I’m sure I’m sounding like a broken record, but as long as I get significant feedback and engagement on this issue, I will address it, because I believe that neo-fundamentalists, while carrying the excellent traditions of their forefathers, are also carrying over their errors, and I don’t want these errors to re-infect the ‘growing’ part of the church (evangelicalism and charismatic/pentecostal churches). I’ll be responding to the comments of Jim, from the post Why do I even visit hyperfundy sites?
Jim, thanks for your comments, here’s some more response if you can stand it ;)
1. “It’s pretty clear that fundamentalism is the “bogey man” here; it’s all over your various posts.”
Yes, I have a bee in my bonnet about hyper-fundies who, while trying to hold to the excellent fundamentals of the faith, are also carrying over the mistakes of the 20th century fundamentalists. I think my post The Rise of Neo-fundamentalism is a good overview of what’s wrong with neo-fundamentalism. I also praise what I think is worthy of such.
I have come to realize that, even within fundamentalism itself, there are serious discussions of these issues. I’ve also realized that there are those within the movement “exploring proactive fundamentalism,” i.e. reforming it from the errors I mentioned. Many (but not all) of my concerns are reflected over at the Neofundamentalist, but since he is an insider, and knows and loves fundamentalism, as well as being a full time pastor and active student of the bible and history, you may find his approach to the problems I outline much more palatable to you – perhaps even more balanced ;)
2. “Please realize that “Fundamentalism” is a 20th century movement that was in response to Christian Liberalism.”
Though a neophyte in Christian history, I begin the M. Div. program at Gordon Conwell next spring, so watch out! My understanding is that in the early 1900’s, self-named fundamentalists, in response to doctrinal liberalism from outside and inside the church, broke away to embrace the fundamentals of the faith, including especially biblical inspiration, which was under attack from higher criticism.
However, two unfortunate trends also took root in the fundamentalist movement – those of anti-intellectualism (in response to higher criticism) and social isolationism (rejection of modern culture and cultural forms – I’m not sure what the correct term for this is). This latter error is a typical religious (in the bad sense of the word) response to worldly values; instead of rejecting merely the worldly values, they rejected the FORMS that those values expressed themselves in – like card playing, movie attendance, and social dancing. If memory serves me right, the Puritans were also against social dancing, since it was and is very sensual.
Now, I don’t entirely disagree withe the claim that sensuality is rife in much social dancing – just visit a club and see what amounts to simulated copulation on the dance floor. Nor do I think that there is much redeemable about card playing. However, while focusing on these non-essentials, I must also mention that many fundamentalists had no problem with smoking (in fact, Deacons that smoke were a kind of running anecdote), and of course, even to this day, fundamentalists have ignored the sin of gluttony, nay, even encouraged it, thinking it less sinful than other sins of the flesh. But I digress.
However, in the 1940’s or so, a group of what came to be known as evangelicals broke away from the fundamentalists, in order to abandon the twin errors mentioned above. Most modern trustworthy biblical scholarship, I believe, came as a result of this abandoning of the anti-intellectualism of fundamentalism. In fact, vestiges of this anti-intellectual trend still exist in fundamentalist circles that insist on using the “King James Only.”
Rejection of culture and cultural involvement, however, has probably caused more harm than any other conservative doctrine in the 1900’s (the liberal ones, of course, have also caused much damage to society). The fact is, until the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson stepped up, we had ceased being salt and light, and had ceded the major organs of cultural formation and power to the liberals due to the errant separationism of the fundamentalists.
Specifically, we lost influence in
(1) The University System – started by our Puritan forefathers to spread the gospel and create virtuous, biblically trained leaders in every intellectual discipline, in modern times, American universities have become unabashed bastions of liberalism. Fundamentalism’s isolationist doctrines and anti-intellectualism have caused us to leave the very institutions that our forefathers intended for the gospel.
(2) Government – the reductionist mindset of fundamentalists basically says “if it’s not preaching the gospel, it’s a waste of time” and “why spend time trying to change the culture when Jesus is coming soon – it’s just polishing brass on a sinking ship.” Where has this led us? To government decisions that are unbiblical and antithetical to God and His purposes – we can lay part of the blame for our culture’s putrefaction at the feet of the fundamentalists, who used their doctrines to convince us to stop being salt and light, and to withdraw from the culture. The result? WE are partly to blame for the awful policies of abortion on demand, entering into unjust wars, and anti-family legislation.
(3) The Arts and Sciences – As Franky Schaeffer outlined so well in his book “Addicted to Mediocrity: 20th Century Christians and the Arts”, a hyper-utilitarian view of the gospel that says “if it ain’t good for evangelism, it ain’t no good” has caused Christians to abandon both the sciences and the arts to the heathens. No wonder we have a scientific community bereft of ethics and beholden to the anti-God, anti-reality theory of evolution. And as I discussed in Is Man Basically Good or Evil, fundamentalists make the error of hating anything that “glorifies man,” that is, all beauty and truth that is not directly associated with the new man, and that smacks of created man’s abilities (art and science), which is derided as “man-centered.” Again, the fundamentalist mistakes of cultural isolationism, anti-intellectualism, and anti-humanism, have brought us to the place where God has no place in science and the arts.
The net result? These doctrinal errors again have the possibility of disengaging the church from culture (through isolation) and, out of unhealthy fear and religious, judgmental posturing, essentially bringing Christians back under the law’s slavery, neutering the power of the glorious gospel. You wonder why I harp on these things? Because just as dangerous as the compromises fundamentalists try to rightly warn us away from is the narrow, biblicist view that hinders the gospel and the profound freedom that Christians have to enjoy what God has given, and to love those outside the faith.
3. “Reason from the scriptures with Victorian era Christians, learn about 18th century Great Awakening and what kind “cultural relevance” was involved with it, read what the Reformers had to say, and go back even further.”
I absolutely intend to – I am a fan of the reformers, but interestingly, prefer Erasmus to Luther in some arguments – at least, I prefer his temperament, though I pretty much stand with Luther on free will.
But I want to say this – as a former Charismatic Arminian (Boettner’s Reformed Doctrine of Predestination changed my view and life), I am fond of Reformed theology. However, I am also of the mind that while some theologians and historical Christian movements may have been closer to the truth than others, NONE were perfect, including the Puritans. Just because they may have believed in the Regulative Principle does not make it true. And to boot, it is a secondary doctrine as best, surely not part of the fundamentals, but an extrapolation of them, and perhaps an invalid one.
4. “Resist living in a vacuum of: we are right, and everybody back then was wrong (or is irrelevant for today).”
This is an unfair accusation, and not my mindset at all – I am making what I consider to be reasoned, theological arguments against the doctrines which make Slice and it’s ilk so poisonous. I note that in general, most calcified Christian movements resist the new wine of God, be they the Pharisees resisting Jesus, the Catholics resisting the Reformers, or the fundies resisting the Pentecostal movement.
