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.
325 Comments(+Add)
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.
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…
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.
Its yet another example of how ODMs are more concerned with form than intent.
To answer the retorical question: Obviously, there is nothing holy.
. . . three . . . two . . . one.
It’s personal preference, John. Personal preference.
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.
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.
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.
True, but I would say Ingrid’s post was more of a condemnation borne by her preceived righteousness indignation than mocking.
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?
Rick, did you mean “mooch” them? Cause there are a lot of moochers out there!
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.
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.
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).
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.
You’d think that’d be the kind of thing that a reporting website would research a bit.
John – what was ontologically evil about the video that is analogous to spousal abuse?
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.
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”.
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.
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”…
In the final analysis I would agree Rick.
“what art is acceptable to God”
I have a list upon request. No Picasso.
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?
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!”
I’m pretty sure the devil doesn’t need an advocate. I’m even more sure it shouldn’t be us!
Oh, I don’t know but probably not the cross in the urine or cow s**t on the Virgin Mary type “art”.
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?
How about the chocolate life-sized Jesus? Melts **everywhere** not just in your hands.
“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?
Where two or more are gathered at their keyboard, there will I be in their midst.
That is obviously not a constant…
How do you tell a male from a female chocolate easter bunny? Oh never mind.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
I can’t think of an appropriate usage of an intended middle-finger salute in corporate worship, if that’s what you’re asking…
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.
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?
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.
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?”
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.
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?
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
Chris L. – must I confess when I crack myself up and I get a laugh out of myself? Is that a rule?
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…
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?
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.
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.
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…
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.
The anointing of the dead horse Bentley somehow manages to travel to Germany, England, Australia, and beyond. Pretty impressive for a dead horse.
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…”
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.
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…
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.
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.
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”.
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.
Here y’all go – about Lakeland
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.
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.
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…
I think “entertainment” is bantered around as flippantly as ‘worldly” – to the point it becomes synonymous with “whatever we don’t like.”
Neil
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.
Rick,
…that and saying they live lives as enemies of the cross.
Geeesh!
Neil
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
According to a lot of our critics, that would be doing them a favor anyway.
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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?
Dang! I should have known I had that backwards from all the looks I got in Sunday School.
I must add that a bottle of good red wine always helps that spiritual conversations along.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
I don’t see where they are at odds… why cannot worship be entertaining?
Neil
Again, since no one actually flipped the finger to anyone the whole discussion, as well as Ingrid’s lame attack, are moot.
Neil
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.
Aren’t parables verbal/mental dramatic presentations of truth? In a word – drama.
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
And this is a good thing?
John,
That comment was not posted by me
Neil
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.
John – I think you were quoting Nathan, not Neil…
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.
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
Some would say 1.8% is too high.
Allow me to reiterate my position:
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…”
hmmmm… I think our percentage just went up…
Well, the gospel is an offense, a stumbling block even.
LOL! Mine was only .5 %
Created by OnePlusYou – a Free Dating Site
Stupid spam catcher!
http://thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com/
This website rated at
OnePlusYou Quizzes and Widgets
Hmmm…
http://thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com/
could not get the code to work…
It rated at 2.1%
I win! John cusses more that iggy!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tim,
Thats your point of view, no once did I feel convicted when some one
calls for ” – - cut their dicks right off.”
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
Then take it up with the apostle Paul.
I’m thinking of an obscene gesture right now…
Don’t make me us it.
May i have that verse where Paul said this?
Galatians 5:12
castration = to remove the testes of; emasculate; geld.
Dicks= vulgar
Which is offensive?
Colossian 3:8
Colossians 3:9 as well…
Tim,
What exactly is it you are supposedly guilty of – using foul language?
Neil
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?
Yes, apparently the word “dick” is more offensive than the damnable heresy of legalism. Gee, I wonder why PG rated language would be the big issue seized upon here.
Tim,
Which ODM’s are going to hell because of their legalism?
The “things I said” (which I didn’t write originally) was a Biblical allusion, and specifically cites that what’s Paul wrote. There is nothing in that anywhere that abuses, or wishes bad things on legalists. It only states that I’d rather deal with people who are obviously sinning and know they’re sinning than hard hearted, self-righteous people who are as deeply in sin, but justify it through the scriptures and other means.
You’ll have to ask Jesus, unlike ODMs I don’t try to stand in the place of God and decide who’s in and who’s out.
If what you wrote on post #99 not written by you, then why state that as your position?
I already answered that.
In case I haven’t made it clear, your defining legalism and explaining who you beleive is a heretic and is going to hell is a big issue.
This site prides itself on not defining who is going to hell.
Since you appear however to have made a step towards defining that, please clarify what you mean.
What is legalism? Who is a legalist, and thus a “heretic,” according to you, not in the same realm as other sinners, and destined to gnaw their tongues forever?
These are big things you’ve said. If any ODM wrote a rhyme like yours and put another word in their like “liberals” you guys would be all over them to define what they were talking about, all over them for condemning people to hell. All over them for being LEGALISTS.
Yet you can apparently make up your own self-righteous yet-to-be-shared private definition of legalists and condemn them to hell and then act as if the big issue is language?
“Yes, apparently the word “dick” is more offensive than the damnable heresy of legalism.”
No, but your interpretation of Gal.5:12 is not universal, and the use of the base and colloquially demeaning word is without edification and seems to be for effect. A less offensive explanation for that interpretation would certainly get the point across without the linguistic ingredient that would be known to cause controversy and purposely offend, especially when other words were available.
It comes across as a verbal gimmick to both confront legalism and with an added verbal display. All those “I would rather…” seem to be hyperbolic as well.
I would rather walk in the grace of Jesus Christ than be a legalist.
I assumed it was the lyric of some song or poem used as a quote to make (albeit rather hyperbolic) a point.
So you wouldn’t consider post #99 to be offensive?
Why don’t you subtitue ” Legalist ”
with ODM”S/emergent/crn.info./Ingrid/ken/Amy/jose.
If Jesus would have said to the pharisees ” cut their dicks right off..”
would it make it better for you to use foul language?
Amy,
I believe those who are going to hell, are those who God decides is going to hell.
More slander. Repent.
Amy,
I think it best to refrain from lumping all of us together, particularly when prognosticating on what we’d do in your hypothetical scenarios…
Neil
Well I would hope so!
Neil wins the prize.
A bit over the top – yeah.
Hyperbole to make a point – probably.
Offensive – not really
I took it for what it was, paraphrasing Paul in a rougher manner.
Neil
I don’t think it was more offensive than the verse itself. I think it was less offensive when you consider what the rite of circumcision meant to the judaizers.
Neil.
So am I supposed to be justl ike you?
Don’t paraphrase if you are going to offend.
I think Rick had it right.
” No, but your interpretation of Gal.5:12 is not universal, and the use of the base and colloquially demeaning word is without edification and seems to be for effect. A less offensive explanation for that interpretation would certainly get the point across without the linguistic ingredient that would be known to cause controversy and purposely offend, especially when other words were available “
No, it doesn’t “ONLY STATE” what you’ve said. You’ve condemned legalists to hell in your rhyme, and here you’ve gone on to make some kind of judgement about some nebulous group of self-righteous people who are deeply in sin.
