>> Now, I must say—I’m no right-wing-fundie. I’m not going to say we need to fight the moral values of America and stuff–I think that’s a fight that was lost generations ago and we’re a part of a society that is lost and in darkness. I mean, we’re all human and we all fail each other at given times. But I’ve never seen such a disregard for love and commitment. I was appalled.

I appreciate your reaction to the film. But I have a few questions.

- Since when is it being a “right wing fundie” to worry about the moral state of the country or the world? Is that not what all of the prophets in the Bible did? They called out sin, and they did it boldly and loudly. Is that not what the apostles did? REPENT and be baptised, every one of you… If we reach a point where we start calling each other right wing fundies because we think calling out sin is over the top or un-cool, we’ve gone too far.

>> Now, I must say—I’m no right-wing-fundie… *But* I’ve never seen such a disregard for love and commitment. I was appalled.

So you’re being a right wing fundie if you normally are bothered by what you see in society… BUT, once it reaches a certain point, like here with this movie for you, then it’s okay to be appalled? Please do not take this as nit-picking, because it’s not. I’m just trying to figure out your thought process on this. Isn’t it consistant to say that it’s either acceptable to be saddened and frustrated with society’s ills and immorality or it’s not acceptable? One or the other. It shouldn’t be a relative thing, where you’re being a fundie… until you reach a certain point, then it’s an acceptable reaction.

- The fight was lost generations ago? I think we need a new perspective. Throughout history there have been ups and downs in the moral path that nations have taken. I do not believe that God calls the church to idly sit by and let those nations just sink into the toilet and not do anything about it, or not “fight the moral values,” as you put it. Especially since the path a nation is on can be changed. Look at how Israel responded to the prophets. When the nation repented, they were saved from destruction. How Ninevah responded to Noah. More recently, look at how the Great Awakenings swept across the nation. Revivals are constantly taking place around the world. There’s no reason that America couldn’t find the same thing happening here again. To say that the battle has been lost is being irresponsible with our calling, imho, and it is also a very faith-less place to stand, as it makes the assumption that the nation is beyond the grace of God.

To be clear, I don’t think that reacting negatively to society around you is what the church should be known for. The idea of calling yourself the “moral majority’ was just plain stupid. And I am also very John Fischer-esque in my perspective, recognizing that sinners sin because they are lost, etc. But at the same time, the church is not being the church if it simply accepts moral decay as normal, doesn’t make a stand against it, and doesn’t call for repentance and change. It’s part of who we are, it’s part of the Great Commission. Why should anyone repent and accept the Gospel if they’re not doing anything wrong?

The church should be known for its love. But it also has to be known for truth. Otherwise you’re just a happy, loving country club. Grace and truth. There’s a paradox there, and the trick is finding the right balance of both. But it still has to be both.

Thanks for the reply.

> What did Falwell and Pat Robertson do all the time? They basically yelled at America for all of the things that were un-Christian, and thought that the yelling would “rally” Christians to “fight” against things that were morally wrong.

You’ll noticed I mentioned that I thought the Moral Majority was the wrong way to go, and certainly is not an example of good practice or theory.

I think you’re making a mistake by taking the worst examples of some Christian behavior and using that to back up your agument. There are plenty of other examples of people who did not go to the extremes that a Falwell or Robertson did. Billy Graham is the obvious one to point out. Millions of lives have come to Christ through his ministry.

>I have too many failures to point out the failures in others. (Matt: 7:1-5). It’s not my job to be a Pharisee.

If you take that line of thinking to its logical extent, no one could ever call someone to repentence, because we all are sinners (and I am the worst of them, just as Paul stated). But that’s not what Jesus called us to do. He commissioned us to preach the gospel to all the world – and part of the Gospel is calling for repentence from sin. It is not being a Pharisee to do that. That’s a false characterization. Being a Pharisee would be to pretend that you did not have those failures while pointing them out in others. That’s where the hypocrisy comes in.

But that’s certainly not what I was espousing the church do. The church should have a prophetic voice in society – but it should not be doing it w/o a holier than thou, we are perfect and sinless unlike you, attitude. It should be done w/ an attitude of humility and transparency about our fagile state as well. That’s the difference. We share the Gospel and we stand for truth – because we know how that truth can transform – not because we’re better than you or morally superior to you but because we are just as in need of a saviour as anyone else and have been blessed enough to experience His grace.

>I believe strongly that I will impact more lives on a local and personal level than anyone could by “standing up” for what’s wrong in the eyes of the media. Nobody trusts those characters anymore. Just look at the track record of many outspoken Christian leaders–even THIS YEAR: Joe Barron-Prestonwood. Paul Barnes-Denver.  Not to mention the throngs of Catholic priests that were charged a few years back.

Again, that’s really a bad line of thinking to go down. There is nothing wrong with being a Christian leader in the public eye. The problems would start if such a person began to believe the hype and buy into the idea that they were actually spiritually superior. But such a person who retained an attitude of humility and walked in grace would be a shining example of Christ to the world (ie. the way Rick Warren conducts himself these days).

