Short answer: yes. There is nothing loving about letting someone continue in harmful behavior.

Long answer: sometimes. Jesus is our example, as you so rightly mentioned, and while he sometimes pointed out someone's sin (the woman at the well) he did it gently, in the context of relationship. Other times, however, he didn't seem to bring it up at all-- and wow did that annoy the pharisees. Jesus was big on hanging out with the sinful types: the people who extorted money from the poor, prostitutes, drunks, etc. Pharisees didn't do that, because pharisees were mostly concerned with outward sins. Jesus was interested in the heart.

I suspect you and I are very much on the same page, Holly-- and yay for that! God calls us to sometimes tell a hard truth, other times just love on people and be in relationship with them. Sometimes we are to gently point out someone's error (like the woman at the well), other times to firmly defend those people in the midst of their error (the woman caught in adultery).

How do we know when to do which? The Holy Spirit guides us. So: Whew! (: We don't have to figure it all out beforehand.

Your perspective is refreshing, Nathan, and solidly backed up by the Bible, As I said in my response above, it is an error to over-emphasize either of God's central traits-- his love and his righteousness-- over the other. Excluding God's love leads to the hateful arrogance of Fred Phelps. Excluding God's love righteousness (judgment) leads to the squishy universalism of Rob Bell. Both are errors, and both do a disservice to God.

It's culturally understandable to want to default toward love and downplay God's righteousness. But that doesn't mean it's acceptable.

I really appreciate the sentiment here. And yet, some of it leaves me a bit muddled. The author makes the following statement:

"We co-opt the idea that, since Jesus was truth and we believe in Jesus, then our agenda must be good and true. We twist truth to fit our agenda, giving us free reign to do some nasty things in the name of Jesus."

I don't immediately see how attempting to make one's agenda "good and true" inevitably equals "twisting the truth to fit our agenda". That would be an obvious error-- conforming truth to our agenda, rather than our agenda to truth. Basically, there seems to be a bit of a gap in logic here.

After all, certainly there is a continuum between being discerning with Bible truth and willfully twisting Bible truth into a weapon. I find it disconcerting that the author doesn't seem to realize this-- seems, in fact, to think that any attempt to discern truth is, necessarily, a twisting of truth.

Is the author implying that acknowledging a clearly defined Biblical truth outside of one's own entirely intimate personal life is somehow a perversion of truth? A "sin"?

In fact, there is something to be said for that. Paul himself clearly chastises believers for demanding unbelievers abide by their convictions. He essentially says, "how are you going to help the world if you avoid the people living in it? These truths (and behavior expectations) are for you because you believe." (1 Cor. 5) Clearly, demanding that the world abide by the truths of the Bible is, according even to one of the most hardcore doctrinal bad-a$$es of the Bible, foolish and counterproductive.

And yet it was also Paul who said to always be prepared to give an answer for what you believe. Obviously, truth is a double edged sword, and like any sword it must be handled extremely carefully. But I can't find any Biblical basis for the idea that Truth is never to be used outside of one's personal circumspection. Less so that the use of Truth in setting one's life agenda is a sin.

In short, I really, sincerely do appreciate the intent behind this. I remember how disgusted I was when so many Christians I knew flocked to Chik-Fil-A, showing their support for "truth" by creating an us-and-them mentality against the people who, in many cases, most need to feel God's love (not his judgment). And yet, I am aware of how easy it is for well-meaning, loving Christians to make the opposite error.

God isn't only a God of judgment. Over-emphasizing his judgment over his love is the terrible error of the Fred Phelps' of the world.

But neither is God only a God of love. Over-emphasizing his love over his judgment is also an error, one that is far, far easier to fall into.

Boy, is balance hard. But that doesn't excuse us from trying.

Thanks Jenn. It's a touchy topic that I know snags a lot of people on both sides. Now, out of raw curiosity, I am going to go to my local Borders and seek out "Trees in the Pavement".

Very well said, Jeff! Wow! I love it.

I do think that there is room in certain quarters of the faith-- even a necessity-- for creeds and doctrine, so long as those things are, at their heart, fed by that child-like faith you described. Doctrine may be the skeleton that frames the organism of the church, but simple faith is its heart and center.

"...at the core of a child-like faith sits a conviction that can't be fully expressed in words but which raises it's fierce head in the face of un-Godlike acts." WOO! That's so good and true. Preach it.

I've been hearing this argument (that religion is the cause of great evil in the world) a lot lately. I know it is very popular. But it is not true.

What is being called religion is actually extremism. The Muslim religion is not responsible for political extremists who wear that religion like a mask. Nor is the Christian religion responsible for the bigoted extremism of the Ku Klux Klan, despite their claims. The best of Christians and Muslims reject the extremists, and call them what they are.

Extremism exists in absolutely every human institution. To judge religion (any religion) as bad because of its minority extremists is truly like abandoning a solid house because it has mice in the walls.

Of course, there is lesser evil in the church, as you rightly point out. Not all errors of extremism result in bombings and hate. But again, any human institution is full of these imperfections because (gasp) it is full of humans. We can no more abandon religion because of the flaws of its members than we can abandon family, nationality, politics, or any other conceivable fraternity.

And in the interests of real fairness, I wonder, if one were to balance the good that religion (ANY religion) has done against the bad, how the scales might surprise us? It is a human tendency (and I am just as guilty of it as the next) to rest on a sense of superiority by passing lofty judgments on previously respected institutions.

Sorry if that sounded confrontational. I do mean it with respect. This is just one of those premises that I cannot accept without challenging.

Tony! I am SO glad you commented.

Intellectualism is wildly overrated. Jesus himself said that we should aim to have faith like little children. This is something that is very hard to do for an overly analytical person. In fact, I really believe that intelligence (unbalanced by the other facets of who we are, what C. S. Lewis called the "chest", as opposed to the "head") can be a serious stumbling block to one's faith.

For those who can simply cling to the reality of Jesus and his love, untainted by the lawyer-like cross-examination of intellectual analysis (my wife, for one), I envy them.

I believe we humans do have a divine instinct for what is innately right (the Bible is pretty clear on this) but we can easily spoil that if we lean too heavily on intellectual reasoning. Unfortunately, child-like faith is extremely difficult for some of us. The task before us is to work, everyday, to balance intellect with instinct, fact with faith, and revelation with relationship.

Thanks for sharing, Tony. Truly, being able to approach the gospel simply and trustfully is a VERY good thing.

George mixed up "accept" and "except", and "effect" and "affect". Duh.