- 2016May 17
“I wanna start a fight, so, so what?” I’ve felt that urge before and opened up my twitter app. And that’s why I deleted my twitter account. If your right arm offends you, right? Not that every Christian should do like me. But, “pics or it didn’t happen?” Be careful. Why not “too precious for Facebook?”
But the fight thing: that’s the issue. Christians taking to Twitter to vent; or scrolling through the Facebook feed to comment on hot topics. Some feel the urge to engage. Others are reluctant. Then there are those who tell us we must engage or we’re not fulfilling our gospel responsibility. We’re contributing to the error if we don’t correct it. We’re letting truth fall to the ground if we don’t say something.
Of course we must speak the truth – advance the gospel. At the same time, sometimes being a credible witness for Christ means not mixing it up. Paul said, “Avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife” (2 Tim. 2:23). It’s also true that “He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a dog by the ears” (Prov. 26:19). Grab that German Shepherd if you want to, but God says it’s not wise.
So how do we know when to comment and when to move on? How do we know when to hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em? And when to play ‘em for that matter? Here are a few principles.
1) Ignore the atheist or contrarian who simply loves to contradict (Prov. 26:4).
2) Don’t get into someone else’s fight (Prov. 26:19).
3) Avoid all foolish disputes (2 Tim. 2:23).
4) Don’t be argumentative (Prov. 26:20-21; 2 Tim. 2:24).
5) Don’t let your emotions drive you to comment when you shouldn’t (2 Tim. 2:24-26).
6) Realize that you’re likely to be misunderstood for a host of reasons, not the least of which is that readers can’t see your body language or hear your intonations (1 Cor. 2:14; Prov. 26:4; Col. 4:5-6).
7) Know that you’re not obligated to answer every person or every comment (Rom. 15:19-20).
8) Set aside God in your heart before you speak (1 Pet. 3:15).
9) Pick your moments; be wise and judicious as to when you speak and what you say (Col. 4:5-6).
10) When you do comment, don’t offer opinion, but root your words in Scripture (Rom. 1:16; 1 Thess. 2:13). In other words, cast down arguments with biblical truth (Prov. 26:5; 2 Cor. 10:3-5; 1 Pet. 3:15).
11) Warn those who stubbornly refuse to listen and move on (Matt. 10:14; Acts 13:46).
12) Don’t be ugly, but build up (Eph. 4:29).
It’s not about starting a fight.
- 2016Jan 26
This past Friday on our radio broadcast we were talking about Trump’s popularity along with Sarah Palin endorsing him. The tea party is livid over that endorsement wondering what in the world has happened to conservatives and conservative principles. Palin, like so many others, has sold them out, they say.
We simply reiterated the point we’ve been making for years that most so-called conservatives are not really conservative. Like most people, they vote for the candidate who says what they want to hear. That’s called populism. They have no real principled commitment to conservativism because they have no real coherent or comprehensive public policy worldview. Sadly, most Christians fall into this same category.
Our point was that Christians should be different. They shouldn’t simply vote for things they like. It’s selfish at the very least; oppressive in reality; and downright unbiblical in most cases. We need a biblical view of government and public policy. It’s called liberty.
It’s interesting that others are talking about the same thing. Of particular note, a Christian conservative commentator picked up on this theme in his morning show. He lamented long and hard that conservatives weren’t conservative and populism had gained a foot hold in the Republican Party. What to do, what to do? “We need to call Christians back to conservatism,” he declared.
He then cited W. as one of those conservatives. Yeah, big spending George Bush – that W. But that didn’t get a mention. Strangely however, this did: “He allocated thirty-three million dollars for abstinence education.” This is his example of W’s conservativism.
But this example is really a shining illustration of exactly what we were talking about on our show. Allocating money for abstinence education is not conservative – it’s as liberal as it gets. This commentator is not Christian or conservative on that point. W. is a populist on that point and this Christian conservative is voting for what he wants – not principled public policy. In other words, he’s for abstinence and therefore he’s for government (tax-payers) funding abstinence education. But conservatism says it’s not the role of government to fund abstinence education or any other kind of education. Conservativism is against that kind of tax and spend policy. Taxing people for what you want is contemporary liberalism. It’s big government. It’s tyranny. And this man’s proving my point that Democrats and Republicans are all for big government despite what Republicans say. Both use government – just for different spending programs. That’s called hypocrisy. And Jesus had a lot to say about that – none of it good. So this Christian conservative, like most, is really a populist.
It’s bad form to go ballistic over Palin or Trump followers when you’re just like them. Just saying.
- 2015Dec 29
There are some litmus-test issues for Christians. One is abortion. A believer can’t support a candidate who’s pro-baby-killing. It’s not over-the-top to call it murder, cruel, and barbaric. Moreover, you don’t really believe in liberty and justice for all if a segment of society can be legally murdered. You believe in allowing some to aggress against others without consequences. You don’t have a Christian worldview but a relativistic one: might makes right; majority rules; the strong survive.
If abortion is a litmus-test issue, it is such because of life and liberty. These are unalienable rights granted by God, not government. What right do I have to take someone else’s life? Or someone else mine? These rights also make civil society possible. Civil society can only be such if it has as its foundation the Christian principle of non-aggression. No one has the right to aggress against me, even as I have no right to aggress against others. This principle is present in biblical commands against theft, rape, or murder to name a few. It’s present in the Golden Rule.
For Christians, if abortion is a litmus-test issue because of life and liberty, then wars of aggression must be a litmus-test issue as well. The principles are the same. Just war and self-defense are very different dynamics than the kind of indiscriminate destruction the US Government is wreaking in the Middle East. To be pro-life means – just that – to be pro-life.
Here’s a quote for you:
Look at the war in Iraq. . . I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the country? C’mon. Two minutes after we leave, there’s going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!
Donald Trump said that. But here’s the thing: he said it back in 2004. And he’s saying the same thing today.
We’ve spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that frankly, if they were there and if we could’ve spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems, our airports, and all of the other problems we’ve had, we would’ve been a lot better off. . .We have done a tremendous disservice, not only to Middle East, we’ve done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have (been) wiped away, and for what? It’s not like we had victory.
Now, I’m not saying vote for Trump. There are reasons many Christians won’t. But are they litmus-test reasons? Ted Cruz didn’t make the above statements. Marco Rubio certainly didn’t. Not even Gentle Ben made them. So, here’s the question: if you won’t vote for Trump because of some issue that may not be a litmus-test, and if you’re pro-life, why would you vote for Cruz, or Rubio, or Carson, or any of the other warmongers?