You’ve also basically proclaimed that you feel there must be hope for porn addicts, but not for self-righteous ____. Does being a porn addict somehow make one more acceptable before God than someone who might not see their sin yet? Couldn’t it be that a Christian may become a porn addict because he has been self-righteous – thinking that he/she was strong enough to overcome something in their own strength? And if you truly have a church full of porn addicts, couldn’t some of them STILL be that way because they are still depending on their own self-righteousness and not the grace and power of God to help them overcome? Or, in some churches, couldn’t they even be led to feel MORE self-righteous if they ARE struggling with porn or some habitual destructive sin, because tthen they are “struggling like everyone else” and not like “Mr. Perfect” over there? What about when they overcome their addiction? Do you still want them in your church?
And if you’re going to be specific about what Paul says about legalists, why not be specific about what John says about Christians who continue in their sins? Or is it not “colorful” enough?
- – Truly? Do you know what incredible suffering alcoholics cause other people?
That’s an awful thing to say.
Really? What other kinds of awful anythings would you rather be near?
Words mean something. You’ve said an awful lot in your rhyme. I challenge you to defend what you’ve said.
Amy,
See Neil’s earlier comment. It isn’t a work of systematic theology, you even correctly identified it as a rhyme, quit treating it like its anything but the literary type that it is. You remind me of the non-instrumental CoCers who take a single verse in Psalms about making a joyful noise in your heart and extend that out to mean that instruments are banned.
And for the record, yes I see more hope, and would rather be around those that are deeply involved in obvious sin, than those who deny they are sinful at all.
Amy,
Nice job. You kind of stole my thunder!
http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
Linguistically? Yes!
Pauls condemnation of the Judaizers in Galatians was because they were adding circumcision to Grace. Salvation is not dependent on anything we do or don’t do (sans acceptance of Christ). Not swearing, not cussing, eating pork, premarital sex, homosexual sex, etc…NOTHING WE DO CAN GAIN US SALVATION! Therefore the logical extension is that we can’t lose salvation for anything we do.
Anyone who adds requirements to the Grace of Christ. Or denies someones Grace because of any action. In this case Ingrid.
I don’t think Tim condemned anyone. He did point out that some are being legalistic in their viewpoints. That’s a far cry from condemnation.
Where did post #99 come from. I don’t know if I would use such harsh language.
And then went and created some of your own.
John it’s tough to take you seriously sometimes!
I thought it was illegal to put up someone else’s poem/song without giving them credit.
That “song” presents some very offensive pictures, some offensive language, some self righteousness about not being a self righteous legalist, and an overall tone of hatred rather than a Biblical refutation.
Summation – it’s all flesh.
I never suggested you need to be like me… you asked if I found it offensive, I simply answered you…
Amen.
Neil,
Mayve i should have wrote in the name I was refering my post to.
It was not meant for you.
Wow!
Tim,
This is not the point, I think they call it strawman here.
” Pauls condemnation of the Judaizers in Galatians was because they were adding circumcision to Grace. Salvation is not dependent on anything we do or don’t do (sans acceptance of Christ). Not swearing, not cussing, eating pork, premarital sex, homosexual sex, etc…NOTHING WE DO CAN GAIN US SALVATION! Therefore the logical extension is that we can’t lose salvation for anything we do.”
This is the point using RIck’s previous post.
” That “song” presents some very offensive pictures, some offensive language, some self righteousness about not being a self righteous legalist, and an overall tone of hatred rather than a Biblical refutation.
I think ya missed the point, though it’s easy to do when extreme measures are used like those lyrics.
And in the midst of a discussion on practical Christianity and legitimate Biblical language, the salvation hand grenade is tossed. I believe that just may be the self righteous trump card.
I wonder if some didn’t find Paul’s reference to self-mutilation a bit offensive as well…
To whom it may concern: The COC and all those in the restoration movement are false teachers. Our area is crawling with them and they openly preach a works gospel. You have to be baptized or your not saved and if you don’t live a “good” life you won’t make it in either. We have three COC preachers on the radio here every Sunday (each having their own 1/2 hour program) and every week it is the same message; Acts 2:38. Baptism, baptism, baptism. It is nauseating. I have met with various COC pastors and they all preach a false gospel.
Debating this Tim Reed character on issues of doctrine is a waste of everyone’s time. Post #99 should prove that point. Let him go. Shake the dust off your feet and move on. There are plenty of people out there who recognize they’re lost and are willing to listen.
Exactly, as soon as ya intimate someone else is not saved based on your dislike of their language, you’ve lost your right to assume you’ll be taken seriously.
Understood, since it followed a comment by me about the lyrics I thought it was addressed to me… anyway, guess you now have an answer to a question you didn’t ask.
(Ken – see how civil discussion can be held between those who may disagree?)
There’s a right way to present your point and then well you all know..
It was offensive to some but, not everyone was offended.
So I guess no apology is needed? Right?
I didn’t see any need for Tim to apologise.
Neil – my interpretation of Gal.5:12 is that Paul desires the legalists cut off and separated from the Galatian church. But if the other interpretation is correct, than it suggests a physical mutilation above and beyond circumcism probably as an object lesson that to the legalists the covenant(circumcism) is not enough.
There is no need for bar stool communication.
PS – I did not miss the point. I believe Michael Spencer was the source.
You are fun, Amy…
Neil
Chris,
Chris, that’s just laughable. The poem that Tim posted as his own is one of the most condemning things I’ve ever read.
Especially in light of the fact that many people falsely define legalism, and in light of the fact that Tim has yet to define legalism in this discussion, how can you say that Tim isn’t condemning anyone?
Tim,
If Ingrid puts her future criticisms in rhyme will you just ignore the content of them, assume that it’s a literary type that is allowed to contain things that she doesn’t have to defend?
Tim, how could I possibly know that because of the “literary type” of the ditty that you copied that you didn’t actually see it as TRUTH? (And by the way, what of it don’t you see as truth? It seems to represent your beliefs well. In fact before writing (copying) it you said, “LET ME REITERATE MY POSITION.”
None of your comments are works of “systematic theology.” Neither are Ingrid’s, or most of Ken’s, or most of what people here write. Therefore, I can just assume that we don’t take seriously what people say because it’s not a work of systematic theology?
Somehow I gather that it’s now my fault for assuming that your (non-credited) rhyme actually represented something you believed?
Since it’s a “literary type” should we also just ignore Nathan’s comment. Since it’s a rhyme can we not criticize the “harsh language?”
“LET ME REITERATE MY POSITION.” You reiterated it. Then you seem to not want to defend it, or say what you believe and don’t believe about it, using “literary type” as your excuse. That’s how it looks to me.
I don’t suppose that Paul really meant he wanted the legalists to emasculate themselves – literally.
So you didn’t miss the point, you were just offended in how it was delivered?
Neil
Have a good day amy.
Neil,
I’m not trying to be “fun,” Neil. Stories of teachers and pastors being fired for plagiarism are not fun.
Condemning in the sense that he believes (rightly) that legalism is a sin.
Not condemning in the sense that because Ingrid is a legalist she’s going to hell.
Stark contrasts between those two positions.
I’m not sure “fault” is the right word. But it was hyperbole, I thought it obvious and Tim affirmed itas such. If you did not take it that was, you should now since it has been pointed out. So the issues arisen from it are now moot as well.
