From here:

It seems massively ironic to me that a book about full life is often read out as if it’s a shopping list or a takeaway menu, and that the account of God doing every last thing possible so he can to reach people is delivered in such a form that it alienates most of the population. I’m serious.

Freaking wow!

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , ,

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 1st, 2009 at 11:54 pm and is filed under Church and Society, grace, quote. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

76 Comments(+Add)

1   merry    
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:21 am

Aw, I love this article.

It reminds me of this one time I convinced my now-roommate that I didn’t have a sense of humor. We didn’t know each other all that well, and I do tend to have a very dry sense of humor, but it was hilarious how seriously she always took me. When I said “I don’t think I have a sense of humor that I’m aware of” (I was quoting Men in Black, haha) she got this shocked looked on her face and goes “oh my goodness, I’m so sorry!” :D Oh, my….

I’m not sure why people approach the Bible this way, but we do. I really, really, wish we could all read Hebrew and Greek because it just seems to me that most English translations are so dry. I usually have to look pretty hard to see the different personalities in the writing, and when one has heard the Bible their entire lives you tend to miss the humor and emotion even more….hmmm.

2   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 2nd, 2009 at 7:13 am

I entirely understand and agree with that thought, however the gospel will always be an offense to most people regardless of how it is presented. We Arminians must never make the mistake of believing that, as Rick Warren once said, if we can change the presentation almost everyone will desire Christ. They will not.

They did not desire the real Jesus, so to expect a great acceptance when Jesus is obscured in earthen vessels is misguided. And the ultimate danger is that if we manipulate and massage the gospel massively, we may end up with a bloodless, redemptive void as taught by men like Peter Rollins that is attractive because of people’s earthly needs and almost completely ignors the eternal predicament of sinners. And in the end you may well have people embrace a false concept of Jesus the Humanitarian rather than Jesus the Risen Christ.

The bloody cross and the empty tomb must still be proclaimed even when it is viewed as “foolishness”.

3   chris    
September 2nd, 2009 at 7:57 am

I entirely understand and agree with that thought, however the gospel will always be an offense to most people regardless of how it is presented.

I may be oversimplifying but isn’t possible that our presentation does matter though? I mean throughout scripture God called for all kinds of ways to get people to repent. Donkeys, whispers, burning altars, sleepless nights, blindness, leprosy, locust eating crazy men, etc…

If I have to be faithful in “going into all the world” I have to assume I must also be faithful in how I’m asked to deliver that message based on evidence in scripture. Some hear the street preacher and are convinced, others get the glass of water and are convinced.

4   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:08 am

“others get the glass of water and are convinced.”

As long as the message accompanies the cold water. That is my point, present the gospel of redemption in the most loving and gracious way, but always present Jesus as the way and the only name under heaven whereby we must be saved.

Without the name of Jesus the glass of water just quenches someone’s thirst, the same water that comes from a Muslim hand.

5   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:27 am

I only disagree with the last line. No matter how it is delivered, it will alienate most of the population, because to those who are perishing, it is foolishness, a rock of offense.

I agree with Rick; The worst thing we can do is somehow try and repackage the truth to make it more attractive; to reword it to make it more relevant. Warren, Rollins, Rob Bell, and Brian McLaren have a penchant for doing just that.

6   Neil    
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:06 am

Pastorboy,

While I agree that the Gospel will be an offense to some, it is a balm of healing to others.

Problem is, far too many Christian become offensive themselves- then take pride in the fact that they are being harassed for the Gospel… that the Gospel is indeed offensive.

When in reality it is them more than the Gospel.

There is nothing wrong with repackaging the truth… as long as the package contains the truth.

I believe this is the biggest stumbling block to many ODM’s (and maybe you) – they cannot see truth unless it is packaged in a manner to their liking.

This reminds me of Dan Kimball’s excellent little book – They like Jesus but Not the Church. Which could easily be reworded – they are attracted to the Christ, but not most Christians.

7   Neil    
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:15 am

Just for the record – above I was not arguing for or against any of the guys PB mentioned… just addressing the issue of how truth is presented.

