A post from my blog

Gandalf the White wrote:

 In fact, I have two coworkers that have both told me they would go to church if there were no other Christians there. One of them said "I believe in God, and I think Jesus was who he said he was, but I can't go to church. There's too many Christians that are plain @$$holes and I don't want to be associated with them."

But what they really meant ( in their heart ) is " I would go to Church if they didn't talk about Jesus Christ there. "

Gandalf the White wrote:

Are all my replies translated to Swahili today? My point isn't the film - my point is how we address it.

I mean, is that so difficult to understand? You're focusing on the film, not the point I'm making.

Should I just give up?

I agree that talking about this type of stuff is getting the cart before horse with people who are not born of the Holy Spirit. The world loves and craves what it does and you really can'y fault them for being slaves to their desires. Only the Gospel has the power to change a heart to holiness.

sentient 6 wrote:

Gandalf the White wrote:

 In fact, I have two coworkers that have both told me they would go to church if there were no other Christians there. One of them said "I believe in God, and I think Jesus was who he said he was, but I can't go to church. There's too many Christians that are plain @$$holes and I don't want to be associated with them."

But what they really meant ( in their heart ) is " I would go to Church if they didn't talk about Jesus Christ there. "

I sat on this response for a long time because I couldn't decide if I wanted to be direct or go with snark.  Surprisingly, I chose direct.  This is one of my top five pet peeves about modern Evangelicalism:  we refuse to accept any responsibility for how our actions reflect on Christ.  If someone doesn't want to come to church or to follow Christ, I've frequently heard people put the blame, so to speak, on Christ.  "Oh, the Gospel is offensive to those who do not believe," "Jesus said we'd be hated/rejected because of him," "what they are really saying is 'I would go to church if they didn't talk about Jesus so much."  So much baloney!  Sure, there are some who are scared off by all the Jesus stuff, but that is the first place you--and a lot of Christians--go.  Does it ever occur to any of us that any of them would love to hear about Jesus, but we who claim to be Christ's ambassadors here on earth get in the way. 

I've experienced that.  When my wife and I moved to Kentucky we spent two years trying to find a church where we felt like we fit in.  We gave each church we visited two or three weeks to avoid making snap judgments.  We went to one church where when the greeting time came, it was like we were invisible.  People shook hands with people on either side of us, but not us.  After the second week of this happening, we got up and left.  Sound teaching be damned, we didn't want to be somewhere where the people treated us like that.  Now we were Christians, already into Jesus, but what if we hadn't been?  What if we were unbelievers looking for Jesus?

This kind of statement is also complete and total arrogance.  It presumes that the speaker knows much more about how people think and what their motivations are than they do.  Or else it accuses them of being liars.  Either way, it really just reinforces their opinions of Christians.

messiaen77 wrote:

I sat on this response for a long time because I couldn't decide if I wanted to be direct or go with snark.  Surprisingly, I chose direct.  This is one of my top five pet peeves about modern Evangelicalism:  we refuse to accept any responsibility for how our actions reflect on Christ.  If someone doesn't want to come to church or to follow Christ, I've frequently heard people put the blame, so to speak, on Christ.  "Oh, the Gospel is offensive to those who do not believe," "Jesus said we'd be hated/rejected because of him," "what they are really saying is 'I would go to church if they didn't talk about Jesus so much."  So much baloney!  Sure, there are some who are scared off by all the Jesus stuff, but that is the first place you--and a lot of Christians--go.  Does it ever occur to any of us that any of them would love to hear about Jesus, but we who claim to be Christ's ambassadors here on earth get in the way. 

I've experienced that.  When my wife and I moved to Kentucky we spent two years trying to find a church where we felt like we fit in.  We gave each church we visited two or three weeks to avoid making snap judgments.  We went to one church where when the greeting time came, it was like we were invisible.  People shook hands with people on either side of us, but not us.  After the second week of this happening, we got up and left.  Sound teaching be damned, we didn't want to be somewhere where the people treated us like that.  Now we were Christians, already into Jesus, but what if we hadn't been?  What if we were unbelievers looking for Jesus?

This kind of statement is also complete and total arrogance.  It presumes that the speaker knows much more about how people think and what their motivations are than they do.  Or else it accuses them of being liars.  Either way, it really just reinforces their opinions of Christians.

Well m77, I certainly don't want you to hold back on your comments by any means. That said, I would think you would know me by now and what I believe. I made my comment in a certain context, and that reflects one aspect of a coin. There is the persons will and responsibility towards God as one side. And, there is how we respond to people and give our message to people and thats the other side of the coin. In a nutshell I believe as scripture teaches that the " Gospel is an offense for those that are perishing, " but we as christians should not add to that offense by our behavior.