Ya suppose PB meant his repent and receive as hyperbole a well?
Yes. And also aware of the fact that those who wrote it and quoted it knew it would be offensive and were willing to sacrifice a legitimate Biblical point on the altar of verbal sensationalism.
Rick,
Knowing it would push buttons is a legitimate claim, that the point was sacrificed I’m not so convinced.
Neil
true, though this hardly qualifies…
Maybe not completely sacrificed, but surely compromised and distracted.
Amy, I’ve quoted it before, and credited it before.
As you can see here
I suppose distracted is correct, but had it been taken in the tone it was presented, we could have saved a lot of time…
If y’all can’t get along, feel free to fight…
(That’s what my mom taught me.)
They started it…
BTW, if you’re all hot and bothered about copyright law, you might want to aim your guns at pastorboy, he’s posted a photo my wife owns the copyright to, and wasn’t granted permission to use it.
Tim,
I guess it will remain to be seen whether or not any writer here has enough integrity to treat you the way they would treat an ODM who would post such a post, and then refuse to defend it with the excuse of “literary type.”
Many churches would fire a pastor for posting the ditty that you posted, just because of the language. Does your church know you write stuff like this?
It’s the pastors and teachers who lose their jobs after the fact that are hot and bothered about copyright law.
Besides copyright law, it’s a matter of basic kindness and thoughtfulness towards others’ property and realizing the commandment “not to steal” still applies.
Sometimes this is what I feel like the body of Christ looks like from the outside looking in.
Tim,
I see alot of side stepping this one.
Amy,
I have corresponded with the author of the peice in the past (Shea from BHT), I will be happy to email him and let him know I’m using it yet again if that will satisfy you.
And yes, my leadership is aware of my attitude towards language. We have a deacon who regularly uses words like crap and pissed. Sorry we don’t all measure up to your standards.
I’m waiting for you to have the integrity to rebuke PB over copyright law the same way you have me. Maybe you could threaten his job as well.
Why, Neil, because “one of your own” wrote it?
How many times have I heard how serious it is to “condemn someone to hell?” Yet all the implications are here, in this poem, and in the unanswered questions . . .
Wow!
Tim,
I really don’t care what you do re the copyright law. It’s a sad world when such a thing can’t be said without the person bringing it up made to feel at fault.
I pity the children in your church.
I love you too amy. Go in peace sister.
won’t anyone think of the children???
You would have been all over this one if ODM”S would have wrote it.
I guess is ok not to apologize if you only offended some people not everyone.
So Amy has used 2 out of my 3 favorite phrases that I hear in ministry as default for “I have an agenda and I don’t have any leverage.”
1) “Words have meaning” – usually said when they refuse to understand your position but fully expect you to understand theirs.
2) “I’m only concerned about the children”- or the variations on that. Usually said when things that they expect aren’t being done. Because we all know there is only one way to do things.
3) THE GRANDDADDY OF THEM ALL “The Lord told me” – inserted before most conversations to squelch any and all debate. Because good little Christians wouldn’t want to go against what the Lord said.
Amy,
Such accusations only belittle yourself… it’s moot not because “one of my own” commented it, but because you missed the point and it has subsequently been pointed out to you. That’s why.
Neil
Chris said:
Chris,
How do you know that’s what Tim believes?
(Tim)
And do you believe that these words can cover for your lack of integrity, your inabiblity to defend your words and actions, especially your acting as if you don’t have to answer questions about what something actually says because of it’s “literary type?” You’re really under some kind of deception.
More assumptions based on hypothetical situations… as far as I can recall we have only been on them for their dishonest methods, their lack of grace, their assigning of motivations, etc…
Amy,
I’ve explained a million times now (that’s hyperbole for the case of making a point) what exactly I meant by quoting that. Allow me to quote myself:
I’ve also emailed pastorboy directly and explained to him that I don’t want any sin in the church. His failure to update his post by removing claims about me that state that’s the case (he responded to me via email several hours ago) shows you that he’s not committed to the truth. He’s committed to slandering me.
So, which Darren Stephens do you all prefer?
Dick York or Dick Sargent. I prefer Dick York, but I think it’s more fun to say Dick Sargent.
let’s vote… seriously though, if it were directed at a person or persons in specific and they were offended – ok, an apology would probably be called for… but just because someone or someones found a general comment offensive does mean he needs to apologise.
Neil
Neil,
” cut their dicks off ” is this Grace?
Is this what Jesus calls Grace?
This is a nice way to show Grace to the world.
Amy,
As if it were not settled yet, Tim’s previous post put to rest what he meant by the lyrics he posted. It is that simple.
Neil
Not sure I follow your point
Because I actually read what he writes.
OK neil point taken.
If the quote was directed to emergent is it considered direct?
” if it were directed at a person or persons in specific and they were offended – ok, an apology would probably be called for”
Neil,
” More assumptions based on hypothetical situations… as far as I can recall we have only been on them for their dishonest methods, their lack of grace, their assigning of motivations, etc…”
ODM’s lack of grace.
Neil,
I missed the point?
The point I’m getting is this:
I was supposed to take some really nasty words that Tim appeared to have written, and automatically know that he didn’t write them or believe all of them.
I’m supposed to not care that Tim refuses to define legalism. I was supposed to know that Tim, who I know thinks Ingrid is a legalist, of course doesn’t think the things “he” said in the poem applied to her or other ODM’s.
I’m supposed to know somehow that though it bothers you all immensely when someone seems to judge someone else’s salvation, that when the same is done cleverly in someone’s personal poem, they of course aren’t judging others’ salvation?
I’m supposed to know somehow that what Tim has done is above reproach even though Tim hasn’t really spoken up about what he believes, and even though he hasn’t come out and said what it is about the poem that he does or doesn’t believe.
Don’t you think that there’s a possibility that Tim posted the rhyme because it resonates with what is in his spirit? Not just the message, but the tone? Don’t you think that he believes that Ingrid and/or other ODM’s are the same as one of the legalists represented in the poem?
Think realistically Neil. Imagine this poem appearing on Slice or CRN and their responding to you as Tim has.
Understood. I’d say any supposed lack of grace on Tim’s part is irrelevant to the lack of grace by your average ODM…
Whether you recognized it at the time is irrelevant, it has been subsequently made clear.
Neil
Neil,
I would like to thank you for beign gracious throughout.
Blessings brother.
Tim’s explanation clealy showed salvation was not the point.
No problem, Jose… after all is said and done, after all the bickering and disagreements, I still believe we are related through Christ and we should treat each other thus – though it is difficult at times.
You’ll notice it was posted in the block quote formatting, just like your quote is above. That is the internet equivilent of using quotation marks which indicates it is not the author’s original work. Its pretty standard across websites.
I’ve explicitly written what I mean several times since then, including linking you to additional commentary that resonated with me that illuminates what I like about the verse in question.
Amy, I have stated over and over and over again that ODMs are not excluded from the kingdom of God. I have never questioned teh salvation of any of them in the slightest. Not even when they’re bringing up years old sin that had been repented of and forgiveness sought for and given from the offended and calling me an “enemy of Christ”.