8   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:24 am

There is nothing wrong with repackaging the truth as long as the truth doesn’t change and is easily understood. In Bell’s books those who appreciate his ministry must point to a scant few places where the gospel is “alluded to” when asked about the place the cross, the blood, and the gospel have in his writings.

That kind of repackaging is hollow.

9   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:52 am

Warren, Rollins, Rob Bell, and Brian McLaren have a penchant for doing just that.

So do Schleuter, Ratliff, Silva, and John…

10   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:02 am

#9 – Agreed. One side makes the gospel more palatable and even changes it sometimes, while the other side makes the gospel harsh and judgmental and in so doing changes it.

Calvinism is heresy at its core and may well in eternity prove to have been just as great a stumblingblock to evangelism and humble discipleship as the emergent church. Judging from many internet Calvinists that theology breeds self righteousness, judgmentalism, human idolatry, and an appreciation for their doctrine of redemption over an appreciation for the reality of God’s redemptive love for mankind.

11   John Hughes    
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:08 pm

I recently came across a surprising retelling of the parable of the unforgiving servant in Sex and The City: The Movie (Yes, I admit it, I’ve watched some of it. It wasn’t bad, actually.). Now, I’m not naive, the writers may not have deliberately been retelling Jesus’ parable. But the story and the truth were there, no doubt.

What a coincidence. I recently came across a surprising retelling of the story of Hagar and Ismael in Debbie Does Dallas IV. (Yes I admit it. I watched some all of it — twice.). I’m not naive, the writers the writers may not have deliberately been retelling the same story. But the story and the truth were there, no doubt.

12   John Hughes    
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:11 pm

The Bible was originally delivered mouth to mouth – back in ye olden days people preferred the oral tradition, they wanted these stories to be living and breathing, they were in no rush to write them down.

Chris L – what say ye?

13   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
September 2nd, 2009 at 2:04 pm

John,

Thank you for adding little to the conversation. I certainly appreciate it. A simple, ‘I disagree’ would have sufficed.

jerry

14   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 2nd, 2009 at 2:16 pm

In the face of how many distorted recitations and interpretations of written Biblical stories abound, I cannot see how oral communication could possibly more accurate. In fact, if oral communication of God’s Word is the preferred method, then the written Scriptures are a compromise and a dilution.

Jerry – There still must be something wrong with the post “Grace” since I cannot open it.

15   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
September 2nd, 2009 at 2:21 pm

Is anyone else having trouble seeing it? What don’t you see Rick?

16   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 2nd, 2009 at 2:24 pm

It’s fixed – thanks.

17   John Hughes    
September 2nd, 2009 at 2:44 pm

Jerry,

It’s called satire, a genre which is nowise in short supply around these parts and hopefully adds a little humor into the mix instead of an in-your-face graceless response. I also find it ironic that the use of satire is being questioned here.

Wow! Irony AND Satire in the same post.

**Reboot**

One of the main “beefs” the ODM crowd has in regards to the emerging family’s attempts to “relate” to the unsaved world is when the Christian making the in-road attempts to “relate” to the lost around them by using blatantly sinful methodologies. In this I tend to agree.

For example, this author attemps to relate by utilizing a biblical example drawn from a blatantly sinful movie. “Sex In the City” is a TV series and movie which is unabashidly about the sexual exploits of unmarried women. Please explain in what universe it is proper and fitting for any Christian to obtain entertainment and enjoyment from experiencing the vicarious sexual sins of blatantly promiscious people engaged in any number of sinful acts.

**Sorry, times up**

Moving along — as someone who struggles with pornography issues viewing such a movie would not be wise, nor do I think it Biblical for any Christian to obtain entertainment from the sexual exploits of others. (And yes this is a conviction, not a preference with a myriad of Biblical support). And for Christian authors to reference such movies in a positive manner is unwise at best and a sure stumbling block for Christians weak in this area as I can fully attest.

My satire points out this fallacy as the movies in question only differ in the degree of the explicitness of the sexual acts depicted on screen. And again, why I am defending the use of satire on this site?

*******

There Jerry is that better?

