The decline of nominal and sacral Christianity in America

[RZehr]

You are neatly sidestepping the point. The conversation isn’t about what a teacher should or should say, is it?
The real fact is that 50 years ago, it would have been a non factor. And today that teacher would probably be fired, and at minimum, disciplined and be marked.

Why do you think it’s so different today? That is really the question, right? Not the part about what a teacher should and shouldn’t say.

You are right that a teacher speaking out against homosexuality 50 years ago would have been noncontroversial. Society has evolved in its views in that respect.

Nevertheless the teaching of religious doctrine in the public schools has always been forbidden under the First Amendment going back much more than 50 years. And teachers would indeed have been fired for doing so, 50 years ago or 100 years ago, especially if they strayed from the dominant mainstream protestant ethos. Catholic teachers who taught their protestant students the Catholic Catechism, or how to Pray the Rosary, or the veneration of saints would likely have been fired or disciplined. Of that you can be certain. Which is exactly why the Catholic Church built such a network of parochial schools across the country in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. So they would be free to do those things.

Thanks. As the Catholics, we too started our own schools in order to teach freely. Nonetheless, this freedom has come under strong attack. And it was only up to a few conservative Supreme Court Justices, that retained this autonomy for religious minorities. Had it been up to the liberal judges and activists in this land, this would be constantly eroded.

[RZehr]

Ken- All your historical anecdotes are really strengthening what I’m saying. Minorities are easily mistreated. You, seemingly as an ally of the left, should be aware that they make a really nice amount of their living by pushing the “unequal and unfair” treatment of minorities in this country. It’s not imaginary to them.

And you bring up cases in the past of Christian minorities being mistreated. Well, what do you expect to happen when Christianity becomes a minority? That somehow it will be the exception to the rule, and that a culture that has spent a generation fighting against Christian values and principles, suddenly pivots to protect the thing they hate? The religion that used politics to outlaw what they fight to legalize? What?

I expect the First Amendment and our longstanding legal principles of freedom of religion to protect Christians and Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Sikhs and Buddhists and Atheists and Agnostics just as it has always done (although sometimes imperfectly) regardless of whether or not Christianity is in the majority or minority.

In any event, your term "Christian Values" is an incredibly broad and diverse term. Which Christian values are you most concerned with? Those related to poverty and helping the poor? Those related to refugees and strangers in our midst? Those related to peace and nonviolence? Those related to stewardship and protection of God's creation? Those related to marriage and divorce?

For sake of this thread topic, the “Christian Values” I’m thinking of, are really any that are under attack by society, and which will change with the zeitgeist. I agree that there piles of Christian values that are not under attack.
In the past for us, it was nonresistance.
Then abortion became an issue, but as an issue it really doesn’t affect our freedom, because we are free not to participate. Same with divorce. Thankfully no one is forcing us to divorce in this land, unlike the Chinese are doing to their Uygher minorities in western China. No one is forcing us to dress immodestly. No one cancelled or boycotts us for our positions on divorce or abortion.

However, today we are seeing strong indications that things are changing in this country that no involvement is not enough. Now we see wicked people wanting to impose us to do evil. To force upon Christians the obligation to do things against conscience and God. And to use whatever means necessary and available to force acceptance of homosexuality, and eliminate “hate” speech. This is different from the past.

I don’t see these things as a terrible thing for Christians or Christianity in the long term, because it should have a purifying effect. Yet at the same time, it might not. Because there will still be enough hypocritical fake Christian Churches that will go along with the culture and affirm everything, that they will drown out true faith with their noise, and numbers.

[Soloist]

Do CM wedding venues and wedding cake bakers have similar moral objections to renting their venues and baking cakes for the second marriages of divorced heterosexual couples? I'm not part of that world so I'm honestly curious. The biblical teaching about that is equally clear.

I honestly think that a little tolerance and good will on both sides would go a long way toward resolving most of these issues.

I think so but I have very little experience here. The second marriage thing is somewhat of a debate anyway... it seems really clear to some but even less clear to others.

Then abortion became an issue, but as an issue it really doesn’t affect our freedom, because we are free not to participate. Same with divorce. Thankfully no one is forcing us to divorce in this land, unlike the Chinese are doing to their Uygher minorities in western China. No one is forcing us to dress immodestly. No one cancelled or boycotts us for our positions on divorce or abortion.

I see it affecting our freedom specifically in regard to vaccines...

[RZehr]

Do CM wedding venues and wedding cake bakers have similar moral objections to renting their venues and baking cakes for the second marriages of divorced heterosexual couples? I'm not part of that world so I'm honestly curious. The biblical teaching about that is equally clear.

I honestly think that a little tolerance and good will on both sides would go a long way toward resolving most of these issues.

We don’t congratulate people on a second marriage. Much less go attend one - even if it’s family. And would not permit it in our church facilities.

One thing about society dropping Christianity, is a lack of church attendance, and a move away from church wedding, favoring instead wedding venues and such like. So it could be, that an equitable solution would be to grant churches the freedom to say no to certain weddings, while requiring wedding venues to accept all legal ceremonies.

[Ken]

Do CM wedding venues and wedding cake bakers have similar moral objections to renting their venues and baking cakes for the second marriages of divorced heterosexual couples? I'm not part of that world so I'm honestly curious. The biblical teaching about that is equally clear.

I honestly think that a little tolerance and good will on both sides would go a long way toward resolving most of these issues.

