 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > To: Greg Boyd, Mephi, and Modes | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2004 5:16 AM (GMT -6) |   | BJS:
quote:
I guess we can all see now why Doc, Modes, and Meph are hesitant to engage this topic. Sheesh. John and justvisiting, how about turning off the personal attacks and sarcasm, or just find another thread to get involved in. Please don't push us away from this conversation by turning it into a bashing of Greg and WHC. Please.
YES. YES. YES.
Once this was made a Greg Boyd and WHC issue, this kind of stuff was almost inevitable to me. It's why I almost didn't bother..
It was this kind of thing why we made the rule that ataraxia talked about.
My stuff's coming soon here...
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2004 5:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Trosie:
quote:
I understand not putting anyone on a pedestal yet in the way that things have been expressed by Greg, Mephi, Modes -- they had labeled people who voted for Bush as being "fundamental" "conservative" "Republicans" Since I voted for Bush I felt attacked and felt a defensiveness building inside and this is exactly what leads to division. This concerned me hence I decided to express my concern because I care about WHC. I WANT to see unity and acceptance among the body. I pray that we can be a body that is known to the world as a people who LOVE. When labels are thrown out or people are categorized I feel this can be equally as scary.
I've looked through all of my stuff...and the closest thing that I can see where this was done was the following...following my posting of an article that said:
Evangelicals Say They Led Charge For the GOP
By Alan Cooperman and Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, November 8, 2004
Thoughts
If some of you are wondering what's the beef, here is definitely a significant part. This is COMPLETELY the kind of stuff that Doc had been talking about in the "Cross and the Sword" series! The term "evangelical" is now pretty much polluted to the point of being useless! Unfortunately, in the blurring of terms, THIS crud is what many people will begin to think about when we say the word "Christian" Don't believe it? A tongue-in-cheek picture originated from a friendly Canadian that Michael Moore (aka the DEVIL to many) posted on his site.
I saw this and was like "Damn. I bet people DO associate Jesus with right-wing, fundamentalism, ultraconservative, corporate, Christian belief"
...and YES...they do."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2004 5:28 AM (GMT -6) | | The UberPost
1)Trosie is addressing people who are considered to be "in leadership" at Woodland Hills Church, namely Doc, Modes and Meph.
I think that ataraxia has already dealt with this issue. The moderator says:
quote:
There actually is a rule in place that states just this ya'll. I wondered whether or not I should have jumped in after the openning post of this thread with just a word of encouragement regarding where it ought to go. It looked like it could develop into a purely issues related discussion springing out of Greg's sermons. That's cool. It's OK to discuss issues people preach on; impossible not to do so actually. But I worried that it would become a discussion of WHC's policy, philosophy of ministry, or that of particular members of their staff. We want to stay clear of that. So, for the future, let's keep it an "issues" related discussion (faith and politics is a great subject) and not a "persons" related one.
This was definitely my first thought when I read Trosie's post. IMHO, I think that the principles involved in this discussion could have easily been brought forth without 1) bringing other aspects of identity into this (ala being in "leadership" of WHC, which is arguable even to me) and 2) making this a specifically Woodland Hills Church issue. With ataraxia, I have no problem with analyzing or critiquing Doc's sermons. Heck, we could do the same thing with John Piper's sermons, if we wanted to. I definitely don't have a problem talking about what it means to be bridge builders and the implications. But I did feel like a serious line had been crossed here that we HAD put sanctions on before. Since this has been addressed and acknowledged, we can just let that be.
I will henceforth deal with the principles that I believe are involved...and phrase answers accordingly.
--------------------------
2)Trosie has seen the concerns that we (Doc, Modes and Meph) have individually expressed about President George W. Bush…and feels that those expressions promote a more divisive than unifying element, given the context of the heated election.
First of all, let’s start out with my particular context for this whole thing. I can speak for myself that I definitely wrote much of the stuff I wrote from a place of negative emotion. I had a lot of disappointment, frustration, and downright anger. I was very disappointed that George W. Bush was re-elected, to say the least. I was disappointed at the way that I believe "evangelicalism" in some true sense was significantly pimped during this election. Between the stories of churches preaching "God vs. Gays" (Actual title of and actual sermon series!) OPENLY advocating voting in Bush, the Fight for Life and Values-Vote for Bush stickers on my windshield placed there IN THE CHURCH PARKING LOT, the pictures like the one I showed on that other thread (the cross made out of Bush balloons), and the, IMHO, blatently patronizing attempts to garner the African-American church-goer votes...I was WAAAAAY hot and frustrated by election time.
