Because of a criticism that my blog gives the impression that I think Jesus was primarily concerned about political reform, I took a look at my last two months' worth of blogging.
My March posts were about:
* Four posts about unjustified attacks against Rev. Wright (which I find biblical support in the notion of criticizing those who'd bear false witness, who'd demonize the perceived enemy; also, I'm standing with the brethren in the times of unwarranted attacks - also a biblical and humane thing to do)
* Two posts in praise of God's Creation
* Five posts with quotes and photos from a sled trip which, for me, fall under the category of praise for God's Creation
* One post about the dangers of living unsustainably/our unhealthy dependence on fossil fuels
* One post condemning an attack that apparently killed/maimed civilians
My February posts were about:
* One post about the lack of wisdom in our dependence on and hyperconsumption of fossil fuels
* A post about finding God evidenced in the mystery of the Creation
* One posting of the money-related verses found in the book of James
* One post about meeting Wendell Berry and what he had to say about our church and pastor
* One post where I wrote why I was supporting Obama
* One post where I talked about the sinfulness of destroying God's Creation
* One post where I pointed out how cars were not really time-savers
* One post where I asked why the Right was so opposed to John McCain
* One post about the community meal group in which I take part
Or, to try to summarize these (as I would summarize them - others may summarize them differently):
I had:
8 Posts about God and Creation
7 posts where I criticized wrong actions/policies
3 Posts on the foolishness of our current energy/transportation policies
2 Posts on my church community
1 Post looking at some Biblical passages
Or, looking at it another way, I had 11 posts on God, the Bible and Church and 10 posts on naughty behavior.
(And, for what it's worth, I had no posts where I suggested Jesus was primarily concerned with political reform.)
Hmmm... What are we to make of that?
111 comments:
This bit is worth highlighting:
Four posts about unjustified attacks against Rev. Wright (which I find biblical support in the notion of criticizing those who'd bear false witness, who'd demonize the perceived enemy; also, I'm standing with the brethren in the times of unwarranted attacks - also a biblical and humane thing to do)
Jeremiah Wright accused the U.S. government of creating AIDS as an act of attempted genocide against blacks, and you're defending him against "unjustified attacks" because the Bible supports criticism of those who bear false witness to demonize their enemies! You seem to have absolutely no sense of the ironic.
And, I will remind you that you think Wright's slanderous accusation of attempted genocide is (at worst) a minor sin compared to being insufficiently vocal about particular issues.
About this list, well, it's true that you had "11 posts on God, the Bible and Church."
How many of those were even tangentially concerned with the greatest thing God has done for us, the offer of justification through Christ's death and sanctification through the Holy Spirit, the free gift of forgiveness and eternal life?
How many of those were even tangentially concerned with the primary message of the Bible, the revelation of God's redeeming grace? You study James, not because of its great teachings about patience or how faith produces works -- or, notably, its message of impartiality, which does swing both ways in how we treat the poor and the rich (or is it okay to despise the rich?) -- but to highlight its criticism of wealth.
And how many of those blog entries about the church were even tangentially related to the primary mission of the church, that is, to go and make disciples?
I'll reiterate that I didn't say you explicitly said Jesus was primarily concerned with political reform. I inferred it from what you've written.
Let me ask it again:
What do you think is the overriding message of Christianity? And does your blog reflect that message? What was Jesus' primary concern, and does your blog reflect solidarity with that concern?
You know what Dan, I commend you for your patience in dealing with these folks and their silly bean-counting of what you write about.
Because, and this seems obvious, but clearly some folks don't get it ... This is YOUR blog. LOL Yes, a shocking revelation, I know. If people want to see a blog about some other topics other than what you've provided, well, they do have their own blogs, don't they?
(As a side note, any time I have ever accused some folks of being overly obsessed with crotch issues on their blogs, they usually give the excuse, "Well, those are the issues that people are talking about" or something similar. Interesting how they don't like being dictated to about what they post on their blogs, eh?)
And, to believe that a summary of some blog posts is somehow a summary of a person's life, and/or a complete and total summary of his/her beliefs, theology, and personal philosophy, isn't just naive, it's just a stupid notion.
Seems to me that Dan was the only one doing any bean-counting. ROFLCOPTER!
The fact is, what people spend their time blogging about actually can be a good reflection of their beliefs and interests. I don't think it's grossly unfair to conclude that, in toto, Dan's blog does indicate that he thinks Jesus was primarily concerned with the political: after all, it does seem that Dan invokes Jesus' teachings and passages from the Bible primarily to make political points.
But if I'm drawing the wrong conclusion, Dan can certainly tell us what he thinks Jesus' primary mission was, and maybe it would be healthy for all of us to consider whether what we write about reflects a genuine solidarity with God's priorities.
And little or no concern for the lost in it all, Dan.
It is your blog, Dan. Post what you will. The observation, however, still stands unrefuted: by all appearances you're primarily concerned with righting the wrongs and social injustices of the world, not in seeing the Lost won to Christ.
As if you could do one without the other?
Thanks, Alan.
In other words...
"Hi Dan, allow me to tell you what you think and believe, since clearly I'm the expert on you, having read some blog posts you wrote. Oh, and don't bother attempting to correct me about anything I might believe about you, because as I said, I'm the expert on you, not you." ;)
Seems like that sometimes, don't it?
On the internet no one can hear you wine.
unless you record it in a media format such as mp3 or a podcast maybe.
Dan:
I don't believe anyone's trying to tell you what you believe.
Funny, for all you write about being misunderstood, Alan misconstrues what we write, and you don't suggest that he's out of line for doing so. That's about as consistent as, well, defending Jeremiah Wright for the sake of standing against bearing false witness to demonize one's enemies.
At any rate, I for one am not trying to tell you what you believe: I'm explaining the impression you give from what you write, and you do give the impression that you put too great an emphasis on political causes, to the detriment of the good news that God offers us forgiveness and eternal life through Christ His Son, and our Christian duty to communicate that message to others.
In insisting (in the prior thread) that the Bible condemns institutional sin rather than individual sin, you seem to embrace precisely that reasoning that the "Social Gospel" Christians of the last century invoked to justify a political activism that replaced evangelism and discipleship.
Here, ELAshley correctly observed that it appears that you're more concerned with addressing social injustice than in evangelizing, and you respond:
As if you could do one without the other?
I think it's clear that you can: there are plenty of people who do great philanthopic work without any effort to communicate Christ's message to the lost, and there are (unfortunately) some Christians who are eager to evangelize but miss the Bible's clear instructions on meeting people's physical needs. The two are not inseparable.
But if they are inseparable, just how many of those 21 posts are clearly, albeit even tangentially, related to evangelism or discipleship?
If the answer is few or none, is it really the case that that tells us nothing -- absolutely nothing -- about how Dan Trabue's real priorities stack up?
I'm working on a more complete answer, but let me make a couple of notes.
1. You are correct, Bubba, on my "as if you can do one without the other" comment.
I would have been better off to have said, "As if you could do the latter (evangelism) without the former (concern for justice and peace)."
Thanks for correcting me on that point.
2. Where you said:
just how many of those 21 posts are clearly, albeit even tangentially, related to evangelism or discipleship?
I think most of those posts were about evangelism (the sharing of the Good News) and/or discipleship. Teaching ourselves to not promote hatred, to live responsibly and within our limits, to find God's lessons in all of God's Creation... These are about the sharing of God's Good News or discipleship.
You disagree?
"Alan misconstrues what we write, and you don't suggest that he's out of line for doing so."
Just a guess, but perhaps because he can recognize intentional ironic sarcasm when he reads it? ;)
Dan, I would appreciate a more complete answer. I'm not sure how most of those posts were about sharing the Good News or discipleship unless your definition of the Good News varies wildly from I believe it to be.
If you don't mind my asking, what do you think is the essential message of the Good News? What are the aspects that cannot be left behind?
This reminds me of how the Pharisees were always trying to trap Jesus by asking him enough questions that he would reveal himself to be a fake and not the real deal.
Never let it be said that Marty has anything but the highest respect for those with whom she disagrees.
That is what you're trying to do Bubba, whether you admit it or not.
"This reminds me of how the Pharisees were always trying to trap Jesus by asking him enough questions that he would reveal himself to be a fake and not the real deal."
LOL Exactly Marty. Perhaps it reminds you of those situations because it is *exactly* that situation. Matt 22: "When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, 35 and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?"
So, in the name of ironic sarcasm, Alan unfairly parodies ELAshley and me...
"Oh, and don't bother attempting to correct me about anything I might believe about you, because as I said, I'm the expert on you, not you."
...but it's Marty who engages in precisely this behavior, first accusing me of behaving like a Pharisee then making clear that nothing I can say can disabuse her of this insult.
That is what you're trying to do Bubba, whether you admit it or not.
Just as Dan didn't bother to tell Alan that he was doing exactly what Dan accused us of doing, Alan praised Marty's comment, even though it well matches his unfair parody.
There's no rhyme or reason to any of this hypocrisy except pure partisanship: you hold the people with whom you disagree to the most ridiculous standards and then immediately forget to apply those standards to yourselves.
If you were not so busy comparing Dan Trabue to the Messiah, perhaps you could have taken the time to ask me why I'm so dogged in asking Dan these questions, instead of presuming the very worst about me.
There are a couple reasons, but foremost is this: if Dan's going to accuse me of either misunderstanding him or drawing the wrong conclusions from his writing, he should explain why my conclusions are wrong. That is to say, if it's wrong to conclude that he believes Jesus was primarily concerned with political reform, he should explain what he believes was Jesus' primary concern.
If that concern isn't remotely reflected by what Dan writes, maybe it's not so outlandish that we would draw the conclusions that we have about Dan based on that writing.
If Dan's going to ridicule me for the conclusions I draw from his writing, he should explain and justify precisely what alternative he thinks I should be drawing.
I wouldn't be asking these questions if Dan hadn't taken exception to the conclusions I've drawn.
"I wouldn't be asking these questions if Dan hadn't taken exception to the conclusions I've drawn."
Yes you would.
I won't hold my breath waiting for Dan to criticize Marty for mind-reading.
"There's no rhyme or reason to any of this hypocrisy"
I can only speak for myself but ...
Sure there is ... Making fun of ridiculous comments from you and using your own twisted notions on the words you write. LOL And yet you still don't get the lesson, even though you keep complaining about receiving the very same treatment.
"If you were not so busy comparing Dan Trabue to the Messiah"
ROFL. Yeah, with a comment like that, you're clearly the expert at understanding someone's writing. LOL
"instead of presuming the very worst about me."
Pot meet kettle. Please tell me you're being ironic with that comment.
"not so outlandish that we would draw the conclusions that we have about Dan based on that writing."
Since you can't even understand the basic idea of "analogy" yes, it is indeed absolutely completely outlandish to think that you are able to draw conclusions about anything based on what anyone has written. Comparing Dan to the Messiah? ROFL. Yeah, you're definitely the expert at understanding someone's writing. ROFL
Y'all are getting ahead of me, can't keep up.
Bubba would like me to tell him, "If you don't mind my asking, what do you think is the essential message of the Good News?"
Why did Jesus come? I've answered this a bit, but here's a bit more...
Jesus came, according to Jesus and the apostles:
Luke 4:18-19 Jesus came "to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord."
Matt 5:17 To fulfill the law
Luke 19:10 to seek and save the lost
Mark 10:45 to serve
Matt 20:28 to serve and give his life as a ransom
John 10:10 to give us life, and that more abundant
Heb 10:9 to do the will of God
Luke 4:43 to preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose
Luke 12:49 to bring fire to the earth!
