Recent Posts
Jon Pratt and Emmanuel Malone We welcome back Emmanuel Malone as he answers three more [more]
Our task as churches is to make disciples, and this happens when we use the [more]
The discussion of beauty among Christians is often stymied before it starts. Some of this [more]
Jon Pratt In the most recent Nick of Time essay, Kevin Bauder introduced the subject [more]
Every church has as its mission the making of disciples, but how does that happen? [more]

Ron Horton on Christian Taste in Entertainment

Ron Horton, a philosophy professor at Bob Jones University, recently gave a presentation on Christian taste that is excellent and well-worth reading. Here’s a snippet:

What is the God’s-eye view of present-day art and art entertainment in what is called the post-Christian world? This question meets surprising resistance from Christians who one might think would want to consider it. Their resistance is secular and is twofold. First is the materialist assumption that the fundamentals of art concern physical sensations rather than consciousness and selfhood, and therefore have little or nothing to do with mind states and intentionality. Second is the belief that normativity in art is a cultural construct and therefore that art criteria are generational, relative to time and location, rather than existing universally as implanted promptings and understandings.

These premises, the psychological and the cultural, appear in the neutrality postulate and the cultural mandate. The one looks now rather dated. Investigations in neuropsychology have certified the existence of universal cognitive responses to musical and other art-related stimulations. The other, a mantra of broad evangelicalism, has become a settled orthodoxy.

His criticisms of the “neutrality postulate” and his demonstration of how emphasis on the “cultural mandate” lead to worldliness are quite helpful. On the latter, he says,

The concept of the cultural mandate spearheaded this endeavor. In order to widen the Christian witness it thinned that witness. It discouraged belief in universal aesthetic intuitions in favor of cultural relativism and subjectivity. Its devotees flirted with the pop world from a high minded but mistaken intention to repurpose it. Scripture instead instructs us to engage the world on our terms and for our purposes without adapting to it—to use the world and not ab-use it (I Cor. 7:31) in the effort to spread the gospel of Christ. Evangelistic dating, cultural as well as personal, has never been wise.

Read the whole thing at Theology in 3D: Christian Taste in Entertainment

Scott Aniol

About Scott Aniol

Scott Aniol is the founder and Executive Director of Religious Affections Ministries. He is Chair of the Worship Ministry Department at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, where he teaches courses in ministry, worship, hymnology, aesthetics, culture, and philosophy. He is the author of Worship in Song: A Biblical Approach to Music and Worship, Sound Worship: A Guide to Making Musical Choices in a Noisy World, and By the Waters of Babylon: Worship in a Post-Christian Culture, and speaks around the country in churches and conferences. He is an elder in his church in Fort Worth, TX where he resides with his wife and four children. Views posted here are his own and not necessarily those of his employer.

17 Responses to Ron Horton on Christian Taste in Entertainment

  1. Thank you for this!

    Especially significant to me: “Music, he said, is the only domain in which his atheist fellow students accept transcendence and the only one in which his evangelical friends do not.” and “. . . [conversing] about some objectionable elements in a film. ‘Don’t you know you’re just looking at pixels?'”

    Fantastic, and so telling.

  2. Thanks for posting!
    As I was reading William Edgar’s “Taking Note of Music” some years ago, I was wondering about the “cultural mandate” and why neo-Calvinists take Gen 1:28 to mean so much more than I ever thought it yielded. Horton is trying to clear the air by rejecting their interpretation wholesale.

    Whereas I think he is correct, the idea of the “cultural mandate” comes back through the back door when we consider Christianity in terms of “human flourishing” etc. – which can also be founded on many other verses. I think what neo-Calvinists generally propose is that being the salt of the Earth not only means bringing salvation but also social change – being a force for good and combating evil in high places (e.g., wrong ideas being taught at our universities). I think a case could be made that Christians have always understood this, and practiced it – whether those in ancient Rome who picked up rejected babies from the dump or the Christian politician who tries to “bless” society by preserving what is good and biblically sound and rejecting what he considers harmful to society from a Christian point of view.

    It seems to me that to seek answers to society’s problems that are based on the Scriptures is not the wrong approach – but actually very necessary. If Christians cannot come up with better ideas as to how to address these problems, I fear we are declaring some intellectual or even moral bankruptcy. Baptizing cultural forms not suitable for carrying the Gospel message is a problem, but trying to make the world a better place certainly isn’t.

