Forum

Profaning the Sacred  

  RSS

(@shewmaker)
Active Member
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 5
31/07/2018 2:58 pm  

Jesus did not tell his disciples to proclaim that an imperial form of government should be replaced with a government of elected politicians.

The work of a church that is seeking to be "of Christ" should be limited only to the sacred work of Christ's crucifixion and of the gospel message which was proclaimed in the first century.

The introduction of secular topics and of politics either into the pulpit or into the activities of the local assembly profanes that which ought to be sacred.


ReplyQuote
(@admin)
Owner Admin
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 10
31/07/2018 5:41 pm  
Posted by: Shewmaker

Jesus did not tell his disciples to proclaim that an imperial form of government should be replaced with a government of elected politicians.

The work of a church that is seeking to be "of Christ" should be limited only to the sacred work of Christ's crucifixion and of the gospel message which was proclaimed in the first century.

The introduction of secular topics and of politics either into the pulpit or into the activities of the local assembly profanes that which ought to be sacred.

This site as a whole is not funded by the local church. No funds from the treasury is put towards anything on this site. Everything you see on here is paid for and provided by me personally. 

The purpose of the forums is to allow for all types of discussions but for them to be within their place. There is nothing wrong with discussing politics or secular things such as hobbies, etc. 


ReplyQuote
(@shewmaker)
Active Member
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 5
31/07/2018 6:17 pm  

It is certainly good that it is being paid for by an individual but you are invoking the name of the Lord's assembly.

Does the average website visitor know that this website is not maintained or financed by the Monticello church?

Can a stranger tell the difference between a church that uses its funded website for secular agendas and a website paid for by an individual but described as being the church's website?

I was once in an area where some of the ladies of a nearby church advertised a Garage Sale as being the Ladies of the <location name omitted> church of Christ Garage Sale.

Just as the Israelites should not have brought God's ark to the battlefield when they saw that the Philistines were defeating them so also we should not "bring" God's name or the name of a local church that belongs to Him into secular discussions.

Suppose there was a brother in Christ who was an ardent "monarchist" and you were an ardent "republican" (in the sense this word is used in other countries), would it be appropriate for emotions to be provoked between you over a matter which has nothing to do with the Gospel?

Anything which causes "disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith" ought to be avoided.

Agape,

James


ReplyQuote
(@admin)
Owner Admin
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 10
31/07/2018 6:33 pm  
Posted by: Shewmaker

It is certainly good that it is being paid for by an individual but you are invoking the name of the Lord's assembly.

Does the average website visitor know that this website is not maintained or financed by the Monticello church?

Can a stranger tell the difference between a church that uses its funded website for secular agendas and a website paid for by an individual but described as being the church's website?

I was once in an area where some of the ladies of a nearby church advertised a Garage Sale as being the Ladies of the <location name omitted> church of Christ Garage Sale.

Just as the Israelites should not have brought God's ark to the battlefield when they saw that the Philistines were defeating them so also we should not "bring" God's name or the name of a local church that belongs to Him into secular discussions.

Suppose there was a brother in Christ who was an ardent "monarchist" and you were an ardent "republican" (in the sense this word is used in other countries), would it be appropriate for emotions to be provoked between you over a matter which has nothing to do with the Gospel?

Anything which causes "disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith" ought to be avoided.

Agape,

James

I don't agree with your assessment seeing how it is not sinful to have secular discussions between Christians or between a Christian and unbeliever. Just as it is not sinful for there to be a political discussion either. We are walking down a very fine line since I have clarified that this site is not funded by the local church at all. Furthermore, it is a slippery slope because then any Christian who goes to bowl where alcohol is served should not go bowling. A Christian who wants to go eat at a restaurant that serves alcohol should not eat there.

This website is not a place of worship nor is it intended to be. It is means for information regarding the local assembly but the forums that is attached to the site allows users to communicate with one another as another form of social media that is far more controlled than facebook or any other platform. 


ReplyQuote
(@shewmaker)
Active Member
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 5
31/07/2018 7:36 pm  

I agree that it is not sinful for individuals to engage in secular discussions including political ones.

It is true that you have told me (but not every website visitor) that this website is not funded by the local church.

I'm having a problem understanding what the arguments regarding bowling alleys and restaurants have to do with a website's uses of the church's name. However, I do agree that any Christian whose conscience is not offended may bowl or eat in a business establishment that serves alcohol. But I don't see the connection to this discussion.

I fully understand that the website is not the assembly. If it sounded as if I intended to imply that, please forgive my poor word choice.

I have tried in this comment to establish our points of agreement.

Agape,

James Shewmaker


ReplyQuote
(@admin)
Owner Admin
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 10
31/07/2018 9:53 pm  
Posted by: Shewmaker

I agree that it is not sinful for individuals to engage in secular discussions including political ones.

It is true that you have told me (but not every website visitor) that this website is not funded by the local church.

I'm having a problem understanding what the arguments regarding bowling alleys and restaurants have to do with a website's uses of the church's name. However, I do agree that any Christian whose conscience is not offended may bowl or eat in a business establishment that serves alcohol. But I don't see the connection to this discussion.

I fully understand that the website is not the assembly. If it sounded as if I intended to imply that, please forgive my poor word choice.

I have tried in this comment to establish our points of agreement.

Agape,

James Shewmaker

This may seem weird but the usage of the website is also due to cost. This is me testing the waters regarding building and designing a new social media platform. I would like for this to be geared more towards Christians but everyone would be welcome. At the present time, I do not have extra funds to purchase another domain, hosting, etc. Again, my thinking is that this is primarily for Christians who would like to engage in other discussions as well.

I do agree with your point from an earlier post that politics and secular discussions have no place in the pulpit. I agree wholeheartedly.

Depending on how this forum grows, I will eventually branch it out from the website. Honestly, this site has never had very many hits. Ever since establishing this forum a few days ago, it has had much more traffic and all of it has been forum based for the most part.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion.


ReplyQuote
Share: