Over at BeliefNet, I have noticed that the anti-Christian-Churchers have become agitated again. Now, I need to be careful here, because when I say “anti-Christian-Churchers”, I choose that clumsy term (which I will call ACC’s from this point going on) , because I most definitely do not mean to call them ‘Anti-Christ’; that term is for a real sort of people, but would be wrong in this case. The ACCss are people with a grievance, real or imagined, against the Church, and they are influenced by the emotion of that grievance. This leads to conflict on the BeliefNet site, sometimes instigated by the ACC’s, sometimes by the Christians, and sometimes it comes up through misunderstanding. At the moment, I would have to say that well over 80% of the threads on the main board discussing Christianity are contentious, and serve no purpose but bickering.
This raises the question, of how Christians should discuss the Christ. A great amount of confusion is out there, and worse, a lot of bad example. There can be no doubt that satan loves to get his claws into a church, and play it into his own purpose. Greed, lust, all manner of evil has shown up in these churches, and chased people away from the truth. What is to be done?
The first point, obviously, is to examine my own conduct and words. It’s so easy to see the error someone else makes, that one often ignores his own error. Also, a Christian needs to grow, and their work should reflect that growth in the fruit of his efforts. When someone stops to examine someone else, they must be careful to consider what effect they are sowing.
But what next?