I am, for example, always amazed at how the anti-charismatics (mostly made up of modern fundamentalists) are blind to how powerfully God has used the Pentecostal and charismatic movements to transform worship, create the entire genre of music we now call CCM, spearhead world missions, save Catholics, and the like.
Instead, they glower from their doctrinal mountains like those who hated Jesus for healing on the Sabbath, quoting their “strange fire” doctrines, and citing the mistakes made by those who are passionate for God and willing to make mistakes akin to David’s uncovering of himself in abandon to God. Fundamentalist pontificate to their brethren from their doctrinal palaces, in order to try to cow people back into abeyance to their way of doing things, rather than moving with God’s spirit.
But, to return to the slight you made, it is really just the same as me saying of you “Resist living in a vacuum of: we are right because we have history behind us, and everybody that does anything new is wrong (or is worldly).
5. “Don’t be like the Athenians in that chapter who are always going after something new.”
I believe you are misapplying this passage. People using new and innovative methods for reaching the lost are not “always looking for something new.” That was really in reference to people (unbelievers) always looking for some new idea, but not for truth. That is NOT what is going on here.
While the fundamental truths are eternal, I believe that my use of Paul’s “becoming all things to all men in order to reach some” is much more applicable here. Ed Young and others like him are not looking for new titillating ideas, but merely looking to reach the lost with innovation, while ignoring the self-imposed limits of The Regulative Principle (or the abuse of it) that says “if it ain’t expressly in the bible, we don’t need it.” That would exclude modern medicine, modern language and music, and a host of other modern forms that God wishes to use to communicate the gospel.
Fundies say they have a fear of God, but their understanding of such is misplaced. They should fear their own narrow tendencies that have the appearance of Godliness, but deny the power thereof. The should fear that in their zeal for doctrinal and church purity, they are actually sitting in the seat of the scornful, and focusing on non-essentials (see Romans 14), unnecessarily and sinfully judging others while thinking they are discerning, and in doing so, hindering the gospel.
I am not saying that God isn’t interested in purity, both in terms of practical holiness and doctrine, but I am saying that those who focus too much on doctrine become Pharisees hindering the spirit of God, not a light to the world.
I am not trying to insult you, just telling you how I see it. I hope the shoe doesn’t fit.
With an attempt at humility and good intentions,
Do any of you believers agree with my evaluation of fundamentalism, that it's isolationists and anti-intellectual trends have harmed both Christianity and it's effectiveness in the world?
Does anyone else see these types of problems in such "watchdog" sites as Slice of Laodecia?
Well, I don't have time to respond to all of that, but I will address a couple of things. I made several arguments from church history, which when perceived by you as being somehow negative, you took right back to "the boogie man fundies" again. For example the Strange Fire doctrine, which I brought up and related to the (pre-Fundamentalism) Puritan Era. Everything keeps coming back to the evil fundies on this website, and I fear that it is clouding your vision of what truly is right and wrong.
The Athenian "always looking for something new" passage really does apply to so much of what's going on today, in that the cultural packaging has become more important than the message. It's a forever-contest to see how innovative, cool, hip and trendy the message can be presented. The relevance of the Gospel is not to be found in how much like the world we can appear, but in convincing man of the desperate state that he is in. Afterwards, he will see the trans-cultural need for a savior. Ed Young style pragmatism can not thoroughly accomplish this, as it is preoccupied with appealing to the world on it's own terms, in ways that the world wants to hear.
You embrace Boettner and Luther on the will of man, but you would have trouble reconciling your ideas of man's falleness with their's I suspect. But this is no problem for you, because you seem very willing to dine from a theological buffet in which you take this belief from here and that belief from there, and concoct an overall meal that nobody in church history has ever eaten before. Don't you see a problem with someone saying "I am the first person in history to have the right combination of beliefs"? I ask that in a general sense; take for example someone who says "I believe in Luther's communion, Calvin's election, Wesley's holiness, Finney's invitations, Warfield on sola scriptura, Jack Hayford on Spiritual gifts, and Osteen on prosperity, and dog gone it – I'm the first person in church history to ever believe that combination of things". Surely such a person would think it's the right combination, otherwise they wouldn't believe it. This kind of thinking is looked at as noble and open-minded in our day, but it is in fact the kind of arrogance that says "I'm the first one to know that the truth derives from a combination of all of those things". What's more, it's susceptible to radical swings of theological change over time, since there's nothing anchoring such a person to a cohesive doctrinal view.
Lastly, I don't believe that my appreciation and understanding of church history places me in any kind of comparable vacuum to the one that you appear to be in. I'm all for "new" when "new" is better. Give me microphones, iPods, and blogs, but along with that I say – don't change the message of the Gospel, and don't be so focused on producing a man-made cultural relevance that the Gospel's own built-in relevance to sinners becomes an afterthought.
Everything keeps coming back to the evil fundies on this website, and I fear that it is clouding your vision of what truly is right and wrong.
I think you are wrong about my approach, but maybe I give that impression. It is harmful *doctrines* I am addressing, and the harmful praxis that arises from them, like condemning modern forms of communication rather than examining content. It just so happens that the doctrines I am here concerned with are embraced by fundies.
In fact, I agree with Slice’s criticisms of Osteen, and am interested in their evaluation of the Emergent doctrines. However, I think them way off on Hybels and Warren, and I understand their beef with the Word of Faith people, but I don’t view it as some dangerous heresy, despite whatever historic heresies or dire outcomes opponents like to trot out.
I do think that, outside of the fundamentalists, there aren’t too many doctrinal wolves out there, except for the very LIBERAL theologians who essentially deny the gospel – and I argue with them as with unbelievers.
It’s a forever-contest to see how innovative, cool, hip and trendy the message can be presented. The relevance of the Gospel is not to be found in how much like the world we can appear, but in convincing man of the desperate state that he is in.
I still think you are confusing modern FORMATS and METHODS with CONTENT. Again, my understanding of the error of the Athenians is not that they were always looking for some cool new hip trendy thing – this is merely the interpretation using the anti-modernity hermeneutic.
The problem was that they WEREN’T interesting in finding any conclusions about truth. Just reveling in new ideas. I think reveling in new ways to communicate the gospel, esp. ones that modern people can connect with, is part of having a heart for the lost, and being creative.
The relevance of the gospel is that the CONTENT is the key, regardless of the vehicle. Can the RAP vehicle preach the gospel? SURE, as long as the content is present (and the heart/motive/anointing).
I do, however, understand, that we must not only evaluate content, but the spirit in which the message is delivered. But again, even Paul was more concerned about right doctrine being preached than the motives of those preaching it.
You embrace Boettner and Luther on the will of man, but you would have trouble reconciling your ideas of man’s falleness with their’s I suspect.
I am not sure what their positions were, but as for Total Depravity, I agree with it in a moral and righteousness sense, but not in how we value the created man.
As I address in Is Man Basically Good or Evil?, man is both fallen and made in the image of God. Fundies only emphasize his falleness, humanists only his divine imago. Biblically speaking, we must embrace both in our praxis.
But this is no problem for you, because you seem very willing to dine from a theological buffet in which you take this belief from here and that belief from there, and concoct an overall meal that nobody in church history has ever eaten before
I am developing a biblical world view, not a reformed, or Puritan, or Armenian world view. Sure, I search to create an integrated world view, but one thing I have learned, if you only know the Christianity of one time period or geographic region, you are sure to be getting an incomplete view of God. While I may favor one school over others in general, to uncritically accept all and only what one school says is lazy, if not dangerous.
So, I believe that your accusation is without merit unless you can convince me that I hold specific stances that are incompatible. But in a sense, yes, I feel Christians are free to develop their own convictions, rather than depend on Luther or Calvin to make all of their decisions for them.
Don’t you see a problem with someone saying “I am the first person in history to have the right combination of beliefs”?
Sure, but I am countering specific beliefs that I find errant, particularly the fundamentalist errors of cultural isolationism, and anti-modernity (confusing modernity with worldliness). Historically speaking, fundamentalists were also anti-intellectual, but I believe that they have abandoned that some (although those in the King James Only camp are still stuck in anti-intellectualism, IMHO).
don’t change the message of the Gospel,
So, has the form of rap music changed the message by the pure fact of being a form you disapprove of? Illogical.
Is seeking to speak in a language and with modern forms in and of itself worldly? That is the approach I am accusing slice of when it condemns Ed Young for using creative methods for getting people to pay attention. Again, you better go tell the people showing the Jesus Film that god doesn’t use movies! I’ve actually seen that type of claptrap on the Slice site. And please don’t blame it merely on the commenters, since the moderator only seems to allow comments they agree with anyway.
My original comments stand – fundamentalism did a great job of holding to the fundamentals of the faith, but had two major flaws, which have grossly and negatively affected Christendom and culture.
It’s modern day adherents carry on both the tradition of focusing on the fundamentals and erroneously confusing modernity with worldliness, and in setting themselves up as self-appointed watchdogs, go about hindering the gospel, bludgeoning other workers in the field with their “pure doctrine” sticks, and stealing away the freedom that Christ brings with their narrow, proscriptive hermeneutic.
A site like Slice might be useful to God if it wasn’t so intent on bringing down everyone not in their narrowly drawn “remnant” of doctrinal sycophants. Instead of being a blessing to keep us pure, they are more likely a curse hindering the work of God.
But you are right, rather than get caught up in their negativeness and putrefying debates over gnats, I ought to live and preach the gospel as God shows me, and ignore them. The only problem with that is, when I see them damaging the Body of Christ and individuals with their bitter Pharisaical approach, the pastor in me wants to crack them in the head with my staff.
All of this brings to mind an incident 2 weeks ago at our weekly church Bible study. The pastor was having a question and answer session based on our church convenant, and as one of the tennants of our church is that members agree to is to abstain from alcoholic beverages. One teenage girl asked in all honesty if Jesus would be allowed to join our church, since He clearly consumed wine. Needless to say, the pastor's answers did not appease many of the old, deep water Baptist present, and one of the deacons said, "Don't trouble me with what the Bible says. I know what I beleive."
It seems to me we are at some level talking about apples and oranges. There are unshakable doctrines of Christ's church. I don't think anyone,on this site anyway, is disputing that. Obviously, heritical teachings like TD Jakes' denile of the Trinity, or OSteen's prosperity, or the new revelation that homosexuality is not a sin, these should be addressed from every pulpit in the world for what they are. To alloy so much heretical teaching to continue, is clearing in violation of every edict from Jesus to Paul and everyone in between.
But what Seeker is talking about, and what I am talking about, are those grey areas. The Bible is VERY clear on almost every aspect of life and salvation, so there are not many. But there are a few. To use my alcohol example from earlier, there are a number of scriptures, new and old testiment, that warn against the dangers of drunkeness, and almost the same that seem to indicate that drinking in moderation is certainly ok. Throughout the history of the church, people and denominations have come down on both sides, and from a Bibilcal stand point, they can both argue they are right. As I watch a certain Texas preacher on TV, I wonder that the sin of gluttony has not garnered the same kind of attention….
We should all be willing to study the scriptures and pray for God's guidance in finding His will for His church. It is one of the reasons I find the comments from non-believers on these sites so helpful. They are so quick to find our inconsistancies, our hypocrisies, and force us, when honest, to remove the planks from our own eyes.
Obviously, heritical teachings like TD Jakes' denile of the Trinity, or OSteen's prosperity, or the new revelation that homosexuality is not a sin, these should be addressed from every pulpit in the world for what they are. To alloy so much heretical teaching to continue, is clearing in violation of every edict from Jesus to Paul and everyone in between.
Agreed.
But what Seeker is talking about, and what I am talking about, are those grey areas.
I think the error of fundamentalists is more than merely failing to obey the dictum "in the essentials, unity, in the non-essentials, liberty."
I think their real errors are doctrinal. More than merely creating rules in areas that ought to be up to the believer (like do I drink alcohol). Rather, they are overly vigilant for their narrow and incorrect hermeneutic, which hinders the gospel and ruins the freedom we have in Christ. It damages the church, individuals, and society because it hinders the work of God among the unbelievers.
Paul the Apostle was adamant against legalism, because he knew that it is in OPPOSITION to faith and the gospel. While modern fundies are not replacing the gospel with a doctrine of works, they are replacing the bible's teachings on our liberty with those that hinder the gospel and focus on faults that ought to be overlooked. Not all, but many.
Sandy, may I invite you to comment upon my response to Seeker here? Am I really being unjust in my responses to Seeker as he claims? I would very much appreciate your Christian perspective.
Ok, I've pretty much given in to the fact that it's impossible to have a discussion on this blog without it ending up being "everything that's wrong with fundamentalism". This is in spite of the fact that I keep bringing up things that pre-date the fundamentalist movement. I'm not a fundamentalist myself, but if I ever want a good "Fundamentalism shot JFK" conspiracy theory, I know where I can go to get help on that:-)
This phrase "in the essentials, unity, in the non-essentials, liberty" has caused so many problems over the centuries. Today there are things that are regarded as "non-essential" that Augustine and the early creed writers knew were essential. That phrase is now "a club" to beat people over the head with as soon as they start talking about some doctrine that is currently unpopular or difficult to understand. I have no doubt that TD Jakes and the rest of the modalists on TBN use that "club" quite frequently. Erasmus tried it on Luther, and Luther responded "tell the Holy Spirit that something that He inspired in the Word of God is NON-ESSENTIAL".
