He Gets Us campaign

[2PhiloVoid]

I think we absolutely need to consider themselves as sinners just like ourselves as well

and I am certainly not calling for their persecution

for me, the ideology is a much bigger problem than the behavior.

Sure. I'm not on board with Rainbow ideology any more than I am with MAGA ideology. Both extremes suffer from philosophical infections that need to be cleaned and dressed (or addressed).

 

[QvQ]

If "gender" is an internal attribute; "personality," "effeminate," "macho," readily distinguished, that is separate from the physical attributes, then why do so many posters misgender half the other posters on the board?

If a person can't see a person, there isn't any way a person can tell whether another poster is male or female.
There aren't any "internal" gender traits that are apparent on the threads.

"Transgender" surgery is cosmetic. It is the same as a facelift. A face lift may give the illusion of "youth" but the fact remains that the person is still old, biologically old. If a man has surgery to acquire some superficial physical attributes to appear to Look like a women, genetically, biologically, he is still a man,
The 99.9% rule. An 80 year old with a face lift may appear 1% as 10 yrs younger but the other 99.9% is still 80.

 

[FameBright]

Just to jump in...

Homosexuality in the western world is not a behavior, it is an ideology. The "rainbow flag" (especially the one with the added transgender elements) is a political and ideological flag.

There are some central claims homosexuals make, but can be questioned:

1. People are "born gay". But there is no biological proof to this (as of yet). From a Christian perspective, the idea that "God made some people gay" is problematic at best, and heretical at worst.
2. Homosexuality is found in the animal kingdom. But animals are acting out of ignorant impulse. Those animals will mate with a female--they are not exclusive to members of their own sex.

Some gay men, such as Milo Yianoppoulis, have openly said that their homosexuality was a consequence of their upbringing and their environment. But this is politically-incorrect to say, because identity politics demands that identity be fixed

So when we compare the sin of homosexuality to something like theft, dishonoring your parents, etc., there are some ways to look at it

If a person claims that they steal because they are a thief --that the defining definition of their person is that of a thief, they are comparable to the homosexual who defines himself as a "gay man". But if a person says he is a human being who committed the sin of theft, it is quite different.

God would not condemn 2% of the population to perpetual sin by "making them gay", and making it impossible for them to change their behavior, or embrace a more virtuous life.

Likewise, we always have to remember that we are born-again in Christ, and that He "makes us who we are not". This means we have to shed our sinful ways (or at least try)--and this requires that we view ourselves as children of God, not "homosexual", or a "thief".

The Alphabet people want to define themselves using fixed, trendy categories, and this feeds into a Manichean worldview where these "essential victims" are in the kingdom of the oppressed, while everyone else, is in the kingdom of the oppressor

If Christians believe that people are not born gay and were made gay because of their upbringing and their environment then that would make total sense.

I'm not sure if that's really the case, but i guess it could mean that the people made sinful choices which eventually led them to the sin of homosexuality. That I can buy because it becomes more of an expression of their free will.

 

[FameBright]

However, he likewise makes provision for the removal of that guilt in Jesus Christ and repentance (turning from it).

I totally get that and I think it is a similar theme to what Merrill posted with different emphasis.

I guess I just wasn't sure why Christians are making such a big stink of it by the way they are condemning it. If it's toward the ideology, then I totally get that.

 

[Hazelelponi]

No Boundaries
There is a current secular theme that is seeping into Christianity that boundaries on land (borders) behavior (sex/abortion) or private property (theft) is hateful and unChristian. There shouldn't be any boundaries. People should be "Free."
Secularists claim a person can do whatever that person does and then the Christian follow along chanting: "Jesus loves you just the same."
It is an inane, insipid and incorrect vision of Christ.
That "image of Christ" is not going to convert anyone. The message is "you are wonderful no matter what you do, Jesus loves you and all you have to do is be yourself." "Jesus is following you around waiting to wash your feet and take you to heaven because Jesus is love."
What is the message there? "Jesus as a wooing lover?" A beggar for belief?
I was repulsed by the commercial. If I were an atheist I would have laughed at it.

Yep! Totally agree with your sentiment.

However, he did engage the Philosophies of his own time, and I take his 'form apologetic' and preaching given on Mars Hill as one legitimate way in which to engage the insufficient philosophies of this World. He didn't simply line up all errors and shoot them all down. No, he acknowledged where pagans sometimes had a few things 'right' in to order to touch base with them on a human psychological level so he could also, THEN, deliver the Kerygma regarding Jesus.