    So, does Horton go too far when he rejects the idea that Christians are to bring good to society? I fear he might. And I fear we must. What good is it to “pray for your neighbour” when you won’t give him or her to eat when they need it? I think there is a role beyond spiritual service for Christians – and, to lament something related, churches who won’t take a stand with respect to unjust laws or societal error (or not even encourage their members to do so), are failing in their mandate to be a blessing to others, failing to follow the Samaritan’s example.

    I don’t see neo-Calvinists going to the extreme of “Kingdom Now” theology where they think they can fix the world completely and prepare the perfect bride before Jesus returns. But not to even try because we know this world is Satan’s domain and will therefore never be perfect until Jesus’ return would be fatalism. So, isn’t there something (or, quite a lot) in Kuyper’s ideas that we should retain before we discard the child with its bathing water?

  3. Hey, Martin. I certainly wouldn’t say that Christians shouldn’t be involved in the world at all, and I don’t think Horton would, either.

    Two primary issues for me: First, what is the mission of “THE CHURCH” as an institution, and second, what is the motivation for Christians to be involved in civil/cultural affairs.

    To the first, I believe the NT explicitly states the Church’s mission as making disciples, period. The Church has no direct mission to “change culture” or some such thing, which Neo-Calvinism insists.

    Second, the motivation for Christians to be active in the world according to the NT is not some sort of lofty eschatological motivation or “cultural mandate.” It’s simple, be holy, live like Christ, care for your neighbor etc. The problem I see with Neo-Calvinism is that it tries to motivate Christians in culture in ways not present in the New Testament.

    This causes Neo-Calvinists to try to insist that the Great Commission is simply a recasting of the “cultural mandate,” quite a stretch.

    Then, when Neo-Calvinists try to root Christian activity, or worse, the Church’s mission, in some kind of eschatological cultural mandate, I think what Horton warns about it exactly what happens.

    To paraphrase something Andy Crouch says about this: When the church tries to transform the world, the world actually transforms the church.

  4. Thanks Scott. Yes, I agree that the church’s mandate is to preach the gospel. But I am not sure that the reasoning proposed above does not lead to counter-intuitive conclusions: for example, if we strictly restrict the church’s activity to the spiritual realm, does it not follow that in Nazi Germany, the churches were right not to speak out on behalf of the Jews? Or does, in your mind, the need to preach the gospel include speaking out against injustice as well?

    With the European system of state churches, it seems to me the latter are given a lot of political power that they must use with certain topics that concern not only Christians but all of society. Not doing so would mean abandoning society without even trying to protect it from evil. On a personal level, who knows to do good but refuses to do it, sins. Is the church exempt from that principle?

    Even if there is no state church, as in North America, churches still either speak out publicly (think also of the recent Nashville Statement) on certain topics or they form parachurch organizations that can lobby government on their behalf on specific questions. Should churches NOT do that? How, then, can Christians unite as a political force to prevent unjust laws from being passed by increasingly secular governments?

    It seems to me that once we become Christians, we must change our attitudes towards culture. This means we will now prefer different music, different laws, different books, different uses of our time, and different business practices. Maybe we can distinguish issues of justice from aesthetic issues? Harnessing popular music styles in trying to “redeem” them seems to be something else than using the political process to direct society in a better direction. Again, where do you then see the baby and where, the bathwater with respect to cultural questions?

  5. Hi, Martin. Again, I’m carefully distinguishing between Churches as Institutions and individual Christians.

    I do believe that Churches as institutions (i.e., what happens on Sunday morning) should limit themselves only to making disciples. A church as an institution should not involve itself in any way in political/civil/cultural affairs.

    Individual Christians should be involved in political/civil/cultural matters as they are equipped and called by God to do so.

    So no, I do not believe that churches as institutions should speak out (on Sunday morning for example, or in an official capacity as a church) regarding (for or against) particular political parties or other civil or cultural matters.

    However, as part of “making disciples” (the narrow mission of the church), the church as an institution should speak to its congregation about how they as individuals should conduct themselves in society. They should do so more broadly (defending innocent life, freedom, etc.) rather than specifics, but if the church is doing its job to disciple its people, then those people will go out into society and live out Christian values within the vocations and spheres to which God has called them.