Regarding "Total Depravity", Seeker says he agrees with it in a moral and righteousness sense, but not in how we value the created man. Then in the next sentence he talks about it in the context of "fundies" again, even though Total Depravity is not believed by Fundamentalists. It is not a Fundamentalist doctrine. Look up "Total Depravity" on Wikipedia (or wherever), as an example demonstration. See what I mean about everything coming back to the boogey man? I really do think it's clouding your judgement.
So am I to assume that any medium that is not inherently sinful on it's own, is appropriate for worship and evangelism then? So the Rolling Stones song "Let's spend The Night Together" can be changed to "Let's Spend Eternity Together", and now it's ok for church? After all, it helps us to get those Rolling Stones fans into the pews. How about the two Christian Nudist Colonies that Slice has posted about in the past. The body is beutiful and valuable after all, and so this gives us a way to reach the lost nudists. Seeker, can you point me to a rap song that conveys Total Depravity in the "moral and righteousness sense" that you believe in?
Lastly, if pragmatic churches like Ed Young's are all fine and good (are preaching the full counsel of God), why do their sermons always seem to focus on man's immediate life's problems (jobs, money, finances, etc.). When asked why they spend inordinate amounts of time talking about sex, they say "well sex IS in the bible, and we have to preach the whole bible". But then when you ask these same pastors "why don't you ever preach about hell, self-denial, and holiness" (after all – those are in the bible too), they say "no need to dwell on the negatives". This is what happens when cultural relelvance becomes king. This is completely different than the sermons preached prior to liberalism and fundamentalism. Go look some up. They mostly talk about things like atonement, righteousness, God's attributes, etc.
The Gospel message is not complicated. There are no rap fans out there that can't understand it unless it is "rapped to them" in a song. Let's just do what Paul told Timothy and "preach the Word". Let's do what Ezekiel did and deliver God's un-wattered-down message, even though God told Ezekiel (ahead of time) that a stuborn generation would not accept that message. If in fact, today's generation fits that category.
In other words, let's aim to please God and not man, in our evangelism and worship. After all, God's glory is what our aim should be, and saving souls is secondary to that. As soon as you make "souls saved" the primary aim (rather than God's glory) you err.
hmmm, ok. Well, that is difficult to say. First of all, we are all people who are passionate about idea and truth, or we would all be watching the Game Show Network, or something like that. It is sad that so few people in the world take the time to seriously consider these issues as we do, because the truth will radically fly in the face of somebody's 'world ideology', if you understand what I mean.
I have written about 7 things, and erased them all. I will have to sleep on this.
And Jim, there are many things that are right about 'the fundies.' I would consider myself one. They do make many, many great observations and are spot-on doctine so many times. I sit in an interdenomination ladies Bible study, and each week when we sing hymns, I am saddened when those around me say "I have never heard this song." The modern church IS missing and dissregarding many great traditions of the past, and regards them as irrelevant. You are right. The current trend in many churches is toward a more emotional, touchy-feely kind of religion and less intellectual. I think that rather than becoming enemies, we should be trying to pull the strengths of these two ideas together. But neither side can be so reactionary that they throw everything out just to make sure nothing bad gets in. We are fallen, we are sinful, and our churches are never going to be perfect as long as we are running them. And Jesus did begin most of his interactions with people by meeting their immediate needs. He fed the hungry and healed the sick, raised the dead. To Nicodemus amd the rich young ruler he lauched full force into a theological debate. We need to have churches that are capable of both. I have a dear friend who is a recovering Meth addict. He has been clean an entire year. Durring the six months prior to entering rehab, he tried to attend a local church and was asked not to attend. That should never happen, and thank God he did finally find a church that was welcoming to him. I have another friend who desperately wanted to leave the gay lifestyle he had been living for many years. At so many churches he was shown the cold hard unfeeling hand of condemnation, with out compassion for the sinner who was suffering. Again, he finally found a group a Christians who were willing to reach out to him, and by God's grace he is living for Jesus now, and is no longer a part of the homosexual community. I have no problem with 'the fundies' but I think too often people don't know they are christian's by their love. I know I have been guilty of it myself, all too often.
Ok, I’ve pretty much given in to the fact that it’s impossible to have a discussion on this blog without it ending up being “everything that’s wrong with fundamentalism”.
Ok, let’s let fundamentalism off the hook, despite it’s obvious historical doctrinal mistakes. Everything is not wrong with fundamentalism, but certain salient doctrines are, and that is what I am focusing on. You want a praise fest for all they have done correct?
The attacks on modern forms of communication like the anti-movie, anti-rap, anti any form that’s not strictly biblical, is in my mind, a heresy perpetuated by Pharisaical teachers in every generation who focus on form rather than content. And the shoe fits well over at Slice, among other sites.
I can leave specific groups out if you like, and stick to doctrines that are anathema to God and detrimental to the church, and let the shoes fit where they may. However, these doctrines I am discussing have mainly been associated with recent and modern fundamentalists.
This phrase “in the essentials, unity, in the non-essentials, liberty” has caused so many problems over the centuries.
Wow, that is the first time I’ve EVER heard anyone say that. This phrase, I think, expresses well what Paul is saying in Romans 14. Not every esoteric doctrine is essential to salvation or unity among believers. To say that we must all believe the same thing about all things is anti-biblical.
tell the Holy Spirit that something that He inspired in the Word of God is NON-ESSENTIAL
Well, if you take this saying to mean that some scripture is essential, and some is not, no wonder you disagree. But I don’t think that’s the common use of this phrase.
The common use has to do with doctrines. We could both have the same high view of scripture and disagree on certain peripheral doctrines. To demand that I agree with your eschatology, for instance, or condemn me as a heretic is the type of narrow “everyone must agree with me in all things” type of behavior that this saying is trying to address.
Perhaps you follow the “Regulative Principle” and feel it is sinful to use electric instruments in church. However, I feel that if you want to hold this as an essential doctrine, you’re now hurting the Church instead of building it up in love.
Regarding “Total Depravity”, Seeker says he agrees with it in a moral and righteousness sense, but not in how we value the created man. Then in the next sentence he talks about it in the context of “fundies” again,
Jim, the reason I used this example is because you brought up Luther. I then returned to fundies because this whole article is about the specific destructive doctrines being wielded against the church by the likes of Slice, whom I perceive to be part of the modern fundamentalist movement.
Fundamentalists have done many things right, and continue to. However, I find the “discernment” ministry of SOME fundamentalist sites as emblematic of a systemic problem in modern fundamentalism that is grieving the Spirit of God. So in these specific issues, they most certainly ARE the bogey man, and just like the try to call the Joel Osteen’s and TD Jakes of the world on their doctrinal errors, I am calling them. It would seem that they are not too fond of such criticism. They can dish it out, though.