I know that this frustration was in my posts. Actually, my posting was a catharthic is for me. Something to get some of this deep feeling out. I figured "Hey, this is a web board. Let me just say what I think. Get this out." And that's what I did. I have looked over ALL of my material from that time. Looked over it with a fine toothed comb. I can definitely say that my disappointment and negative attitude came across loud and clear. And I can see how, in an election time as heated as this past one, that statements made with such intensity could probably stir up more negativity on EITHER side. So, let me say for the record, I do not deny that negative emotion permeates my writings.
However, with all of my passion and intensity, I don’t see any place where I am "judging" anyone for their personal convictions, positions, and votes for Bush. I do see areas where I strongly convey:
--How I believe the term "evangelical" had been corrupted beyond repair in the minds of many people
--How I believe the George Bush and his Administration is EXTREMELY problematic, for various reasons.
--How I believed some of the stuff we saw in this election went right in line with the Cross and Sword stuff
--How I think the Religious Right, picking up on the Bush Victory, is not helpful to the spread of the Kingdom.
--How I believe the war is REALLY not cool.
What I find interesting is how my passionate, though negative, statements about these things traslate into a denunciation of ANYONE'S particular principled vote for Bush. I answered Asher with the following...
There is a SIGNIFICANT contingent of evangelical Christians that fused together their Americanism and their Christianity (as the article above details) It was this reality that Greg was pointing to.
No one is saying that EVERYONE who happens to be Christian and voted for Bush falls into this syncretistic category, by definition.
BUT MANY evangelical Christians Do fall into this category. And many DID for this past election.
Perhaps I should more explicitly state what I felt was implicit in this response. I never said nor would I say that people cannot be allowed to vote their convictions (Christian or otherwise). Of course, conscientious people are going to vote their conviction. What I noticed is that some elements of this election, I believe, went WAY beyond this…much more towards the fusion of American nationalism and Christianity. It was THIS aspect of the whole thing that pretty much infuriated me. But saying this was NOT to say that every Christian that voted for Bush ipso facto operated in such a manner, by defintion of being a Christian voting for Bush.
So, three points so far about my corresponse:
1) I acknowledge that I was very passionate and intense in my discussion about the situation surrounding the election…and there were negative feelings involved.
2) I acknowledge that in situations where there is lots of tension already, passionate, intense, negative feelings has the potential to increase the level of polarization.
3) I don’t believe that I, at any time, criticized or judged anyone’s particular vote of conscience for Bush, as such.
At this point, I want to draw out some important principles here which will be inportant to the discussion later about reconciliation and bridge-building:
1) Reconciliation and bridge-buiding involves people sharing their AUTHENTIC feelings in a setting of openness.
This is something that I think that definitely gets missed a lot by people trying any type of reconciliation between parties. Sometimes, people think that the way towards true reconciliation of past and/or present hurts is for everyone to just "be nice" with each other. That good intentions of coming together should overwhelm any sense of subjectively held negative feelings about the situation necessitating reconciliation. That if negative things are discussed that they should be done in a more "objective", less passionate manner. This is just NOT true. Before any true healing can take place, all hurts have to be acknowledged and discussed, as they are for what they are. Otherwise, true movement can never take place. Now, this is not saying that this can take just any form. There are definitely limitations to how these perspectives and feelings can be expressed. (For example, it wouldn’t be productive for people to start hitting or verbally abusing the other) But, what is encouraged is true representation of thoughts AND feelings…even if they are negative. This way, everything’s on the table and everyone knows where you stand. When this happens in a discussion, there may well be more "heat" than "light" expressed. But this should be EXPECTED and comes with the territory. To think otherwise is to set oneself up for severe disappointment.
So, why does this setup happen? I think it’s linked to a second misconception that needs to be cleared up.
2) A person passionately, intensely expressing their own perspective with negative emotion DOES NOT necessarily equate to that person judging other’s perspectives.
