Does being prophetic mean always being in conflict with others? I heard of a church planning to burn Koran's on Sept. 11, although I think they abandoned the plan. The idea was to turn Muslims away from Islam. There is another church that pickets a gentleman's club near it's location, and even going so far as to get the license plates of the cars that are in the parking lot and posting them on the internet.

     Surely, this churches would stand behind the First Amendment, their right to free speech, besides, the police have been posting pictures of men who have solicited prostitutes. This brings up the question, does legal mean right? Additionally, there are precedents to displays of iconoclasm in church history to bring groups of people to the church. In Europe, a missionary took down a tree sacred to pagans. A long time ago, the Conquistadors commanded a whole tribe of Mexican Indians to burn their idols in exchange for their support in a war with another tribe. Was this right?

     The zeal for the faith among these Christians is commendable. God did tell the Israelites to rid their land of any pagan influences. However, there are a few things they need to think about.

1. The apostle Paul acknowledges that Christians have to live in the midst of evil. The church is like later Israel, it is a pilgrim community. The pilgrim community was called to seek the peace of the city where they live in, with all its evil. On the other hand, early Israel is God's hand of judgment. In creating this nation, other nations were punished for rejecting the God who has been kind to them. I know many people don't like this judging God, but a nation that raises its head against God will destroy what God values, his creation. I believe that God is showing that because of the prevalence of the sinful nature, his kindness only hardens the hearts of men. This points to the need for God to directly change hearts. Sometimes, no amount of rehabilitation can change people, and God is not obliged to change hearts, it is his gracious prerogative. 

2. In the early stage of God's history with Israel, he was showing them that even a nation whose foundation is Godly would someday drift into ungodliness. Israel became like other nations, worshipping idols and making alliances with nations instead of trusting God. Again, this shows the prevalence of the sinful nature which no amount of kindness can change. God has to forgive sins and change hearts. The corollary to early Israel is the church. It is to be kept pure from ungoldiness. However, even in the church, the prevalence of sin is noted. The apostle John calls Christians to confess their sins and for a Christian to to say that he has no sin is a lie. The difference of the church from the world is its attitude of repentance.

3. God calls us to be at peace with our neighbors. I don't believe that the actions of these two churches promote peace with its neighbors. Are Christians then supposed to keep quiet in the face of evil? Are they supposed to be politically correct? We have become a society that is too sensitive. Any disagreement with a certain lifestyle could be construed as hateful speech, which could bring about persecution from certain people. On the other hand, there is such a thing as hateful speech. Christians should not engage in speech that demeans people, making them to be less than human. Christians should engage wrongs with gentleness and respect. To destroy a people's icons, even if there was a precedent, is hateful speech. How would we feel if somebody burns crosses and bibles. Do not do unto others what you don't want them to do to you is a criteria for hateful speech. On the other hand, we should not consider hateful speech respectful and honest criticisms of us. It is legitimate to expect (not demanded) to be treated with gentleness and respect. Even though the police display pictures in the Internet, I don't believe it is a practice that Christians could follow. It demeans men who rightfully should take account for their actions. I believe a correct response would be to confront the man in love and then if he is exposed, it should be only to the one affected by his actions directly. This assumes that the person gets to know the man.

     Moses allowed the people to divorce, something that God hates.  There comes a point where evil could not be stopped by pleading for what is right, where people are adamant in maintaining evil practices. Instead of destroying people who insisted on their way, God made concessions and remained kind to them. This does not mean that God changed his mind about divorce. This seems to be where we are in our history. The push for legitimacy of the homosexual lifestyle is an adamant refusal to follow God's standards. How do we deal with this? God's continued kindness is a paradigm of how we face evil in society. We continue to be a prophetic voice against evil and at the same time, love people even to the point of giving them freedom to engage in their evil practices. We still pray for the peace of society, and this includes its peace with God.