. After all, the sanctuary is a place of worship where God is to be honored, and an American flag is not necessarily a part of worship. We have an American flag and a Christian flag in our sanctuary, but they are off to the sides, on 6' flagpoles, and if you weren't looking for them, you'd barely notice. I have no issue with that, but again, I can understand why people would frown on a flag in the sanctuary.
6. Rev. Boyd's series about steering clear of politics, giving up moralizing on sex, stop calling America a Christian nation, and stop glorifying American military campaigns.
- I agree with the first two points to the extent that politics and sexual morality are not the primary purpose of the church. I certainly think that Christians can have differing political beliefs, and I think that as a church, we tend to focus more on sexual morality than saving souls. That's not to say that sexual immorality is not a problem, but that there are other issues that the Church should put some effort into fixing.
- As to whether America is a Christian nation, I think it's actually more accurate to call America a post-Christian nation. There are a lot of non-believers in America, and I think it's important that the church recognize that.
- As to glorifying military campaigns: our church has two veterans of the current conflict. One Sunday, our pastor interviewed them both, talking about some of the struggles they went through without discussing the larger political issues. I thought it was a great way to go about the topic.

Overall, while I might not agree exactly with everything this guy did, I don't find any of his actions to be contrary to Scripture.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Dearie?

This man is not talking about the seperation of church & state. He's talking about seperation of church & Bible.
I have learned to stay away from those that are guilty of apostasy.

Where do you think this man is right?
Not moralizing sexual issues? There is no right or wrong?
America is not a "Christian" nation? She is blessed above all other nations on this earth.
Glorifying the military? How do we do that? We are a free nation because of the military we've had. And that's exactly why we're where we are, now. We looked ripe for the picking. But us Christians can put up a pretty mean fight.

What was wrong with the church speaking against abortion?
Oh, & hanging a flag in the Church? You'll find few atheists in a foxhole.
A church that is true to the Bible will speak against homosexuality, the same as it speaks against adultery, murder, covetousness, & gossip.

So, what is it you'd like me to learn, Mr. Pulpit?

Well, dearie...If you'd actually READ the article, you would see that he is indeed a conservative minister. He simply believes it is not the place of the church to impose its values by attempting to give religious doctrine the force of law. He understands that when the church becomes directly involved in politics, the church ultimately suffers with the word being corrupted by the world.

And, despite your protestations to the contrary, America is not a "Christian nation". It is a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, HIndus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Shintoists, Taoists, Jainas, Wiccans and every other religion under the sun. Had the Founding Fathers wished to set up a theocracy, or some other authoritarian form of governement, they surely would have done so. But such aithoritarianism was what they were rebelling against, and so they decided against establishing a state religion. They were well aware of the horrors perpetrated when religion and government walk hanh in hand. They had the immediate example of the repression and suffering of people in the Massachussetts Bay colony under its Puritan rulers.

So, learn that there is more than one road to paradise. And let those who wish to follow those roads live in peace, so long as they harm none. If you want to convince others that yours is the best path, do so by example, not legislation.

 

[Nienna]

“When the church wins the culture wars, it inevitably loses,” Mr. Boyd preached. “When it conquers the world, it becomes the world. When you put your trust in the sword, you lose the cross.”

See, here, he's thinking of ancient Rome.

So he is basically asserting that the Church should stay inside the church building, and keep its beliefs out of everyday life. If this guy truly believes this, he has no business preaching Christianity, and his salvation may be in danger. The Church is told to be salt & light. Christianity is NOT pretty words spoken from a pulpit; it is a lifestyle. And its adherents are called to promote that lifestyle, by introducing its beliefs to others (whom may accept them or not, according to their free will). These beliefs include EVERYTHING that God commands, not just the hearts and flowers stuff, the noncontroversial stuff.

A pastor/church should not claim that one cannot be a Christian unless he supports a particular party or candidate. However, it is not only useful, but responsible, to inform congregants about the issues, how the issues line up with Christianity, and where individual politicians stand on the issues.

 

[Nienna]

Let's take this bit by bit:
1. Rev. Boyd didn't announce a pro-marriage rally. No crime in that. I can't remember ever hearing an announcement for a pro-marriage rally at my church.

