Dial it Back a Notch or Two…
This is a phrase a good friend of mine used to have to ‘whisper’ in my ear - sometimes at jackhammer decibels.
We all get wound up at times. No question. There are a number of things in this world to be outraged about, and a number of things to stand for. In the heat of passion, things are said, names are called, and uncharitable feelings spill out of our mouths and pens.
My comment about “rabid watchdogs” being “put down” was exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. Over-the-top hyperbole. Unwise. About two notches too high.
While the topic of the article was, I still believe, spot on, my anger got the best of me and I have sinned against a good number of brothers and sisters in Christ. Please forgive me.
Recently, Jim Bublitz put together a hit piece on my comments about those who use Calvinism as a club. Whether he really believes what he wrote or not, his commentary on what I believe about my brothers and sisters in Christ who follow the system put together by Calvin is nowhere near the truth. I certainly believe that there are those who hold the solas as tightly as scripture, whether they would admit to it or not, and that when they do so it would fit the definition of “another gospel”. I pray for them, that they would repent, and hope that none will follow in those footsteps.
However, it is very likely that I have been cavalier with those comments and that Christian brothers and sisters may have felt that I was including them amidst the non-specific roll of Calvinists in my comments. I became aware of this when Rick I commented about this several months back. For this I am sorry, and I repent. I will do my best to be more specific and less hyperbolic with such comments in the future, and I am sure that if I am not, someone will be there to quote this article back at me…
Dial it back a notch or two…
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.
Dial it back a notch or two, Chris L, dial it back a notch or two…
It’s good advice for me, and - if you’ve commented here today - it might just be good advice for you, as well…
December 14th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Great article, thank you for the reminder. This is one of the most humble pieces I think I’ve ever read here, making it one of the best pieces, in my opinion.
December 14th, 2007 at 6:23 am
This should awaken us in the future to allow the Holy Spirit to guide our words even in the context of strong confrontation. Hyperbolic words are very vunerable to be fleshly and open to a wider than intended definition, but we can still use words that communicate how strongly we feel about something with getting personal or getting into the flesh.
In the end, even when directly addressing something someone else posted, we should endeavor to clearly demonstrate the unbiblical nature or tone of the article without getting sidetracked by unproductive words. People will not respond to the issue at hand if they can create an alterior issue based upon some verbiage.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:37 am
“In the end, even when directly addressing something someone else posted, we should endeavor to clearly demonstrate the unbiblical nature or tone of the article without getting sidetracked by unproductive words.”
Herein lies the problem.It is all subjective. Or are you saying that your biblical views are right and mine wrong?
What dos this mean. Are the blogs we disagree with unbiblical, while ours are properly exegeted? You accuse the odm blogs of doing this, but this is the attitude that is quite evident here.
“In essentials unity…..” however it is also apparent that one man’s garbage, is another man’s essentials.
There is no unity outside of Truth i.e. outside of Christ, and the unity of the Body is an established fact, whether one walk in it or not. We do not create these things. Jesus is Truth, but He also said that the Word of God is truth. So let’s quit separating the word made flesh, from every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
Threatened lawsuits, proclaiming the right to carry concealed weapons,…what’s next; petitioning the military for surgical air strikes; wire tapping’ pre-empting the mail? Paul taught that the church judges itself. So judge. (I am afraid threatening to file and/or actually filing lawsuits comes perilously close to vindicating Ken’s posts.)
While we are worrying about someone’s “tone” the real issues, and laying solid biblical foundations go unattended.
Let’s be realistic. Blogs are inadequate on so many levels. Conversation is a vague concept. We are not here to convince anybody of anything. At the end of the day, no one will abandon their core beliefs.
This is not “fatalism” but it is reality, and God always works through the reality.
I’m ok……you’re ok?? I think not.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Chris P.,
Sometimes I wonder if you even read the posts before you comment.
Chris L. made a point to clarify that we don’t consider Calvinists or the ODMs to not be Christians. In fact he apologized for anything that might have given that impression.
Of course we think our opinions are right. If we didn’t, they wouldn’t keep them, would we? I don’t thin that’s the point, though. The point is realizing our opinion on these things is not the entire truth, and that those who disagree with us are still brothers and sisters.
Greg Boyd said something in a sermon a few weeks that the Holy Spirit has been convicting me about since I heard it. He said (my paraphrase) that if we care more about proving ourselves right than showing the love of Christ to someone, we totally miss the point of the Gospel.
