Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Piercing the Darkness Message-ID: Date: 26 May 91 06:56:52 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC. Lines: 72 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article credmond@watmath.waterloo.edu (Chris Redmond) writes: >It was good of you to take the time to write. Perhaps the >most useful thing I can say in response is that we clearly >disagree on many issues, possibly including the extent of >what "being Christian" means. You say that you attended a >Methodist church for a long time before you became a Christian >-- the only way I can interpret that sentence is that by >"Christian" you mean something much narrower than what I >mean by it. Chris, it is a big mistake to assume that someone is a Christian merely because they've grown-up in a church or in a "Christian" nation. Being a Christian means having made a conscious decision to commit your life to following Jesus Christ -- and this has nothing to do with denomination. What is your definition of a Christian? >I don't know about the ACLU/police-brutality case you mention; >if it's true, I'm sorry to hear it. I expect the ACLU people >are as human (therefore fallible) as anybody else, and don't >always live up to their principles. Still I am glad they're >there, preventing (for example) the Southern Baptists from >imposing their religion on me (if I lived where there are >Southern Baptists -- you know what I mean, I hope). I'm sure that the ACLU is full of fallible humans, so is the Church. However, something that I want to explore further is your statement concerning the Southern Baptists. As a conservative (at times fundamentalist) evangelical, I hold that there are certain moral absolutes. Further, I believe that it is incumbent upon all Christians to stand up and speak out for the moral code that God gave to all humanity to follow. This is also the basis for those "rights" that everyone is so fond of talking about ("endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.."). Those inalienable rights are that way not because of humans, but because of the recognition of God the Creator endowing us with these rights. Thus, these rights cannot be abridged by the State. But what is often missed is that with these rights come certain moral obligations and responsibilities. In times past, this was clearly understood. Today, however, this view is seen as Christians, especially Fundamentalists, sticking their noses in where they don't belong. Well, I disagree. Christians need to be involved; more, they have an obligation to be involved in politics and the legislative process. That is, Christians must take a stand for the moral absolutes that God has set forth. Is there something wrong with saying that murder is wrong? Is there something wrong with saying that life is of great value? To suggest that Christians should stay out of anything that involves politics or the making of laws is ludicrous. Should the German Christians have refused to hide Jews? Should the Dutch Christians have refused to hide Jews? Should the Christians involved in the Abolitionist movement have refused to hide slaves? Should Christians refuse to speak out against injustices and immorality where ever it is found? So, what is it about Southern Baptists that gets your goat the most? Is it perhaps that they tend to be more outspoken than some others? Is it that they state with such absolute certainty that they believe certain things to be moral absolutes? Or is it that they refuse to compromise their morality to accommodate the rest of the world? This Moravian would like to know what it is that you find so hard to take about the Souther Baptists. And, BTW, I live in an area where there are a large number of Southern Baptists. En Agape tou Iesou, Gene