Friday, February 25, 2011

Hither and thither 2/25/11

It's been a nice enough week. I loved preaching Sunday. Loved the four-dayedness of the week. Also almost-nice: I did the last round of editing before The World-tilting Gospel went to the typesetters... then the Kregellady I'm working with just now found more things for me to look over. Then it goes off.

Waiting on the rest of my other-manuscript readers to get their reports back to me so I can (please, God) move ahead with that project.

And now you know all that! Leaving us free to review the "givens," then move on to a very nice little "catch" I've gathered for you this week
  • Okay, let's get started on a great big "WHAT TH...?" note:

  • Those whacky Democrats! Who says they don't have a sense of humor? Now they want us all to believe they're born-again border hawks.
  • As you've doubtless heard, the Obama Administration simply unilaterally held its own little internal Supreme Court and decided not to argue for DOMA. This makes me wonder seriously if the Democratic Party simply wants to re-brand itself as the Above-the-law Party. Obama doesn't like DOMA — poof! It's ignored. Democratic Attorney General Jerry Brown doesn't like Proposition 8 in California — poof! He won't defend it in court. Democratic Mayor of San Francisco Gavin Newsom doesn't like state law about calling serial perversion marriage — poof! He breaks the law, and not only retains office but advances to higher office. It's an alarming trend.

  • Need a little dieting help? Maybe some appetite suppression? Reader Sam Knisely may just have the help you're looking for — particularly if you watch the attached video. (Hint in two words: bug eating.)
  • You will not believe this story. Two young Arizona girls blown 110 feet into the air inside their inflated castle.
  • Pretty sure the Grasshoppers and my boys will love this. Not so sure about the dear wife. Cat laser bowling. (Thanks to reader Sonja for the tip.)
  • And Mr. Perkins was never seen again....

  • Ouch. Maybe you'll need to put your hand over the screen as you finish up with....


Wendy said...

Woohoo! I'm first! (Or maybe that's just depressing).

That wood spoiler cracked me up! Oh my word.

I think if I lived in Mississippi, I would be packing up the moving truck right about now.

Re: undefended first truth is relative, now everyone is a law unto themselves? Or rather, not everyone, just Democrats? Am I reading this right?

Someone might want to send that Fantasy Land map to Obama, you know, so he can get back home safe and sound.

The Squirrel said...

The only good thing about being wide awake at 3:30 in the morning is the sudden realization that it's Friday, and you can just get up and go read the Hither and Thither!


Robert said...

So are the "public servants" of Washington State also going to force Planned Parenthood and the other groups providing abortion services to actually show the mothers the pictures of their babies? My wife happens to volunteer with Care Net (well she did for a couple of years in the past and is getting back into it starting this week) and in their training they are told of the practices of these outfits. It sure doesn't sound like they are going to be held to the same standard...justthe places that actually try to tell people the truth (that there is a living baby with a heartbeat and organs inside of them.

For those who don't have a strong stomach for violence (can't think of a better term), you might want to not read the following:

One of the things that these abortion clinics don't tell the mothers is that they can not perform an abortion until they can see and define certain organs and body parts. And one of the most common procedures done to abort (kill) the baby is to dismember the baby and vacuum the parts out so that they can be disposed of. they certainly do not tell the women about this and don't explain all of the risks involved.

I feel that I must add, though, the following:

1 in 3 US women has had/will have an abortion

1 in 5 evangelical women in the US has had/will have an abortion

We need to know that our sins are no better than their sins and that they can be (or have been) forgiven through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Most of these women actually feel a great deal of pain because of the decision they made and they all need the Gospel just like the rest of us. So we need to not be cowering over them to throw rocks.

That said, what we don't need is for legislators to make it so difficult for those who are trying to bring the truth to these women, while making it so easy for those who are supressing the truth. And not only that, we don't need them to spend our tax dollars to support such a cause.

I know this is a lengthy comment, but it is such a horrible thing that is going on in this and other countries and Christians need to take a serious stand for the truth here. I saw R.C. Sproul doing an interview and he said that he thinks that people should actually be protesting churches that support abortions instead of the clinics and doctors. That, to me, is the saddest and most frustrating thing of claiming to be faithful undershepherds are saying that abortion is OK. I can not understand that.

Pierre Saikaley said...

hmmm...The thing is my Americano bro. that while Canada , well, let's stick to Ontario, my province, can have it's share of medical system horror stories, I can surely uncover some horror stories from America too.

