What can we do?

[ChristianKitsune]

Being Christian and embodying love requires us to be more than nice or friendly. Christ never lived to seek fairness or balance, but instead he transcended it. We really have to adopt an attitude of total selflessness. Really, we have to do our best to stop living for ourselves. There's really only one kind of idolatry nowadays, and that idol is our selves.

I think this is a pretty wise thing to point out. Simply because its something I'm kinda thinking of too. Perhaps if we let God put the words and thoughts into our hearts in these situations, there'd be a lot less hurt?

Great conversation everyone! I'm sorry I wasn't able to reply until now. I've been reading your replies and digesting your thoughts.

As far as the "Above reproach" thing I get what Alive is saying, but we shouldn't treat it like "I'm totally better than you." Because we aren't. Jesus died for all of us, for all the sins we have committed and so on.

I was told something pretty cheesy the other day but it really makes sense. Maybe all we need to do, is simply "Shut up and shine." Sometimes we simply need to let our actions speak, right?

[ShiroiHikari]

I think the problem is that while many Christians will say "Oh yeah I don't think I'm better than anyone else," they go out and contradict that statement by the way they act and the things they do. They impose their will on others, they try to control other people's lives...these are not the actions of someone who thinks that they are equal to or even lesser than anyone else. These are the actions of someone who thinks that they are superior to others, that they know better than you do how to live your life.

God has the right to tell people how to live, because He is God. Fellow human beings do NOT have the right to tell other people how to live, or even treat them as second class citizens, denying them rights and freedoms, because we are not as high as God. And that is why I am bothered so greatly by this.

There is a logical disconnect and great hypocrisy when someone says "I think that I am not better than you. Now do exactly what I say because you're living your life completely wrong and I'm here to tell you exactly what to do to be as good as me." This is the ultimate example of what Jesus said, telling someone to remove the speck from their eye while ignoring the plank in their own.

I'm quoting this because I know you hate having the last post on the page. :p

[shooraijin]

I think there does need to be a distinction clearly drawn between hypocritical criticism and moral correction, however. There is a place for the latter (the specific morals being the actual question, not the need for it).

[Radical Dreamer]

As believers, we should be above reproach. We shouldn't let the world look at us as equals . . .

Mmm, this can become kind of a dangerous line of thinking. Others have said this before, but I feel it merits repeating: the only difference between me and my unsaved friends is Jesus. Every human to ever live, aside from Jesus, is a sinner in need of saving. Just because I've found Jesus (rather, He found me) and He paid for my sins doesn't mean I'm any better than anyone else. It just means I'm forgiven. Do I hold myself to a higher standard as a follower of Christ? Absolutely. But does that make me any more worthy of salvation than the next person? Absolutely not. None of us are worthy in our own merit.

. . . and we should also not let other brothers and sisters in Christ doubt our salvation. Our speech should be clean and our outward appearances should be wholesome. Even though man looks at the outward and God looks at the heart, the outward is a reflection of the inward. Our outward should reflect Christ.

The main problem that crops up in this line of thinking, as I've come to find in my own experiences with other Christians, is that people have differing ideas of what "wholesome" means. One person thinks that "wholesome" means all men having short hair and all women having long hair, and if you're found outside of those boundaries, well, you must not be a Christian. Nevermind that the guy with long hair serves at a homeless shelter and has brought many people to Christ, he's obviously not living a godly life because, well, his hair is long and everyone knows that guys with long hair aren't wholesome.

See what I'm getting at? This is actually exactly what the scripture you're referencing is referring to. XD Man is obsessed with what people look like on the outside, but it's not the way we dress that reflects Christ in us. It's the way we act. John 13:34-35 is clear about this: [i]“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.â€

[TWWK]

I read this wonderful thing that a group of Christians once did that helped some non-Christians see the faith in a different light. It was, I think, explained in the book Ragamuffin Gospel by Brennan Manning (either that or Yancey's What's So Amazing About Grace). At some sort of festival, this group of young Christians set up a confession booth (perhaps it was a Mardi Gras celebration?). But to surprise of those there, the booth wasn't about people confessing their sins; the Christians confessed the sins of what Christians had done, instead.