Friends,
I’m a little late on this one, but here’s a thought. God made our bodies–I’m one of those silly fools who actually believes in Creation–so I take it to mean that God made us the way we are. That means: He gave me 8 fingers, 2 thumbs. Why shouldn’t I use all 10 of them to His glory?
The only people who see something offensive about that video are people who see something offensive about the way God made us. The only people who are offended by the use of the middle finger are those who have read into it the culture’s use and not God’s creation. But as it is, I see in the video people who have redeemed the use of all 8 fingers, 2 thumbs, 2 palms–in other words, they are using their entire body to bring praise to God. That makes me happy.
On the other hand, I question sincerely whether the author of Slice has ever brought glory to God with the use of her vitriolic hatred of the flesh–the flesh that God made and honored as the receptical and residence of His Spirit.
Shame on you Ingrid for blasphemy. For attributing to satan something that these people had dedicated to God Himself.
Interestingly enough, that’s exactly what the satan does isn’t it? He spends all his waking moments, all his waking hours, all his waking existence doing nothing more than accusing the saints before God. Ingrid, Mrs Schleuter, do you really think the devil needs your help accusing the Saints? Grow up you whiny child.
jerry
PS–Tim, I get what you are saying because that is precisely what Paul was saying. ‘Cut it off,’ he said to them. Yep, it’s there. I read it myself.
I have already commented on the tone. It is not my place to judge motives or what resonates in Tim’s spirit – this is what I find so repugnant with the ODM SOP – their willingness to judge the motivations and spirits of others… who are also, like them, in Christ.
I believe what he said, that he’d rather hang around with sinners than those who think they are not.
I have found many of their posts far more reprehensible, repugnant, and offensive than Tim’s quote. He did so in a general sense, they on the other hand routinely address specific people in a way that is most foul, a manner in which one Christian should not attack another in the Body of Christ.
” Shame on you Ingrid for blasphemy. For attributing to satan something that these people had dedicated to God Himself. ”
Calling someone a blasphemer is very serious. It’s an unforgivable sin.
I can see maybe a liar,hater or something along those lines.
With that statement you have sent Ingrid to hell.
Jose,
I would suggest you may be confusing what Jerry is saying with “blasphemy against the spirit”. If blasphemy itself was enough to send someone to hell I imagine we’d all be in hell.
Jose,
I don’t think it is an unforgivable sin to call someone a blasphemer if they are not… that said, I don’t think what Ingrid did was blasphemy either…
All day long Ingrid and the Pastor and the Boy and others refer to the authors of this blog, anything related to the Shack, anything related to Purpose, or Emergent or anything that varies from their strict Spurgeon, Puritanical Gospel of legalism as blasphemous, anti-Christian, heretical, and any other adjective that describes something as less than made in the image of God.
And you think that what I said was wrong? Jose, my friend, do you read the blogs of those people? The author of Slice of Laodicea has take the grace of God and turned it into a license for accusation and slander and judgmentalism against the people of God–people saved by the grace of God, by the blood of Christ, and in faith. And you are worried that I think what Ingrid said is blasphemous?
Have you ever seen the nature of the posts that the author of Slice publishes? Seriously, have you ever read the things she says about the saints of God? Seriously? No, really, seriously have you read them?
And you are worried because I think she has blasphemed? Is it any human’s job to accuse the saints of God? Isn’t that the work of the satan? All day long? But I remember what the apostle wrote: There is now no condemnation for those in Christ. We have only one judge and to Him we will stand or fall.
I stand by what I wrote.
jerry
This is an interesting take. The church clearly performed an act of worship which was not sinful in and of itself as far as we can judge from a video. Yet Ingrid ascribed themas behaving like those who are enemies of the cross… while I don’t think this is blasphemy, it certainly is something that ought not be done.
Tim and Neil,
Tim stated that the poem was “his position.” (”Allow me to reitterate my position”) The first comment Tim made explaining this was: “
That was your analysis of what the poem says. Notice:
(post 124)
Notice:
You didn’t say “I used this poem to demonstrate such and such.” You said, “There is nothing in it that abuses. . . IT ONLY STATES . . . ”
Then, in the next post, in reference to my question about who is going to hell based on this line in the poem:
, you say,
(125)
So in the first quote, you’re in full agreement with the poem, which “reitterates your position, which has nothing in it that abuses, which only states . . . ”
Yet in quote 125 you ignore the fact that the poem which is your position has said
Can you not see the contradiction?
And you refused to say who legalists were.
Then, further down, after stating the poem is “your position” and after having analyzed what it says, it suddenly becomes a “literary type” whose every point doesn’t need to be defended.
It’s like what is true just kept changing, from post to post . . .
Hey Slick – you might stick to what you know, as you’re all wet on the Restoration movement (spoken first hand).
Wet straw-men? Hmmm…
amy,
As I’ve iterated my position several times, including a link to the thinking by the author himself of what was going on in his head when he wrote it and you’re coming up with something else entirely might indicate that you’re eisegeting.
I understand that you’re on a crusade to make me look as bad as possible, but when I interpret what I’ve posted, perhaps you can just let that stand instead of insisting that I actually meant something else. Just saying.
Apparently what you say you meant is trumped by what you did not say… in others words, it doesn’t matter that you said this and that… you left out the other thing – therefore you must have meant something else all together…
BTW – Where in the lyrics are legalists assigned to Hell? and
Jerry,
Yes I have read many times Slice/ken/PB and I agree with you. They have made accusations base on what they think is wrong and many have been hurt by it. I do condemd such actions.
But blasphemy to me is very ( my conviction ) harsh.
” And you are worried because I think she has blasphemed? Is it any human’s job to accuse the saints of God? Isn’t that the work of the satan? All day long?”
Then let’s not fall into the same sin she is in and accuse her, it’s not our job.
Many comments ago Tim clarified what he meant. He presented a forrest and you insist on exegeting the trees. Your misinterpretation of the genre has been pointed out … Let it drop already.
Neil
Neil,
It would be interesting to know how much time you’ve spent actually trying to read and discern the progression of the conversation here. If you can truly look at the progression and say “my misinterpretation of the genre,” . . .
Especially since you’re asking the following question, which has been my main concern all along
Here’s the answer: ‘
Tim also referred to the “damnable heresy of legalism” in one of his comments.
So, since this post was about something Ingrid said, and since the poem “reitterated Tim’s position,” according to Tim, and since he even affirmed that position – I think it’s perfectly reasonable to continue asking him:
What is legalism?
Who is a legalist?
You’re the only one.
You’ll also notice that what I quoted, wasn’t in response to anything Ingrid wrote.
(Neil)
(Tim, addressed to me, #84)
I must say Neil that I consider this a “most foul” criticism.
Hey Chris; Trust me friend I know what I know. There are 10 COC’s within 20 minutes of me and I have gone round and round with them for 25+ years and I am well acquainted with Stone-Campbell theology.
While you may be acquainted with the men you spoke with who live within 20 minutes of you, you’re not well acquainted with RM theology.
Well there you have it!
Agreed…
what is there to go ’round and round’ about? Seems to me that a better use of time and energy would be to help the poor, the widows, orphans, abused, mistreated, the very thing the apostle Paul was ‘eager’ to do.
but again, it is a lot easier to sit around and criticize and judge. Man, 25+ years spent disagreeing and arguing and fighting and ‘going round and round.’ I don’t know if you know RM theology or not, but you sure don’t seem to have read your NT.
