Posted my comment at OfB.

Tim, I love ya brother, but while Ed's heart is warmed, mine is enraged.

I saw a local media presentation on this Sheryl Crow controversy, and I felt as nauseous then as I do now.

If affiliation with differing political parties or opinions were to be so blindly shunned in “defense” of established beliefs (whatever they are), Jesus would not have affiliated himself with prostitutes, tax collectors, Pharisees, or anyone else who disagreed with him (which was virtually everyone).

Completely regardless of the good that Burke could have done for these kids in helping with the fundraiser (which, by itself, should have been enough), how powerful and incredible would it have been for him to stick to his faith, his beliefs, and his political opinions WHILE EXEMPLIFYING BIBLICAL LOVE by serving with someone he disagrees with for the common good? This was Francis Schaeffer's focus. He spoke the truth in love (sticking to beliefs) while living them out in acceptance and non-judgment to those who disagreed (in authentic relationship with them).

“But, at the same time, that does not mean that it must or should legitimize and participate in the promotion of things contrary to its beliefs. The message to Crow should be, “Like all children of God you are welcome to join in fellowship with us, but while you are promoting things against the teachings of the church, we cannot give you an official soapbox that could cause others to stumble.”

-There is no reason why he could not have prevented a political forum for the sake of sick children. If Crow were against it, let her suffer the repercussions of judgmentalism.

Burke did far more damage in reinforcing the judgmental Christian stereotype, than he did in being a “good soldier” of the faith. This whole story sickens me. It is NOT the gospel. It is NOT the kind of love Christ calls us to show to our neighbor. And it is NOT the kind of “ambassadorship” we are called to fill in our world.

How sad. I've tried the path of compromise and ended up doing all the compromising. It destroyed the mission of the Gospel. No more. I reject your rebuke, and pray for you to gain wisdom.

Ed: A warmed heart Calvinist. George Whitfield would likely be pleased.

Brad: I definitely sympathize with your point. I would distinguish, however, with ministering (and even relating with) those we disagree with, and — as I noted — giving an official platform. One needs to be careful not to go from being opening and non-judgmental to being pluralist. Would Jesus have given an unrepentant tax collector or prostitute or Pharisee a platform to speak to those who had come to hear Jesus speak?

Crow is so politicized with her campaigning, I tend to think even if Burke said “I disgree with her, but welcome her to the stage,” it might have given a pluralistic message. It is terribly ironic that someone who advocates processes that kill children would be the one chosen to star at a Catholic children's charity fundraiser. Of course, pro-life messages should not dominate the gospel, but I think Burke's messages have been primarily aimed at those inside the church, and not outside.

I'm not sure. How would you suggest we ought to make clear to believers the imperatives (coming after the indicatives, of course!) without being judgmental? Where do you draw the line? I'm still trying to work out in my head where the line falls.

I appreciate your thoughts, brother!

My two brothers in Christ, Ed and Brad both express elements of the directions I want to go as far as the issue I remarked about in my last post about Archbishop Burke, and societal issues in general. I’m torn, you see.

In my church history te…