I think that you did a good job of explaining that not all Christians are hurtful (or intentionally so). We should also be quick to embrace that fact that we do terrible things, and certainly horrid things have been done in the name of Christ. We're sinners like everyone else. And by saying these things, we can possibly start talking about grace and God's love.

[Nate]

I think there does need to be a distinction clearly drawn between hypocritical criticism and moral correction, however. There is a place for the latter (the specific morals being the actual question, not the need for it).

Hmm, I don't know if I agree. Well, let me rephrase. I do think that there is a difference between criticism and moral correction. The problem I think is that most people confuse the former for the latter, to the degree that I am even against moral correction because there's no way to tell if someone is giving honest moral correction or just judgment and enforcing their beliefs on someone in the disguise of moral correction.

The only moral correction I would endorse is in the situation of a person doing or saying something which directly causes harm to another person. Other than that, I stand behind what I said...we're not God, and to try and correct anything other than hurting another person is (to me) trying to enforce our personal beliefs on someone else, and we're not God so we have no right to do that.

[blkmage]

Hmm, I don't know if I agree. Well, let me rephrase. I do think that there is a difference between criticism and moral correction. The problem I think is that most people confuse the former for the latter, to the degree that I am even against moral correction because there's no way to tell if someone is giving honest moral correction or just judgment and enforcing their beliefs on someone in the disguise of moral correction.

The only moral correction I would endorse is in the situation of a person doing or saying something which directly causes harm to another person. Other than that, I stand behind what I said...we're not God, and to try and correct anything other than hurting another person is (to me) trying to enforce our personal beliefs on someone else, and we're not God so we have no right to do that.

Typically, moral correction would come from a source in which you respect and have given the authority/responsibility to correct you. That is, if, say, you confronted me about something, I'd be like, lolwut. But if a close friend or someone I respect confronted me, then I would know that they are in a position where it's clear they're not simply enforcing their beliefs.

Moral correction is the responsibility of those close to you and not any random Christian. This is one of the reasons why Christian community is important. There should be an element of accountability and trust in the relationship and that should be the context in which such confrontation takes place.

[Sapphire225]

My mother and I were talking about how many christians (us included at times) act...unchristian-like some time ago. But we must know that we are not one to be judged since we ALL have sinned.

I think I remember reading something in the bible that said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Many christians see themselves as "morally superior" than others, which is not true at all. Even Jesus had to correct his own apostles when they judged others from time to time because they just weren't getting it!

Back when I was leaning towards agnosticism, I would wonder why christians would judge others despite proudly proclaiming they were christians. They acted as though they were better and had no faults. When I got saved a few years later, I realized that it was not Christ-like at all, and that, like everyone else, they were just human. I realized that I needed to look at Christ than at christians, because christians are humans and humans will let you down, but Christ will never fail you as long as you remain in Him.

This doesn't mean that as Christians, we shouldn't act accordingly. We should try are best to be like Christ, and although we WILL fall short, we can at least try are best to be the best we can be.

[mechana2015]

This doesn't mean that as Christians, we shouldn't act accordingly. We should try are best to be like Christ, and although we WILL fall short, we can at least try are best to be the best we can be.

Or at least make an effort to not deliberately hurt or insult people.

[Cognitive Gear]

Generally speaking, I don't think that it is Christian's responsibility to tell people what they are doing is wrong. Moral correction is definitely something that can (and possibly should) happen between fellow Christians. Morally correcting people that don't believe that the Bible is true with our Bible based morality isn't going to get anyone anywhere. We'd be better served (or perhaps, will serve better) being a city on a hill, showing the way rather than screaming it.

