So, I went back to look at the OP's link, and I didn't find one. I'm confused.
Fundies get hung up on the stupidest things...
- Thread starter Patebald
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 10,450
- Reaction score
- 3,710
- Points
- 113
Patebald said:
I don't care whether you take me seriously or not, but the fact is that your point is to say "it's stupid". That ain't a critique, that's a South Park (cleaned up) line. Presbys fight/fought over whether or not to use the organ/instrumental, or just the psalter. Denoms have debated whether head coverings are necessary or not. Different groups have varying levels of standards and scruples, but just because they're different from your priorities or scruples doesn't make them inherently stupid.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 10,450
- Reaction score
- 3,710
- Points
- 113
Izdaari said:
This thread you're reading was essentially a spin-off or reaction to the original where the Ipad was discussed. You can find the thread (with hyperlinked article in the OP) here...
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/pastor-put-your-tablet-away-and-bring-a-bible-to-the-pulpit/
ALAYMAN said:
Ah, thank you! :-*
But after looking at that, it doesn't seem he has a theological argument to make at all. Instead, he's talking esthetics and psychology. Which is ok, those things matter. But they are not theology. Still, his points are reasonable, and not based on quirky fundy hang-ups.
C
Castor Muscular
Guest
Izdaari said:
Strictly speaking, he's talking brand image, marketing and salesmanship.
Castor Muscular said:
I 'spose so. But all his points will vanish in a generation or two, as the older parishioners who can't quite psychologically accept words on an iPad as real Bible are replaced by a younger generation who takes it as totally normal, and may think paper books are odd.
C
Castor Muscular
Guest
Izdaari said:
The irony is that, if you do what he recommends, then you're making the paper bible the image to establish your brand. In other words, the paper Bible becomes the object used in a worldly way.
Castor Muscular said:
Yeah, I get that. Not a good plan, and though he's not an X'er, the emphasis on the importance of appearances is similar.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2013
- Messages
- 188
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
ALAYMAN said:
You're right. It doesn't make "them" as in the people stupid. But the issues that they get caught up in that make no difference whatsoever in the kingdom, are. This junk has been going on for centuries. Heck, Jesus addressed it Himself in Mark 7. He used some pretty strong language, too. churches, movements & denominations have divided over this crap & I believe God loathes every bit of it.
The problem in America isn't pastors using iPads in the pulpit. Or drums in their worship. Or the KJV in their teaching. The problem is the breakdown of unity within the body over these issues. Quite frankly, I think the whole thing stinks. My problem with the fundies isn't that they have a bunch of quirky regulations and rigidities. My problem is that they've made those things the benchmark for spirituality. And, too boot, the reason for which they have broken fellowship with other believers and followers of Jesus Christ. By the way, it's not just the IFB crowd that has done this. The unchurched want nothing to do with the bride of Christ because there is absolutely no unity amongst the followers and they can see it. While we are getting our panties in a wad over iPads and drums and superior translations, the unchurched are slipping further and further away from the scope of our influence. It's quite appalling.
John 17:20-23
“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 10,450
- Reaction score
- 3,710
- Points
- 113
Patebald said:
Okay, you've at least given something in this post that serves as a basis for further substantive conversation on the issue.
You said....
My problem with the fundies isn't that they have a bunch of quirky regulations and rigidities. My problem is that they've made those things the benchmark for spirituality. And, too boot, the reason for which they have broken fellowship with other believers and followers of Jesus Christ. By the way, it's not just the IFB crowd that has done this.
Where you come from there may be merit to the idea of disharmony and unmerited schism over non-essentials, but the article about Ipads in the pulpit had no such "quirky regulations". He wasn't suggesting disfellowshipping pastors/brothers who embraced technology in the pulpit, and could you cite where he was making some insinuation that his opinion made him more spiritual?
Secondly, you say that his "panties are in a wad" over non-essentials, but the tone and tenor of the article sounded like a plea for consideration of his ideas, not a declaration of a line drawn in the sand screamed by some managawd. Casting him in the light of some IFBx fundy who's ranting about skorts vs culottes is misrepresenting the nature of his writing. People from differing backgrounds can have mutual disagreements amicably. I just listened to a conference where Johnny Mac and RC Sprola represented differing respective views on Credo/Paedo Baptism. Both were forceful in their arguments opposing one another, but at the end of it they'd have each other's back regarding the stewardship and proclamation of the gospel. It was an in-house disagreement, and one that was approached with honor and mutual respect. I see the Ipad article in a similar light. Barrett wasn't calling tech-junkies compromisers or apostates, but merely asking them to think things through to ensure that the best methods and philosophies are being considered and employed.
Lastly, it is true that doctrine divides. Many good men (Adrian Rogers, Lloyd-Jones, Kuiper, Tozer, etc) have rightly said that unity at the expense of truth is not worth the compromise and actually dishonors Christ by nature of infidelity to truth. Ecumenism seems to be the implication of your attitude, or at least dumbing down the differences that sometimes legitimately divide evangelicals. Are there any differences within evangelicalism that you find to be legitimate reasons for warning and admonishing brethren?
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2013
- Messages
- 188
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Lay, I'd love to discuss this so much further but I just don't have the time. A couple quick thoughts...
IMO: Many evangelicals are missing the same point that the disciples missed when they said to Jesus:
“Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.â€
To which Jesus responded:
“Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward†(Mark 9:38-41).
The problem that I have with this article and so many like it is that the writer is drawing attention to the wrong issues which leads his readers and followers to ask the wrong questions. No matter how articulate the article may be and regardless of how many degrees the author has behind his name, at the end of the day those who read the article are going to have to choose a side. Should iPads be in the pulpit or not. And so... we choose. Unfortunately, the results are always the same. Those who choose "their" side have a natural proclivity to marginalize the side of which they chose the opposite. What happens next? We divide, of course. This has been happening for centuries. Millenniums. And it's absolutely fruitless.
