shootin’ the bird?
When I checked Slice this morning, I was stunned to hear that Granger Church had flipped the audience the bird during their easter service. This was something that I had to see for myself, so I checked out the video. I was a little disappointed, as I really was in need of some good drama to jump start my day.
The video in question was simply a new fad in YouTube videos, where lyrics to a song are drawn on fingers and then shown moving with the music. In this case, the word “make” was written on the middle finger, and was raised when the word was sung. This was not the performer “giving fellow Christians, and the Lord, the finger”, as Ingrid would suggest. It would be very hard to watch that video think that the intent was to flip the audience off.
Now, could Granger Church have used some tact in making this art piece? Certainly. At some point in rehearsals, someone should have said “hey, someone might get confused with the middle finger being held up alone.” But for Ingrid to say this is obscene, and assume that they were doing this to flip the audience off, is rediculous. I sometimes wonder how much time the ODMs spend poking around on the internet to find one headline that will make them the best Christian tabloid of the day. There is a big difference between having the spirit of discernment, and getting up in everyone’s business.
Oh, and she never mentioned the words of the pastor following the art piece… “I have good news, Jesus Christ is alive, now and forever more, the crucified on has risen from the grave, and he has ascended to the right hand of God, and he is the sovereign king and lord of all who live and all who have ever lived. He is worthy of our praise.” Funny thing… never heard about his extremely biblical sermon from that morning on Slice.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:23 am
When was the last time you saw a palm-forward middle finger gesture either?
For the obscene gesture the back of you hand has to be facing the offendee and you’ll notice the video takes care not to do that.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Kind of like holding up the “V for Victory” sign in certain (primarily European) countries - the direction the palm faces makes all the difference in the world as to the meaning of the symbol…
June 17th, 2008 at 11:43 am
I too was expecting some obscene gesture as an attempt at humor. It was extremely clandestine and I’m sure now unintentional. This church has obviously adopted the evangelistic Sunday morning approach, but I do not prefer the goofy videos on Easter Sunday morning.
Thanks for sharing what the pastor said, I did not hang around long enough to hear it. Another point, Nathan, is this:
OK, we get it, you don’t like the Granger Church, as everything now is just redundant piling on - kinda like a lot of other posts. I just don’t get the trolling for objectionable things so I can post about them. In some circles that is called “discernment”, in other circles that is called “so what?”.
I found this doctrinal statement especially confusing:
“The blindness is so thick because God is now sending it.”
So God is making these people do the hand things? And He is directing people to condemn His will? The Granger obsession has run it’s course, let us search the internet and find another seeker church to post about who God has put blindness on them.
Picture this - one man throws acid in another man’s eyes and blinds him and then calls his friends to mock and condemn the way he now walks because he is blind.
I’m not sure I’ve ever met that God.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Its yet another example of how ODMs are more concerned with form than intent.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
To answer the retorical question: Obviously, there is nothing holy.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
. . . three . . . two . . . one.
It’s personal preference, John. Personal preference.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Oh Rick yes you have, they’re keying off 2 Thess 2:11 - “For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.”
and
Prov 1:24-26 - “Because I called and you refused, I stretched out my hand and no one paid attention; And you neglected all my counsel And did not want my reproof; I will also laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your dread comes,”
And anyway the analogy is not quite right. The people pour acid in their own eyes after being warned it will blind them.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
The first verse is tied to the verse that God’s Spirit will not always strive with man. God has given them a chance and they refused it so God takes action. I do not see where God raises up discerners to moch them.
The second suggests the calamity is of their own making not God’s. I also believe, Chris would have better info, that the Psalm verse has some Hebrewism in it.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Preacher calls his wife on stage and slaps the crap out of her. This is followed by “I have good news, Jesus Christ is alive, now and forever more, the crucified on has risen from the grave, and he has ascended to the right hand of God, and he is the sovereign king and lord of all who live and all who have ever lived. He is worthy of our praise.”
Each event should stand on its own. I don’t see the one necessarily sanctifying the other as in your analogy.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
True, but I would say Ingrid’s post was more of a condemnation borne by her preceived righteousness indignation than mocking.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
John,
I may not be picking this up from you correctly, so please forgive me if I misunderstand:
1) Are you saying that the use of music/video chosen by Granger church is a ‘deluding influence’, and that they are taking ‘pleasure in wickedness’? If so, what is the wickedness ontologically present here?
2) Have you listened to the message in the video (not just the few minutes of music at the beginning)? Is this ‘mockers mocking’, the ‘hatred of knowledge’ or the rejection of the Lord’s outstretched hand? Is this advocation or murder or theft? These are the things to which Pr 1:24-26 is referring - is Granger Church doing these things?
June 17th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Rick, did you mean “mooch” them? Cause there are a lot of moochers out there!
June 17th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Ingrid actually mentioned this again in another article today. I love this quote:
I mean you could say that about a lot of things. Here, try replacing “obscene dancing hands” with the following phrases:
- hot, steaming coffee
- yummy glazed donuts
- cuddly puppies
- Thomas Kinkade paintings
- etc.
The problem is that we have created a false dichotomy between the sacred and secular.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Comparing something that isn’t sinful to beating the crap out of your wife probably means that you don’t have much of an argument.
Well then why in your statement did you scream crap at me in an abusive way? What’s that? You didn’t do that? Sorry, I think each word in a sentence should stand on its own. I don’t see the one necessarily working with the others to create a whole point.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
I don’t know if it’s ‘better’, but the image here is God reaching out His hand to His people to deliver them and only receiving mocking rejection, in return. So, His hand is withdrawn.
I’m not seeing a mocking rejection of God anywhere in the Granger video. Even though it isn’t really my style of music, I thought it was a unique ‘bumper’ to introduce the topic at hand.
Also, they might have done the same thing on Sunday morning, I don’t know, but the video in question appears to be a Saturday night service (which many churches use as a more contemporary/casual service).
June 17th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
The pastor’s words do not sanctify anything, but culling out only one segment of a continuing service might give a one sided view.
John - I do not see where God is going to anoint people to criticize the actions of those who God has blinded. In addition, can anyone say with that authority that God is doing this? It suggests some private interpretation.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
You’d think that’d be the kind of thing that a reporting website would research a bit.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
John - what was ontologically evil about the video that is analogous to spousal abuse?
June 17th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Chris L,
No. I’m mostly just playing devil’s advocate here. I do have serious problems with Granger and a lot of that is, in the final analysis, admittedly due to personal convictions/preferences. I do agree to some extent with “let’s move on . . . nothing to see here”. Why keep going back? An argument could be made however that Grainger (whether by design or just emulation by others) does export a lot of their stuff) and are more open to inspection because of that. Also, I am solidly against the mind-set that entertainment = ministry and that the gospel needs help. I see a lot more entertainment than ministry to God, here.
Hey am I starting to ramble again? Must be the chocolate chip cookie sugar high.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
John - I too would not attend Granger Church, my point is at what point have you made your case and move on, and by what authority can you definitively say it is God’s deception making them do that?
The verse is Thess. seems to suggest they will believe some lie, it doesn’t say “God will send them strong delusion so they will become a seeker church”.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Gentlemen, It’s called hyperbole. You know, “used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, and is not meant to be taken literally.”
The point being that saying the “right” words after-the-fact of something that preceeded it does not **necessarily** sanctify it.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
As a follow-up question, what art is acceptable to God, and what art is not?
As I am not familiar with Granger Church (which, interestingly, is in Amish Country here in Indiana), but it appears that they are like a number of large churches I am familiar with (like my own), which tries to tie all of the elements within their community gatherings (music, preaching, video, drama, visual art, etc.) into a thematic progression which all ties together cohesively - it is not meant to be taken piecemeal.
I see no “biblical” stance on whether this is good or ill, but that it is a cultural norm to which the decision to incorporate it or not is primarily pragmatic. Communicating the gospel can take on many forms - the Jesus film, the Book of Kells, the hours-long exposition of Jonathan Edwards, the Easter Cantata, etc. Which one is appropriate for which situation needs to be made by the “forces on the ground” - the leadership of each individual church - who live and breath in the local culture to which they belong.
It is a completely acceptable thing to say “that style of church service is not for me”, but a completely different thing to say “God will smite them for it”…
June 17th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
In the final analysis I would agree Rick.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
“what art is acceptable to God”
I have a list upon request. No Picasso.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
That is not MY claim Rick. Again, I was playing devil’s advocate. More than naught we delude ourselves thinking we are OK, when we are not. That’s why it is so important to stay in the mirror of the Word and to constantly evaluate our own actions. (Note: our, not others). However, it is often prudent and called for to warn others. But what is the motive in so doing? Ahh, that is the rub, eh?
June 17th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Well said Chris. I basically agree. I’m more of the “hey guys - that is not profitable” kind of guy personally, vs the “God’s gonna get you for that” type.
“God will smite you” does have sort of a Wrath of Kahn kind of feel to it though. “Kirk! From the pits of hell I will smite thee!”
June 17th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I’m pretty sure the devil doesn’t need an advocate. I’m even more sure it shouldn’t be us!
June 17th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Oh, I don’t know but probably not the cross in the urine or cow s**t on the Virgin Mary type “art”.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I will smite you!