Okay but how do you see Mars Hill?

First, Paul was basically on trial. He had been talking about Jesus within their borders I believe, and their law stated people can only preach or spread the religion of their gods, and they had monuments to each of the gods of their people.

They could have killed him for it I believe.

But it's believed from a historical standpoint that the unknown God was actually the Jewish God, and the "unknown" part was because Jews don't speak the Name of God aloud.

I believe everyone who lived there contributed to the cities god's and when they decided no more gods they included the Jewish God among the cities gods but didn't know His Name.

So here's Paul, basically on trial, saying he knows who the unknown God is... And he explained why God was previously unknown but is now known to us.

Saving him from punishment for breaking the law, and allowing him to continue to preach in that area.

It's really cool actually. The Hand of God at work always.

So I guess to some extent he did connect with them to preach, but he didn't compromise Truth to do so. We should always remain true to the faith when sharing it.

Presentation is important, I agree, and I would argue that God agrees too, of course.

 

[Clare73]

I totally get that and I think it is a similar theme to what Merrill posted with different emphasis.

I guess I just wasn't sure why Christians are making such a big stink of it by the way they are condemning it. If it's toward the ideology, then I totally get that.

Actually, it's toward the effort to normalize homosexuality, which is not normal, but a moral fraud (Gr: plane) in the NT (Ro 1:27).

 

[RDKirk]

Yep! Totally agree with your sentiment.



Okay but how do you see Mars Hill?

First, Paul was basically on trial. He had been talking about Jesus within their borders I believe, and their law stated people can only preach or spread the religion of their gods, and they had monuments to each of the gods of their people.

They could have killed him for it I believe.

[/QUOTE]

No, Paul was safe in Athens, as long as he preached where preaching was allowed.

But it's believed from a historical standpoint that the unknown God was actually the Jewish God, and the "unknown" part was because Jews don't speak the Name of God aloud.

There was a native Greek doctrine of the "Unknown God." One group of Greek philosophers, observing the tight order of the heavens, to such an degree that heavenly events could be accurately predicted many years in advance, believed that it could not be under the control of the unruly, unreliable gods of their general doctrines, but that there must be some chief god who firmly controlled all things. And because consistency was a virtue, that god practicing such perfect consistency must be perfectly virtuous. But they avoided creating a name for that God. Paul quotes one of them, Epimenides.

Paul probably had them in mind as he wrote Romans 1, as they were proof that God could be recognized by anyone in creation as they did. If they had known of God only through the Jews, he would not have had grounds to make the claim that God was knowable with no evidence but creation itself.

 

[Hazelelponi]

There was a native Greek doctrine of the "Unknown God." One group of Greek philosophers, observing the tight order of the heavens, to such an degree that heavenly events could be accurately predicted many years in advance, believed that it could not be under the control of the unruly, unreliable gods of their general doctrines, but that there must be some chief god who firmly controlled all things. And because consistency was a virtue, that god practicing such perfect consistency must be perfectly virtuous. But they avoided creating a name for that God. Paul quotes one of them, Epimenides.

Paul probably had them in mind as he wrote Romans 1, as they were proof that God could be recognized by anyone in creation as they did. If they had known of God only through the Jews, he would not have had grounds to make the claim that God was knowable with no evidence but creation itself

Ahh thank you. Clearly I lack the research here.

 

[Michie]

While the controversial “He Gets Us” ad that aired during the Super Bowl stirred up plenty of conversation, pastor and author Mark Driscoll offered his own unfiltered take.

In response to the 60-second “Foot Washing” ad, Driscoll, 53, tweeted, “Jesus washed Judas’s feet and still sent him to hell #HeGetsUs.”

Continued below.

'Some of you are going to Hell with clean feet': Mark Driscoll responds to Super Bowl 'He Gets Us' ad

While the controversial He Gets Us ad that aired during the Super Bowl stirred up plenty of conversation, pastor and author Mark Driscoll offered his own unfiltered take

www.christianpost.com

 

[FameBright]

When you explain away homosexuality and other sins you do real people a disservice. A disservice to their soul.

Sorry, I'm just now going through everything and trying to navigate the complexities and multifaceted history and politics that people are presenting. Very interesting but resembles the same ole arguments that I hear at work all the time.