Why are we challenging these cultural metanarratives when they have no moral value and certainly no doctrinal value? The only "value" they have is creating a contextualization for choosing a side. Let's be intellectually honest for a moment. Have you not seen this happen over and over again within the evangelical world?
We must be intentional about leading people to asking the right questions and focusing on the right issues. We must be HONEST about the difference between doctrine and tradition. It is intellectually dishonest and disingenuous for any evangelical leader to make issues like pants on woman, superiority of Biblical translations, drums in worship, iPads in the pulpit (the list is more than any of us have time to list) doctrinal issues. They are not. We can have opinions and we are certainly all free to practice our religiosity however we see fit (ROMANS 14), but the moment we start to draw attention to these issues corporately and cause people to start to question their position on those issues is the moment we start to derail the train.
You said "Ecumenism seems to be the implication of your attitude, or at least dumbing down the differences that sometimes legitimately divide evangelicals.". The fact that you even say this further validates my point. You have absorbed this divisive methodology for so long that you believe such issues are legitimate. There is NOTHING doctrinally legitimate about iPads in the pulpit. Or whatever else.... fill in the blank. Are there DOCTRINAL issues that sometimes force a division? Yes, of course. Rob Bells latest rant in "Love Wins" is one of those times. The great unfortunate fact, however, is that most of the division that we see taking place in the evangelical world is over man-made traditions and practices, not true Bible doctrine.
And for the record. I HATE the term ecumenism. Christ taught unity throughout His entire ministry and yet we see it as something evil that we need to avoid. Real revival, not a scheduled one, will happen in America when we truly become ecclesiastical in our churches, break down the walls of disunity and work together for the common goal of winning the lost.
Mark 7:5-14
5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?â€
6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“ ‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.â€
9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)—
12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother.
13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.â€
14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them. â€
IMO: Many evangelicals are missing the same point that the disciples missed when they said to Jesus:
“Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.â€
To which Jesus responded:
“Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward†(Mark 9:38-41).
The problem that I have with this article and so many like it is that the writer is drawing attention to the wrong issues which leads his readers and followers to ask the wrong questions. No matter how articulate the article may be and regardless of how many degrees the author has behind his name, at the end of the day those who read the article are going to have to choose a side. Should iPads be in the pulpit or not. And so... we choose. Unfortunately, the results are always the same. Those who choose "their" side have a natural proclivity to marginalize the side of which they chose the opposite. What happens next? We divide, of course. This has been happening for centuries. Millenniums. And it's absolutely fruitless.
Why are we challenging these cultural metanarratives when they have no moral value and certainly no doctrinal value? The only "value" they have is creating a contextualization for choosing a side. Let's be intellectually honest for a moment. Have you not seen this happen over and over again within the evangelical world?
We must be intentional about leading people to asking the right questions and focusing on the right issues. We must be HONEST about the difference between doctrine and tradition. It is intellectually dishonest and disingenuous for any evangelical leader to make issues like pants on woman, superiority of Biblical translations, drums in worship, iPads in the pulpit (the list is more than any of us have time to list) doctrinal issues. They are not. We can have opinions and we are certainly all free to practice our religiosity however we see fit (ROMANS 14), but the moment we start to draw attention to these issues corporately and cause people to start to question their position on those issues is the moment we start to derail the train.
You said "Ecumenism seems to be the implication of your attitude, or at least dumbing down the differences that sometimes legitimately divide evangelicals.". The fact that you even say this further validates my point. You have absorbed this divisive methodology for so long that you believe such issues are legitimate. There is NOTHING doctrinally legitimate about iPads in the pulpit. Or whatever else.... fill in the blank. Are there DOCTRINAL issues that sometimes force a division? Yes, of course. Rob Bells latest rant in "Love Wins" is one of those times. The great unfortunate fact, however, is that most of the division that we see taking place in the evangelical world is over man-made traditions and practices, not true Bible doctrine.
And for the record. I HATE the term ecumenism. Christ taught unity throughout His entire ministry and yet we see it as something evil that we need to avoid. Real revival, not a scheduled one, will happen in America when we truly become ecclesiastical in our churches, break down the walls of disunity and work together for the common goal of winning the lost.
Mark 7:5-14
5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?â€
6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“ ‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.â€
9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)—
12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother.
13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.â€
14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them. â€
:
Some interesting thoughts there from both Alayman and Patebald, and I'm not sure who wins that one. :-\
However, a side note: I do not think of "ecumenism" with a negative connotation and "evangelicalism" with a positive one, but rather the opposite.
Some interesting thoughts there from both Alayman and Patebald, and I'm not sure who wins that one. :-\
However, a side note: I do not think of "ecumenism" with a negative connotation and "evangelicalism" with a positive one, but rather the opposite.
rsc2a said:
But that is definitely a winner!
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 10,450
- Reaction score
- 3,710
- Points
- 113
rsc2a said:
But that is absolutely impossible to work out Biblically, unless you are ready to surrender fidelity of the essential truths, and justification by faith alone is most definitely an essential to my understanding of what the Bible teaches.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 38
rsc2a said:
Yes that is true.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 10,450
- Reaction score
- 3,710
- Points
- 113
bgwilkinson said:
Don't make the mistake of eisigesis that rsc2a did with that verse. The playing field is level for all types of people at the foot of the cross, with no preference being given to social, ethnic, or gender. That doesn't mean that doctrine should be relegated to the least common denominator. The same guy who wrote Galatians 3:28 also said that anyone who comes preaching another gospel ought to be accursed. Doctrine divides, rightfully so in the event that the gospel is corrupted.