18   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 2nd, 2009 at 3:28 pm

Debbie Does Dallas IV was poorly scripted. The III version was much richer. :cool:

19   deborah    http://smallcorner.typepad.com/mine/
September 2nd, 2009 at 3:43 pm

John, I agree with you that “Sex in the City” has a lot of exploits that glorify the wrong thing. I haven’t seen it myself and given your issues, I would completely agree that you shouldn’t watch it, nor should others who share your struggle.

However, finding a retelling of a parable that Jesus told in it, would provide me with a wonderful opening to relate things of God to the interests of a friend of mine who saw that movie.

See, she has issues and sees that show as an illustration of her life. If I don’t understand her or her viewpoint, how am I supposed to talk to her – because she certainly doesn’t understand mine.

A stumbling block for you may very well be an opportunity for me, and the Holy Spirit.

As for the difference between “Sex in the City” and “Debbie does Dallas” (a movie that has haunted me for years, given my name) is that one depicts a large group of sinners’ every day experiences and the other is pretty much unrealistic fantasy for most (well, except for Hugh Hef).

20   Neil    
September 2nd, 2009 at 3:58 pm

John,

Where did the quotes in 11 and 12 come from? Source siting is always helpful.

21   Neil    
September 2nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm

John,

He said he watched part of the movie – which implies he did not go to see it in a theater, but was probably channel surfing (or the like) and caught part of it – he was not recommending it. It was a simple illustration.

It amazes me that you read that whole blog post and your take away was how he should not be watching such stuff.

It reminds me of a Tony Campolo anecdote of which I cannot remember the details – anyone help here?

22   Neil    
September 2nd, 2009 at 4:22 pm

I cannot see how oral communication could possibly more accurate. In fact, if oral communication of God’s Word is the preferred method, then the written Scriptures are a compromise and a dilution. – Rick

I didn’t take either of these points from the blog. He’s reminding us that the Bible was communicated orally, but he does not say that that is more accurate, or even preferred.

And even if you grant that he preferred oral communication, hoe does it follow that written is them a compromise and a dilution?

23   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 2nd, 2009 at 4:33 pm

Funny that some are bringing up porn movies and saying that they are “wrong”… I agree that I would never use them in a fashion to present the gospel….

But then I am confronted with passages like this…

Ezekiel 23: 11. “Her sister Oholibah saw this, yet in her lust and prostitution she was more depraved than her sister. 12. She too lusted after the Assyrians–governors and commanders, warriors in full dress, mounted horsemen, all handsome young men. 13. I saw that she too defiled herself; both of them went the same way.
14. “But she carried her prostitution still further. She saw men portrayed on a wall, figures of Chaldeans portrayed in red, 15. with belts around their waists and flowing turbans on their heads; all of them looked like Babylonian chariot officers, natives of Chaldea.
16. As soon as she saw them, she lusted after them and sent messengers to them in Chaldea. 17. Then the Babylonians came to her, to the bed of love, and in their lust they defiled her. After she had been defiled by them, she turned away from them in disgust. 18. When she carried on her prostitution openly and exposed her nakedness, I turned away from her in disgust, just as I had turned away from her sister. 19. Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21. So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.

So how true is it then as to the presentation… If I told this story and someone like PB walked by and heard me, I would be judged and condemned while the person I am telling it to even “repackaged” may hear the Call of Christ Jesus and be saved. I would rather suffer the judgement and condemnation of some and do as God calls me to do then not hear what God wants me to do even if it is distasteful to myself.

Again, if we were to make a movie of the Bible as accurate as we could, how would one present this passage… who would we show the “genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses”? Or would we water down the Gospel by fearing what others think of us… even our so-called brothers and sisters who live to twist others words and lie about others in every breath… and then claim to be the victim when they are called on their lies… I say their day will come and God will reveal them for who they are… and is doing so even now.

Truth can be harsh… packaged in perversion… I know an ex prostitute who was lead to Jesus by her John who broke down crying after she serviced him… He told her that he had sinned… and at first was angry. He stated, “the difference is I am a Christian and I know better… you do not know Jesus and do not.” She was intrigued and asked him to tell her about Jesus… and she was saved. Was this a divine appointment as many call other such meetings without the “sex”? Or was it a failure God turned to good out of Grace?

