Wow! What a weekend this is shaping up to be. And it's only Saturday!
First off, we received word that my wife's Sunday School class (she teaches the elementary kids at church and has been for years) came in SECOND PLACE in a video contest sponsored by the Kentucky Waterways Alliance (KWA). Children (2nd to 6th grades) were invited create a video about Why We Should Love Our Waterways. They spent the last few Sundays brainstorming and then creating this video below, titled Every Drop.
For their wonderful efforts, they received Second Place in the contest! Woohoo! Way to go, Miriam, Lydia, Ellie, Laura and Katherine!! The winning three videos were played at an Environmental Film Festival today in Louisville and we just couldn't be prouder.
Then, we found out just this morning that a short video about homelessness - featuring my wife's voice-over, speaking on behalf of the social service ministry where she works (Volunteers of America of Kentucky) - has won a First Place award in a separate video contest. You can see that video, A Place to Call Home, here:
I just couldn't be prouder of my wife and all the hard work that VOA does in working with and for the down and out. You'd be hard-pressed to find two harder-working and more deserving non-profit organizations than VOA and KWA. Check them out.
39 comments:
That's awesome, Dan! Congrats to your (obviously very talented) wife.
And congrats to the kids!
Thanks, fellas. I'm pretty proud of everyone involved.
(Would you believe that "some" out there in bloggoland have had cause to criticize the SS class project? Amazing, but true.)
Of course I'd believe it. I'm not even surprised. I am however a little surprised they haven't already stopped by just to take a crap on this post.
As Harlan Ellison said (and as our friends out there continually demonstrate) the two most abundant elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
Somehow, I knew you would be able to believe it.
And Ellison might be right, he certainly would be in my case - I sure have an infinite affinity for stupidity...
(ooh, I like that. That should be a band name. "Ladies and gentlemen, the Infinite Affinity for Stupidity!")
Congratulations to your wife and the children. VOA sounds like a wonderful and much needed organization.
Would I be a horrible person for pointing out the irony of the guy in the video with heart problems and a shopping cart full of Cocoa Puffs and Dr. Pepper?
Horrible? I don't know.
Perhaps the food's for his children? Or perhaps he's making a bad choice?
It happens.
I, myself, drink Dr Pepper to excess.
Wow, Dan. Common ground finally. I, too, am a major consumer of Dr. Pepper. Almost makes me sad to post the following, prompted by your insistence that you won't be returning without apologies you don't have coming. Before I do, I want to remind you that I did watch your wife's video (well done) but not the kids' and still have no desire to, but pat them on their cute little heads for me. I have great concern for them.
Here it is:
-----------------------------
Dan, should you be checking in anyway,
Your last comment itself is a big lie.
I've just gotten through stating that I was only referring to what your church preaches on Easter according to your own "snippets" only. Do you understand what I mean or are the words too big for you? You cannot insist I did anything else. I have no idea how much you do anything throughout the year. I only found it problematic that your church feels the need to preach anything else but Christ's death and resurrection as if it's not exciting enough for your congregation, as if it won't hold their attention, as if it is necessary in any way to do anything else on the day commemorating this most important event in history. You owe me an apology for lying about me.
I don't think you can find anything that suggests I said you preach too much about God's creation. I won't say you owe me here because, frankly I can't say with certainty, but it doesn't sound like anything I said. I'm sure I've only said it's not an appropriate message on a day when a far greater message is, or words to that effect.
I've offered quite a bit of Biblical support for positions on which you've questioned me. You owe me an apology for lying about me. Ask again and I'll provide them again (this thread is too populated to go looking, but if you're really perusing my comments, the extent to which I question, then you'll recognize my repeated answers).
The charge we stand behind is that you, and based on your comments, your church, preaches that which aligns with progressive political agendas. That's crystal clear. No lie no matter how you define the word. And it's been supported over the years of our dialogues together (by together I mean you vs any of us on the orthodox and conservative side of things). So you owe us an apology for this lie that we don't support our words regarding what you DO preach is a pretty specious accusation.
You keep up with this BLATANT LIE regarding the kid's video. We have NOT attacked it whatsoever (that I can recall) as our words have always questioned the teaching of a church (to kids) that says the type of things YOU say about it. You owe us an apology.
Though we do have hunches about Jeff St and pretty much everything that is Dan Trabue related, we ONLY comment on what YOU relate to us in your comments. We add nothing to those words that the words themselves don't suggest. Unlike yourself, we find no profit in doing so.
In short, we are NOT liars and your saying so is poor proof and a lie in itself. The fault lies in your own poor understandig and equally poor ability, obviously, to articulate your thoughts to accurately convey your meaning. So it is YOU who owe US an apology.
But also unlike you, I don't demand one. I only insist on proof for your accusations. You've provided none. We could easily call all of your misinterpretations, like those listed in your last comment, as lies, but the thought simply never occurs to us. For one who so routinely misinterprets so much, including Scripture, calling our conclusions, which are based on your own words, lies is ironic.