Anyway, wouldn't you say that judging or condemning homosexuals and causing them to either commit suicide or turn away from the Church would also be doing the people a disservice?

Jesus didn't come to condemn so if we were to be like Jesus, shouldn't we also not condemn?

I wouldn't say that people are explaining away homosexuality as much as trying to make sense of it. If you were born a homosexual wouldn't you try to make sense of it? I think these people just want to be accepted which I think is the whole point. I don't feel that people would push for acceptance if it wasn't condemned in the first place. Do you feel differently?

it's a lie because salvation is powerful and transformative.

I get what you're saying here but the transformation should come from either Jesus or God right? and not from fellow Christians?

 

[HarleyER]

"...whatever they happen to be?" NO, no, no, no!

My question for you is this: why, if you're so inclined to pull out a proof-text and/or an example of faith being acted out in the Bible, do you cite one that has to deal with capital punishment from the Old Testament rather than one of grace, mercy and charity from the New Testament? Why not cite Stephen the Martyr as a good example of Christian faith? Or one of many, many others in the New Testament?

The Old Testament, NOW, is but a shadow and type of what we have in Christ. Not the present, lived substance. Sure, we can cite chapters 11 and 12 in the book of Hebrews, but that's not going to get you out of the interpretive pickle that you've put yourself in. In fact, reading Hebrews might actually undercut your interpretation.

I mean, do you see your inconsistency, especially when there is ZERO example of any Christian (apostle or various disciple) in the 1st Century who EVER pulled a sword and killed anyone with it in order to show his/her "true faith" in Jesus Christ?

So, don't play your semantic subterfuge on me. It will fail. And not simply because I am smart enough to discern your interpretive error in handling your reading and use of the Bible, but because I also have several hundred solid Christian minds at my reference who would also, I'm sure, readily, or mostly, disagree with your pernicious and myopic interpretive application.

Keep pushing your canard as you do, and your arguments will fall to me as the garbage that they are ...

Oh, and P.S. ... if you by chance you just happen to think you've been "misrepresented," then BY ALL MEANS, please bring more clarity to your position so we can all see that you didn't intend to infer that "living for Christ" can somehow be conflated with "living and dying by the sword."

I'd love to be shown that I've somehow simply ............................. misunderstood you in your Old Testament overture.

So, the OT is but a "shadow"???? I don't think I'm the one who is in the "interpretive pickle". What you are claiming is to completely dismiss the OT because it doesn't fit with your paradigm of love. Do you even understand that Jesus talked more about the lake of fire, hell, and torment for unbelievers than He talked about any other issue, including love? I'd love to hear your interpretation on the eternal torment and damnation of souls for those who do not come to a point of repentence.

You and I see the Bible completely different.

 

[HarleyER]

I'm guessing your saying the passage was more metaphorical.

Exactly, which is why it's confusing to me when people mention homosexuality up there with adultery or stealing. Those actions are in the 10 commandments; homosexuality is not. But why such a focus on homosexuality? Why not like inappropriate behavior with animals, adultery and stealing?

Forms of homosexuality are mentioned in Leviticus, Romans, and Corinthians.

In Leviticus, it sounds like to me it's referring to homosexuality practices by the pagans. I don't know exactly but something along the lines of a man (one that isn't born gay) acting like a woman and having homosexual sex in worship of the fertility goddess. In context, it sounds to me like God wanted the Hebrews to just separate themselves and not do anything the pagans or Canaanites were doing that was in relation to worshipping idols.

In Romans, homosexuality seemed to be more of a result of idol worshipping.

In Corinthians, considering the cultural context it seemed to me to be talking about coercive sex between men which seemed to be a prevalent problem during that time. It's interesting that women weren't mentioned.

If people are talking about homosexuality in general then it wouldn't make sense to me why God would create people to be born homosexuals in the first place.

To me it seems like being born a homosexual fall outside of what the Bible is talking about.

We have a choice to lie, steal, commit adultery, or force other men to have sex. We don't seem to have a choice in the way we were born.

I see it more of as a deformity, or something like a mentally disabled person committing a crime. It's just an obvious fact and we know it's wrong - just not worthing talking about.