    I’m against the whole “Christians as a voting block” mentality, too, but Christians certain could band together for good causes, without getting institutional churches involved. And really, when they do so, they shouldn’t do it as “Christians” per se (like, we’re Christians for such and such), but rather as good citizens.

    So for something like the Nashville Statement: I haven’t read it carefully. But if it is Christians gathering together to make clear statement about an explicitly biblical matter for biblical clarity’s sake, then churches could officially endorse such a statement. In other works, they can if the statement is speaking really toward other Christians and clarifying what the Bible says on a matter. The Chicago Statement on innerancy and the Danvers statement on Biblical Manhood and Womenhood are similar.

    But if the statement is meant to speak to the broader culture or make specific policy recommendations, then I believe Christians certainly can sign/endorse/promote, but institutional churches should not.

    I think a prime example of how this should work is seen in John Newton and William Wilberforce. Newton was a pastor who discipled his people, one of which was Wilberforce. Newton did not involve his church institutionally in anti-slavery political movements, but he discipled his church member such that Wilberforce fought slavery as a Parlimentarian. That’s how it should work. It protects the spiritual mission of the church and forms Christians who live out their Christianity in the public sphere.

  6. Thanks Scott – very clear. With respect to my historical example, then, would I be right to assume that the German state churches should have made a clear statement towards their own members only: do not work in any concentration camp (or aid in the holocaust) and rather, protect Jews wherever you can?

    So, not directly directed at the government but still a clear political statement as to where Christians should stand on the issue. Is that a fair conclusion from what you said above?

    As to political lobby groups representing Christian ideals, are you saying they should always be non-denominational? Or just at some level of laity? For example, rather than having a Baptist political office in Washington supported by Baptist churches, should it rather be a “Citizens of Baptist Conviction” group that is only supported by individual Baptists?

    But would not such groups want theological or other input from their official churches on some of the questions they are working on?

    I’m happy to conclude this thread and not to draw it out much more drilling into these details, but if you could just indicate whether I understood you correctly, that would be great.

  7. Hey, don’t mind the discussion at all!

    As for your German example, I basically agree with how you described my view. On the other hand, if there’s room in the church attic to hide Jews, by all means save lives!

    As to the lobbying groups, it’s not just that I think the should be non-denominational, but that they shouldn’t be stately “Christian.” So no “Citizens of Baptist Conviction” groups; just groups formed for various political reasons, and if there happen to be a bunch of Baptists involved, great! The group shouldn’t need official sanction or input from churches if the churches are rightly discipling their members. Frankly, most pastors (who are the spokesmen for the official churches) are not equipped anyway to give advice on political policy issues. When they do, they’re usually wrong!

  8. Thanks again Scott.
    Out of curiosity, would you deny that there could be some prophetic role for the church as an institution? Is there no role/responsibility for the church, then, to decry abuse (through bad laws and practices) and warn nations about the consequences (albeit not “God’s wrath”) when they ignore God’s creation order and instructions for human society to live rightly?

    If you say you don’t think there should be Christian political groups, it seems you are disagreeing with the European system of having Christian political parties, including the one Kuyper famously created in the Netherlands (today the Christian Democratic Appeal party)?

    We don’t have such parties in North America, neither (atheist) Communist parties with any such name (as they do in Europe). I guess at the time of their founding, these parties would have represented the ideas of a great majority, based on a general societal consensus and common convictions among the population that we no longer have today. Today, they are no more Christian than the conservative parties over here. Yet, they at least gave a clear indication to voters as to which standards they intended to follow when making rules. At least a Christian voter could then measure them by whether they fulfilled their claimed allegiance to biblical principles. With a conservative party that does not call itself Christian, such evaluation can only be linked to specific representatives who often do not have much power within their parties by themselves. In Canada, only a small portion of the Conservatives have a voting record that is in line with Christian principles. Many words; maybe I am trying to say that today, it no longer matters whether a party has the “C” in its name or not. And pragmatically, if it had, it would have a very small chance of collecting enough votes to govern (in Western post-Christian societies).

    As to input from churches, I guess I meant theologians. Christians are in need of a biblical understanding of many of today’s issues, and this is not always easy without a more careful approach that requires solid exegesis. In an age where denominations are of less importance, such thinking might even be more aligned but I also think there are different ideas among Christians about some subjects – this discussion about neo-Calvinism is just such an example, and dispensationalists may have different preferences than convenantalists (?) with respect to Middle East policies, for example. So therefore, a differenatiated approach by denomination may sometimes be required. Non-Christian lobby groups may end up representing too large a pool of opinions to reflect any of these nuances.

