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

Re: inclusive prayer language?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Oct 3, 2003
      --- 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.