--------------------------
Sincerely yours,
Marshall Art
P.S. As always, the big tent of Marshall Art's is always open and welcoming to all!
Marshall, to address the false claims to which you refer, I'll give you a chance here to support your false claims. If you can't support them, then you can apologize (if you're man and Christian enough) or you can go away.
You say...
I've just gotten through stating that I was only referring to what your church preaches on Easter according to your own "snippets" only. Do you understand what I mean or are the words too big for you?
I offered some direct quotes from some of our Easter services from years past, just snippets, but some of our actual words (instead of whatever druidism you dream up in your mind that we're doing) to give you a chance to step up and demonstrate what IN OUR REAL WORDS is problematic from a Christian point of view at Jeff St.
You've seen those quotes. You have them at your blog. Demonstrate, with biblical support, what is wrong from a Christian point of view in any of those quotes/excerpts.
Was it that we quoted MLK speaking of justice? Do you think that is anti-Christian? If so, demonstrate how with, you know, some actual biblical support or reasonable thoughts.
Was it that I referenced seeing God's resurrection in the springing to life in nature in the springtime? Where is that wrong, biblically speaking.
Was it that I quoted Jesus talking about how he was the resurrection and life? What was wrong with doing that?
Was it that I quoted a fella's song who imagined Jesus in modern day setting? What is wrong with that song?
Y'all are making the claim that we "use Easter" to "celebrate nature and political protest" (as opposed to worshiping God and teaching all things that Jesus' commanded). How have we done so. Provide some actual support (which you can't) or back off and admit that you misspoke, that you got carried away with political zeal and chose to demonize a local body of Christ based on, well, nothing whatsoever.
Now's your chance. Step up or step down.
Marshall...
regarding the kid's video. We have NOT attacked it whatsoever (that I can recall) as our words have always questioned the teaching of a church (to kids) that says the type of things YOU say about it.
Once again, the video was a video CREATED by the children, WRITTEN and ILLUSTRATED by the children. That you criticize this children's video - sight unseen - sure SOUNDS like you're criticizing them, since it's their video. But okay, you're not criticizing them - you can't, since you haven't even seen it - you're criticizing Jeff St for allowing this to happen during Sunday School time.
Then step up and defend WHY you think we should not have allowed our children to produce a video - one which won an award and brought them and Jeff St a little recognition as people who care about God's creation (a point which I believe you agree is a valid biblical point) and thus presented a local church in positive and, I think Godly, view to our community - during SS time.
Where in the Book of Sunday School Guidelines in the Bible does it preclude doing so? What's that? The Book of Sunday School Guidelines isn't even in the Bible?? Oh, well then, where in the Bible does it designate how much time is appropriate for rejoicing in God's creation? Point those passages out to me and I/we can be better Sunday School teachers.
What's that? The Bible DOESN'T have guidelines about how much rejoicing in God's creation is appropriate? Well... I'm confused. On WHAT do you base this conclusion that we were WRONG for letting the children produce a video rejoicing in God's creation?
Is there ANY REASON WHATSOEVER that you can offer, other than, "uh, well, it seems inappropriate to me, Marshall, to spend 'so much' time talking about God's creation rather than, you know IMPORTANT stuff..."?
If you're merely offering your wholly whimsical and off the wall hunch that we're wrong to teach our children about God's creation and to allow them to create a video in praise of God's creation, well, then make that clear. Just say, "This is just MY OWN opinion, I have NOTHING wrong with what you've done biblically speaking. It's just my whimsical hunch based on last night's bean supper gas."
You are always welcome to your own whimsical hunches. I have no problem with that. But, I would suggest that if you have these lighter than air fairy hunches that you really ought not criticize another church of God based upon them. You really ought to have some thing credible and more solid before attacking a church that would "allow" children to create an award-winning video praising God's creation.
So, by all means, if you have something, ANYTHING solid and actual on which to base your criticisms, show us now.
If not, apologize and move on. It's okay to admit you were wrong, you know?
Alan wrote: "I am however a little surprised they haven't already stopped by just to take a crap on this post."
It appears I spoke too soon. I stand corrected. I should know better than to overestimate some folks by now.
Alan again displays his "jackassery" as he calls it. Yet another sinful urge he feels no need to control.
Dinner time! I'll be right back.
Once again, you cannot support a charge of "false claims" on my part since I've made none.
Regarding your snippets, my argument is that those you originally posted had no relation to the reason for season, that being Christ's death and resurrection. What little reference was made was in a brief exerpt of Pastor Cindy's sermon, but that exerpt, at best, only hinted at the reason Easter is the most significant day in human history, but not without a nod to the political. Nothing in MLK's bit, nothing in the poetry, nothing even in the Psalm. Thus, my argument revolved around the proper message of a sermon or the proper focus of a service allegedly commemorating this most important day in history, the defining event of the faith. Thus, no false claim on my part as my opinion of your church's choices is not a claim at all.
