I’m probably much closer to a conflict-avoider than a peacemaker, and I don’t have any real hope that Jesus’ blessing in Matthew 5:9 to include conflict-avoiders like me.

But, apparently, arguing — and arguing persuasively — is very much essential to the spread of the gospel. At least it is, if you’re looking at the example of Paul.

When on a mission trip, he almost always went first to a synagogue. (Acts 9:20; 13:5, 14; 14:1 – “as usual”; 17:2 – “as was his custom”; 17:10; 18:4, 19; 19:18.) That makes sense:

1. It’s what Jesus did (Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 12:9; 13:54 and parallel/other references in the companion gospels). And Paul was all about imitating Christ (Philippians 2:1; 1 Corinthians 11:1). 
2. Jews and proselytes in the synagogue would already have a basic familiarity with one God, the law and the prophets. So Paul could start from there to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, who had to die and to be raised from death. Maybe the most complete sermon of this approach was to Pisidian Antioch, recorded in Acts 13:13ff.
3. There, the folks in the synagogue asked for a word of encouragement; Paul preached the gospel, but he did so proving each point from scripture. Not a bad example to follow.

In many instances, he encountered opposition. That means he couldn’t just preach. He had to argue with the Jews who refused to believe (Acts 14:2-7; 15:1-2; 17:1-5; 18:5-6). It was important to demonstrate, both to those who believed and those who doubted, that there was no backing down from the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Once again, Paul was imitating Jesus — who would not back down from persuading people to reach the conclusion that He was the Messiah, the Christ, who had to die and live again.

He didn’t argue much with pagans; there was too much teaching to do. And God had a tendency to either defuse tense confrontations with pagans (often with miracles) or to place Paul in them under circumstances of trial as a Roman citizen so he could teach, as Jesus had prophesied in Matthew 10:19 and Mark 13:11 (which he did, often with remarkable humility and humor – see Acts 26).

So I find that the teaching of scripture is that believers who want to share the gospel …

1. need to spend their words and passion teaching those who do not know God, not so much arguing with them.
2. may have to argue from time to time with those who believe in the one God — sometimes even those who believe in His Son Jesus (as was the case with the circumcision party in Acts 15) — to prove persuasively that the gospel is not a matter of obeying man’s law, but of accepting the forgiveness of God through the grace shown in Jesus Christ.

This is difficult for me. I don’t really like to argue.

But, sometimes, that is what I am called to do.

I understand this is sensitive, especially this close to a Roe v. Wade anniversary, but …

Surely at least you folks who assured everyone that gun control laws will not stop mass shootings must understand that criminalizing abortion will not put a stop to the practice?

I’m all for repealing legislation that requires taxpayers to fund abortions against their consciences — it’s just wrong.

Yet if we really want to reduce the number of abortions, we Christians need to quit putting all our eggs in the anti-abortion law basket. We need to be about the much harder business of meeting, befriending, loving and accepting young unmarried women who are pregnant — especially those who have no history of parental love, no knowledge of a loving and forgiving God or His Savior Son, and no visible means of financial support. We need to be willing to open our hearts, homes and maybe even wallets to help them to choose a better option. We need to be willing to set up vocational training and day care opportunities through our churches. We need to establish fellowships for adoption and scholarships for career-seeking young women who intend to keep their babies.

We need to be willing to provide foster homes for babies given for adoption, and legal assistance with fees, and help in connecting birth-mothers with adoptive families.

We need to be ambassadors of God’s grace in this world, not spigots of judgment and condemnation, and/or legislators of morality.

Anyone can sign a petition, cast a vote, badger a legislator to pass a law, and go back to their lives the next minute, able to salve their consciences that they didn’t make a wrong choice that led to pregnancy and they’re not responsible.

If we’re really serious about saving the lives of unborn children, then we need to face the hard choices, too.

I’m a parent of two awesome adopted children, and I owe more than I can ever repay to some exemplary people who made some very tough choices.

We can try row upstream against the river of public opinion with nothing but anti-abortion legislation, continue to wade through it, or hoist sail by expressing the love that explains why we oppose it and also Who died so that God’s family could grow.

I’m fine with you owning one, but if you do, or own a permit for one, or are licensed to carry one:

I think you need to be as rigorously tested about your knowledge of guns and gun laws as anyone who gets a driver’s license is about laws regarding driving a car.

I think you need to be as insured for gun ownership as any auto driver is required to be against accidents, withbenefits payable to the victim(s) of any crime or accident that occurs with any gun registered to you.

I think you should store your guns unloaded and locked up securely. A glass display case with a decorative key-lock is not secure. (If you don’t own a gun, you should lock up your prescription medicine the same way.)

I know this will not stop violent gun crime, but if you own and carry, you owe it to the people who do not to be as responsible as you can be about your right, to help keep stolen and illegal weapons out of the hands of violent criminals, and to prevent accidents due to loaded and unsecured weapons.

Now for the shock:

I don’t think this ought to be law.

It ought to be the recognized, self-enforced responsibility of every gun-owner to observe these suggestions as the natural course of living in society while owning a gun.

Guns don’t kill people, but people with guns do kill people.

The plain fact is, when disturbed and angry people set out to kill a lot of other people, they don’t generally reach for a baseball bat or a knife or set about the complicated process of securing the materials and building a bomb. There are exceptions, and history is full of them, and the news takes note of them because they are the exceptions.

I don’t know what the breakeven number of murders is to classify a crime as “mass murder,” but we have tended to become numbed to news stories of three, four ,five, six and even more people being shot to death as just a part of life to flinch at but not remember.

We’re saddened when we read a tiny news story buried back in the paper — or an obituary — about a child who was killed by finding a loaded gun in the house and playing with it.

But we don’t take note of it or remember it in the same way that we do when stories of multiple killings are broadcast over and over again on the news and splashed on the front page of the newspaper.

If you own one gun or many, please:

Do what you can to keep guns out of easy access to people who want to kill people — or who don’t know how to use them.

Public prayer in public schools sounds like such a good thing.

I say: No thanks.

I’m a Christian, but I do not want government to have the authority to regulate public prayer in schools. It sets a precedent that allows government to decide what kind of prayer takes place there. It would be fine with a lot of people if Christian prayer had exclusive rights to our schools, but they would not feel that way if the prayers of other faiths and religions were given exclusive rights.

No, it’s best for prayer to remain a private matter in schools. No one is going to send a child to detention for a silent prayer. And to claim that a lack of public Christian prayer keeps God out of our schools is simply inaccurate. He’s God. He goes wherever He wills. And as long as there are those who pray – whether in public or in private – He is welcome in their hearts. And they are testifying to their faith in Him.

If we believe in equal opportunity under the Constitution, but a little more equal for Christian publuc prayer in schools, then we don’t really believe in it.

If we shrug, “Majority rules,” then we’re not facing the reality that Christianity is a fast-shrinking majority.

Plus if we feel that it’s Christian duty to impose our beliefs and practices on others through government, we’re supporting the kind of government where political issues become religionized as well as religious issues becoming politicized.

Governments that sleep with religion lead to corrupting power, not public choice of faith in a free market of ideas. They leave the impression that the favored religion has no intrinsic power or advantage, unless it’s sleeping with government.

Don’t take the United States of America even one step in that diection.

Let freedom ring. Let the power of individual choice rule.

And let your religion prove its power to change and improve lives through your own example.