One of the issues in the church in recent years has been the necessity of church discipline. You may find tomorrow that your church is confronted by a serious moral quandary. Can your church permit members who cheer for the NE Comrades to remain in full fellowship?
It’s a difficult issue. Certainly, cheering for the spawn of Belichick is evil – we all know that. But is it the kind of evil we should divide over and institute church discipline because of?
Ultimately, the question is, how can light partner with darkness? How can good cheer for evil?
So, I hope that each of you who pastor a church will take a strong stand against this scourge coming out of the center of evil (not that far from Fenway). Speak up on the issue. Take a stand.
On some issues we have to speak with a united voice.
What say you?
Of course a Christian should not cheer on the evil NE team. In addition, how can anyone not believe that the evil Pats were involved somehow in drugging the players of America’s true Title Team, the Packers, causing them to lose last weekend?
Those of us who watched that game know exactly how they lost.
That was simply an act of justice.
I see no reason to break fellowship over which football team a fellow brother roots for. Now, if it comes to light that one among us is found guilty of following soccer, well that brother needs to be prayed over.
Gonna get smacked. No one trashes the beautiful game without some sort of comeuppance.
Messi rocks!
What are Messi Rocks? Is that some kind of South American children’s toys?
Oh my….when I tell the kids about this tomorrow morning, there will be all sorts of creative responses. Then we’ll go to church and repent….a little.
If there is anything that will cause the nations of the world to rise up and smite the USA, it will be our ambivalence towards soccer. Some things just cannot be tolerated.
By jove, you’re done it! You’ve found another religion!
Oh, that hurts.
Looks like SC went for Gingrich. Never mind Patriots fans. Can we excommunicate a state?
You know, every time they have a debate, I get impressed with Gingrich – he can really present his points. Then I look at his life and wonder if I can really support him.
Dave,
I too struggle with his lack of integrity. I don’t think that I can vote for him in my state’s primary. Having said that, if he does win the nomination he does have one very attractive qualification, he’s not Obama. Also, I think that he does have experience with balancing the budget as I give all the credit for the properity of the 1990’s to the contract with America and the Republican takeover.
If he is the nominee, I’ll vote for him. And honestly, listening to his speech tonight, I was impressed. He is smart, articulate and says the right things.
If there was not all that baggage from the past, I’d have Gingrich tatooed on my…uh…arm.
I think I’ve pretty much decided that I will not vote for Gingrich, no matter what. He may be smart, but he is also slimy and mean and dishonest. In my opinion, if he is the nominee, then everything the Republicans claim they stand for is a lie.
Bill Mac,
May I respectfully ask the question what’s the alternative? I don’t mean in the primary, I mean in the event that he wins the nomination. I agree with you that his conduct has been horrific, but could he have actually repented like he said he did?
John:
It is beyond our ability to know the genuineness of his alleged repentance. But certain things ought to simply disqualify one, and it boggles my mind that so many evangelicals (the ones who supposedly put him over the top in SC) cannot see it. His campaign has gotten nastier, and some of his claims strain credulity past the breaking point (“I just went on vacation to Greece to see which of my staff would stick with me”). This man cannot beat Obama. He is a faithless lie-machine. Evangelicals may be blind to it, but almost no one else in the country is. He cannot win.
Bill Mac,
Once again respectfully, what’s the alternative? I agree that he has a tough row to hoe to win. I think that the reason Evangelicals went for him was probably two fold: 1. His experience balancing the budget in the 1990’s and 2. They believe that the two evangelical candidates (Santorum and Paul) are unelectable.
In the end if he wins the nomination, I personally have no alternative. For you Bill, what would the alternative be? Why? I’m genuinely curious. If adultery disqualifies one for candidacy, (Bill Clinton was a known adulterer when he ran for President) isn’t support for the homosexual agenda equally disqualifying?
John: Who’s supporting the homosexual agenda? I’m a Republican. I’m certainly not going to vote for Obama. Perhaps the guy from the “rent is too da## high” party will be running.
Bill Mac,
You’re a Republican? I honestly did not know as much as you lambast the Republicans. (Btw I am not trying to be funny nor insulting).
So would you stay home or would you consider a third party candidate? Would who the nominee chooses as a VP make a difference? I’m seriously curious.
John: It is far better to hold your own accountable rather than trying to hold the other side accountable. That’s why I am harder on Republicans and evangelicals than Democrats and Catholics.
