In the news:
Pastor Ralph White of the Bloomfield Full Baptist Church in Memphis won’t bless a baby in his church unless the parents are married.
“We will do it, but not in the church setting,” he said. “We’ll go to the home or if they want to have an event somewhere, we’ll go there and do it.”
White said he hopes to send a message to young fathers: step up and provide for your family.
“Biblically speaking, a man who doesn’t take care of his children or family is worst than an infidel,” he said.
This is his way of fighting teen pregnancy...
======
My favorite comment thus far on this story?
"...but, Jesus’ mommy wasn't married to Jesus’ daddy..."
212 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 212 of 212Marshall, your other attempt to "answer" my last question is...
No I don't, nor do I need to [provide any biblical support whatsoever for your position]. You are only asking this to shut me up. You're taking a completely childish tack in demanding that if I don't find something in the Bible, then my opinion has no merit.
No, I'm not asking that to shut you up. I'm asking to get an answer. I've got that answer now.
Your answers to my questions?
"1. I have absolutely NO rational support to think that refusing to bless a child in church will reduce teen sexual acting out/teen pregnancy. I have NO studies, surveys, or real world support AT ALL to support my position.
2. I have absolutely NO biblical support for my position. NOTHING WHATSOEVER. It's not there in the Bible.
Nonetheless, I hold my hunches based on, well, the fact that they're my hunches and not much else."
Thank you for providing those non-answer answers.
You can move on now, thanks.
You are obviously the liar Bubba suspected, for you lie about my answers with great zeal.
If you think there is no obvious support for the effects on behavior due to cultural influence, then you live is a freakin' cave. I offered the campaign in recent years against smoking. Has it lowered the number of smokers? I think it's pretty plain to see.
The reverse has certainly happened with regard to sexuality, and is even more obvious to anyone over forty. The abortion rate alone is supporting evidence of that as there is no possible evidence that "back-alley" abortions, or abortions of any kind took place before Roe v Wade with the frequency now well known in our culture.
What's more, you have offered no evidence that YOUR alternative is possessed of proofs, evidence or support for success. And this is though "modeling" as you put it, smacks of the very strategy of which I speak, but without the ignoring of sinful behaviors which gives them tacit approval.
No rational support? Bull! YOU expect me to provide proof that the pastor's idea will BY ITSELF have an impact. I won't go so far as to say it will and haven't yet. Thus, you dishonestly set up a qualification for something I've not defended. But real world support for the attitude it expresses is obvious, blatant, apparent and without doubt.
Then, you demand Scriptural support for something that doesn't require it. Tell me why one must do so when one is trying to guide his flock in the manner he sees fit? What about what he is trying to do is contrary to Scripture anywhere? I have shown that he is not condemning the child, not prohibiting a blessing anyone could witness. Where does Scripture demand a structure designated solely for the purpose of ritual services and worship?
Marshall...
No rational support? Bull! YOU expect me to provide proof that the pastor's idea will BY ITSELF have an impact.
I'm not asking for proof that the pastor's prohibition will STOP teen sexuality, I'm asking for ANY REASONABLE proof that it will do ANYTHING to help matters.
You have offered nothing other than your hunch that it will.
My support for thinking it won't is MORE than just my opinion.
My support for thinking it's a bad idea is that it is exactly this sort of behavior (NOT blessing a child in a church service as a means of punishing or embarassing/shaming the parents) is the sort of thing that drives people AWAY from churches/synagogues/other places that might otherwise have a positive influence on teens.
How do I know this? I've heard it from people. These sorts of actions SOUND petty, hypocritical and mean-spirited. These sorts of actions do not do anything to promote healthy sexuality. I'm not saying that the pastor/church involved WAS intentionally petty and mean-spirited, but it comes across that way. There is not a good logical reason to promote this sort of shaming, your hunches that it will somehow help, notwithstanding.
Marshall...
Tell me why one must do so when one is trying to guide his flock in the manner he sees fit?
Because being a shepherd of a church does not give one carte blanche to do whatever one wants regardless of the damaging after-effects.
Because we are to hold our leaders accountable.
