Oh, and it would be worth your while to peruse http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/01/same-sex-science and http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/01/31/the-genetics-of-same-sex-attraction/ … I think there is evidence that single-cause theories are wrong, and I wholeheartedly concur in the author’s conclusion to the first article, rejecting the American Christian tendency to duck the issue by letting the culture treat people as “sick” on this basis. A couple years back I did as thorough a review of the hard science on the matter as I was able, and this author’s views cover everything I could find and much more, and correct my understanding in some ways. I’m keeping my eyes open for more information.

“Rather, what’s so surprising is that they delivered a far more moderate decision than anyone would have predicted.”

It might be more accurately described as “less liberal than it could have been.” There is a substantial difference between the two descriptions. Also, do not underestimate the power of precedence in American law. Although the decision was narrow and specific, this will be much referenced in future cases.

That’s the point at which I object. The concept of “family time” has always struck me as an awkward arbitration. Time in which members of my family are present doesn’t cease being life-time and enter into some pocket universe where all attention must be wholly devoted to, in this case, family. If family is present, you can read a book without thinking you’re robbing them. And they can play with Legos without thinking that they’re robbing you. Because time is for life and some symbiosis of doing things that involve the people you care about and involve leisure activities and involve responsible and involve solitary moments and involve thinking thoughts and involve the myriad of things involved in living life is the only sensible way to approach the world.

Recognizing a need for “family time” really just means that somebody in the chain isn’t ecstatic about the balance of all these things and diplomacy may require some adjustment of attentions, but family can never be a monolithic black hole for attentions—and we shouldn’t expect it to be any more than a boyfriend should expect his girlfriend to be all about him 24/7.

Robert, I don’t know anything about you and I’ve never been to your website. As such, that sentence, at the beginning of your comment, forms my first impression of you. And my impression is that either you don’t know what “apologist” means, or you are a person who is extremely careless about the words he uses to describe others. Neither possibility speaks very highly of your ability to be an educated, responsible voice for an audience that obviously takes what you say very seriously. And I find that both sad and disappointing.

I do think that the title is far more ambitious in its implied goal than the article actually achieves. Based on my watching the drama unfold, I am left to wonder if there was anything really new to be learned after having read this commentary. I honestly do not mean this to sound snarky nor do I dismiss any of the information you provided in the commentary.

I do wish that you had provided more examples of affirmative Christian response rather than selecting simply one which you connected only to the abortion issue. I am not denying the logical connection. But, if those who railed against the decision by the Komen foundation are correct about the harm to the women served at Planned Parenthood, it seems to me that Christians who understand the need to address the legitimate non-abortion needs but are concerned about the commingling of dollars destroying the identity of their funds intended only for non-abortion purposes, establishing, maintaining, and publicizing organizations that provide for those non-abortion related needs currently being met by Planned Parenthood seems to be imperative. I can only speculate how differently this might have played out with the public in general had the Komen foundation made this decision during the normal annual review of applications and allocations rather than in a poorly-conceived political ploy to terminate funding already promised, especially were there to have been a dollar for dollar commitment to organizations that do not provide abortion services but which do provide the essential non-abortion services otherwise provided by Planned Parenthood.

Do not get me wrong. I am appalled whenever I see people or organizations that co-opt the self identification of “Christian” engaging in behavior that the Messiah would condemn, not simply outright lying but also manipulation of selective presentation of nuanced truth with the intent to deceive. I already knew that non-Christians engaged in this type of behavior. I already knew that people claiming to be Christian engaged in this type of behavior as well – some intentionally (especially in pursuit of political power or economic self benefit) and some with a grossly negligent disregard for the truth and the responsibility of each Christian to discern truth (e.g., forwarding chain e-mails containing blatant falsehoods the truth of which often can be fact-checked by a simple Google search).

I do think that better discussion than has occurred in the knee-jerk moments of the immediacy of the news cycle should be encouraged, and I commend you for wanting to have that discussion.

I am sorry you feel such frustration generally (and understand its source)…. I just believe such frustration is gravely misplaced here as there is such a vast difference between what you call “Christian Nationalism” and the theological belief that the Gospel of Christ has far reaching, liberating effects no matter what nation it is planted in. Certainly Christ can and should be identified and proclaimed in all the nations (and cultures)… not merely one. But he should be identified (and recognizable) in every culture where Christians proclaim him, yes? So the question is not whether America is a Christian nation as a whole (an argument easily refuted just by turning on the news), but rather where can Christ be found in our history and can we learn from it today.