The “anything is better than Obama” mentality frustrates me to no end. That our standards are so low frustrates me. That all Republican candidates have to do is paste on a smile and mouth a few catch-phrases and evangelicals will fall into line frustrates me.
Thanks Bill Mac,
I understand and share your concerns, but I don’t view it as falling into line as much as I see it as a fight for the survival of our nation. President Obama will further degrade our nation if he’s reelected and so my view is unelect him at all costs. I honestly don’t think it’s a matter of evangelicals being gullible, they’re aware of the short comings of Gingrinch and the others, but they recognize that the policies of this president have served to undermine the security of our nation.
An example would be President Bush, although he did make a lot of mistakes, he at least placed conservatives on the Supreme Court which is vital for the future of our nation. I realize this is more pragmatic than spiritual, but the fact is thanks to the depravity of man the chose has always been, and in this age, always will be the lesser of two evils.
John: Of the current crop, I think Romney is the best choice with the best chance. Two who I wish had entered the fray are Christie and Jindal. One I am thankful who didn’t is Palin.
@John Wylie: Gingrich “does have experience with balancing the budget as I give all the credit for the prosperity of the 1990?s to the contract with America and the Republican takeover.”
Hmmm … ever hear of the Council on Foreign Relations? You know that Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich are both members, right? So are George H. W. Bush and Michelle Obama.
Seriously, politics is akin to professional wrestling. Except that at least everybody ADMITS that wrestling is fake and therefore it doesn’t really matter who “wins” …
Job what does the COFR have to do with the validity of my statement about the balanced budget? When I hear someone say that it doesn’t matter who wins, I just compare John Roberts and Sam Alito to Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. I don’t believe it.
@John Wylie:
For starters, your statement about the balanced budget was invalid.
1. The contract with America was never enacted.
2. The balanced budget agreement was jointly negotiated with Clinton and Gingrich, and deftly avoided real spending cuts or anything approaching actual long term sound fiscal policy.
3. The economic turnaround began before the 1994 election, and certainly before any economic policies enacted by the GOP Congress had any time to take effect (which takes from many months to years … Reagan’s policies didn’t begin to positively effect unemployment until well into 1983, and he had a 35% approval rating in 4th quarter 1982 -when unemployment was nearly 11% – and seemed like a lame duck as a result).
4. Washington didn’t have squat to do with the 90s turnaround. If there was ever an economic expansion that was the work of the private sector, it was the 90s.
5. Even had Gingrich – or Clinton – played a leading role in the 90s economy, it wouldn’t have been anything to be proud of. Similar to the expansion during the George W. Bush era, it was a scam and a sham; the result of financial institutions vastly inflating the prices of capital beyond their real worth (in the 90s it was stocks and similar, in the Bush era it was real estate), cashing out on the short term gains, and leaving others holding the bag for trillions in losses. Also, the “good economy” of the 90s masked huge losses in white and blue collar jobs to technology and outsourcing. The people who tried to expose what a sham the 90s economy was found themselves on the political margins, like Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot, the Ron Pauls of their day.
6. Addressing your point about judges, it is a curious one because judges appointed by Republicans (Nixon, Bush, Reagan and Bush) have given the left some of their biggest victories over the past few decades in such areas as abortion, homosexual “rights”, property rights, illegal immigration and so-called international law. They’ve also given “conservatives” victories in areas that should concern Christians, such as the ever-growing police state. (Though the New Testament does tell us to give Caesar his due and to obey and be subject to our leaders, the state and the church have always been enemies, the state has always persecuted believers, and Revelation said that this would be the case.)
7. On large scope issues (the ones that actually matter to the real direction of this country, not the relatively minor stuff that keeps people voting for one party or another) these guys keep the same policies going. Clinton basically continued what George H. W. Bush was doing. George W. Bush basically continued what Clinton was doing. And Obama is continuing what George W. Bush started. An example: every president since George H. W. Bush has openly supported a Palestinian state, and they all seat a deadline by which Israel should consent to the creation of this state and pressured them towards it. And Clinton, Obama and both Bushes have had the same group of people working on the Israel policy (i.e. Dennis Ross). That is just one example. There are many others: illegal immigration, gay rights, free trade, abortion (like we are going to overturn Roe v. Wade while presidents from both parties fund Planned Parenthood), invasions of nations that pose no threat to our shores without a formal declaration of war by Congress (no, use of force resolutions and laws ARE NOT a formal declaration of war; our campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq again, and Libya were all violations of our own Constitution, but we no longer follow our Constitution on military matters, because a formal Congressional declaration of war would get us in major hot water with the United Nations, which by the way is based in New York City, and America is the #1 bankroller of the UN and enforcer of UN resolutions via economic, military and diplomatic force no matter which party controls the White House and Congress), economic/military/political globalization etc.
