Band-aids for bullet wounds

[Soapbox Preacher]

I sure ain't self-righteous. I know that without Jesus I am a mess! I remind myself of that lots! Thank Jesus for taking our place!

[MoNatureMan]

I see the 'Seeker Friendly Movement' in the church today as a coverup of sin.
If a 'sinner' walks in the door and all he is presented with is God's love, what does he have to repent of, and if there is no sin why does he even need Jesus.

God is love. That is why Jesus came. But if we ignore calling sin what it is, we have perverted the Gospel.

Years ago, I started a research paper at an abortion clinic. There were Christians trying to reach out and save the life of those unborn babies. After more research I found, not only could an unborn baby be saved, but the mother could be spared the yearly morning for the loss of that child. It is not publicized, but a woman's body morns for a child that she aborted. Those Christians that stood outside that abortion clinic didn't care for themselves. Often they were arrested, strip searched, and... Denying their own comfort, they attempted to witness of Christ and proclaim the truth of a living unborn baby, not a meaningless blob called a fetus.

Today in America's churches, most pastors will not mention abortion being a sin, because it might offend someone.

I ask you. Who was doing God's will? A liberal seeker friendly pastor or the selfless saints outside an abortion clinic?

In Him
Ron

[Petros]

My [I hope] sainted mother - who was not without a self righteous streak - was horribly offended when a visiting cleric guest sermonized about sin. Her reasoning? Couldn't say - possibly a misapprehension of "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still." Certainly her style with matters not sinful of which she disapproved was to smile and not be seen to criticise].

Again, I am not sure that "Let Nineveh perish" equates to soft on sin

I would distinguish:

Endorse / reclassify sin

Let's not be judgmental

Sin and be damned

As three distinct though equally non-Christlike attitudes to sin.

[MoNatureMan]

There is a line that must be drawn.
True, are not continue to preach against sin that is under the Blood, but we should be thankful for what Christ has done to give us forgiveness. However, everyone must come to the conclusion that they are a sinner (and have sinned) and are in need of a Savior. To not tell the sinner that they have sinned and in need of a Savior (Jesus) is denying the Gospel that we hold dear.
On the other side Paul spoke vary clearly about dealing with sin inside the church.
The Gospel may be an offense but it is true and must be preached.

Looking at it from a different angle. When we look at what we are, 'Redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb, but still sinning in this mortal body, should make us even more thankful to God who loved us so'.

On a slightly different subject, it is the silence of the church today that has allowed the moral decay of society. This moral decay is sending people to a greater damnation than I care to imagine.

Should we and the church continually harp on sin, maybe not. But to not call sin, sin is...

In Him
Ron

[bn2bnude]

Should we and the church continually harp on sin, maybe not. But to not call sin, sin is.

Ok, let's call sin "Sin".

In this strip so far I've see gossip.... Where?

There was a discussion of a well known pastor... It seems, unless you know personally -- first hand -- what was said, it is gossip.

Then there was the "seeker-sensitive" church comment. Again, gossip. And, in Paul's writings, Gossip is right up there with murder and sexual immorality.

Until we as a church get our own sin under control, calling out sins of others is useless.

Now, if we want to be like Jesus, calling out sin, it's the Pharisees that are the main targets, not the whores and tax collectors... Jesus went to dinner with them.

[jochanaan]

Should we and the church continually harp on sin, maybe not. But to not call sin, sin is.

Ok, let's call sin "Sin".

In this strip so far I've see gossip.... Where?

There was a discussion of a well known pastor... It seems, unless you know personally -- first hand -- what was said, it is gossip.

Then there was the "seeker-sensitive" church comment. Again, gossip. And, in Paul's writings, Gossip is right up there with murder and sexual immorality.

Until we as a church get our own sin under control, calling out sins of others is useless.

Now, if we want to be like Jesus, calling out sin, it's the Pharisees that are the main targets, not the whores and tax collectors... Jesus went to dinner with them.

Thank you for saying what needs to be said, bn2bnude.

[jjsledge]

Should we and the church continually harp on sin, maybe not. But to not call sin, sin is.

Ok, let's call sin "Sin".

In this strip so far I've see gossip.... Where?

There was a discussion of a well known pastor... It seems, unless you know personally -- first hand -- what was said, it is gossip.

Then there was the "seeker-sensitive" church comment. Again, gossip. And, in Paul's writings, Gossip is right up there with murder and sexual immorality.

Until we as a church get our own sin under control, calling out sins of others is useless.

Now, if we want to be like Jesus, calling out sin, it's the Pharisees that are the main targets, not the whores and tax collectors... Jesus went to dinner with them.