I guess because I'm steeped in the culture and have experienced not the worst of it, I tend to have mixed feelings about both hoorahing the American system as some sort of all-encompassing answer to what ails everybody's medical systems.

Again,I'm no liberal, socialist. Maybe it's just too early, and the conservative in me hasn't yet come awakened. Or maybe it's just sinful Canadian pride that won't let me cry uncle to the American system.

I've had my kids in hospital and they got well treated in a timely manner. Maybe some inconveniences were had, and I don't know how good it is down in your parts, so I can't compare.

then again, I don't have a personal doctor, and need to rely on a walk in clinic. So care is not consistent. So there's some truth to the criticisms of our system.

DJP said...

We've kind of had this argument before, and likely will again. I think freedom and personal responsibility are good things, and statist paternalism and control are bad things.

But perhaps the most eloquent point — if I have it right — are the medical facilities near the border with signs saying that they accept Canadian money... without counterparts across the border. (Heard that from Canadian America-lover Mark Steyn.)

Scooter said...

I foresee the bacon alarm clock causing many men joy and their wives great concern.

I say bring on the bug eating! I've had fried silkworm and it's like eating Rice Krispies cereal

Robert said...

A Christian church sharing a Thanksgiving meal with Muslims and not sharing their faith? How does that work biblically? I'm shocked at this type of behavior. Who do they pray to before the meal? I just don't get it. We're supposed to preach the truth in love and we should expect to be persecuted for that...instead people are thinking we need to make everybody comfortable in their sins and idol worship (because the person/being that Muslims worship is not God).

Scooter said...


Yeah, it's kinda mind-boggling. I don't care whether a Christian and Muslim family get together for dinner/play date/whatever. It's quite another thing to give a place for worship.

I missed the cat-laser bowling. I'm definitely trying that on my girlfriend's cat. :)

Brad Williams said...

The Narnia reviews...

Man, if those movies said any less about Jesus, they wouldn't be able to say anything about Jesus. This demonstrates some important points:

1. It doesn't matter how cleverly you package the gospel, when you actually unveil the gospel, people get miffed, even if it is a CGI lion doing the talking.

2. It should serve notice to all Christian artists, whom I want to encourage. Don't dodge your faith, be honest about it and do art from conviction. Sissifying your message in order not to offend is often a great offense, even to the wicked. Nobody likes a patronizing sycophant.

3. I fear that this critique is spot on. It makes me both uncomfortable and frustrated by our wussiness:

"In the end, it’s hard to tell whether Disney is paying homage to the author here or cynically securing an audience that’s so desperate to have its faith validated that they’ll accept a second-rate adaptation of his work."

OW! OUCH! OW! Uncle! Uncle!!

I may have to write another post on art done for the sake of Christ.

DJP said...

There's an application there for the BioLogos set as well. So desperate to be accepted by the scientific establishment, and they only view them with slightly less contempt than knuckle-dragging young-earthers.

Sir Aaron said...


I live in Houston where we have one of the premier cancer treatment centers in the world. I have no doubts that we could walk the halls today of that hospital and find more Canadians there then Americans in all the hospitals in Canada. Just saying.

@Scooter: I already have a bacon alarm clock. My wife makes the bacon and I wake up.

@Squirrel: Yeah, that doesn't work if you are living outside the Pacific time zone.

Cathy said...

@ Robert - R.C. Sproul is most vehemently *against* abortion. He said that picketing abortion clinics "may have some value" but it "wouldn't be his way." He doesn't think it would be as effective as going, literally, to the heart of the problem: the churches telling people it's okay to have an abortion in the first place. Go to the source. Remind them of the blood on their hands. Here's a video where he discusses this: (It's 23 minutes long but worth it.)

Herding Grasshoppers said...

Woo-ee, what a morning round-up!

I don't have the mental space right now to even read many of the political and abortion links, but in the meantime...

Watching that downhill bike trial made me woozy! Was I the only one mentally willing the rider/camera to look up a bit more?

The Grasshopper boys thank you for the cat bowling. Lots of laughing. They could use some cheering up. (Not feeling well, just now.) The Gizmodo link with 2011 Lego kits also caught their eyes. Especially the pod racers.

We're also laughing, ruefully, at the soccer clip. Sadly all too true even at the younger levels. While watching the World Cup last year the boys would watch the players and whine, "Ouch! Ouch! You almost touched me!"

I can't speak to the quality or availabilty of care in Canada, but I can tell you that we live 30 minutes from the border (near Vancouver) and have a LOT of Canadians here seeking health care. And it's not all "off the grid".