You tell me judges of Christendom… how can you stand and judge others and still not see you are not worthy of the same Grace… and even worse just others as if your Grace was more special than what God gave to all mankind on the Cross… tell me how you earned such great favor from God…

And I will cry out turn back to Jesus to you until you hear His Voice and repent of your sinful judgment and condemnation of others.

iggy

24   deborah    http://smallcorner.typepad.com/mine/
September 2nd, 2009 at 4:36 pm

Neil:

“I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.”

I was in the audience one of the times Campolo said that. Brilliant.

25   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 2nd, 2009 at 4:38 pm

and even worse just others as if your Grace was more special than what God gave to all mankind on the Cross

Should be judge… sorry

26   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 2nd, 2009 at 4:40 pm

deborah… Campolo stated that in many presentations… I heard it at Spirit West Coast around 1999 or so… It should make someone think… yet… those it should effect the most… just get hung up on one word and miss the point.

27   Neil    
September 2nd, 2009 at 5:22 pm

Deborah,

That’s it – thanks… anyway, John’s objection to the Sex in the City illustration made me think of that.

28   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 2nd, 2009 at 5:38 pm

I guess it comes as no surprise that I believe I have a wide range of illustrations that do not confine me to using things I deem inappropriate. I waste more time than is necessary watching appropriate TV shows without…well, you know.

29   Neil    
September 2nd, 2009 at 5:48 pm

The appropriateness of the reference was not my point… my point is – of all the things to take away from the blog…

30   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 2nd, 2009 at 5:57 pm

I can only fully communicate what I take from a post orally. That preserves my thought. :cool:

(see “satire”)

31   John Hughes    
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:09 pm

Iggy,

How about the same grace from you for me you demand of me for others? Righteous indignation is the the eye of the beholder and applies to everyone but yourself apparently.

Your comparison of the mature portions of scripture to sex themed contemporary movies is ludicrous. People go to entertainment movies (vs. documentaries, etc.) to be, well, entertained. I repeat again, how do you justify Christians receiving entertainment by experiencing sin vicariously through watching others in their sinful acts? Everyone is sidestepping this core issue.

As you admitted, the passages to which you refer are truthful accounts of historical events which the Bible does not cover up presenting the sins of its saints and the human condition, but for a reason. These accounts were NOT recorded for our ** entertainment**, but for our edification and admonition. A world of difference. To intimate it is “OK” for Christians to obtain enjoyment and entertainment vicariously from the sexual experiences because such a knowledge base could be a beneficial witnessing tool is misguided and has nothing to do with being judgmental or graceless.

And I will cry out turn back to Jesus to you until you hear His Voice and repent of your sinful judgment and condemnation of others.

Back at you sir.

32   M.G.    
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:18 pm

Re:31

You realize, right, that with the whole “watching others in their sinful acts” standard, you’re throwing out, well, everything Shakespeare has ever written, along with virtually every work of literature produced by Western civilization?

Isn’t there a better standard?

Or do you honestly avoid all forms of entertainment?

33   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:53 pm

I avoid all entertainment and I refrain from even a hint of a smile, to say nothing of an unguarded chuckle. In short, I disdain all forms of humor and cast them all to the pit itself. :cool:

The accounts of sin in the Bible do not give license to be entertained by watching immorality by others. I am not stimulated by seeing a murder, however I am given to lust when I see nudity and sexual acts. The New Testament and the teachings of Jesus forbid me to cultivate such imagery.

34   Neil    
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:58 pm

I repeat again, how do you justify Christians receiving entertainment by experiencing sin vicariously through watching others in their sinful acts? Everyone is sidestepping this core issue.

I am not sidestepping it – I am basically ignoring it since it’s far from the core issue.

Seriously, a guy references a movie he says he only saw part of and this becomes the core issue?

Although I must admit, the whole experiencing sin vicariously through watching others in their sinful acts – is quite the statement.

