The problem with creating ‘Christian’ versions of things (COMMENTARY)

Print More
A collection of Julie Chew is showcased during 2015 Christian Fashion Week. Photo courtesy of Fotocafe Photography

A collection of Julie Chew is showcased during 2015 Christian Fashion Week. Photo courtesy of Fotocafe Photography

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

NEW YORK (RNS) The problem with Christian-specific events -- especially those run under the best of intentions, as Christian Fashion Week appeared to be -- is that they hermetically seal off any good intentions from reaching the secular world.

  • opheliart

    “Most would likely attribute that gap to the issue of modesty. But the founders of Christian Fashion Week, to their credit, see it instead as an issue of industry ethics and environmental responsibility. As Jose Gomez, one of the four founders of CFW, told The New York Times, the central philosophy behind Christian Fashion Week is the acronym CARE, which stands for contextual modesty, affordability, responsible use of natural resources and ethical hiring and casting.”

    I am not really into these types of events, but I like what is happening with this group. If the “christian” can continue in this vein, they set a good example, and should continue, regardless of all else happening. Divisions do happen, and are often necessary. This group shouldn’t concern itself with pleasing others of the same or opposing interests/attitudes, but follow the honest and ethical course … which may be an exciting new course for the believer.

  • Pingback: The problem with creating ‘Christian’ versions of things (COMMENTARY) - by Father Ron Gronowski - Rev Ron Gronowski - The Reverend()

  • I would just like to point out the hypocrisy here seeing as the author himself is just a Christian version of Scott.

  • Brian

    I agree with much of this article. But the comparison to RFRA seems unfair.

    “Why not just bring Christian ideas of love and human goodness to a collective, worldwide conversation? ”

    Response: because In some cases its because our ideas are very unwelcome. What gay couple wants a Christian baker to make their cake if they consider the celebration of a homosexual marriage to be an abomination? And why can’t a Christian make decisions, in some cases, that participation in certain events are against their conscious? Isn’t that what RFRA is about? This article seems to be making the same mistake that non-Christians have made about RFRA: that its about the right for any business to send any person out of their door just because they appear to be gay – or some other such nonsense. It’s pretty sad that this misunderstanding is coming from a Christian voice.

  • Larry

    I am going to tell you what I tell everyone who makes up such excuses for discrimination:

    You are lying.

    Your concern for small business people is a sham to cover up your actual goal. Total legalized discrimination against gay people and whomever annoys you.

    When RFRA laws are changed to remove the spectre of total discrimination against gays, people like yourself are up in arms. So claiming you are not willing to do “certain acts” is just a pretense. The reality is in your eyes treating a gay person like a customer or even just a human being is an abominable act which violates your delicate religious sensibilities.

    Before you start with phony analogies and canned arguments about bakers and T-shirt printers I will say this:

    There is always another course of action to take. If you can’t think of a way besides discrimination, you are too dumb to survive in any business.


  • James Carr

    Nothing wrong, then, with the Black United Way, the Black Miss America Contest, the Black Acting Awards, the Gay Pride Parades, …………..? These are not divisive, or xenophobic are they? It’s just those damn Christians.

    The US should outlaw religion altogether and form a State Religion.
    Oh, there is one?
    Atheism? That’s the name of it?
    Never mind, readers.

  • Ray Mills

    Amen to your article Scott!. I popped the Christian “bubble” back in 1995 and have never looked back. I don’t completely avoid things labeled “Christian” because there were a few good records from that time (thank you Jars of Clay), but trying to make my way in that bubble was an exercise in futility. I live in the world God created and have found immense beauty that is far more lovely than the copycats I settled with in the bubble. Thank you so much for writing this.

  • Mark

    You are correct that there is always another course of action to take. For example, businesses could tell people they do not cater weddings and only make generic wedding cakes for everyone. Or if they want to cater religious weddings only, they can enter specific performance contracts only with religious establishments that support Christian ideas of marriage. This way there is no discrimination while simultaneously maintaining religious freedom.

    I also noticed the NCAA and several states were wanting to boycott Indiana. Isn’t that a novel idea! With the free market people can always take their business elsewhere instead of making a federal case out of it. It isn’t like a wedding cake and flowers are required necessities such as a job or medical care.