8 (or 6 revisited): You mentioned the Supreme Court via Roberts/Alito)? 3 Jews and 6 Roman Catholics. (Not that there is anything wrong with that!) The last 2 Protestants appointed to the Supreme Court: David Souter and Sandra Day O’Connor, both Episcopalians (like George H. W. Bush. By the way … George W. Bush never actually officially joined a church. Not that it matters, as Bush already publicly gave his decidedly non-evangelical view of scripture many times). Kennedy – Reagan appointee – in particular has played a leading role in getting the Supreme Court in line with international law, just like the Vatican – a public proponent of international law since the Vatican II in the 1960s – wants. (Israel: the same deal, although they support universal adherence to international law for different reasons than the Vatican.)
Again, at least everyone admits that wrestling is fake. Politics, not so much. By the way, this ain’t tinfoil hat conspiracy theory stuff from the Alex Jones fans, the Paul supporters, the 911 truthers or whatever. It is recent history and current events. It is just that it IS NOT placed into the context that the media does (whether mainstream, “conservative” or “liberal”) does to keep you supporting one side or another. Right now, you have conservatives claiming that the nation-building that Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan is SO MUCH BETTER than the nation building that the liberal United Nations types do. Or you have liberals who hated the war on terror under Bush bragging about how many terrorists Obama has killed (assassinated) with those unmanned drones THAT THEY CAN USE TO TARGET WHOEVER THEY WANT WHENEVER THEY WANT FOR WHATEVER REASON THAT THEY WANT. Put it another way: that memo that Homeland Security put out claiming that conservative Christians were potential terrorists? That memo was only ISSUED during the Obama administration. It was “researched”, worked on and put together during the Bush administration. The same thing with that “Hutaree militia” nonsense where a bunch of dispensationalists living in trailer parks were accused of being domestic terrorists plotting to overthrow the government: that operation began while Bush was still in office, put there with the votes of some of the same evangelicals that Homeland Security is investigating.
But yeah, keep telling yourself that it matters; that things will get better under Gingrich (who has gone from mainline Protestant to Southern Baptist to a papist), or under the Mormon Romney, or under the Opus Dei Vaticanist Santorum. Again, at least everyone ADMITS that wrestling is fake!
I will keep telling myself that it matters because I know it does. And it doesn’t take a long winded post to come to that conclusion. I’ve heard all the conspiracy theories before, I recommend not getting your info from the history channel. Under Chief Justice Roberts individual gun righst have been protected and the rights of churches in their employment practices were protected just last week. I’ve always been an informed voter and I know exactly what I’m voting for. And your assertion that it doesn’t make a difference who you vote for is assinine.
Bill Mac,
Why do you maintain Gingrich is slimy and mean and dishonest?
OK, would any of you fellows put into print what made the guy slimy, mean, and dishonest?
Serial adultery pretty much covers all of them. Ethics violations while speaker adds to the list. Either his ex-wives are lying about him or he is lying. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide who has the record of dishonesty. Stay tuned.
When our standards are “anybody but Obama”, then I guess we deserve what we get.
Here is the quote I was looking for:
“”She’s not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer.”
A former staff member stated that Gingrich made this statement about his first wife, by whom he had two daughters. Gingrich denies making the statement. His second wife (he left the first wife for this one) stated that Gingrich had asked you to live with him in an “open marriage.” He denied this also. She later rebuked him publicly and again stated her testimony was factual.
If these thing are true, I don’t care if he can balance the budget or if he can squat and lay golden eggs sufficient to pay off the national debt, he has a deep seated problem. We have had enough of those kind of problems in the highest seat in our land.
To swap one poisonous snake in your sleeping bag who does not have rattlers for one whose rattlers have been constantly buzzing, hoping to get a good night sleep absent the noise, gives the same results. You are still dead in the morning.
CB,
Just like I asked Bill, what is the alternative? If he’s the Republican nominee what do you do? Do you stay home? Do you vote for a third party? I just want to know how people are thinking on this issue.