  9. I do not see any mandate in the NT for churches to formally speak out on political, cultural, or societal matters. Where is Paul denouncing slavery, for example, or organizing marches against Nero?

    I don’t even see a mandate for Christians per se. Individual Christians are called to faithfully live our their Christianity in whatever vocation God has called them. They should do good until all and work for the betterment of human kind, to be sure.

    But I do not see any mandate, nor promise of any large-scale societal progress or redemption based on institutional churches or individual Christians “engaging the culture.” Rather, I see quite the opposite. Things will continue to grow worse and worse until Christ comes again.

    And despite the gross abuses of, for example, dispensationalists pushing for certain policies regarding Israel, I do not believe there is any clear theological position on matters such as that. My political beliefs regarding our stance toward Israel is based entirely on global political considerations, not at all on theology.

    So no, I would not support Christian political parties, Christian political organizations, or anything like that.

    The church’s mission is simple to make disciples, and the responsibility of individual Christians is to be faithful and holy. Our only biblicaly-mandated political responsibility is to pray for those who govern, so that we may live peaceful and quiet lives.

  10. SA: “I don’t even see a mandate for Christians per se … They should do good unto all and work for the betterment of human kind, to be sure.”
    MT: So then, “doing good” would include taking an active role in the political process, i.e. being “good citizens” that use their democratic rights and fulfill their responsibilities. By implication, we then have a mandate to try and make the world a better place, both by individual action but where this is not enough, also by joining forces with those who would support what we believe to be best for ourselves, our children and our society at large. It has often been said that “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” I’m afraid this is correct and therefore, as Christians we must do something when we see evil. So, when government enacts policies that harm groups of our society, we should do what we can reasonably do to counteract such policies. It’s part of “doing good” and it’s part of being responsible and taking charge of our own future and that of our kids. It does not make sense to me to tell my son, when government passed this or that detrimental law, I did nothing because the Bible tells me to just go about doing my business.

    SA: “promise of any large-scale societal progress or redemption”
    MT: Of course, I agree. There is no such promise, nor is there any hope this should be achieved this side of eternity. But societal progress HAS taken place in some areas. The example of slavery being abolished in great part due to the actions of Christians is just one example. So in my mind, we should never try and build utopia but neither can we be fatalistic and leave the bettering of the world to non-Christians. Also because what they have in mind will a) often not better the world and b) can make things worse for ourselves and our children. So it’s a logical thing to try and intervene on behalf of Truth.

    SA: “I do not believe there is any clear theological position on matters such as that”
    MT: Fair enough; I think this is wise. Surely, there are areas where Christians disagree and where there is no clear guidance from the Bible. I’d add, though, that the topic of music is somewhat similar there and we should at least make an effort to develop Christian principles also for international relations etc.

    SA: “Our only biblically-mandated political responsibility is to pray for those who govern”
    MT: See above. Strictly spoken I agree with your statement but indirectly, I think our responsibilities go much further – at least in a free society. Restricting our Christian responsibilities to only prayer means giving up any responsibility for the public realm, where Christians can make a real difference. It would seem to me that “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going” also applies to our influence beyond our own four walls.

    SA: “The church’s mission is simply to make disciples”
    MT: OK, but then who equips Christians to function well in society based on biblical principles? We could defer to para-church organizations but ultimately, I think training and equipping Christians is the local church’s task. A disciple is not only someone who is converted but also someone who is discipled = equipped and trained. Such training cannot be restricted to prayer and Bible reading but must also include applying the Bible rightly to our lives, including our professional lives and our roles within society. I don’t see how churches can ultimately get around responding to those needs of Christians looking for biblically-based guidance.

    SA: Mandated.
    MT: But does everything have to be literally mandated? This is not about corporate worship, so I am not sure we can cast the discussion in terms of regulatory and normative.
    Let’s not forget the historical context when Paul wrote. Christians were a small minority. They did not participate in government but were governed by a centralized foreign power (Rome). Picketing for slaves’ human rights was not an option, nor was it a method of protest at the time. So during that initial period, I think Paul did not think about Christians’ political weight yet. But later on, Christians (whether they truly were such or not) started to dominate government in Europe and the Middle East. This immediately raises questions as to what good government is from a Christian perspective.

