47 comments

1. “God-haters hate God, and hate his people. ”

   If I dislike and disagree with the public policy position of a given organization such as the FRC, does that always mean that I hate God and hate God’s people? Maybe people just don’t like the policies promoted by the FRC.

   • Oops, meant to put this at the bottom.

     • “There’s a biblical basis for us to understand the motivation and thought process behind the anger toward Christian groups and people.”

       I’m not sure that this is directly answering my question or maybe I’m just missing something. So, I’ll try again.

       If I tell you that I dislike the FRC and many of the leaders of the FRC, does that mean that I hate God and God’s people?

       Yes or no?

     • You’ve parsed your question solely about a symptom that you believe is advantageous to your argument, while abandoning the root cause. I recommend you re read my previous answer. No one gets to craft lawyerly “gotcha questions” that obfuscate the truth here… at least not if I can help it.

     • “No one gets to craft lawyerly “gotcha questions” that obfuscate the truth here… at least not if I can help it.”

       I’m not trying to “obfuscate” anything here or craft a “gotcha question.” I asked a very simple, straight-forward question. I think that you are the one using the obfuscating lawyer language.

       I don’t like the FRC and I don’t like Tony Perkins. Period. Does this mean that I hate God and God’s people? Is my dislike due to the fact that I hate God and God’s people? Is that the “root cause?”

       Or is it…maybe, just maybe…that I simply disagree with the FRC’s position on certain public policies?

       Honestly, I don’t understand why it has to be so difficult to provide direct answers to these questions.

     • You’ve pared your question back to, specifically, If you disagree with the FRC’s positions does that mean you hate them. If that is your question, then no. That “no” is only localized to the one question… Parlaying it down the path that persecution and hatred aren’t factual is certainly not what I mean.

     • “If that is your question, then no.”

       Ah, good. I think that’s settled then.

     • Settled? Wow! And the clouds parted, and an Hallelujah chorus rang out. 🙂

     • Well, I’m not always argumentative. Just usually.

   • David there’s a difference between the actual expression of disagreement and the underlying cause. There’s a biblical basis for us to understand the motivation and thought process behind the anger toward Christian groups and people. I think the article reflects the scripture that establishes that biblical basis.

     • Argh, wrong place again. Sorry about cluttering up your post with misplaced comments.

       “There’s a biblical basis for us to understand the motivation and thought process behind the anger toward Christian groups and people.”

       I’m not sure that this is directly answering my question or maybe I’m just missing something. So, I’ll try again.

       If I tell you that I dislike the FRC and many of the leaders of the FRC, does that mean that I hate God and God’s people?

       Yes or no?

2. “Famous or not, Christians are people too; we just admit that we are flawed, broken and need a savior.”

   I am pretty sure nearly everyone acknowledges human tendency toward selfishness. Christians are not special in that regard.

   I like how outside of Christianity there can be focus on human empathy, charity, and thoughtfulness without need for a saviour.

   • “I like how outside of Christianity there can be focus on human empathy, charity, and thoughtfulness without need for a saviour”

     Agreed. And I know why those attributes are there. The Apostle Paul said it better 2000 years ago, than I can today. Thanks for the comment!

     Romans 2:14-15 (NLT)
     14 Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it.
     15 They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.

     • Well, isn’t that interesting!

3. I’m putting my two cents in here. SATAN doesn’t make anyone DO anything naughty. It is the person him or herself who carries through on the dirty deed. Josh Duggar knew FULL well that (in this latest episode) he was hurting his family. Josh and the rest of the Duggashians pontificate their “godliness”–yet they spew hatred toward Catholics, non-Christians, the gay/Trans community and anyone else who does not follow their ideology. MY Jesus, WILL judge Josh and all the other *faux* Christians who HIDE behind and USE God for their own personal gain of making money and having followers. To even remotely try to come to Josh Duggar’s defense is wrong..And yes, I will cast stones. I will cast stones and rocks and boulders to any person who is a pedophile (and I feel that Satan has a special place for Pedophile Priests in the inferno) and who cheats on their family–especially when they go around and pontificate “family values”. I do like to take a humorous view on it though:

   http://atypical60.com/2015/08/23/my-interview-with-the-devil-josh-duggar-blames-satan-thats-what-he-said/

   Arguments aside–you really hit a home run with your post today! It was a great read!

   • Thanks, Catherine. I don’t think either of us will sign up for Josh Duggar’s fan club.