Bill Mac,
I really was not trying to be insulting in my comment above, I just honestly did not know you were a Republican.
John Wylie,
I did not stay at home last time and I know I will not stay at home this time either.
I will vote for the strongest anti-abortion platform possible. If Newt Gingrich is the candidate, I will vote for him.
See John Wylie, I do not believe the “national debt” is our greatest problem. I believe the systematic slaughter of humans by the millions is our nation’s “national sin.”
We are a nation of bloody hands. How can we think God is going to give us financial stability when we are sacrificing children on the altars of pleasure and convenience?
I believe John’s statement is absolutely correct… “he does have experience with balancing the budget as I give all the credit for the properity of the 1990?s to the contract with America and the Republican takeover.”
He is not perfect but as I see it, he is the best alternative of the ones standing and Bill Mac, being “everything the republicans say they stand for” is much better than another 4 years of the “Change Obama Promised.”
We are NOT selecting the Pastor of our church or President or leader of our convention. There are a number of men that I would LOVE to see in the White House and personally have Newt as VP… working in the background BUT there is one thing about it; he will not need OJT and 4 years to get his feet on the ground.
Is he the BEST man for the job? Probably not. Is he the best one in the field, I believe he is.
><>”
And the problem is, I agree with all of you. I’m just not sure right now.
I am kinda liking this guy of late.
He has voiced more than any other candidate the understanding that moral issues are not purely private affairs, because if families weaken, government gets bigger. Uncared-for children mean more social workers. Adultery means more courts. One household becoming two usually means more poverty. Unmarried motherhood generally means more welfare.
In addition, marriage, once it becomes something for all to define as they see it, should it be only between “two people”–gender does not matter? If that becomes the case, why not one man and four women as Muslims contend? And if that view becomes legit, why not one woman and four men (let’s not be sexists) or any other combination?
Rick Santorum is making these statements. Maybe we need to take a closer look at this guy. Just my thoughts.
Back on topic:
No, don’t excommunicate Pats fans. No reason them to kick them when they’re mourning the loss to the Ravens.
And besides, they’re only the Yankees of Football.
We should explore other options: firing squad, gallows, electric chair, confinement in a small room with alternating episodes of Oprah and The View blaring at high volume, or perhaps even deportation to Iowa.
Rick, I am willing to excommunicate NE Comrades fans, or even execute them. But I think that exposing them to either Oprah or the View is cruel and unusual.
I am ignoring the Iowa comment, though the last two or three days it has not been far from the truth.
Bill Mac,
Just wondering, is there anyone running or maybe even not running that you would like to see get the nomination. I’m personally leaning toward Ron Paul or Santorum, but they will not get the nomination. The one that I wish was running is former house member J.C. Watts.
John: I mistakenly answered this question elsewhere up in another thread.
J. C. Watts? Yes. Without reservation.
JC Watts would be great, but I haven’t heard of him in a long time.
Bill Mac,
Thank you for your answers and I agree with all your picks, especially Jindal.
CB and Dave,
Yeah J.C. Watts is really well known here in OK of course, the Republicans tried to get him to run for Governor but he ultimately decided not to run. I realize he would be a relative unknown nationally but I would love to see him at least be considered for VP or a cabinet position. I really wanted McCain to pick him for VP in 08.
John Wylie,
I do think Bobby Jindal’s day will come. The guy seems to have a genuine integrity and his leadership skills have well served Louisiana in a bad time.
Everybody Including cb scott – YEA , YEA , YEA – the Patriots Won – and God did it – and I believe HE liked it !
Some day, JEB Bush may run. He was very popular in Florida, unlike the present governor who has seriously over-reached. And his family would support him, and their many friends and associates.
I can see the governor of New Jersey making a run someday.
I don’t know from J.C. Watts, so he must be an ‘insider’ for Republicans and not nationally famous.
Are there any moderate Republicans left? ‘Moderate’ in the sense of appealing to the mainstream of our country?
If so, who are they? I see JEB Bush as a ‘moderate’, but are there any more?
According to my 10 year old son “Yes.” He still brings up the fact that they cheated by “spying” on the Jets. And he doesn’t even watch football.
Must have heard that from his mother. 🙂 That or the fact that he does things to intentionally irritate his older sister, who happens to be a Patriots fan.
Smart kid.