[Sapphire225]

Or at least make an effort to not deliberately hurt or insult people.

That too...

[bkilbour]

The thing is, though.... people say "you're judging me" way too quickly.

The Bible has many, many verses regarding rebuking a brother in the Lord, both in the Old and New Testaments.
And even if it didn't, are we supposed to say to Paul that he can't teach us not to murder, simply because he murdered (persecuted) Christians prior to finding Christ? Well, then we'd have to discount a LOT of Scripture.

So... yep, people can tell other people how to live, man - it's just that they ought to do it with full confession of their own imperfections; this is why I, having problems with pornography and struggling against prejudicial thoughts, can tell people that such things are wrong. I just have to be humble enough to tell them that I have problems with those things myself if I do.

[Yuki-Anne]

Typically, moral correction would come from a source in which you respect and have given the authority/responsibility to correct you. That is, if, say, you confronted me about something, I'd be like, lolwut. But if a close friend or someone I respect confronted me, then I would know that they are in a position where it's clear they're not simply enforcing their beliefs.

Moral correction is the responsibility of those close to you and not any random Christian. This is one of the reasons why Christian community is important. There should be an element of accountability and trust in the relationship and that should be the context in which such confrontation takes place.

This.

Also, I would like to point out one conclusion I have come to about this sort of thing: I see no point in giving "moral correction" to non-Christians. The way I would react to a non-Christian who steals from me is a little different from the way I would react to a Christian who steals from me.

I'm not sure why we expect people who have not been saved by the blood of Christ to live a Biblically moral lifestyle. Are God's morals universal? Yes, I believe they are. But I also believe that it's ridiculous to focus on getting non-Christians to try to follow the rules when what we should be doing is sharing about God's love. Christ died because we can't follow the rules no matter how hard we try.

So rather than trying to get people to follow our rules, maybe we should try to get people to love our God. Once they love God, following the rules will be something they want to do, rather than something we have to yell and scream at them to do all the time.

As for moral correction of my brothers and sisters in Christ... unless I know them personally and am in a close relationship with them, I don't, for the simple fact that I know they won't listen to me. I let people know where I stand on the matter, but I don't say it more than once. If someone is living a lifestyle I disagree with, I see no point in nagging them about it; that's not going to change them. I just pray for the Holy Spirit to help them to love God and serve Him as best as they can. Because there's always a chance that I might be the one who is wrong.

[Nate]

The Bible has many, many verses regarding rebuking a brother in the Lord, both in the Old and New Testaments.

Yes, but the problem is that interpretation and personal subjective beliefs still come into play. Let's take a very real example. Someone believes celebrating Christmas is sinful. They approach you and tell you that you are sinning by taking part in festivities, and to repent from your sin and stop celebrating Christmas.

Are you obligated to do as they say? If not, then you see my point that often personal feelings are inflated to be "sin" in the minds of people. And often when someone "rebukes" someone else, they're not really rebuking, they're just saying "You're doing something I don't like so I'm going to say it's sinful."

And even if it didn't, are we supposed to say to Paul that he can't teach us not to murder, simply because he murdered (persecuted) Christians prior to finding Christ?

Again, I said that telling someone that they are harming another human being is an acceptable time to rebuke and correct someone. After all, Christ called us to love others, and if you are harming them you certainly are not loving them. But most people do not "correct" someone on something obviously harmful to another person. There are exceptions of course (abuse seems to be a common one, especially alcoholism, which harms more than just the alcoholic and almost always requires someone else to step in), but usually it's not "You're hurting another person" but rather "You're doing something I don't like."

Besides murder is pretty much completely frowned upon in any civilized society, so...not the best example I don't think. :p

Finally, you made an important point...allow me to bold it.