Oh no, I will smite YOU!
I will smite you FIRST!
My smite is ALREADY on the way!
I will DOUBLE smite you!
OK, let’s do lunch?
June 17th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
How about the chocolate life-sized Jesus? Melts **everywhere** not just in your hands.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
“OK, let’s do lunch?” I think we just did. If two sit down to their computers with lunch and text message does that count?
June 17th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Where two or more are gathered at their keyboard, there will I be in their midst.
That is obviously not a constant…
June 17th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
How do you tell a male from a female chocolate easter bunny? Oh never mind.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Wow the hyperbole over at SoL is unbelievable. Apparently the use of a middle finger in a way separate and unique from a somewhat similar obscene gesture is Satan marking his territory.
Acting as an accuser of the saints is probably closer to Satan’s territory, at least if you’re going to bother with consulting scripture.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Tim, “touched a nerve have we?” — said while slowly backing out of the talkback with eyes nervously glancing at the whereabouts of the nearest exit.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I would agree that it would have been better not to remark on the finger. Also would agree that it may have been wise for the artists to think a bit before using it as they did.
But under all this I can’t help but wonder, from previous discussions here of obscene words, “cussing,” etc, if there HAD been an obscene gesture used by some Christian on what biblical grounds would you all determine that it was obscene? (I mean, (using some of your previous arguments) does it really mean anything anymore? Where does the bible say to not put on your middle finger? If a Christian had a picture of himself on his website making such a gesture, wouldn’t we need to look at the context? And on, and on ) Were there any negative comments by you all previously about the guy (pastor?) in the video with Rick Warren who was talking about giving people the finger, or did you just think that wasn’t a big deal?
June 17th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
2 things:
Sidenote:
Actually the cross in urine was a profound theological statement that was missed by most people.
Gentle admonition:
Please don’t pick up Amy’s rope. It’ll only land all parties in another dead-end non-conversation.
Don’t take that personally, Amy. I really mean “all” when I say all and it really isn’t worth it.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
NC,
Are you saying the artist was a Christian bemoaning how Christ is treated by today’s society and meant it as a statement of that?
June 17th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
NC,
Hope you don’t mind (since your comment was impersonal) if I write the conclusion to the dead-end conversation that will never happen if your gentle admonition is followed:
It’s okay to ridicule Ingrid for implying that this hand-gesture was obscene when it probably wasn’t obscene - in spite of the fact that if it had been meant to be obscene she would still be ridiculed.
There, that saved a lot of people’s time.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
I can’t think of an appropriate usage of an intended middle-finger salute in corporate worship, if that’s what you’re asking…
June 17th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
amy,
Its bad form to slander people. Its even worse form to slander them for something they haven’t done.
And by bad form I mean sinful.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
I was just over at SoL and noticed that Granger was mentioned alongside the revival in Florida. I was interested as to why you would pick up on (yet) another post about Granger, but from my time here…
you stay away from making any comments whatsoever about the “revival” in Lakeland and the ODMs comments about it.
I’m curious: is there a reason for this?
June 17th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Probably just the fact that Granger seems to bemuch more within the mainstream of Christian practice. I consider myself Pentecostal, but I admit that a lot of the stuff I’ve seen from Lakeland seems a tad nutty to me.
I’m not saying I agree with everything Ingrid has written about the Lakeland stuff, either. That’s just a bit more complicated.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Re: the Lakeland Revival, I’m curious about that as well, especially since I mentioned it on the submissions page. It’s a big issue that touches people from all kinds of backgrounds.
Tim,
Don’t know what you’re talking about.
Chris L,
If preaching is a part of “corporate worship,” well then “cussing” has already been okayed by some of you in that context. So why not an “obscene” gesture, and why can’t those gestures be opened to discussions of whether they are truly unbiblical or not? Ontologically evil?
And hasn’t it been said that our daily lives shouldn’t be separated from our “worship?” So is a Christian leaders use of the middle finger while he is driving (as testified to in the Rick Warren video) somehow an okay part of his life that is separate from his “worship?”
June 17th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
The so called reival in Lakeland (20 minutes from me) is a side show and not of God.
Fixed.
PS - That might be why no one has said anything. It is so absurd why chew on a bone with no meat. Move on people, the show’s over. Having mulitple posts on that guy and his travelling medicine show is embarrassingly easy and suggests the doctrinal illiteracy of your readership. One post and done.
Let’s do a six post serious of the systematic theology of Fred Phelps.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
That’s right Amy - the only reason I bring it up is because of it’s mysterious absence on this particular blog. Obviously, it hasn’t gone unnoticed so the intentional avoidance with a 10-foot pole leaves me interested.