Later, as if to dance away from our objections, rather than presenting them to clarify, you produce even more poetry used for their allusion to the resurrection--the "resurrection" of plant life in spring (not really dead, but only dormant) paralleled with Christ's (not dormant at all, but absolutely dead as a doornail)-- to give the impression that I, and Bubba as well, was truly off the mark in our conclusions drawn from the posting of the original exerpts. So my argument is that the event itself is worthy of exclusivity in the preaching and celebrating on Easter Sunday without the need for extra-curricular non-essentials such as the poems and the MLK speech. To add them suggests the event itself and more importantly, why it occurred (what it did for us) is not message enough. OR, that either the congregation isn't capable or willing to give the day its due without the extras, or those who decide such things believes such or that the congregation NEEDS something extra to "dress up" the most special day. I stand by this opinion allowing that it is your church and you folks can do whatever you like. THAT part, do what you like, has never been at issue, only what it might mean.
So, as you insist with your wacky notions such as homosexual marriage, I don't NEED Biblical support for my opinion. In any case, no false claim has been made in this regard.
So----
"Was it that we quoted MLK speaking of justice?"
What did it have to do with the purpose of Christ's death and resurrection?
"Was it that I referenced seeing God's resurrection in the springing to life in nature in the springtime?"
Original snippets did not make any such allusion and you didn't state anything regarding how you viewed such poetry. How does your vision issue teach about the purpose of Christ's death and resurrection? Without an explanation of how such poetry is meaningful to you, no Easter connection is apparent, especially regarding the original snippets you offered. Indeed, you offered them as some sort of glorifying of God's creation. Fine. What's it got to do with Easter?
"Was it that I quoted Jesus talking about how he was the resurrection and life?"
I could be wrong here (doubtful but totally possible) but I don't recall as this was anywhere near the "snippets" in question for which you made your false claims about false claims. Likely later once you were called on the "unEaster-ish" nature of your service as suggested by the snippets in question.
"Was it that I quoted a fella's song who imagined Jesus in modern day setting? What is wrong with that song?"
Nothing, for a typical lib, class-struggle, based on delusion type of song so common in the hippy days, but nothing focussing on Christ's D&R.
So there. For your first response here, I've explained myself and the fact that I made no claims whatsoever about anything but wondered about the exerpts you provided and stated my opinion of them.
Next---
"Once again, the video was a video CREATED by the children, WRITTEN and ILLUSTRATED by the children. That you criticize this children's video..."
But I didn't. Ever. And yet you continue to make this blatantly false charge. I even told you I never watched the video. I wouldn't praise it without watching it either, though I willingly give them props for making one.
However, what is also true about this incident, is that there is no mention of who took the initiative of making the video. Based on several years of you speaking of your beliefs AND of Jeff St. the mere mention of making a video in SS would likely cause most to assume the project was the idea of the teacher. This was is not illogical. Based on this logical assumption (I can't imagine it would be natural for most people to wonder otherwise), we question the spending of SS time on making videos about clean water for an outside organization. Is that what SS is for to you?
But it was not until later that you claim it was the kids' idea to enter the contest and the teachers agreed to use SS time to do so. That the teachers agreed is a legitimate cause for questioning the decision to use SS time in this manner. I applaud the kids for taking such initiative, if indeed they did, as well as their success with it. Good for them. But NO ONE attacked either them or their video and you continue to accuse us. That is a blatant lie. (I'll amend that to say with more certainty that I never attacked either the kids or the vid.)
As far as what is taught to the kids in your SS, it is reasonable to imagine that it matches what you and Jeff ST believes and how you prioritize those beliefs (based ONLY on comments about them that YOU YOURSELF make). We have never said anything about you or Jeff St that WASN'T based on your words, apologizing if a legitimate misunderstanding has been proven to occur. For our part, that's rarely happened in all the time we've enaged over the years. We cannot be blamed if your comments are not precise and provoke our conclusions. Rather than clarify, you accuse us of lies and distortions. You demand that rather than twisting or distorting that WE ask for clarification. You demand from us what you don't do yourself and you've proven to have greater need in both seeking clarity and being gracious and tolerant of our alleged misunderstandings. (There's a word for that...)
Next--- (Having fun, Alan?)
Once again, what is taught and when is a matter of opinion. THAT wasn't the point of any discussion at my blog, either, yet you're, as Allie-babie would say, "yapping" on about aportioning time for whatever.
