Should Churches be publicly silent on issues they view are wrong?

[Stan]

This comes from reading some of the 'other' thread.

Should Churches be publicly silent on issues they view as moral?

Should only non-Churches group speak up?

How does Religiously fit in?

[bygjymbo]

I've been seeing the same trend and asking myself the same question.

I've been an Adventist for almost 4 years. If it wasn't for 3ABN's local affiliate in my city, I wouldn't be here.

Before my conversion, I never even heard of the SDA church.

Why is that?

If we really believe that these are the last days, shouldn't we be proclaiming Jesus and the 3 Angels messages at the top of our lungs? Shouldn't we be standing firmly with our God and His commandments? What are we afraid of?

Deuteronomy 12:3 And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.

Remember, Deuteronomy has special signifigance in the last days. Moses was speaking to Isreal just before they entered the Promised Land AND he's speaking to us before WE enter the REAL Promised Land.

That's what I think. We need to reach anyone who'll listen and ignore those who won't.

[Woody]

This comes from reading some of the 'other' thread.

Should Churches be publicly silent on issues they view as moral?

Should only non-Churches group speak up?

How does Religiously fit in?

I appreciate the stand that our church now has on this issue.

[Stan]

For those that are not aware, as of the first post, Religiously is short for Religious Liberty, you read that first here.

[Dr. Shane]

I think we need to focus on spreading the gospel and helping people. I do not think we should be worried about proclaiming certain behaviors as sinful except as is required to help people impacted by certain sin (alcoholism, homosexuality, fornication, domestic abuse, etc.)

[Dr. Shane]

For those that are not aware, as of the first post, Religiously is short for Religious Liberty, you read that first here.

I think it is a mistake for us to be so paranoid of Sunday laws that we get politically involved to protect the rights of groups that are not religious or suffering religious persecution like those involved with gay rights and abortion. I think that dilutes our message of religious liberty. Religious liberty is to protect religious freedom not abortion of gay activism.

[fccool]

Shane, you can take religious liberty only so far. I don't make a stand for gay marriage for these reasons. Not that I don't believe that a guy couple can not raise a child, but the point is that they can't physically conceive one. Gay marriage is not a religious argument, but a biological one IMO. If it is not, then why shouldn't I be able to marry my cat and claim all of the benefits? (rhetorical question BTW)

On the other hand, I think it should be up to churches to decide who they are going to "marry" and who they will not. The marriage conducted by the state IMO is on the par with homosexual "marriage"... it is not one. Calling something black... does not make it so.

[fccool]

I think we need to focus on spreading the gospel and helping people. I do not think we should be worried about proclaiming certain behaviors as sinful except as is required to help people impacted by certain sin (alcoholism, homosexuality, fornication, domestic abuse, etc.)

But what is the gospel without a message of sin? It's IMPOSSIBLE for Adventists to present their message without touching on that subject extensively. Think about. The official position of Adventist denotes wearing jewelry and eating shrimp as sin. How do you reconcile the above with the doctrine?

[aldona]

For those that are not aware, as of the first post, Religiously is short for Religious Liberty, you read that first here.

I understand Religious Liberty (or the freedom NOT to believe or participate in a religion) to apply to all people, not just those we agree with or like.

aldona

[Dr. Shane]

My point is that I don't think the Adventist church should go out of its way to crusade against certain behaviors like Pat Robertson and James Dobson do.

However I don't think we should go to the other extreme and go on a crusade to protect certain sinful behaviors such as abortion or homosexuality either.

Rather I think we should focus on carrying the gospel to the world. Which, of course, will involve talking about sin.

[Bravus]

What a witness if, instead of focusing on things we're scared of, like homosexuality (there are plenty of others to do that) the SDA church became known as a church that speaks out against injustice wherever it occurs. It's a huge concern of the Bible.

[Stan]

So, if a Church has a problem with a Gov't moral issue, such as treatment of the poor, sexism, injustices, immigration, wife abuse etc, sexism it should be silent?

My opinion on the prop 8 situation, is that Churches should be allowed their opinion, not on who to vote for, but the issue to vote for.

If they are force to be silent, BOTH sides, something is wrong,.. but that is just my opinion.

A Church should not have to have my approval to support or not support an issue.

To make a Church be quiet on an issue, is that not a violation of religious liberty?

I am NOT saying they should being dealing with who should be president from the pulpit, but they should be able to address issues.

Jesus address issues.

[Tom Wetmore]

[Bravus]

Hmm, maybe: I suspect the denomination would lose members if it actively campaigned on many issues. I can't say it coming out in opposition to Prop 8, for example, so if it said anything it would support it... and that would incense me and many others considerably.

[Bravus]

And likewise, I doubt it would have come out in opposition to Guantanamo.

[Dr. Shane]

In the US a church is free to say almost anything they want. Of course there are limits. They cannot rally people to take to the streets and riot or kill the President or any other such radical thing. But they can endorse specific candidates or political parties if they want to. But if they do, they lose their tax exempt status but they are still free to do it. James Dobson formed a taxable religious organization that allows him to endorse specific candidates and lobby legislatures.

Our church does take a position on social issues like poverty. Adventist Community Services and ADRA spend thousands of dollars helping the poor. We have hospitals and clinics that heal the sick. Stop smoking programs to help the addicted. Helpful living classes to teach healthful principles. Our church does a lot for a lot of causes. Our religious liberty departments fight for the rights of many, not just Adventists.

[Bravus]

Or, to get really concise: the difficult word in the thread's topic sentence is 'they'.