John 9:39 "For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind..."
John 18:37 To be king ("You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world")
I Timothy 1:15 to save sinners
I John 3:8 "The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil"
Matt 10:34 to bring a sword, not peace!
1 Pet 2:21 He came "leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps"
Among other reason cited.
I'm okay with saying, Yes. This all is why Jesus came. This ALL is the Gospel of Jesus.
Are you wanting me to say that of all the reasons given by Jesus and the apostles, that the only acceptable answer is "Jesus came to save the lost by telling them they are sinners bound for hell so that they can repent and be saved by Jesus' blood poured out in sacrifice to purchase their souls..."?
Carrying on...
It would seem that perhaps some here are of the ONE TRUE ANSWER school when it comes to the Bible, Jesus' purpose and evangelism. Either you believe that THE TRUE PURPOSE OF THE CHRISTIAN is to SAVE SOULS or you are questionably a Christian and have obviously missed the intent of the Bible.
For those from that school, I would begin by asking for you to show where in the Bible God tells us our ONE TRUE PURPOSE is to save souls and nothing else is an acceptable answer? Do you have a verse - More than one verse or passage - from the Bible to support that position?
What book, chapter and verse tells us this?
I believe we can relatively easily show (when you can't produce one verse that supports your position) that this is an extrabiblical position to hold. This is not to say that your position is wrong, just that it's extrabiblical.
That being the case, why do you hold it? What's your source for believing this? Because it's what the churches you go to teach?
Now, having looked at what the Bible and Jesus say about why he came and what the Gospel is, let me embarass myself by offering what I think is the essential message of the Good News? (As if I could do better than Jesus and the apostles!)
I think the essential message of the Gospel is that God loves us, that God is love, that God wants for us to be a part of a healthy wholesome community of lovers, of those who work for justice and peace;
I believe that God wants to save us from the hell that we tend to make of our lives and our world and that God will do so by God's grace as long as we want to accept that gracious gift. (As an aside, we of the free will sort, CAN turn down that gift.)
I believe that in accepting God's grace and Jesus' Way as THE Way to live, we are saying we agree that Jesus' Way is the Way to live and we'll strive to follow in Jesus' steps by God's grace, bringing good news to the poor, ending systems of oppression and debilitation, working for peace and justice.
Bubba also asked:
What are the aspects that cannot be left behind?
I DON'T think that we ought to spiritualize Jesus' teachings ("well, when he said 'Good news to the poor,' he didn't mean LITERALLY for the poor, but something more symbolic...") - that to me is anti-Christ, to deny his words and we ought be careful about that sort of thing.
THAT, to me, is an example of us choosing to reject God's grace, God's kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven, and is to be avoided.
Does that answer your questions?
Is it any wonder that controversy follows you everywhere you go, Dan? You create strife everywhere else with your interminable hair-splitting questions, and outright denials of clear biblical truth. But when when we gather here, you change the rules.... and you allow those who agree with you to bash us with impunity. Bubba rightly brands all this as "hypocrisy". You give Alan and Marty "Amens" and accuse us of misunderstanding near about everything you say.
I read your posts Dan. Don't comment so much, but I do read. And what I see is little or no concern for the lost.... only feeding and clothing the poor, wailing about America's shameful uber-consumerism, and castigating BushCo and the war. You're free to do that... this is America after all. You're even allowed to have your acolytes defend you. But you pay lip-service to just about everything else, INCLUDING the souls of those you seek to feed, clothe, and defend against the evil United States of America. You even defend the indefensible in Jeremiah Wright because he's OBAMA's pastor. If Wright were white, and saying equally offensive things in the inverse, you'd be telling a different story. And that is called Hypocrisy.
Point is you criticize everywhere you go, but you can't take it when it's leveled at you.
You care more about social causes than you do spiritual; judging strictly from the quality of your posts. Now, it's certainly not my place to judge you, but I won't pat you on the back for all your hard work when I don't see any.
And for the record, there's absolutely nothing wrong with feeding and clothing the poor. I commend you for that, but there's a lot more to this Christianity thing than that. A LOT more. If any of us are going to follow Jesus, we have to do EVERYTHING he taught us, not just the things that appeal to us. And that includes preaching to the lost first and foremost.
Jesus said, "Ye must be born again..."
MUST.
That trumps 'working for peace, and fighting social injustice'
"missed the intent of the Bible"
The entire intent of the Bible is to relate God's work to redeem man AND this world from sin. To make all as He intended it.
Jesus was the intent of the Bible.
Chapter and verse, Eric. Where the Bible, Jesus, God, the apostles, the janitor at the early church - SOMEONE - says what you say: That "preaching to the lost first and foremost," is the most important thing.
And not only that, but since my support for working for the oppressed and impoverished IS preaching to the lost and saved and us all, why my support for doing so is somehow NOT preaching to the lost?
I believe what you are trying to say is that
1. You believe that "preaching to the lost first and foremost" is the whole of the gospel and
2. the "preaching" that takes place needs to look like what YOU think preaching looks like.
Tell me this, Eric, what does "preaching to the lost" look like to you? How many sermons in the Bible look like that?
If I were to preach a sermon like the Sermon on the Mount (with a bunch of mouthing off about what's right and wrong, about caring for the poor, about being a peacemaker and with NO invitation for the lost to "get saved,") would you think that is NOT a Gospel sermon?
How are my posts here different than the Sermon on the Mount? (Well, other than the obvious that I'm no Jesus, I lack eloquence, coherence, depth, clarity, insight, etc, etc, etc) - but as to content, how are my blogging topics different than Jesus' sermon on the mount?
What DOES a Gospel sermon or presentation look like to you?
and you allow those who agree with you to bash us with impunity. Bubba rightly brands all this as "hypocrisy". You give Alan and Marty "Amens" and accuse us of misunderstanding near about everything you say.
Perhaps I'm guilty as charged. But then, the Good Book does tell us that those who live by the sword, die by the sword.
Perhaps I ought not allow y'all to drown in a sea of irony that apparently you just don't see.
I'll pray on it.
Alan, Marty, be nice, please.
Without saying whether I agree or disagree with you, I have to say, I love your wild and crazy posts and discussions!
Makes for a wild ride sometimes, eh?
After a night's rest, I have a couple of other thoughts.
It was stated:
At any rate, I for one am not trying to tell you what you believe: I'm explaining the impression you give from what you write, and you do give the impression that you put too great an emphasis on political causes, to the detriment of the good news that God offers
And it apparently is true that for some, based on their political/religious/philosophical views, they can read what I've written and draw conclusions that I did not say or intend.
For others, they can read what I've written and get exactly what I meant.
What are we to make of that?
One lesson I learn from this is to be careful in drawing conclusions/making inferences based on what others have said when they come at topics from a different point of view than I do.
When I go to more Right-ish blogs, I will often repeat back what they have stated and ask questions like "Did you REALLY mean to say..." to try to clarify their point of view.
Now, often when I do that, the response I get from some of them is something like this: "You create strife everywhere else with your interminable hair-splitting questions, and outright denials of clear biblical truth."
Which, ironically, is AGAIN a misinterpretation of what I was striving for. I ask questions to clarify meaning. Sometimes, admittedly, with a tone of disbelief or even mild teasing.
Why would asking clarifyinig questions be perceived as creating strife? I mean, obviously, it DOES create strife because I've seen it repeatedly (we all have), but why should it?
What are we to make of this difficulty we have in conversing between fellow Christians, fellow citizens from similar backgrounds?
"you allow those who agree with you to bash us with impunity."
Oh puh-lease. Bash?! Really? LOL
That from a guy who can, in the very same paragraph write, "You create strife everywhere else with your interminable hair-splitting questions, and outright denials of clear biblical truth."
And then he hilariously writes, "Point is you criticize everywhere you go, but you can't take it when it's leveled at you."
Hilarious. Again, pot meet kettle. The complete lack of self-awareness is astounding.
"Alan, Marty, be nice, please."
*sigh* And here I thought I was being nice, just ironic and a bit sarcastic. But apparently some folks can't take a dose of their own medicine. Glass jaw, I guess ... or is that glass house. ;)
One other relatively minor point.
It was stated:
there are plenty of people who do great philanthopic work without any effort to communicate Christ's message to the lost
Which is certainly true and I agreed with initially. But then, I got to thinking more about the Bible and Jesus where he stated, "what you've done for the least of these my brethren, you've done for me." and similar passages and I might adjust my position to say that ANY act of kindness and compassion is a reflection of Jesus and God, whether intentionally or not.
As CS Lewis noted in his Narnia stories, near the end where a "bad guy" guard who served the evil and false god Tash is accepted into "heaven..."
I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him.
Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he had truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.
Or, as Jesus noted, "Whoever is not against us is for us," perhaps?
Hi, Dan. You keep asking for chapter and verse from Bubba and Eric. You've never provided any for your support of homosexual unions. You've taken that list of verses to support your position, but when we refer to Leviticus, you dismiss it out of hand giving us extra-biblical reasoning to firm up your opinion. You also like to remind us of context and yet your list does not provide any, and the knowledge that metaphor was often used in the speech of Jesus (let him who has ears...) would consolidate most, if not all, of what you listed under the heading of preaching to the lost. Was Jesus concerned with the plight of the financially poor? Of course. Was He also concerned about the attitudes of the wealthy of His time? Absolutely. Does either of those stack up against coming to Christ in the overall pecking order of Christian duty? I don't think so. His Life was an example of how we should live. His Death was His purpose for being here, to spare us God's Wrath. You want chapter and verse, instead I give you the whole Book.
"*sigh* And here I thought I was being nice"
Me too Alan. I thought we were being quite generous under the circumstances.
"His Life was an example of how we should live. His Death was His purpose for being here, to spare us God's Wrath."
BUT IT DOESN'T END THERE! If you stay a baby in Christ by staying at the foot of the cross you will never grow up. Jesus isn't at the cross man, neither is he in the tomb. You won't find him there.
Briefly, I do understand that I'm probably too wordy at times. This last comment was far longer than even my typical comment, but I think it could not have been significantly shorter and still have been fair to Dan's replies and to my position.
While I was writing, Marty wrote:
If you stay a baby in Christ by staying at the foot of the cross you will never grow up. Jesus isn't at the cross man, neither is he in the tomb. You won't find him there.
I agree that God expects us to grow into spiritual maturity: He provides the Holy Spirit for that reason (among others), and we grow by conforming to the leading of the Holy Spirit in order to ascertain and obey God's will.
But I'm not sure that we should ever leave the foot of the cross. There is a reason, after all, why we regularly partake of the bread and the wine: Christ told us to do so in remembrance of Him, most especially the sacrifice of His body and blood.
And, to bring things back to the central discussion between Dan and me, it doesn't seem to me that this is a case where one of us thinks we should linger on the cross and the other thinks we should move on. It may be that Dan doesn't think the cross is an essential part of the Gospel message in the first place.
"But I'm not sure that we should ever leave the foot of the cross."
There it is. Perhaps this is why you are having difficulty with Dan and others.
You're not going to find Jesus there Bubba. He is alive and working among his people. You can find him just about anywhere...in the smile of a baby...in the winds that blow...in the cry of the needy, the poor, the oppressed. He is there. He is everywhere. Calling us.
He is everywhere. Calling us.
12:30 PM>>
Maybe, even asking for some tolerance of the conservative Christian? :-)
Mom2
I'm not sure I follow you, Marty. Christ is everywhere but not at the cross?