What a monumental waste of time.
jerry
graduate of a RM Bible college
preacher in a RM Church
baptized by a RM Preacher
Quite enough.
Wow Tim!
I’m not sure if I should laugh at your ignorance or grieve your own self righteousness in Wednesday’s post.
Where does Col. 4.6 fit in with this gutter talk?
As a pastor and Christian how do you justify this talk?
You might start here.
Thanks for the page of opinions Chris. Again, how does this line up with Col. 4.6.
Or for that matter
Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. Eph. 4.29
Let me guess…Grace is relative right?
Every once in a while, in response to the ferociousness of an attack and the disdain for the source of that attack, we may find ourselves defending something that is without defense.
Sometimes a genuine acknowledgement of a mistake is a much more painless route.
I’ve been asking that of ODMs for a long time now.
I must have missed the verse about “gutter talk”. Where can I find Paul’s references to “gutter talk”? Was Paul offended by the english word “dick”? If so why was he using “gutter talk” like skubalon?
If you were as offended by the slander and lies of ODMs as you were by the word “dick” you’d have a lot more crediblity.
And while we’re on the subject, should I start quoting some of Luther’s use of language? After all, he’s one of those dead theologians you idolize so much. Or is your condemnation reserved only for those people not on your team?
To quote Luther, I fart in Wittenberg and they smell it in Rome.
DT, you’ve violated said Scriptures, right in this forum, and on your own blog, brother. Please reconsider what Chris wrote. Did you read what Chris wrote?
Maybe, maybe.. Either way, slander and language that ‘tears down’ instead of ‘what is wholesome for building up’ is a much much larger vein that some cultural no-no words for Americans.
And guess what, Jesus agrees…Matt 15:-16-20…
Intent is everything.
Maybe language like this fits with Colossians 4:6? Maybe this is ‘useful for building each other up’?
Seasoned with grace, hmm? If we’re supposed to be seasoned with grace, and that’s “grace”, then I’d rather stub my toe and drop S-bombs all day that say that to another human being and embarass Jesus Christ.
Skubalon.
Joe
Joe – the word is not “rather”, the word is “neither”.
Let me fix it…
“then I’d rather stub my toe all day and drop S-bombs all day because of that than say that (the above quotation from CRN) to another human being and embarass Jesus Christ.”
It’s not an ‘either’ statement Rick…
Tim, maybe they have a point…”dick,” is, after all, a euphemism for “penis,” and it isn’t used in any other contexts, ever, and besides, it’s just naughty!
That said, I wish Penis Clark still did the New Years’ Eve countdown…
Tim’s poem, even without the nasty words is one of the most destructive things I’ve seen written. His attitude following the poem – his unwillingness to account for what the poem actually teaches, that legalists are going to hell, and his unwillingness to define legalism, and his tendency to blame others for his own faults , makes it even more destructive.
Chris L, if Tim can use Paul to justify this poem and his own language as displayed elsewhere, anything good you’ve had to say in your article on cussing is meaningless as far as this blog is concerned. In light of his dialogue here anything you have written in regards to ODM’s slanderous words or unwillingness to back up what they say seems like a joke.
Cussing is something drunk, abusive parents used to hurl at their kids, along with their fists. Interesting how the words that overflow from the anger in their heart would be words of choice of some pastors. Interesting that a pastor like Tim seems to WANT to be noticed for his language choices.
I suppose this is what makes y’all “relevant.”
question…
Chris L., Are some comments being moderated? I was wondering since my comments to those above have not been posted.
Tim, are you being legalistic by adamantly condemning legalism? Or are you being self righteous by claiming to be better than those legalists?
DT,
Go read what I’ve written in the comments, since that’s what this controversy is about. Clearly you’re commenting on something you’ve not read.
If that’s what cussing is then there’s been no cussing in this thread or in anything I’ve ever written.
Oh, and BTW, amy, your comment was far worse than any cuss word I’ve heard used recently, and considering the make up of my community, that certainly says anything.
Will It Go Round in Circles?
You should check out that song on Eric Clapton’s One More Car, One More rider DVD. Sung by Billy Preston who died in 2006
Much more fun than watching this thread!
What else is on the DVD?
Deductive reasoning:
Drunk abusive parents cuss.
Sailors cuss.
Therefore the US Navy are child-abusers!
or…
My grandma used to cuss.
Sailors cuss.
Therefore my grandma used to swim out to troop ships.
(Haha, I don’t think she did. She was more of a shore-girl.)
Spending quality life-hours arguing being over-bothered by potty words isn’t just legalism, it’s emotional immaturity.
>>DT,
“Go read what I’ve written in the comments, since that’s what this controversy is about. Clearly you’re commenting on something you’ve not read.”
The comment is #99. I have read it.
That poem is awesome, btw.
Completely in line with Jesus’s message.
That’s why it bugs the crap of legalistic sycophants.
Tim, come over, I’ll make you the best cappuccino you’ve ever had and then we’ll watch the DVD.
“Key to the Highway”
“Reptile”
“Got You On My Mind”
“Tears in Heaven”
“Bell Bottom Blues”
“Change the World”
“My Father’s Eyes”
“River of Tears”
“Going Down Slow”
“She’s Gone”
“I Want a Little Girl”
“Badge”
“(I’m Your) Hoochie Coochie Man”
“Have You Ever Loved a Woman”
“Cocaine”
“Wonderful Tonight”
“Layla”
“Will It Go Round in Circles”
“Sunshine of Your Love”
You might be shocked to learn that there’s more to it than that, if you had bothered to read the entire discussion instead of just the part you didn’t like.
I’d love to, I’d even bring over some fresh roasted coffee beans. Sadly the trip over would make them no longer fresh-roasted. Thanks for the invitation though.
Here’s my poem of the day…
I’ve got a song I ain’t got no melody
How’m I gonna sing it with my friends
I’ve got a song I ain’t got no melody
How’m I gonna sing it with my friends
Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky
Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky
I’ve got a lil’ story ain’t got no moral
Let the bad guy win every once in a while
I’ve got a lil’ story ain’t got no moral
Let the bad guy win every once in a while
I’ve got a lil’ dance ain’t got no steps
I’m gonna let the music move me around
I’ve got a dance I ain’t got no steps
I’m gonna let the music move me around
(Billy Preston & Bruce Fisher)
dang!
ya’ll picked up the rope.
too bad.
or maybe I should say:
skubalon!
ya’ll picked up the rope…
nevermind.
“(Ken – see how civil discussion can be held between those who may disagree?)”
Well, since I’ve now been brought into this by Neil:
Tim Reed said: Amen. Looks to me then that it is NOT legalistic of an “ODM” to condemn the Roman Catholic Church for doing the exact same thing with their sacramental system.
I don’t see anything in the spam queue, though I rescued one of your earlier comments from there (the one with the hotlink in it).
Amy – I didn’t realize that you were the regulator of Tim’s convictions…
Was Jesus teaching that legalists are going to hell, or that they were already there – creating a hell on earth?