No. The point being made was to imagine, based on your years of testimony, just how that teaching would look. You often say you are doctrinally sound (if you plan on demanding exact quotes for this ongoing sentiment--don't) and by your words we see that you are not. We question whether you'd spend much time in a church that doesn't appeal to your personal notions regarding Scripture. Thus, it is no great leap that you and your church are passing on those questionable beliefs to your children. Why wouldn't you if you believe them? And as far as Biblical support for this opinion, that is, that you are not really doctrinally sound, we have provided Scriptural support for this position all along the way for years. But like always, you dismiss that to which you cannot (or would prefer not) respond as "wild hunches" or distortions or lies, pretending we're not being gracious according to some unspecified standard only breeched when your back is up against the wall.
So, if you want better critiques of your church or understanding of the faith, find a way to explain either in a more accurate manner. Don't rag on us because you can't speak in a manner that condemns you. If you can't deal with this, then I guess you'll go the way of all libs and run and hide. I'm sorry for that as I am for all who ran before you.
Marshall said...
Regarding your snippets, my argument is that those you originally posted had no relation to the reason for season, that being Christ's death and resurrection. What little reference was made was in a brief exerpt of Pastor Cindy's sermon, but that exerpt, at best, only hinted at the reason Easter is the most significant day in human history, but not without a nod to the political. Nothing in MLK's bit, nothing in the poetry
Okay, to clarify, HERE is what I quoted on your blog (EIGHT excerpts from my Jeff St blog, random snippets of church services chosen from around Easter time from the last few years)...
1. This Easter, I think it is quite easy for us to find God in the color Green. It is all about us. It is what gives us life in a very fundamental way. We eat Green, we live in a Green and Blue world, we breathe deep green cleansing breaths when we find ourselves outside in this Holy Creation. Thanks be to God.
And the wrens have returned and they're nesting
In the hollow of that oak where his heart once had been
And he lifts up his arms in a blessing for being born again
And the streams are all swollen with winter
Winter unfrozen and free to run away now
And I'm amazed when I remember
Who it was that built this house
And with the rocks I cry out
Be praised for all Your tenderness by these works of Your hands
Suns that rise and rains that fall to bless and bring to life Your land
Look down upon this winter wheat and be glad that You have made
Blue for the sky and the color green that fills these fields with praise
~The Color Green, Rich Mullins
=========
2. [A song excerpt based upon the LIFE AND DEATH of Jesus, imagined in a modern setting...]
He’d walk on into church like he owned the place,
and they wouldn’t see much more than the dirt upon his face.
And then a man would come and ask politely if he could show him to the exits
but He’d walk right past and take the podium.
He’d say, “Blessed are the poor mechanics blessed are the miners’
families and
blessed are you who help the least of these.
And woe to you whose wealth is blinding; for you the kingdom will
be like driving through the eye of a needle in a white-washed SUV,”
…and they’d get mad. They’d get angry.
But I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know.
Well just outside of Morgantown it threw a rod, the truck broke
down,
and He sent His friends ahead and they hitchhiked.
They found a room and just like He said there was a Schwinn and it
was red, and
they brought it to Him and He rode triumphant in.
Hosanna man, lay your flannel down. He’s ridin’ in, put your shirt on the ground.
3. [A quote from a poem...]
See the land, her Easter keeping,
Rises as her Maker rose.
Seeds, so long in darkness sleeping,
Burst at last from winter snows.
Earth with heaven above rejoices...
========
4. [From Dr King - a quote on God's justice...]
Through violence you may murder a liar, but you can't establish truth.
Through violence you may murder a hater, but you can't murder hate.
Darkness cannot put out darkness. Only light can do that. Difficult and painful as it is, we must walk on in the days ahead with an audacious faith in the future.
When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds of despair, and when our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, let us remember that there is a creative force in this universe, working to pull down the gigantic mountains of evil, a power that is able to make a way out of no way and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows.
Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
========
5. [a from the Apostle Peter about JESUS' DEATH...]
For whenever anyone bears the pain of unjust suffering because of consciousness of God, that is a grace.
But what credit is there if you are patient when beaten for doing wrong? But if you are patient when you suffer for doing what is good, this is a grace before God.
For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his footsteps.
"He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." When he was insulted, he returned no insult; when he suffered, he did not threaten; instead, he handed himself over to the one who judges justly.
========
6. [an excerpt from an Easter sermon from our pastor...]
And ironically, in making that decision (towards non-violent resistance), Jesus was more dangerous to the ruling elite and to the Roman occupiers than were ...all the other rebel leaders to come.
Because while they could be crushed through military might, Jesus' way could not be crushed. In fact, Jesus would later dismantle the power and fear of the cross, the symbol of Roman execution, by inviting his followers to take it up and carry it.
========
7. [a quote from that old radical fella himself...]
I am the Resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, even if they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.
========
8. [a communion hymn]
Give us bread for the journey,
give us bread
Give us bread for the journey,
give us bread
When our limbs are getting heavy,
and we're hanging down our heads,
Give us bread for the journey,
give us bread...