Like the evangelists, Paul recorded how Jesus initiated the lifelong ordinance of the believing Christian:
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. - I Cor 11:23-26
Paul wrote that we should proclaim Christ's death until His return. You apparently believe we should move on. I cast my lot with Christ, with His cross, with His body and blood, and with His Apostles who repeatedly and emphatically preached the cross.
Working for the oppressed and impoverished, noble as that work is, is not preaching. Christ commanded us to go and make disciples: nowhere did He suggest that there is a suitable substitute for that, and you yourself admit that we should be careful not to deny His words.
Okay, so here's perhaps one place where we may be breaking down: Some here seem to think that "the Great Commission" (ie, Jesus' words in Matt 28) are somehow especially central to Jesus' teachings, that they are our "marching orders."
Further, they think that "the Great Commission" (that term being an extrabiblical title placed on Jesus' words, not part of the passage itself), must be interpreted to mean specifically what Bubba, Eric, et al think it means.
I believe that as we are going into the world, we are to teach the teachings and story of Jesus (as Matt 28 says), but I find the Sermon on the Mount to be more deserving of the title "Great Commission" - it's how we're to live in Jesus' steps.
Or perhaps the Sheep and the Goats story might be more aptly titled the Great Commission than Matt 28.
Which is not to discount at all Jesus' words in Matt 28, I'm just not sure it means what some think it means.
And to help clear that up, it might be helpful if someone (Eric, Bubba, others?) would explain what they think a Gospel sermon looks like.
What does "winning the lost" look like?
What does "essential Christian teaching" look like?
What does "God's work to redeem man AND this world from sin. To make all as He intended it" look like?
I thought that IS what I talk about a great deal. Where have I strayed?
Dan, I posted my response on all this at my place.
Where have you strayed, Dan?
You seem to downplay severely the forgiveness of sin and the gift of eternal life through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
By suggesting that the Sermon on the Mount is central, your focus seems to be on what we ought to do rather than what God through Christ has already done for us. Your focus seems to be on this life exclusively with no mention of eternal life, and on our relationship with our fellow man with little emphasis on our relationship with God. You mention God's grace but completely whitewash the means by which grace is provided.
In all that you write about, the cross is conspicuously absent.
Interestingly enough, the Sermon on the Mount was once used as one of the very first catechisms for historical Christianity. Clearly it has *traditionally* had a central place in Christian thought and teaching -- the efforts of some revisionists calling themselves "traditional" notwithstanding.
Bubba, you strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. Truly you do.
I agree Alan [except for the "revisionist" allusion, which seems conspicuously addressed to Bubba and I], the Sermon on the Mount is central to Christian living, i.e., living as a Christian. but it is not the end all, be all of our faith. Our faith is in Christ alone. The emphasis is upon Him and Him alone. He said to go out and be fishers of men, preaching the gospel to the world, then baptizing them, then teaching them how to live, a la the Sermon on the Mount.
But our duty as Christian's is implicit in doing Jesus' will, which consists first and foremost in winning the lost to Christ; but that in no way negates doing for others as we would have others do unto us. The focus isn't doing unto others, but rather winning them to Christ. Ultimately, their eternal needs are far more important than their temporal.
Yeah, yeah, Marty: whitewashed tombs, brood of vipers, I know the whole routine.
Alan, I wonder if the use of the Sermon on the Mount as a catechism can be traced to before roughly AD 55, when Paul wrote I Corinthians. I ask because that epistle seems to include a very early Christian creed.
"For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me." - I Cor 15:3-8
I'm going to guess that Alan counts Paul among the revisionists who falsely argue to be traditionalists. LOLRUS
Like ELAshley, I definitely agree that the Sermon on the Mount is important; it would be hard for me to overstate the impact Stott's commentary on the sermon has had on me.
But this sermon about how we are to live as Christians is not the core of the good news. The good news is what Christ has done for us, not what we are to do in obedience to Him, important as that surely is.
"But our duty as Christian's is implicit in doing Jesus' will, which consists first and foremost in winning the lost to Christ;"
Firstly, we don't win the lost to Christ, nor do the lost win themselves to Christ. Christ Himself won the lost to Christ, 2000 years ago through His death and resurrection. Anything else is nothing but damnable and pernicious Pelagian or semi-Pelagian heresy.
Secondly, as those of us who are orthodox Christians acknowledge, as the Westminster Catechism concisely states in the very first question and answer, that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.
Thirdly, what does God require of us? Well, again those of us who are orthodox Christians would answer, as the Heidelberg Catechism states in the answer to Question #4, "What does the law of God require of us?" Answer: Christ teaches us that briefly, Matt. 22:37-40, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This is the first and the great commandment; and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
Again, those are simply the views of bazillions of Christians over the last several centuries, in other words, the traditional & orthodox views.
I like how you ask a question, then answer it, as if you know what I'd say, Bubba. But I don't need someone with a seemingly limitless supply of presumption and arrogance like you to answer for me. I'll answer for myself.
First of all, Matthew is usually dated at some where between 70 & 100 AD, though some have dated it as early as the 40's AD. The two source hypothesis suggests that the sources for Matthew were even earlier. So, the Sermon on the Mount was indeed a very, very early catechism.
One also has to understand the range of these writings. Early Gospels were generally spread around much more than early epistles, at least initially, since the epistles were letters to a specific time and place.
But hey, if you think Paul supersedes Christ, more power to you. Just don't call yourself a Christian. Maybe a Paulist would be more appropriate. I, for one, believe that all of Scripture hangs together.
Yes, Paul does write a very early creed. He writes several actually. For example, he also quotes this even earlier creed in Philippians, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
In other words, be like Christ: A servant.
"I'm going to guess that Alan counts Paul among the revisionists who falsely argue to be traditionalists. LOLRUS"
And you'd be thoroughly, completely, and pathetically wrong yet again. But then you do have plenty of practice don't you?
And wasn't it you who said, "I won't hold my breath waiting for Dan to criticize Marty for mind-reading."
Yet here you are doing the mind-reading now. Out of curiosity, do you have to try to be so utterly hypocritical, or does it come naturally?
Alan,
Even if Matthew was written in the AD 40's, it doesn't ipso facto prove that the Sermon on the Mount was "a very, very early catechism." How early can you trace back its actual use as a catechism?
That Jesus taught the sermon -- which I believe He did -- isn't proof enough that He intended it as a catechism or that it was used as a catechism even prior to the creed that Paul repeats in 1 Corinthians.
And if simply guessing that you'd call Paul a revisionist is mind-reading, so is this:
But hey, if you think Paul supersedes Christ, more power to you. Just don't call yourself a Christian. Maybe a Paulist would be more appropriate. I, for one, believe that all of Scripture hangs together.
But don't let your own hypocrisy stop you from accusing me of hypocrisy, arrogance, presumption, Paulism, and whatever else you want to throw at me.
For what it's worth, I think there's a significant difference between my mere guessing that Alan would call Paul a revisionist and Marty's insistence in telling me what I'm doing "whether [I] admit it or not," and her telling me that I would still be asking Dan these questions even if he hadn't taken exception to the conclusions I drew, presuming to tell me what I would do in the face of what I explicitly said.
Alan, let me be clear that, though you and I know extremely little about each other, my initial impression of you isn't terribly positive, and I frankly don't like you a whole heckuva lot. It doesn't take mind-reading -- and it isn't an instance of mind-reading -- to guess that the feeling's mutual. As in all cases where I reach conclusions about what other people think or feel, I do stand to be corrected.
But I would like to put aside our probably mutual animosity and ask you a question or two as we are both self-described orthodox Christians who profess to know a thing or two about our faith.
Do you believe that the following are central, essential, and indispensible elements of the Christian gospel: the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the forgiveness of sin, and the gift of eternal life?
ROFL. Wow, this has devolved to "I'm rubber you're glue, now?" Excellent! LOL
As for this, "And if simply guessing that you'd call Paul a revisionist is mind-reading, so is this..."
ROFL All I can say is ... duh! LOL. I love how you completely, nearly genetically incapable of recognizing when someone is simply parroting your own foolishness back at you. See if you can follow this:
1) You complain about being mistreated, "mind-reading", people misrepresenting your positions, etc.
2) Then you turn around and hypocritically do the very same thing to me.
3) So I make an amusing statement to ironically and sarcastically demonstrate the foolishness of your own hypocrisy.
4) And then, hilariously, you complain about that too, and are still unable to recognize your own foolishness.
And by the way, even if I meant that seriously and wasn't just making fun of you ... you'll notice that you still played the mind-reading game first, hypocrite. ;)
"But don't let your own hypocrisy stop you from accusing me of hypocrisy, arrogance, presumption, Paulism, and whatever else you want to throw at me."
Hey, don't let your own hypocrisy stop you from accusing me of hypocrisy when I accuse you of hypocrisy! LOL.
Just apologize and move on.
Oh, and there's plenty of evidence that the Sermon on the Mount was one of the earlier churches earliest Catechisms (which are quite different from creeds, BTW, you should learn the difference.) But all you do here is to rationalize away anything that contradicts the Almighty Bubba. Want Scriptural evidence? There's a whole list, which you discount. Want historical evidence, just gave you a bunch, which you discount. Why? Do you have any evidence that what I've said is wrong? Nope... you're just all about contradiction, not argument. Let me know when you're actually interested in making a point that isn't simply the contrary of a point I've made. ;)
As for the use of the Sermon on the Mount contained in Matthew being used as a Catechism (not a creed) that dates back to when it was written at least, perhaps, as I said from earlier sources. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that.
As for early catechisms, I'll let you do your own research on that point, since you simply discount anything I say without evidence. No sense in wasting my time casting pearls before swine. However, you should also learn about The Teachings of the 12 Apostles, written somewhere around 100 AD, maybe as early as the 40's AD, which begins, "There are two ways, one of life and one of death, and there is a great difference between the two ways.
1:2 {The way of life} is this.
1:3 First of all, {thou shalt love the God} that made thee;
1:4 secondly, {thy neighbour as thyself.}
1:5 {And all things whatsoever thou wouldest not have befal thyself neither do thou unto another.}"
As for the Sermon on the Mount, I'll let you do your own research on that point. I will point you to the book, "Sermon on the Mount" by Jeremias, et. al. in which they argue that the style of writing in Matthew is itself written as a catechism. Dodd makes a similar argument in an paper called something like "The Primitive Catechism," I don't remember the exact title, it's been a while since I read it.
But I doubt that will satisfy you either, so just contradict me again, if you wish. ;)
"Do you believe that the following are central, essential, and indispensible elements of the Christian gospel: the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the forgiveness of sin, and the gift of eternal life?"
I believe that Scripture contains the Gospel and that trying to come up with a Cliffs Notes version of it is just plain foolishness. That is, I don't recognize the validity of your question. This isn't either/or. I'm not interested in picking and choosing what *I* think is most important. If a teaching weren't important, essential, etc., it wouldn't be in the Bible in the first place.
If you're walking down the street and see someone lying in the gutter, beaten and robbed, what is the most important thing in the Bible for you right there and then? Clearly the story of the Good Samaritan. If you want to know how you should pray, most of all when you can't even find words of your own, what is the most important thing in the Bible for you right there and then? The Lord's Prayer.
Someone pretty smart once said, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..."
ALL! Not just our favorite parts. Not just the part we want to emphasize to the exclusion of all else.
In other words ... the short answer to your question is: This isn't an either/or issue. You're trying to make this into a false dichotomy. Either this is the central message or that is... Wrong.