Mr. Grasshopper is an architect. Several years ago, his former cancer doc hired him to design a custom luxury home, which he built on one of the Canadian Gulf Islands. I don't know the details, but I think it had something to do with the Canadian gov't paying him to treat Canadian patients and it being beneficial to keep/spend the money in Canada.

Sadly, with what Obama is trying to do to our medical system... well, I won't go there. Preaching to the choir, y'know.


Kirby said...

Divorce in the church. About 10 years ago when I started hearing the mantra: "divorce in the church is the same outside the church" I originally accepted it. And then, I just looked around the last three churches I'd been in. 1 divorce per 50 marriages (yes, fifty) in each church. That's not statistically close. This is worth a whole post in my mind.

that Chilean Bike ride was so totally amazing. It seems to me that all you had to do was be the one who actually finished, and you'd win.

Thanks for the HT fun.

CGrim said...

- Curious to read Doug Wilson's review of Palin's book. I do think she's a sincere Christian, although I was dismayed to see her call Rick Santorum a neanderthal for his suggestion that she might have her hands full raising her kids.

- The cat bowling must haven taken forever to perfect.

- The guy smacking the bear is great. Reminded me of that youtube video where the cat scares away the alligators by swatting them on the nose.

- I wish churches that call themselves "Protestant" would distinguish - are they protestant by tradition, or by conviction? I mean, if you call yourself protestant because somewhere in the mists of history, your church was founded by Luther, that's one thing. But if you deny any of the Five Solas, are you really Protestant in any meaningful sense oft he word? The churches inviting Muslims to worship with them made me think of this.

DJP said...

I note that he whacks the bear, the bear rears back -- but doesn't leave. Then the clip ends.


Sonja said...

Bacon AND cake on the menu this week! Although it's a tough week for bears on H&T.

This was in the WSJ this morning:

Good gig teaching in Wisconsin, especially considering it's a 9-month job (less with all the breaks) which isn't taken into account in the analysis.

Friday's are even better with H&T!

RealityCheck said...

Love the news about Planned Parenthood!

I read the “have-nots and have yours” article the other day and really just loved it. Nobody wants the economy in the mess that it is in but the silver lining may be how it forces people to notice (and hopefully do something) about some of the waste.

Bike race in Chile... At 28/29 seconds the biker barely misses a dog. A second or so later you hear a dog cry suggesting that the following bikers didn’t miss him. Other than that (I mean it’s not like it was just a cat or something ;-) ) I love this video and especially the “home-madeness” of the track.

Complete map of fantasy lands... not quite so complete… no Obamaland listed.

Cat laser bowling... finally a good use for a cat! ;-)

Churches Open Doors to Muslim Worship…"They see it as their Christian duty"... Of course, it’s always been the duty of a Christian to provide a place where others can worship their false idols. I appreciate McFarland voicing the correct perspective.

LLama attact - 911 call… probably said, “Obama attacking my life!

Thanks for the H&T Dan.

RealityCheck said...

Great point Dan about BioLogos in relationship to the Narnia story. In fact, I think I read something somewhere about the folly of a person trying to serve two masters… now where was that???

SamKnisely said...

Always love Hither and Thither!

As for the "bug eating," John the Baptist was just ahead of the times and then I notice a fellow reader named Herding Grasshoppers?

Jugulum said...


Why does anyone think it's part of the executive branch's mandate to argue before the judicial branch that everything done by the legislative branch is Constitutional?

The executive branch is supposed to enforce/execute everything done by the legislative branch, certainly--regardless of whether the president likes it. But I don't know why people are assuming that "executing" means "arguing that it's Constitutional".

If there's some real legal/historical basis for saying that it's the executive branch's job to argue for laws' constitutionality, that's one thing. If there isn't, then it makes far more sense to me that it would be the Legislative branch who's responsible to send lawyers to court to defend the constitutionality of their acts.

If any president thinks any law is unconstitutional, he still has to enforce it. But I don't want him lying in court--presenting arguments that he's convinced are false. His oath to defend the Constitution seems relevant.

Note: On the flipside, I don't want anyone in the government to let their personal politics control their constitutional conscience. IOW, they're violating their oath to defend the Constitution if they start saying "That's unconstitutional!" just because they don't like a law. (Same thing if they say "It's constitutional" just because they like it.)

So, we either need to (1) stick to accusing the president of playing personal politics with the Constitution, or (2) work out the legal basis for saying it's the president's mandate to defend the constitutionality of the legislature's actions.

Pierre Saikaley said...