So the Rolling Stones song “Let’s spend The Night Together” can be changed to “Let’s Spend Eternity Together”, and now it’s ok for church?
For evangelism, absolutely. It’s about one’s heart and content, not the origins of the music. I’ll refer you to the experience of General Wm. Booth of the salvation army, who like many fundies, was an anti-modernist when it came to music, until he heard a beautiful song that he did not recognize, and the musician had to tell him that it was just a common worldly song of the day (“Champagne Charlie”) with redeemed lyrics.
So, on what scriptural basis would you exclude “let’s spend eternity together.”?
But then when you ask these same pastors “why don’t you ever preach about hell, self-denial, and holiness” (after all – those are in the bible too), they say “no need to dwell on the negatives”.
Well, that’s an entirely different subject, worthy of discussion. But condemning their use of rap is neither biblical nor helpful to the church. I totally agree that we should preach the whole counsel of God.
This is what happens when cultural relevance becomes king.
Yes, that is the one extreme to be avoided. The other is the blanket condemnation of modern forms because we equate “modern” with “worldly.”
I am not defending Ed Young against all attacks, but rather, using the specific diatribe I read against him to highlight the pervasive doctrinal error of anti-modernity in the ministry of Slice and it’s ilk.
They mostly talk about things like atonement, righteousness, God’s attributes, etc.
And those are fantastic things to preach on, although I’d save the meatier subjects for the church, and not for evangelism. Evangelism is about bringing the gospel to the world, not one’s ThM thesis.
Let’s just do what Paul told Timothy and “preach the Word”.
NO, this is your error – the word “just” – you want to limit everyone to just one type of communication – preaching. And while that is central to Christian ministry, you are unnecessarily condemning and limiting Christians to your proscriptive view of scripture and hindering the work of God.
Are you going to tell the missionaries in countries where they will be killed for preaching in public that they are cowards for meeting in secret, and spreading the gospel via more indirect methods like leaving literature on buses? I mean, Paul never left tracts around. Do you want to condemn that too? It would seem so.
I hope I am actually creating a straw man here, but the blanket condemnation I see coming out of Slice makes me realize that they major on the majors AND the minors, and their majoring on the minors is hurting Christendom. It is abusive, heretical, and sinful.
In other words, let’s aim to please God and not man, in our evangelism and worship.
I intend to endeavor to “become all things to all men” in order to save as many as possible. If I have to rap the gospel to reach one, I will, the contrarians be damned.
The modern church IS missing and dissregarding many great traditions of the past, and regards them as irrelevant. You are right.
I think we ought to have a great appreciation for those who have gone before us, but I also think we should live in the present, following the living God, not the God of the dead. Hymns are nice on Christian history month, or even better, woven into our weekly contemporary, living experience with God. If we are weekly singing songs in King James English from the 1800's, I take that as a sign that we are not reaching the lost and unchurched, else we'd have a more modern expression of faith.
Expecting people to adopt victorian culture and step back into what amounts to a cultural museum is like Judaizers expecting Gentiles to first convert to Judaism. The gospel is not Victorian english or culture, it's the eternal message of the gospel entering my heart, my culture, my language, and transforming it. And it's me responding in my language, my cultural forms (not worldly values), in a natural expression of my newfound relationship with God.
Appreciation for the timeless doctrines of God, and history are one thing. Expecting modern people to buy into our anachronistic church culture, and forcing the church to stay there via condemnation ministries, is the sin of many (not all) modern fundamentalists. They are one bogey man among many, right there next to Joel Osteen preaching his positive thinking gospel.
The current trend in many churches is toward a more emotional, touchy-feely kind of religion and less intellectual.
Actually, I disagree with this. I think the real trend is now AWAY from mere touchy feely doctrine. While Charismatics, esp into the 80's, emphasized experiencing God to a fault, this was in part a reaction to the overly dry, intellectual and doctrinal approach of more "fundamentalist" churches (who more oft than not resisted the spirit of God working in the Pentecostal movements).
Now, you see the Charismatic movement moving away from Finney and it's Armenian roots, and drifting towards the, in my opinion, more accurate Reformed views.
However, I do agree that on the left side of the evangelical and pentecostal movements, there are people like Osteen drifting off into positive thinking and away from the need for regeneration and penitence (not in that order ;).
> You want a praise fest for all they have done correct?
No, not at all. I speak out against fundamentalism myself from time to time. I have lots of problems with it. I'm simply saying that you seem to broad-brush anything conservative and non-prgressive into a dog named "fundamentalism" that you kick around a lot. And some of the people that you call Fundies, are not even Fundies.
> "in the essentials, unity"…
> expresses well what Paul is saying in Romans 14.
No, not in the way it is most commonly cited. Paul would not have spent the first half of the book of Romans spelling out specific doctrines, just to declare many of them optional or non-essential in chapter 14.
>"Regulative Principle" = sinful to use electric instruments
That's not what the Regulative Principle teaches. There are churches that don't use various instruments, mine and many others do however. In fact all of my church's music is generated by a very electically powered iPod connected through a new modern stereo system!
> Rolling Stones song "Let's spend The Night Together"
> For evangelism, absolutely.
No, there is more to it than that. When unbelievers who like that song, and know it's about fornication, see it being invoked by those who are supposed to be holy and set apart, you have blown your witness. It's the opposite of the "other-world-ly" witness that we talked about before. It doesn't matter that the lyrics are changed, they still have the REAL lyrics in their mind.
> It's about one's heart
> and content, not the origins of the music.
There's more to accountability before God than the intent of your heart. The bible has many examples of people who are punished even though they meant well. Paul even said that he thought his conscience was clear before God, but conceded that this would not be the basis for God's judgment of him. If you understand total depravity, you won't appeal to "what's in your heart", for it is deceitfully wicked, according to the bible. As far as content (lyrics) being all that matters, and not the tune, how do you feel about the Christian music group called Zombie Gutz? http://www.myspace.com/zombiegutz
> They mostly talk about things like atonement,
> righteousness, God's attributes, etc.
> And those are fantastic things to preach on, although
> I'd save the meatier subjects for the church, and not
> for evangelism. Evangelism is about bringing the
> gospel to the world, not one's ThM thesis.
But see, there is the problem. Church IS evangelism, in many of these churches. That's what they think church is for. It's interesting that you say that these topics are "ThM thesis" material, when Paul wrote about them in Romans, which was a letter to church people, not to theologians or even pastors necessarily.
> I intend to endeavor to "become all things to all men"
> in order to save as many as possible.