Instead of beating a dead horse (Granger: nothing more than an entertainment emporium that passes for church. Why not leave it at that?) why not address a more important issue like Lakeland?
Is there a reason for the avoidance?
June 17th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
UPCOMING SERIES
*The Error of Nostradomus
*Miss Chloe is not of God
*Stalin was not a Christian
*The Sins of Hugh Hefner
And a ten part series complete with teaching guides and video helps:
*The Apostasy of the Unibomber
June 17th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Chris L. - must I confess when I crack myself up and I get a laugh out of myself? Is that a rule?
June 17th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Rick - so my point is, why keep picking up on something like Granger?
Is it because it is somewhat less absurb than Lakeland on the absurdity scale?
After all, even the ODMs don’t waste time on Fred Phelps. Just asking…
June 17th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
What’s there to talk about? We’re all pretty much in agreement that they’re crazy. Do you want to argue about who thinks they’re crazier?
Do you want us to do some half-@ssed exposé, a la SoL?
June 17th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Paul - the Granger Church thing is another retread, we’ve alraedy heard that. Todd Bentley is so far out in left filed, everyone outside the charismatic field would know that. And my point is one post and done. If he lasts for a year here in Florida are we going to see more posts about him.
In some ways he is just as absurd as Phelps only in the other direction. Where is the dead horse graphic when you need it?
The issue with the Granger Church is the substance, not the finger whcih I do not believe was intentional. But now we know who they are and what they do. Over and out.
Granger and Bentley - dead horses.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Regarding the Lakeland Revival.
Rick suggests move on and be done. I sit very close to a place where “the anointing” has traveled; I heard a couple of people I know talk about how it is a work of God; I have seen someone I know personally on one of the videos, testifying of her healing; one of my good friends relatives who I just met is intending to go down to Florida, for healing.
These kinds of things don’t just touch the “pentecostal fringe.” They touch many folks, including young people across denominations who go to “see what is going on.”
So many people are so quick to believe that all that is or appears supernatural can only come from God. People don’t know the danger of having someone lay hands on them, who may have been in contact with demons. I have seen how these kinds of “anointing” travel all over the world, literally, and I am glad there are people out there taking the time to warn people, over and over again.
I heard some children’s voices on a video from the “outpouring” near me. In the background, two times, “I’m afraid.”
God is not a God of fear and confusion.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Well, that’s exactly my point… 50 comments into this…
I was only drawing the point that: Granger is a dead horse, why continue to post about it (just because someone else did?)… Blind leading the blind but having fun doing it.
I couldn’t care less about the “finger” incident - the church itself is an entertainment venue, let’s agree to that and move on…
BUT, because it’s less ridiculous than Lakeland in the eyes of at least Nathan (Lakeland was referred to in the latest SoL post alongside Granger), why not point to that too? Just a waste of time…
June 17th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Everything I’ve read about the Lakeland revival and T. Bentley has seemed pretty nutty (referring to their own stuff - not the ODM reporting), and I’m not seeing a whole lot I would defend there… Ingrid’s linkage of the two was part of her sanctimonious blather, and I’ve not seen any formal linkage of one to the other (though it may or may not exist…)
Amy,
If you want to know why I’ve generally stopped answering you, comment #44 is a perfect example. You’ve basically taken an apple, called it an orange and then made a wild hypothesis of it.
This will be my only reply to this line of “reasoning”, so you can hypothesize away once it’s posted (or complain at me for not answering you), but you won’t receive an additional reply on the subject from me.
1) I would completely dispute that the hand motions in the linked GCC video had any intentions whatsoever of delivering the message of the outward-facing middle-finger.
2) The outward-facing middle-finger, when delivered with the commonly understood intent is not simply a ‘obscenity’ - it is a two word sentence which is used to convey hatred and/or specific disrespect to the person it is aimed at. As such, I do not see a reasonable Christ-like reason to deliver a message of hatred and disrespect to an individual. That’s a whole lot different than attaching ontological value to a specific word, when Scripture does not do the same.
In short, a word is not ontologically evil. A phrase, when uttered/gestured at a person, which devalues that individual is no longer just an abstract word - it is attaching value to the person it is aimed at. As such, it would not be appropriate in any setting to utter/gesture that phrase at a person.
3) It is not the gesture (a middle finger) which is ontologically evil, in any case - it is intent behind it. If I drop something in a crack and use my middle finger to get it out, accidentally creating this gesture, it is not evil. If I am counting something on my fingers and end up with just the middle one sticking out, it is not evil. If I am doing an artistic video looking at the palm of my hand, using different word combinations, and briefly end up with just a middle finger out, it is not evil. HOWEVER, if I turn it toward someone with the intention of delivering a two-word message to someone else, then I am dishonoring God’s image.
