I've been on a roll lately with stories about the media not getting religion, so I might as well get another amen from the choir in the comments threads.
Christianity Today's Ted Olsen explained yesterday at his magazine's "Liveblog" why he doesn't rely on Reuters for that ol' time religion (reporting):
Today's nonsensical headline from Reuters: "New evangelist leader plans to avoid politics"
Reuters still doesn't get the difference between an evangelical, an evangelist, and a pastor. When the story finally does get around to using the word evangelical, it's to explain, "American evangelical Christians, who number 60 million, believe that many of the country's social ills stem from high divorce rates and teenage pregnancies."
Reuters reporters would do well to consult the National Association of Evangelicals' (NAE) statement of faith wherein neither the terms "social ills," "divorce," nor "teenage pregnancies" appear even once. For some reason, it is laden with pesky religious words like "God" and "Christ" and "salvation" and "damnation."
Who knew?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Why would those issues be addressed in the statement of faith?
August 7, 2007 - 15:23 ET by mvfreemanThey are listed in their "Call to Civic Responsibility":
Many social evils—such as alcohol, drug, gambling, or credit-card abuse, pornography,
sexual libertinism, spousal or child sexual abuse, easy divorce, abortion on demand—
represent the abandonment of responsibility or the violation of trust by family members,
and they seriously impair the ability of family members to function in society. These
evils must be viewed not only as matters of individual sin and dysfunction, but also as
violations of family integrity. Because the family is so important to society, violations of
its integrity threaten public order. Similarly, employment, labor, housing, health care, and
educational policies concern not only individuals but seriously affect families. In order to
strengthen the family, we must promote biblical moral principles, responsible personal
choices, and good public policies on marriage and divorce law, shelter, food, health care,
http://www.nae.net/images/civic_responsibility2.pdf
Therefore the statement in the article regarding evangelicals is in fact true. But I'm guessing you already knew that.
Because evangelical
August 7, 2007 - 15:28 ET by Ken ShepherdBecause evangelical Christianity views civil responsibility and addressing moral and social ills as secondary to proclaiming the Gospel (evangelizing). To boil down evangelical belief down to addressing social problems is to misrepresent what evangelicals are about at the core of their faith and theology.
I understand the point you are trying to make.
August 7, 2007 - 15:38 ET by mvfreemanHowever in the context of the article I don't believe the writer is stating it as their core belief. The pastor himself mentioned it being a "cornerstone".
"I will encourage people to be involved in the political process but I will not touch on hot-button political issues because I do not think that is the role of the pulpit," said Boyd, a 40-year-old preacher now based at Gateway Church in Southlake, an affluent town near Dallas.
But he said the conservative evangelical message of healthy families would be a cornerstone of his ministry
It's the old one-two (two
August 7, 2007 - 15:38 ET by vrwc13It's the old one-two (two being far a distance from one), or majoring in the majors, and not the minors.
It comes down to a "heart" issue, not one of the mind.
v
Re: Because Evangelical
August 7, 2007 - 17:10 ET by rmellerYour choice of words K.S. I would disagree with. Civil responsibility etc. isn't ranked behind proclaiming the Gospel. It is part of proclaiming the Gospel, by showing the world a different way. It should also be a result of the acceptance of the Gospel.
Agreed. But first and
August 7, 2007 - 17:47 ET by Ken ShepherdAgreed. But first and foremost comes the evangelical message that we are sinners incapable and unwilling on our own to live up to God's holy standard and Christ is the only atoning sacrifice for our sin.
That's the message. The media confuse it to think that we preach moral restraint and good works as a means to salvation, rather than fruit thereof.
Ken's salient point I think
August 7, 2007 - 18:10 ET by TruthMongerKen's salient point I think is that what the MSM doesn't know about evangelicals like me could easily fill a Bible
And what they do know and report erroniously anyway could fill a daily "news" paper...
Bingo.
August 7, 2007 - 18:16 ET by Ken ShepherdBingo.
Brotherhood
August 8, 2007 - 10:10 ET by cvgbuckeyeKen:
As you and a lot of others on this forum are aware, there is an extremely close Brotherhood of Christianity that the secular world is clueless about. Even those who have a slight inkling are at a loss to understand it. How can you possibly understand the workings of the Holy Spirit, within Christians, if you are not a believer.
My Church would be considered a "mega-church" I suppose, based solely upon the definition, since our membership is nearing 3,000 and growing. We correctly call ourselves a Church of Christ but we are non-denominational. We belong to no formal organization and have, as a ruling authority, only God's Holy Bible which we accept completely and without exception. Our Elders and Pastors take it from there and with that guidance only.
We reject all inter and intra-denominational condemnation and consider ALL Christians as our Brothers and Sisters in Christ; even though we may not embrace or practice some of the sybolism and ceremonies of particular denominations. Although we are a product of reformation we have many attendees who are formal members of denominations, including Catholicism.
That was a long way around the barn to agree with the obvious: The MSM and unfortunately the majority of the rest of the world are very ignorant about what we are, who we are, what we believe and why we believe it. In other words, the undeniable existence of absolute truth.
Hence our command, not a request, to take the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every end of the world. They can label me whatever pleases them; it is irrelevant.
Alias - Thumper
Well said "Thumper"
August 8, 2007 - 10:58 ET by vrwc13They, the msn and the rest will only recognize who we are when we are gone. And then it will be "alien abduction", "cleansing of the intolerant", or "oh my gawd, I have been left behind".