We don’t congratulate people on a second marriage. Much less go attend one - even if it’s family. And would not permit it in our church facilities.

One thing about society dropping Christianity, is a lack of church attendance, and a move away from church wedding, favoring instead wedding venues and such like. So it could be, that an equitable solution would be to grant churches the freedom to say no to certain weddings, while requiring wedding venues to accept all legal ceremonies.

As far as I know that is actually the case today. For example, San Francisco is full of Catholic churches and I'm pretty sure that you can't get gay married by a priest in any of them. The Vatican recently reaffirmed that stand. I don't think that is very controversial to anyone except perhaps some liberal gay Catholics who actually want to get married in their own church by their own priest. But that is an internal conflict within the Catholic church between Catholics and not some violation of religious liberty from the outside.

Regulation of public businesses is actually a pretty tricky thing. What we are talking about is non-discrimination statutes. If you own a business that serves the public then you are relying on the public taxpayers (all of them, including the gay ones) to pay for your police and fire protection. To pay for the maintenance of the sidewalks and public streets in front of your business. To pay for the public internet backbone that you use to advertise with. To pay for the monetary system you use to transact business. And a hundred other public benefits that you receive as a business. Should gay or black or Muslim customers that you want to exclude from your business therefore be exempted from paying for all the taxes that support your business? That would seem fair. Or should the government instead cut off all public services to your business if you refuse to serve ALL of the public? that might also be fair.

Living in a modern society is actually very complex. And it requires a lot of give and take all around.

[Ken]

Do CM wedding venues and wedding cake bakers have similar moral objections to renting their venues and baking cakes for the second marriages of divorced heterosexual couples? I'm not part of that world so I'm honestly curious. The biblical teaching about that is equally clear.

I honestly think that a little tolerance and good will on both sides would go a long way toward resolving most of these issues.

I think so but I have very little experience here. The second marriage thing is somewhat of a debate anyway... it seems really clear to some but even less clear to others.

What if a Muslim or Hindu family wanted to rent a CM wedding venue like a barn for a Muslim or Hindu wedding? Would a conservative Christian bakery refuse to bake cakes for those types of weddings? According to scripture, those would be just as sinful as a gay wedding.

I'm always intrigued by how and why people draw these sorts of lines.

[Soloist]

What if a Muslim or Hindu family wanted to rent a CM wedding venue like a barn for a Muslim or Hindu wedding? Would a conservative Christian bakery refuse to bake cakes for those types of weddings? According to scripture, those would be just as sinful as a gay wedding.

I'm always intrigued by how and why people draw these sorts of lines.

Well the wedding itself we wouldn't feel was wrong... so I think the owner would have to make a choice there. The Scripture does not condemn weddings by pagans, in fact it still confirms them as marriages. The gay wedding on the other hand is not lawful.
I personally would be fine with letting them use it as it might provide an opening to witness to them.

[RZehr]

Interesting question. If they were both unmarried, I wouldn’t be opposed to it. Why do you say they are just as sinful? Because of the verse that says we should marry “only in the Lord”?

[Ken]

Interesting question. If they were both unmarried, I wouldn’t be opposed to it. Why do you say they are just as sinful? Because of the verse that says we should marry “only in the Lord”?

I would refer you to the 10 Commandments. Hinduism most certainly violates the first three (or first two depending on how you count). According to scripture, a Hindu couple who is worshipping multiple false gods and keeping graven images and idols in their house is living in just as much sin as a gay couple. I'm not aware of any place in the bible that ranks sins on a scale of 1 to 10 and says we should tolerate some more than others. In 1 Kings 18 the prophet Elijah slaughtered 450 prophets of Baal for worshiping false gods.

The larger point is that you can find a near infinite number of ways in which the larger diverse outside world violates some tenant or teaching of Christianity found in the Old or New Testament. The question is, which ones should Christians make a stand on and attempt to impose on the outside world through law or through discrimination?

[Soloist]

I would refer you to the 10 Commandments. Hinduism most certainly violates the first three (or first two depending on how you count). According to scripture, a Hindu couple who is worshipping multiple false gods and keeping graven images and idols in their house is living in just as much sin as a gay couple. I'm not aware of any place in the bible that ranks sins on a scale of 1 to 10 and says we should tolerate some more than others. In 1 Kings 18 the prophet Elijah slaughtered 450 prophets of Baal for worshiping false gods.

The larger point is that you can find a near infinite number of ways in which the larger diverse outside world violates some tenant or teaching of Christianity found in the Old or New Testament. The question is, which ones should Christians make a stand on and attempt to impose on the outside world?

We follow Jesus and the teachings of the New Testament. It tells us how to interact with non-believers and how to interact with believers. It also tells us some general guidance on not participating in sin. To participate in a gay wedding or to aid it would be sin. To aid a Muslim first marriage is not sin. To aid the same Muslim in a ritual killing of a convert to say, Hinduism would be sin.
Impose isn't what is being done, rather the culture surrounding us is trying to impose its value system on us. Trying to avoid selling wedding cakes to two guys getting married when there is plenty of other options is not imposing your values but seeking out a Christian bakery to make the cake is. Hunting for the privately advertised Mennonite marriage retreat house and trying to rent it and then suing because they won't rent to a gay couple is trying to impose.

As to the answer to the last question... None of them. Our role is to call them to repentance and not to be involved in their sin.