Now, I repeat:
Y'all (you and Bubba) are making the claim that Jeff St "use[s] Easter" to "celebrate nature and political protest" (as opposed to worshiping God and teaching all things that Jesus' commanded).
How have we done so? Provide some actual support (which you can't) or back off and admit that you misspoke.
I provided on your blog EIGHT samples of just bits from our services (and later on, I quoted MORE poetry that was from our blog from around Easter). Of those eight, FIVE spoke directly of Easter, of Jesus' suffering, death, resurrection. Of Palm Sunday, of the Triumphal Entry.
Of the remaining three, one spoke of God's justice, one spoke of finding evidence of God in all creation (and praising God for creation) and one was a communion song, referencing Jesus' broken body in the bread - so, really, that makes SIX of the EIGHT that speak of Easter.
Marshall, you say...
my argument is that those you originally posted had no relation to the reason for season
By my count, at least FIVE and really SIX speak of what you are calling the reason for the season.
Now I know you also said...
The point being made was to imagine, based on your years of testimony, just how that teaching would look.
But I'm not asking you to guess and imagine, I'm asking WHAT SPECIFICALLY of our ACTUAL WORDS (not your fevered imagination) concerns you?
Step up or step down.
First, as I don't trust Dan to accurately relate the events herein mentioned (that being the discussion at my blog), I took time to find where this little digression from the thread topic really got going with the "snippets" in question. For anyone looking to see how this discussion transgressed and see just how horribly poor Dan was savaged, you can read it here. There, you will see that I have more than stepped up to respond to any question asked or any accusation of wrong-doing imagined by DAN'S fevered mind. Aside from occasional snark on my part, snark far less aggressive than one here expert in "jackassery", there is nothing but criticism of Dan's rendering of his beliefs and his descriptions of what goes on at his church. As I said earlier, our conclusions are based only on his words and not "wild hunches" or "wild imaginings". The thread is lengthy and does not stay on one topic but moves tangentially to cover several, but they are related even if thinly. The "snippets" bit begins at the end of Dan's comments of Mar 2 @ 4:58.
Not long after those snipppets were posted, I responded to them all. Go have a look, but the Reader's Digest version is this, and you will then see for yourself the problem I had: Though there may be a mention of Christ's death and/or resurrection, or allusions to it, there is no mention as to what it accomplished. THAT, to me, seems obviously to be the paramount message that should be found somewhere in any example of a "Christian" service provided to show how orthodox or doctrinally sound such a service might be. How does God's creation, "the color green(?)", mechanics and miners, MLK's speech, etc, how does ANY of it matter versus SOME message of the reason for the season which that HE died so our sins will be forgiven and we now have salvation? Yet there's no mention in any of Dan's offerings. That is THE message of Easter. That IS the Good News and as such would be a much more orthodox message for a Christian church on the day celebrating that most important event in human history than any of what those "snippets" represent.
Thus, when a Christian church misses this basic notion of the meaning and purpose of the original Easter weekend, one can easily see how a traditional Christian would wonder at the priorities of such a congregation and how those priorities might shape and impact their Sunday School curriculum.
And as Dan has for years spoken of his religious and political views and how he believes those should be best manifested in everyday life, there too, we have been given reason for concern regarding those beliefs being passed on to their children. The concern is more real than can be expressed here, but Dan accuses us of lying about what he clearly says. He chastises us for not being committed to a means of expression, to a concern for context, and to an understanding of when support and evidence is needed or to be respected that he himself does not follow. Indeed, we are given the rules as we go so that what would pass for acceptable questions, criticisms and responses are somehow insufficient when they are ours, and far more broadly drawn when they are his. We do what we can under these grueling and unspecified conditions, but always come out the evil ones. He is not the first to play these games and then run away when victory seems lost.
Okay, thanks for answering. To summarize then:
1. You retract that my quotes "had no relation to the reason for season," and now admit that they ARE talking about Easter in that they have at least "a mention of Christ's death and/or resurrection, or allusions to it"
2. So your problem is NOT with the actual words that I quoted, since there is nothing wrong with those words, but rather, you are concerned "there is no mention as to what it [Jesus' death] accomplished" in the excerpts from our sermons.
3. Does this mean that you are backing away, too, from the false charges that our services "use Easter" to "celebrate nature and political protest?"
(Keeping in mind that you have never attended a Jeff St service and you know VERY LITTLE about what they are like and, thus, you can have no real serious opinion)
This is the false charge that you and Bubba raised, that we "use Easter" to "celebrate nature and political protest" - and thus far, it remains a false, unsupported charge, based wholly on whimsy and swamp gas. Do you back away from this false charge? If you do, an apology would be appropriate (not for my sake, but for your own).
IF YOU'RE NOT BACKING AWAY FROM THE FALSE CHARGES, THEN SUPPORT THE ACTUAL CHARGES USING OUR ACTUAL WORDS, NOT YOUR IMAGINATION.