To every time there is a purpose. I don’t wear clothing into the shower each morning, but I don’t attend church sans clothing. I might suggest listening to Mark Driscoll’s sermon on the Regulative Principal of Worship in which he differentiates between personal worship and corporate worship - there is a difference.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
The anointing of the dead horse Bentley somehow manages to travel to Germany, England, Australia, and beyond. Pretty impressive for a dead horse.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I know this is a tangent, but I hear this a lot from people, and it bugs me. God can be fearful, and He is downright confusing sometimes. I just don’t see how saying this proves or disproves anything. I think there a lot of people who think they have everything figured out who could stand to be confused a bit.
“He’s not a tame lion…”
June 17th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Frueh’s Unabridged Dictionary
Dead Horse - a metaphor which is translated “what I do not want to talk about anymore”. Everyone has their own stable except for some who see it as cruelty to animals.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I guess because I don’t see Granger simply as an entertainment emporium. Having listened to some of their sermons, I would not classify them as health-and-wealth, heretical (or worse, like Bentley). Instead, I would note that they are more willing than most churches to use multimedia in their worship and evangelism.
Entertainment emporium? I wouldn’t go that far.
Lakeland, on the other hand, is totally wacky, and as Phil notes, how many people need to say that Fred Phelps is whacked-out for folks to know it? However, just to satisfy the curiosity, I’ll put up a post on it…
June 17th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
What a convenient summary. Somehow nc didn’t think it was that simple.
You seemed to miss that I didn’t think that the gesture at Granger was intended to be obscene, and ignored all of the possibilities of how you all could justify it using your previous “arguments” about cussing, IF IT HAD BEEN INTENDED TO BE OBSCENE.
Sometime when I have time I guess I’ll have to see what you guys previously had to say about the guy in the video with Warren making this gesture to motorists and talking about it proudly with the other folks in the video, without being rebuked.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Are there any categories between orthodox - compromise - apostate? So the Granger Church isn’t just considered compromisers, they are the devil’s territory?
One of my best friends is a stauch Calvinist and goes to a MacArthur church, but he got saved in a health and wealth church that loved Kenneth Copeland. Oh yes, the devil forgot to mark that territory.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
This is what I mean amy.
You’ve condemned us for something that hasn’t happened. Its as valid and sinful if I were to say “amy would kill all of us brutally if she could get away with it”.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
For various reasons I have been off-line for about a month… on the one hand I wondered what I have been missing from the ODM’s.. on the other hand I suspected is was just more of the same.
More of the same…
Ingrid’s calling this obscene would be laughable if it were not for the verse at the end where she calls them enemies of the cross.
Neil
Simple shameful on her part.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Here y’all go - about Lakeland
June 17th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Chris L - don’t worry about wasting your time on a post about Lakeland in order to satisfy curiousity - honestly…
My point is that on the exterior a church like Granger seems much more tame than something like Bentley which is way off the mark, and noticeably so (thankfully, even to those on this blog - thanks for clearing that up!). However, in reality, their focus is on entertainment and preaching “sermonette” style messages packed with jokes… well, I’ll leave it at that.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
So, basically you’re just arguing to hear yourself talk (or more accurately, type)…
I love outrage over hypothetical and/or fictional occurences. Kind of like the fictional might-be-gay wizard in Harry Potter.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Let us set the record straight. It wasn’t that SOL disagreed with the hand video, and it wasn’t even her implying intention, but she said they were giving the finger to the Lord. That makes her a liar, that pastor and probably EVERYONE in the church would never do that.
THAT IS WHY MRS. SCHLUETER IS NOTHING BUT A SELF RIGHTEOUS JUDGE. HOW CAN ANYONE SAY OTHER BELIVERS ARE GIVING THE FINGER TO THE LORD?? That my friends is more obscene than any so called hand gesture.
Just some thoughts…
June 17th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I think “entertainment” is bantered around as flippantly as ‘worldly” - to the point it becomes synonymous with “whatever we don’t like.”
Neil
June 17th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Sorry Tim but I honestly can’t imagine how you could NOT justify obscene gestures by your previous discussions on cussing. I just don’t see how the same “principles” that you and others used to talk about the issue of cussing wouldn’t apply to gestures. I don’t understand how you could use those “principles” and come up with some definition of “obscene” that would absolutely apply to gestures.
I remember wondering, if some of you taught your kids your principles, if they would get kicked out of public school kindergarten.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Rick,
…that and saying they live lives as enemies of the cross.
Geeesh!
Neil
June 17th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Since the hand gesture in question was different than the one commonly referred to as “flipping the bird” - how can any claim of obscenity be made?
