Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Re^4: Campus Crusade
Message-ID: <Jun.15.02.15.27.1991.18822@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 15 Jun 91 06:15:28 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: University of NC at Charlotte
Lines: 51
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

> 
>  [...]
> |> Spreading the Gospel should be a by-product of our daily lives, but not
> |> the entire purpose.  We set a bad example if we preach a Gospel of
> |> Love, yet not demonstrate our Love in other areas.  Our message is much
> |> more credible if we express our love by other means as well.

Quite true.  I get very aggrivated when I see people with a holier-than-thou
attitude who talk about spreading the Gospel, but only care to spread it
to white American citizens.

> |> If we feel compelled to spread the Gospel merely because "Jesus told us
> |> to," we are missing the point.  I love God, and if I spend any time
> |> around other people, His name will inevitably be brought up, because He
> |> is so very important to me.

Yes, that would be like going through life without speaking of your spouse
or children.

> |> One's salvation indeed has far more profound an effect on an individual
> |> than these more "temporal" comforts, but we are not the ones who give
> |> him salvation; that is God's exclusive right.  If we minister to others
> |> in Love, we are doing our job.  That includes clothing the naked and
> |> feeding the hungry, just as much as "witnessing."  Witnessing is an
> |> important part of our general ministry, but it is not the sole
> |> purpose!
> |> 
> |> >David H. Wagner

Thank you David!  I am unyhappy with the opinions I hear voicing support
for "spreading the Gospel" which are devoid of other ministry.  It makes
me think of the situation is Lebanon, where many men (and a few women)
joined any militia that would have them becuase it was the only way they
could find to feed their families.  Minimum wage was around $40 U.S. per
month, IF they were lucky enough to find jobs.  So, rather than starve,
they fought, killed, and got killed.

Irregardless of Christian, Moslem, or atheist, wouldn't it have been
much better if we had given them food and other necessities instead
of putting the money into a building fund?  Do you think that by ignoring
their needs, and thereby contradicting God's teachings, that we caused
those people to sin?  Surely, some generosity on our part could have
stopped much human suffering.  

I've mentioned this before, only to get the same old cold-hearted answer,
"The Bible says that those people have been fighting for thousands of
years and that they are going to keep on fighting."   And, with such
unloving inconsideration, I suppose that they may be right.

Elizabeth