Thank you for saying what needs to be said, bn2bnude.

I agree.

[bn2bnude]

Bonhoeffer said "If we desire to eradicate sin, we should search for it where we are sure to find it, In ourselves.

One of the reasons I didn't post the above sooner was nakedpreacher was doing a bang up job... Thank you.

[Bare_Truth]

..... In this strip so far I've see gossip.... Where?

There was a discussion of a well known pastor... It seems, unless you know personally -- first hand -- what was said, it is gossip.

I find this statement puzzling and at odds with the definition of the English word "gossip"
From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gossip?s=t
The primary definition of "Gossip" as an activity is:

idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others:

The Joel Osteen comment fails this criterion in 4 ways
--1. The discussion here is a reasoning together about the issue of sin, A quick search using the terms "Larry King" and "Joel Osteen" readily brings up an interview, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/13/joel-osteen-larry-king-homosexuality_n_4591090.html. If it is not the exact one referred to, it certainly fits the issue. In this interview, Osteen is asked about Homosexuality being sin. So the discussion in this strip on CNV is a serious discussion of how to understand a serious topic and not Idle talk.
--2. The opinion/approach of Joel Osteen to the specific topic "is Homosexuality sin", is not rumor! It is a documented public statement that anyone here ought to be able to find and view and hear in a matter of minutes.
-- 3. Having been made in a public venue as an analytic exposition of theology by a renowned and supposedly informed expert. It is not a private or personal affair.
-- 4. It is not about the affairs of others, it is about the public policy of the Church on matters of societal policy.

Now I suppose you could delve into whether the Greek word used by the apostle Paul is well translated by the English word "Gossip", but I would pretty much say that the discussion of Osteen's expression of his position on Sin falls far short of the definition of "Gossip". And therefore that pejorative ought not to apply.

Then there was the "seeker-sensitive" church comment. Again, gossip.

And I presume you are referring to:

... I see the 'Seeker Friendly Movement' in the church today as a cover up of sin.
If a 'sinner' walks in the door and all he is presented with is God's love, what does he have to repent of, and if there is no sin why does he even need Jesus.

This sentence expresses an observation of the writer and is immediately followed up with a "Conditional" that expresses the writer's concern for a lack of help to the sinner to escape their sin. While it is correct that we as Christians ought to help sinners cover their past sins 1Pet 4:8[1] yet if all that is being done is simply ignoring sins and not helping the sinner out of them, then we fall under the condemnation of Jer6:13-15[2] of the Priests and Prophets who spoke smooth things and had no embarrassment for the sin in Israel, but took the profits of their trade and did nothing to guide the people to righteousness.

If there is a "seeker-sensitive" church out there that really does follow up getting seekers into the fold by helping these babes in Christ with coming out of sin instead of "healing slightly" by just giving them a good feeling and not growth in righteousness, then the the writer who brought up the "seeker-sensitive" issue is not writing of them. Rather he is addressing the issue that it does appear that the "seeker sensitive" programs may be failing in the real mission of bringing those who are called to repentance and true spiritual growth.
---------------
[1] 1Peter 4:8

8 and, before all things, to one another having the earnest love, because the love shall cover a multitude of sins;

[2] Jeremiah 6:13-15

13 For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.
14 They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.
15 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.

[bn2bnude]

..... In this strip so far I've see gossip.... Where?

There was a discussion of a well known pastor... It seems, unless you know personally -- first hand -- what was said, it is gossip.

I find this statement puzzling and at odds with the definition of the English word "gossip"
From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gossip?s=t
The primary definition of "Gossip" as an activity is:

idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others:

I went out to "GotAnswers" and took the first entry when I typed in Gossip. It states:

The Hebrew word translated “gossip” in the Old Testament is defined as “one who reveals secrets, one who goes about as a talebearer or scandal-monger.” A gossiper is a person who has privileged information about people and proceeds to reveal that information to those who have no business knowing it. Gossip is distinguished from sharing information in two ways:

1. Intent. Gossipers often have the goal of building themselves up by making others look bad and exalting themselves as some kind of repositories of knowledge.

2. The type of information shared. Gossipers speak of the faults and failings of others, or reveal potentially embarrassing or shameful details regarding the lives of others without their knowledge or approval. Even if they mean no harm, it is still gossip.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/gossip-Bible.html#ixzz3O1AEJSCb

The second entry read...