"I frankly don't like you a whole heckuva lot. It doesn't take mind-reading -- and it isn't an instance of mind-reading -- to guess that the feeling's mutual."
Wrong yet again, Bubba. I don't dislike you. But then, I don't like you, either. I simply don't suffer foolishness and hypocrisy easily. If you choose to read that as dislike, that's your choice. But I don't know you, I've never met you, I will likely never in my life meet you, so I have no feelings about you either way, nor would I waste my time or energy disliking you. I save my likes and dislikes for real life. I think you're hypocritical and foolish, but that doesn't mean I dislike you. Most people are, from time to time.
I'm not saying my way is better, but perhaps you could consider not taking all this so bloody personally. Just a suggestion. ;)
Actually, Alan, if the structure itself of Matthew's record of the Sermon on the Mount suggests that the sermon was used as a catechism, that is pretty good evidence that the sermon was used as a catechism very early in the church's history.
Again, with ELAshley, I agree that the Sermon on the Mount is very important. I agree that Christ's ethical commands are very important to a Christian's daily life. But I believe the core of Christianity's good news isn't what we are to do to obey God, but what God has already done to save us.
I also agree with you that all Scripture is God-breathed and useful. If there's anyone here with whom you should be arguing over that claim, it isn't me.
But just because all Scripture is inspired and profitable, it doesn't mean that all Scripture is equally profitable. I would argue that the Golden Rule has more wide-ranging application than the parable of the Good Samaritan; in fact, the latter is an example of an application of the former.
But I'm not concocting the idea that some parts of Scripture are more important than others. Your approach doesn't match Jesus' approach as recorded in Matthew 22. When He was asked, what is the greatest commandment, did He answer as you argue here?
This isn't either/or. I'm not interested in picking and choosing what *I* think is most important. If a teaching weren't important, essential, etc., it wouldn't be in the Bible in the first place.
No, He actually gave an answer. You cited this answer as the answer to Question #4 of the Heidelberg Catechism.
And just a chapter later, Jesus criticized the Pharisees for neglecting the weightier matters of the law, implying that some matters are more important than others.
I agree with you that all Scripture is inspired and useful, but I do not think that implies that there is no hierarchy of what's more important or more central to God's message to man. Instead, I believe Jesus Himself is clear that some commands are greater than others and some matters of the law carry more weight than others.
For that reason, I believe it really is valid to ask, what are the central truths of the Gospel message?
"But I believe the core of Christianity's good news isn't what we are to do to obey God, but what God has already done to save us."
That's fine, I'm simply pointing out what the traditional, orthodox views have been and how they differ from your view.
"Your approach doesn't match Jesus' approach as recorded in Matthew 22. When He was asked, what is the greatest commandment, did He answer as you argue here?"
And given that He was Jesus, the Word became flesh, He's more than capable of making those sorts of distinctions. I'm not Jesus however. So, I'll take His Word for it. Thus again, I'll repeat myself, I'm not interested in picking and choosing what *I* think is most important.
"Instead, I believe Jesus Himself is clear that some commands are greater than others and some matters of the law carry more weight than others."
Yup, and we should listen to him, not make extra-Biblical lists ourselves. It seems contradictory for you to acknowledge that the Golden Rule is the core of the Gospel, but then say that "the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the forgiveness of sin, and the gift of eternal life" are the central parts of the Gospel, since Jesus didn't mention either His death nor his resurrection in His answer regarding the Golden Rule -- perhaps because neither had happened yet. At the same time, clearly Paul had much to say about the importance of proclaiming "the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the forgiveness of sin, and the gift of eternal life" Since it's all in the Bible, I'll believe both are important.
You'll notice that the early catechisms I've given all give slightly different answers to what parts of the Gospel that traditional historic Christianity has emphasized. Not surprising. Clearly, as this discussion shows, different people have different opinions. And yet today we revere *each* of those catechisms as important expositions on Scripture.
Nor is it surprising that today some people emphasize various parts of the Gospel. There are many parts but one body. Which is more important, the mouth that preaches, or the hand that reaches out to help the poor, or the ear that listens to the troubled? Can the mouth say to the hand or the ear, "You're not as important as I am!". Or can the hand say the same to the mouth, or the ear? Of course not. Different people are given different gifts, and therefore will no doubt focus on different aspects of the Gospel. We need those who focus on the social witness of the Gospel to make sure that we're not so heavenly minded that we're no earthly good. We need right preaching to remind us of our stories of faith. We need those who focus on listening to the troubled to make sure we're not just preaching things that have no relevance to someone's trials, or giving help that isn't needed.
Again, this is not either/or.
These simple and obvious ideas are basic & traditional Christianity 101, and not at all controversial. And I'm pretty sure they didn't originate with me. LOL
"For that reason, I believe it really is valid to ask, what are the central truths of the Gospel message?"
Or to put my previous comment in another much more succinct way, I think this is like asking, which is more important: the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit?
Wow. Interesting conversation happening here in my stead. Thank you Alan, for giving answers that I can nearly all agree with and doing so better than I could myself.
I don't know that there's anything to add.
Perhaps a summation:
1. We all here (participants in this conversation) agree that the Bible is good.
2. We all dig the sermon on the mount.
3. Alan, Marty and I (and doubtless others) agree with all the claims and teachings of Jesus and the apostles about why he came (some of which have been listed at least a couple of times). We agree with Jesus that the most important rules are to love God and love people.
4. Eric, Bubba and maybe others think that saying that The Cross, Jesus' death and resurrection, winning the lost are the central truths of the Gospel. They don't think so because of a specific Bible passage(s) but because that's what makes sense to them and what they've heard in their tradition (I'm guessing a bit, correct me if I'm wrong).
5. I'm still waiting to hear what a "good" gospel sermon/lesson looks like and why my thoughts fail to live up to their standards.
6. I gather that I've not used the phrases, "Jesus died on a cross," "Jesus shed his blood to save us," "we are worms whose souls need to be bought by Jesus' blood," and similar phrases enough to be considered copacetic, but I'm not sure, since they haven't really answered.
Thanks be to God.
Jesus, seemed to think that His death and resurrection might have been a little important.
"I am the resurrection and the life. Anyone who believes in me will live, even though they die; and by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
If it's good enough of for Jesus, it's good enough for me.
Do you believe this?
"They don't think so because of a specific Bible passage(s) but because that's what makes sense to them..."
Passages have already been given, Dan; here and elsewhere. You routinely rejected them all. Why bother offering them again? None. So I won't.
In closing, all I got to say is,
"Your kung-fu is NOT strong."
Yes, Craig and Eric, we BOTH have offered the verses about Jesus coming to save the lost and we BOTH agree that these are Jesus' words and teaching.
What you haven't offered is some verse/passage that says, "Jesus came to seek and to save the lost AND THAT IS HIS PRIMARY MISSION AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT JESUS TAUGHT IS SECONDARY TO THIS PRIMARY TEACHING."
THAT is what you haven't delivered because it simply isn't there.
Lacking anything like that (with the exception of Jesus telling us that the GREATEST COMMANDMENTS are love God, love people, which Alan and I have offered and tend to lean towards as primary, given Jesus' own description), then we tend to value and hold high ALL of Jesus' teachings, not just the ones that Eric, Bubba, et al say are the "most important."
And, once again, I'm still waiting to hear what a "good" gospel sermon/lesson looks like and why my thoughts fail to live up to that standard.
And, just to be clear yet again, where it is asked, "Do you believe that the following are central, essential, and indispensible elements of the Christian gospel: the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the forgiveness of sin, and the gift of eternal life?"
YES. Yes, I believe those teachings are essential elements of Jesus' teachings. As are the commands to love God and love our neighbor; as is the command to love our enemies; as is Jesus' life being an example; as is, etc, etc, etc, all the REST of what Jesus taught, which I think is important and essential to agree with.
If, after all, you believe that Jesus is the son of God, that he died and rose from the dead to offer forgiveness of sin, well (as Jesus noted) what good does that do you? Even the demons believe that!
And even if you "ask Jesus into your heart and ask for forgiveness of sin," but don't believe or follow Jesus' teachings, where does that leave you?
If you don't accept all of Jesus' teachings as the Way to live (or, in fact, reject some or most of Jesus' teachings) and repent from going the wrong way and turn and go the right way, then are you really a follower of Jesus at all?
This, it seems to me, is an obvious answer and one that most our friends here in this conversation can agree with.
Perhaps phrased this way, we can agree?
(I'm not willing to bet on it, though...)
A couple of other quick thoughts...
1. You may or may not know that there was a time that I agreed with those who'd say that "saving the lost" was the primary role of Christians and that the "work of the cross" was the primary teaching of Jesus.
I adapted my view after more Bible study and found what we've found here: that there is no scriptural reason to believe so.
2. In the Bible, when the jailer asked what he must do to be saved, Paul responded, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."
When the rich man approached Jesus and asked "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" what did Jesus tell him? Obey the commandments. When the man said he had, Jesus told him to sell all he had and come, follow him.
It would seem that the apostles answer lacked any of the depth of following Jesus and Jesus' answer, by the standards some are calling for, would be insufficient.
For what it's worth.
As I read the comments, it seems to me that Dan, Alan and perhaps Marty have actually strengthened Eric and Bubba's position.
If we are to love God, who the hell is God and why should I love Him? How is buying me dinner, tossing me a couple of bucks, or fending off my oppressor going to teach me about God, who He is, and why I should give Him the time of day? Les, a visitor at my blog, insists that good deeds have nothing to do with religion, or rather that religion is unnecessary for the commission of good deeds. Thus, doing all that nice stuff encouraged by the Sermon on the Mount is not automatically going to save souls. Which is more important, to feed the hungry's stomach or their souls? It feels like feeding his stomach, but if he isn't saved, the Good Samaritan act was a futile gesture. How does it go? "What does a man profit that he should gain the whole world but lose his soul?" Getting a meal is the whole world to the hungry. (Don't worry, I'd feed him, too.) Christ's death and ressurrection is everything. It was His purpose beyond anything else he taught. If all He did was teach us how to live, it would not have been enough to save us, to sanctify us, to make us worthy to be in the presence of the Father for all eternity. But His sacrifice is what does it. Our belief in Him and what He did and why is absolutely the prime point of the whole Book. The nice stuff from the SOTM are deeds, acts, works. They are insufficient. Thus, learning about Christ and the whole nine yards of His purpose is paramount. He is the point. (Get ER here. He wants to know how Christ figures in my notion of Christianity.)
Next point:
I won't go to the mat over this one, but I've read a scholar or two that suggests the letters of Paul, or at least a couple of them, predate the Gospels and thus the creed is the expression of the point given above. It comes first, and then the teachings of Christ as to how we live as Christians comes next.
I will concede one aspect of Dan's point that he hasn't mentioned or possibly thought to: They are to know us by our actions. By acting like Christians we can enter into a discussion (hopefully) of bringing people to Christ. "Why are you doing this for me?" "To please my God." "Who's that?" "I'm glad you asked that question." But note: the important point is to bring them to Christ, to save their souls, to save the lost.
This was a good discussion, Alan and Marty's snarkiness notwithstanding.
Marshall asked:
If we are to love God, who the hell is God and why should I love Him? How is buying me dinner, tossing me a couple of bucks, or fending off my oppressor going to teach me about God, who He is, and why I should give Him the time of day?
Who is God? God is Love. And they can't know the God of love unless they see love in action, as you later allow.
The way I see it, showing God by our love (for each other - even when we disagree or the Other is our enemy) is the ONLY great way of winning people to Christ. Oh, there is that other way. Fire and Brimstone. You're doomed if you don't repent.