35   nc    
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:59 pm

there’s some classic opera that is pretty scandalous…but nobody seems to bat an eye at that…

36   Neil    
September 2nd, 2009 at 7:02 pm

To make this the issue involves far too many assumptions… such as, he saw the scenes that depicted sinful acts and he experienced such acts vicariously through them.

Does this mean every murder I have scene depicted in a movie I also committed vicariously?

37   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 2nd, 2009 at 7:05 pm

Pointing out other potential inconsistencies does not validate any issue. Whatever the problem with some forms of immorality and scandal as represented in some art forms, gazing at sexual acts, enhanced by modern photography, makeup, and sometimes music cannot be anything but counterproductive to a pure mind.

38   nc    
September 2nd, 2009 at 7:27 pm

or it’s just sex…

that i’m not having, nor with anyone i’d even be remotely attracted to…

so it doesn’t really mean anything to me or incite me to lust…

just say’n

39   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 2nd, 2009 at 7:30 pm

#38 – We must have different genes. The entire porno industry relies on the lust factor, and I am positive the Holy Spirit does not enjoy it.

I cannot comprehend how it can be argued that it is permissible for believers to watch pornography.

40   Neil    
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:18 pm

I must have missed the comment that said it was permissible for believers to watch pornography.

41   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:43 pm

John Hughes,

I was not aware I was even talking to you… or addressing you… so apparently maybe the Holy Spirit is speaking to your own heart? It was not me addressing you… so who was?

Grace back at you in the most glorious way that Christ can reveal it to you…

Now I am not sure you understood at all what I was saying… but then again, you felt it was a personal attack at you… I was pointing out that there are some rather graphic depictions of sin in the Bible and some seem to condemn others for pointing those out… or as in the case of Mark Driscoll and SoS he taught nothing I have not already heard from some of the best biblical scholars out there… Dr. David Hawkins years ago taught through SoS and I was quite shocked the “Christian” radio station let him say the things he stated that was behind the euphemisms in that book… it is really a graphic and sexual book that the Jews felt that kids should not read until they were adults…

The point was not justifying porn movies… but rather confronting the self righteousness of those who think that any mention of sex is wrong… they should take that up with God who created sex and speak frankly about it both in good ways and in rather graphic and sick ways…

To me it as much a sin to water down those passages as it is the rest of the Gospel as those passages are also the story of the whole Gospel and as Jesus states of Scripture as a whole; speaks of Him… (John 5: 39)

iggy

42   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:52 pm

Neil – nc intimated that it did not affect him adversely.

43   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:54 pm

BTW that should be Dr David Hocking not Hawkins so someone does not now accuse me of pushing new age teachings

44   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:59 pm

Thank God for Song of Solomon, it is the gold standard for claiming the Bible has explicit sex. Gorrillas don’t need instructions, just man. I have never seen a pack of dogs sit down and watch tow other dogs mating.

What a piece of work is a man.

45   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:04 pm

BTW – I believe God’s grace is sufficient to cover the sin of pornography, just as it is sufficient to cover the sin of homosexual behavior.

46   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:14 pm

Rick sorry that is not the point of SoS… and yes… gorillas can have sex, but man has the capacity to learn greater intimacy which is what the SoS is about… in this realm between a lovers… and in the spiritual between humans and God… it is more than a sex manual which it is a great one…. inspired even by God… yet it is also a manual to learn intimacy and growth in how to love one another.

1. He is mine.
2. He is mine and I am his.
3. I am his and he is mine.
4. I am surrendered totally unto my beloved I am his.

The pregression is beautiful… so to say someone like me is reducing to the bible having expicite sex… well that misses the point. It does yet there is more. It is like when you first get married… you think that you will get all the sex you want, then as you grow mature in your marriage, you learn more and greater ways to love your spouse… it does not mean that the sex is bad or not as good, but that you have grown to show more ways to give love to your beloved than just sex.

iggy

47   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:15 pm

Grace/Love covers a multitude of sins, but many would not know this as they are too busy hiding their own sins or pointing out the sins of others.