@Sir Aaron:

Show off.


trogdor said...

Regarding the last cartoon, as an Illinoisan-for-now I'm dismayed by our growing interstate trade imbalance. Our biggest exports seem to be good jobs and productive members of society, while our chief import is whiny liberal crybaby legislators. This is not a positive trend.

Sir Aaron said...


I know what you can do! Raise taxes!


Susan said...

1. [/snickering at Aaron's comment to Trogdor]

2. Dan, why do you need that many FB friends, anyway? It's not like you need them to get married or somethin'.... :P

3. "SNUGGLES!!!! NO!!!!!!!!!!!"

More later, perhaps. Dinner beckons.

Paula said...

It's taken me all day to work through all the mind-expanding, thought-provoking content here today. Well, I've been through most of it anyway. Thank you, DJP, for your fabulous weekly show-and-tell.

I'm heading to therapy tomorrow to deal with my feelings about that Snuggle bear video and Reality Check's comment about the poor Chilean dog. Oh, and Scooter ruining my beloved Rice Krispie treats for me. Thanks, y'all!

Paula said...

About that soccer dive video...I was curious about who the refs called the foul on. My friend's husband (Fabio!) sent the run-down of the Spanish:

"The teams are Ecuador (yellow) and Chile (red). The commentators kept saying, "come on, fellow!" because they knew he hit himself using the other guy's arm.

The referee called the foul AGAINST the red guy, so yep - he got it right!

Paula said...

Forgive me for being a blog-hog, but ARRRRGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!

I just flipped on the late night version of Glenn Beck (why do I do this?) and apparently David Barton didn't get the memo about Christian divorce rates. He said,

""Born again is considered to be a serious Christian by most accounts and so what you have when you look at the divorce rate in Amreica ,the divorce rate for born again Christians is 27%. For the rest of the country it's 24%. For atheists/agnostics it's 21%. So the highest divorce rate is among born again Christians and the lowest is among atheists...that's not good numbers for living our faith."

and he went on...

"There is actually in polling 70 different moral behaviors that have been checked and there is no substantial difference between Christians' moral behavior and non-Christians' moral behavior.

So you have Beck, a Mormon, Rabbi Lappin, James Robison, a Vietnam veteran, and David Barton sitting around the table discussing this.

At least the Rabbi had the sense to point out that atheists also have a low marriage rate.

Barton, who has gone to great lengths to convince the world that Beck is a genuine Christian (though he is clearly a member of the cult of Mormonism), went on to say Christians are more likely to pray about their problems than to work at solving them, accounting for some of the high divorce rate among Christians.

He should just stick to history. Perpetuating the world's (false) stereotypes about TRUE BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY to millions of viewers....sad.

DJP said...

PaulaBarton, who has gone to great lengths to convince the world that Beck is a genuine Christian ....

Really? Are you serious? Oh, that would really disappoint me. Not only that, but it lances a gaping rent in Barton's credibility as he makes his powerful signature argument that most of the Signers were at least in some sense Christian.

Paula said...

While Barton doesn't actually say the words "Glenn Beck is a Christian," read this Facebook post and decide for yourself if that's his message:

"For Christians concerned about Glenn's faith, I would ask the following questions:

What fruit do you see produced by Glenn? Good or bad?

If you judged Glenn only by the fruits he has produced, would you still hold concerns over his faith?

If you did not know Glenn was a Mormon, how would you describe his religious beliefs?

Is God using Glenn to help recover our national strength and health, both politically and spiritually?

If so, why would God be using him?

Does Glenn stir and provoke us to good works? (Hebrews 10:24)

Does he bring to light the hidden things of darkness? (1 Corinthians 4:5)

Does he talk openly about atonement, redemption, and individual salvation through Christ? (I can definitely answer this in the affirmative, for I have seen him do so on numerous occasions not only on his program but also in the rallies where I have personally participated with him.)

Christians concerned about Glenn's faith should judge the tree by its fruits, not its labels. After all, Nancy Pelosi and Bill Clinton openly call themselves Christians, as do Evangelical Christian ministers such as Jim Wallis and Joel Hunter. Although these individuals have the right labels, they have the wrong fruits; yet many Christians have a more visceral reaction to Glenn than to Pelosi, Clinton, or Wallis. This is wrong; it is not Biblical....