I say this because I think we have to be careful judging or condemning others in this way. It leads to increased suicides and people start these "woke" movements trying to normalize homosexuality. I would go far as to say that the people who are judging and condemning are partly responsible for the movement which doesn't do any good.

I don't agree with normalizing it because it could result in homosexual practices when someone wouldn't otherwise be a homosexual. In that case it would seem to resemble the practices as mentioned in Leviticus.

Therefore, I see a need for the message of acceptance but only if it doesn't provoke "woke" things in the context of normalizing homosexual behaviors.

Are you saying homosexuality is a deformity?

Today we are seeing people saying we shouldn't judge people who are stealing or lying. It is no different then people saying homosexualiity is a life choice.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So, the OT is but a "shadow"???? I don't think I'm the one who is in the "interpretive pickle". What you are claiming is to completely dismiss the OT because it doesn't fit with your paradigm of love. Do you even understand that Jesus talked more about the lake of fire, hell, and torment for unbelievers than He talked about any other issue, including love? I'd love to hear your interpretation on the eternal torment and damnation of souls for those who do not come to a point of repentence.

You and I see the Bible completely different.

Y'now? You're pretty spry for a 72 year old, but even so, I think you missed the part where I never said I dismiss the OT. No, I just assess it in light of everything that is said about it in the...................New Testament.

As for the topic of Hades, Gehenna and Tartarus, we're not going to have that discussion here. Not only because I'm fairly certain every Tom, Rick and Sally Skeptic already knows that 'hell' isn't a good place to be, but because what is more relevant to the topic at hand is the fact that this forum thread is about the theology of the "He Gets US" commercials. Let's stick with that and leave the "shadows" to those moments when we decide to read the book of Hebrews from START to FINISH together ...

 

[FameBright]

Marxists aren't lovely people with a good heart - they're lost sinners - and liberation theology doesn't know Christ...

This seems like a pretty bold declaration. I think the problem is the abuse and corruption of the ideology rather than the ideology itself. It's one of those things where if implemented correctly it could be superior and if not things could be really bad. For me, the opportunity for evil to come in is just way too large. I prefer systems with lots of checks and balances.

How did you come to your conclusion?

 

[FameBright]

This is laughable. You're committing the "interpretive right leaning skid" that I was alluding to earlier.

You can do better than that, Merrill. You have a PhD. Use it, brother!

I'm being a little rhetorical when I say this but essentially you have a blue side and a red side. If the nation goes too far to the left then we run out of money. If we go too far to the right, the rich end up with all the money. For me, the truth lies in the middle.

If I'm not mistaken, one of the themes here seem to involve correcting social inequality. -kind of hard to say because you guys like to use a lot of big words.

Isn't the Bible full of social inequality since the beginning?

Is the push to correct it Biblical doctrine or more of a humanitarian effort?

In the NT, I believe the people expected the Messiah to fix the social inequality but he didn't right? Didn't it seem like social inequality wasn't a major concern or on top of Jesus's list? These questions aren't meant to be rhetorical. I don't think I have a rich understanding of religion and politics like you guys do so I'm really just testing my own understanding.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm being a little rhetorical when I say this but essentially you have a blue side and a red side. If the nation goes too far to the left then we run out of money. If we go too far to the right, the rich end up with all the money. For me, the truth lies in the middle.

The question for me here is: when we look at the New Testament, or more specifically, the persons and words and works of Jesus and His earliest disciples, do we see an ideological devotion to anything similar to what we'd recognize today as a "blued side" or a "red side"?

The answer, I think, if we read really, really closely, is that: we see NEITHER Blue nor Red. We do see Jesus refusing to commit Himself to either His own Jewish countrymen in their proletarian sort of political struggle against Romans. We also don't Jesus accommodating Himself to the Romans, particular when facing Pontius Pilate or even Herod.

If I'm not mistaken, one of the themes here seem to involve correcting social inequality. -kind of hard to say because you guys like to use a lot of big words.

Yes, one of the underlying themes her is social inequality. For my part, I try to keep the academic jargon to a minimum. But, sometimes folks need to be challenged to move our of their conceptual boxes and see the larger, more expansive, even truer aspects of social reality.

Isn't the Bible full of social inequality since the beginning?

Sure. And from what we see in the Bible overall, that fullness of social inequality is the beginning of opportunity to appropriate justice where justice is due.

Is the push to correct it Biblical doctrine or more of a humanitarian effort?

