DISQUS

Mark M · 8 months ago

oy.

Norm! · 8 months ago

Wouldn't an "I Questioned Christianity" ad be offensive too? It seems reasonable for the newspaper to not appear to profit off a provocative ad that would certainly offend many of its readers.

Randy Thomas · 8 months ago

Yeah it would be to some people... but that isn't a reason to deny the ad. Plus, Schneeberger's response is perfect and addresses your point. Did you miss it?
That paper runs all kinds of offensive ads that, in my opinion, are much worse than a guy sharing how he has dealt with his homosexuality.

Mike T. · 8 months ago

Yep... this is what I would call convenient censorship. This is purely hypocritical and needs to be called on the carpet.

Brady · 8 months ago

Hey Randy. I didn't realize you guys were going to be in Texas this weekend.
Quick comment on the ad--if they are running ads for strip clubs and not for something like this, I think they should at least admit what they are doing (although, do major papers run ads for strip clubs? I thought that was more of the Village Voice type papers.).
On a separate note--I used to live in San Antonio (went to college there). Isn't it called the San Antonio Express-News (not the News-Express?)

Joe Dallas · 8 months ago

I think we should expect this imbalance from the press, shine a respectful light on it (letters to the editor and even a guest editorial?)keep knocking on the doors and make the most of the ones that open. I'm finding more and more that we're not just arguing for traditional standards, but against blatant double standards as well.

Randy Thomas · 8 months ago

I'm finding more and more that we're not just arguing for traditional standards, but against blatant double standards as well.

Great summation Joe. I also like the "shine a respectful light" sentiment.

Randy Thomas · 8 months ago

Mike, I understand what you are saying. I might have called it "censorship" in the past but since I have been accused of it so much I had to figure out what censorship actually is.
A private publication (newspaper, magazine or a blog) has every right to accept or reject any content. For example, not every letter to the Editor is published or the paper would have to publish a book every day :).
Censorship would be the government forcing you into silence or "public" institutions, procedures not allowing equal opportunity for all points of view (libraries, testimonies into various government activities.) Censorship is also the government coming and forcing you to not speak, write or blog at all. Or the government forcing you to say what the "state" sanctions or be punished.
That is a really rough definition (and not comprehensive.) So, I wouldn't call this an act of censorship but one of obvious bias and a double standard in the paper's advertising policy. That ad can still be printed and published elsewhere.

Randy Thomas · 8 months ago

Hi Brady. I am not actually going to be there. I don't go to them any more unless to fill in for Alan. Since we hired more staff I don't have to travel to every event... ever. :) It would have been fun to possibly meet you in person though.
I would assume that CitizenLink would have their facts straight ... no pun intended. You could email them and ask or do your own research.

sarahmelnychuk.blogspot.com · 8 months ago

Good point Joe,
I've been to the last two conferences held in my area Vancouver, BC. And I've had the opertunity on more then one occasion to hear you speak at the conferences along with the others.
I am so thankful for your faithfulness and the faithfulness of the whole team that travels all the way to Vancouver BC to respond to this issue with grace, truth, and obviouse compassion.

Brady · 8 months ago

I didn't realize you didn't go to the LWO conferences anymore. I bet that helps make your life a bit more calm. I imagine those things can get very hectic with all the planning and stuff.
Did my own research--it is the San Antonio Express-News. Didn't see the other name. Probably just a small oversight. It happens to the best of us.

Cindy · 8 months ago

A major difficulty in making calls like this is, of course, that there really isn't anything under the sun that doesn't offend someone.
Human beings are persnickity creatures.

Randy Thomas · 8 months ago

Human beings are persnickity creatures.

Hmph.
Speak for yourself persnickity pants.
::: laugh :::
HI CINDY :)!

Boris · 8 months ago

Well, you ARE offensive.

Randy Thomas · 8 months ago

... I know... and I am not even trying. It's tough rejecting gay ideology and living according to a Biblically based worldview.
I assure you though, I don't exist or believe what I believe to purposefully offend.

Joe Dallas · 8 months ago

Very kind, Sarah. Thank you.

Julie · 8 months ago

This ad IS offensive. The changes in the life of Jeff Johnston are a direct result of the cross of Christ. And the cross itself is offense (Galatians 5:11), and its message is foolish! (1 Corinthians 1:18 "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.")
So, of course, those not yet saved are offended by this man and his testimony. It's foolishness to them.
As for Jeff and for the rest of us having been justified by His blood and saved from the wrath of God (Romand 5:9), being transformed and set free by the Spirit of God (2 Corinthians 3:18), let us never "boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to [us], and [we] to the world." (Galatians 6:14)
:::stepping awy from the pulpit now:::

Randy Thomas · 8 months ago

Very good and very true comments Julie. Thank you very much.