48   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:43 pm

#17, No John it’s not better. Porn isn’t funny.

49   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:44 pm

#17, I didn’t detect satire. I detected you mocking someone else’s comment.

50   chris    
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:41 pm

This thread kind of reminds me of this song.

51   John Hughes    
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:56 am

Iggy,

I was not pointing out the sin of another Christian. I was pointing out my strong distaste to a talking point a blogger had made which I found to be unbiblical, unwise and which could be a stumbling block to others.

Obviously implicently condoning watching others have sex is “good” and calling people out on it is “bad”.

My mistake. I would remind everyone, including myself, that although all things are permissible all things are not profitable and one who thinks they can watch or read sexually explicit materials and remain unaffected are deceiving themselves.

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. (Philippians 4:8)

52   John Hughes    
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:17 am

Jerry, I was not mocking a comment from someone commenting here, I was making an editorial comment on a direct quote from the blogger’s article, which in my opinion was amaturish, contained questionable historical research and faulty conclusions based on that research, not to mention its condoning of questionable practices. I started my comments with a use of satire.

And you know what? Very few people here (including myself) consisently take the high road and the emergents dish it out just as mean-spirited as the ODM’s. Many of the comment streams here are an embarrassment and I am sometimes shocked at what is said to each other. Heaven knows what a lost person might think if they came across some of the comment threads here. I have tried my best to refrain from personal attacks. I am not aware that I have questioned anyone’s salvation or personally insulted anyone. But one of my “goats” is calling evil, good and good, evil and as someone who battles certain issues it provokes a strong response in me.

I am a forgiving person and understand my own failings and humanity. I have been a member of this virtual community for several years. I disagree with much, but I also agree with much. I have learned much. Interaction here has both changed some outlooks and strengthened some previously held convictions. I consider myself a centrist and for example agree that Slice and gang have lost their way. But there are still some issues I find myself worlds apart on and will continue to say so. I would only expect the same from others.

53   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:27 am

John,

Where did the author of the post suggest he was emergent?

My bad on the comment thread, but it is still a mockery of what was written. How do you know his research is faulty? How do you know his conclusions are faulty?

And I still don’t think porn is funny.

jerry

54   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:48 am

Not to derail this thread any more than it is, but I’ve often wondered why Christians get more upset about movies like Sex in the City (which I sadly admit I have seen some of – and no, as I recall I didn’t see any “bad” scenes, but I didn’t watch the whole thing either) than they do about movies that celebrate violence. For example, I don’t know how many sermons I’ve heard where people use the movie Braveheart for some sort of illustration, and not many people seem to care about that.

It does seem to me that Walter Wink is correct in his assertion that American Christians have largely bought into the myth of redemptive violence. Perhaps that why we don’t mind getting a little violent with each other every now and then…

55   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:10 am

“the emergents dish it out just as mean-spirited as the ODM’s.”

You’ve noticed that too? :cool:

The human flesh resides within all of us and is easily summoned. Even though movies like “Braveheart” are violent they have some redeeming qualities of good vs. bad. They can incite violence within us to be sure, but nothing incites like sex in most normal people.

Enjoying the fleshly and crude conversations between premiscuous women and watching sexual demonstrations that substantiate their lifestyles has no redeeming qualities. However, if you mean that violent pictures are on some level counterproductive I am sure you are correct.

56   John Hughes    
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:30 am

Phil,

#54 – I somewhat agree. It is human nature to want revenge. Most Christians know that vengence is the Lord’s and we are not supposed to take vengence ourselves. Therefore in our hearts we hope that GOD WILL SMITE THOSE SINNERS! But as many have rightly pointed out here, God is in the business of redemption. We, as humans, don’t want others to be forgived/redeemed/shown mercy from preceived wrongs, we want them punished (but of course we want redemption/forgiveness for ourselves).

A prime example is this “pastor” that is praying for God to smite Obama with cancer. How horrendous, how anti-Christ. Would it be that Obama be utterly saved (not to judge) and utterly get inline with God’s plan for his life and this country. That should be our prayer. But in our humanity even some Christians don’t understand the heart of God, redemption, grace and mercy.