As to the rest, I see no point in adressing because we just have too different of views of how sin has effected the free will of man. Especially in regards to coming too, and loving God.

messiaen77 wrote:

 Does it ever occur to any of us that any of them would love to hear about Jesus, but we who claim to be Christ's ambassadors here on earth get in the way. 

Ok, I changed my mind. Time for my " this is baloney " comment. Does it occur to you that especially those that live in US can find Jesus Christ in such a wide variety of places ( churches, TV maybe, the bible shoved away in their closet ) that no one can truly claim the message of Christ is hiding or hard to get too ?

Do you really believe there are people out there that would have come to faith in Christ but the sinful actions of someone prevented it from occuring ? Once again, this does not excuse jerkish behavior. The power resides in the drawing of the Holy Spirit, but should use wisdom on our part in giving the Spirit something to " work with. "

..but once again, this only underscores our differences in biblical beliefs.

sentient 6 wrote:

Gandalf the White wrote:

 In fact, I have two coworkers that have both told me they would go to church if there were no other Christians there. One of them said "I believe in God, and I think Jesus was who he said he was, but I can't go to church. There's too many Christians that are plain @$$holes and I don't want to be associated with them."

But what they really meant ( in their heart ) is " I would go to Church if they didn't talk about Jesus Christ there. "

1 Corinthians 2:11


For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.


I know it may be hard to believe they meant what they actually said but your reply to this is exactly the attitude I was talking about in the post. 

messiaen77 wrote:

sentient 6 wrote:

Gandalf the White wrote:

 In fact, I have two coworkers that have both told me they would go to church if there were no other Christians there. One of them said "I believe in God, and I think Jesus was who he said he was, but I can't go to church. There's too many Christians that are plain @$$holes and I don't want to be associated with them."

But what they really meant ( in their heart ) is " I would go to Church if they didn't talk about Jesus Christ there. "

I sat on this response for a long time because I couldn't decide if I wanted to be direct or go with snark.  Surprisingly, I chose direct.  This is one of my top five pet peeves about modern Evangelicalism:  we refuse to accept any responsibility for how our actions reflect on Christ.  If someone doesn't want to come to church or to follow Christ, I've frequently heard people put the blame, so to speak, on Christ.  "Oh, the Gospel is offensive to those who do not believe," "Jesus said we'd be hated/rejected because of him," "what they are really saying is 'I would go to church if they didn't talk about Jesus so much."  So much baloney!  Sure, there are some who are scared off by all the Jesus stuff, but that is the first place you--and a lot of Christians--go.  Does it ever occur to any of us that any of them would love to hear about Jesus, but we who claim to be Christ's ambassadors here on earth get in the way. 

I've experienced that.  When my wife and I moved to Kentucky we spent two years trying to find a church where we felt like we fit in.  We gave each church we visited two or three weeks to avoid making snap judgments.  We went to one church where when the greeting time came, it was like we were invisible.  People shook hands with people on either side of us, but not us.  After the second week of this happening, we got up and left.  Sound teaching be damned, we didn't want to be somewhere where the people treated us like that.  Now we were Christians, already into Jesus, but what if we hadn't been?  What if we were unbelievers looking for Jesus?

This kind of statement is also complete and total arrogance.  It presumes that the speaker knows much more about how people think and what their motivations are than they do.  Or else it accuses them of being liars.  Either way, it really just reinforces their opinions of Christians.

I shouldn't have responded. Yours was better.

Candlemass wrote:

This reminds me of one day at work, there were this group of women that had to deal with a client that was always making sexual jokes. They found him creepy. When I met him he was this really nerdy looking guy with thick glasses. There was a salesman who worked with us, that could be crude as well. But he was wealthy, handsome and British. The girls didn't mind him. I brought this up to them and said that sexual harrasment depended on what the guy looked like.

What is ironic about the whole conversation is that since this blog was first posted I have noticed more and more being said about the negative effects of 50 Shades......coming from secular sources.

Gandalf the White wrote:

messiaen77 wrote:

sentient 6 wrote:

Gandalf the White wrote:

 In fact, I have two coworkers that have both told me they would go to church if there were no other Christians there. One of them said "I believe in God, and I think Jesus was who he said he was, but I can't go to church. There's too many Christians that are plain @$$holes and I don't want to be associated with them."