  • Lively Granddad

    All I hear in the RFRA arguments is the same reworked arguments that were tried and failed during the Civil Rights era of the 60’s — that it’s “God’s way”, that they shouldn’t have to serve anyone they don’t want to serve because their religious faith sees the others as inferior, that they shouldn’t be bound by laws even in business of serving everyone equally if it means having to compromise on their religious beliefs. That they are even being given any credence is due to the corruption of the Supreme Court under W and the Roberts’ court that didn’t look at the question of someone’s religion trumping federal law and laugh out loud. They intend to push their agenda while they think they still have a chance to have it accepted by SCOTUS in its current makeup, and if they get their way, “God help us all.” It will be all out warfare as they try to regulate every action and behavior by removing true freedom from religion in America.

  • “Why not just bring Christian ideas of love and human goodness to a collective, worldwide conversation?”

    What a mirage.

    Christian ideas of love: unquestioning obedience and self abjection
    Christian ideas of human goodness: Servility and Sado-Masochism

    Obedience: “Follow the Law”
    Abjection: “You are Nothing”
    Servility: “Commit your whole self”
    Sado-Masochism: “Love God which you are commanded to mortally fear”

    The problem with creating Christian versions of things is that they are entirely produced to sell a very unhealthy product.

    Morality is about doing what is right no matter what you are told.
    Religion is about doing what you are told no matter what is right.

    We are better off questioning all of it.

  • First off, thanks to Scott for the mention and thought-provoking article about our event and organization. I do understand the concerns of this article. But, believe it or not, I think that Christian Fashion Week actually defies your points. Most of the participants in Christian Fashion Week are non-Christians, including many of the designers. Even the attendees and media are mostly secular. You see, Christian Fashion Week is not about exclusion or separation. It’s about making a statement as PART of the fashion community – and that community has responded. As a contrast, the church and Christian community is still very divided as to whether or not it wants to support a fashion event. This has actually freed us to move away from the shallowness of the modesty platform and into more consequential issues. We don’t have to talk Christianese. to be Christians, and we don’t. As a result, we have a great reputation & the atmosphere is diverse & exciting. Keep your mind open :)…

  • Yon

    When someone asks me to participate in an activity, I should be allowed to decline. I may be asked to justify my decision but I’m under no obligation to give it whether I have a reason or not.

    When I offer my services, I should not have to give up my ability to decline. Certainly there could be occasions where I may be asked to provide those services in a setting in which I object. If I decline, I lose business so it’s not a decision to be made lightly. If my competitor will provide those services, I lose out again. Still, I should be able to make that decision and not be compelled.

    I can think of many situations where a business owner might be asked to do something he might object to. The objection doesn’t have to be religious in nature, it could just be something he is uncomfortable with. What about a DJ who’s asked to play music at a party? Should he be able to decline if he feels underage drinking will be going on even if he only suspects it? There are many other…

  • “Keep your mind open”

    Gods are optional. That is how open-minded I am.
    But Religion says Gods are necessary. In an absolutist way. It is Jesus or the highway.

    Religion poisons whatever it gets itself into. It makes rules nobody can follow and it discriminates against anyone who is not already a member.

    I think it is terrible to have Christian (or Muslim) themed events.
    But I fully support your Constitutional right to do so.

  • Thank you, Opheliart. We’ll do our very best. We don’t always succeed, but we are trying hard to stay as sincere as possible with what we are doing with Christian Fashion Week.

  • In reality, comparing Christian Fashion Week to RFRA, especially when some non-Christians, including members of the LGBT community, participate in it, is a real mistake. Get to know us. You might be surprised. We don’t push anyone away and encourage everyone involved. Regardless of our varying views on issues like this, our stance is that we won’t ask about your sin if you promise not to ask about ours. We are all responsible for our own relationship with God.

  • Atheist. Actually, your statement is not accurate. Religion does not say that gods are necessary. Religion says that god(s) are REAL. It then promotes life from that world view.

    In terms of your claim that “religion poisons whatever it gets itself into. It makes rules nobody can follow and it discriminates against anyone who is not already a member,” I think that the participants in CFW would disagree with you, although I definitely understand where you are coming from. In many cases, religious people DO have that effect, and there is no way to deny that. But, in the case of CFW, we don’t promote a set of rules that people cannot follow, nor do we discriminate against anyone. The entire BASIS of Christian Fashion Week is actually INCLUSION. Like I said, get to know us. Keep your mind open.