I feel there is more to agree on here than you may think, and I hope this movie will prove to dispel your underlying fears in this regard.

It may just be me, but I have a hard to trying to find the grace of God in the words of Christan and Conservative groups.

I admit I myself am not the most knowledgeable individual on the Bible, but didn’t Jesus choose to change the hearts of the people through grace? As opposed to forcing the Roman Government, Pharisees, etc to change their ways and bring moral change from the top down, Jesus spoke to the people and changed them by grace, not by laws.

Any thoughts?

It’s hard to love those our Lord has commanded us to, when we fear them. For that’s the driving force behind these comments, and others similar. You, and many other Christians, are afraid of Muslims.

The answer to this fear is not to stereotype them or attack them. We must love them, with Christ’s perfect love – his patient, kind, humble, selfless, truth-confronting love. Fear and love don’t mix.

Blessings

Adam

>Have you ever seen a movie without bias? Yes and it is documentary. The Civil War by Ken Burns. That is hugely respected documentary for presenting atrocity of war to why the cause of Union preservation was a worthy fight. That is definitely a movie without bias. That question was easy for this film viewer. I can name more because a good historical film that is well directed will avoid bias, thus making it credible and respected by Democrats and Republican audiences and most of each party consider that documentary to be one they can agree with the history and each point of view it puts forth in the film. And boring….the Civil War has been watched by kids I know aged 7 whose attention span can swing instantly from one thing to another.

> the tone is strong. Thank goodness. Don’t you think we have enough mushy existentialism in the church? I’m ready to see my faith go beyond the “Jesus is my boyfriend” stage. I’m ready to stand up and state that Christ’s faith is the ONLY way, is unique, and produces different fruit than all other religions. That means I’m going to draw criticism, as this movie will I’m sure. Of course, you want those issues to be worthy of a fight… and be ready with a defense. Hopefully this movie gives a valid one… but we haven’t seen it yet.
Yes Christ’s faith is different because it was not intended to be identified in American culture. Many have been ready with a defense and bear false witness as to what the triune God is.

> Christ’s way was not always that of a pacifist. :) Are you one?
Christ did not fight back. He stood silent at his trial in the context of his sacrifice. He faced the cross as a “lamb led to slaughter”. Which means the triune Son of God did not fight as a lamb cannot fight back against human hands and wolfs teeth. I am a pacifist and discern when a fight is worth the human blood to spill example of the film I used above, the Civil War I would consider the worthy fight to preserve the union against the sin and act of treason of secession.

> I will not restrain an opinion. That is not my judgment to make. In the moral sentiment of the thread it calls for people to judge before this comes out. For example, Cameron judges that people will be interested in this topic he has chosen. So he made a wide judgment to get involved with project in the first place otherwise he would have stayed home. RIGHT? That answer is yes. I have things to do now. I think I have sufficiently answered these questions and again this in retrospect is my opinion and it is voiced with tone of frustration with the American Nationalist gospel message in my opinion that will be conveyed in the project Cameron has judged to be worth doing.

Christ’s way was not always that of a pacifist. :) Are you one? I don’t think this movie is claiming to be only about the Gospel. It is claiming that true and lasting liberty is a result of the Gospel. What is wrong with believing America has something (not everything) to be proud of? Should we hang our heads in shame forever, never looking back for hope or precedent to shape a better future? What does it mean to be a citizen of heaven and a citizen of America? Do they never intersect? These are good questions to ask and most church goers seem to be confused (understandably amid all the rhetoric). Please tell me what is wrong with inviting opinion and opening dialogue on this issue? I see the Scriptures as useful in every area of life, politics and history being only one of those. I sense you wish to keep them divided. Would you do the same with education and parenting? Brother, I do not object to your opinion on it’s face, I merely wish that you would restrain your judgment until you have all the facts… especially considering that you are indeed judging harshly other men of God that have spent serious time in the trenches, so to speak. They will indeed, I believe, be slammed for their forthright opinions… I’m just surprised and disappointed it would be coming from a believer who has not even seen it yet.