And I suppose that has its place.
But between loving people to God and scaring them to God, do you think the latter the more effective?
Marshall also said:
Christ's death and ressurrection is everything. It was His purpose beyond anything else he taught.
And I understand that this is YOUR opinion after reading the Bible. That is the conclusion you have come to.
But can you see that if the Bible doesn't teach that directly, how I'm reluctant to endorse it? It's an extrabiblical position, you have demonstrated no passages that say what you're saying. Rather, it's your hunch after reading the Bible.
And you're welcome to it.
Not having a perfect knowledge, I'll stick to the actual literal words in this case.
"This was a good discussion, Alan and Marty's snarkiness notwithstanding."
Meh. I thought it was just more of the same. And your inability to recognize your own hypocritical contributions to the tone is, as always, part of the problem.
bubba stated:
it seems to me that His suffering and death was foremost on His mind during His earthly ministry.
Yes, we agree. It DOES seem to you that this is the case.
The question isn't what either of us thinks; it's what the Bible teaches.
And yes, we agree again. But as we have seen, no one can show a single verse that makes the case you are making. No verse says, "And Jesus' PRIMARY reason he came was to die to save us from our sins and every other teaching of Jesus' falls far behind this teaching in importance." Or, as Marshall put it, "Christ's death and ressurrection is everything. It was His purpose beyond anything else he taught."
So, given that the Bible simply does not directly teach what you believe, what reason would you offer for us to accept your hunch that this "primary reason" feeling you get from the Bible?
WHY should we accept your opinion?
(NOTE: "because the Bible says so" is not an acceptable answer, seeing as how you have failed to show a verse where the Bible says so.)
You would need to explain why the particular formula you give is necessary for us to reach our position that the Bible teaches the primacy of the cross.
1. You and I are both Bible readers and believers.
2. You read the whole of the Bible and come to the conclusion that "Jesus came to seek and to save the lost AND THAT IS HIS PRIMARY MISSION AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT JESUS TAUGHT IS SECONDARY TO THIS PRIMARY TEACHING."
3. I read the Bible and don't come to that conclusion.
4. I am asking you, WHY should I take your opinion as valid and dismiss my opinion as invalid?
Then why are those things [Jesus' death, resurrection, etc] so noticeably missing in what you write here? Are the purposes of this blog restricted so that discussing Christ's ethical teachings is appropriate, but discussing His death isn't?
It's doubtless true that I have not often posted about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. It's also true that I haven't written a lot about Noah's Ark, the Exodus of Israelis from Egypy, Jonah and the whale and many other stories from the Bible.
The format of this blog has never been to present Bible stories. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
The format of this blog has been to discuss ideas, not stories. Principles. Ethics.
This being the case, the crucifixion has rarely if ever come up as a post topic.
It's not the format I've chosen.
What I HAVE talked about are the ethical and moral implications of stories such as the Exodus, Creation and the Resurrection.
Is that okay?
"Briefly, Alan, I don't believe you have demonstrated that the early church believed that the Sermon on the Mount is as important as (or more important than) the death and resurrection of Jesus. "
Briefly? Heh... I wish.
And neither have you demonstrated that it isn't. Again, contradiction is not an argument. Read Toulmin for how to construct an argument, you would find it useful, and the rest of us wouldn't have to wade through such foolishness.
"I may have misunderstood you earlier,..."
Yeah, well, what else is new?! LOL
"I would say, first of all, that saying right preaching is merely about reminding us of our "stories of faith" is insufficient. "
Merely? Did I say merely? No I didn't. And I would say that assuming that a quick blog comment containing one sentence about an important aspect of preaching is the end all and be all of what I think about proclaiming the word is completely and utterly stupid. You want a full and complete discourse about the importance of preaching, read Calvin's Institutes, I don't really have the time to transcribe them into a blog comment. How ridiculous to think I would, or that I would waste the time doing so when you're response would simply be more contradiction. (to which you're probably thinking right now, "No it wouldn't") ROFL
Again, just one more example of how you a pitiful, complete, and utter failure at understanding something someone has written, not because you're stupid, but because you simply fisk comments looking for something to disagree with. You make no argument, you simply contradict.
"I don't think it's absurd to believe that the Bible suggests that the gospel is like the law in that some aspects are greater and carry more weight."
You don't think it, that's true. Good for you.
"Dan, I find your request for scriptural support for my position to be needlessly rigid."
ROFL.
And with that Bubba, I hope I never ever have to read something you've written where you claim to take the Bible more seriously than one of us.
Alan, I wonder how seriously you take some scripture in Leviticus and also Romans 1. Mom2
"Alan, I wonder how seriously you take some scripture in Leviticus and also Romans 1. Mom2"
Mom2: I wonder if you can focus on anything other than my crotch. Care to stick to the topic at hand, instead of trying to make every conversation I take part in about my crotch? But to answer your question, just as seriously as every other part of the Bible.
If you'd like a more complete summary of my views on Scripture, I'd suggest you head over to the PCUSA website (pcusa.org) and take a look at our confessions, they have a lot to say about Scripture and are more thorough than anything I'd be able to post on a blog comment.
To be fair, Alan, you make no argument either. You also, 'just contradict' and Fisk. You also spend a lot of time LOL and ROFL.
"Mom2: I wonder if you can focus on anything other than my crotch. Care to stick to the topic at hand, instead of trying to make every conversation I take part in about my crotch?"
Sorry, Alan. If this is what reading Toulmin has done for you, I am not impressed. Nor will I waste any further time discussing, or even following this thread. You want to lecture us about the Bible? Your comment was disgraceful.
Nice friends you got, Dan.
Actually, I did indeed make an argument. I presented a claim: that it is incorrect for a human being to start making extra-Biblical lists of what the "core" of the Gospel is. Dan provided Scriptural quotes that I referenced as grounds for my claims. Then I provided historical evidence as backing for my claims.
I did not contradict those that believe that the Cross is the "core" of the Bible. Instead I said that it is stupid question to begin with. That isn't contradiction, either this or that. I took a different approach altogether. Then I explained how that either/or notion is a false dichotomy and provided grounds for that claim as well.
Claims, warrants, backing, grounds. Those are all elements of an argument. Simply saying, as some have here, "I believe -- though I can provide no scriptural support for this belief and even asking for such grounds is too rigid -- is that the Cross is the 'Core' of the Gospel" is just an opinion, not an argument. Without warrants, grounds, & backing, it's an opinion. That and $1.75 will get you a grande coffee at Starbucks.
As for laughing, I do indeed laugh and have a good time. Apparently that's bad too, eh? Not only do you folks have no sense of irony, apparently laughing is a sin now?
I wouldn't stop by if I didn't enjoy it. Discussion, debate, argumentation are enjoyable, and I don't take this all nearly as personally as you all seem to. I also don't take this nearly as seriously as you all do, particularly when confronted with such obvious hypocrisy and foolishness. Trust me, I take it just as seriously as it deserves. ;) Do I state my opinion forcefully? Yup. Do I beat around the bush? Nope. But don't mistake my forthrightness for anger, dislike, or whatever other feelings or motives you cook up in your fevered imagination. Perhaps that offends you. Oh well. That doesn't bother me too much either. ;)
"You want to lecture us about the Bible? Your comment was disgraceful."
I'm not the one who brought up homosexuality -- clearly Mom2's point there. She does it in EVERY SINGLE conversation in which she and I participate on these blogs. EVERY ONE. If that isn't some sort of weird obsession I don't know what is. She is completely unable to make a comment toward me that doesn't have something to do with homosexuality. Completely. Unable. Regardless of the topic at hand, all she want's to discuss is my sexual orientation. If you want to be offended, I'd say you start with her. I'm just calling it as I see it -- it's her obsession, not mine. You'll notice that I had no problem writing many comments in this discussion without bringing up anyone else's sexual orientation.
Clearly she's the one with the problem, buddy.
(And all that has what, exactly to do with Toulmin's "The Uses of Argument"? ROFL)
"Nice friends you got, Dan."
BTW, again, even though you seem not to understand my clear words, this isn't about like or dislike, or about friendship. This isn't a game of red-rover, us vs. you. I don't know Dan any better than I know you, Bubba, or any of the rest of the cast of characters around here. I'm responsible for the words I write. I sign my own name, unlike others who comment here. ;)
Yes, I DO think I have nice friends here, Eric. While Alan is quite right that I don't know him from Adam, I find his sense of humor refreshing and hilarious, his opinions well-thought and well-writ, his knowledge and information helpful and impressive.
And I like the other folk around here, too. Each for their own qualities. And sometimes, I have things about them I don't like as much.
You, for instance, Eric, I like the way you write, your choice of words and use of the occasional obscure word (folderol, what a great word!). I find less enjoyable your relentlessly and unnecessarily antagonistic approach to discussions.
But liking and disliking - or having no significant opinion at all - on the folk who visit here is really just an added bonus or distraction. I'm just writing for the joy of writing, expressing opinion for what it's worth.
And Alan is absolutely correct in his assessment of mom2, who generally doesn't take part in conversations at all, instead coming in to make random attacks and then leave. This time, she chose to take a potshot at Alan for sins she supposes he takes part in, that aren't related to the topic at all, here.
I welcome her comments that are on topic. She rarely chooses to do so.
I find pointless, off-topic snide remarks less useful and they can go away as far as I'm concerned.
Mom2, if you want to engage in respectful discussion, please do so.
If you want to take cheap potshots that are meaningless and only contribute to division, take it elsewhere.
Alan has demonstrated a deep and abiding love of God's Word, as well as a thorough knowledge of it.
So how about it mom2? You want to talk about believing what Paul says in Romans?
Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves... Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited...
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his brothers and sisters has fulfilled the law...
Or how about some of the other apostles, you want to talk about following what they have said?
Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers,...
Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart...
Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins...
For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind...
Alan has demonstrated that he loves the Bible and that we're striving to follow its teachings. In so doing, we have been confronted by some here who demand that we accept THEIR extrabiblical interpretation of the Bible.
When we have asked WHY we should embrace their opinion instead of what the Bible literally says, the question goes unanswered except that we were criticized for being "needlessly rigid" in our support for Biblical reasoning!
And now we're criticized for being disgraceful when we call someone on their disgraceful commentary.
I hope you will forgive us for sticking close to the words of the Bible when you're reasoning doesn't convince us and your attacks don't win us over?
Peace.
Dan, don't be ridiculous. Alan is hardly an excellent example of Christian love.
I agree that mom2's comment was both off-topic and inappropriate, but while Alan insists that this discussion isn't personal and shouldn't be taken personally, he doesn't seem to make an effort to argue in good faith.
There are many examples even in this comment thread. Alan misconstrues another person's arguments and then, when called on it, he'll claim that it was some sort of a deliberate act of ironic sarcasm. He's accused me of having "a seemingly limitless supply of presumption and arrogance" and of not only being wrong, but "pathetically wrong."
Alan's m.o. is this: he dismisses other people's arguments as foolishness and then insults the people themselves by treating them like fools. Hiding under the auspices of not taking foolish arguments seriously, he ends consistently shows a great deal of disrespect to his fellow human beings and his brothers and sisters in Christ.
While you take the time to criticize ELAshley for his antagonism, you bask in Alan's "refreshing and hilarious" sense of humor. To give him such tacit approval without any criticism is bad enough in hindering a good-faith discussion, but don't try to tell us that he's showing a devotion to brotherly love and proper respect to everyone.
And, for what it's worth, you misunderstand my position, Dan.