  • Boy, you really do have a sad view of faith and Christianity. But, I can’t blame you. I see what you are talking about too often, and I hate it. But, these concepts are not the basis for Christianity. Actually, much of what you are advocating is.

    Jesus questioned the religious status quo.
    Jesus did not advocate blind faith.
    Jesus did not advocate following the law.

    What you see as a “problem” with Christian things is entirely driven by misperception, although reinforced by ignorant people of faith. Christian Fashion Week isn’t about shoving anything down people’s throats. It’s about DEPROGRAMMING the Church community from toxic, oppressive views of modesty as well as advocating against excesses that hurt people within the fashion community – like slavery, environmental pollution, and expensive, disposable fashion. These are common ideals to anyone who cares about this world.

  • Jose Gomez:

    “Jesus questioned the religious status quo.”
    No. Jesus (the character, no one can say how many of these legends are true) is so discrepantly described nobody his mission is unknown. He forcefully enforced and yet disowned Yahweh.
    “I have come to bring fire on the earth… what constraints…Do you think I came to bring peace on Earth? No, but division.” – Jesus (Luke 12:49-51)
    Yet he endorses Yahweh:
    “Did not Moses give you the law? and yet none of you keepeth the law” – Jesus (John 7:19)

    “Jesus did not advocate blind faith.”
    Of Course he did!
    “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.” – Jesus (Matthew 16:25)
    “Take therefore no thought for the morrow…” (MATTHEW 6:34)

    Jesus did not advocate following the law.
    Wrong again! Jesus said, “Follow the Commandments..”..He PARROTS LEVITICUS 19:13!! (Mark 10:19 ‘do not defraud’)

  • @Jose Gomez,

    “Religion does not say that gods are necessary. Religion says that god(s) are REAL.”

    Yes. Religion says that it is necessary to pay attention to those Gods and give them worship or you will be thrown to Eternal Hell.
    (You make my points for me.)

    The Christian way (I was a Christian for decades) is to be inclusive, grow your group, worship Jesus in love – then warn the outsiders later:

    “The only cure for homosexuals is that they be put to death” – Pastor Robbie Galaty, Tennessee Megachurch, Sept 4, 2014

    The welcome feels great, but later
    someone reads the Epistles:

    “If anyone does not love the Lord, let that person be cursed!” (1 Corinthians 16:22)
    “deem them unworthy…remove your blessings of peace.” – JESUS (Matthew 10:13)

    With religion, you can get in but you can’t get out. And that alone is reason to doubt its value.

    You have every right to it. I support your rights.
    But these claims should all be boldly questioned by…

  • @Jose Gomez,

    “we won’t ask about your sin if you promise not to ask about ours.”

    Then why bring up Jesus at all? Why not just drop all the Christian stuff and let everyone participate with no mention of Christianity?
    That would free everyone and leave all judgements about who is sinning to God (if he is paying attention). Kind of like the way the rest of the world functions without God being ever mentioned.

    You have every right to your beliefs – I support those rights 100%.

    But I have never seen a Christian fellowship that didn’t eventually deteriorate because of the divisiveness and frank hatreds buried in the Christian messages.

    “Avoid Them” – Romans (16:17)
    “Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” (1 Corinthians 15:33)

  • @Jose Gomez,

    “These are common ideals to anyone who cares about this world.”

    You are absolutely right – the world is desperate for people with your kind of attitude. You are ignoring the Bible teachings – good for you. You have cherry picked and found a positive message to share. I don’t blame you.
    Good for you.

    But I see religion as counterproductive to those goals. Christianity is saddled to the Bible whether one likes it or not. Dominionism, Creationism, prejudice against LGBT and harsh biblical judgements are working against those problems you are trying to address. Religion is in the way (which is why you are watering it down so much).

    But I wish you luck. I sincerely hope the results are better for you than they have been elsewhere.

  • opheliart

    Hi Jose,

    You are free to debate A. M., but know that he is an expert on Jesus.