> Nobody’s listening when we yell in public.

So don’t yell.

>I stand up for truth with my church congregation–with the leaders in my worship ministry. With my choir, orchestra, and worship teams. But I’m not going to go yell at America for being sinful. We are. And I frankly would accomplish MUCH LESS if I dedicated my life to that pursuit.

Again, so don’t yell. You’re building a strawman there because I’m certainly not arguing for that.

But to apply your previous comments here, aren’t you setting yourself up for the fall, just on a smaller scale? You’re taking on the role of Christian leadership, only doing it w/ your church and your choir and friends, rather than on a larger state-wide or national scale. The same principles could still apply, regardless of the size of your platform. The answer is obviously that what you are doing is not wrong, and there’s nothing wrong with being a pastor or being in Christian leadership. There’s always risk involved there, and Christian leaders have a higher level of responsibility because they are in a role where people look up to them. That doesn’t change, regardless of the size of your audience, whether it’s small group leader, choir director, youth pastor, senior pastor, senior pastor of a big church. pastor of a mega church, evangelist, pastor of a mega church who writes a book that becomes popular nationally, pastor who becomes a nationally known figure, or pastor who becomes known world-wide.

Also, I’m not arguing that you, necessarily, should be doing anything different. I was arguing the principle in a more general sense. You are more than likely doing what God calls you to do where he wants you to be. I’m not saying we all should be Billy Grahams. I certainly never could be. We all have different gifts and different roles. I am saying, though, that a role in a more public eye is not wrong and shouldn’t be swatted down as being a “right wing fundie” automatically just because a person takes a stand on a moral principle.

What if Entertainment Weekly called you up and asked for your opinion, as a Christian who wants to be in the arts, of the movie The Women. Should you give them a straight answer? What if they found your blog and quoted you in their magazine. Are you being a right wing fundie because you dared to state your opinion in a platform that is theoretically accessible to anyone in the world?

I go back to my previous reply. There are very clear instances where God calls the church, and specific people in the church, to act in a prophetic manner. Througout the Old Testament and on through history to recent times in our country and in other places in the world today. That is undeniably biblical.

> Think about it–go read a study–people of this generation are much more apt to respond to the invitation of a friend to go to church (someone they know and have a relationship with) than they would to respond to anything said by a televangelist, or someone guest-starring on The View.

Evangelism takes on many forms. It should never be assumed that only one method should be used. Also, I’m not only talking about evangelism. Prophets in the Bible had a different role than Evangelists. I think that such prophetic voices have a role today just as much as they did in Biblical times.

So, just to clarify, I’m certainly not advocating yelling, or beating someone on the head with a Bible, or being Jerry Falwell, or anything else to that extreme. But at the same time, I am saying that it’s wrong to dismiss the idea of taking a stand for morality as being a “right wing fundie.” It’s biblical to do that. 

The difference, and what is important, would be your methods, I guess. Avoid the yelling, as you so aptly point out. But something in the middle, yeah, that’s a good thing, imho. And it’s part of our responsibility as the church. We are to be salt and light. On a personal, inter-relational level. But also in society as a whole.

I don’t agree with the idea that greater public awareness and using a mass platform is bad. Using Rick Warren, again, as an example, he does a very effective job when he goes on places like Larry King to give a Christian perspective on an issue or a crisis. And I believe that it’s a powerful tool. You mentioned the View – and it certainly can be a ridiculous show. But The View also affects its viewers – people are influenced and swayed by the voices they hear on TV, whether it’s The View, Fox News, Meet the Press, Entertainment Tonight, or Letterman. So when a guy like Warren is able to aptly and effectively use that same platform for good, and to spread God’s Truth in love, that is something to be admired.

I wasn’t nitpicking stupid points. I certainly wasn’t attacking him or trying to “fight.” I was just questioning his thoughts and ideas behind a certain portion of what he blogged about, because his thought process on that particular subject interested me. I rarely ever try and dig deeper like that here – I usually just leave joke comments – but that’s what blogs and comments can be for so I did this time. He made a passing statement and I wanted to talk more about it. Because I care about what he thinks. How is that a bad thing? (It happens to me all the time.)

I even stated: “Please do not take this as nit-picking, because it’s not. I’m just trying to figure out your thought process on this.”

At any rate, I thought it was an interesting conversation and I really enjoyed getting his reaction and commentary. I, again, was not nitpicking and certainly hope that it wasn’t taken in that manner. As you should know, I like to think about things, and I like to understand how other people think about things. It’s just part of who I am. And discussion is supposed to be what blogs are all about; comments don’t always stick to the theme of the blog entry.

That being said, if you’re upset that I may have distracted from the overall point of his post about the film, I apologize – his points and thoughts on the film itself were great.

> do you believe it is optional for Christians to be in fellowship with other believers (church)?

No.

Very interesting movie review. I might just go see it now. (Also a very interesting theological discussion that followed.)

By the by, I love the term “right-wing fundie”. Hubby and I call them the Fuddy Duddy Buddies…don’t ask.