No crime... but what would it have harmed? Especially if other events were announced from the pulpit, but he avoided this one.

2. Rev. Boyd didn't introduce a politician from the pulpit. Good. Church isn't about announcing who's there and who isn't, it's about worshipping God. The offended politician needs to have his/her ego deflated.

I agree with you on this one.

3. It doesn't say whether Rev. Boyd approved or denied the request for the table in the lobby promoting "anti-abortion work," but those ministries (also known as adoption or crisis pregnancy ministries) are fairly common. We support a couple of them from our church.

So do we.

4. Voter's guides. Regardless of whether a voter's guide "all but endorse Republican candidates," (nice slant, NYT) or whether they relate a candidate's positions and/or voting records on issues important to churchgoers, there's nothing wrong with voting guides in church, so long as they are available to take voluntarily.

Agree.

5. Hanging an American flag in the sanctuary. I understand how people can have mixed feelings about this. After all, the sanctuary is a place of worship where God is to be honored, and an American flag is not necessarily a part of worship. We have an American flag and a Christian flag in our sanctuary, but they are off to the sides, on 6' flagpoles, and if you weren't looking for them, you'd barely notice. I have no issue with that, but again, I can understand why people would frown on a flag in the sanctuary.

I can see this point, also, although it would not bother me to see a US flag there.

6. Rev. Boyd's series about steering clear of politics, giving up moralizing on sex, stop calling America a Christian nation, and stop glorifying American military campaigns.
- I agree with the first two points to the extent that politics and sexual morality are not the primary purpose of the church. I certainly think that Christians can have differing political beliefs, and I think that as a church, we tend to focus more on sexual morality than saving souls. That's not to say that sexual immorality is not a problem, but that there are other issues that the Church should put some effort into fixing.

Agreed that politics is not the primary purpose of the church. But where politics overlaps Christian values, the Christian values should not be compromised. I agree that there are a wide variety of issues that need to be addressed from the pulpit. Sexual morality should not be the ONLY issue addressed, but neither should a preacher shy away from it. It IS a big problem in our culture.

- As to whether America is a Christian nation, I think it's actually more accurate to call America a post-Christian nation. There are a lot of non-believers in America, and I think it's important that the church recognize that.

Whether America is a Christian nation or a post-Christian nation should be irrelevant (except in deciding the method of explaining the Gospel). No matter what stage America has reached, the Great Commission is still the same.

- As to glorifying military campaigns: our church has two veterans of the current conflict. One Sunday, our pastor interviewed them both, talking about some of the struggles they went through without discussing the larger political issues. I thought it was a great way to go about the topic.

Sounds like he did a good job.

Overall, while I might not agree exactly with everything this guy did, I don't find any of his actions to be contrary to Scripture.

Well, I have to respectfully disagree with you. Avoiding certain topics because they are "political" (id est, "controversial") goes directly against what Jesus did. The man was a walking controversy. As I said before, I don't think a Christian church should preach ONLY on controversial topics, and ALL issues should be handled in a loving manner. But refusing to preach on them at all endangers those whom may be struggling in these areas.

Did this guy ignore the parts of scripture that tell us we are continually at war? This quote... “When [the church] conquers the world, it becomes the world"... blows my mind. It is so backward. NO! If the church REFUSES to fight the world, it becomes the world.

(Not yelling at you, Jeff. I just feel strongly about this.)

 

[Nienna]

Voting guides in church should totally exempt the church from taxation exemptions. In other words, if a particular church presents itself as an interested party in political decisions it should also exempt itself from special tax considerations or altogether tax exemption. Given that a particular church enjoys exemption yet interferes in the political process, such church has crossed the line separating church from state and therefore exposes itself to normal taxation imposed by the state for services rendered and benefits claimed as would any other business or other organized monetary transaction entity.

The line separating the church from the state is this: The state cannot impose a religion upon its citizens. The STATE stays out of religion. It says nothing about religion staying away from the state.

Personally, I think it appropriate that the church indoctrinate it's members on subjects concerning the church's own perceptions of morality, history, the gifts of their Gods and the afterlife. As they delve into personal or party politics then they have also relinguished themselves as liable citizens of the state in which they exist. Statehood is not free and should be supported by every entity that demands the fire and police protections, voting influence they command and ability to commerce as afforded by the states, as in United States Of America. Corporations pay taxes even though they are not citizens. Admittedly, however, they influence politics. As churches influence politics they should also be taxed.