When you look at Jesus’ strongest criticisms’ (and Paul’s as well), they tend to be directed at religious people who are *ding* legalistic.
I’d also note that the BHT song was targeted at a specific behavior (legalism), not a specific class of people…
Ah, missed your comment, nc…
*sigh*
It reminds me of the story sometimes tagged to Tony Campolo:
While not as stark a contrast, it’s pretty telling in this thread that the lesson still needs to be learned.
Tim,
You know it would be a lot simpler for you to answer DT’s questions than to have him read all those comments between 99 and here. Besides, the comments are probably going to make him ask more questions.
But the way I see it, you lose by answering the questions and you lose by not answering the questions. So your best bet would be to keep throwing other questions back at DT to make him look bad. Also, if he gets too ugly you can always tell him he’s worse than the folks at your church.
See, I’m learning.
No, you’re not Amy, because you’ve steadfastly never been wrong here (red flag), and…
You think it’s about ‘winning’ and ‘losing’. For Jesus…I presume.
Psst…He doesn’t need you or us for things to be true or false.
When it becomes about ‘winning’ and making someone else ‘lose’, then it’s not about the Truth anymore, it’s about our own pride, which seperates us from Jesus.
Joe
(singing)
round and round the mulberry bush
the ODM’s chased the peeeeeple
the ODM’s thought it’s all for God
pop! goes the peeeeeple.
I just want Tim to explain how he justifies his “speech” in a public forum. God has called us as pastors to a high standard. I think his “Thank God I’m not a legalist like those ODM’s” attitude is hilarious but more than that evasive.
DT,
While you may have put that attitude into my words, that clearly not what I intended to communicate, as you’ll see in my follow up comments when you get around to reading them.
DT,
If it’s bad to say, “Dick” then is it bad to say:
“urinate on the blood of the reformers”?
Forgive me Tim but I don’t recall seeing your follow up comments.
Put said comment in front of 100 people that are Christians and do not know you nor I and I think they would be highly offended and would read that same attitude into it.
um, nc, True Christians don’t have bodily functions, you know that…
and if you MUST refer to it, they’d prefer “weewee on the blood of the reformers…”
I’m so glad Penis Cheney won’t be the Vice President much longer…
BTT:
omigosh…THAT is funny.
Docetic Christianity.
Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load.
DT:
Don’t be so quick to assume that everyone would be offended.
On the contrary Joe I have been wrong a number of times here and acknowledged it (apologized). I have apologized for my tone, and I have apologized when I’ve had wrong information. I have apologized when I didn’t feel like it was the logical thing to do, but something that God wanted me to do. I have no doubt been wrong other times as well, and not realized it, and thus not apologized.
As for my last response to Tim, I don’t think it falls under the category of “a soft answer turns away wrath.” I think it was unnecessary and unkind, though true, and I apologize for it, Tim.
No I don’t think it’s about “winning” and “losing.” I think that Tim is gravely in error by posting that poem and by his actions following; I think that DT’s questions make only some of the problems with his poem obvious. Underlying it all I think that Tim is “losing” because he refuses to face all the errors in the thinking of the poem that he posted as his own position. And I think it’s sad when anyone “loses.”
I do wish, honestly, that you all who seem to be “on the same side” could actually see and acknowledge when a non-ODM is doing the very things that you accuse ODM’s of doing. You have a big burden on your shoulders claiming to be different than the ODM’s.
Which words in the poem are ontologically evil?
Just wondering…
Just doing a quick evaluation of what seems to be a controversial phrasing:
This seems to be a reinterpretation of
Along with some other woes mentioned…
I’m was not talking about being wrong about tone, info, or for no good reason…
I’m talking about being wrong on your secondary theological beliefs, like naughty english words. If you really believe all your Scriptureal convictions are absolutely correct, hooray for you
, but I don’t believe you.
But really, I apologize for being too broad, that’s never cool. Sorry.
You do think it’s about winning and losing, by many many comments you’ve posted showing that to be the case, ie: “But the way I see it, you lose by answering the questions and you lose by not answering the questions.”
And Amy, since I came from the ODM side…saying the same things initially that you just did (”you do the same things!”) I do understand where you’re coming from. Just remember, if you accuse others of doing what you do, when those others are saying it’s wrong to do those things, that means YOU have a problem too that needs to be dealt with. Anything else is a red-herring.
Is calling Fuller Seminary a ‘cesspool’ ok language? Edifying? Is it seasoned with grace?
Maybe we do the same things the ODMs do with language etc, but the point is to get people to admit IT IS WRONG, to slander condemn and lie about brothers in Christ, oh and use nasty arrogant language to describe them to boot. Saying “skubalon” (ie animal S##T) in the Bible apparently isn’t a problem, but tearing people down with said words is. I hope I’m making sense.
Again, apologies for broad brushing and not being specific.
Joe
I said: “Maybe we do the same things the ODMs do with language etc, but the point is to get people to admit IT IS WRONG, ”
To be more clear, I mean that even if this site is just as guilty as the ODMs, our goal as Christians (all of us) should be to come to the understanding that this skubalon the ODMS do (and .info, if you believe that) is NOT ok to do.
Why argue about who does it more? Why not admit it’s WRONG, and SINFUL, and be done? That’s what God is looking for.
Joe
Which words in Break’s post are ontologically evil, Chris?I’ve seen posts such as #268 before, go unrebuked (and honestly, how could you rebuke it here on this post.) I honestly feel like all the merry-go-round thinking you all use to justify cuss words – Luther, Paul, motivations, context, etc- is just a covering for your wanting to continue using naughty words.
So you can snicker.
Junior High revisited. Old nature resurrected.
I can’t imagine what some of you are like in real life in your speech, when you post the kinds of things you post here, or when you let things be posted here without remarking on them.
There are so many scriptures about speech that you choose to ignore – yet the “You may use words if they aren’t ontologically evil” seems to be your main guiding principle.
And you want people to think that you can actually judge obscene gestures as obscene.
Lovely.
And it’s apparent then Amy that your obsession over the issue of language as this additional deal-breaker is indicative of your desire to exercise your budding spiritual gift of mind and heart reader.
The Trinity’s calling. Seems like they have extra seats for you and your friends. We’ll have a Christian pantheon now.
Who cares?!?!
This is a stupid conversation…all the way around.
“I can’t imagine what some of you are like in real life in your speech, when you post the kinds of things you post here, or when you let things be posted here without remarking on them.”
Please, just don’t then. I’d rather you not slander me in your mind. You don’t know anything about me or anyone else here, or what God leads us to do.
And if you condemn the mods here for not remarking on every snarky comment that gets posted, why haven’t you rebuked people like Ken Silva and Ingrid for their bombastic, slanderous, and cutting language used to describe other Christians? Double standard Amy…
As for the Scriptures we ignore, perhaps you should stop interpreting them from 21st century ‘naughty-word’ eisegesis. Remember and take note that there is NO list of naughty words in Scripture that are forbidden, only the content of our speech in context of destroying others. Until you understand this, you’ll keep thinking we’re ignoring the Scriptures, it seems.
Joe
Joe,
I have in the past personally addressed two ODM’s use of language. One of them, personally, several times, and one in comments commenting on their articles.
I have been met with a humble response from one ODM in particular, even though some of the rebuking I did (not about language but about something else) was probably not accurate (I didn’t understand the situation.)