How about it?
So, getting to what you are saying the problem is - it's NOT in ANY of the words we have said, they are all fine, you appear to admit now.
The problem, according to you now, is what they DON'T say. You would like for us to have more mention of what Jesus' death "accomplished."
Let's look at those quotes again.
1. Clearly, Jesus' life, death and resurrection "accomplished" his teaching of the very critical ideas that Jesus felt important to teach. In the so-called "great commission," Jesus called his followers to make disciples and teach them all things that he had commanded them. So, the re-telling of Jesus' story in song DOES accomplish a bit of that. EXACTLY that, in fact, giving a re-telling of the Sermon on the Mount and a brief summary of Jesus' problems with the pharisees.
Are you dismissing Jesus' teachings as not part of the "reason for the season"? You all seem to play pretty fast and loose with your Savior's actual teachings, I'll have to say, dismissing Jesus OWN TEACHINGS as not part of the "primary mission" of the church. Amazing.
2. The little easter poem reminds us that the Maker brings new life. Is that NOT part of the reason for the season?
3. Peter is quoted, saying, "He [Jesus] committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." When he was insulted, he returned no insult; when he suffered, he did not threaten; instead, he handed himself over to the one who judges justly." So, we have taught that Jesus' death clearly "accomplished" the purpose of being a moral example to the church.
4. Cindy's powerful sermon (even just the excerpt) clearly show how Jesus' death "accomplished" the purpose of teaching "his followers to take it up and carry it," not to fear it, DISMANTLING the power of the cross for the Romans, bringing a real liberty and freedom by that powerful, powerful grace. Can you not say HALLELUJAH to that, brother?
5. Jesus' OWN WORDS, reminding us that HE is the resurrection and life, "Whoever believes in me, even if they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die" - is that not "accomplishing" the reason for the season, or do you think Jesus' OWN WORDS are insufficient?
So, it appears that our words are perfectly fine and NOT in any way heretical nor do they indicate we "use Easter" to promote a political agenda or to "worship nature."
It appears further that our words are EXACTLY about the "reason for the season."
And finally, it appears that your entire complaint is that these few excerpts don't put things just the way you'd like to see them, even though there is nothing wrong with what they say, you'd rather we state it differently in a way that is more pleasing to you, Marshall.
NOT that the Bible demands that we teach it that way.
NOT that you have any real reason to prefer it that way other than your cultural traditions.
Is that a fair summary?
"(Having fun, Alan?)"
I honestly think you're both seriously disturbed. But as long as you're having fun, and you clearly must be, go at it.
Great! Now that I have Alan's go-ahead:
Beginning w/your 6:35AM, to summarize then:
1. To an extent, yes. But the mere mention of the events of the season is not the same as discussing the reason, or purpose or significance of those events.
2. Pretty much, though I wasn't concerning myself with what those snippets said or their relevance to the faith in general or even if there is anything to critique about them individually other than the fact that they don't speak to the significance of Easter.
3. Not exactly, because #1, that's a charge more attributable to Bubba, but #2, I agree with him that over the course of our years of dialogue there is so much that points to that possibility. As regards the snippets, the kid's song seems to me to reflect the typical leftist notions of class struggle that consumes you so much. THAT'S political. And by your own admission you ARE celebrating nature. Are you now saying you didn't say that?
Keeping in mind that I never have visited Jeff St so I can't know with certainty anything about them, it is apparent to anyone who actually reads our comments that we make no such claim, but only draw conclusions about it based on YOUR words and for any who look at the Jeff St website, THEIR words. We've shown how are conclusions are drawn, but all we have is your assurance we're wrong. Then you say more that reinforces that opinion. Thus, we're not lying or slandering and have nothing for which we need apologize.
Next---
"So, getting to what you are saying the problem is - it's NOT in ANY of the words we have said, they are all fine, you appear to admit now."
All I've admitted to was that the words did not reflect the actual message of Easter. As to whether they are "fine" is nothing around which I've concerned myself. To put it another way, at first blush they appear benign, but to study them in context, how they are used within an entire lesson or sermon...there's simply not enough there to accurately judge. So I concede it with that caveat.
"The problem, according to you now, is what they DON'T say."
Yes.
Let's look at those quotes again.
1. Easter does not celebrate or commemorate His life. It is His death and resurrection that is the point and what it does for us. The retelling of Jesus' story in a song with class struggle overtones does not highlight this at all. OR, if it does, it is far from obvious in an overly clever way (not uncommon it the first works of young writers). And Jesus' teachings to which you refer also do not focus on the Easter events. I have no problem with His teachings at all. I was concerning myself with what is taught or focussed upon in an Easter service.
2. No. It's not. That is it doesn't speak to how "rebirth" is now possible. Hint: It's not Christ's life.
3. Yes you have and perhaps He did. But that is not why He died. He taught living morally while throughout His life. This event meant so much more, but one wouldn't know it by what you present as a typical Jeff St. Easter service.
