Monday, December 20, 2004

No Comment

Just uh... tell me what you think about this post.

posted by jacob.thrasher @ 12/20/2004 04:14:00 PM   15 comments

COMMENT POLICY

Please refrain from the use of foul language. Any failure to comply will result in comment deletion.

15 Comments:

At Tue Dec 21, 02:15:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You still ought to apologize... publicly, respectfully and in the way a real follower of Christ would.

 
At Tue Dec 21, 02:52:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, not you. Neo. My point is, once again, that Neo should apologize. It doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong.

 
At Tue Dec 21, 05:23:00 PM, Blogger Lewis said...

I think Bunnie’s criticisms were spot on, if sarcastically abrasive in tone.

I think this church has strayed dangerously into the “secular”. Putting football as more important than worship, and overtly attempting to be “hip” strikes a sour note. The Church is not supposed to be “hip”. “Hip”, as far as I understand it, seems to mean “popular”, “in-with-the-times”, or simply “new”. The Christian Church should never attempt to be any of these things; achieving popularity amongst the unsaved means that the Church has lost its “salt”.

Historically, the Church has only been successful when it has run counter to the prevalent culture, not hand in hand with it. Only by remaining firmly entrenched in our “different-ness” can we effectively make a difference in the world; popularity is only achieved by making our message more “palatable” to our hearers. Palatable simply denotes “dumbing-down”. “Dumbing-down” unavoidably results in denying Christ.

I would hesitate to denounce this particular church based on their “mission and goal” statements… I can only say that I see no “salt”.

 
At Tue Dec 21, 07:15:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was kicked off and blocked, too, for pointing out that Bunnie loves to be sarcastic and abrasive and then complains when people do it to her. And then when I tried to point out where she had gone too far in flaying this church (I don't know too much about the Lutherans, but it hadn't compromised on any *major* scriptural issues like justification or infallibility.

Her loss.

-foolishyetwise

 
At Wed Dec 22, 12:48:00 AM, Blogger Lewis said...

foolishyetwise:

Bunnie’s sarcasm and abrasion isn’t really an issue for me. I feel that she brings up valid criticisms, and her Clausewitzian “total war, decimation, shock and awe” style of rhetoric is bearable…. considering that she has a point.

Criticizing her style is fruitless. That is who she is. On the other hand, (for those who disagree with her argument) positive, respectful counter-criticism will effect a infectious maturity in return.

If you really feel that Bunnie is completely counter-productive to Christian ministry, why not show a Christ-like gentleness in rebuttal? Wouldn't that be a far more compelling argument than anger?

 
At Wed Dec 22, 01:04:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Neo, et. al.,

You all know that I love nothing more than a vigorous debate. I live for it. I don't live for people saying, "You can't criticize them! They call themselves Christian!"

I can most certainly criticize them. I'll criticize Episcopalians for some of their false teachings and I'll sure as heck criticize fad-driven churches for watering down their teaching and, in some cases, teaching false doctrine. AND MORE THAN ANYTHING, I'm criticizing this church for not being Lutheran. Which is, I'm sure we all agree, a topic I know a bit more about than you might.

Christians need to discern between proper church teaching and practice and improper church teaching and practice. NOT EVERYTHING THAT IS DONE IN JESUS' NAME IS IN JESUS' NAME. Think of the televangelists' funneling money and promising healings, or pro-abortion Christian groups, or telling people that the Gospel is all about doing better works, or that being Christian will give you financial or earthly comforts.

THE ONLY PERSON on this thread in your blog who engaged what I actually wrote was S. Lewis. Everyone else was all, "Bunnie is mean!"

GET OVER IT. If you don't like my direct tone, you are free to go elsewhere.

But don't lie and say I don't like debate.

I love debate.

So much of American Christendom and especially the non-denominational/trans-denominational/inter-denominational community follows seemingly EVERY fad that comes around. They do this for six months to five years before dropping it like a ton of bricks and moving on to some newer fad.

But during that six month to five year period when discerning Christians are questioning the validity of the fad or the doctrine of the fad or what not, they get VILIFIED by folks for being unloving.

CRITICIZING DESTRUCTIVE AND WRONG DOCTRINE is the opposite of unloving. And it's high time that people wake up and realize that bad things are afoot in American Evangelicalism.

I know most of you are young, but not too young to start thinking about whether the Prayer of Jabez/Purpose Driven Life/Contemporary Worship/ etc. are really all they're cracked up to be.

Neo, I would be more than happy to have you back on the blog. And I really am sorry that my new blogpolicy caught you in the crosshairs.

I would like you back. But you could never again criticize me for debating false doctrine -- or accuse me of being holier than thou because I criticize false doctrine and insidious church practices.

So if you ever decide that you could live with that be sure to let me know.