     • You got that right!!!!!

4. Actually, I can tell you that it is explicit biblical teaching that we DO have an ‘extra capacity’ for morality and avoidance of sin. We call it the new birth or new nature in Christ. The holy spirit is supposed to be our resource for righteousness.
   It’s just not biblical or christian doctrine to say it’s just expected that we sin no differently than non believers. Why would you take this kind of ‘ANTINOMIAN’ view just to excuse Duggar, in turn to excuse christianity and sinning christians?
   Not logical, biblical or honest with what the Bible teaches

   • Not to get into theological hair splitting, but I thought someone might come at me with that… ok, I thought specifically you would come at me with that 🙂 That is why I wrote it…

     “There’s >>not much<< difference between how Christians and the un-saved fail.

     Of course we are empowered by the Holy Spirit, but without a doubt there is not much difference between HOW Christians and the un-saved fail. The unsaved do not walk in the Spirit, thus they are not availed to His strengthening. The save ARE availed to Him, but still have to let the Spirit guide our lives. If you resist the Spirit, you are returning to sin as a dog is to his vomit, you will not receive the Spirit's power… you will receive His conviction when you are ready to listen, confess, repent and return to a walk with Him.

     We note Ephesians 3:16-18 (NLT)
     "I pray that from his glorious, unlimited resources he will empower you with inner strength through his Spirit. Then Christ will make his home in your hearts as you trust in him. Your roots will grow down into God’s love and keep you strong. And may you have the power to understand, as all God’s people should, how wide, how long, how high, and how deep his love is".

     God's love is unconditional, but as the Apostle Paul writes, in no uncertain terms, we can run away from the strengthening of the Spirit:

     Galatians 5:16-17 (NLT)
     So I say, let the Holy Spirit guide your lives. Then you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves. The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of what the Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are the opposite of what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, so you are not free to carry out your good intentions.

     In context with Josh Duggar, who presents as believing Christian, he would have a relationship with Christ. Obviously he was not being led by the Spirit when he assaulted his sisters and cheated on his wife. The one difference, walking in the Spirit, he did not avail himself to. He failed just like a person without the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit owns no part of Josh's actions.

     I hope that clears it up for you. Thanks for the comment and the opportunity to shine a light on the benefit Christians have of being led by the Spirit.

     • I’ll bet you a wooden nickel you’re of the Reformed tradition.

     • I’m of neither. The whole Calvin/Arminius battle is a big waste of time, and trying to put God in a box. I serve in a non-denominational church. Theology teachers can discuss nuanced theological points and I’ll minister at street-level where they couldn’t care less. Thanks for the opportunity to address the issue of theology, Reformed and not.

5. Hello David,

   I’m wondering about this assertion, “Still, Satan exploits the misinformation his false assertion that Christians claim a moral high-ground.” Are you suggesting that Christians do not claim that the moral standards they follow are better than other moral standards?

   For example, I know you made mention in your post about persecution regarding Christians standing up for their principles that homosexuality is a sin. If people for and against gay marriage, for example, are on equal moral ground, is it better for one side to promote gay marriage or to speak out against it? What justifies the difference?

   • Thanks for the great question! You’ve framed it in an interesting way. It is a long answer, a bit nuanced, but important, so I hope you will stay with me, as well as others who will likely read this beyond our conversation.

     Christians aspire to live according to God’s Word, and before the New Covenant, they would have been subject to the Law of Moses. Jesus’ taking of our (Christians) sin in his death, burial and resurrection paid the price for sin, thus the penalty and sacrifices of Mosaic Law became unnecessary. Christians are not Jews, and are not under the Law of Moses, which is good and righteous. There is much in Mosaic law that a Christian should aspire to, but there is also much that was provided for acquiring the Promised Land and worship in the Tabernacle/Temple that does not apply to Christians.

     The Bible gives us a perfect moral standard to follow… the instructions are written down and available for all to see. The standard for comportment for all Christians is Jesus Christ, Son of God, second Person of the Trinity. Obviously, that is an impossible bar, and all fall short, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. We have the leading of the Holy Spirit to help us live according to the will of God, but our sinful nature will always battle and resist God. The Bible is not a “rule book”, it is a book that instructs us on how to live the best life God has for us in this life. If a Christian says that their faith eliminates their sin nature, they are mistaken. The sin nature of a Christian is the same sin nature they had before they were saved.