Because if there is no good biblical reason to do what he's doing and no good rational reason to do it (beyond, "I have a hunch that actions like this will contribute to people holding marriage in higher esteem..."), AND if there is reason to think such behavior is driving people AWAY from church/holding the church up to mockery, then why do it?
What about what he is trying to do is contrary to Scripture anywhere?
So, you have NO biblical support for this sort of action? I agree, there is none.
We are not to punish innocents for the sins of their parents. I see no biblical support for the notion of using prayer as a means of shaming "sinners," by withholding it towards their children. It just makes not a single bit of sense.
PRAYING FOR A CHILD AND HER FAMILY is a GOOD thing. It does not condone sexuality any more than praying for the child of the addict encourages addiciton, any more than praying for the addict encourages addiction.
Look, I GET IT, Marshall. You have a hunch that this sort of withholding prayer as a tool of shaming sinners will somehow ENCOURAGE people to repent, change their ways.
I disagree with your hunch.
Move on.
"My support for thinking it's a bad idea is that it is exactly this sort of behavior (NOT blessing a child in a church service as a means of punishing or embarassing/shaming the parents) is the sort of thing that drives people AWAY from churches/synagogues/other places that might otherwise have a positive influence on teens."
Dan. This is absolute nonsense. You are basing decisions on the poor inferences of corrupted people. Are we to withhold the truth because it might drive people away? At what point is it proper to speak the truth, because how can we know when it is the right time and won't have the exact same results of which you speak? Indeed, maybe we should put signs up in front of the church and on all literature used to attract new members, "Warning: If you aren't willing to face the truth, you probably won't like it here." Waiting to speak the truth until people are ready to hear it is cowardly and I don't think you'll find any Biblical support for that silly proposition.
"How do I know this? I've heard it from people. These sorts of actions SOUND petty, hypocritical and mean-spirited."
And what kind of people are these who would make such pronouncements without seeking explanations from the preachers who take such actions? They're usually the kind that DON'T seek explanations, or even try to understand in the first place, but quickly make their judgments (while chiding others for being judgmental) and walk away looking for someone "nicer" who won't offend their OH SO valuable sensibilities. They are weak people most in need of such truth, but won't bear up to it.
"There is not a good logical reason to promote this sort of shaming, your hunches that it will somehow help, notwithstanding."
Nonsense. Shaming was an effective practice years ago. All that was lacking was better teaching to go with it. Many would feel shame but not know why they should be ashamed, other than because they were told to. Now it's almost the reverse, but still the explanations for why one should be ashamed are not put forth properly.
"Because we are to hold our leaders accountable."
No doubt. Too bad that doesn't happen in liberal churches where milktoast sermonizing fails to impress these lessons on anyone.
"Because if there is no good biblical reason to do what he's doing and no good rational reason to do it..."
I've given good and sound reasons, along with an example of how it works (think smoking) and you ignore it in typical fashion. The biblical reasons are simple: a preacher is to lead us spiritually and this is his plan for that. You pretend it won't work. Well who's tried it recently? Anyone you know? I doubt it.
"We are not to punish innocents for the sins of their parents."
And he's not done this. He still will bless the child in front of as many people who will assemble. You have not demonstrated any harm the child will suffer.
"PRAYING FOR A CHILD AND HER FAMILY is a GOOD thing. It does not condone sexuality any more than praying for the child of the addict encourages addiciton, any more than praying for the addict encourages addiction."
Apples and oranges. This action addresses the underlying sin that resulted in the conception of the child. Addiction isn't the same thing and to suggest a parallel is foolish and not an example of the sound reasoning. Is there a better way to address it that will have an impact on the community and the youth within it? You have yet to provide it.
As for moving on, that would be easier for you, wouldn't it? When you can answer some of MY questions, I'll be happy to. You haven't even tried.
I'm for moving on if you have nothing more to say than, "I have a hunch that taking this action will shame folk and that this shame will help create a less negatively-sexualized world."
It's a fine hunch if you want to hold it. I find it silly, though.
I DO think that your type of conservative places much more value on shame and condemnation of perceived bad behavior while my side places much more stock in the "neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more" approach.