It's biblical doctrine that then SHOULD be producing an accompanying humanitarian effort, one that we as Americans have fallen down on the job to think about, let alone produce in sufficient biblical measure.

In the NT, I believe the people expected the Messiah to fix the social inequality but he didn't right?

Actually, the Messiah, Jesus, provided the directive to begin the 'fixing' of social inequality through human means, i.e. through His Church. And the success of Jesus' intended "aid package" would depend upon the extent to which His people assimilated to His Person and Teaching.

Obviously, it's not Jesus who has failed in the last 2,000 years: it's His people. But, biblically, that's not to be completely unexpected.

Didn't it seem like social inequality wasn't a major concern or on top of Jesus's list?

It probably only seems like it wasn't a major concern to those who either don't read the Bible in a complete and careful manner or simply don't fully understand what it is they're reading. Or, they perhaps, even after reading the Bible, still care more about their political parties and lobby interests than they do ....................... being a Christian and doing what Christians are "supposed to do."

I mean, for instance. How many Christians actually read the Bible in full, carefully, and/or pick up a book like one of the following and think about the social (and spiritual) issues that are daily at our doorstep?????:

Carroll, Rodas, and Mark Daniel. Christians at the Border: Immigration, the Church, and the Bible. Brazos Press, 2013.​

​

DiSilvestro, Russell, David Gushee, Amy Hall, Gilbert Meilaender, Patrick Smith, and Scott Ray. Why People Matter: A Christian Engagement with Rival Views of Human Significance. Baker Academic, 2017.​

​

Hicks, Douglas A., and Mark R. Valeri. Global neighbors: Christian faith and moral obligation in today's economy. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008.​

​

McConville, J. Gordon. Being human in God's world: an Old Testament theology of humanity. Baker Books, 2016.​

These questions aren't meant to be rhetorical. I don't think I have a rich understanding of religion and politics like you guys do so I'm really just testing my own understanding.

That's ok. Ask whatever you feel you need to ask. Please forgive me if I seem boorish in my response.

 

[Merrill]

Sorry, I'm just now going through everything and trying to navigate the complexities and multifaceted history and politics that people are presenting. Very interesting but resembles the same ole arguments that I hear at work all the time.

Anyway, wouldn't you say that judging or condemning homosexuals and causing them to either commit suicide or turn away from the Church would also be doing the people a disservice?

Jesus didn't come to condemn so if we were to be like Jesus, shouldn't we also not condemn?

I wouldn't say that people are explaining away homosexuality as much as trying to make sense of it. If you were born a homosexual wouldn't you try to make sense of it? I think these people just want to be accepted which I think is the whole point. I don't feel that people would push for acceptance if it wasn't condemned in the first place. Do you feel differently?

I get what you're saying here but the transformation should come from either Jesus or God right? and not from fellow Christians?

None of us are responsible for someone else's sin.

The claim that rejecting homosexuals, or criticizing them, will cause them anguish, or even to commit suicide, is equivalent to saying we should not criticize alcoholics or drug addicts, and let them "live their lives". That we should not try to steer them in the right direction.

Let me be very clear: the reason I reject things like homosexuality and transgenderism (especially in children) is not because I hate these people--it is the exact opposite. I do care about people, and I want them to live happy, fulfilled, lives. Not only in accordance with God's wishes, but also on a practical and human level.

According to some studies, 15-20% of gay and lesbian people have had thoughts of suicide, and the rate of suicide is much higher among those groups than the general population,

For countries in which gay marriage is legal, the divorce rate is far higher among homosexuals than straight couples.

Depression, drug-abuse, etc. are all higher in these groups.

The singer George Michael was a talented, good-looking guy. Instead of marrying and having children, he led a gay life, and ended up alone, obese, crippled by drugs, and miserable. Years earlier, one of his lovers died of AIDS. Going down that path leads nowhere good.

For kids suffering from gender dysphoria, the solution is not indulging them and giving them sex change operations. We don't put anorexic girls on diets, or give steroids to a guy with body dysmorphia. The solution is mental health treatment.

In Luke 12:49 Jesus makes it clear that He has not come to affirm everyone's sin, and simply give comfort to the world. His presence will divide us, and conflict will arise.

 

[RDKirk]

The question for me here is: when we look at the New Testament, or more specifically, the persons and words and works of Jesus and His earliest disciples, do we see an ideological devotion to anything similar to what we'd recognize today as a "blued side" or a "red side"?