     The Apostle Paul instructs, Colossians 3:5 (NIV) “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.” This is a part of a process we call sanctification, and it takes us a lifetime, and we still sin.”

     As a mentor pastor used to say, “Christians are not sinless, but hopefully they do sin less.”

     Homosexuality is just like any other sexual sin, which has the gravity of any other sin. People who find themselves inclined to be homosexual can absolutely be Christians. There is a problem with people who are actively engaged in a lifestyle of sin, appear to be in denial and downplay the gravity of sin, and then aspire to leadership, which is usually a point of contention. We wouldn’t put a kleptomaniac, an addict or a compulsive gambler in a position of leadership, either.

     As for fabricating some type of legitimate union between people who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle, the Bible has no anticipation of it. It is tremendous hubris to imagine God would sanctify that which He explicitly admonishes against as sinful.

     I hope that answers your questions.

     • I felt your particular answer here was a very good explanation. It very much accorded with my understanding when I followed Christianity.

       When Billy Graham and his team went on missionary crusades they were aware of the temptation that would come their way and as a result ensured that none of the men on the team were ever alone in the a room with a women who was not their wife.

       I don’t believe any more, but I can appreciate your frustration as a Christian in having to deal with the Duggar fiasco.

     • Thanks for moving your questions over to my blog… I didn’t want to dominate James’ blog or GC’s posting, so this works out much better. My answer is long.

       Hello Peter,

       1) Thanks for the civility.
       2) Glad to answer your questions:

       David, you mention “I had to accept ID”.
       Do I take it that you subscribe to the Francis Collins view that evolution is a proven fact, but it was the mechanism used by God in the creation?

       What so very often happens when you try to force evolution into theology is a skewed theology that doesn’t stand up to Scripture. If you try to force theology into naturalism you often get scientific threads that could logically advance but are truncated by perceived theological impositions. Collins does offer us an opportunity two work on bridge-building between both areas of study:

       1) In fields such as counseling, there has been a great deal of success in integrating the scientific and the theological. In integrative counseling, there are essentially 3 general classes of “camps”, which seem to be applicable to other integrative endeavors, but have had much less effort dedicated to them in other potentially integrative disciplines. The counseling disciplines are:
       a. Enemies – nothing but one side or the other
       b. Spies, colonialists and neutrals
       c. Integrative allies
       2) Collins seems to be a biologist who came to realize that strict adherence to the discipline of science will always fail in the big picture; the long term and over-arching. Only God could do what He has done, according to Collins. Only God could create all with such amazing intricacy and warmth, and Collins is consistent on that. As a biologist/MD, he is in a unique position to build positive bridges in discovering how the book of God’s Word interprets the book of God’s Works.
       3) I would put Collins in the camp of the colonialists. He is clearly a biologist, and makes very clear that he is also a Bible-believing Christian. For biology, he is colonizing the discipline of theology, obviously motivated by seeing things inexplicable by science.

       In counseling styles, I am in the “allies” camp. By necessity, in science I am in the “neutral parties” camp because I am not trained nor do I profess to know the sciences well enough. I would say I am inclined toward the allies camp in the sciences.

       I find the whole idea of God’s will to be confusing. Because the Bible teaches it is God who chooses who is to be saved. This seems to go against the concept of free will.

       You are wrestling with a conflict that theology would call the Calvin/Arminius conflict. Is it general election, or is it particular election? I’ve always found this to be completely mishandled by the theological community. The truth is both sides try to use Scripture to put God in a box. I am purposefully going to avoid using Scripture and Christian jargon to explain what I have to share on the subject so as not to put an obstacle in front of our communication. Here is the best I can come up with (so far… always a work in progress):

       1) Time is not meaningful to God’s comportment as He is infinite. We are finite, so it matters a great deal to us. When we think of events and decisions, we have a very linear perspective, whereas He has an omnidirectional and global perspective… and many others I am sure. We try to cram our processes and equations into a pipeline that we control, where He is limitless in variables and He can import into a life that we perceive as finite and linear.
       2) Our lives seem to be a series of tests, based on a limited time. There are multiple and mass-customized variables to each test, and He designs each one to measure outcomes according to His will. He is the creator, we are the created, He is sovereign, and we cannot be due to natural limitations.
       3) He knows every possible outcome of every test, but chooses allow us to learn and acquire His nature through our testing. We will never be Him, but we can certainly be more like Him.
       4) We can become closer and closer to Him, or disengaged from Him. We can even fight His process completely. Whatever we do, we will either be His or not. This is true to the individual, to people-groups, and ultimately will be true for the entirety of humanity.
       5) What we might think of as time, He owns the freedom to sovereignly consider as His process. As the prime-mover, he created it all, can do whatever He wants to with it, and that includes ending it one person at a time, or the entire race, or the entire planet. His omnibenovolence clearly displays that He wants all to be successful to His purposes, but it has to be our choice. If we are going to learn and acquire His thoughts and actions of love, free will is apparently necessary to His process. It is who He is, and it is who He wants us to become.