In the meantime we are a threat to their "pleasures" of "choice", "soft-porn", public schools, and not be be shot at when illegally entering our homes.
The reason that Christianity is the best friend of government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart.
Thomas Jefferson
moral restraint and good works as a means to salvation, rather..
August 7, 2007 - 18:28 ET by vrwc13"But first and foremost comes the evangelical message that we are sinners incapable and unwilling on our own to live up to God's holy standard and Christ is the only atoning sacrifice for our sin.
That's the message. The (world) media confuse it to think that we preach moral restraint and good works as a means to salvation, rather than fruit thereof."
I like that Ken. Hope you don't mind me quoting you time to time with that!
v
Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened. -Winston Churchill.
Agreed.
August 7, 2007 - 22:04 ET by rmellerI totally agree with your point. Although not part of the message the other things should be a voluntary part of our life as opposed to forced or required as we try to follow the tenents of our Saviour Jesus Christ.
Ken, you forgot that for
August 7, 2007 - 23:00 ET by motherbeltKen, you forgot that for liberals, the "social justice" issues are all that matters. They're big on poverty issues and redistribution of wealth, but think God doesn't really care about adultery, fornication, divorce or abortion.
I think they need to "get
August 7, 2007 - 16:27 ET by mattmI think they need to "get religion" before they'll get religion...
Amen
August 7, 2007 - 16:52 ET by LilyPearlAmen to that. Also, on a side note I was particularly offended this morning by a statement made by someone on the news. They were discussing Mitt Romney's meltdown about his "religion" on a recent radio show. I was just listening while I was getting ready for work, but someone said that the reason "many evangelical Christian view Mormonism as a cult is because they have been taught that by their religious leaders", like we can't think for ourselves. As an evangelical Christian, I believe that Mormonism is a cult not because I have been taught that (and, yes, I have been taught that), but because I can read it in the Bible for myself.
A cult is a religion that denies the Deity of Jesus and Mormons do just that.
Where did you see that mormons deny the "deity" of Jesus?
August 7, 2007 - 17:11 ET by mvfreemanThe mormon website declares him to be the son of God and creator of the world.
http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/jesus-christ-our-savior/jesus-christ
They are a cult because they believe in an extra-canonical gospel called the book of mormon that biblical scholars believe to be B.S.
Re: Where did you see . .
August 7, 2007 - 17:21 ET by rmellerRead what the same page indicates that one has to do to be a follower of Jesus Christ. My Bible doesn't indicate that the thief on the cross accomplised all those things when Christ told him "Today you will be with me in paradise". Salvation is a free gift that God makes available to us. Our works have no part in that.
:cough: "tritheism" :cough:
August 7, 2007 - 17:38 ET by tracheostomy:cough:
"tritheism"
:cough:
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Reminds me of a previous
August 7, 2007 - 17:57 ET by mvfreemanReminds me of a previous discussion. The usual rejoinder is "faith without works is dead". I agree that salvation is not dependent on works but I do think your future position in heaven is decided by it. But then every form of christianity preaches following Jesus' ways along with believing he is the Saviour.
Yes, by their fruits you
August 7, 2007 - 17:59 ET by LilyPearlYes, by their fruits you will know them.
One does "works", because
August 7, 2007 - 21:21 ET by Senior ChiefOne does "works", because its the by-product or the result of his/her Salvation. One shouldn't work to position himself to heaven, a person get to heaven based on ones faith in the finish work of Christ on that awful cross at Calvary. I think, its almost the same as what you're saying MV.
The True Jesus Has Always
August 7, 2007 - 17:58 ET by LilyPearlThe True Jesus Has Always Been God
The Bible says that Jesus has always been God (John 1:1-14), and there is only one God in existence (Is. 44:6). However, the Mormon Church teaches that God the Father is a resurrected human man who is a married being who has "spirit children" in Heaven. Mormonism teaches that every human being born on this earth was first born in Heaven to God and one of his wives. Accordingly, Jesus was also born in the pre-existence to God the Father and one of his wives in heaven, just like all other human and demonic beings.
The Mormon Church teaches that Jesus is the first baby born to God in heaven. They also teach that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers in Heaven (Gospel Through the Ages - 1946 Priesthood Manual by Milton R. Hunter, p. 15). The Bible says that Jesus created everything that was created and made (John 1:3, Col. 1:16). This includes the Devil since only God was in existence in the beginning. By saying that Jesus only came into being when he was born in the pre-existence and had to work out his way to becoming a God, Mormonism denies Jesus' Godhood from all eternity.
Hooray for Ted
August 7, 2007 - 17:00 ET by bigtimerHooray for Ted Olsen...
Whom I have nothing but total respect for along with his late wife, one of my heroines.
Btw...as far as I am concerned, he should of been made AG of the USA.
Different Ted Olsen.
August 7, 2007 - 17:40 ET by Ken ShepherdDifferent Ted Olsen.
Ooops... ROFL. Sorry
August 7, 2007 - 17:41 ET by bigtimerOoops...
ROFL.
Sorry about that Ken...
My apologies.
}}---> Religious reporting
August 8, 2007 - 07:08 ET by Cool ArrowRemember 1980 when Father Robert Drinan retired and a homosexual won the his Congressional seat (with Drinan's endorsement)?
Well, it seems Barney Frank's orientation was somewhat closeted at election time.
How is Frank's coming out any different than Haggard's? Both withheld information that would have likely precluded them advancing as far as they did.
I'm just bringing it up while the Media insists on being obtuse.