But what they really meant ( in their heart ) is " I would go to Church if they didn't talk about Jesus Christ there. "

I sat on this response for a long time because I couldn't decide if I wanted to be direct or go with snark.  Surprisingly, I chose direct.  This is one of my top five pet peeves about modern Evangelicalism:  we refuse to accept any responsibility for how our actions reflect on Christ.  If someone doesn't want to come to church or to follow Christ, I've frequently heard people put the blame, so to speak, on Christ.  "Oh, the Gospel is offensive to those who do not believe," "Jesus said we'd be hated/rejected because of him," "what they are really saying is 'I would go to church if they didn't talk about Jesus so much."  So much baloney!  Sure, there are some who are scared off by all the Jesus stuff, but that is the first place you--and a lot of Christians--go.  Does it ever occur to any of us that any of them would love to hear about Jesus, but we who claim to be Christ's ambassadors here on earth get in the way. 

I've experienced that.  When my wife and I moved to Kentucky we spent two years trying to find a church where we felt like we fit in.  We gave each church we visited two or three weeks to avoid making snap judgments.  We went to one church where when the greeting time came, it was like we were invisible.  People shook hands with people on either side of us, but not us.  After the second week of this happening, we got up and left.  Sound teaching be damned, we didn't want to be somewhere where the people treated us like that.  Now we were Christians, already into Jesus, but what if we hadn't been?  What if we were unbelievers looking for Jesus?

This kind of statement is also complete and total arrogance.  It presumes that the speaker knows much more about how people think and what their motivations are than they do.  Or else it accuses them of being liars.  Either way, it really just reinforces their opinions of Christians.

I shouldn't have responded. Yours was better.

Nah, it is a mic drop vs. a windbag.

messiaen77 wrote:

Gandalf the White wrote:

messiaen77 wrote:

sentient 6 wrote:

Gandalf the White wrote:

 In fact, I have two coworkers that have both told me they would go to church if there were no other Christians there. One of them said "I believe in God, and I think Jesus was who he said he was, but I can't go to church. There's too many Christians that are plain @$$holes and I don't want to be associated with them."

But what they really meant ( in their heart ) is " I would go to Church if they didn't talk about Jesus Christ there. "

I sat on this response for a long time because I couldn't decide if I wanted to be direct or go with snark.  Surprisingly, I chose direct.  This is one of my top five pet peeves about modern Evangelicalism:  we refuse to accept any responsibility for how our actions reflect on Christ.  If someone doesn't want to come to church or to follow Christ, I've frequently heard people put the blame, so to speak, on Christ.  "Oh, the Gospel is offensive to those who do not believe," "Jesus said we'd be hated/rejected because of him," "what they are really saying is 'I would go to church if they didn't talk about Jesus so much."  So much baloney!  Sure, there are some who are scared off by all the Jesus stuff, but that is the first place you--and a lot of Christians--go.  Does it ever occur to any of us that any of them would love to hear about Jesus, but we who claim to be Christ's ambassadors here on earth get in the way. 

I've experienced that.  When my wife and I moved to Kentucky we spent two years trying to find a church where we felt like we fit in.  We gave each church we visited two or three weeks to avoid making snap judgments.  We went to one church where when the greeting time came, it was like we were invisible.  People shook hands with people on either side of us, but not us.  After the second week of this happening, we got up and left.  Sound teaching be damned, we didn't want to be somewhere where the people treated us like that.  Now we were Christians, already into Jesus, but what if we hadn't been?  What if we were unbelievers looking for Jesus?

This kind of statement is also complete and total arrogance.  It presumes that the speaker knows much more about how people think and what their motivations are than they do.  Or else it accuses them of being liars.  Either way, it really just reinforces their opinions of Christians.

I shouldn't have responded. Yours was better.

Nah, it is a mic drop vs. a windbag.

Sometimes the windbag is still appropriate...

Gandalf the White wrote:

I know it may be hard to believe they meant what they actually said but your reply to this is exactly the attitude I was talking about in the post. 

.... ha ha...is this large and bolded cuz you're " yelling " at me.

But anyway, I have talked to lots of people that point to bad behavior of Christians as one of the reasons why they don't like church or christianity. How I usually approach them is placing the onus back on them. I will tell them they are responsible for what they do with their knowledge of God, and they won't be able make any excuses for their rejection. I keep it real, that their heart is the problem and not the sin of others. Sure, I won't hesitate to apologize for Christians that are jerks and say that they are not being obedient to what they believe. But I don't hesitate to tell what the Gospel is and that if there heart is hard towards God, everything can be used as an excuse to keep God at arm-lengths away.

Gandalf the White wrote:

 "I believe in God, and I think Jesus was who he said he was, but I can't go to church. There's too many Christians that are plain @$$holes and I don't want to be associated with them."

..you guys will like this post too..

Using some tact, I would have told that person to go ahead and come to Church. Then, they can be the one perfect christian that will show the rest of us how its done. So maybe I take back what I stated about my comment and I'll exchange it with this comment - this guy may believe some things about Jesus, but self-righteousness is keeping him/her from the Gospel.

