Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: beezdotcom

If a woman you didn't know asked to be let into your church pulpit to "witness" and you, acting in good faith, let her and then she turned out to be a radical feminist from PP would you feel like you've been lied to?


177 posted on 06/29/2006 9:45:38 AM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies ]


To: Locomotive Breath

Sorry, I know the question wasn't for me, but my answer is no. That wouldn't be a lie at all.

Of course, my church would never give anyone the pulpit without knowing what will be taught or "witnessed."

jw


179 posted on 06/29/2006 9:54:45 AM PDT by JWinNC (www.anailinhisplace.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies ]

To: Locomotive Breath
If a woman you didn't know asked to be let into your church pulpit to "witness" and you, acting in good faith, let her and then she turned out to be a radical feminist from PP would you feel like you've been lied to?

Another bad analogy, since she would never be allowed to take the stage without knowing what topics she would cover. Besides, this isn't about what the woman said or did. Remember that.

But I'll play. If a random, unknown woman was sponsored by a deacon to come speak on the gospel of John, and we welcomed her, and she then SPOKE on John, and everyone enjoyed the message, and she sat down, and then the deacon said, "Oh yeah, nyah nyah, her area of expertise is MATTHEW" - well, little would happen.

But see, it's not like that. A better analogy would be if my church was an Episcopal church, and the occasion was the anniversary of the ordination of the first gay priest, and someone on the lay committee wanted to bring a woman to give a homily on inclusion and unity, and she did, and everyone loved it, and then AFTERWARD, the sponsor stood up and said, "oh, by the way, she used to be a lesbian but she has since renounced homosexuality"...THAT would be a closer parallel.

So long as the messenger was the person promised, of the character promised, and delivered the promised message, I'm not sure there's much to beef about. If there's a standing policy that "no messenger shall be A", and you lie and say "they're not A", that's bad. However, I think there's good precedent for saving 'inconvenient but not disqualifying' truths for later. Unless you think that Judge Alito shouldn't have been confirmed...
182 posted on 06/29/2006 10:07:34 AM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson