"Dirty Dishrags"?

[subllibrm]

The point of Chappel wasn't to shame or humiliate, but to get people to realize that some sins have long lasting implications and ramifications (Prov 6:32).

Are there consequences? Absolutely, but none of them should be a preacher of God's grace rubbing previous (presumably confessed and forgiven) sin in my face. My Savior promises to cleanse me, not hold it over my head for the rest of my life.

If nothing else, the preacher should point out a dish rag laundry service he knows of. That of course assumes he knows of such.

 

[T-Bone]

1Co 9:27  But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

castaway = worthless, reprobate.

Paul saying that he is making an effort to not become a castaway is a long way from saying a woman who has fallen in sin (or succumbed to the wiles of the apparently non-rag guy) is forever worthless (your synonym, not mine).

Eze 23:19  Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt.
Eze 23:20  For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.
Eze 23:21  Thus thou calledst to remembrance the lewdness of thy youth, in bruising thy teats by the Egyptians for the paps of thy youth.
Eze 23:22  Therefore, O Aholibah, thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will raise up thy lovers against thee, from whom thy mind is alienated, and I will bring them against thee on every side;

Many preachers of the OT used language that our Americanized Evangelical milquetoast sensibilities couldn't bare.  And in pointing that out I'd remind you that I never gave Chappel a pass for his manner of speech.  I would however, caution any person who tries to analyze a sermon snippet to listen to the entire necessary context before making judgment.  But on the FFF, fundys are always fair game.

Sorry but you lost me. Or better yet, application of the passage from Ezekiel is lost on me. Ezekiel was talking to all of Israel and her apostasy/idolatry. Paul was speaking of himself personally.

Coarse language, directed at people, is rarely something that folk can stomach, unless you have the winsomeness of an Adrian Rogers, who could call you a dirty dog whilst grinning from ear to ear, and when he was done you'd feel like he was still your bosom buddy.  Chappel is no Rogers, but dealing sin via rough language is not always inappropriate.

. How did the Israelites know of this metaphor he was using? Did they sit around talking about their men folk being hung like a mule who ejaculates like a horse?

Human nature hasn't really changed a whole lot, there's nothing new under the sun.  Paul used an expression equivalent to modern day scatological material.  Knowing your audience dictates how to speak to them, and occasionally situations arise that call for taking kid gloves off.  The point of Chappel wasn't to shame or humiliate, but to get people to realize that some sins have long lasting implications and ramifications (Prov 6:32).

You might call that proper preaching of God's Word, I do not.  If he has been there that long and still has to treat his people like a group of teenagers ...then he is not doing a very good job of discipling them, and encouraging them to grow up to spiritual maturity.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

1Co 9:27  But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

castaway = worthless, reprobate.

Paul saying that he is making an effort to not become a castaway is a long way from saying a woman who has fallen in sin (or succumbed to the wiles of the apparently non-rag guy) is forever worthless (your synonym, not mine).

Eze 23:19  Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt.
Eze 23:20  For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.
Eze 23:21  Thus thou calledst to remembrance the lewdness of thy youth, in bruising thy teats by the Egyptians for the paps of thy youth.
Eze 23:22  Therefore, O Aholibah, thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will raise up thy lovers against thee, from whom thy mind is alienated, and I will bring them against thee on every side;

Many preachers of the OT used language that our Americanized Evangelical milquetoast sensibilities couldn't bare.  And in pointing that out I'd remind you that I never gave Chappel a pass for his manner of speech.  I would however, caution any person who tries to analyze a sermon snippet to listen to the entire necessary context before making judgment.  But on the FFF, fundys are always fair game.

Sorry but you lost me. Or better yet, application of the passage from Ezekiel is lost on me. Ezekiel was talking to all of Israel and her apostasy/idolatry. Paul was speaking of himself personally.

Coarse language, directed at people, is rarely something that folk can stomach, unless you have the winsomeness of an Adrian Rogers, who could call you a dirty dog whilst grinning from ear to ear, and when he was done you'd feel like he was still your bosom buddy.  Chappel is no Rogers, but dealing sin via rough language is not always inappropriate.

. How did the Israelites know of this metaphor he was using? Did they sit around talking about their men folk being hung like a mule who ejaculates like a horse?

Human nature hasn't really changed a whole lot, there's nothing new under the sun.  Paul used an expression equivalent to modern day scatological material.  Knowing your audience dictates how to speak to them, and occasionally situations arise that call for taking kid gloves off.  The point of Chappel wasn't to shame or humiliate, but to get people to realize that some sins have long lasting implications and ramifications (Prov 6:32).

You might call that proper preaching of God's Word, I do not.  If he has been there that long and still has to treat his people like a group of teenagers ...then he is not doing a very good job of discipling them, and encouraging them to grow up to spiritual maturity.

If the women wear coulottes instead of pants, they're considered to be mature believers! 

 

[T-Bone]

1Co 9:27  But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

castaway = worthless, reprobate.

Paul saying that he is making an effort to not become a castaway is a long way from saying a woman who has fallen in sin (or succumbed to the wiles of the apparently non-rag guy) is forever worthless (your synonym, not mine).

Eze 23:19  Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt.
Eze 23:20  For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.
Eze 23:21  Thus thou calledst to remembrance the lewdness of thy youth, in bruising thy teats by the Egyptians for the paps of thy youth.
Eze 23:22  Therefore, O Aholibah, thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will raise up thy lovers against thee, from whom thy mind is alienated, and I will bring them against thee on every side;

Many preachers of the OT used language that our Americanized Evangelical milquetoast sensibilities couldn't bare.  And in pointing that out I'd remind you that I never gave Chappel a pass for his manner of speech.  I would however, caution any person who tries to analyze a sermon snippet to listen to the entire necessary context before making judgment.  But on the FFF, fundys are always fair game.

Sorry but you lost me. Or better yet, application of the passage from Ezekiel is lost on me. Ezekiel was talking to all of Israel and her apostasy/idolatry. Paul was speaking of himself personally.

Coarse language, directed at people, is rarely something that folk can stomach, unless you have the winsomeness of an Adrian Rogers, who could call you a dirty dog whilst grinning from ear to ear, and when he was done you'd feel like he was still your bosom buddy.  Chappel is no Rogers, but dealing sin via rough language is not always inappropriate.

. How did the Israelites know of this metaphor he was using? Did they sit around talking about their men folk being hung like a mule who ejaculates like a horse?

Human nature hasn't really changed a whole lot, there's nothing new under the sun.  Paul used an expression equivalent to modern day scatological material.  Knowing your audience dictates how to speak to them, and occasionally situations arise that call for taking kid gloves off.  The point of Chappel wasn't to shame or humiliate, but to get people to realize that some sins have long lasting implications and ramifications (Prov 6:32).

You might call that proper preaching of God's Word, I do not.  If he has been there that long and still has to treat his people like a group of teenagers ...then he is not doing a very good job of discipling them, and encouraging them to grow up to spiritual maturity.

If the women wear coulottes instead of pants, they're considered to be mature believers! 

 

 

[ALAYMAN]

You might call that proper preaching of God's Word, I do not.  If he has been there that long and still has to treat his people like a group of teenagers ...then he is not doing a very good job of discipling them, and encouraging them to grow up to spiritual maturity.

I wouldn't say it that way, and never said that it was the proper way to preach, but I'm willing to concede that many different styles suit a variety of people, and more importantly, that too many people in the pews are know-it-alls with far too much thin- skin.

 

[ALAYMAN]

The point of Chappel wasn't to shame or humiliate, but to get people to realize that some sins have long lasting implications and ramifications (Prov 6:32).

Are there consequences? Absolutely, but none of them should be a preacher of God's grace rubbing previous (presumably confessed and forgiven) sin in my face. My Savior promises to cleanse me, not hold it over my head for the rest of my life.

If nothing else, the preacher should point out a dish rag laundry service he knows of. That of course assumes he knows of such.

I agree with most of what you say, particularly the notion at the end, but I don't think that your first part is a proper interpretation of intent of the preacher.  Just because he warns of the effects and consequences of sin doesn't mean he is "rubbing it in".  For instance, if he were to preach to a congregation about having a good name/testimony in regards to keeping your word (ie, not being a liar) he might say that if you want to have an ounce of credibility with your friends/peers that you need to quit stretching the truth and telling tall tales, else be called a liar.  If the shoe fits then a person should take it to heart, but if "such were some of you" and you've gotten the victory then there's no reason to take personal offense.

 

[rsc2a]

Pulpits should be used to teach people how to offer grace,  not used to teach them to be misogynistic  jerks.

 

[AmazedbyGrace]

I agree with most of what you say, particularly the notion at the end, but I don't think that your first part is a proper interpretation of intent of the preacher.  Just because he warns of the effects and consequences of sin doesn't mean he is "rubbing it in".  For instance, if he were to preach to a congregation about having a good name/testimony in regards to keeping your word (ie, not being a liar) he might say that if you want to have an ounce of credibility with your friends/peers that you need to quit stretching the truth and telling tall tales, else be called a liar.  If the shoe fits then a person should take it to heart, but if "such were some of you" and you've gotten the victory then there's no reason to take personal offense.

The bride on her wedding day has certainly decided to no longer have premarital sex. So why is she being called a filthy dishrag? There is no circumstance where this is appropriate behavior from a pastor.

 

[T-Bone]

You might call that proper preaching of God's Word, I do not.  If he has been there that long and still has to treat his people like a group of teenagers ...then he is not doing a very good job of discipling them, and encouraging them to grow up to spiritual maturity.

I wouldn't say it that way, and never said that it was the proper way to preach, but I'm willing to concede that many different styles suit a variety of people, and more importantly, that too many people in the pews are know-it-alls with far too much thin- skin.