Therefore violence in movies particularly the violence of revenge is extremely pleasing to the flesh. This is not a good thing but it is inside all of us and only and understanding and constant meditation on God’s grace, mercy and forgiveness can over come this.

57   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 am

John Hughes,

Again, I am not even sure what you are saying concerning what I posted. I never stated porn was good… it is not… I never condoned looking at it and even stated I would not think it appropriate that one presented the gospel in that way…

Now saying that, then the bible uses rather graphic if not pornographic imagery at times. Do you deny that? I just see that to water those passages down as some do is just as bad as when other state some water down the gospel. I bet that your pastor has never read out loud that passage and preached on it. In fact I doubt Pastorboy ever would… or Rick Warren… so then I see that both are equally watering down the gospel in their preaching. = )

Yet, there it is… in the bible…

Now, I am not sure what your beef is with me John… but my prayers are with you.

Grace and peace to you.

iggy

58   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:22 am

BTW John H, as far as emergents dishing it out… yes… some do, yet some do not. Some teach not to dish it out at all.

Also, do you know the difference between emerging and Emergent?

And… yes… many of us “Emergents” have learned well from our critics.

iggy

59   John Hughes    
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:02 pm

Now, I am not sure what your beef is with me John… but my prayers are with you.

Thanks. Prayers are always welcomed. Unless you want to smite me with cancer. :-)

60   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:02 pm

Iggy,
There’s a difference of a graphic description of something – something I don’t think most people would deny is in the Bible – and a pornographic description. I do not think anything in the Biblical narrative can really be described as pornographic. Perhaps some would say some of the SoS passages, but I would hesitate even saying that.

Something can be explicit without being pornographic. There is a difference. I would say the difference is largely in the intent. Pornography is intended to arouse lust. I can’t think of any passage of Scripture that really meets that description.

61   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 pm

“Now saying that, then the bible uses rather graphic if not pornographic imagery at times. Do you deny that?”

Yes.

“I just see that to water those passages down as some do is just as bad as when other state some water down the gospel.”

I am not sure how you respond to the absurd.

62   nc    
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm

i’m not saying we should watch porn…

i was talking more about that stupid sex and the city show.

63   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:49 pm

Phil,

If I was to make a movie depicting that passage as accurate and graphic as it is written… it would be called pornographic.

Here is my case and point.

This is a post from a critic of Peter Rollins… who calls Peter Rollins theology “pornographic theology“…

See what I mean.

Again… tell me how would you accurately depict that passage? I guarantee that many “Christians” would say it was pornographic if it was not in the bible… but saw it in another book or movie.

Now I understand about intent. I understand that God did not inspire Ezekiel to write it to cause people to lust, but to warn others and also show the compassion and love God had for Israel… yet, come on Phil… take it out of the bible… I mean the Kuma Sutra is a holy book… yet… would you not call it pornographic? It is by definition #3… Would you deny that SoS was not written to arouse erotic love?

Read it like someone who did not believe the Bible to be God’s word and tell me.. what would you think of it?

iggy

64   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:55 pm

Rick… so you believe in watering down the bible or changing the text to fit your standard?

I mean… you are calling that absurd? I think to change what is written in the bible is just plain wrong. You can change the translation, but to change the meaning and graphic depictions… is wrong…

I mean… Jesus never bleed on the Cross like in all the movies right… except for the little trickle of blood from the Crown of thorns… he was brutally deformed at all… right? What kind of cleaned up gospel do we present at times… and when does it then stop being the gospel but a perverted version that has cleaned away the blood of Jesus and never talks of the sickness known as sin? I mean to some showing Jesus as a man with dark skin is offensive… or to say he was a Jew offends many… so where do we draw the line? How absurd is that really to say do not clean up what God has given in His Word?

iggy

65   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:25 pm

Now I understand about intent. I understand that God did not inspire Ezekiel to write it to cause people to lust, but to warn others and also show the compassion and love God had for Israel… yet, come on Phil… take it out of the bible… I mean the Kuma Sutra is a holy book… yet… would you not call it pornographic? It is by definition #3… Would you deny that SoS was not written to arouse erotic love?