I read your blog and I see what you're saying, Gandalf.

sentient 6 wrote:

Gandalf the White wrote:

I know it may be hard to believe they meant what they actually said but your reply to this is exactly the attitude I was talking about in the post. 

.... ha ha...is this large and bolded cuz you're " yelling " at me.

But anyway, I have talked to lots of people that point to bad behavior of Christians as one of the reasons why they don't like church or christianity. How I usually approach them is placing the onus back on them. I will tell them they are responsible for what they do with their knowledge of God, and they won't be able make any excuses for their rejection. I keep it real, that their heart is the problem and not the sin of others. Sure, I won't hesitate to apologize for Christians that are jerks and say that they are not being obedient to what they believe. But I don't hesitate to tell what the Gospel is and that if there heart is hard towards God, everything can be used as an excuse to keep God at arm-lengths away.

Lol... actually it's bold because I was on my phone and I didn't notice it was that way.

I understand your point. But these two coworkers (an others I've met) understand what you're saying. I think it's a hard place to be - one especially. She believes in Jesus but was so screwed over by an old church that she doesn't want to be associated with believers. She prays and reads her Bible, but she doesn't go to church... I've been there and I understand her side of it too.

That's not to say I don't pray for her or encourage her to go to church...

sentient 6 wrote:

Gandalf the White wrote:

 "I believe in God, and I think Jesus was who he said he was, but I can't go to church. There's too many Christians that are plain @$$holes and I don't want to be associated with them."

..you guys will like this post too..

Using some tact, I would have told that person to go ahead and come to Church. Then, they can be the one perfect christian that will show the rest of us how its done. So maybe I take back what I stated about my comment and I'll exchange it with this comment - this guy may believe some things about Jesus, but self-righteousness is keeping him/her from the Gospel.

Well, I see your point, but you don't have the full context (don't get excited!).

In the conversation, both of these folks admitted they aren't perfect either.

See, these two friends are why, I think, I'm still at the job I'm at. I've been looking for almost two years - and I've applied to thousands of jobs. But I believe God has a purpose for me here. And I think it's to pray for and be an example for these two coworkers.

I know that's scary - I'm the best example God can get a hold of... yikes!

Mortal wrote:I read your blog and I see what you're saying, Gandalf.

Thanks for reading Mortal.

Candlemass wrote:

Can you summarize this? I only made it through 72 seconds of Russell Brand before I had to shut it off.

No.

deathisgain wrote:This reminds me of one day at work, there were this group of women that had to deal with a client that was always making sexual jokes. They found him creepy. When I met him he was this really nerdy looking guy with thick glasses. There was a salesman who worked with us, that could be crude as well. But he was wealthy, handsome and British. The girls didn't mind him. I brought this up to them and said that sexual harrasment depended on what the guy looked like.

Amazing.

alldatndensum wrote:What is ironic about the whole conversation is that since this blog was first posted I have noticed more and more being said about the negative effects of 50 Shades......coming from secular sources.

I haven't seen much, but I read about non-religious people protesting it in England.

sentient 6 wrote:But anyway, I have talked to lots of people that point to bad behavior of Christians as one of the reasons why they don't like church or christianity. How I usually approach them is placing the onus back on them. I will tell them they are responsible for what they do with their knowledge of God, and they won't be able make any excuses for their rejection. I keep it real, that their heart is the problem and not the sin of others. Sure, I won't hesitate to apologize for Christians that are jerks and say that they are not being obedient to what they believe. But I don't hesitate to tell what the Gospel is and that if there heart is hard towards God, everything can be used as an excuse to keep God at arm-lengths away.

People who reject the church don't have a clue Who God is. The church is Christ's bride. That said, I have a hard time too, but with persistance I have found a good congregation. Even though I would call mine a good one, I do wonder why I think the description of sheep and wolves seems flipped. I go to church looking for the few sheep amongst the wolves. It's likely that I'm too critical, but here are too many things that cause me to mistrust. All said, I go to serve and worship God. Selfism isn't Christianity.

Mortal wrote:I read your blog and I see what you're saying, Gandalf.

I read it too. I wan't to say that I agree with your basic premise that we ought not to expect non believers to live to our standard and mistreat them when they don't.

Gandalf the White wrote:

Well, I see your point, but you don't have the full context (don't get excited!).

In the conversation, both of these folks admitted they aren't perfect either.

See, these two friends are why, I think, I'm still at the job I'm at. I've been looking for almost two years - and I've applied to thousands of jobs. But I believe God has a purpose for me here. And I think it's to pray for and be an example for these two coworkers.

I know that's scary - I'm the best example God can get a hold of... yikes!

Right. And of course personally knowing the people and context makes a world of difference in how we respond and relate to people.

You bet. God surely may have purpose for you remaining there.