"Picketing Sin and Boycotting Moral Failure" "...When the Gospel is Reduced to Political Protest."

Audience One ^ | 15 May 2005 | Steve Camp

[thePilgrim]

"Picketing Sin and
Boycotting Moral Failure"
by Steve Camp

"...When the Gospel is Reduced to Political Protest."

Several years ago, many in the media and in the church were in an uproar that “Madonna had done it again” – going too far with her book release, SEX, and her companion album, EROTICA. The "Queen of Sensual Shock" had consumers talking, governments banning, educators clamoring, librarians shuffling and, yes, evangelical leaders boycotting. What Madonna had actually done, in an ingenuous sort of way, is to bring to light what our world around us is wrestling with everyday; mainly a self-absorbed, narcissistic, hedonistic belief system absent of moral restraint. Biblically, it is what Judges 17:6 so succinctly states "...every man is doing what is right in his own eyes". That statement sums up the "Oprah Winfrey School of Theology" impeccably. But something more profound was being communicated as well… Madonna is more sold out to her sin, than many Christians are to their Lord.

Read rest of article.

[thePilgrim]

***Everyone on this thread understands that civil disobedience is allowed for the two given reasons. What I and connectthedots doubt, is that the Bible strictly forbids it for other reasons as well.***

Look, I have neither agreed nor disagreed with you for the simple fact that you are asking me to exhaustively eliminate every single instance of Civil Disobedience by Biblical example.

It would be far easier if either you or dots would simply provide an example of Civil Disobedience which you think the Bible would not forbid. Obviously, you seem to disagree with Steve Camps statement, so it would be nice if you would actually proved some examples of things you seem to think would show his statement to be false.

[thePilgrim]

I was unaware that political activism was something completely foreign to Orthodox Christians. Unless some Orthodox believer tells me otherwise, I will refrain from any notification of the Orthodox Christians on matters pertaining to political activism.

My bad.

Christian.

[Corin Stormhands]

Why did you select the "Orthodox Christian" keyword since this has nothing to do with Orthodox Christianity?

You know, Pilgrim and I aren't exactly best buddies, but I think you're overreacting. I'd just assume he meant to include all the Christian groups.

If it doesn't apply. Don't read it.

[Between the Lines]

Look, I have neither agreed nor disagreed with you for the simple fact that you are asking me to exhaustively eliminate every single instance of Civil Disobedience by Biblical example.

I never said that you agreed or disagreed nor did I ask you to do any biblical research.

My post #11 questioned why Steve Camp would not give biblical references.

In your reply to my comment (post #13) you asked, How is it that you need to have a chapter and verse for what is so foundational to what it means to belong to the Lord?

And in my reply (post #18) I expounded on my reason for biblical references.

I think your confusion may have come because you are replying to my last post which I had made to someone other than yourself.

[thePilgrim]

***My post #11 questioned why Steve Camp would not give biblical references.***

Actually, at this point, I'm questioning why you are not willing to give examples of Civil Disobedience which would prove Camps assertion wrong. Outside of that, I suppose that Camp did not give any Biblical references because your average 5 year old who has heard the many examples of Civil Disobedience of their Biblical heroes could cite them for us and I'd expect that a more grown up Christian would not need Biblical cites for those things which are obvious.

That is just my 2 cents on the matter.

Do you have any examples which would prove Camps words, which are so elementary to Christianity that they really don't need any Biblical cites, wrong? I mean that in the sense of the 2 examples which Camp gave and not in the sense of some other examples which you seem to think would expand the scope of Biblical Civil Disobedience which would force Camp and anyone defending his assertion to exhaustively eliminate every single example of Civil Disobedience known to man.

[connectthedots]

Everyone on this thread understands that civil disobedience is allowed for the two given reasons. What I and connectthedots doubt, is that the Bible strictly forbids it for other reasons as well.

I thought that was blatantly obvious. Camp should have at least included circumstances when the government abuses the rights of other citizens as an example when christians xhould get involved, even more so than if we are the victims. I could come up with many more examples.

Camp seems to be in the camp of Cal Thomas and MacArthur, who believe that Christians should not atempt to change the world by getting involved in 'causes'. This is one reason I have very little regard for MacArthur or Cal Thomas.