The Bible has many, many verses regarding rebuking a brother in the Lord

"A brother." A fellow Christian. Many Christians rebuke people who aren't even Christian, and I don't see anywhere the Bible supports that at all. If you convert them TO Christianity, then maybe that's different. Still, telling someone how to live does not equate to rebuking as far as I'm concerned, and it doesn't even apply to anyone outside of the body of Christ.

[Rusty Claymore]

Rebuking is for brothers.
Fire from heaven is for heathens. Or bears. Elijah knew how to do it in style. XD
And I underline XD.

[K. Ayato]

Actually, Rusty, the bears happened with Elisha. Just clearing it up .

[Rusty Claymore]

Actually, Rusty, the bears happened with Elisha. Just clearing it up .

*facepalm*
They so totally planned that. >_<
hehe, ty XD

[bkilbour]

Yep, rebuking is for "brothers."
And John the Baptist was apparently wrong for telling Herod that having Herodias was wrong.

You know, at one point I rebuked a coworker who wasn't a Christian, but I still think I was justified. While we were underway, he was talking to us about how he had almost been caught by his long-time girlfriend for cheating with several women; in fact, the other women almosst caught him too. But he talked his way out of it, and turned it around so that all of these girls still loved him.
I told him that was jacked up, and asked him if he really wanted to live that way. His response was a) "I'm not hurting anybody - and if they really can't see what's going on, then all women are stupid, and I can just do that."
b) "who the (expletive omitted) are you to judge me?

So "hurting people" can be completely ignored, even though in this situation the guy was ruining the lives of a lot of girls. When he asked why I was the only one who thought what he did was wrong, I told him that I am a Christian, and I said it just wasn't right in the eyes of God for a man to be lying, manipulating, and all other manner of vice - especially just for the sake of getting laid.
I remained a totally nice guy to him, never brought it up again (although he hurled the same insults at me about being "judgemental" or "hypocritical" you can think of), and continue to show love to the guy by buying him food occasionally and helping him out at work.
Needless to say, his opinion on Christianity changed, as well as his opinion on what he did to those girls (he broke up with all but his original gal). He even admits that what he did was wrong now.

I pray for the guy every day.
I don't think I was just "telling someone how to live," who's outside the church. I was witnessing to him when everyone else was encouraging him to keep up the lousery, and thus far it's been drawing him to Jesus (though only time will tell).

[bkilbour]

usually it's not "You're hurting another person" but rather "You're doing something I don't like."

Anybody can say that about anything. An alcoholic can say that, a drug user can say that, an abortionist can say that. Heck, my coworker said it when it came to sleeping around.
I don't think I like the "you can't tell me what to do" approach that people have in life, because the rampant disregard they have for others seems to generate harm to others, but can be argued away via postmodern thought.

And nate, why then do you attack Jack Chick so much? Who's he hurting? In an objective way, that is]choose[/I] to read his tracts?

[Mr. SmartyPants]

What if we loved people in such a way that people saw a difference in us? Or is this no longer an option for us Christians anymore?

I mean, we're here arguing on how to love people. So I'm not sure how we'd accomplish anything.

[Fish and Chips]

Who's he hurting? In an objective way, that is]choose[/I] to read his tracts?

Christians.

[bkilbour]

I'm not agreeing with what Chick says (I play a little too much rock n' roll for him to even like me), but surely under the logic of many here we have no right to "tell him how to live," if he's not physically hurting anyone.

[ShiroiHikari]

not physically hurting anyone

[color="YellowGreen"]>implying people can only be hurt physically[/color]

[c.t.,girl]

if he's not physically hurting anyone.

sure...and a father who is verbally/emotionally/visually abusing his daughter ISN'T REALLY ABUSING HIS DAUGHTER, RIGHT?! Because according to you...he's doing no wrong as long as he's not PHYSICALLY hurting her.

[Cognitive Gear]

Yep, rebuking is for "brothers."
And John the Baptist was apparently wrong for telling Herod that having Herodias was wrong.