Gossip is a way of talking about someone(s) behind his or her back that creates a negative image of the one(s) being talked about. The Bible very clearly points out the danger and damage involved with engaging in gossip in any way (see Proverbs 20:19 for example). The Bible speaks strongly against gossip for many reasons. For one, it breaks trust between people. "A dishonest man spreads strife, and a whisperer separates close friends" (Proverbs 16:28). Gossip is not a characteristic of God. Simply put, nothing good comes from it (Proverbs 13:3).

Gossip does not just mean doing the talking. It may be easier for some to withhold from gossiping about others in many situations, but it can be very hard to overcome the temptation to listen to someone else dishing up the latest juicy details about so-and-so. Listening to it is just as much a part of gossip as speaking it (Proverbs 17:4).

It's fairly easy to identify gossip when the content is harsh and clearly intended to harm the image of the one being spoken of. Colossians 3:8 and James 4:11 command us not to slander another. Other types of gossip can be easier to misidentify as such. Subtle innuendos can mislead someone's thoughts about a person unfairly (Proverbs 26:20). Leading off with something like, "I'm not sure if this is true or not, but apparently…" before sharing some interesting "news" with others can make it seem innocent enough. Will it hurt the person being talked about? Maybe… but maybe not! James 4:17 leaves no room for grey: "So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin."

If you're unsure if saying something would be gossip or not, it's best to err on the side of caution. We can't "unsay" something we've already said. James 3:5 tells us what a powerful tool our words are. Gossip can be so easy to fall into, but as Christians, it should be something we strive to keep out of our lives and interactions with others, for their and our own benefit. Ephesians 4:29 puts it best: "Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear."

Read more: http://www.compellingtruth.org/Bible-gossip.html#ixzz3O190kwmi

I've seen churches and fellowships destroyed by Gossip. It seems we can always find an excuse as to why something is not gossip... Wouldn't it be better to follow Eph. 4:29?

You must let no unwholesome word come out of your mouth, but only what is beneficial for the building up of the one in need, that it may give grace to those who hear.

[Soapbox Preacher]

It was certainly not my intent to gossip, I was merely defending my position. That interview in question was part of the reason I thought up that quote. One has to be willing to tell the truth of Christ no matter if it will offend others. Better to offend with the truth than to comfort with a lie.

[Petros]

See the primary message of Sayers' Gaudy Night, just re-re-finished.

[Bare_Truth]

bn2bnude
The source you cite is more moralizing and preaching and expounding about gossip rather than defining it. As such it is a bit less accurate. If we were to take that literally, word for word, and concept for concept, then we have a major problem. If you remember Matthew Chapter 16:1 -12 [1] Jesus in the first case told the Saducees and Pharisees that they were wicked adulterous hypocrites. then very shortly after that in the second case, speaking only to his disciples, (hence behind the backs of the Scribes and Pharisees) Jesus berated the doctrine they preached as the "leaven of the Pharisees" (i.e. sin; as leaven is a symbol of sin).

Your sources wrote:

...... Gossipers speak of the faults and failings of others, or reveal potentially embarrassing or shameful details regarding the lives of others without their knowledge or approval. .....

Gossip is a way of talking about someone(s) behind his or her back that creates a negative image of the one(s) being talked about. .......

Gossip is not a characteristic of God.

So then, to take your sources generalized and imprecise exposition as being definitive of Gossip, they would make Jesus out to not be God, but to rather be a sinner, and hence that would mean he could not be the sinless sacrifice for our sins and hence we are all lost and condemned, and we should certainly not speak or write in the manner that Jesus did.
Reductio ad absurdum !
Now please notice that this argument only applies if we say that the expositon of your source is taken as definitive, I really doubt that your source intended it to be but I would say that they overstated their case as if it was supposed to be definitive.

I do not see, here in this strip, anything that rises to the level of Gossip! This is a public forum and Mr. Osteen and the Seeker-Sensitives are free to come here and read what has been expressed as an opinion of their actions and policies, and I presume that they would be welcome to comment if they chose to do so personally or through proxies. What is going on here is public discorse, and expression of concern of what may be unwise policy. I think it has an unjustified chilling effect to level accusations of gossip being spread. And if anyone cares to rise to the issue and support Mr. Osteen or the seeker-sensitive movement, I expect that their discourse will be properly considered.

[1]

1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.
2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.
3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?
4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
5 And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread.
6 ¶Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?
9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

[jochanaan]

See the primary message of Sayers' Gaudy Night, just re-re-finished.

I've seen that book but not read it. Dorothy Sayers is one of my favorite writers. For those unfamiliar, can you summarize her "primary message" in the book?

[Bare_Truth]

..... Better to offend with the truth than to comfort with a lie.

But the higher path still is to find a way to comfort with the truth! However that is not easy and with some their resistance makes it almost impossible.