    Today, we are returning to more of a “Roman” situation where Christians constitute a minority that lives under pagan governance. But at least in North America, we still have some democratic opportunities to prevent bad things from happening. And any Christian in government must think about what policies (s)he can possibly support and how society’s problems should be addressed while respecting God’s creation order.

    My point being, we cannot escape our responsibility as political beings.

    Now, a “secular” or “neutral” organization will necessarily base itself on something other than biblical principles, even if their goals or methods may sometimes be congruent with the latter. But if, as a Christian, I want my government to respect my religious freedoms then how do I go about putting my money where my mouth is? I can support some lobby organization that is conservative in its approach but may then also support some of their goals that are incongruent with the Bible. A bit like Obamacare – I may be in favour of health care but not of abortion. Yet, with the Democrats’ approach, I can only get both together.

    If I support a Christian organization – especially one that is denominational – I have an order of magnitude more certainty they will stand for positions that are biblically based and in line with my own convictions (often, these organizations are also think tanks, or related to such, and can help me in turn form my own opinions on complex questions, thus fulfilling the training function mentioned above).

    So, to end this long post, I am not sure that everything we do with respect to culture must be clearly mandated in the Bible. But it must be congruent with it, and based on a Christian worldview. This is fairly impossible to achieve with non-Christian institutions; if they are not Christian, they will (at least tend to) be pagan.

  11. Sorry for the delay. Life happened. :)

    A couple clarifications based on your questions and comments.

    Regarding individual Christians in society, I think where I differ from what you’ve said is that I see no universal, over-arching mandate for any individual Christian in society. So no, I actually don’t think political involvement is necessarily mandated for every Christian. I believe an individual’s mandate from God comes from his specific calling in individual lives. For some, that might be actively political involvement, for others not.

    Second, I believe for a church as institution to do anything as an institution, it must be biblically mandated. Otherwise it risks contradicting liberty of conscience. The regulative principle is not only limited to corporate worship; it applies to anything the church formally does as an institution.

    Having said that, I do need to make clear that I do not believe “making disciples” is at all limited to evangelizing people. That is the first step, but “making disciples” also includes helping to teach people how to live as Christians in their various vocations. So in that sense, a church can speak to the individual Christian’s life in society (rooted in the individual’s calling), though the church should stay in the realm of biblical principle and stay clear of specific policy, parties, programs, or candidates.

  12. Thanks Scott – no worries, gave me a break, too. I can agree with most you wrote. I also share your concerns about the role of the church; I think your view is very straightforward.

    Yet, I think we must distinguish times and situations. As it is clear that the mandate of the church is to preach the gospel and to equip the saints, I sometimes wonder what should be included in that. There are many institutions of learning and their aims and responsibilities seems to overlap. For example, government may use public schools to educate citizens about the democratic process, and encourage young citizens to take part in the democratic process – whether as a professional politician or as a citizen with or without a specific cause. But if we accept that Christians should be “model citizens” (not with respect to any vocation but in a general sense) then in democratic countries, this would mean participating in the democratic process. It seems to me that we are privileged in “free” countries, and that with that privilege come certain civic responsibilities as well. The right to vote becomes, for Christians, an obligation to “do good” by using their voice and vote for candidates likely to conserve good things and improve the state of our society.

    If members of a congregation become lethargic with respect to their civic responsibilities, should the church then speak to that subject? Surely, as you point out, not with respect to supporting a specific party or candidate but at least with respect to supporting candidates who come at least close to representing Christian values? Is it not part of the testimony of the church that its members behave responsibly in the various areas of life “out there”? Then there seems to be a “political” mandate to some degree at least.

    I am saying such a mandate does not exist per se but it is created in countries where voting, as well as further-going participation in the political process, are options granted by government. In Rome, there were no such options. Neither in some countries today, such as North Korea. I do not say that Christians should lobby government there.

    So I do not derive any mandate to become politically active from the Scriptures directly but only indirectly. It is part of “doing good” and protecting the week, the needy, etc. One way of doing so is by directly helping them personally or through a church ministry, another through third-party charities, another through government and good policies. I think to do the best possible job, action needs to be taken at all of these levels.