...It was devout Christian Samuel Adams who broke through the religious objections when he "arose and said he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer from a gentleman of piety and virtue." [7] Significantly, Samuel Adams (an ardent Congregationalist – a Puritan) supported having a clergyman from the Church of England (a denomination literally hated by Adams' Congregationalists) deliver the original opening prayer in Congress. What Adams required was that the prayer be from a "gentleman of piety and virtue," thus recognizing Jesus' teachings in Luke 9:49-50, Mark 9:40, and Matthew 7:16-20.

Glenn fits well into both of those historic parameters, and hopefully, so, too, will those American Christians who might disagree with his label but find nothing to fault among his fruits.

In conclusion, I have been with Glenn in numerous settings; I have watched him up close and can heartily endorse both his public and his private life. I have witnessed his tender heart, his love for God, and his passion to keep God in America. Glenn and I have prayed together on numerous occasions; he has sought God for specific guidance on numerous situations and I have personally not only seen God answer him but have also seen Glenn completely change his plans after feeling the Lord was leading him to move in a different direction or address a different subject. I judge Glenn by his fruits, not by his labels, and I am honored to call Glenn not only an ally and a fellow warrior (and a General) in the culture war, but especially to call him a good friend.

There's just so much wrong here - and boy-oh-boy, people can be touchy about this subject! But good point about Barton's claims about the Founding Fathers. Barton's definition (here) of Christianity is heavily works-based (hmmm...much like the Mormon definition - go figure!).

Susan said...

From Paula's Barton excerpt:

"Is God using Glenn to help recover our national strength and health, both politically and spiritually?

If so, why would God be using him?"

Cyrus the king came to mind, so I went to read Ezra 1 to be sure...and yet I'm not sure. Cyrus knew he was the Lord's instrument and went forth to carry out the Lord's will, prophesied by Isaiah years before his birth. He was obviously supportive of the temple's rebuilding, but was he a true believer? I don't really know. (Sorry, I'm kind of thinking out loud....)

Susan said...

Oh, but maybe I should clarify (just in case it's not clear): I don't think Beck can be called a Christian just because of good works (and that's without mentioning his Mormon beliefs). That much I'm not confused about. To separate the man's social/political "fruit" from the theology he holds and then to hold up that "fruit" against Scriptural standards and say it fits...something's wrong with this picture....

Lenny said...

Thanks for the divorce stats.

As far as the 'churches open doors to muslim worship', my first thought was Jesus' answer to 'who is my neighbour?'. My understanding of the gospel is to treat others as we would want to be treated. I think the idea that sharing a building would lead to 'Chrislam' is ridiculous.
What a great opportunity to enter into dialogue with people of a different faith!! To share Jesus with them as well as practical needs.

Please tell me where your 'biblical christianity' says that this would not be a biblical thing to do.

DJP said...

First, I'm trying to make sense of what you're saying.

So, on your view, if a bunch of young unmarrieds wanted a warm dry place to have sex, the loving thing of the church to do would be to open its doors? If Satanists were looking for a place to worship? If druggies wanted a nice clean site to shoot up and do deals, wouldn't that be your idea of the loving thing to do?

Looking forward to your answer. Please show your work.

Lenny said...

I love that you use extremes!!

Actually there is a case of medically supervised clean spaces/injection centres provided in Sydney so that drug addicts don't die from dirty needles while shooting up... controversial but there you go.

I tend to take Matthew 25. 31-40 a bit literally while keeping in mind
Luke 6. 37-42 and I'm cautious about Luke 11.41-43.

Are the examples that you have suggested things that I as a follower of Jesus should be doing? Clearly not! But I'm in favour of giving people somewhere to live even if they steal my stuff, giving people of a different faith a meeting place so that I have a chance to have a conversation with them and challenge them on what they believe, as well as to be able to know them so I can pray for them more specifically!!!!

Can you please provide some 'work' on how acts of exclusivity and judgement have led people to Christ, particularly in your experience?

I read your blog because I happen to disagree with many things you write (often politically :P) but I keep reading because I want to be informed and learn from other people's perspectives!

I look forward to your thoughts! Thank you!

DJP said...

Lenny, thank you for responding. But we're a bit uneven, and I'd like to ask for clarification before I respond more fully. You have in me a fairly fixed target for conversation, but your response still leaves me with the feeling of a moving target. So if I've missed something, help me out.

Are you saying that a church should or should not open its doors to fornicators, drug-users and Satanists, to use its facilities to do what they want? Would that be the "loving," Golden-rule thing to do, as you see it?

I really am heading towards a further straight answer, but join me as a partner in this conversation by helping me understand what you're bringing.

Lenny said...

'Are you saying that a church should or should not open its doors to fornicators, drug-users and Satanists, to use its facilities to do what they want? Would that be the "loving," Golden-rule thing to do, as you see it?'