When we have asked WHY we should embrace their opinion instead of what the Bible literally says, the question goes unanswered except that we were criticized for being "needlessly rigid" in our support for Biblical reasoning!
It's not your support for Biblical reasoning that's needlessly rigid: it's the demand for a particular formula.
You and Alan both misconstrue my position.
Looking over my earlier comment, I see that I could have been more clear. I think the context conveys my meaning, but I should make doubly clear that I don't have a problem with a request for scriptural support for my position. My problem is the particular details of your request, in that you seem to argue that, if a verse doesn't match a particular formula, it doesn't count.
What you haven't offered is some verse/passage that says, "Jesus came to seek and to save the lost AND THAT IS HIS PRIMARY MISSION AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT JESUS TAUGHT IS SECONDARY TO THIS PRIMARY TEACHING."
THAT is what you haven't delivered because it simply isn't there.
You would need to show why such a formula is the only possible way for a passage to demonstrate the centrality of the cross in order for your demand for a passage that matches that formula is reasonable.
I have not yet gone into the details of why I think the Bible supports the centrality of the cross because I believe we must first hash out whether the standard you require is reasonable.
To be clear, I would want to discuss that subject, time permitting. More importantly, I think you overlook some key aspects of the story of the rich man who asked Jesus how to inherit eternal life.
But before we can do either of these, I think you must make reaffirm that this is a forum for good-faith discussion. Criticizing mom2 for an inappropriate comment is a good start, but positively excusing Alan's behavior by treating him as a paragon of Christian courtesy sends the message that only certain people here will be defended from personal attacks and that these same people will have their own inappropriate behavior actively condoned.
Apparently so.
I'm still not sure what you're saying, then. Your original comment was:
I find your request for scriptural support for my position to be needlessly rigid.
(Which SOUNDS like you're saying my request for scriptural support is needlessly rigid? I hope you can understand my confusion...)
and then follow up by saying:
You would need to explain why the particular formula you give is necessary for us to reach our position that the Bible teaches the primacy of the cross.
What formula have I given? I didn't realize I had given a formula. I pointed out that your position was not found literally in the Bible. I asked why, then, should we heed your impression of the Bible over our own impression.
What formula are you talking about?
(and if I've misunderstood you, I apologize. It SOUNDED like that's what you're saying.)
Dan, this is what you wrote:
What you haven't offered is some verse/passage that says, "Jesus came to seek and to save the lost AND THAT IS HIS PRIMARY MISSION AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT JESUS TAUGHT IS SECONDARY TO THIS PRIMARY TEACHING."
I took it that that example --"Jesus came to seek and to save the lost AND THAT IS HIS PRIMARY MISSION AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT JESUS TAUGHT IS SECONDARY TO THIS PRIMARY TEACHING." -- might be a formula to which any scriptural answer must conform, as if there's no other way Scripture could convey the primacy of Jesus' mission of salvation.
I may have misunderstood. Are you saying that you're open to other kinds of arguments from Scripture to support my position, that an argument need not be as neat and tidy and explicit as the example you give?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Criticizing mom2 for an inappropriate comment is a good start, but positively excusing Alan's behavior by treating him as a paragon of Christian courtesy sends the message that only certain people here will be defended from personal attacks...
A parable, if I may, in verse...
There once was a bully from the street 'n
He like to find victims, then beat 'em
One day the victims
Returned to hit him
And now the beater has become the beaten
In other words, if people repeatedly make attacking, belittling commentary and then some others choose to respond in kind, I'm more likely to criticize those who started it than those who responded in kind.
Those who live by the sword and all that.
I don't find Alan's or Marty's comments especially vicious. They have written telling others what they think or believe in a way similar to what they've done in the first place. And then, as Alan noted, the instigators failed to recognize their own behavior when it is being mimicked by others.
In fact, the attacking behavior has continued with many of the original instigators (although, I will allow as you, Bubba, have not really so much done any of the attacking or casting of accusations or name-calling in at least this post).
For what it's worth, I don't find anything in Alan's comments that suggests to me anything at all but that he's funning with y'all. I don't suspect the slightest mean intent in what he's saying. Probably true for Marty, but it might also be that she's a bit angry at all of the attacks and is responding in anger (which is not a bad thing, necessarily. "Be ye angry and sin not.")
What I think is mostly the case is that some here appear unable to recognize their own behavior in others when repeated for their benefit.
Or so it seems to me.
But, between me and you, Bubba, I have not attacked you nor have I felt you have attacked me. Between me and you, how about answering some of my questions...
1. I have talked on my blog about are the ethical and moral implications of stories such as the Exodus, Creation and the Resurrection.
Is that okay? Is that Gospelly enough? Or need I talk specifically about Christ's death and resurrection? And, if so, why do you think that?
2. WHY should I take your opinion of what the Bible does and does not say as valid and dismiss my opinion as invalid?
I may have misunderstood. Are you saying that you're open to other kinds of arguments from Scripture to support my position, that an argument need not be as neat and tidy and explicit as the example you give?
Absolutely. After all, I find support for war in general to be against christ's teachings, even though Jesus never specifically said, "Thou shalt not war."
I find support for gay marriage even though Jesus never said, "Thou shalt allow the marriage of our gay brothers and sisters, because, you know, marriage is a good thing."
I'm not opposed to drawing conclusions that are extrabiblical. I do it on occasion, after all.
What I'm opposed to is drawing extrabiblical conclusions then berating others for not accepting "biblical truths," when what they mean is THEIR interpretation of God's Truth derived from THEIR reading of the Bible.
I don't think I've ever claimed that we ought not wage war because the Bible tells us not to. I draw that conclusion based on biblical teachings, but I don't make the jump from my conclusion to assuming my conclusion is God's Word.
So, yes, that is what I'm asking: WHY should I abandon MY understanding of God's Word to embrace YOUR understanding? I'm asking you to make your case.
Also, you may make your case as to why my format of my blog is not a good example of a Gospel witness, if you so choose.
Just don't say "'cause the Bible says so" and expect us all to fall in line because you think that.
Alan, you previously claimed to take responsibility for what you write:
I'm responsible for the words I write. I sign my own name, unlike others who comment here. ;)
But twice in your last comment you seem to eschew all responsibility for the consequences of those words, when I think you have some burden of responsibility to bear:
In the same way, I often use someone's poor attempts to argue in "good faith" (their hypocrisy, for example) against them, using that irony to make my point even clearer... So again, if folks don't want to see those shots coming back at then, they shouldn't lob them in the first place.
And:
Your inability to understand ironic sarcasm isn't my fault, and I will not take responsibility for it.
In the first case, people who make poor arguments are responsible themselves for the criticism those arguments produce, but not the sneering that goes along with it. Your approach of irony isn't any more effective at persuading the other person to see your point; it's just much more effective at antagonizing him. You have a tendency to be provocative; you bear some responsible for the fact that people are provoked.
About the second point, it's not that I'm unable to understand your use of irony -- and I don't appreciate the presumption -- it's that I don't appreciate its use. I don't think you're always clear when you're using irony: there were no "winks" when you accused me of "fisking" while simultaneously doing almost nothing but fisking. But even when your use of irony is clear, it's not remotely courteous.
Indeed, good-faith arguments require grounds, warrant, and support. They do not require the antagonism, provocation, and mockery that you provide on a regular basis. And to the degree where it's not clear that you're being sincere or ironic, your writing undermines the reader's trust that you're arguing in good faith, because good faith also requires sincerity.
Bubba, none of that actually addressed my point. You refuse to take responsibility for your own words and tone, then you call me to take responsibility for my words and tone.
Shall we see a few more examples (not an exhaustive list)?
1) I wrote, "We need right preaching to remind us of our stories of faith" which you misconstrued as "I would say, first of all, that saying right preaching is merely about reminding us of our "stories of faith" is insufficient.". I called you on that. You ignored it.
2) I made an analogy. You snidely responded, "If you were not so busy comparing Dan Trabue to the Messiah..." I called you on that. You ignored it.
3) You said, "I won't hold my breath waiting for Dan to criticize Marty for mind-reading." but you also wrote, "I'm going to guess that Alan counts Paul among the revisionists who falsely argue to be traditionalists." I called you on that. You ignored it.
4) You complain about my tone, yet you still refuse to simply, forthrightly condemn Mom2's unprovoked snotty troll droppings.
Shall I tell you how I took her comment? Now, you'll have to understand that I've received more than my share of these sorts of comments from her, so with that background in mind.... First of all, her comment insinuated that perhaps because I'm gay I don't really take the Bible as "seriously" as I've stated. In other words, I'm at best disingenuous, at worst a liar. Second of all, they also seem to insinuate, as I've seen from you folks several times that, because I'm gay, I've got no business offering my opinions about the Bible, faith, or anything else.
Seems to me all that is a bit worse than using the word "crotch" in a blog comment. By the way, you'll notice that I used that word and made *exactly* the same point in my first comment on this thread, but no one went all apoplectic about it then. Interesting, eh? Apparently folks freak out about that only when it's convenient to do so?
Now understand, I'm not asking you to take responsibility for Mom2's little drive-bys at all. But don't suggest that I should be berated by Dan when you refuse to condemn her.
5) I wrote, "For once, would someone on your side actually do something to clearly call out bad behavior from folks on your side? Not with some rationalization, not with some lame excuse. Perhaps you're put out by my tone, but I haven't had anything to say to Mom2 in this discussion before she did her typical little drive-by, so don't pretend I somehow deserved that from her." Ignored.
So, once again, when YOU decide to start taking responsibility for the things YOU write, then maybe you can lecture me about taking responsibility, not for what I write (since I already do) but for how other people feel about my writing. As I said, I take responsibility for the things I write (though I do not take responsibility for how other people feel about my words). Here I have, for the zillionth time provided the words YOU wrote, which you refuse to take responsibility for.
So don't lecture me, I'm simply not buying it.
"when I think you have some burden of responsibility to bear:"
And I'll add: If this was one of the main points of your last post, then I simply say: I disagree.
I don't feel responsible if other people choose to be offended by my words. I'm sorry if that ticks you off, but I think how we react to other people is our own decision not theirs.
I will point out however, that I wouldn't even have the opportunity to use sarcasm and irony to point out hypocrisy if the hypocrisy didn't exist in the first place.
Sorry for the multiple posts ... one more thing...
"I don't think you're always clear when you're using irony:"
Now THAT is something I will take responsibility for, since it involves my own writing, and not how someone responds to it.
Alan:
1) I didn't comment on your reply to the "stories of faith" comment. I was planning on it but didn't get around to it. I didn't mean to construe that you implied that right preaching "merely" involved such stories. I was just clarifying my particular view of right preaching.
2) I knew and still know that you weren't seriously comparing Dan to God Incarnate. Irony. Pot. Kettle. You know the drill.
3) I did respond to that, here:
For what it's worth, I think there's a significant difference between my mere guessing that Alan would call Paul a revisionist and Marty's insistence in telling me what I'm doing "whether [I] admit it or not," and her telling me that I would still be asking Dan these questions even if he hadn't taken exception to the conclusions I drew, presuming to tell me what I would do in the face of what I explicitly said.
4) I do simply and forthrightly condemn mom2's comment. My "but" wasn't to excuse mom2, but to criticize Dan for holding you up as an example of Christian courtesy, not because of your reaction to mom2, but because of your prior, repeated antagonism to everyone else.
Again, mom2's comment was out-of-line and inappropriate.
5) I ignored your call for someone on my side...
(My "side"? Didn't you write, "This isn't a game of red-rover, us vs. you"?)