    So although the Bible does not say we should “lobby government” for better policies, it seems to be the right thing to do “in light of the Bible” since it is a) commonsense (if we can use our democratic rights to prevent evil or create good, and to leave the world better than it otherwise would be to our children, we should definitely use them in any way we can) and b) reflects the Bible’s commands to “do good”, help the orphan, speak for justice, “keep peace with everyone”, etc. Many of the commands given to Christians individually are aided or facilitated if society’s goals and laws are aligned with them. So, speaking to government for the poor, the sick (e.g., protecting them from euthanasia laws) etc. would fall within these mandates as well, just as charitable giving through the church or other institutions would help them.

    So, whereas it is not every Christian’s calling to become a politician, I think it is every Christian’s calling to be “salt and light” in a world that is increasingly dominated by pagan ideas. Fighting power “in high places” appears to include a contest of ideas, so critiquing policies would be part of that.

    Finally, on the church as an institution I think I must leave the following considerations as a research task, rather than a definite answer as to the church’s role:

    1) There may be a difference between how institutional churches operate and how they should operate biblically. For example, we do not have state churches in North America. Neo-Calvinists also support a strict separation between the spheres of church and state. But where there ARE state churches, must these churches take on some prophetic role? Does their existence and the power that comes with it mean they must use these powers for good? Surely, one would have hoped that the Catholic Church in Rwanda would have spoken out strongly against the nascent racism before the genocide took place. They failed – but apparently could have prevented a great evil if they had done so. In a country where a large number of people belong to the same large denomination, their speaking out against certain policies usually has some political weight, even if it is directed towards their own members only. But “political” letters from bishops etc. could then be seen as a first step to direct government BEFORE any more drastic action is taken, such as openly opposing certain policies from the pulpit.

    A bit like this: I don’t think there should be a pope. But since there is one, it is even worse if he does not use the influence he has to speak for justice.

    2) The other question is the vacuum left by other institutions of learning, and the testimony of the church. We could argue that the church needs to teach about nutrition in order to fight obesity if government or other institutions do not address this issue sufficiently (there are even a few verses in the Bible that go in that direction). Likewise, we need to prepare the next generation to live in a society that is not only post- but rather, anti-Christian. Our children risk being marginalized and rejected in the business world if their views about certain issues are known. Do we prepare them to hide their views? Or to speak out and risk losing their jobs (or worse)? Or to become outspoken and use the democratic potential they each have to try and counteract the steady loss of liberties and privileges the Western church is currently experiencing? And why not band together by denomination to try and formulate better policies? I think the world is clamoring for better concepts, and Christianity has a lot to contribute in this respect. Neo-Calvinists do seem to have a point that Christ calls all of the world “His” – not that all cultural artifacts can be redeemed but in the sense that He created the world, there is a creation order and that respecting this God-given order is the best way of governing. I’m afraid I have repeated myself somewhat here but my question is, do we really need a specific mandate for this?

  13. Hi Scott,
    Sorry to post here again but I had conversations about this on another forum and wonder if we could speak about a more concrete example.
    It may be imminent in Western societies that churches will lose their charitable status. So, if any law were under discussion to recommend the removal of tax-free status of faith-based organizations, I would submit churches then have standing before law to defend themselves against such laws. Moreover, they would likely want to make submissions to government officials and MPs in order to influence voting on this subject. So they would automatically be drawn into the political process, being the subject of such laws.

    Now, given this seems realistic, I would further submit that if churches were willing to defend their case in a court and/or by defending their current status against any future laws that may question it, they would be hypocrites if they did not also speak up when other groups are seeing their freedoms threatened by new laws. For example, if certain religious groups (e.g., Muslims) were severely restricted in their worship activities (e.g., coming under state control as in China), should Christian churches then not also protest?
    I’m hoping this might make our exchange more concrete.
    Happy new year,

  14. And neither in any other case? If they impose employment guidelines that would force churches to employ a minimum number of people of homosexual orientation or with gender dysphoria, for example? Or when pastors would be jailed for inciting hatred whenever they present a traditional view of family and marriage? Or maybe if churches were publicly stigmatized by forcing them to put signs up in front of the building stating that “this community holds intolerant views contrary to the inclusive policies of this state’s government”? Why would one not want to defend oneself against such madness?

  15. In none of those cases would I encourage CHURCHES as institutions to get involved in any kind of political process. In a democratic republic, I would certainly encourage CHRISTIANS to exercise their rights as they believe fitting, but even then I would encourage care in how vigilant to be.

Leave a reply