  • Scott, thank you so much for this well-thought-out article. I consider one sentence to capture my impression of the article: “The problem with [Christian-specific events] is that separateness, no matter how you slice it, is always going to end badly.” You catapulted me back into that “Christian bubble,” as I called it. Thirty years ago, I attended Moody Bible Institute. (And many earnest, “God-honoring” MBI alums are still happily within that same bubble.) However–I was never totally immersed in it. Could stand back, even at the time, and make pointed and barbed commentary about it. Yes, one thousand times, yes, to just about everything you say in this article. Thank you again! @chaplaineliza

  • Larry

    No Yon, when you regularly “participate” in activities as part of your profession and hold yourself out to the general public to do so for anyone willing to plunk down money on the counter, you do not get that option. You have to serve those people you can regardless of your personal animosities towards them.

    When you are engaged in open commerce you are doing more than personal acts, you are providing for the entire public. Closing off avenues of commerce to people based on personal prejudices becomes a harm to the public. If you want that option, you can’t be doing business to the general public. Its that simple. You don’t get to take advantage of open commerce without following the rules for it. You want to play by your rules, you have to play a different game

    If you can’t come up with an action in your business besides discriminating against the customers, you are too stupid to remain in business. There is ALWAYS an alternative You don’t need new laws for that.

  • Andrea

    Sir Atheist, your quoted verses don’t relate to Jose’s arguments: “Jesus questioned the religious status quo.” Meaning: Ate with tax collectors, hung out with prostitutes, “harvested” on the Sab called religious leaders “brood of vipers”… He questioned/reinterpreted the establishment/Pharisee/ruling religious leaders’ doctrine/status quo.
    Re: “blind faith.”
    “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.” – this states nothing regarding the why of making this choice to follow Him. “Take therefore no thought for the morrow…” this is about worrying/planning, not blind faith.
    “Jesus did not advocate following the law.” This one is trickier/more complex. Your verse on this better fit, but lacked context. See John 7:9- pretty much no one can keep the law v. Mark 10:9- keep law. Irreconcilable until Jesus in other verses boils it down to “love God, love others” to inform the intent of the remaining law.

  • dmj76

    Well said!

  • dmj76

    Please correct me if I am wrong – your own personal experience with Christianity is with a deeply conservative form.

  • Yon

    You end with “There is ALWAYS an alternative”. but you started with “You have to serve those people you can regardless of your personal animosities towards them.” so what alternative are you suggesting? If someone is asking you to participate in an activity that goes against what you believe to be correct, what other alternative do you have besides politely demurring or caving in and participating?
    Please note that I am talking about having a problem with the activity, not with the person. You are conflicting the two.
    A person comes into a restaurant for a meal. You serve him.
    A person comes into a restaurant to book it for a party. First question, “What kind of party will it be?”
    The issue is not the person. It’s the activity.

  • Scarlet

    I think where many/most christians fall flat is the entire idea of taking such pride in being different that they wear the label loudly so that everybody KNOWS they are different. Having everything “Christianized” doesn’t bring anybody to Jesus ever for any reason. In fact, it causes people to run away.

    Tell people about Christianity, and IF NECESSARY, use words. It is our actions and humbleness that will reflect the face of God, not slapping the word “Christian” on things. You have good ideas, sound principles, and if you were to just do these things in the real world without the label, you would have a much greater impact. Bring your virtue to the world, don’t hide it away on an unattainable mountain. How much future would you get hosting a CARE fashion week, focusing on the principles rather than the label of “christian”?

  • Larry

    Yon, if you don’t want to serve the general public, don’t do business in open commerce. Keep it to word if mouth, membership clubs or strictly with a limited venue such as within church functions.

    Your argument is disingenuous. It is used by people whose definition of “unconscionable act” is treating a customer like a human being because they happen to be of a class of people they are bigoted against. The kind of person is always the issue with this argument. You are just too cowardly to say that in public. But when Indiana was looking to alter their RFRA to preclude general discrimination, people using arguments like yours were up in arms.

    So pardon me if I don’t believe you have a legitimate point to make. Events have shown how phony people like yourself have been.

  • Bill

    Part of what I hear in the comment is that this “Christian Fashion Week,” which is being put together for very commendable purposes, could have been called “socially responsible fashion week” or Just (as in justice) Fashion Week,” but by instead connecting these mercy and fairness driven reforms and labelling them as Christian, they are in fact alienating that which they claim that they wish to transform.

  • Rev. V. Ruth Schulenberg

    It would be great if the writer could use inclusive language, particularly when arguing against isolationism:

    “For as long as man has contemplated his existence, he has contemplated the problem of the ‘other,’ a problem that, more often than not, devolves into outright fear”

  • Excellent article!