You know, at one point I rebuked a coworker who wasn't a Christian, but I still think I was justified. While we were underway, he was talking to us about how he had almost been caught by his long-time girlfriend for cheating with several women](expletive omitted)[/I] are you to judge me?

So "hurting people" can be completely ignored, even though in this situation the guy was ruining the lives of a lot of girls. When he asked why I was the only one who thought what he did was wrong, I told him that I am a Christian, and I said it just wasn't right in the eyes of God for a man to be lying, manipulating, and all other manner of vice - especially just for the sake of getting laid.
I remained a totally nice guy to him, never brought it up again (although he hurled the same insults at me about being "judgemental" or "hypocritical" you can think of), and continue to show love to the guy by buying him food occasionally and helping him out at work.
Needless to say, his opinion on Christianity changed, as well as his opinion on what he did to those girls (he broke up with all but his original gal). He even admits that what he did was wrong now.

I pray for the guy every day.
I don't think I was just "telling someone how to live," who's outside the church. I was witnessing to him when everyone else was encouraging him to keep up the lousery, and thus far it's been drawing him to Jesus (though only time will tell).

There is a difference between telling someone to stop hurting another human being and telling them to stop doing something because a book they don't believe is true says they shouldn't do it.

Basically, there is a difference between protecting others from harm and moral correction.

Anybody can say that about anything. An alcoholic can say that, a drug user can say that, an abortionist can say that. Heck, my coworker said it when it came to sleeping around.
I don't think I like the "you can't tell me what to do" approach that people have in life, because the rampant disregard they have for others seems to generate harm to others, but can be argued away via postmodern thought.

And nate, why then do you attack Jack Chick so much? Who's he hurting? In an objective way, that is]choose[/I] to read his tracts?

What makes an alcoholic, a drug abuser, or an abortionist's words worth any less than anyone else's? If making mistakes made our opinions and words worth less, than none of us have any room to speak at all. (perhaps I am misunderstanding your point, please clarify if I am.)

Jack Chick is hurting many people. He is hurting the reputation of Christians (and by proxy, Christ Himself). He is hurting the GLBT community by spreading hate. He is hurting nerdy teenagers that just want to play D&D with their friends. Clearly we, as Christians, should be able to say, "That's not what we believe, and I wish that he would stop."

No, I don't think we should only call out to stop physical harm. Psychological and emotional harm can be just as damaging.

[bkilbour]

No, I don't think we should only call out to stop physical harm. Psychological and emotional harm can be just as damaging.

I agree with you there. Never said I didn't.
But following through with that that also means we're either being big bad judgers, or that the church is divided and laughable, in the eyes of the nonbelieving community.
No matter how much we love, give, and donate, those things will never be noticed no matter how much we do; but just as we ought to do those things regardless, there are also thing we gotta do even though they are little, and are endlessly construed as being "big bad judgers" in the eyes of the world.

[Nate]

And John the Baptist was apparently wrong for telling Herod that having Herodias was wrong.

Yep, I agree. He was wrong for saying that. Especially since a man marrying his brother's wife was completely condoned and even required under Old Testament Law. So...I guess it's righteous when the Israelites do it but not anyone else?

he was talking to us about how he had almost been caught by his long-time girlfriend for cheating with several women]
Being that he was harming people, which I said is a correct and good reason to confront someone about their behavior, I'd say you were completely in the right...so I don't see how that is a counter to anything I've said, since I said that was a situation that warranted it.

An alcoholic can say that, a drug user can say that

But in these situations, these claims can be verified false. The effect on their families or jobs is extremely apparent, it's obvious they are harming someone. There is a difference between harming someone and being in denial, and harming no one.

I don't think I like the "you can't tell me what to do" approach that people have in life, because the rampant disregard they have for others seems to generate harm to others, but can be argued away via postmodern thought.