       I hope that helps. I know it was wordy, but it just may give you a bridge to understanding God, at least how my study and experience has encountered him.
       Thanks for the question

6. Free range chicken?

   • I don’t get it, Mike.

     • Trying out puns of f r c

     • Yep… I don’t think his old employer will take him back. How about Foolish, Ridiculous Concupiscent ?

     • Functionally ‘reality ‘ challenged

     • Fictional religious character. Hat tip to john. Of course I mean Duggar 😉

     • Fire red corvette

     • Nice

7. Do what I say, not what I do seems to be a common theme in radical right-wing evangelical circles…like the Family Research Council.

   • So John, I guess you’ll want me to mark you down as a big fan of FRC, but you don’t think they are perfect… Got it.

     • Can’t say I know much about it, but I’m guessing it’s cut in the same shape of crazy-man Bryan Fischer’s organisation.

     • If what I read about Bryan Fisher is correct, he has positions that are apparently not biblical, and some that are downright nuts. HIV/AIDS is most definitely communicated by activities other than IV drug use. That said, there is a substantial difference between the AFA and Tony Perkins Family Research Counsel.

       For the died in the wool leftist, all of the conservative organizations would likely be categorized the same. God-haters hate God, and hate his people. Some like to pretend that they “nothing” God and Christianity, but then later criticize them so there are apparently some feelings there. It appears to be hate.

     • Mmm, how can someone “hate” something that doesn’t exist?

       David, do you “hate” fairies and goblins and unicorns? Do you “hate” Zeus and Apollo?

       You see, there’s the cartoon reality you cling to. I hope, for your sake, you don’t use such silly language in public.

     • John, being dismissive and condescending does not advance the discussion at all. I don’t believe question deserves an answer. Having had many discussions with you, I know that you have a lot better and more thoughtful response in you.

     • Sorry, David, but you’ve lost me here. You were the one who said “God haters.” I was merely making the point that one cannot “hate” something that simply doesn’t exist. The example being, do you hate Zeus? I doubt you do, and so you might now understand how silly your “God haters” comment is.

     • If you “nothing” God, what compels you to vociferously Him?

     • Do I? Think you might be confusing efforts to free hopelessly gullible people from ancient superstitions with an assault on something that doesn’t exist. Again, do you “hate” Zeus?

     • John, your question is superfluous and not germane to the discussion.

       I am a Bible-believing Christian. In particular, if Jesus said it then God said it, and that carries the highest imaginable weight. I believe Jesus, and this is what He says:

       John 15:18-25
       18 “If the world hates you, remember that it hated me first. 19 The world would love you as one of its own if you belonged to it, but you are no longer part of the world. I chose you to come out of the world, so it hates you. 20 Do you remember what I told you? ‘A slave is not greater than the master.’ Since they persecuted me, naturally they will persecute you. And if they had listened to me, they would listen to you. 21 They will do all this to you because of me, for they have rejected the one who sent me. 22 They would not be guilty if I had not come and spoken to them. But now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Anyone who hates me also hates my Father. 24 If I hadn’t done such miraculous signs among them that no one else could do, they would not be guilty. But as it is, they have seen everything I did, yet they still hate me and my Father. 25 This fulfills what is written in their Scriptures: ‘They hated me without cause.’

     • Thanks for that, David, but wasn’t this post about the utter (hilarious) hypocrisy of so-called Christian “family” organisations?

     • No. This post was a discipleship post about the lessons we can learn from the very public fall of a confessed Christian.

     • Ah

     • Oops, meant to put this at the bottom.

       “God-haters hate God, and hate his people. ”

       If I dislike and disagree with the public policy position of a given organization such as the FRC, does that always mean that I hate God and hate God’s people? Maybe people just don’t like the policies promoted by the FRC.

Comments are closed.