I don't know if I can say I think it's a Golden Rule. Sorry for not being clearer before! I think I'm saying it would be loving to be hospitable and 'speak the truth in love' to people. Imagine if they were your own child bringing home their boy/girlfriend to your house! If they had sex under your roof, would it be the most loving thing to kick them out?

I guess I'm more asking questions than trying to assert a particular point of view, but my main feeling about this issue is that these 'non-christian behaviours' are symptoms, and I think without condoning people's actions we can on a case by case basis open our homes and church buildings to people who may not otherwise have an opportunity to hear about Jesus who loves them (and wants a better life for them!).

Does that make sense? I see that perhaps I am again not saying my point of view as clearly as you may like but I guess I'm advocating not having a Golden Rule in any case. If I had to pick an extreme (of either closing or opening doors), I guess I'd pick opening them. For the sake of that also opening up opportunities to share with someone why I don't agree that their behaviours are right, because of what I believe about how God wants us to live, etc.

I guess I am also asking a question about why we might on instinct not want Muslims to meet in church buildings? (Aside from the arguments that they're worshipping idols and false gods and we don't want to appear to be condoning that) Are we afraid? Doesn't perfect love drive out all fear?

But maybe I am digressing again... sorry I can't be a fixed target! But I hope that I've made myself a bit less blurry.

DJP said...

Thanks, Lenny. I do think that's a bit blurry (as you say), plus perhaps the problem of good-heartedly isolating some texts while not applying others.

The so-called Golden Rule is Matthew 7:12, "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." But we've got to apply that with some care and thought. If the "you" Jesus addresses is "you as unconverted, unrepentant, God-hating rebels," then what we want others to do is give us our way, always and unconditionally. We want approval and enabling of all our actions. We want liberty without consequences.

Which would be to pat our fat little heads and send us straight off to eternity under God's unshielded wrath.

"Loving"? Don't think so.

Can you imagine Jesus is telling us to give people that? I hope not.

Here's what Paul prays: "And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ" (Phi. 1:9-10). Biblical love requires all discernment [not slushy mushy gooey good intentions], the approval of what is excellent [not sinful and perverse], and the maintenance of personal blamelessness.

"Well, I'm not worshiping false gods, having illicit sex, or doing drugs. I'm just being loving and neighborly by giving them a nice clean place to do it in. So I'm blameless."

Nope. There's still more Bible. Check Ephesians 5:1-17. Here are a couple of pull-quotes:

"Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them" (vv. 6-7)

"Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them" (v. 11)

To take a building purchased for the purpose of the service and worship of God, and dedicated to that purpose, and then give (or rent) it to people teaching damning doctrine or openly shaking their fists in His face is neither loving, godly, nor discerning.

Acts of love and service in God's name to open a relationship and a means for communicating the Gospel? You bet. Great idea.

Acts of politically-correct relativistic compromise that communicate that a killing, damning cult is a worshiping body equally legitimate to a Christian church? No, ma'am. Terrible idea.

Lenny said...

I might reply more thoroughly later, but thank you so much! You've really helped me understand your thoughts, and I particularly appreciate the bible verses you provided, especially about not becoming partners with darkness but exposing it!

I think my initial questions came when in your post you said "churches" as though there could be no true followers of Jesus in those communities because they were sharing premises with Muslims.

Are there some kind of guidelines you could give that would distinguish the line between 'Acts of love and service in God's name to open a relationship and a means for communicating the Gospel' and 'Acts of politically-correct relativistic compromise that communicate that a killing, damning cult is a worshiping body equally legitimate to a Christian church' ? For example, I don't know many churches that actively seek the first kind with people of another faith.
What could be an example of that? Rather than making protest signs near a new Mosque near Ground Zero (which I don't think communicates the gospel very clearly). Often these issues are so charged with emotion, and as you suggested, we can be blinded by 'political correctness'.

Thanks, DJP!

DJP said...

I think the line falls at the division between serving/helping and enabling. (I don't think that's always a bright line, btw.)

We support missionaries in Honduras who give medical aid, workshops, and the Gospel. That's serving/helping with the Gospel woven in.

Giving a house of worship to a cult for their false worship and indoctrination is enabling. Giving money to the indolent is enabling.

That isn't just me talking: "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10b). No loaves for loafers.

One has to think, and not just feel. One has to ask, for instance, "Will this communicate love, or approval in/of sin? Will this make it harder to feel good about ignoring the whole truth of God, or easier?"