Neil
June 17th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
According to a lot of our critics, that would be doing them a favor anyway.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I love entertainment. I love seeing people come to Christ. I love using entertainment to open people’s heart for the message of the gospel. I would probably love Granger.
Lots of love
Eugene
June 17th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
No, I’m arguing because I believe what I’m saying is true.
I don’t expect you to 1) Agree with me or 2) Demonstrate that I’m wrong.
I expect you to 1)skirt around the issue or 2) start putting down my logic or 3) start putting words in my mouth.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Its not hard to figure out. Just as in Biblical interpretation it comes down to the intent of the author. If the author intended to give offense, and de-humanize his intended audience then its a sin. If, on the other hand, he did not then its not a sin in the same vein.
This is why this whole things strikes us as so ridiculous. Obviously the creator of the video didn’t intend for this to be offensive, much less abusive and de-humanizing. You’ve even agreed with this. So how do you take a different tack when it comes to words?
BTW this issue is why we have such a hard time taking ODMs seriously when it comes to Biblical interpretation. They eisegete when it comes to people living in the same society they live in now who speak the same native tongue they do, how can they possibly be expected to exegete properly when it comes to interpreting the words of men who spoke a different language and lived in a society that is radically different than our own?
June 17th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
It’s so subjective - obviously we should not strive to just entertain… but the ODM’s employ the word to the point it is meaningless…
If an organist strives to play a perfect Bach concerto it’s worship, something contemporary however is only entertainment…
Neil
June 17th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
What issue? Something you just make up? It’s ridiculous. How in the world do we demonstrate our reaction to a hypothetical situation you construct. Even if we say something you deem correct, you don’t believe us. That’s why we pretty much ignore for the most part.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I love to eat. I love to have conversations with my unsaved friends. I love how having a meal together just opens up people to discuss spiritual stuff.
Should I not just eat?
June 17th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Dang! I should have known I had that backwards from all the looks I got in Sunday School.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I must add that a bottle of good red wine always helps that spiritual conversations along.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Phil,
One of you, when you have about a week, go through all your cussing discussions and see what principles you come up with from each of you who is a writer here, as well as with frequent commenters whose comments you let stand without refuting.
Take those principles, and show me how you can use them to absolutely condemn certain gestures.
Show me how you all will be on Ingrid’s side if the next thing that “free in Christ” Christians start doing is making it alright to make obscene gestures -( I mean, really use them, not just unwisely(in my opinion) put their middle finger up even if the hand is in a different position as in the Granger video). Use the same principles that you used to condemn cussing to condemn gestures.
Show me how you previously reacted when the guy on the Warren video talked jokingly about making this same obscene gesture.
I just think that your making an issue over Ingrid calling this “obscene” is comical because it implies that you consider the gesture , if actually done, is something absolutely obscene. It’s just such news to me that you can even define the word “obscene.” Or that somehow the gesture always means the same thing even though someone may have grown up just seeing it as an expression of anger. Even though certain words, I’ve been told, don’t really have to mean the same thing they used to mean, gestures still carry their absolute meaning?
It doesn’t make sense. Seems like you would want to demonstrate some sort of consistency. I’m not trying to be sarcastic in any of this. I just really don’t think that you’ve thought through how inconsistent you appear.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Eugene,
A worship service is an event with specific intent by defintion, i.e., worship of a deity. Entertainment is for the viewers’ well . . . entertainment. Two different purposes, two different venues. One Godward, the other manword. Nothing necessarily ontologically wrong with entertainment in moderation, but they are at odds in purpose and intent with worship. That is the rub. Get a room or go to a concert, but if we have the audacity to say “Lord we come to worship You” let’s give Him our attention and not just lip service.
June 17th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Tim,
I’ve seen some of your language, on your personal sites; your wife’s choice word for Ingrid as well. I’ve seen some of your arguments in the cussing section.
Now you’re trying to imply that there is a parallel to how the creators of the song are using the gesture and your own cussing and philosophy?
I’ve been trying to give them (Granger) the benefit of the doubt and assume that they needed 5 fingers for their song, with words on each finger, and needed to use the middle one in spite of the projected misunderstanding. I think it was unwise of them, but I’ve been hoping that they weren’t attempting to just see what they could get away with, to be cool or even funny. If I’m wrong about this, and it is some kind of a joke to them, then Ingrid is very correct in her condemnation.
If my analysis of their use of the fingers in the song is correct, I believe it has no correlation to your use of certain words and your previous thoughts on cussing. But if I’m understanding you correctly, you would consider their use of the middle finger on this song as a parallel to your own words and philosophy?