 
At Wed Dec 22, 11:45:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse... Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord. Therefore 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Bunnie is neither evil nor your enemy. However, the concept above applies beyond the extreme case, particularly given that one should be subject to the authority of the person who hosts a blog. Just as Neo has every right to ban me or anyone else, so does anyone else who runs a blog. There is no such thing as "freedom of speech" on a private blog; it is the whim of the blogger to set the rules of speech on their blog. Speech is free in the blogosphere in that there are a million blogs upon which to surf, and a million ways in which one can set up their own blog.
Anyway, I continue to encourage Neo to apologize to Bunnie, play by her rules and provide his perspective there, without complaint or prideful backlash. Take your lumps and walk with humility (I wonder where that concept comes from?). I would suggest the same for others here.

 
At Wed Dec 22, 04:21:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am merely annoyed by the fact that, by criticizing Bunnie, she automatically assumed (a) I was defending this church and everything that it did; (b) I was judging her for criticizing; and (c) I was a [insert defamatory adjective here] postmodern relativist. None of these things are true.

Being right does not justify being mean, especially when it comes to calling out fellow Christians. Bunnie and I both erred in this. I thought that someone who regularly dishes out sarcastic vitriol would be able to take it. I was wrong, I'm sorry for attacking Bunnie personally, and I stopped posting sarcasm.

And I'm also sorry for not reading the website carefully enough and didn't see the bit about communion. if I said before that they weren't specifically teaching false doctrine, I was wrong.

I'll not argue about the church-growth movement (since it seems to be a pack full of wolves that are deceiving people and bringing down the folks who are really trying hard to be orthodox without being traditional), I'll just end by asking if you thought the way she posted and started kicking people off is REALLY going to help bring brothers and sisters back to the truth?

-foolishyetwise

 
At Wed Dec 22, 06:50:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

foolishyetwise...

I understand where you're coming from, but not being privy to all of your posts at Bunnie's blog it's difficult to make a judgment either way. But that's not important, really. From what I can gather, at Bunnie's blog it's best to tackle one thing at a time, make your argument (without casting aspersions or doubt on this particular blogger's motivation) and let the fun begin. Basically, state your perspective in a neutral fashion and don't respond or refer to the accusations that are sure to label you as a pietist or the label du jour that really means "not Lutheran". Know what I'm sayin'? My personal feeling about the "seeker-friendly" and similar church styles is that there's good and bad, just as there might be in a strictly Lutheran brand of church. But, what you have to keep in mind is that the Lutherans, at least on Bunnie's blog, see it all as black-and-white, good-and-bad, with no "bad" in the traditional Lutheran liturgy and theology. Maybe I'm stretching it a bit, but I think the passage in 1 Corinthians 12 refers not only to the individual church, but to the universal church. Everyone is different, thus their perspective on worship, liturgy, music and so on is different. I'll paint with a broad brush and say that most Lutherans I've encountered are, at their core, stoic and "intellectual". On the other hand, most charismatics I know are emotional and have "extreme" personalities. Many of them, before they were born again, had extreme lifestyles (sex, drugs and rock n' roll, as the cliche goes). In the big picture, these two "extemes" have much to offer each other. The Lutheran style can serve as a counter to some of the wacky ideas that come out of the charismatic movement and there are things that Lutherans could learn from charismatics. Neither should be free to look down on their brothers, but should be free to point out dangerous teachings and practices that are antithetical to the Gospel message. So, having written all that and hoping it made some sense, in the specific case of Bunnie's blog I recommend, once again, posting arguments without sarcasm and in humility. Don't be afraid to try humor, but it's a difficult tightrope to navigate, particularly in the harsh environment that is Bunnie's blog. There are some excellent perspectives and ideas to be found there, and the debate can be fun. But, you can't take it too seriously or too personally. It's incumbent upon you (and me and anyone else) to rise above the name-calling, do your best to stay within Bunnie's rules (however ill-defined they may be) and state your case as humbly (without being a "pietist") as is possible.

 
At Wed Dec 22, 07:27:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

Thanks for your words of wisdom. I agree with you on the Lutheran/non-Lutheran stuff. I'm planning on quitting the blogosphere anyway and this is really helping me do that, as it demonstrates to me that most arguments on blogs don't change anyone's mind and lots of manifestos that people put up are for their own sake more than anyone else's (me included, my pride always gets a boost from arguing.)

-foolishyetwise

 
At Wed Dec 22, 10:06:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

foolishyetwise...

De nada for the "wisdom", though I would define it as "rambling".

Do you think the passage in 1 Corinthians 12 applies to both the people within a local church and the universal church? I like this idea, because I think it helps explain denominations, which are often seen as a negative. Rather, the denominations should be a positive, as long as each is Christ-centered and agrees on the essentials, most important of which is that Christ made the one and only sacrifice for sin, for all who believe.

