Re: inclusive prayer language?
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, thebishopsdoom
> --- In email@example.com, "Dan Fraas"choose
> <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
> > his opportunities to present Christ unveiled with a view toabout
> > preserving the great and otherwise impossible opportunities?
> > Riley
> That's why I mentioned about all (I believe) being in agreement
> that there is a time to speak and a time to be silent. There areWould it be wrong for these missionaries to speak out in public, too,
> 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.
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 aat
> minister with the *requirement* that they sometimes preach or pray
> public functions, and that in such instances, they will preach andnot
> pray in such a way as to be vague enough not to preach Christ, or
> to make clear to the audience who they are praying to, and thelike.
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
> It is one thing for a minister to use discretion as to when andwhere
> he speaks, as Christians have ever in times of persecution usedchurch
> discretion. It is one thing if the minister in an underground
> communicates messages to people with letters that are coded, toavoid
> 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 followedmay
> 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
> preach, but only under condition that they must preach or pray atYes, I see the issues here. But with creativity and a little
> 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.
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
> Suppose this same minister were required at certain functions topreach
> 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
> anything that contradicted protestant dogma, only restricting tothat
> those things wherein the two agre in their understandings), and
> this was a requirement to being hired to the ministry, butotherwise,
> 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.
> suppose the same conditions, but say it is in a Mormon orWatchtower
> Society group they had to preach to - or some unitarianuniversalist
> church, and this was a requirement, but otherwise, they were freeto
> 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!