These are the qualifications for tax-exempt status:
To qualify for exemption under the Internal Revenue Code, your organization must be organized for one or more of the purposes specifically designated in the Code. For an organization to qualify under a 501(C)(3) exemption, it must be organized for one or more of the following purposes:

Charitable
Religious
Educational
Scientific
Literary
Testing for public safety
Fostering national or international amateur sports competition
The prevention of cruelty to children or animals
Additional tax exemptions exist under separate sections of the IRC for groups including: labor unions, chambers of commerce, social and recreational clubs, fraternal societies, civic leagues, credit unions, farmers’ coops and mutual insurance companies, and legal service organizations.
http://www.legalfilings.com/services_taxexempt.htm

What you are talking about is inhibiting free speech. The church has been preaching against homosexuality/fornication/etc. since its inception. Just because a social issue becomes "political" doesn't mean the church should stop speaking against it.

 

[Joz]

Well, dearie...If you'd actually READ the article, you would see that he is indeed a conservative minister. .....
And, despite your protestations to the contrary, America is not a "Christian nation".......
So, learn that there is more than one road to paradise. And let those who wish to follow those roads live in peace, so long as they harm none. If you want to convince others that yours is the best path, do so by example, not legislation.

Reading the entire article would have me registering with the treacherous NYTimes. Not gonna do it.

And whether you want to accept it or not, our nation may be a melting pot of religions but the nation was founded in man's understanding of Christian principles.

I will agree with you that example is the best way. Hitting someone over the head does no good.
But as far as there being many ways to Paradise, the Bible tells me differently.

But the Lord is the true God, He is the living God........Jeremiah 10:10
For there is one God, and one mediator......... 1 Timothy 2:5
Jesus said, I am the way, the truth & the life.....John 14:6

 

[theHawk]

The line separating the church from the state is this: The state cannot impose a religion upon its citizens. The STATE stays out of religion. It says nothing about religion staying away from the state.

Correct, but these liberals still haven't figured that out yet. They cannot point out to us anywhere in the Constitution this phrase of "separation of church and state", yet it is their core belief that they accept as fact. They repeat this lie so many times to the point that they actually believe it.

 

[5stringJeff]

Agreed that politics is not the primary purpose of the church. But where politics overlaps Christian values, the Christian values should not be compromised. I agree that there are a wide variety of issues that need to be addressed from the pulpit. Sexual morality should not be the ONLY issue addressed, but neither should a preacher shy away from it. It IS a big problem in our culture.

I agree with you on that.

Well, I have to respectfully disagree with you. Avoiding certain topics because they are "political" (id est, "controversial") goes directly against what Jesus did. The man was a walking controversy. As I said before, I don't think a Christian church should preach ONLY on controversial topics, and ALL issues should be handled in a loving manner. But refusing to preach on them at all endangers those whom may be struggling in these areas.

Did this guy ignore the parts of scripture that tell us we are continually at war? This quote... “When [the church] conquers the world, it becomes the world"... blows my mind. It is so backward. NO! If the church REFUSES to fight the world, it becomes the world.

(Not yelling at you, Jeff. I just feel strongly about this.)

I hear what you're saying. It wouldn't be right if he didn't preach on various controversial topics at various times, to include sexual morality and sanctity of life. But, to play devil's advocate in defense of this particular reverend, it's possible that what the congregation needed to hear at the time was that politics is not the primary mission of the church.

BTW, I don't agree with that particular quote of the reverend's.

 

[Nienna]

I hear what you're saying. It wouldn't be right if he didn't preach on various controversial topics at various times, to include sexual morality and sanctity of life. But, to play devil's advocate in defense of this particular reverend, it's possible that what the congregation needed to hear at the time was that politics is not the primary mission of the church.

BTW, I don't agree with that particular quote of the reverend's.

It is possible that the congregation needed to hear that message. But, given the other quotes that I read, I tend to think that this reverend may be more accomodating to the culture than to his congregation.