An excellent book about getting involved is "Why You Can't Stay Silent" by Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family. An older and much better known book is Chuck Colson's "Kingdoms in Conflict".

[thePilgrim]

***Camp should have at least included circumstances when the government abuses the rights of other citizens as an example when christians xhould get involved, even more so than if we are the victims. I could come up with many more examples.***

I believe that Steve Camp addressed this VERY issue in his article. Perhaps you need to cite a specific example or reread the article.

***Camp seems to be in the camp of Cal Thomas and MacArthur, who believe that Christians should not atempt to change the world by getting involved in 'causes'. This is one reason I have very little regard for MacArthur or Cal Thomas.***

Actually, I believe that MacArthur's positions is that the world should be changed by the preaching of the gospel and the converting of people to Christ. I'm not sure why you would have very little regard for people who have that belief.

But, as to your direct statement about changing the world, i.e. people, by getting involved in causes, I am not taking any side on the issue of political involvement, but merely asking this very interesting question (also asked in the article): “how do you expect [people] to live apart from regeneration in Christ?”

[Between the Lines]

Obviously, you seem to disagree with Steve Camps statement, so it would be nice if you would actually proved some examples of things you seem to think would show his statement to be false.

You seem to have made my point for me. Had Camps actually given biblical references there would be no need to doubt what he said. Since I made no claim on what is and is not biblical the burden of proof is not mine, but instead it is Camps', who did claim that his statement was covered by strict biblical circumstances.

I think it was the term "allowed Biblically under two strict circumstances" and no biblical reference that threw up red flags on my end. Any "strict circumstances" should easily be referenced. Yet, in the many passages throughout the article, none supports this statement. I wonder why?

To his circumstances for civil disobedience, I can easily add another.
3.) When the government endangers innocent lives.
Like when the Magi ignored Herod's command and did not disclose where they found the baby Jesus. And Joseph and Mary when they fled to Egypt with the infant Jesus instead of giving him over to be killed as Herod had commanded.

For a man who makes money lecturing admonitions of others for anything less than perfect Sola Scriptura, Mr. Camps should examine every jot and tittle of his own works or at least pull the plank out of his eye.

[FormerLib]

...but I think you're overreacting. I'd just assume he meant to include all the Christian groups.

If it doesn't apply. Don't read it.

The idea of the keywords is much like an index term. If a general link for all Christians is desired, one need not click on all of the specific groups.

[Corin Stormhands]

Okay fine.

[thePilgrim]

***When the government endangers innocent lives.***

Already addressed by Steve Camp in the article:

"Paul had ample opportunity to wage a revolt against the Roman populace and government for the utter filth and degradation that filled the streets of Rome. But he didn't. What about the temple prostitutes at Corinth and the occult practices and genocide that Nero practiced? No uprising ever occurred in the Biblical record. Even our Lord had just reason for leading a people out of the horrific moral and political climate He encountered. But instead, Jesus said these amazing words to Pilate before He went to the cross, "...if My kingdom were of this world my disciples would be fighting..." (John 18:36). Do we think that we are more capable, sophisticated, wise, equipped, intelligent, perceptive, holy people than the prophets, the apostles, and even our Lord Himself? Truly we have made "flesh our arm" (Jer. 17:5) and are reaping the benefits of our lowly labor."

***Like when the Magi ignored Herod's command and did not disclose where they found the baby Jesus.***

Actually, the Magi were instructed by God to not heed Herod so your example falls directly under the 2 cited by Steve Camp.

***And Joseph and Mary when they fled to Egypt with the infant Jesus instead of giving him over to be killed as Herod had commanded.***

Yet another example of obeying the Lord over and above the government, which is covered by Steve Camps 2 examples. Joseph was warned to flee with the child.

***You seem to have made my point for me. Had Camps actually given biblical references there would be no need to doubt what he said. Since I made no claim on what is and is not biblical the burden of proof is not mine, but instead it is Camps', who did claim that his statement was covered by strict biblical circumstances.***

No, the burden is not on Camp. He has made a statement and given 2 examples. Those 2 examples are obviously true to any Christian.

Now, Camp could exhaustively cover every example of Civil Disobedience and eliminate it Biblically, but I hardly think you would read the volumes it would take to write to prove it.