I have seen in a couple of ODM’s an actual willingness to apologize and to consider listening. I usually don’t see that here.
Perhaps you yourself are not guilty of using such language as “cesspool,” “defecation.” If so, feel free to rebuke/share your thoughts with ODM’s.
(By the way, I got the idea from the discussion under “Warren” that perhaps Ken Silva would no longer choose to use the word “defecation.”)
But people who regularly use such terms as well as ones connected with sexual functions have no REASON or right to rebuke. Why should they rebuke? They demonstrate by their own words/attitudes that such usage of language is okay.
amy,
This is why I don’t take your arguments seriously. You believe that words are ontologically evil. You believe you have a list of english words that are themselves evil no matter what, so much so that you referred to the use of them as “the old nature resurrected”. You wonder why we refer to many of your beliefs as gnosticism? This is why, you claim to have knowledge that no one else has access to, namely that particular english words are inherently evil.
Just to make it doubly clear, Joe. I HAVE.
And it’s not a matter of the mods “not remarking on every snarky comment that gets posted.” It’s a matter of how many “snarky” comments are regularly let go – by non-ODM types – almost all of them versus the amount of attention given to tearing down whatever ODM types say.
Look at comments such as #278. This is the type of thing that practically eveyone who disagrees here has to put up with, no matter how much time and thought they’ve given to actually try to dialogue.
(Amy)
(Joe)
You don’t think that the way a person speaks in public on the internet is an indication of how they speak in their real lives? That’s all I’m saying. It has nothing to do with what else you might be doing or not doing.
Please, Amy please – point to my use of “naughty words” – please do.
How am I trying to justify my wanting to continue to use ‘naughty’ words, when I don’t use them in the first place? ***boggle***
None were ontologically evil. Disrespecting a leader as in #268, even one with whom you disagree, in a childish manner is – well – childish and silly. It only makes you look immature and silly, which is why I often ignore posts which do so – if they want to make themselves look foolish, they don’t need me to point it out for them.
Whatever. Perhaps you should stick to yourself, since you’re so poor at judging other’s motives…
My speech in RL is not all that different from what you see here, though you get to see a smile and more body-language IRL.
When I’ve talked to the other guys who write here, I don’t see a carelessness with speech, either.
In the case of the BHT song Tim posted, it served as an experiential demonstration of legalism and hypocrisy – your case in point.
If I commented on everything I disagreed with, I’d never have time to do anything else.
With Evan, I had just read the Cheney comment at the same time I read yours, and I was going to add a quick disclaimer to please avoid such demeaning language toward people.
I don’t refute every single thing I disagree with – and in fact, I often purposely don’t, particularly when it’s you or Evan or pastorboy, etc. trolling for a reaction. Sometimes no answer is the best answer. Many cases, with you in particular, I follow Solomon’s advice in Pr 26:4. Sometimes, I fail to follow this advice, and suffer the consequences.
If that’s what you think, then you didn’t finish my article.
If I had to sum it up, it would probably be this:
No word is ontologically evil, but there are some which should be used sparingly, and with wisdom in their application. The content is what is of import, not the words chosen to convey it.
It’s pretty obvious they can’t trust yours or Ingrid in that particular matter…
I don’t really care if the ODM”s say “defecate”, etc.
I just don’t.
What matters is the hypocrisy of using such descriptions and then acting like they have the moral highground because they don’t say: “dick”, etc. etc.
That’s really the point of all this as I’ve understood it.
I still think this is a dumb conversation.
Yup.
Perhaps if Amy just provided us with a list of ontologically evil words and the Scripture listing those specific words as such, we could just be done with it…
Tim,
I don’t have a list of ontologically evil words. The thought never crossed my mind. And it never crossed my mind that all the Christians who try not to use words that are bathroom and sex related or taking some religious thing and turning it into an angry word were gnostics.
There are a lot of scriptures that apply to speech and to what we should be focusing our minds on (and our words are a result of what we’re focused on.) I’m just trying to honor God as are other folks who refuse to use some of the words you apparently delight in using. If that is self-righteousness or legalism, then I guess the best you can do is sing your little poem over and over about the “self-righteous __” and rest assured that we will all be gnawing our tongues forever while you have your little party in heaven with other folks who aren’t gnostic, and therefore free to use all the “forbidden” words.
Amy,
I have explicitly told you what I meant by that poem, including links to the thinking of the original author. It was nothing like what you portrayed in your last post. You have consistently slandered me and the writers of this blog through your casual distortion of the truth on this thread. SO while you’re busy playing word police you’ve actually disobeyed the commands of scripture that you’re pretending to try to enforce.
This is hilarious:
“To quote Luther, I fart in Wittenberg and they smell it in Rome.”
I read this last night in NT Wright’s book Surprised by Hope. Maybe this is what Tim was getting at:
This is a case of missing the point. The poem got people’s attention, but they failed to see the message. He spoke loudly, but they only heard whispers. It’s like when Jesus cursed the fig tree or metaphorically destroyed the temple or healed on the Sabbath. All they could see was what he did and when or how; they could not hear what he was saying. They were not paying attention.
As usual, they have not made a correct judgment. They have judged by mere appearances.
jerry
Jerry,
Maybe you should be a pastor
You quite obviously got the point – exactly:
QFT
Also, I think people know I’m just being silly.
Although I do think it’s a bit pathetic that people would consider biologically correct terms to be “dirty.”
Many trips to mental health professionals would seem to be in order.
Amy,
I speak IRL exactly how I write here. And hey, I believe the same things IRL as I do here too. But when you say things like
You insinuate that because we disagree with you over your narrow interpretation of the ‘bad language’ verses of Scripture, that we must be even worse in real life, and these terrible souls that you can’t even imagine being around. That’s why what you said violates all the Scriptures you are trying to hold up.
About you rebuking the ODMs whom you seem to support w/ your comments…I’ve just never seen you do it, here at least, and I try to read all the comments I can. So forgive me if you’ve done it in other regards, good on you for bringing your concerns up to them. That is what this site exists for though, by the way, so perhaps you’re more like us than you think then?
Evan,
You’re silly all the time. At least you don’t use your monkey-mouth language from your blog here.
BTT:
But biologically correct terms are part of “reality”…
There is such a thing as making a point through questionable means. I suggest that’s what some ODMs do as well as that disgusting poem.
I’d rather be a child molester than be a legalist.
And by dregging up the words of the ODMs as a “you do it too” point, you have just used the “you do it too” simile just like they use the “you do it too” simile. When you can defend a poem like that it just exhibits a total disregard for Biblical impartiality in deference to your same camp partiality.
Tim is not always wrong, but he is unquestionably wrong in posting that poem. And on the other end, John is very wrong in suggesting Tim is not saved.
Rick,
and which is worse?
methinks the latter.
My point in the ‘you do it too’ argument is that they are admitting to guilt in the matter and therefore should drop the conversation and deal with the sin they are stuck in. We should do the same, presumably.
I read this in one of the poems we call Scripture:
“O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.” (137)
I guess the Psalmist was decidedly wrong for posting that poem. Imagine, a poem glorifying infanticide.
jerry
There is a verse for anything.
nc – the “you are not saved and I am” is the self righteous trump card unless it is said in tears to a lost person.