June 17th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
John -
Part of the problem, though, arises with the question - can something that is ‘entertaining’ also be ‘worshipful’? Or, to but it a different way, must one find no enjoyment in worship for it to be worshipful?
To go to the Bible on the subject of human enjoyment of worshiping their Creator, I think that the feast schedule, itself, which ascribes feasting and celebration AS worship in 5 of the 7 major feasts (and every Sabbath) would matter in the discussion.
Is there a time for sackcloth and ashes? Certainly - look at the Day of Atonement.
Is there a time for celebration and enjoyment of God’s riches, worshiping him for the grace and abundance shown? Most certainly - Sabbath, primarily, and the other major feasts were such.
Now - when celebration and feasting ignores the giver of all that is good, and is only for the enjoyment of men - that which we might call Hellenism or Hedonism - then it is not pleasing to God…
There is a difference, though.
June 17th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
amy,
This will in all likelihood be my last response to you as Chris L has summed up nicely my unwillingness to engage in extended conversation with you.
The use of language (which are symbols) and the use of hand gestures (which are also symbols) are only offensive/sinful so far as the user of those symbols intend them to be. I thought this was what you meant when you posted earlier. IF this was not your meaning then you can disregard my earlier post.
Whether or not a particular word is offensive or sinful is dependent on what the user intended. The vast majority of the language I use that you call cussing is not meant in an offensive manner. On the other hand you and other ODMs are more sinful in your use of language than the use of most cussing I’ve heard used in real life.
Its all in intent, not in form, as a result when Ingrid says I am an enemy of Christ it is far more offensive than any hand gesture I’ve ever seen.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Sorry, I joined my own discussion too late! Wow, have we been around the world and back, or what!?
I want to address one quote
I am always amazed when people say stuff like this about churches like Granger. Maybe I was the only one who saw it, but there was like 7 minutes of “entertainment” and 40 minutes of a guy preaching. Yet, the whole service gets classified as “entertainment”. People only retain 3-4% of a given speach, but retain 30-40% of information presented in a movie they saw on the weekend. “Entertainment” does have a strong place in capturing people’s mind and hearts. I guarantee that people will have forgotten what was said on Sunday, but probably remember the hand jive. Just a thought on the subject.
Just for the record, I think that Lakeland is a big crazy confusing circus. I would never endorse a ministry like that. BUT, I did have a close friend go out there and get healed. He has been blind in his left eye since birth, and was able to see after going to their healing service. I think Todd Bently is a wacko, but I think that God can move even amidst the craziness.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Amy…this is the kind of attitude that is hurting the body of Christ, and is utterly innapropriate for Christians to take up. When Jesus said that out of our hearts comes slander, do you think He was talking about a modern english word for skubbalon, or the defacing of the body of Christ with our words, instead of the building up of the body?
Where are we told that we should be condemning other Christians, or anyone? Are we so bold as to say we’re the Judge?
Rethink your premises.
r
Joe
June 17th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
I don’t see where they are at odds… why cannot worship be entertaining?
Neil
June 17th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Again, since no one actually flipped the finger to anyone the whole discussion, as well as Ingrid’s lame attack, are moot.
Neil
June 17th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
In regards to entertainment versus worship.
Why did Christ sometimes heal with a touch, or a word, or something symbolic when he only needed to say “Be healed”?
Certainly Jesus could have been accused of “performing” but most of what he did was to make an illustration or strengthen a point.
He didn’t need to touch the Leper. Or spit in the mud for the blind man. Or never visit the fathers daughter. But I think there was a symbolic nature to his actions.
Maybe a tangent but I feel this some how fits the conversation.
June 17th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Aren’t parables verbal/mental dramatic presentations of truth? In a word - drama.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:13 am
The funny thing is that in Europe I believe the thumbs up sign is the equivalent to the middle finger here…
I would like to give a hearty thumbs up tooo…..
Oh just kidding… I would not do that unless I was in traffic… ; )
iggy
June 18th, 2008 at 7:24 am
And this is a good thing?
June 18th, 2008 at 9:38 am
John,
That comment was not posted by me
Neil
June 18th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Joe,
The situation I posed was if someone at Granger did the gesture as a joke or to be cool, as opposed to it being an innocent part of the song (which I think and hope it was.) Such a thing would be like saying a cuss word intentionally in the middle of a Christian song just for laughs or to show how “close to the edge” or how “free in Christ” one is. And I think such a thing would deserve condemnation. To just “let it go” when it would be put publically on the media as “worship” would demonstrate that Christians must not think much of their God.