It would actually be much easier to prove Camp wrong, which you haven't done, by providing a single example. Just one!!!

***For a man who makes money lecturing admonitions of others for anything less than perfect Sola Scriptura, Mr. Camps should examine every jot and tittle of his own works or at least pull the plank out of his eye.***

Or, you could actually provide an example which whould prove Camp wrong. Here are a couple of verse to get you thinking:

Romans 13:1-2 & Romans 12:18

[Between the Lines]

I suppose that Camp did not give any Biblical references because your average 5 year old who has heard the many examples of Civil Disobedience of their Biblical heroes could cite them for us and I'd expect that a more grown up Christian would not need Biblical cites for those things which are obvious.

Getting petty aren't we?

I mean that in the sense of the 2 examples which Camp gave and not in the sense of some other examples which you seem to think would expand the scope of Biblical Civil Disobedience which would force Camp and anyone defending his assertion to exhaustively eliminate every single example of Civil Disobedience known to man.

I agree with the two examples he gives, it is the fact that he says these are the only two examples allowed Biblically under strict circumstances that I disagree with!

[Between the Lines]

No, the burden is not on Camp. He has made a statement and given 2 examples. Those 2 examples are obviously true to any Christian.

The statement that these two examples were exclusive is not obviously true or you could easily point to the verse also, since you siad that it is evident to any five year old and you are such a mature learned Christian.

[thePilgrim]

***Getting petty aren't we?***

No. You are intending to hold Steve Camp to an unreasonable standard and you aren't even correctly using the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I'm pointing out the obvious pettiness of your attempt.

***I agree with the two examples he gives, it is the fact that he says these are the only two examples allowed Biblically under strict circumstances that I disagree with!***

Great. For him to PROVE his assertion that they are the only two, he would have to exhaustively take the millions of examples of Civil Disobedience and Biblically prove them wrong. This is unreasonable and petty on your part.

It would be much easier for you to simply provide the single example which proves him wrong. You have already failed with 2 from the Bible itself.

Do you have a single example?

[Between the Lines]

Which of the two do these fall under?:

The soldiers of Israel refuse to kill Jonathan after King Saul's command: I Samuel 14:24-30 and Samuel 14:43-45

Ester presents herself before the King: Ester 4:11 and 5:1-2

The government did not prohibit what God commanded nor did the government command what God prohibited in either case.

[Between the Lines]

I'm pointing out the obvious pettiness of your attempt.

Let's see, you say I am not as intelligent as a 5 year old, I am immature and because no proof has been offered to quell my inquisitive nature, I am now petty.

Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle.

[thePilgrim]

***The soldiers of Israel refuse to kill Jonathan after King Saul's command: I Samuel 14:24-30 and Samuel 14:43-45***

I think it self-evidently obvious that to kill someone for eating honey in ignorance would be a violation of God's Law, but that is just me. Ergo, it would against God's express command to not murder to obey Saul.

***Ester presents herself before the King: Ester 4:11 and 5:1-2***

Ok, so Ester presents herself before the king. I think the very fact that the king extended his scepter indicated that he wasn't opposed to her being there without his calling for her. He even offered her half his kingdom. This doesn't even seem to me to be an example of any kind of civil disobedience.

[thePilgrim]

***Let's see, you say I am not as intelligent as a 5 year old, I am immature and because no proof has been offered to quell my inquisitive nature, I am now petty.***

Not my point at all.

[Between the Lines]

Ok, so Ester presents herself before the king. I think the very fact that the king extended his scepter indicated that he wasn't opposed to her being there without his calling for her. He even offered her half his kingdom. This doesn't even seem to me to be an example of any kind of civil disobedience.

15 Then Esther sent this reply to Mordecai: 16 "Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish."

King Xerxes had already deposed Queen Vashti for something much more trivial, not showing her beauty. By the way another act of civil disobedience.

[thePilgrim]

Yes, I am not arguing that the king had given as a law that you could not come to him without being summoned. However, the king also provided a means whereby someone could come to the king and not die. Civil Disobedience seems to me to imply a kind of continuing resistance. Ester did not make any kind or continuing resistance because there was none for her to make. She was welcome into the presence of the king.