The answer, I think, if we read really, really closely, is that: we see NEITHER Blue nor Red. We do see Jesus refusing to commit Himself to either His own Jewish countrymen in their proletarian sort of political struggle against Romans. We also don't Jesus accommodating Himself to the Romans, particular when facing Pontius Pilate or even Herod.

That is notably true. Jesus also rejected the politics of the Essenes.

Yes, one of the underlying themes her is social inequality. For my part, I try to keep the academic jargon to a minimum. But, sometimes folks need to be challenged to move our of their conceptual boxes and see the larger, more expansive, even truer aspects of social reality.

Sure. And from what we see in the Bible overall, that fullness of social inequality is the beginning of opportunity to appropriate justice where justice is due.

It's biblical doctrine that then SHOULD be producing an accompanying humanitarian effort, one that we as Americans have fallen down on the job to think about, let alone produce in sufficient biblical measure.


Actually, the Messiah, Jesus, provided the directive to begin the 'fixing' of social inequality through human means, i.e. through His Church. And the success of Jesus' intended "aid package" would depend upon the extent to which His people assimilated to His Person and Teaching.

While there is an attitude displayed of "help those in front of you who need help" displayed, we see Jesus far more involved in establishing the Church than using His superpowers to help everyone in need. Take, for instance, the lame man at the temple that Peter later healed...Jesus must have passed that man a couple of times...and did nothing for him.

What we see in the Old Testament was God setting up a law that provided for His people to care for each other...an internal social justice within an overarching framework of moral order. That had been subverted by Jesus' time, but we see the same thing in the New Testament: The Church being set up with internal social justice within an overarching framework of moral order.

At no point does Jesus give the Church a mandate to fix the world. Rather, the Church is set up to be a sanctuary of social justice apart from the world.

Of course, we haven't done that well, either. One pastor has pointed out that the worldwide Body of Christ has in its hands right at this moment all the resources necessary to support the worldwide Body of Christ. There should not be any Christian on the planet who is hungry, naked, homeless, or alone because we around the world who call ourselves "Christian" already have the resources to make that happen.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That is notably true. Jesus also rejected the politics of the Essenes.

Yep. And so do I.

While there is an attitude displayed of "help those in front of you who need help" displayed, we see Jesus far more involved in establishing the Church than using His superpowers to help everyone in need. Take, for instance, the lame man at the temple that Peter later healed...Jesus must have passed that man a couple of times...and did nothing for him.

That's a partial example on your part, RD. When Jesus healed among the masses, there are times when He stayed until as many as could be healed or fed as possible were healed and/or fed.

Also, loving one's enemy, which not infrequently might include clothing and feeding him, shouldn't imply that it could only ever be fellow Christians whom we are at odds with who are "the enemy." Let's not trade one trope or classification for another; let's take both forms into account here.

What we see in the Old Testament was God setting up a law that provided for His people to care for each other...an internal social justice within an overarching framework of moral order. That had been subverted by Jesus' time, but we see the same thing in the New Testament: The Church being set up with internal social justice within an overarching framework of moral order.

It was more than ONLY care for the Israelite people. Read a little deeper, RD.

At no point does Jesus give the Church a mandate to fix the world. Rather, the Church is set up to be a sanctuary of social justice apart from the world.

No, I wasn't implying that we are to fix the world. But I am implying that Jesus intended for us to minister to the World at large, and that ministry wasn't to just provide us an opportunity to flap our jaws with The Gospel.

Of course, we haven't done that well, either. One pastor has pointed out that the worldwide Body of Christ has in its hands right at this moment all the resources necessary to support the worldwide Body of Christ. There should not be any Christian on the planet who is hungry, naked, homeless, or alone because we around the world who call ourselves "Christian" already have the resources to make that happen.

Agreed.

 

[Laodicean60]

The claim that rejecting homosexuals, or criticizing them, will cause them anguish, or even to commit suicide, is equivalent to saying we should not criticize alcoholics or drug addicts, and let them "live their lives"

How does criticizing ever help someone or better yet bring them to God? When I was an alcoholic I would avoid church just because I felt the need to hide from my fellow Christians. I only went to church when I was lucky enough not to drink the night before. If you haven't noticed our criticism hasn't made things better here in the US and around the world.