Grace over shame is my vote. You seem to place a great deal of stock in shame. I get that. I disagree with that hunch.
I don't know that we can prove or disprove your hunch, so I'm not sure that there's any point in you repeating, "But really, this is my hunch and I'm sure I'm pretty close to right, or something..."
I fully understand that's your hunch, but unless you have something meaningful to add to that hunch, what would you like me to SAY to your hunch?
Marshall...
You are basing decisions on the poor inferences of corrupted people. Are we to withhold the truth because it might drive people away?
No, we aren't. But NOT blessing a child in a church service is NOT upholding the truth. Choosing to bless a child in a church service is not "withholding truth."
You seem to be stuck on an emotional connection to the notion that if we can just shame enough people, by refusing to bless their children, then things will start to get better. I see nothing of value in it. I see nothing biblical in it. I see harm from it.
So, why do it?
I'm speaking the Truth here, not withholding it: There's nothing of value in this approach.
Dan,
Aren't you the one who refused to consider reading Francis Scheaffer because he was "too Calvinist"? Also, didn't you once tell me that you thought Calvinism was close to heresy?
Just curious.
I've read Schaeffer enough to know that he is too Calvinist in a more fundamentalist sense for my taste.
Do you have any on-topic comments, Craig?
"I'm speaking the Truth here, not withholding it:"
No. You're speaking YOUR hunch here.
"I DO think that your type of conservative places much more value on shame and condemnation of perceived bad behavior while my side places much more stock in the "neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more" approach."
You just keep dishing out the crap, don't you? As you pretend I focus only on shame and condemnation, you fail to offer anything beyond YOUR HUNCH that "'neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more' approach" has any affect on reducing sexual immorality. Bad behavior is supposed to be condemend by leaders and teachers of the faith. The seriousness of ignoring God's will on the subject is not stressed by "neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more". To be ashamed is to feel remorse for so dishonoring God and a step in rebirth and repentence.
The pastor's actions, as imperfect as they may be, is a step in the right direction if only because it is a step at all. You offer no step except a self-satisfying "neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more" that does little more than let someone off the hook, without any sense that offense against God even occurred. "You won't condemn me? Just 'go and sin no more'? Cool! Later, dude!"
Marshall...
Bad behavior is supposed to be condemend by leaders and teachers of the faith.
Where did Jesus condemn individual folk for sexually acting out? Is it not the case that just about the ONLY people Jesus specifically condemned in his ministry were the religious hypocrites?
Jesus is my role model, the one in whose steps I am to follow.
Marshall...
The pastor's actions, as imperfect as they may be, is a step in the right direction if only because it is a step at all
This remains an unsupported and ridiculous hunch. You're welcome to it, I still reject it as wrong.
Marshall...
You offer no step except a self-satisfying "neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more" that does little more than let someone off the hook
You'll have to take that up with Jesus. Those are his words. I just have chosen to embrace Jesus' method of dealing with sexual sin, which I tend to believe is the better approach than your shame and condemnation route.
YOU can tell Jesus he's wrong if you want.
Good luck with that.
Marshall...
As you pretend I focus only on shame and condemnation, you fail to offer anything beyond YOUR HUNCH that "'neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more' approach" has any affect on reducing sexual immorality.
You DO realize that, while I freely acknowledge I'm working on my hunches as to the best approach, that you are, too? And that the difference between us is that I'm using Jesus' model while you're using the shame and condemnation approach, thus MY hunch is at least backed up by Jesus' model while your hunch is backed up by, well, your hunch?
You misinterpret, purposely I suspect, my position on "neither do I condemn you". My little response from the sinner was what I suspect your position will bring forth in the sinner's mind. HE feels he won't be condemned so he will continue in his because of your position.
MY position is that the sinner will know in no uncertain terms that his ACTIONS are condemned, to the extent that he will, at the very least, consider changing his ways. He will know that God detests the behavior, and that there are those of us who do as well because of Him, and will not pretend otherwise or give any hint that the expectation that he change his ways does not exist.
Post a Comment