4. No, I can't. I don't agree that Jesus was teaching us to take up the cross. That was a teaching of His followers later. Jesus wasn't "teaching" anything but living out His purpose for being here, to give Himself up as a sacrifice for our sins so that we might have everlasting life. To whom can we provide everlasting life should we take up OUR crosses? No one. The term "taking up one's cross" is a metaphor for our sacrificing what we want for what is righteous in the eyes of God. It's a burden to do so before one is born again (less so afterwards for some). Jesus, OTOH, took up His cross to pay for our sins.
5. For an Easter service, the latter. It does not mention why all that is possible which a proper Easter service would. His wors are true, but if it stops there, the Easter message is incomplete.
Next---
Don't believe I used the word "heresy" in this discussion. That is far more applicable for other of your beliefs.
"It appears further that our words are EXACTLY about the "reason for the season."
I've shown how that is so totally untrue.
"...you'd rather we state it differently in a way that is more pleasing to you, Marshall."
Hell no, though how very snarky of you to say so. (And WE'RE accused of being ungracious.) I'd rather you state it in a manner more accurate as regards the events celebrated on Easter and what was accomplished by them. That you consider this an unreasonable expectation for a Christian church demonstrates the problems I have with your "prayerful study" of Scripture.
"NOT that the Bible demands that we teach it that way."
Made no such claim. What I said regarding the Bible is that the message of Easter is the overarching theme of the entire Book. That's not something any book normally says of itself, least of all a Book of books. That is something that should be obvious to those who have claimed to have engaged in "prayerful study" of Scripture.
"NOT that you have any real reason to prefer it that way other than your cultural traditions."
Obviously, as I have demonstrated here, I have real and concrete reasons that your ideas of proper Easter services fall short. You're still free to do what you want, no matter how misguided. As we have seen in our many discussions, that you don't put much stock in the truth regarding what Christ's D&R accomplished, I think our criticisms are justified, and that you offer glimpses of those services makes our criticisms legitimate.
THAT'S a fair summary.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshall,
In summation, you spoke truth when you said...
To put it another way, at first blush they appear benign, but to study them in context, how they are used within an entire lesson or sermon...there's simply not enough there to accurately judge.
Yes, it WOULD be incorrect and wrong to accuse a church of "using easter celebrate nature and political protest," because you DON'T have enough to accurately judge. You should let it go at that. And yet you continue to criticize and do so in ignorance.
You seem to be saying now that it was Bubba not you that argued that false charge (and indeed, it was Bubba who made the initial charge). But if you thought Bubba had made a false and slanderous charge (and since you admit that there is simply not enough to accurately judge, then it HAS to be a false charge, because you can't make an honest charge based on guesses), then why did you not call him to the carpet? No, instead, you chose to continue criticizing this church you've never attended and you've done so in ignorance and arrogance.
THIS is why I posted those quotes, for you to criticize something based on what we actually said, not on what you think we might NOT have said (and yet you can't know since YOU WERE NEVER THERE) or what you guess we might be saying or doing.
So, your complaints with what we ACTUALLY say consist of...
1. You find fault with a young man who has written a song paraphrasing Jesus' own words. ("The retelling of Jesus' story in a song with class struggle overtones does not highlight this at all.") He has not changed the meaning of the words. He has not suggested any more a notion of class struggle than Jesus did ("woe to you who are rich, blessed are you who are poor). Basically, he substituted Virginia for Jerusalem and an SUV for a camel.
If you truly think that because of his words, he's talking about class struggle and you find a problem with that, then you would, no doubt, accuse Jesus of the same thing. This is just another bit of evidence that makes me think that you all would likely be on the side of calling Jesus a heretic and trying to stop his radical words if he were here today. The song doesn't say anything different than Jesus' own words,as far as the message goes. It is another example of a graceless criticism.
cont'd...
2. You find fault with a sermon which affirms that Jesus has called us to take up the cross and follow him, and in so doing, the pastor wisely preached how it dismantled the power of the Roman empire and empowered the Christians to follow in his way.
You say, "I don't agree that Jesus was teaching us to take up the cross. That was a teaching of His followers later."
I'm not at all sure what you mean by this. Jesus quite clearly said, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."
Are you saying that Jesus in saying his followers should take up their cross and follow him, that he wasn't teaching just that, but something else??
No, you criticize my pastor's sermon, but it appears to be in error, based on poor biblical knowledge on your part, not in any way that there was anything wrong with her sermon.
3. You criticize that I think Easter celebrates Jesus' life, death and resurrection. You say, "Easter does not celebrate or commemorate His life." and you are welcome to that extrabiblical opinion. But you have no biblical reason for criticizing me or my church for thinking that there is more to Easter (which is, of course, not mentioned in the Bible) than just Jesus' death and resurrection.