I brought that possibility up (someone doing the gesture for the reasons mentioned above) because of Tim’s implication that what was done could be compared to his own arguments about words - which previously touched not only on “swear” words but also on things like songs that talk about admiring female corpses, as not being sinful. To summarize: I’m advocating that Granger’s comment was probably innocent and Tim is making a comparison to his own philosophy. I’ve seen the results of his own philosophy and think the comparison (if the gesture is “innocent”) is simply ridiculous.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:41 am
John - I think you were quoting Nathan, not Neil…
June 18th, 2008 at 9:48 am
For those of you accusing us of using bad language, I have proof that you’re all wrong.
Btw, I stole this from Iggy’s site.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Since the gesture that stands for the obscene comment (aka flipping the bird) was not shown, was never done - what’s the point in all the rancor?
Neil
June 18th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Some would say 1.8% is too high.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Allow me to reiterate my position:
June 18th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I bet someone at Granger, during the whole process the hand jive was being created and rehearsed, said “Do ya suppose someone will be offended by…” - to which they responded, as we have, with a resounded “Oh Please…”
June 18th, 2008 at 10:06 am
hmmmm… I think our percentage just went up…
June 18th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Well, the gospel is an offense, a stumbling block even.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:18 am
LOL! Mine was only .5 %
Created by OnePlusYou - a Free Dating Site
June 18th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Stupid spam catcher!
June 18th, 2008 at 10:23 am
http://thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com/
This website rated at
OnePlusYou Quizzes and Widgets
Hmmm…
June 18th, 2008 at 10:24 am
http://thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com/
could not get the code to work…
It rated at 2.1%
I win! John cusses more that iggy!
June 18th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Tim,
You wouldn’t really have a problem if a pastor stood up and made an obscene gesture and said this is what self-righteous legalists deserve, would you?” Your attitude here is more representative than anything of why I was saying it was comical for you all to be pointing out Ingrid’s probably wrong criticism of this use of the middle finger in this song, when if it had been actually intended to be obscene there would still be criticism of her.
And just what is a legalist? In scripture it seems to be primarily one who believes they can be righteous based on their own merits. I can’t think of an ODM regularly talked about here who believes that.
What is a legalist according to you? Someone who calls you out for your language, for your wife publically saying “Ingrid is a ___? ” Someone who has a problem with your having a group come to your church that has started off their video with “Let’s worship Satan.” Someone who hears your criticisms of them time after time and FINALLY criticizes you back? Someone who dares to point out errors of such teachers as Brian Mclaren? The potential errors of dialoguing with the Dalai Lama?
Someone who dares to judge other Christians actions negatively instead of positively as you do?It’s all judging, isn’t it?
Someone who dares to read all of Matthew chapter 7 and realize that though Christians are not to judge hypocritically, they are to judge? That there are false prophets, that there is good fruit and bad fruit? Someone who dares to believe in church discipline and some principles of separation?
It appears to me that you’re the one full of your own self-righteousness, righteousness based on some assumption that “you’re not like one of those legalists. ”
Matthew chapter 7, ALL of it.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Amy,
You are a slanderer. You’ve slandered me several times on this thread, and the writers in general here. Repent.
Also, I would never justify saying self-righteous legalists deserve to be given the finger. Clearly you don’t actually understand what I write concerning sinners.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
TIm,
what did amy do for you to call her a slanderer?
“Whether or not a particular word is offensive or sinful is dependent on what the user intended. The vast majority of the language I use that you call cussing is not meant in an offensive manner. On the other hand you and other ODMs are more sinful in your use of language than the use of most cussing I’ve heard used in real life.”
post #84 then post #99.
Post #99 is offensive to anyone who reads it.
Amy has great points.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Jose,
Every time she condemns me for something I’ve never done in her hypothetical situations she has slandered me.
I would suggest that if post #99 isn’t offending you, its convicting you.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Tim,
Thats your point of view, no once did I feel convicted when some one
calls for ” - - cut their dicks right off.”
June 18th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
a) you do not know this since it is hypothetical
b) had it been intentional they would have used an actual obscene gesture, since they did not, no intention can even be assumed.
Neil
June 18th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Then take it up with the apostle Paul.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I’m thinking of an obscene gesture right now…
Don’t make me us it.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
May i have that verse where Paul said this?
June 18th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Galatians 5:12
June 18th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
castration = to remove the testes of; emasculate; geld.
Dicks= vulgar
Which is offensive?
June 18th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Colossian 3:8
June 18th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Colossians 3:9 as well…
June 18th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Tim,
What exactly is it you are supposedly guilty of - using foul language?
Neil
June 18th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Tim,
Are we coming from different planets? You would say the things you’ve said in post 99 about legalists - look at what you’ve said about legalists - but you wouldn’t justify giving them the finger?
WHAT IS A LEGALIST? WHO ARE YOU CONDEMNING?
June 18th, 2008 at 12:59 pm