    The only thing I would add is that by creating our own versions of what the world does, Christians also wind up not having to do them as well as the world. That relieves us from the burden of excellence, which is a great relief to many, I’m sure.

    My focus on making this comment is in music, fiction-writing, and filmmaking, by the way. I don’t know much about Christian Fashion Week.

  • Diogenes

    It’s odd that homosexuality seems to enter every discussion about the public square. As an advocate of limited government, I suggest that the free market works best when it generally free; i.e. if there are vendors whose consciences are violated by proving services for gay weddings, let market forces be the method of admonishing them, not the heavy hand of government. This would be a sure method of testing their scruples without vengeful proscription. As far as the ‘ghettoization’ which ensues from ‘bubbles,’ such a practice strikes me as shallow and not to the point. Jesus called Christians to be in the world, but not of the world, and to be a light shining in darkness…more like a warm glowing candle, not an incandescent bulb which light is shielded by a thin brittle shield.

  • Diogenes

    grammatical corrections from a grammar Nazi; ‘works best when IT’S generally free;’ and ‘violated by PROVIDING services…’ Sorry.

  • Pingback: Should Christians Stop Creating Christian Versions of Secular Things? | BCNN1 WP()

  • Pingback: BCNN2 » Blog Archive » Should Christians Stop Creating Christian Versions of Secular Things?()

  • Larry

    So as an advocate of limited government, you would also be against the idea of using the law to limit the options of people seeking contraception or of women to make personal choices as to the disposition of pregnancies?

    The problem with Libertarian appeals is that they have no concept of actual civil liberties. You would rather advocate “might makes right” rather than show concern for people whose rights would be limited or attacked by political majorities. A perfect description of the nonsense our Founders sought to avoid in forming a democratic system. “The tyranny of the majority” sought to prevent with the Bill of Rights and then was expanded by the 14th Amendment.

    Government is the chief protector of civil liberties. Limiting its power is simply license for the rights of others to be trampled. Being not from said political minority, your level of care is demonstratively zero.

  • My background has nothing to do with this.

    Your religion commands murder.
    Your religion commands rape.
    Your religion command divisiveness and slavery and subjugation of women and gays!

    What is good about it? Love?
    What Love? What compassion? Where?

    There is more decency in Aesop’s fables.

    God commands killing of babies and sweet children.

    “Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes.” (Isaiah 13:15)
    Jesus agrees! (JOHN 1:17), (Mark 10:19)

    Modern people should have absolutely no business with this nonsense.

  • @Andrea,

    Jesus advocated completely wild and uncivilized behavior.
    These terrible delusions about the ‘goodness’ of Jesus must end:

    “Don’t waste….on the people who are unholy. Don’t throw your pearls to pigs!” – JESUS (Matthew 7:6)

    Now what good is this racist, divisive twaddle?
    What good is any of this to humanity?


    “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even their own life–such a person cannot be my disciple.” – JESUS (LUKE 14:26).

    Jesus says YOU MUST NOT LOVE those who question Jesus!
    You must abandon them! Blind faith in Jesus is what he is requiring!

    Even if your loved ones are just confused about Jesus and trying to sort out his various messages, you have no choice !!

    This is simple outward, ad hoc aggression!
    It is harsh, judgemental, incendiary nonsense.

  • dallas

    To be fair, some time ago there used to be at least some Christian music that didn’t sound like it copied the latest secular trends. It was honest, and actually original. Unfortunately, it didn’t last long.

  • Be Brave

    ” . . . As a result, they do not live the rest of their earthly lives for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you.”

    Looks like Peter saw Scott Christian coming from 2000-years away.

    So many pathetic attempts to get Christians to crawl back to the filth they chose to leave behind. And when they don’t, when they live as Jesus and the Apostles describe they should, well, you have another idiocy piece like dear ol’ Scott’s here.

    Scott may want to look up what the word Ekklesia actually means. Christians are “called out” of the world and its ways. They are not encouraged to run back into it once they have made the choice to follow Christ and reject the licentiousness of the world.

  • BB,

    “follow Christ and reject the licentiousness of the world.”