To each his own..I wouldn't stay 5 minutes under such preaching, and if one of these types said something to or about a family member of mine I would correct him right then and there.  I am not a juvenile and don't need a preeeecher treating me like one....nor do I treat the precious souls The Lord has entrusted to my care that way.

 

[ALAYMAN]

The bride on her wedding day has certainly decided to no longer have premarital sex. So why is she being called a filthy dishrag? There is no circumstance where this is appropriate behavior from a pastor.

I assumed his intent was to warn those who weren't yet married to reconsider any actions that they may be tempted to engage in prior to getting married.

 

[rsc2a]

The bride on her wedding day has certainly decided to no longer have premarital sex. So why is she being called a filthy dishrag? There is no circumstance where this is appropriate behavior from a pastor.

I assumed his intent was to warn those who weren't yet married to reconsider any actions that they may be tempted to engage in prior to getting married.

Those woman who aren't yet married. He doesn't mention the men...

...probably because he's a misogynistic turd.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Those woman who aren't yet married. He doesn't mention the men...

...probably because he's a misogynistic turd.

He may be, but that does nothing to advance the conversation regarding what was actually said, and the speaker's intent in saying it (unless you can read minds and hearts now).

 

[AmazedbyGrace]

The bride on her wedding day has certainly decided to no longer have premarital sex. So why is she being called a filthy dishrag? There is no circumstance where this is appropriate behavior from a pastor.

I assumed his intent was to warn those who weren't yet married to reconsider any actions that they may be tempted to engage in prior to getting married.

There was no reason to tear down all the women in the audience who were not virgin brides just to warn others. Simply reminding them (for the millionth time) that pre-marital sex is a sin should be sufficient.

The nonvirgin grooms did not receive the same condemnation. I guess he does not consider them filthy. Maybe he thinks Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to cover their sin.

 

[ALAYMAN]

There was no reason to tear down all the women in the audience who were not virgin brides just to warn others. Simply reminding them (for the millionth time) that pre-marital sex is a sin should be sufficient.

I wouldn't have said it that way either.  His warning via that type of speech was counterproductive (to the demographic you refer to), and he certainly should have spoke of the forgiveness and restoration offered to those who are guilty of past indiscretions but have since repented (he actually did do that to some extent, albeit poorly worded) but as I said earlier I also think that folk need to get a little thicker skin.  If a person has sinned in the past and gotten the forgiveness and victory over it through Christ then no man can do anything to damage that secure loving relationship and the attendant blessings. 

The nonvirgin grooms did not receive the same condemnation. I guess he does not consider them filthy. Maybe he thinks Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to cover their sin.

I assume you meant Insufficient in the above sentence.  Regarding his singling out of only the female fornicators I already said I believe he erred, and I'm not excusing him for not being more even-handed, but that old chivalrous mentality of looking to the female to be the guardian of sexual virtue still lingers in many minds (again, not excusing it).  It's a double standard for sure, and one that a preacher of the gospel shouldn't hold to (if indeed he does).

 

[Norefund]

Now you are just making me want to listen to Steely Dan music.

If the women wear coulottes instead of pants, they're considered to be mature believers! 

even if not a real gaucho

 

[Bruh]

I believe it is vitally important to leave room for the Holy Spirit. 

 

[AmazedbyGrace]

I assume you meant Insufficient in the above sentence. 

No. I meant what I wrote.

I agree it is an old and wrong concept that women are solely responsible for sexual virtue. Christ's sacrifice covers the sins of all - even women.

 

[AmazedbyGrace]

And about the congregation being too thin skinned:

You get what you tolerate, and women have been tolerating such garbage for far too long. Chappell should have been called on the carpet for his comments by the deacons, other staff, and the congregation. This happened in years past over the issue of throwing microphones and he stopped doing it. IIRC, an older gentleman kindly expressed concern over the wasted money (and hopefully over the violence aspect - although that was not said). I guess it is hard to keep demanding money from the congregation when you make expensive microphones disposable...

 

[T-Bone]

And about the congregation being too thin skinned:

You get what you tolerate, and women have been tolerating such garbage for far too long. Chappell should have been called on the carpet for his comments by the deacons, other staff, and the congregation. This happened in years past over the issue of throwing microphones and he stopped doing it. IIRC, an older gentleman kindly expressed concern over the wasted money (and hopefully over the violence aspect - although that was not said). I guess it is hard to keep demanding money from the congregation when you make expensive microphones disposable...

They can't challenge him...my bet is he is too thin skinned! I bet he is!

 

[Sherryh]

I have never heard any of these preachers trash women but if I did I would get up and walk out..........no real man that loves his wife or his daughters would never speak like this in a pulpit. It sets the stage to what happens at home and then is carried over into church. If you want women to dress right then live right and teach it ......don't preach and then go see another woman on the side...you will be found out..........this is my opinion.