Does that have any limits to it? Should we become a prostitute to witness to prostitutes? A nudist to reach nudists? Some one who doesn't talk about doctrine, to those who hate doctrine?
> If I have to rap the gospel to reach one,
> I will, the contrarians be damned.
Don't worry, you don't. Nobody has to rap the Gospel. At least, not until an unbeliever actually exists that can't understand words unless they are "rapped". I've never met anyone like that.
You don't realize it, but what you said is a form of unbelief towards the Holy Spirit's power. You are essentially saying "I don't believe that if I simply tell people the Gospel message, that the Holy Spirit will work in power to save that person, through the message that I speak. No, I must go beyond that, and come up with something clever that goes beyond simply telling them the message."
But Paul did not believe like you do. He said in 1 Corinthians 2:1-5: "And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with LOFTY SPEECH OR WISDOM. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."
What Paul is essentially saying here, is that he chose not to employ brilliant ideas in bringing them the Gospel. Rather he was determined to deliver the message in a straightforward simplicity, relying on the power of God to make the message effective and produce growth.
Would Paul have "rapped" them the Gospel?
I’m simply saying that you seem to broad-brush anything conservative and non-prgressive into a dog named “fundamentalism” that you kick around a lot.
I’d say you’ll need to show me specifics. I only accuse fundies of things I see them doing. Perhaps I have mislabeled some groups as fundies when they are not. But I believe that my criticisms of fundies can stand scrutiny.
No, not in the way it is most commonly cited.
Perhaps that is our difficulty – in your world, perhaps “the essentials > unity” phrase is abused. In evangelicalism, where I live, it means “if we do not agree on the essentials of the faith (say, as discussed in the Nicene Creed), then we can not walk together as Christians. However, in the non-essentials, like whether or not a Christian can drink alcohol, eat meat, go to the beach where the horrific “mixed bathing” takes place, or polka with his wife, we allow liberty.”
Sure, Paul spent the most of Romans laying out essential doctrine. But THEN, very specifically, he includes chapter 14 for those who want to take every secondary doctrine they create and make it mandatory for others. Paul let’s us know that THEY are the ones with a weak, oversensitive conscience, who would like to bring others into their captivity.
They lack freedom, and this is what people who are against modern music are doing. They are taking their own pet secondary doctrines and trying to impose it on those who don’t feel compelled by conscience or doctrine to do the same. It is against biblical principle to judge your brother who has liberty – you ought to obey it yourself, stop judging others, and allow others liberty.
When unbelievers who like that song, and know it’s about fornication, see it being invoked by those who are supposed to be holy and set apart, you have blown your witness.
I somewhat agree here, but I don’t think that you can make a blanket statement about using or not using various secular songs or modern musical styles. While your argument may be useful for eliminating certain songs or musical styles in certain situations, in others, they may be perfectly acceptable, even preferable.
Church IS evangelism, in many of these churches. That’s what they think church is for. It’s interesting that you say that these topics are “ThM thesis” material,
All I am saying by using the ThM statement is to say that babes need milk, not meat. I did not say that atonement is something too meaty for neophytes, and of course, it is part of the gospel. But I am saying that using contemporary communication styles and a clear, simple gospel to reach unbelievers is worth doing.
Next time you do an outreach to unbelievers, you might want to skip teaching them, for example, the Regulative Principle, and preach the gospel.
I intend to endeavor to “become all things to all men” in order to save as many as possible….Does that have any limits to it?
Yes, but not the strict limits you seem to want to impose. While you seem to want to limit us to only what the bible explicitly proposes or uses, I come from the opposite side – anything that it does NOT condemn by specific prohibition or principle, I think is fair game. So that includes medical missions, heavy metal Christian music, handing out bibles at porn conventions (with a cover that says “Jesus loves Porn Stars”).
In some cases, there most definitely must be changes, like the group of former strippers who know reach out to their former colleagues. However, I think that many church folk would balk at their bleached blond hair, somewhat sexy clothes, and makeup. But rather than going back to their friends with head coverings and long skirts, they are going back with a modesty of the heart that has it’s own natural expression which may not include Victorian clothing.
That’s called “Christian liberty.” They are not stripping anymore, but they are also not becoming anachronistic religionists who inhibit the salvation of their friends by demanding that the Christian life be conformance to a list of secondary doctrines and outward practices.
At least, not until an unbeliever actually exists that can’t understand words unless they are “rapped”. I’ve never met anyone like that.
Maybe you are right. Or maybe you should get out more, I’m not sure ;) (Just kidding, don’t get mad on that point).
You don’t realize it, but what you said is a form of unbelief towards the Holy Spirit’s power. You are essentially saying “I don’t believe that if I simply tell people the Gospel message, that the Holy Spirit will work in power to save that person, through the message that I speak.
I don’t think so, and that is not what I mean. I love preaching, I think plain preaching is the core of gospel ministry. But I am not for (1) limiting the ways in which Christians want to reach out, esp. if the Bible does not specifically condemn their methods, and (2) I refuse to put secondary doctrines in the way of people who want to find God.
For example, those who condemn Contemporary Christian Music or worship are putting a stumbling block in the way of every person who can not relate to 19th century music or language. While they may get something out of the preaching, presenting people with essentially a foreign culture and telling them that THIS is Christianity is a mistake – it’s like one of the great mistakes in missionary history, bringing Western Christianity to foreign nations, rather than bringing the gospel and allowing it to transform their culture.
But Paul did not believe like you do.
You’ve made this conclusion based on the straw man you created above it, based on what you pejoratively interpret my position to be. Shame on you for such a tactic (I’m sure I do it too, but it’s not right)
I like Paul’s approach, but if you approach this one isolated passage as the sum total of how Christian ministry is to be done, you’ve basically eliminated every other type of outreach. I’d say your principles of applying scripture are way too restrictive, to the point of limiting God’s creativity in his people.
The way you wield such scriptures to eliminate, say, rap music outreach, would also eliminate medical missions, relief missions, the use of movies, etc.
Look, we agree that anointed gospel preaching is the mainstay of Christian ministry and outreach. All I am saying is that condemning other methods used to draw people, to create bridges, or to create a vibrant Christian culture, are not only unnecessarily and unbiblically restrictive, I believe such isolating and limiting doctrines have hindered the work of God, caused us to abandon being salt and light in our culture, and wasted our time with needless infighting over non-essential doctrines.
The fundy crusades against Bill Hybels, for instance, are in my mind, injuring the church, not helping it. Wasting time ridiculing rap outreaches is counterproductive, and missing the real problems in the church which need to be addressed. It seems to be straining out gnats.
Regarding the Regulative Principle, after reading up on it at wikipedia, it would seem that I subscribe to the Normative Principle.
Sandy said, "I have another friend who desperately wanted to leave the gay lifestyle he had been living for many years."
Sandy, is this accurate?
A common argument which the Christian Right tries to make against gays and efforts to increase social acceptance of homosexuality is the idea that gays want to “recruit” others — especially children — into their “lifestyle.” People who know gays and understand homosexuality find this position absurd, but it does seem to follow logically from the starting assumptions which the Christian Right has about homosexuality generally.
I know you are not asking for MY opinion, but never have to ;).
This is NOT a true perspective of most Christians I know. Gays are not really, IMO, interested in recruiting, but in helping those who feel they are gay deal with social stigma and such.
Regarding gays and children, mostly, Christians are concerned that pro-gay rhetoric will teach our children that homosexuality is normative, healthy, and a valid alternative to heterosexual romantic and physical intimacy. Christians believe that, like teaching kids that promiscuity is OK, we are basically leading them down the road to sorrow and self-destruction – where sin always leads.
Perhaps the most important assumption which serves as a foundation for all Christian Right attitudes towards homosexuality is that it is a chosen behavior rather than an innate orientation.
This is also untrue. While Christians believe that you can CHOOSE to heal from your homosexuality, that does not mean that you chose it in the first place. Like other coping mechanisms and response to childhood trauma or deprivation, Christians believe that many people become homosexual in unconscious reponse to their environment.
A minority (unfortunately) of Christians admit that homosexuality may have biological origins also, but to them, this does not make it “normal” any more than any other genetic abnormality makes the result normal.
They define homosexuality as same-sex sexual behavior, not same-sex attraction that has emotional and psychological as well as sexual components. In this manner it is treated as a sin just like theft — however strong the desire may be, it’s something a person has control over acting on.
Wow, you’ve found a cornucopia of straw men (I hope they’re not gay, because a bunch of men in the straw? Could be problematic ;).
Seriously, if you view hx as a coping mechanism or developmental disorder, it is very likely that sexual attraction, intimacy needs, and friendship are all part of homosexuality, just like they might be part of adultery.
Most Christians acknowledge that the roots of this personality disorder are deep because they involve gender and sexuality self-concepts that start as early as age 2. Such deep wounds take serious therapy and healing to be overcome, just like any other kind of abuse, neglect, or other childhood injury, real or perceived.
Just as a kleptomaniac’s obsessive desire to steal must be punished, so must a homosexual’s desire to engage in same-sex behavior be punished.
Well, if you believe like the author is claiming, of course you might conclude such. Christians don’t believe in punishing gays, but rather, providing truth and therapy that heals them.
They may continue to experience attraction to members of the same sex, but so long as they don’t act on their desires then they aren’t really “gay” anymore.
To some extent, Catholics think this way, but they would not say that a person who is celibate but has same-sex attraction is not gay. They would say that they are not following through on sinful desires, just like heteros do when a hot babe walks by.
However, this is different because no one is requiring me to be celibate. But even my ex-gay friends still are tempted by men at times, like an alcoholic is tempated to drink, esp. under duress.
The goal or real ex-gay ministry is to heal the self-concept wounds of the gay, help them develop a healthy gender self-concept, and awaken the hetero attraction that lies dormant in every person.
The theory is, when you develop a healthy sense of your gender and the other gender, and a healthy sense of self as male (or female for lesbians), you no longer need to fill that gap in yourself via romanticized or sexualized relationships with men. You are now FREE to BE a man, and to pursue your natural attraction to women.
Because attraction to members of the same sex is unnatural, then it must necessarily be created by others Christian Nationalists are especially concerned about children being recruited.
Wow, that’s an eye opener. Never heard that in any Christian circles I’ve been in. I wonder if he can document his claims. I think the only concern that Christians have about recruitement comes from the mostly erroneous idea that gays are pedophiles, or that there is a strong link between these two sins.
Unfortunately, organizations like NAMBLA help fuel this misconception, but we all know that most pedophilia is performed by hetero perverts – but that would lead us to a discusson of the role of porno (and forced priestly celibacy) in pedophilia.
They fear that anything which depicts homosexuality in an even neutral manner is part of an organized conspiracy to subvert Christian morality and Christian civilization…. It’s simply not a question that requires any serious ethical debate: of course children shouldn’t be given the impression that such sinful behavior is even remotely acceptable. If they start believing this, then they might start engaging in this behavior themselves.
Now that is true. I’ve said the same myself. But all that other stuff, nah.
Why argue with christianists about homosexuality? On this topic they are simply insane. I am coming more and more to the conclusion that fundamentalist religion (if not most religion) is a psychosis with varying degrees of severity. It is also one of the greatest dangers to civilization today. Only environmental degradation ranks higher in my view. I'm constantly debating with myself which will do us in sooner. I guess I could resolve the question by mining down to the bedrock human problem: stupidity. (The two most common elements in the universe? Hydrogen and stupidity.)
As to the senator's comment above: it is by far the most disturbing (even worse that the fertilizer we usually get from squealer – though I'm sure he agrees with the sen.). Substitute "Jew" for "gay" and you'll see why. Thus, among conservative religionists, we see the very same rhetoric, except for its choice of scapegoat, that was used by the Nazis. Not only are these people demented, they are also dangerous and profoundly anti-American. Thank Zeus for Canada.
I have to agree with Louis on this one Seeker. I'd like to hear what Sandy has to say about this though. Does she have a different opinion?
Homosexuality 101 for you straights.
Homosexuality was introduced in the 19th century as an attempt at a scientific, neutral term for same-sexers that would remove the stigma. Modern same-sexers generally view it as negative or, at best, neutral, as merely a description of a simple biological fact. "Gay" was invented by same-sexers to combat such pejoratives as "fag" "queer" "homo" "fairy" etc (the list is endless). "Gay," in that context, is therefore chosen: it is a choice that denotes pride, dignity, self-awareness, and an assertion of normalcy. In that way, christianists are correct to abominate it, for they seek to deny any and all dignity to the same-sexer. They want to eviscerate the gay person's humanity and reduce us to either "sick" or "sinful" or "deviant" or "evil" aberrations to be condemned and changed (or removed). Thus, in the face of this centuries-old and on-going pogrom, "gay" is a brave and affirmative declaration of humanity. Remember this the next time you hear a conservative or christianist rant about the "gay agenda."
Some same-sexers have come to the conclusion that "gay" is just too tame and non-descriptive a word in the face of all this. They have adopted the pejorative "queer" and liberated it from the haters as an in-your-face declaration of defiance and affirmation. It tells the straights that we don't give a damn what you think of us. I am leaning in this declaration myself, partly because the straights have started to use the word "gay" as a pejorative, replacing stupid and ridiculous. "Queer" also tells the straight majority that we are GLAD that we are not like them (the hypocrisies of the straight majority are manifold). Thus, we reject their "gay" attempts at converting same-sexers, at healing us, because we see nothing to heal, nothing wrong with us. It is a political stance which rejects the judgments and condemnations we have so long endured at the hands of the straight majority and their religions. In this sense, it is, indeed, a chosen lifestyle, because it takes the given biological fact of homosexuality and transforms it beyond the mild "gay" to an assertive and affirmative way of life.
Someday, I'd like to think that all of this will be unnecessary, that sexuality will be as unremarkable as eye-color, but that is not the way things are yet for most of the world (with a few notable exceptions). As long as people like seeker and the rest exist, "queer" folk will need to fight.
We're queer; we're here; get used to it!
Well, that puts some accepted conventions around the words, which I might agree on.
Homosexuality = sexual orientation, not chosen, but perhaps a reversible, treatable malady
Gay = Outward identity that is chosen
That pretty much is what I said above, excet you disagree about the origins and reversibility of sexual orientation. But we both agree it is not chosen.
I'm not a homophobic, and I have someone close to me whom I love very much who is a homosexual. Like most of the Christians that I know – we don't blast them or treat them cruely, but reach out to them in loving evangelism like we do with all sinners. But with all of that said, anyone who thinks that the bible is not against homosexuality has not done their homework. I say that as someone who's looked at all the arguments on both sides.
99.999% of Christians in the previous 1850 years (prior to fundamentalism) have had no problem understanding this. This includes the best Greek and Hebrew scholars the Church has ever had in her history. For a formal debate on "homosexual Christians", go to http://www.aomin.org and get the Bishop Spong debate MP3/CD/DVD.
As a closing comment for me, on this thread, all I can say is "long live Ingrid and the Slice of Laodicea website". Everything on this page, starting with Seeker's dining at the theological buffet (see my description of what that means), to his pragmatic thinking that the Holy Spirit ought to be aided by a "rapped Gospel", to the "the bible is fine with homosexuality", speaks of a group of people who wish to thrust their views upon the bible and force them to fit like a square peg in a round hole, rather than allowing the bible to speak for itself.
Slice gets some things wrong, and they do not always present things in the manner that they should, but for the most part – they lovingly help to warn the sheep of the false and unbiblical thinking found on sites like this one. OF COURSE you hate Slice, it's easy to see the real reasons of why that would be. I will continue to link to Slice on my website, feeling even stronger about it now since we've had this discussion.
I hope it will sink in some day for you that, you actually believe things (lots of things) that almost nobody else beleived before the last century (before Fundamentalism). That should concern you greatly, as there is nothing new under the sun, truth does not change with time, and Christianity is 2000 years old. You have yourself convinced that you are not changing biblical content but only the way it's delivered, yet one need only read this blog a little while to see that this is not the case. And the errors of fundamentalism are not grounds for your own set of errors.
Homophobes ALWAYS say they know someone who's gay and that they love them. In their minds, this somehow exempts them when they proceed to express their homophobic views. Weird.
homophobe
noun
a person who hates or fears homosexual people
phobic
adjective
suffering from irrational fears
One can dislike something without being considered phobic. You only use the expression so often because you don't like your life choices being viewed as wrong, or disliked.
Which is totally understandable. But if you really are as "reasonable" as you say, then you cannot keep reasonably referring to people who disapprove of homosexuality as [b]phobic[/b].
I believe in calling a spade a spade.
You only use the expression so often because you don't like your life choices being viewed as wrong, or disliked.
Lawanda, Louis is in the best position to tell Christians and straights about homosexuality. I'd listen to him. It's not a "life choice." As he said, "he's (born) queer" Why don't you just listen to him? You are getting the information first hand, from the source, from the horse's mouth. When I want information about Christianity I go to Christians, not Buddhists. So, why would you go to Christians to get your information about gays?
anyone who thinks that the bible is not against homosexuality has not done their homework.
Many gay apoligists have done their homework – but they should get an F for logic and hermeneutic.
Everything on this page, starting with Seeker's dining at the theological buffet
This is a bogus ad hominem comment. It basically means that Christians are not allowed to come to their own conclusions about doctrine, but must follow only one system of thought, or else be considered irresponsible.
I understand that we can't just allow scripture to mean what we want it to mean, but if we use a consistent hermeneutic, we may very well come to a consistent theology, even if it does not agree 100% with Calvin or Jim.
Jim, even you don't follow one school of thought exclusively, do you? How about this. I don't go to the buffet, but I do get to order my side-dishes.
Slice gets some things wrong, and they do not always present things in the manner that they should, but for the most part – they lovingly help to warn the sheep of the false and unbiblical thinking found on sites like this one.
OK Jim, you just went over the edge. Um, what theology are we promoting that is false and unbiblical? Criticism of Slice's unbiblical and hurtful (loving is hardly the first adjective that Slice brings to mind) theology? Acceptance of *gasp* rap music for ministry? Somehow, I missed that doctrine in the major creeds.
And that is the point. When people like Slice elevate such secondary positions to primary, and declare all who disagree as false and unbiblical, they are fitting the definition of cult, and Pharisee, to a pefect T.
I think you have just demonstrated that you believe that anyone who disagrees with Slice is preaching false, heretical doctrine. This proves the point that they/you have drawn a tight little happy line around your narrow interpretations, and declared all outside as heretics.
That type of approach is what I call cultic and damaging to the body of Christ.
And Slice does *some* things wrong? Try 50%. Their self-righteous, patronizing attitude stinks to high heaven, even when they are correct. Their insular approach to comments, their blanket condemnation of anyone who doesn't stick to such doctrines as your Regulative Principle might dictate, and the fact that you condemn anyone who doesn't strictly follow one school of thought is religous sickness. Really.
They are not merely warning others, they are abusing people with their narrow, abusive theology.
I hope it will sink in some day for you that, you actually believe things (lots of things) that almost nobody else beleived before the last century (before Fundamentalism).
I hope it will sink in that your history is selective, your arguments full of logical errors (it's true because it's old, it's true because a majority believe it, it's true because Calvin said so).
But since you are making claims as to lots of things we/I believe wrongly, perhaps you'd like to outline them? You see, I figure that (a) you have little idea what I/we believe, but are making negative assumptions and guesses, and (b) on the central things, like the authority and inspiration of scripture, the central tenets of reformed theology, and Christ's supremacy, we agree.
So you know where you think I am wrong? On all of your secondary pet doctrines that you elevate to primary ones, you abuse the church by telling them they are apostate and not part of your precious remant (which is not THE remnant, but a Pharisaical and sick Christian group). QED
Did I mention that slice is not only patronizing, but derogatory towards other Christains?
I'm sure I'm guilt of the same on occaision (esp. when discussing the errors of fundamantalism), but still, to call them loving is a stretch, nearly a lie. The don't even LISTEN well, let alone love.