To me, that’s a really hard challenge to live up to.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Well, I worry about you being saved Phil. (JK)
December 14th, 2007 at 9:58 am
What do we have to lose by humbly apologizing to brothers and sisters we’ve hurt, even if what we said was true, even if we’re not wrong? What do we lose? We’re supposed to have lost our lives already anyways. What do we lose? We should have no pride to lose by apologizing. I would much rather apologize with no strings attatched and sooth seething anger with soothing words, and be the one who is wrong, than let a brother continue in anger and sin, or to continue to assist their hurting, even if it’s self induced.
Chris you did the right thing, even though you were completely misconstrued and that’s why there was much offense, you did the right thing by realizing you had nothing to lose by apologizing and being Christ like in heart.
Chris P…
My JOB is precision AIR STRIKES. Am I Christian?
If I am, then I’m part of the Church, and I do air strikes…hmm.
Looks like it’s already happened. No need to wonder ‘what’s next’. God’s people are in all sorts of different places.
Joe
December 14th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Chris P., your commenting has spiraled so downward that it has become not only difficult to understand your logic, your comments only detract from any productive intercourse. It wasn’t always the case, it seems it is now.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Chris P.
You know who I am. You what I believe. Oh, my brother, I so disagree with the men here. I yearn for them to see the errors of relativity, of the emergent movement, and other things. I pray that these men, whom I wish with all my heart are indeed my spiritual flesh and blood, would have the scales removed from their eyes on these issues. I do not lose sleep at night because these men can’t stand Ken Silva, or Ingrid, I lose sleep at night because these men often can’t see past Calvin or some such scholar that we happen to agree with.
I also lose sleep because of men like you Chris P. “You slander your own mother’s son”. Yes, so do these men. I too have seen hypocrisy abound here. Be angry brother, I am. Be angry, yet DO NOT SIN. Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest YOU BE LIKE HIM.
I call on you again brother, please repent. If you truly believe, as I do, that these gentlemen are wrong, show them what is right. And let them and everybody else slander you and Ken and me and so on to their heart’s content. It matters not, in fact, good always comes from true persecution.
I do not want you to be my Russia, allied to me as a brother simply because of a common enemy. Wars are not won, and certainly, they are not abolished that way.
If you are not after family when you come here, you should not be here at all. Are we defending the Gospel, or a bean field?
I hope I have gained a brother Chris.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:37 am
SJ Walker-
I happen to be a calvinist and not a Rob Bell fan. I occasionally listen to Bell’s sermons but there is some stuff in his writing that bothers me. And yet I’m a commentor /writer for this site. I’m not sure what errors you happen to think we have here.
In fact, as I look at Apprising’s Doctrinal Statement, I happen to be in agreement with it. There is some wording I might tweak here or there, but not much. I don’t, however, agree with Silva’s tactics.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Boy i am glad you finally figured this out!!!!
You better get back to biblical Truth… oh His Name is Jesus…
Your Bro,
iggy
December 14th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Chris, you also said:
Then what are we doing here? I AM here to convince, I AM here so that even one of these men might “abandon” unScriptural beliefs. What kind of God do you serve anyway? I believe He can change these hearts. I also believe He will. And if He uses me to do it then praise His Sovereign and Holy name!
I do not understand. Think, better yet, pray before you speak. And stop grieving the Holy Spirit.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:43 am
With comment threads like this who needs Reality T.V.?
December 14th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Correction:
Only the first two sentences there were Chris’s words. I thought I closed the block. Sorry.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Matt,
I’m sorry, I don’t have much time left. But I’ll try and clarify myself. I do not necessarily adhere to bro. Ken’s tactics either. However, more often than not, I fin the same tactics going back over the wall at him. Who “started it” or not is irrelevant at that point.
Doctrinally, I would say i need to be clearer when I say I disagree with the men here. It is the relativity-laden elephant theology and so on that disturbs me. It takes the concept of “free will” to ecumenical levels. There have been other issues, but that would be the biggest as yet to my immediate recollection. Furthermore, regarding that particular issue. I may need to make sure I haven’t missed anything, but I haven’t seen anything here that would cal out Chris Lyon’s error in that hypothesis. That concerns me as well.
