Regarding racial reconciliation, it was said in a sermon that the church must consist of a variety of political opinions in order to provide hope to the world.
So just how much compromise must a congregation exhibit in this regard?
Is it enough for a church to admit that some will vote for Trump because they have concluded that he is the best option available among a limited selection and that some will not vote for him because his personal shortcomings are too profound?
As such, the church avoids taking a position on him beyond generalized prayers for the nation as a way to avoid alienating either faction.
When compromise is called for in most contexts, such a rhetorical plea winds up being an admonition on how conservatives are obligated to remain silent while anti-Biblical agendas such as gay marriage and abortion on demand are ultimately adopted as points of doctrine in sacrifice to the dogma of “can't we all just get along”.
In welcoming all political ideologies, does that now include as was articulated at least twice in one church from the pulpit that Whites simply because they are White must surrender money to Blacks?
Such homiletical pleas sound little different than the radical ultimatums issued from the Seattle autonomous zone also known as the magical land of CHOP.
Frederick Meekins is an independent theologian and social critic. Frederick holds a BS in Political Science/History, a MA in Apologetics/Christian Philosophy from Trinity Theological Seminary, and a PhD. in Christian Apologetics from Newburgh Theological Seminary.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