...to come to your defense partially because it seemed that you had the situation well in hand, what with this blog's owner not only coming to your defense, but even suggesting that you're an examplary pupil of the Apostles' command to treat others with decency.
About the responsibility for what people write and how others react, people are responsible for opening themselves up to criticism when they engage in hypocrisy, but I believe you are responsible when you chose to use irony to express your criticism.
They're responsible for the weakness in their arguments and position. You're responsible for the sneering in your attack on that weakness.
Why is my wondering about Alan's understanding of scripture sooooo awful, when it is fine for him to question other's understanding? If Alan is so sure that his lifestyle is perfectly fine, then he can take my asking about scripture.
I think he should appreciate my concern for him and want to get things right, before eternity. My, oh my, so much anger and somehow we should always consider it as joking or sarcasm? Mom2
I forgot to thank bubba for his rebuke. I will think about my comment. Mom2
"I knew and still know that you weren't seriously comparing Dan to God Incarnate. Irony. Pot. Kettle. You know the drill."
So you do it too, AND you still are ticked off at me? LOL Oh. Come. ON! LOL Or should I suggest that you're only "claiming" that it was irony? ;) Now wouldn't that be ironic, don'tcha think? LOL
Sorry, but this is getting almost too MC Escher-esque even for me. ROFL.
"For what it's worth, I think there's a significant difference between my mere guessing that Alan would call Paul a revisionist and Marty's insistence in telling me what I'm doing..."
Oh, I saw that. I just thought it was a lame rationalization.
"4) I do simply and forthrightly condemn mom2's comment. My "but" wasn't to excuse mom2, but to criticize Dan for holding you up as an example of Christian courtesy, not because of your reaction to mom2, but because of your prior, repeated antagonism to everyone else."
Glad to hear, though I wish it were worded a bit more strongly. I hope you'll understand that I didn't catch this part at all: "not because of your reaction to mom2, but because of your prior, repeated antagonism to everyone else" because those two clauses were in the same sentence, joined by a conjunction, it seemed that the first (mom2 comment) related to the other (dan berating me). Now I understand what you're saying, even if I still disagree that I'm being antagonistic. I do believe you that you think I'm being antagonistic. You've made that clear. I just am not. Nor do I hold the feelings or motivations you appear to want to attribute to me.
"I believe you are responsible when you chose to use irony to express your criticism."
I am indeed responsible for using irony, when I use irony. No doubt. However, if people don't understand that I'm using irony particularly after having pointed it out about 14 bazillion times in this thread, that's their problem not mine, unless I'm simply not being clear enough, though I've made the point over and over in this thread from one of my very first comments onward.
However, I continue to maintain that how people choose to react to that irony (construing it as anger, malice, hatred, dislike, etc., on my part) is their problem not mine. We clearly disagree here, and it seems highly unlikely either of us is going to convince the other on this point. I'm just a big believer in personal responsibility and owning our own emotions, and not blaming others, or the world for them.
Personal responsibility .. .kind of a ... well ... conservative idea there, isn't it? As opposed to "I'm the victim of your sneering" which seems kinda whiny-liberal to me. ;) (Insert chuckle here. Or not, I suppose.)
"You're responsible for the sneering in your attack on that weakness."
Nope, I'm not. Because again, no sneering here. I've explained that already, ad nauseam. Perhaps you don't believe that. You either do or you don't and there's nothing I can do about it either way, again I'm not responsible for how you misconstrue my motivations. If a person wants to find anger in my words, that's their choice. I've explained this over and over. That oughta be enough. I can't do more than that. So I'm not going to loose too much sleep over it.
Not sneering, not angry, not hatred, not dislike, not even indigestion should be read into my comments. Can't say it any more clearly.
"... If Alan is so sure that his lifestyle is perfectly fine, then he can take my asking about scripture....
Here we are again, staring at Alan's crotch... ROFL Now Mom2, you're making me blush with all that attention. And I am after all, a married man, you temptress. ROFL To quote that great philosopher and warrior-poet of our times, William Shatner: Get. A. Life. LOL
"so much anger and somehow we should always consider it as joking or sarcasm?"
Anger? Feh. I can't imagine you having anything to say that would make me angry. I wouldn't waste a molecule of it on you. I save my anger for stuff that actually matters to me. Angry about total strangers and their troll droppings on the internet? Not a chance. And that, is neither joking, nor ironic, nor sarcasm.
Mom2, let me be clear that, while I very rarely rebuke your comments, I appreciate your input and like you as a person, as little as we know about each other.
But this is neither the time nor the place for Alan to defend his position on Romans 2 or to reconcile (if necessary) that position with his stated respect for the Bible. Such a topic can only be a massive digression from this already tumultuous discussion.
The comment is certainly inappropriate here and arguably inappropriate in all but a select few threads. The tone in which the comment was made probably doesn't conform to our command to love even our enemies: I think I can understand the desire to comment as you have, but I can't condone your making these comments and wish they wouldn't continue to cause distractions, at least here.
Alan, I actually try not to use sarcasm because it's disrespectful. I just find it hard to respond as respectfully as I should when I'm being repeatedly and explicitly compared to Pharisees, even if it was an analogy.
It was a mistake to have responded with as much as snark as I did. I apologize for it, and I stand by my position that your use of sarcasm spills over into abuse.
Oh, I saw that. I just thought it was a lame rationalization.
If you want to accuse me of lame rationalizations, don't write, "I called you on that. You ignored it."
I agree that people should take ownership of their own emotional reactions, but Paul still taught that we have a responsibility not to do things that would knowingly cause our brothers to stumble. You may well have the right to write what you please and let others handle their reactions as they will, but Christianity teaches that there are sometimes very good reasons not to exercise a right even if that right is legitimate.
Dan, I've actually written and saved two lengthy comments about the substance of our discussion, one about the story of Jesus telling the rich man to sell what he's owned, the other about the idea that the cross isn't germane to your focus in this blog.
I also have a lot to say about the centrality of the cross. Though there isn't a verse quite as a explicit as even I would like, I think it's quite clear that the cross is central to the New Testament, to the point that recognizing its centrality may not just be permitted by Scripture, it may be altogether required given a holistic perspective.
I'm asking a lot, but it would be possible for you to start a new comment thread that is focused primarily (or even exclusively) on this discussion, on your thoughts and mine? Too much of this thread is about extraneous snark, accusation and counter-accusation, between Alan, Marty, mom2, Edwin, myself, and others.
We'd get a lot more accomplished without the extracurriculars, but it might still be profitable for others to be able to read our exchange.
"If you want to accuse me of lame rationalizations, don't write, "I called you on that. You ignored it.""
Fair enough.
"I just find it hard to respond as respectfully as I should when I'm being repeatedly and explicitly compared to Pharisees"
Fair enough.
"Paul still taught that we have a responsibility not to do things that would knowingly cause our brothers to stumble."
I'm not really sure he was talking about other mature Christians, or the use of irony in order to attempt to point out what I perceive as someone else's hypocrisy in a blog post. But we really don't have to debate that point too. I will do my part to try to make sure that my comments are a bit less, well ... forthright, I guess.
I'm not making excuses here, and I hope you won't perceive that I am, however my training as a scientist and an academic has pretty much been along the classical lines of "anyone's ideas are open to full-throated, let-em-have-it-with-both-barrels attack and then you go out and get a beer afterwards, and no one thinks about it twice, because it never gets personal." I don't have any problem being on the receiving end of that kind of debate either, as long as it doesn't get personal. Again, not an excuse, just some background since you really don't know anything at all about me.
Also, not an excuse, but for what it's worth, believe it or not, I do skim over my comments before I post them, and often tone them down. So, it isn't like I'm not making an effort to be cordial. Again, not an excuse, just something you wouldn't otherwise know. Take that for whatever you think it's worth.
"It was a mistake to have responded with as much as snark as I did. I apologize for it..."
Thank you.
" and I stand by my position that your use of sarcasm spills over into abuse."
I apologize if I was snottier than I needed to be to get my point across, and/or if I did inadvertently insult a person instead of their argument, and for any instances in which my writing wasn't clear enough, which as I've said, is my responsibility.
I'm speechless, what a goat rope.
This is a great example of the downside of blogging.
For the record.
Mom2, I don't know you other than from your occaisional comments on blogs. I probably agree with you more than I disagree, but this was not the right time or place for the comment you made.
Bubba, You may be the most patient person I know of. I would be interested in seeing the discussion without all of the detours.
Alan, As someone who thinks sarcasm should be a spiritual gift, I am well aware that it doesn't often translate well into blog comments. Just a suggestion that you consider a different tactic.
Dan, Enjoy your blog, and the topics. Don't agree much, but it's your blog. You do seem inconsistant in how you enforce courtesy, but your blog, your rules. I'd ask you to consider Bubba's request to devote a post just to the discussion without the detours. It would be interesting.
I'm too tired and confused to remember what the point of all this is let alone add my .02 cents.
Craig, Your advise received. Thanks, Mom2
"For what it's worth, I don't find anything in Alan's comments that suggests to me anything at all but that he's funning with y'all. I don't suspect the slightest mean intent in what he's saying. Probably true for Marty, but it might also be that she's a bit angry at all of the attacks and is responding in anger (which is not a bad thing, necessarily. "Be ye angry and sin not.")"
Dan,
I think anger is little bit too strong a word for what I'm feeling. Frustration is more like it. I've seen this scenario played out over and over and over again here and elsewhere. Nothing ever changes really. No matter how many scriptures you quote, no matter how much you lay it all out there, it's never enough for some folks. It's obvious to me that you love Jesus with all your heart, mind, and soul. And being the imperfect human that you are, you seek to live your faith out simply and plainly. It's just absurd to me that anyone would think otherwise after spending any time here at Payne Hollow. It does get under my craw a bit when someone's christianity is questioned.
I have made certain observations here and I stand by them.
There's a story that is told about a little boy who fell out of bed one night. His mother, upon entering his bedroom, asked if he was okay. The little boy replied, "I was layin' too close to the gettin' in place."
It seems to me that some here are staying "too close to the gettin' in place".
"...some here are staying "too close to the gettin' in place""
Yes...
On a hill far away stood an old rugged cross,
The emblem of suffering and shame;
And I love that old cross where the dearest and best
For a world of lost sinners was slain.
So I'll cherish the old rugged cross,
Till my trophies at last I lay down;
I will cling to the old rugged cross,
And exchange it some day for a crown.
O that old rugged cross, so despised by the world,
Has a wondrous attraction for me;
For the dear Lamb of God left His glory above
To bear it to dark Calvary.
So I'll cherish the old rugged cross,
Till my trophies at last I lay down;
I will cling to the old rugged cross,
And exchange it some day for a crown.
In that old rugged cross, stained with blood so divine,
A wondrous beauty I see,
For 'twas on that old cross Jesus suffered and died,
To pardon and sanctify me.
So I'll cherish the old rugged cross,
Till my trophies at last I lay down;
I will cling to the old rugged cross,
And exchange it some day for a crown.
To the old rugged cross I will ever be true;
Its shame and reproach gladly bear;
Then He'll call me some day to my home far away,
Where His glory forever I'll share.
So I'll cherish the old rugged cross,
Till my trophies at last I lay down;
I will cling to the old rugged cross,
And exchange it some day for a crown.