Thanks for calling me on that one. And thanks for being honest about what you personally believe. I just hope your definition of “Calvinist” and mine are the same.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:55 am
I fixed the errant block indent tag for SJ Walker at 10:55
December 14th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Thanks. Lo the poor savage.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:04 am
While I am a calvinist and have defended that position, I also have friends who come from the Wesleyan tradition (my old college roommate was United Methodist) . I happen to think that they are just as much Christian as I. I disagree with Wesley where he teaches that one could become completely perfect/sinless in this life. Do I “contend” that issue? It depends. If my old roommate, for example, were to tell me that his belief in perfection was the only belief and to be a good Christian, I had to believe his way, then I probably would “contend”. If he happened to believe that and didn’t want to fight about it and didn’t see the need to force his belief down my throat, then I’d see little reason to fight over it.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:36 am
So I’ve been surfing the comments for the last few months. You know who I miss? Amy. Well, sort of.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:47 am
S. J. Walker - I identify with the tone and most of the substance of your remarks. You are a brother with whom I can fellowship even though I am a massive free will monster.
If you visit my blog you will see that I agree with many of your concerns.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Chris,
Thanks so much for the post. I took down my earlier post that referenced your earlier comment. I think your advice on dialing things back is timely and something I’d also like to do. I know we’re not going to agree on key issues, and you’ll continue to write critiques of Slice, etc. but as we near a new year, it would be great to have a fresh start between blogs at sincerely trying to keep a sense of anger and hate out of things. You’re not my enemy and I’m not yours. These issues are deeply felt and its easy for anger to take over on both sides. Anyway, thank you.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:57 am
SJ Walker,
could you give some examples of the relativity-laden elephant theology that is written on this blog. I read this blog frequently and I don’t see it.
And what does it mean to take the concept of “free will” to “ecumenical levels”. Break it down for me, when you find time. We are all here to learn (and encourage); well, okay, I can’t speak for everybody though.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Thank you, as well, Ingrid.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Amazing. Jesus brings out the best in all of us that none of us have without Him. I’m really glad to see some reconcilliation.
Joe
December 14th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Rick,
Don’t worry. You still have time to repent. The first step is admitting.
Until next time.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Robbo,
I believe that he is referring to this article, in which I lay out a case (not original, by any means) that “free will” and “predestination” both box God within the bounds of time, and that if we allow God to exist beyond time (which is fairly clear in scripture - I’ve heard no objections to this), then it is possible - and quite likely - that these items as concepts are like blind men feeling the same elephant and coming away with different conclusions… Both have truth in their core and need not logically conflict when time is removed from the equation.
But take any commentary on this to one of the elephant threads, rather than thread-jack this one based on my explanation
December 14th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Chris L. and Ingrid,
This kind post and Ingrid’s kind comment give me much hope that the Body of Christ is alive and well in the blogosphere.
Blessings on you both,
John
December 14th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Robbo,
I don’t have time right now. I am brewing a blog post regarding this particular issue. However, here is something to get you started. This link is something Chris Lyons wrote on his blog. This is something I wrote at my blog around the time I found Chris’s. It wasn’t in response per se, but it correlates.
Later.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Saying God is bigger and better than man isn’t ‘relativity’ or ‘post modern’. All anyone is saying is that the Free Will/Predestination issue doesn’t need to be an “issue” at all if you just accept at face value that Scripture obviously has both. How they correlate is beyond man’s grasp (or we still wouldn’t be debating it thousands of years later), but it’s not relative. God knows exactly how it works, but we’re only touching small parts of this ‘elephant’ know as ‘time’ and trying to declare dogmatically how exactly God relates to time. This is silly as can be.
Are your thoughts God’s thoughts? No. All you have is God’s Word, as do I, and it makes both Free Will and Predest. non exclusive to each other and shows both existing in Scripture plainly. How they play together will continue to be debated until Jesus returns, I can (non-prophetically) guarentee that.
And people will probably continue to disavow fellowship with other Christians over it until Jesus returns as well. Let’s get back on subject.
Joe
December 14th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Wow.
God bless Ingrid.
Really.
That’s awesome.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Thank you for your public humility. I appreciate it very much.
I am always saddened when I see the bitter arguments over varying theological positions (such as the Arminian/Calvin debates).
In 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 Paul admonished the believers *against* this kind of division:
I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
Grace and peace to you, dear brothers and sisters.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Ingrid,
Excellent post!