Again, this would be an example of graceless criticism. You may prefer to think that Easter is solely about Jesus' death and resurrection, but WHAT IF I consider his life as part of the sum total of Easter? What difference does it make to you? It's not anti-biblical for me to think that, it's not anti-Christian, there's nothing immoral about it and yet you use it as yet another weapon with which to beat upon folks you disagree with.
In short, of our ACTUAL WORDS, you have no significant complaint, and yet you criticize, you moan, you wail and you crucify.
IF you want to admit that there is NOTHING to criticize in our actual words and that all your criticisms are based on your own misunderstandings, then please do so. Confession is good for the soul and good for the community of Christ. But if you only wish to continue to criticize in ignorance and arrogance that which you don't even know, then I invite you to go away and keep your critical remarks to yourself.
On the topic of our children's video, you admit that you haven't seen that and you've produced no biblical or logical reason to support your charge that our church was wrong to "allow" them to make the video, again, this is just another graceless and unthinking criticism based on your own ignorance. I invite you to keep those unthinking criticisms to yourself, too.
Marshall, you've had a chance to support your false charges and slander and you failed. Now, you can either own up to the mistake, apologize and comment ON topic or you can move on.
I don't want to see just more repeats of the already dismissed false charges.
[That last was a response to a comment that Marshall posted, repeating his false charges and empty slander. It was off topic and contributed nothing, plus there was no remorse expressed for his unfortunate, unfounded and unsupported attacks upon a church WHICH HE'S NEVER ATTENDED, and so I deleted it.]
Marshall posted another series of off topic unsupported attacks, which I deleted. I will post this excerpt, though. He quoted me and then responded...
"You say, "Easter does not celebrate or commemorate His life." and you are welcome to that extrabiblical opinion."
Extrabiblical?? It's a fact!! Easter is the day set aside to commemorate HIS DEATH AND (really mostly) RESURRECTION. The fact is further that YOU have no Biblical justification for disputing this.
Ummm, yes, you are correct. I have no biblical justification for disputing this BECAUSE EASTER IS NOT IN THE BIBLE.
If you wish to celebrate Easter exclusively celebrating Jesus' death and resurrection to the exclusion of his life, you are welcome to do so. I do not condemn you for doing so. Why would I? THE NOTION OF AN EASTER CELEBRATION IS NOT IN THE BIBLE, thus, I have no opinion as to how you wish to celebrate it.
I prefer to celebrate Jesus' life, teachings, death and resurrection because, for me, it is all of one cloth. It is all part of one whole Thing: Christianity. This is not a biblical position, of course, because THE NOTION OF AN EASTER CELEBRATION IS NOT IN THE BIBLE. It's just what feels correct to me.
The rest of Marshall comments were in that vein (vain?): Off topic and irrelevant and graceless, a way of propping up other unfounded and unsupported attacks towards a people he does not even know.
Marshall, once again, if you have no apologies and nothing to contribute ON TOPIC, then I invite you to keep your unfounded and unsupported criticisms to yourself.
Let it go, brother. This bitterness is not good for you or for anyone else.
OK, then. Your cowardly deletion of my comments might hide your sin, but He knows what you've done as well as I do. At MY blog, I let comments stand so that the readers can decide. This is typical of the right wing, made up of people of conviction willing to defend that conviction against all comers. I corrected Dan's many lies about my positions regarding his own words about his beliefs and his church and he lies about them and deletes them like the coward he is. And he dares call me ungracious.
Your cowardly deletion of my comments might hide your sin, but He knows what you've done as well as I do.
Yes, God DOES know what we do. In my case, he knows I chose to delete some off topic comments on a blog posting, AFTER graciously letting you make your "case" (or fail to, as the case may be) and then asking you to comment ON topic or go away.
God knows that you chose to keep making off topic comments that were attacking a beloved local body of Christ.
Do you suspect that God has strong opinions on blogging etiquette? (That's a rhetorical question, no need to answer - feel free to comment ON topic, though, if you have anything worth saying.)
"OK, then. Your cowardly deletion of my comments might hide your sin, but He knows what you've done as well as I do."
LOL
Deleting comments on a blog is now a sin? ROFL.
Get. A. Grip.
No Alan. The sin is that he is lying about me and deleting my comments has covered his lies by not allowing my defense. My comments were certainly ON TOPIC as he alluded to myself and Bubba as having criticized the kids' project. Amazing, but true and you can see that in the third comment in this thread. I showed he distorted the truth, he "gave me a chance" to support what he claims are false claims (which is a lie as the claims are 100% accurate and I showed why), but then after doing so he deletes them.
"Amazing, but true and you can see that ....."
Maybe I could if I cared. But I don't. Why would I? Would I care if he deleted every one of your comments? Nope, not any more than if he deleted mine. His blog, he can do as he pleases. Don't like it? Don't post.
Post a Comment