I would say that it was meant to describe erotic love to a big extent, but as far as arousing it, I don’t know. I do not think that it’s fair to say that the SoS was some sort of ancient Playboy… For one thing the way that particular Scripture was read and who was allowed to read was very controlled. It was certainly considered explicit enough to warrant limitations on who could read it.

Whether or not some other reader with no Biblical knowledge comes about and declares it pornographic seems a bit irrelevant to me. With the standard use of word in contemporary culture, I do not think it would qualify as pornographic. Graphic or explicit, yes. Pornographic, no.

66   Chris P.    
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:28 pm

“If the gospel were more faithfully preached, there would be fewer people professing to believe it.”
A.W. Pink

“Faith does not procede from ourselves but is the fruit of Spiritual regeneration” – John Calvin

You are no better than the shopping listers.
Those “born again from above” are regenerated by the Holy Spirit at the Father’s good pleasure, not by how YOU present it.

67   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:46 pm

“If the gospel were more faithfully preached, there would be fewer people professing to believe it.”
A.W. Pink

Oh, yes… spoken like a true elitist.

Why don’t just go away Chris P.? I’m sure it pains you to condescend to the level of us peons.

68   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:32 pm

To amplify the miniscule sections of Scripture that deal with sex is a colossal misrepresentation of the entire Biblical narrative and says something of our culture more than it says about God.

69   nc    
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:39 pm

#66:

oh great god Chris P…

last time i checked the writings of Pink and Calvin weren’t in the canon.

so much for sola scriptura…

more like sola pajaka ira

70   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:42 pm

“If the gospel were more faithfully preached, there would be fewer people professing to believe it.”
A.W. Pink

How does he know that? Perhaps his theology makes God a redemptive Scrooge?

“Faith does not procede from ourselves but is the fruit of Spiritual regeneration” – John Calvin

A blatant lie from a blatant muderer.

71   nc    
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:42 pm

chris p/god/whoever you think you are,

i wonder if you’re as offended by PB and his claim that Obama’s policies impede the Gospel?

considering your last bit of holy tantrum…

72   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:51 pm

“If the gospel were more faithfully preached, there would be fewer people professing to believe it.”
A.W. Pink

And if the Gospel were more faithfully practiced, by those professing to believe it, there’d be a lot more willing to listen to what is said by those professing to believe.

73   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:55 pm

Arthur Pink wore a boa. :cool:

74   Neil    
September 3rd, 2009 at 5:03 pm

Those “born again from above” are regenerated by the Holy Spirit at the Father’s good pleasure, not by how YOU present it.

Interesting – so it does not matter whether it’s in a language that is spoken by the hearer, or uses words comprehended by the hearer, or any such “how”?

75   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 3rd, 2009 at 5:36 pm

“Those “born again from above” are regenerated by the Holy Spirit at the Father’s good pleasure, not by how YOU present it.”

Divine solataire.

God – “Let’s see, pawn to Queen 3. Yea, take that!”.

According to that Calvinist premise, souls can be saved at Mars Hill! All glory to Him and his messenger, Rob Bell!! I love fatalism, it presents such freedom!

76   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 3rd, 2009 at 5:53 pm

God gives us the gift of faith, which is so we will respond to His kindness and repent. Though I may agree with Chris P, I am not agreeing with how he applies this. What he is doing is leaving out that God poured out the Holy Spirit on all flesh so that now we truly have a free will to choose. Yet, having chosen God, (God calls we respond to the call/God is the initiator of our faith) faith + belief in Christ is what brings the new birth or regeneration.

Now, the thing that gets me is this is what I state concerning Romans 10 yet when I stated it Chris P stated I was wrong… so here he agrees with what I stated yet I was wrong… hmmm… serious issues Chris P has… He is right and I am wrong yet in the end he agrees with me… Then he judges and condemns me! LOL!

Just goes to prove that when your eyes are filled with darkness you cannot even see when you agree with someone.

So Chris P now that you agree with me… what are going to do now?

iggy