December 14th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Strong disagreement accompanied by non personal discourse, sometimes confrontational, while still overtly displaying a love for the Christian standing of each other is something about which the church is not very polished. We can do better and Ingrid’s comment contains the tone that is needed.
O come let us adore Him!
December 14th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Ingrid, I’m definately praying for you and your health issues. God bless!
December 14th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
I am glad that you put this post up on here. I was very offended by what I read earlier. I hope that we are all on the same team. thanks
December 14th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
We have been in the middle of an ice/winter storm here in Oklahoma and I have not had internet access until last evening. I had just about decided that since I hadn’t been around here for a week…why bother. I’m glad I did. Nice post Chris. Incouraging to read Ingrid’s comment as well.
My wife and I had a discussion the other day re: the “calvinism” thing. She doesn’t buy into it. I do. I told her, basically, we are talking more about the “how” rather than “if” in regard to salvation. We still manage to be kind to one another and live in peace. The end is the same for us all…we get what we do not deserve.
If Joe is not using his “Reverand” title, should I drop my mine?
8^)>
December 14th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Ingrid,
May our Lord Bless you most abundantly…
iggy
December 14th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Keith,
I’d give you the story for why I used my Reverend title but somehow I doubt you’d care.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
P.S. I have it on my checks too, so you might want to add your whatever it is to yours.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Keith,
I am a “Reverend” also… but I just don’t talk about it much… some of your people called me a fraud over it and it was stupidly ugly….
On the other hand… how are things with you?
iggy
December 14th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Joe: You never know…I might actually care more than you think! 8^)>
I’m going to drop the “Elder” part because I don’t attend the church where I was ordained any more anymore…since this post is all about getting along and such. Kinda nice, I think.
Loved your “Friday Photos.”
December 14th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Iggy:
We are great. God graciously saw us through the ice/winter strom this week. I am exhausted mentally and physically. Spent most days looking for supplies/food/gas for the generator, as well as helping clear trees in mine and neighbor’s yards.
Some people can be “stupidly ugly…” Their loss.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Keith - does the “Lizard” make a veiled reference to Jim Morrison?
December 14th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Thanks Keith, I like to dabble in photography
December 14th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Rick: Actually, the “High Exhausted Lizard” was a joke title we gave a guy at work that was a Mason/Mormon. We were always asking him about the Grand Poobah or Grand Potentate or Grand Exhausted Lizard. As I think back on the situation…he didn’t seem to have much of a sense of humor.
Joe: What type/brand of camera do you have?
December 14th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Nikkon D50
December 14th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Joe: Type of memory card? SD?
December 14th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Yeah, 512mb
December 14th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Thanks. Been looking at the Nikkons or Canon Rebel XT.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
I’m just a Nikon guy, although I’ve though about expanding a bit.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Thanks for the info. If you’re interested, I shot some pics of the ice storm.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Keith,
I want to apologize for the “some of your people” part of that last comment I made. They not “some of your people” but just some who deem themselves as worthy to judge others by their own righteousness… you most probably did or do not even know them…
What I said was unnecessary.
sorry.
iggy
December 15th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Iggy:
I didn’t see your comment until this morning. Honestly, I didn’t even pick up on the “some of your people” as negative. I assumed it to be just another way of identifying “Calvinists” or reformed believing individuals.
The term/label “Calvinist” certainly carries a negative tone with many–even in my own denomination (Southern Baptist). Many times it–the negative tone–is due to lack of information, some times it is the result of hurt/anger, etc. I admit, there are some angry Calvinists out there saying some very hurtful things. I hope I’m not seen as one, nor do I ever want to become one.
I certainly sympathize with you and Chris L–and Ingrid…sometimes we/I let our emotions get the best of us and rather than “dialing it back” we “ramp it up.” I’m encouraged by the tone of this post. We may not agree on some theological points, but as followers of Jesus Christ, “sons of God,” we can and should disagree in kindness and civility.
Since we’re “dialing it back…” I’ll go ahead and drop the “High and Exhausted Lizard” title. Looks like we’re back to simply “Keith” and “Joe” (the previously titled Reverand–although you and he actually have a right to the title). 8^)>
Gotta run. We’re bracing for more snow here and I need to get out and clear away some tree limbs, etc.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Keith - those pictures were amazing! They reminded me of an ice storm here in Indiana back in 2001…
Stay safe!