Exactly. The US is full of ‘the un-churched’ who are still Christians. Whether someone does or doesn’t attend services on a regular basis should never be a measurement for how ‘Christian’ they are.
The Bible doesn’t say that we must attend church services to be right with the Lord.
I bet Jimmy Carter and the ‘Toon go to church every Sunday. It hasn’t done much for them. Carter is one of the most morally confused men on earth, and the ‘Toon doesn’t really seem to have any morals to be confused about.
I could care less either way. At least Fred isn’t pandering about it. He could have started going to church earlier this year when he was first thinking about running, but he didn’t. I admire that.
Especially considering the social direction of some “Christian” churches today. I wouldn’t attend church to be lectured on global warming, Darfur, species extinction, AIDS in Africa, or other topics offered much more comprehensively (and with many of the same biases) at the local social sciences department seminars. Genuine reflection on matters of faith, combined with good works, are worth far more than merely having your attendance taken at weekly services at Church of the Hippy Jesus. But some people just want to see that bright neon $12 sign.
I am one of them, as my church (Episcopalian) seems to have been “Left Behind”, (probably a bad joke).
I realize that churches are full of sinners. But, when the churches work so hard to become “socially acceptable” to these, I just can’t support them.
Amen, sister. This whole notion of judging who is and isn't a Christian based on what church they attend or do not attend is ridiculous.
We even see a lot of that here at FR on the "Let's bash Romney the evil non-Christian" threads.
What really matters is whether their personal and family lives show evidence of the fruit of Christian belief, correct?
You have a valid point to a degree but that is a bit too sweeping of a statement. A good church family does help strengthen your faith (a bad one can of course do the opposite).