Jerry, most Christians don’t pay any attention to the Old Testament unless they’re using it as a weapon.
Exactly.
I am SO NICE here.
Friends,
“I once knew a blog from Nantucket,
A slice sadness; unhappy and weak.
It hated all flesh, and things of the earth,
I wish it would just kick the bucket.”
or,
“I once knew a blog full of spite,
The author was quite always right.
She judged near and far, and never did sin,
And closed the church to all whom Jesus would let in.”
Or,
“I once knew a blog from Nantucket
Whose author was nicknamed the Pastor.
It judged all it could, and all in the way,
So to remove Jesus and become the church’s true Master.”
Or,
“I once new a preacher named Goldfinch
Who quite obviously had nothing to say.
He visited often, he left his replies and
All wished he’d just go away.”
I know, I know. The church isn’t supposed to have fun. Sorry. I repent in sackcloth and ashes.
jerry
I once knew a preacher named Frueh
Amazing the things that he knew
And this is no lie
His thought were so high
That those understanding were few.
There once was a man named Jesus
and He spent His time with the least
He came not to please us, but he’ll never leave us
and I can’t wait for the feast!!!
nom nom nom….
Rick & Joe,
Awesome. (Ray)
jerry
You’re adding to my words, Joe.
For a specific example of what I did mean, I don’t see why a person who would post something like #99 WOULDN’T go around using the words without restraint in his word choices in his own personal life.
I know some of you don’t use such words. (Chris I never meant to imply that you do.) But most of you will defend the post.
I would never want to be under the spiritual leadership or have my children under the spiritual leadership of someone who mocks those who want to refrain from such speech.
Who has the narrow view? #99 written in the context it was written in (talking about cussing) communicates that people who DON”T THINK LIKE THE AUTHOR DOES about cussing are actually self-righteous legalists.
And that is what is being communicated further here, through various comments.
I could show that post (#99) to just about every Christian I personally know well, across many denominations and they would say, “Why would a Christian even desire to write such a thing?” It simply doesn’t honor Christ to create degrading comments that create mental pictures of parts of our bodies that were designed as vessels to be used in ways that honor God. These are Christians who actually AREN”T living by a STACK OF RULES. They simply want to honor Christ. And they can’t fathom why creating sexual pictures in people’s minds honors Christ.
But by some folks RULEBOOK and Enlightened Thinking such people who simply have absolutely no desire to use such language are self-righteous legalistic people talked about in #99.
Legalistic people, heretics who can’t be forgiven, according to the poem.
A heavy accusation.
should read:
Let me outline something that could help in commenting. Always have three levels of dogs in the fight.
1. A pleasant and dispassionate contribution. (Chris defined me as this)
2. A serious but measured participation.
3. A postal and respectfully combatitive dialogue that indicates your dog is rabid in this fight.
When you use #3 too often it compromises an otherwise serious discussion. In the words of my friend Ken (and he is my friend!),
“I hope this helps!”
Joe,
I’m going to use that short limerick of yours if you don’t mind. I’d like to put a few chords to it, add a verse, maybe a chorus and sing it on Sunday. Do you mind? I’ll of course give you credit for the first verse.
jerry
Jerry, let me piggy back on Joe’s poem as the second verse:
So I’ll follow Him by His grace
Running with patience my race
I’ll get up when I fall
With that same grace to all
Looking forward to seeing His face!
So, can we at least agree that it was wrong for Ingrid to condemn Granger for the use of an obscene gesture that they did not use?
Neil
Neil – 310 comments later – YES.
Amy,
We are not about “tearing down whatever ODM types say,” in fact we have given them kudos when they deserve it. If, however, what they say is not correct, or the logic is skewed, or the fact manipulated – then we will address it.
Neil
“I once knew a poster named Amy
Who didn’t like Tim’s choice of words.
So she whipped out her Bible,
Exegeted his poems,
And the rest of us grew rather bored.”
Or,
“I once knew a poster named Amy
Who had no blog of her own.
So she trolled around,
And surfed like a pro,
And gnawed our flesh to the bone.”
Or,
“I know a Savior Named Jesus who
Is very fond of us all.
He died On a Cross, He rose from grave,
And is gracious to EVERYONE’s call.”
I really should get to working on Sunday’s sermon.
jerry
Rick,
Awesome! (Ray)
Can I use it?
Haiku:
His grace is enough,
So let us draw near to Him.
Then we will make sense.
Can I get an Ode please? And a Sonnet?
jerry
Jerry – you write very well. You and Joe an me should trade literary expressions. That last one about Christ was great. I also write and play/sing music. You know who also sings real well?
Ken. Maybe we could get a group together and tour?
There once was a poster named Amy
Your mom’s scent is kind of gamy
If we all made a video
I bet it’d be witty, yo
And nothing would ever be the same-y.
Although we do not have moderators here as Amy says, I think maybe a mother’s scent is a subject best left unaddressed.
Neil
As long as I get to do the preaching!!
Maybe Ken could reprise his role as “Coffee House Minister”?
Long hair, guitar, and contemporary music. Maybe it was Ken in those days that led MacLaren astray!
Seriously, he is a very good musician. He spelled his name “Kenne” back then. He is soooo thespian – like me!
Rick.
The chord progression is as follows, using bar chords in the ‘e’ shape.
A–G–F–E (the ‘e’ is a normal ‘e’, no barring. Maybe I’ll make a podcast of the song and post it at my blog.
jerry
“All around the Mulberry Bush
the monkey chased the weasel.”
Actually, the song has nothing to do with this (I discovered after actually researching it), but it’s what came to mind after reading all of this.
I’d rather be an alcoholic,
- – than be a legalist.
I’d rather see my teenage daughter knocked up
- – than boast in her righteousness.
I’d rather have a church full of porn addicts
- – than a bunch of self-righteous pricks.
I’d rather be damn near anything
- – than be a legalist.
‘Cause legalists are heretics and the rest of that stuff’s just sin.
Legalists are going to gnaw their tongues forever
- – while the prostitutes come on in.
For Jesus loves all kinds of sinners,
- – though yes he tells them to stop
But Paul wishes that legalists would
- – cut their dicks right off.
_______________________________________
Do not tell me you said that!? way to shine your light bro, and be an example. I think Paul would be rebuking you right about now. wow, look what the church has turned into.
There once was a poster named Amy
Your mom’s scent is kind of gamy
If we all made a video
I bet it’d be witty, yo
And nothing would ever be the same-y.
———————————————
oh cool so mocking’s what Jesus did too? wow, you all need to learn to be adults. you got an 18 year old, though you probably don’t care. keep mockin. though it won’t do you good.
you guys seem so offended at ingrid for what you call legalism, when this dude up stairs thinks it’s ok to mock, and some guy who can’t write poetry thinks it’s ok to be obscene.
Ok – apparently we’re on recycle mode now, with about 2 of the last 100 comments dealing with the OP and the rest either being silly, missing the point, arguing about what is “obscene” (though no words are spelled out in scripture), and now Skylar entering about 200 posts late with a legalistic recycle…
I think I’m shutting this thread down, since it’s no longer concerned with the OP and has degenerated into a combination of legalism and sillyness…