mentions him almost in passing
SteeleRedux,
.. in passing ? Yeah, right !

To SteeleRedux.

Based on the author's discription of that church, it was a welcoming enviornment, not an elitist one. There might be churches that fit your discription, but it didn't sound like this was one of them.

Askbucko, can you confirm or correct me on this. Was the church in your article elitist or welcoming?

Any proselytising faith is welcoming by definition. That hardly precludes it being from being elitist or having an elitist world view.

Specifically elitism is "relating to or supporting the view that a society or system should be led by an elite".

Isn't that elite Christ?

SteeleRedux,

so your complaint is that Christians follow Jesus? Because if that is your complaint then let me stop you right there for a worthless complaint. What's next? Are nations eletists because they give a PM a lot of power to lead the country?

Simple question NNS, would you prefer to live in a theocracy where decisions of government were dictated by the provisions of the scripture, or as we have things now?

To SteeleRedux.

It is a simple question isn't it? And I have a simple answer. Everyone should be able to follow their convictions, including the ones that are based on their faith.

If there are convictions that are wrong and thay do harm, then that person should not hold those convictions and may want to reexamine their views or even their religious views. This would be my simple answer and it would include politicians as well as everyone else to act in this way, even in office.

Let me give an example. The recent issue with Homosexuality and SSM became a huge enough issue between Australia Rugby and Issy. Huge issues that ask how much does an employer own you, even to the point of your religious views and what you say and do in while not at work. If someone thinks their convictions towards homosexuality is a good enough reason to fire someone else over, then their convictions are in error. They should reevaluate their views or acknowledge that their convictions were wrong.

Use the same logic in governing and that is my answer.

Now before you go to pick apart my answer, let me ask you a counter question, that is equally simple. Does having Scott Morrison go to church (or even just be part of the Pentecostal denomination) mean that Australia is a theocracy? What your question is doing is trying to exaggerate the issue in order to support your perspective, instead of acknowledge if you were wrong.