Well it shouldn't. What kind of Christian would we be to see someone stumble and do or say nothing? This is what gets in your craw. Well, swallow or spit it out. This lame accusation interferes greatly. THIS is what frustrates me. There is simply no way to even have these discussions without someone (usually back and forth) questioning the quality of the other's Christianity. If a belief, such as Alan's about his lifestyle, is believed (rightly) to be improper, or Dan's about war or violence, or anyone's belief about anything, it does taint their faith in the eyes of the opponent. Thus, though Mom's comment was inappropriate for this discussion, it does connect in the manner that Dan insists on Scriptural support for Bubba's position (with which Eric and I concur), yet there has never been given any for that, or even Dan's position on war. In other words, it seems as if it is OK to have a hunch about those things, but not about Bubba's.
Regarding Scriptural support for Bubba's position, I offer the entire Bible. From page one, we meet God as He is creating all things. Then, we meet Adam and Eve and they sin. From that point onward, the entire OT leads up to Christ's sacrifice for us to allow us the opportunity to be worthy to be in God's presence after we pass from this life. Nothing, NOTHING is more important than that for without His sacrifice for us, taking the heat for all we've done and will do, we would never be worthy, never be perfect enough, never have any way to fully atone for our sins, never wash the stain of Adam's sin out of our beings. What could possibly be more important than that? As I said earlier, in a calm and respectful manner without snarkiness or reason for rebuke by a boor like Alan, works will not do it. Scripture surely says that. And though faith without works is empty, we must come to Christ first, believe in Him, understanding why, which is because of His supreme sacrifice.
I would also add that to teach that God is love is woefully incomplete. It's a nice Rosie O'Donnell version, but it isn't the whole picture by a longshot and to not put out there in the forefront that He is also perfectly just, and what His justice means for those who choose their way over His, is to allow for wrong impressions by the listener. You will NOT teach others by acting like a Christian. That is, you will only teach them how Christians act and even if they adopt the behavior, they need to understand why you act that way, why they should continue, and all that is based on the sacrifice on the cross. Without understanding the sacrifice, "acting" like a Christian won't be enough. This is not extra-Biblical, this is not a hunch. It is the essence of all that the Bible is and all that Christianity is, and most of all, all that God is.
Now once again, good works can be used to open up discussions about the faith, and in that manner it has great importance (aside, that is, from the importance to ourselves to act in a Christian manner at all times--Alan). I can concede that some have been motivated to seek out Christ due to witnessing a good Christian being as good a Christian as possible. But then, if he comes to Christ as a result, that's the main thing. That he is now a Christian and saved. Winning souls for Christ. That's the main thing.
it does connect in the manner that Dan insists on Scriptural support for Bubba's position (with which Eric and I concur), yet there has never been given any for that, or even Dan's position on war. In other words, it seems as if it is OK to have a hunch about those things, but not about Bubba's.
I'm not entirely clear what you mean. I HAVE given scriptural reasons and held discussions about the Bible and war, for instance.
But aside from that, I think you may be missing the point. I don't have the slightest problem with others having their opinions about what the Bible says and teaches, or about God's will.
The things that we object to are (and the common difference between those on the Left and Right, oftentimes):
1. The suggestion that "MY way is the only way you can interpret scripture and if you don't agree with me, you're probably not a Christian, your "lifestyle" is immoral and you hate America!!"
In other words, when I disagree with Bubba, I don't question his Christianity nor his patriotism. I don't call his "lifestyle" immoral. When I disagree with Bubba's position on X, I say, "I disagree with your position on X" and that's that. THIS seems to me to be one big difference between discussions amongst my friends on the Left and my friends on the Right.
Now, of course, I'm sure there are people on the Left who DO demonize the whole person on the Right they disagree with and question their humanity, Christianity, etc. I just don't know anyone like that.
Similarly, there are those on the Right who disagree agreeably. Chance, Wordsmith and the folks over at "Stones Cry Out" usually do a pretty good job of this and may their tribe grow.
2. Incorrect assumptions. I don't hear often from those I disagree with that I've misinterpreted what they've said. Usually, I go out of my way to ask, "Do you really mean...?" or, "It sounds like you're saying...?" when I find what they're saying to be especially reprehensible.
And, most times, if they point out that I've misinterpreted their words, I will respond back with an apology and an explanation of why I thought they meant something different.
That RARELY happens around these parts and this is what Marty bears testimony to above. Too often, the accusation is made ("You hate America!") the correction is offered ("No, I love my country.") and then the accuser moves on to another attack or to just repeat the same attack.
THAT gets tiring and aggravating especially when it's an ongoing problem, being repeated over and over.
As often as some of you have misunderstood my words, it might behoove you to ask, "Did you mean...???" or even, "Dan, when you say X, Y, and Z, it sure sounds like the ONLY conclusion we can come to is that you also mean A, B and C! Is that your intention?"
" in a calm and respectful manner without snarkiness or reason for rebuke by a boor like Alan"
Once again, you all will notice that, while I never called people names, some don't follow their own advice to be either calm or respectful.
Dan, I'm probably continuing this discussion in the new thread you started, but I did want to highlight this, what you call the "things that [you] object to," suggesting this is "the common difference between those on the Left and Right, oftentimes":
1. The suggestion that "MY way is the only way you can interpret scripture and if you don't agree with me, you're probably not a Christian, your "lifestyle" is immoral and you hate America!!"
2. Incorrect assumptions. I don't hear often from those I disagree with that I've misinterpreted what they've said. Usually, I go out of my way to ask, "Do you really mean...?" or, "It sounds like you're saying...?" when I find what they're saying to be especially reprehensible.
I would say that, with your summary of others' positions in Point #1, you're making precisely the sort of assumptions that you criticize with Point #2. I don't know anyone here who has said anything remotely near the totality of this...
"MY way is the only way you can interpret scripture and if you don't agree with me, you're probably not a Christian, your 'lifestyle' is immoral and you hate America!!"
...and I haven't seen you approach Marshal, ELAshley, me, or whoever it is you think takes that position and ask him whether the quote above is an accurate reflection of his position.
It is extremely difficult to respond positively to your entirely reasonable call to treat others respectfully by not being so presumptuous about positions they take, when you summarize our position like that, and do so seemingly to make it appear that the real exceptions in these discussions are the rude liberal and the polite conservative:
Now, of course, I'm sure there are people on the Left who DO demonize the whole person on the Right they disagree with and question their humanity, Christianity, etc. I just don't know anyone like that.
Similarly, there are those on the Right who disagree agreeably. Chance, Wordsmith and the folks over at "Stones Cry Out" usually do a pretty good job of this and may their tribe grow.
Unless I missed the comments that justify the summary in Point #1 above, it seems to me that there are ways that you could disagree more agreeably by not painting our position in a light that's more negative than our statements warrant.
Nevertheless, I will do my best not to be overly presumptuous about your positions in the next thread.
do so seemingly to make it appear that the real exceptions in these discussions are the rude liberal and the polite conservative...
Well, that has been MY experience. I've been treated politely and seen others treated mostly politely by liberals and I've seen the demonization happen coming from the conservative side.
Now to some degree, that makes sense. The more "liberal" are more likely to agree with me so I wouldn't expect them to see me demonizing me. But it's just as true for my liberal webosphere friends when I see them engage with those with whom they disagree. Generally, the snarkiness has come AFTER the more conservatives have drawn blood and then my comrades on the Left have responded in kind.
Now, I'll have to say that I sometimes get mixed up who's said what, it may be that you, bubba, are more polite than many (and would fit in with the category that I listed above of relatively polite conservatives).
But certainly Eric, Mark, Reverend Timothy and his wife; Drood, Neil, Al Ozarka, etc, etc, etc, HAVE tended to respond in a less helpful way. My friends and I are not making it up that our "christianity" has been questioned or outright rejected, that our love of country has been denied, our words twisted, false witness has been borne against us, our "lifestyles" have been condemned, that we've been called names, mocked, etc, etc. It simply HAS happened in the real world.
So, in my experience, I can say that I've seen more of this sort of behavior coming from the Right than the Left. I have not seen studies on this so I can't tell you objectively, I'm just telling you what MY experience has been.
For what it's worth.
But in the next post where you're saying you'll respond, I'm going to try to ask everyone to not make those assumptions or accusations and that we behave a bit better, for at least that thread, and we'll see how it goes.
To ELAshley who quoted "The Old Rugged Cross"...my favorite hymn btw along with "Were You There". Those two hymns never fail to bring a tear or two to my eyes.
The Southern Baptist pastor I work with told me the story about the little boy "layin' too close to the gettin' in spot" after I shared with him the discussion on this thread.
He said he has told that story many times in sermons and there is always someone that won't get it.
Dan:
My friends and I are not making it up that our "christianity" has been questioned or outright rejected, that our love of country has been denied, our words twisted, false witness has been borne against us, our "lifestyles" have been condemned, that we've been called names, mocked, etc, etc. It simply HAS happened in the real world.
Even granting that, you way you summarized doesn't strike me as wholly fair unless I'm missing or misremembering a crucially important exchange.
Your summary was this:
"MY way is the only way you can interpret scripture and if you don't agree with me, you're probably not a Christian, your 'lifestyle' is immoral and you hate America!!"
If someone were to say, "If you don't agree with me and my interpretation of Scripture, you hate America," that is indeed unnecessary and frankly horrible and vicious.
If someone were to say something like, "If you defend a pastor who accuses the United States of creating AIDS to wipe out blacks, you hate America," that still might be untrue and unfair (then again, maybe not), but it isn't quite as bad. It's much, much less malignant to question a person's patriotism on that basis than on the interpretation of Scripture.
I don't think even the former was actually argued, but I believe it's much closer to what has accually occurred than the idea that your love of country was questioned because of a particular interpretation of Scripture. I do stand to be corrected.
There are other ways I think that summary is unfair.
"MY way is the only way you can interpret scripture and if you don't agree with me..."
I don't believe many of us, if any, are defending a personal and private interpretation of Scripture. We are defending what we believe to be small-o orthodoxy, what Christianity has historically meant. We might be wrong on that, but I don't believe any of us see ourselves as having a unique possession of what the Bible says, and I don't believe we're presenting ourselves as such.
If your quick summary of our position was so thoroughly honest that I had absolutely no problem with it, rather than having multiple problems with it, I would be much more inclined to trust that your experience of polite liberals and rude conservatives was rooted in an unbiased and reasonably objective observation of the facts.
As it is, you haven't accurately captured our objective positions, so I'm not sure why we should put a great deal of stock in your more subjective observation of the courtesy with which we present those positions.
Bubba, I'd recount for you the number of times I've been called a "false teacher", "phony", "super-phony" (my personal favorite, it sounds like a Rick James song), the drive-by snottings from mom2, and most recently "boor", etc, etc, etc by various folks on your side (though not you, that I recall, bubba), but I've run out of fingers and toes trying to count that high. LOL Everything from garden variety insults, to lame speculation about my motives, to suggestions that I'm filled with "hate" or "anger", to being told that "God has given me over to sin", to instances in which my faith, my witness, even my salvation has been questioned by folks on your side. (Not to mention the occasional bearing of false witness, outright lies, the gossip behind my back, and the overall simply childish behavior of some folks.)
I'd say Dan's summery of all of that ... shall we say ... "Bovine Scatology" ... occasionally excreted by folks on your side was rather understated and white-washed, actually.
Now I've had some disagreements with some of the more liberal folks who hang out on this little cadre of blogs and I've never received anything like that kind of treatment from them. Nor do I notice them making those sorts of statements about others with anything like the sort of regularity that I see it from your side.
Not asking you to take responsibility for any of that Bubba, but trust me, it isn't just a figment of Dan's fevered imagination. :)
Post a Comment