What issues are we called to take a stand on?

[OldWiseGuy]

I meant that you were joking about keeping these issues open for the sake of jobs. For example, keeping human rights abuses going to supply the charities with business.

That requires a closer look. Someone is usually taking advantage of such issues for gain. Also some 'human rights abuses' are a fabrication.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We are called to take a stand on every issue that concerns us that is not compatible with the gospel if we can. Of coarse as human beings we are limited on time.

I have opinions on most issues. Taking a stand is a different subject. It wise to remember that "no good deed will go unpunished".

 

[Eftsoon]

That requires a closer look. Someone is usually taking advantage such issues for gain. Also some 'human rights abuses' are a fabrication.

No it doesn't require a closer look. I devoutly hope that you aren't saying that we should encourage dictators to abuse their local population to keep charities in business. That's morally interesting for sure.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No it doesn't require a closer look. I devoutly hope that you aren't saying that we should encourage dictators to abuse their local population to keep charities in business. That's morally interesting for sure.

In America many are posing their complaints as violations of human rights. Also human rights lists are different depending on who you ask. There are those that wish to mandate 'equity' as a human right.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Many Christians would agree that we are called to have a direct impact in , at minimum, our local social sphere: but to what extent? My second question is: on what issues?

abortion
ecology
taxes
political corruption
police brutality
public spending
neocolonialism
human rights abuses
social welfare
religious freedom
child trafficking
drug laws
trade unions
market regulation
gun control
censorship
sanctions
immigration
free speech
gay marriage
genetic engineering
technology regulation
privacy

Which issues get you out of bed on the weekend to make a little mayhem? A petition here, a little nonviolent picketing there. Which issues do you let slide? Why?

Your list doesn't include race relations. Whyzat?

 

[Eftsoon]

Your list doesn't include race relations. Whyzat?

Human rights abuses
Neocolonialism

But, it probably does deserve it's own category.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Human rights abuses
Neocolonialism

But, it probably does deserve it's own category.

It certainly deserves an honest look.

 

[Eftsoon]

It certainly deserves an honest look.

You are , of course, right yes

 

[Eftsoon]

In America many are posing their complaints as violations of human rights. Also human rights lists are different depending on who you ask. There are those that wish to mandate 'equity' as a human right.

Yes, it can be and has been abused. It can be hard to pin down, but there are generally and widely accepted human rights that we do well to honour,

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Many Christians would agree that we are called to have a direct impact in , at minimum, our local social sphere: but to what extent? My second question is: on what issues?

abortion
ecology
taxes
political corruption
police brutality
public spending
neocolonialism
human rights abuses
social welfare
religious freedom
child trafficking
drug laws
trade unions
market regulation
gun control
censorship
sanctions
immigration
free speech
gay marriage
genetic engineering
technology regulation
privacy

Which issues get you out of bed on the weekend to make a little mayhem? A petition here, a little nonviolent picketing there. Which issues do you let slide? Why?

You didn't include crime, which almost everyone is sounding the alarm over. ???

'Woke' goes broke: Democrats start to question message (msn.com)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm interested in how you are deciding which issues are not worth pursuing.

The issues you listed describe both society and human nature, neither of which will change significantly by our efforts. At the least conscientious people should make sure they aren't part of these problems.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And so we prioritse... but by what criteria?

I only address issues that I know something about.

 

[RDKirk]

IMO, the 3 "issues" Christians should be most concerned with are (in no particular order)

> Feed the hungry
> House the homeless
> Clothe the naked

If we put our resources to these goals, people will flock to the church(es) because of the fruit it would bear. You can reach and teach but what are you doing to help your neighbor is at the heart of Christ's ministry.

Well, I'd put "getting the gospel preached throughout the world " first, and, frankly, if the Body of Christ was able to get the three items named resolved just within the Body of Christ worldwide, that would be sufficient.

The Body of Christ has the resources to support the Body of Christ.

When Bill Stonebraker pastored Calvary Chapel of Honolulu in the early 90s, he made the statement, "No member of this congregation need ever fear being hungry, homeless, or naked." If every pastor in every congregation could make that statement, and if every congregation were committed to making that happen in every other congregation, we would see people flocking to churches.

Of the list provided, I would say

> Free speech
> Freedom of religion
>privacy

Scripture tells us: I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

The important thing to note is that we are praying for a specific outcome: Benign neglect from earthly authorities. We simply want the liberty to do our Christian thing--peacefully and quietly, and that will be sufficient to turn the world upside down.

So, yeah, from that list free speech, freedom of religion, and privacy would be sufficient for us to carry out the mission Jesus has given us. Everything else will fall in place as He wills if we would just follow His explicit instructions.

 

[rturner76]

Well, I'd put "getting the gospel preached throughout the world " first, and, frankly, if the Body of Christ was able to get the three items named resolved just within the Body of Christ worldwide, that would be sufficient.

The Body of Christ has the resources to support the Body of Christ.

