Christian: Has anyone else noticed how quick the Church is to put down the World for their lack of morals, ethics, and direction? I've noticed this recently with the news of the recent school shootings. "That's why the world needs Jesus," we say. "That's what happens when prayer is taken out of schools," we demand. And when our (ex)President has immoral problems, we complain about how the USA is declining morally without God. Yet, when a pastor/priest is accused of inappropriate sexual activity or a church splits or a major figurehead in the church is brought down, we make excuses for ourselves. What good does it do for the Church to judge the World--its example isn't a whole lot better. I could find other organizations in the world who work with higher integrity and strive to love others--and these can be found outside the faith. So why do we preach from our pulpits against the World (while ignoring its good qualities), but hardly ever to ourselves (while ignoring our bad qualities)? Suicide, divorce, fighting, selfishness, lack of morals...these things seem to be in the Church just about as much as they are in the World. What's wrong here? How big is the log in our eye?  According to Jesus' words here, we'll be judged in the same measure that we judge others...so if the World's "going to hell" for their deeds, how sure can we be of our salvation? Are we worse off than they are? Aren't we further away from our standard than they are from theirs? How does this help our reputation in the World?

Faithful: Certainly, I must agree that the Church points the finger far more quickly than it ought.  However, you are suggesting that the Church not say anything to the world.  How can this ever work?  Perhaps there could be a different method of going about our expression of the truth, but the truth is still the truth and deserves to be expressed in one fashion or another.  We look at the world and see its pain.  We know there is an answer and even what that answer is... and you expect us to stay quiet?  What right would we have to call ourselves Christian if we did that?  However, I will concede that we err in two major categories.  The first is that we do not fully think through how we ought to respond to a given situation;   all of our statements and response to an action are knee-jerk reactions.   Knee-jerk reactions are, by nature, extremely predictable.  The world knows what we're going to say, and they just have to smack our knees to hear it again.   Secondly, we have no sense of variety or creativity when approaching these topics.   We fail to realize that there are times where silent action is the most powerful tool of persuasion we can use.  Yet, we can never simply sit idly by.  Sure, we have our own problems, but it is important for us to recognize that the world needs Jesus, and we must promote Him and let Him work out the details.

Hopeful:  I would have to agree with Faithful on at least one of his two points.  The biggest problem with the Christian reaction to immorality is that it is painfully predictable.  Still, this does not answer how the church should react to the immoral actions of an immoral world.  Just sitting back and letting it happen is unacceptable.  Perhaps the problem is that we are centering more on reacting than we are on influencing.  I am struck by the way that Jesus approached his culture.  He almost seemed at every turn to want to lead by example, to make friends with those in the "world" and show them that what He taught was relevant.  When you are an influence instead of a reaction, knee-jerking is just not quite as easy as it used to be.

Christian: Hopeful has hit onto something, I believe. If you study Jesus' words as recorded in the Bible, he rarely, if ever, confronts the government or worldly institutions because of their lack of character. However, much of his message is to the religious groups--the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the priests, etc. It seems to me that Jesus, as Hopeful indicated, influenced the world by His abnormal actions--compassion, authority in teaching, etc. (Even Paul, when he addresses the faults of the World, is directing his comments to Christians, not the world. Christians shouldn't be like the World.) Faithful questions a Church who says nothing to the World. Why? If we are so concerned with changing the World's standards, I'd say it's time to stop "speaking out" (boycotts, marches, pickets) and start "looking in" (pray, love each other, hold each other accountable tightly, train, disciple) instead.

Faithful: I question a Church that doesn't take stock of where the world is and put it up against Scripture.  Certainly, it cannot be our primary focus.   It is interesting to contemplate the method of persuasion that Jesus mentioned.   "They shall know you are Christians by your love."  It wasn't because of our words, but because of our actions that the world is to take account of us and recognize us as being with Christ.  That is, by far, the greatest indictment of the Church that I have ever read.  When the world can so easily point out the Church pointing the finger of condescension against the world and mock it, it is plain to see that the Church has totally missed Christ's point... that of love.  On the other hand, I am not willing to concede that the Church must ignore whatever the world chooses to do.  We are to be salt and light.  What is salt if it does not sting or light if it does not shine?

Christian: I'm simply requesting that the Church play the "Quiet Game." Did anyone else's parents have their kids play this game? It usually happened when their kids were being annoying and not saying anything worthwhile. My challenge: Can the Church keep its mouth shut for a while? How long would it be until we lost at the Quiet Game? Should we ignore what the world is doing? No, probably not. But how do we combat its threat? Who/what really is our enemy? I would dare say that the world isn't our enemy until it seeps into the Church. And then our enemy really becomes ourselves. So once again, I believe we should be focusing on ourselves. Let's just focus on keeping ourselves untouched by the World's standards, while somehow touching the World instead.

Hopeful:  While I agree with many of Christian's points, I must digress on perhaps his biggest one.  The Church should be more influential than reactionary, but that does not mean it shouldn't react.  When I say that we should be influential, I say that realizing that sometimes reaction is the only way one can be influential.  The Church is not commanded to stand silent.  At the same time, we must ask ourselves exactly what good and what bad results come from the reactions Christian leaders customarily give.  Maybe there is a better answer than the one the "world" is expecting to hear.  I would assert that it would depend on the circumstance, but creativity and forethought should be priorities when reaction is deemed necessary.

Christian: I won't rule out the use of reaction within the Church. After all, reaction connotes an impulsive move. But what should be our reaction? Referring back to my first example, when a school shooting occurs, should our reaction be speaking out against the recent supposed banishing of prayer in school, or should we rush to stand alongside the grieving? Should we speak out, or should we reach out? React, Church, but react wisely. If our next President is involved in a gross, immoral situation, shouldn't we mourn for the country instead of preaching at it? In other words, doesn't it say something about the internal heart of the Church by the way we react? The impulsive responses of the Church demonstrate what lies within itself. Has the Church traded the ability to weep for the lust of power to reform?