 
At Wed Dec 22, 10:48:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I definitely think that it applies to denominations, especially regarding divisions as to how to worship/preach/minister to its sheep.

-foolishyetwise

 
At Wed Dec 22, 10:57:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd like to diagram Duke's "apology" on Bunnie's Blog. I am not attempting to rip on Duke, but to point out some things that are not in keeping with what the Gospel clearly lays out as the best way to deal with each other. I also bring it up because I've been the recipient of many a halfway apology ("You're full of crap, but I apologize anyway"... Gee, thanks).

okay, i guess an appology would be nice. so i am sorry.

(So far, so good)

yes, i am a friend of neo's, and i have heard a lot from him about you.(some good, others bad)

(Why even bother with anything beyond, yes, i am a friend of neo's?)

also, i don't spell well, so please lay off.

(How about, "I don't spell well, but will make a better attempt on your blog."? It's her blog, and something like "so please lay off" tends to leave a bad taste in one's mouth, particularly following an apology)

i am very sorry if i got you angry, but i only said what i said from the rep you seem to have around on other blogs.

(Why bother with the "rep"? It's really a backhanded slap at the one receiving the apology. Some of the worst apologies of all time are those in which the apology is turned around on the one being apologized to, as in, "i am very sorry if i got you angry..." The blame is subtly slipped back to the one receiving the apology.)

but still, i am very sorry, and i will try not to push you into being angry at me

(see note above)

(in other words, i will follow your rules and respect them)

(This would be fine, if you actually did this -- follow the rules and respect them -- in your post)

also, i am not the kind of person who likes to be attacked personally. i was not trying to attack you, and if i did i am sorry. i just don't see some of the things you say to be moral or just.

(Don't take attacks personally in the first place, particularly on a blog. Who's your Savior? Who's the Good Shepherd? People's ill will should no longer be of any consequence. I write this while I struggle with it myself, but it's the ideal, and we should strive for the ideal. Further, there's no reason to say "I just don't see some of the things you say to be moral or just". This argument doesn't do anyone a bit of good. Not only does it nullify the apology, it's a negative argument. Make the positive argument, as in, "CCM is generally good, because... and let the one you're arguing with make up their own mind about whether or not they're being moral or just. At some point you have to leave room for the Spirit to work in someone's life and on their attitudes, rather than trying to force it by attempting to take the speck out of their eye)

ohh yeah, and my question was well thought out. why can't you see that christian music is good? it really bothers me that a christian would be nit-picky about something like that.

(Here, you break the rules you said previously you wouldn't break. I suggest waiting for an appropriate blog post -- and there are certain to be plenty of negative ones about CCM -- and explain why CCM is good, rather than calling the blogger a nit-picky Christian. Defend your position, and be done with it. And, again, there's no reason to say your question was well thought-out. Let it be self-evident, and if it's not, chalk it up to pearls to pigs)

but anyway, i said i am sorry. all i can do now is just sit back and watch your blog.
(peace)

(Peace? After you just slammed the blogger repeatedly? Probably not. I just don't think this apology will be accepted. Christlike or not, it's just the way people operate, and why it's incumbent upon believers -- even when dealing with other believers -- to suck it up and do the right thing)

Again, I am not trying to be harsh with you, but pointing out what I see as obvious problems with the way many believers deal with each other. Having been around the block on this a few times in my checkered career (mostly in interpersonal relationships), I am simply offering advice based on experience. It's the same stuff that makes my kids roll their eyes at me when I point out a better way of doing things. As I tell them, I've got about 30 years on you and I've learned a few things along the way, mostly thanks to God's saving grace. And, I offer it as one far from perfection, who sees more clearly his faults through the filter of Scripture.

 
At Thu Dec 23, 12:19:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Duke,

I knew you were sincere in your apology, and was really chalking it up to delivery and a lingering sense of injustice you were probably still feeling as you wrote it. As I said in the post, I've been the recipient of such apologies (from church people, I might add) and I've done the "I apologize, but you're still wrong" thing, and found it usually doesn't work for either party. I figure at least one person ought to get some absolution out of it. Heck, Jesus forgave from the cross, whether they wanted forgiveness or not (and I'm not comparing any of this to Christ's work on the cross, other than to use His perfection as a model). I'd encourage you not to drop out of the conversation, but to engage and learn. I also understood the "peace" sign-off (I have a friend who does it in every e-mail to me), but I also understand that "peace" can be hard to swallow at the end of a less-than-peaceful message.
Peace?

 
At Sat Jan 08, 04:59:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

you guys are soooo weird talking about something someone else said then making a HUGE deal out of it

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.


Take the MIT Weblog Survey Federal Social Security Calculator

Powered by Blogger

Who Links Here Religion Blog Top Sites Whose values?