When Bill Stonebraker pastored Calvary Chapel of Honolulu in the early 90s, he made the statement, "No member of this congregation need ever fear being hungry, homeless, or naked." If every pastor in every congregation could make that statement, and if every congregation were committed to making that happen in every other congregation, we would see people flocking to churches.

I think that missions that help the poor bring in many converts. I volunteered for the St Vincent De Paul charity and we helped people get ID, a free voicemail, free shoes, bus passes, and bus tickets for out of town funerals. We also served coffe and sandwiches all day. Many people as they received services asked for Bibles and some asked about the church, how to become a member etc.

So I think you are right that we are to follow the great commission but I think much work gets done through christian charities.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We are called to take a stand on every issue that concerns us that is not compatible with the gospel if we can. Of coarse as human beings we are limited on time.

I have opinions on most issues but rarely take a stand. I prefer to snipe from the cheap seats, although I have tried to contact my representatives concerning some issues. Haven't heard back.

 

[RDKirk]

We are called to take a stand on every issue that concerns us that is not compatible with the gospel if we can. Of coarse as human beings we are limited on time.

Most of those "issues" are irrelevant to the mission assigned to us by Christ.

Why, for instance, did Paul not rail against the Roman government for permitting actions recognized as sin within the Church? Because it was not his mission to fix the Roman empire. Nor is it ours.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Most of those "issues" are irrelevant to the mission assigned to us by Christ.

Why, for instance, did Paul not rail against the Roman government for permitting actions recognized as sin within the Church? Because it was not his mission to fix the Roman empire. Nor is it ours.

If we examine what Paul and the early Church did, they created community which was explicitly dissident in nature and posed a fundamental challenge to everything Rome stood for. Paul didn't outright seek to destroy Rome or rail against it in explicit language because he knew it would get him killed. What he did was lay the foundation for a transformation in society that would bear fruit centuries later.

Certainty Paul did not abide by a Roman way of living, although he made use of his Roman privileges' to undermine Rome itself.

 

[RDKirk]

If we examine what Paul and the early Church did, they created community which was explicitly dissident in nature and posed a fundamental challenge to everything Rome stood for.

Not really so explicitly dissident. The Book of Luke and Acts both clearly stress the inoffensiveness of Christianity to the empire.

Even in the second century, in the writings of Pliny the Younger and others, the offensiveness of Christianity had to be politically manufactured. By their daily routines, Christians were quiet and decent citizens.

Were they spiritually offensive? Yes, indeed. But they fell into the circumstance of "But they haven't broken any laws." So laws had to be created specifically for them to break. But very much like the case with Daniel in Babylon, offenses had to be manufactured.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Not really so explicitly dissident. The Book of Luke and Acts both clearly stress the inoffensiveness of Christianity to the empire.

I agree it wasn't explicitly dissident but that doesn't mean it wasn't dissident. The results of Christianity in the Roman empire speak for itself. Rome was transformed from a Pagan Empire to a Christian one and the legacy of Rome was in part a Christian legacy.

Even in the second century, in the writings of Pliny the Younger and others, the offensiveness of Christianity had to be politically manufactured. By their daily routines, Christians were quiet and decent citizens.

The offensiveness Pliny and the Pagans felt was the Christian disregard for Roman norms, customs and religion. I agree that the Church lived inoffensively, not prosecuting offensive wars or being to obnoxious. There were rules for that even in Churches which prevented especially zealous believers from spitting on statues of the gods (cause it would likely get you executed).

How was Pliny, on retrospect, wrong with regards to Christianity? Or why was Celsus wrong to react the way he did to what he perceived as a novel religion which went against all common sense and decency of the Roman way of life? They weren't all that wrong, except on the most exaggerated of charges (Incest, cannibalism and the like), but ultimately they were right to fear the Christians who overturned their legacy.

Were they spiritually offensive? Yes, indeed. But they fell into the circumstance of "But they haven't broken any laws." So laws had to be created specifically for them to break. But very much like the case with Daniel in Babylon, offenses had to be manufactured.

To be spiritually offensive in Rome was to be offensive against the society. It was to invoke the wrath of gods and thus the need to persecute Christians, who were seen as especially disrespectful of the gods. The Ante Nicenes were not shy in writing about the falseness of idols or the falseness of Zeus and the Philosophers.

Thus the only offense necessary was that sacrifices weren't being offered to the gods for the glory and promotion of Rome. This might not seem to us very radical today, but if you put yourself in the shoes of the average Roman, of course you would want to see these Christians punished for their hubris and atheism.

 

[RDKirk]

Thus the only offense necessary was that sacrifices weren't being offered to the gods for the glory and promotion of Rome. This might not seem to us very radical today, but if you put yourself in the shoes of the average Roman, of course you would want to see these Christians punished for their hubris and atheism.

That was after they wrote laws specifically requiring those sacrifices to specific gods (specifically, the Caesars who had been deified), which had not been an explicit legal requirement in prior times.

Pliny clearly recognized those sacrifices as being mere "square fillers" to satisfy the letter of the law.