    Typical comment of someone who does not know anything about Jesus or the Bible:


    “Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, ‘I have no husband.’
    Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, ‘I have no husband’: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband.” (JOHN 4:16-18)

    Turning to the Bible for guidance is a big mistake. But God recommends lots of sex:

    “There she lusted after her lovers, whose Penises were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.” (Ezekiel 23:20)

    Christians have no clue at all what Christianity really is all about!
    Because none read the BIBLE!

  • Reflect

    Check out “In Praise of Mixed Religion: The Syncretism Solution in a Multifaith World.” It makes the same point about our need to learn from one another, and notes that religions have never really been isolated from other people.

  • Gregory Peterson

    How could a Gay couple know that the wedding cake maker is going to say “We don’t serve your kind here?”

    Why should law abiding, tax paying adult couples have to have a sort of 21st Century version of the NAACP’s ‘Green Book,’ published from 1936-1966, to know which licensed public accommodations will serve them and which will try to humiliate them in the name of Jesus?

    The whole purpose of anti-discrimination laws is for law abiding, tax paying adults can go about their lawful business without hearing “We don’t serve your kind here.”

  • Pingback: The problem with creating ‘Christian’ versions of things (COMMENTARY) | Just a Blog to Collect Christian News and Articles()

  • Pingback: 基督教電影、基督教食物、基督教時裝等有甚麼不對? - 信仰百川()

  • Diogenes

    For clarification, I would advocate that such circumstances which you offer as examples be determined by the States, not the Feds.

  • Diogenes

    Hey Max, quit providing the AtheistMax mistranslation of the Bible, wherein the author substitutes his own twisted interpretation of the text for what it actually says. “NO PROBLEM,” indeed!

  • DNY

    And your argument is disingenuous. Generally artists are free to decline commissions for works they object to.

    No business involved in these controversies has refused to serve a class of people, only to provide services in support of what they regard as a celebration of immorality. A marriage by a homosexual to a person of the opposite sex (to serve as a “beard” or for some more inscrutable reason) would have gotten the cake or photographs. A request for a birthday cake with standard birthday greetings from the same customers would have been happily fulfilled.

  • @Diogenes,

    Why don’t you just prove to me how you KNOW which interpretation of the Bible is correct? I want to see your evidence.

    There is no USER’S MANUAL for the Bible – as it claims to BE THE USER’S MANUAL by itself!

  • Larry

    Yet these mini-RFRA laws don’t specifically mention artists or craftsmen or limit the businesses affected by it. They apply to any and all businesses if the owner coughs up some vague “religious excuse”. So the excuse is very dishonest on your part. Their “support of immoral acts” means providing ANY AND ALL goods and services to gays.

    So your assertions about these acts being so limited are full of crap. The true desire is a segregated market for gays under the color of law.

    There are no excuses for discriminatory conduct in business. If your religion compels you to do so, get out of open commerce. Salve your faith and only do business in limited members only or church environments. Don’t hold your business out to the general public.
    We don’t need new laws to deal with a “crisis of conscience” in your business.

  • Larry

    So 14th Amendment be damned.
    Limiting civil liberties issues to the states worked so well when the subject was keeping human beings as chattel property, why not now amirite?

    This is why libertarianism (especially of the “Ron Paul, do it at the states level”) is idiotic. The most discriminatory laws are passed at state and local levels. The Federal government has been the best defense from such abuses. Its why we have the concept of “equal protection under the law”.

  • Chief

    While I’m sure many appreciate the use of scripture, Max, the way you choose to use it is as misguided as the way many Christians use it. Unfortunately, you want to pick and choose pieces without looking at the whole. This method can create any message you want.

    What if I quoted the posts you’ve made on here where you’ve said “it is necessary to pay attention to…Gods and give them worship” and “It is Jesus or the highway” “These terrible delusions about….Jesus must end”

    All of a sudden, you sound very religious. People do this with the Bible all the time. They use pieces of the Bible to argue their point instead of starting with the Bible, in its entirety, to arrive at a point.

    Simple example, your use of John 7:19. In actuality, when you read the whole passage, he’s condemning religious leaders who are being hypocritical. They’re judging Jesus for breaking the law by healing on the Sabbath and Jesus is telling them not to judge since they can’t keep it…

  • Nathan

    So how would you suggest going about bringing Christian ideas to a worldwide audience?

  • Pingback: Christian moviemakers opt for black cast after glut of whitewashed Bible films - On Faith & Culture()

  • Pingback: Free Exercise of Religion? | A More Perfect Union()