Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: inclusive prayer language?

Expand Messages
  • thebishopsdoom
    ... That s why I mentioned about all (I believe) being in agreement about that there is a time to speak and a time to be silent. There are missionaries all
    Message 1 of 9 , Oct 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Fraas"
      <fraasrd@y...> wrote:
      > You're absolutely right about that. But could it be prudent in a
      > given situation for a gospel-minister to carefully pick and choose
      > his opportunities to present Christ unveiled with a view to
      > preserving the great and otherwise impossible opportunities?
      >
      > Riley
      That's why I mentioned about all (I believe) being in agreement about
      that there is a time to speak and a time to be silent. There are
      missionaries all over the world who only share in private, or who
      preach in the confines of a meeting house, but not in the open
      market, for these very reasons.
      The problem I see is for the person to accept their charge as a
      minister with the *requirement* that they sometimes preach or pray at
      public functions, and that in such instances, they will preach and
      pray in such a way as to be vague enough not to preach Christ, or not
      to make clear to the audience who they are praying to, and the like.
      It is one thing for a minister to use discretion as to when and where
      he speaks, as Christians have ever in times of persecution used
      discretion. It is one thing if the minister in an underground church
      communicates messages to people with letters that are coded, to avoid
      detection. It is one thing when Jesus confounds those who sought to
      entangle him, or preached so as to weed out those who only followed
      the miracle worker for sake of a show and not the man whose words
      breathe forth life to those who will believe and will seek for
      understanding. It seems quite another thing to be told that they may
      preach, but only under condition that they must preach or pray at
      specified times, and agree upon refusing to do so in a manner that
      would lead men to any but the god of their choice or etc.
      Suppose this same minister were required at certain functions to
      preach to a Roman Catholic audience, under the expressed directives
      that they could not preach anything that would disagree with Roman
      Catholic dogma (though that would not mean they would have to preach
      anything that contradicted protestant dogma, only restricting to
      those things wherein the two agre in their understandings), and that
      this was a requirement to being hired to the ministry, but otherwise,
      they could preach in their own church however they pleased. Or
      suppose the same conditions, but say it is in a Mormon or Watchtower
      Society group they had to preach to - or some unitarian universalist
      church, and this was a requirement, but otherwise, they were free to
      preach. I'm certain this would be a charge that many ordained
      ministers would refuse to accept. Not because they feel compelled
      that every time they preach, they preach something that expressly
      disagrees with any and all of the above churches, nor that they feel
      that every time they meet someone of such beliefs that they feel it
      is required that they always make a point to speak to them about
      their errours. But when they are called to *minister* to those
      people, functioning in capacity as a gospel minister, and required to
      so accpet these terms from the powers that be, required to, in
      effect, not minister to them that which is needful, but rather coddle
      them in errour, and this is a term required of their post (either by
      stating that they will abide, or recognizing that they will place the
      church of God at risk if they do not abide by these rules), that
      seems to place things in a light much more difficult to agree to.
      -doom
    • Dan Fraas
      ... choose ... about ... Would it be wrong for these missionaries to speak out in public, too, even though they d have to restrict their speech for their own
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, thebishopsdoom
        <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Fraas"
        > <fraasrd@y...> wrote:
        > > You're absolutely right about that. But could it be prudent in a
        > > given situation for a gospel-minister to carefully pick and
        choose
        > > his opportunities to present Christ unveiled with a view to
        > > preserving the great and otherwise impossible opportunities?
        > >
        > > Riley
        > That's why I mentioned about all (I believe) being in agreement
        about
        > that there is a time to speak and a time to be silent. There are
        > missionaries all over the world who only share in private, or who
        > preach in the confines of a meeting house, but not in the open
        > market, for these very reasons.

        Would it be wrong for these missionaries to speak out in public, too,
        even though they'd have to restrict their speech for their own
        safety? Could they ask leading questions and give hints/speak in
        parables in public on Saturdays and then preach the whole counsel of
        God in their hideout on Sundays?

        > The problem I see is for the person to accept their charge as a
        > minister with the *requirement* that they sometimes preach or pray
        at
        > public functions, and that in such instances, they will preach and
        > pray in such a way as to be vague enough not to preach Christ, or
        not
        > to make clear to the audience who they are praying to, and the
        like.

        I see your point. But prayer is not a sermon. We don't have to cite
        the whole counsel of God in our prayers. Would it be wrong for him
        to say something that the unbelievers have never heard before, to
        make them curious and befuddle any accusations? What communicates
        more truth to an unbeliever, "Jesus", or "the lamb of God who takes
        away the sin of the world"? Which is more likely to provoke
        persecution?

        > It is one thing for a minister to use discretion as to when and
        where
        > he speaks, as Christians have ever in times of persecution used
        > discretion. It is one thing if the minister in an underground
        church
        > communicates messages to people with letters that are coded, to
        avoid
        > detection.

        I don't see the difference between that scenario and the scenario of
        a minister who uses Christian code words in prayer to unite believers
        throw off the would-be-accusers who are listening in.

        It is one thing when Jesus confounds those who sought to
        > entangle him, or preached so as to weed out those who only followed
        > the miracle worker for sake of a show and not the man whose words
        > breathe forth life to those who will believe and will seek for
        > understanding. It seems quite another thing to be told that they
        may
        > preach, but only under condition that they must preach or pray at
        > specified times, and agree upon refusing to do so in a manner that
        > would lead men to any but the god of their choice or etc.

        Yes, I see the issues here. But with creativity and a little
        artistic bending of the rules I think a chaplain could communicate
        the truth in such a way that does not give any ammo to the accusers
        but communicates the Messiah. Don't be intentionally obedient to the
        directives, but cleverly witness and stay below the "radar
        screen."

        > Suppose this same minister were required at certain functions to
        > preach to a Roman Catholic audience, under the expressed directives
        > that they could not preach anything that would disagree with Roman
        > Catholic dogma (though that would not mean they would have to
        preach
        > anything that contradicted protestant dogma, only restricting to
        > those things wherein the two agre in their understandings), and
        that
        > this was a requirement to being hired to the ministry, but
        otherwise,
        > they could preach in their own church however they pleased.

        I'd say it's a great opportunity. Use good "Catholic" dogma. Read
        them some quotes by Augustine and read Ephesians 2:8 and the second
        commandment to them. Would it necessarily be wise to begin by
        informing a roomful of Catholics the the pope is Antichrist? Tell
        them about what an antichrist is, what the gospel is, and let them
        figure it out.

        Or
        > suppose the same conditions, but say it is in a Mormon or
        Watchtower
        > Society group they had to preach to - or some unitarian
        universalist
        > church, and this was a requirement, but otherwise, they were free
        to
        > preach.

        I'd say truly present the Messiah, but use some creativity to stop
        the mouths of accusers.

        I thank you for your well-thought-out responses. I appreciate your
        comments. I'm going over these issues in my mind and I haven't
        become secure in any conclusion. I definitely see the problems you
        note. We're both trying to be faithful to God's word and preach the
        gospel to every creature.

        For Christ's Crown and Covenant!

        Riley
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.