Yes, perhaps, but you still need to speak up if they are genuinely harming someone. However, many things that Christians confront people about where the response is "You can't tell me what to do" has nothing to do with harming others, but personal subjective feelings and the Christian is merely trying to impose his/her personal morals on that other person. This is not showing love to that person, and it's not giving a good name to Christians.

And nate, why then do you attack Jack Chick so much? Who's he hurting? In an objective way, that is; who's he really, physically hurting, especially given that people choose to read his tracts?

One, physically hurting someone is not the only way you can hurt someone. You can hurt someone mentally and emotionally. Ever heard of mental abuse? Emotional abuse? Harming someone is not limited solely to the realm of the physical, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to specify solely physical harm...unless you're admitting that he emotionally and mentally harms others but you don't feel that's important.

Yes, lying and misleading people and saying complete fabrications such as "The Holocaust was a Catholic Inquisition of Jews" is absolutely, completely, and undeniably harmful. This is why I speak against Jack Chick so much.

surely under the logic of many here we have no right to "tell him how to live," if he's not physically hurting anyone.

Again, hurt is not limited to physical hurt. But you're half right. If Jack Chick kept to himself, and didn't make these tracts, I would agree. I have no right to tell him he can't dislike Catholics, for example. A person is free to dislike whoever they want to dislike. However, if he begins to harm Catholics by lying about them, creating false stories to make them look evil or bad, or inciting others to share in his hatred of Catholics, then he IS harming people and I believe it is right to speak against him. If he just carries his dislike in his heart, but treated Catholics with respect, I would have no problem with him...I wouldn't approve of his feelings, but I have no right to correct him if he's not harming other people.

[ShiroiHikari]

[quote="bkilbour (post: 1462618)"]I agree with you there. Never said I didn't.
But following through with that that also means we're either being big bad judgers, or that the church is divided and laughable, in the eyes of the nonbelieving community.
No matter how much we love, give, and donate, those things will never be noticed no matter how much we do]

I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a picture of Bright standing on Char's head.

[Yamamaya]

Paul also said not to worry about little small matters such as whether eating food sacrificied to idols was good or not. A lot of times moral correction often falls within small things such as, "Stop watching Pokemon, stop playing those evil video games, that evil music, stop reading Harry Potter, etc etc." It's not constructive, it's just a list of things that some Christians find wrong.

I think blkmage hit it on the head when he said that moral correction is most effective when between people you trust. If one of you guys starting critiquing all my morals, I would probably brush you off. However if a close friend that I respected did so out of love and concern, I would be more willing to talk to them. When Jesus talked with people who were sinning a lot, he didn't go in guns blazing talking about how ebil they were. He saved that kind of language for the people who had pious pretentions.


Also Jack Chick does damage to both Christians and Catholics. He damages Christians's reputation with his sheer ignorance and he demeans Catholics with prejudiced inaccurate remarks.

[Maledicte]

I agree with you there. Never said I didn't.
But following through with that that also means we're either being big bad judgers, or that the church is divided and laughable, in the eyes of the nonbelieving community.

Really? It's either/or? Several people have stated that the response they get is that of wonder and wistfulness: "Gee, I wish more Christians were like you." That's both a positive response and one we Christians should respond to.

No matter how much we love, give, and donate, those things will never be noticed no matter how much we do]
So? Widow's mite, my friend. What you do/who you are in the dark. All it matters is that God sees.

but just as we ought to do those things regardless, there are also thing we gotta do even though they are little, and are endlessly construed as being "big bad judgers" in the eyes of the world.

What sort of little things? And if they make us "big bad judgers," doesn't that mean that maybe we should consider them as not important as loving, giving, and donating?

I will say that I agree with what other posters have said - you were correct in how you responded to your coworker. He was harming people and taking advantage of them, which is very not cool. Calling him out on his behavior was entirely appropriate.

However, if he was saying something like, "I like to play D&D" and you said "D&D is a sin, don't play it," then you'd be Mr. McJudgyPants and would likely invite scorn.