Long story short. Just because a person is critiquing a perspective, venting negative feelings, or intensely talking about a subject doesn’t mean that others are being judged just by virtue of having a different perspective…perhaps even the one being critiqued at the time. I have seen this happen at times in the context of "racial"/ethnic reconcilation. In the context of a discussion, a person of color will share some negative feelings and interpretations about their subjectively felt oppression…and a white person in the group may begin to feel judged or condemned by virtue of what the person of color is saying. "Damn, I’m just so tired of all the white privelege going on in this society." somehow transmutates in the mind of the other to "I’m so tired of YOU PERSONALLY taking all of my opportunities and oppressing me. You suck!"…when that’s not what’s being said.
Unfortunately, it’s all too possible for someone’s expression of their perspective to set off another person’s own PERSONAL ISSUES…at which point they may feel judged. (It happens very frequently.) Sometimes a person identifies so closely with their perspectives, that personal issues get wrapped up in things. [Digression: I DEFINITELY think that things like this happen with respect to people’s IDEAS ABOUT GOD. This is why theologies are often defended so vigorously. ] This is not saying anything negative about the person that this happens to. I do think that it’s important to note that this occurs this.
What I think is important for us to understand however, is the following. Even in the context of reconciliation of ANY type, there may be definite negative emotion there. There will be times of discussion where there IS more "heat" than "light." It should be expected and comes with the territory. It has got to be understood that reconciliation is not an "all-good" process. There are MANY times where the pain, hurt, and disappointments involved causes there to be times where there is much more heat than light. The point is to commit to the process by which we go THROUGH the hurt together to come out the other side.
-----------------
3)Trosie feels that, given the mission and passion of WHC leadership to "be bridge buiders," it is appropriate that anyone in leadership should not "be biased." What I am currently taking this to mean is that those in WHC leadership 1) should not express ideas that either lean to far to the "liberal" perspective or the "conservative" perspective…even on an internet discussion board. And 2) At the very least, they should always promote balanced perspectives that show that we understand both sides.
and…
5)Trosie believes that a bridge of reconciliation should be balanced. I am currently taking this to mean that the "bridge" should take fairly and honestly into account all of the struggles, needs, concerns, perspectives and convictions of all parties concerned.
Ok, let me say that I agree with what I believe to be Trosie's essential point about there being empathetic relationality on all sides. Anyone who wishes to build bridges and promote reconciliation cannot place themselves in virtual "echo chambers" where only their OWN perspectives are taken into account and expressed. To do this increases the capacity to judge, actually. It is important for people to have some basic understanding of all sides of of an issue, as much as possible.
However, I think it's highly problematic to suggest that being a bridge-builder person means that you have academic-like objectivity and neutrality on deeply, personally felt issues. If one’s intention is just present all the relevant views for others to evaluate on their own, that’s one thing. Of course, it makes sense to be as objective as possible. But when a person is expressing their OWN personal views, whether or not they are attempting to persuade or not, this doesn’t need to happen.
Being a person of TOLERANCE does not preclude speaking out of conviction. Being tolerant in the sense I mean is having the ability to hold strongly to your own beliefs, and declare them, but at the same time, acknowledge that there are other beliefs than yours and being open to hearing and empathizing with those beliefs. What I understand Trosie as implying is that no matter how passionately or intensely a personal perspective (positive or negative) is held, it should ALWAYS be expressed in the most "balanced" way possible. I contend this is not necessary. What IS necessary is the understanding that one’s perspective is JUST THAT…their perspective. Not absolute truth. This position help people who have different convictions and idea be in a MUCH stronger position to find common ground.
----------------------
4)Trosie wonders if we care about ALL people on ALL sides of the debates (War/abortion; urban/suburban; etc) This care, in her view, is demonstrated by respecting all people through "given them the freedom to think and choose without judgment" I am currently taking this last phrase to mean that all people should be able to make choices according to their own consciences and convictions without feeling "judged" for doing so.
Given everything I’ve said above, I’ll ask this question…
Is it possible that I passionately, intensely expressed my perspective (with negative emotions and all) about George Bush and the conflation of nationalism and Christianity…and Trosie took that as me implicitly judging her decision to vote for Bush?
Just possible, now.
-------------------------
5)Trosie believes that a bridge of reconciliation should be balanced. I am currently taking this to mean that the "bridge" should take fairly and honestly into account all of the struggles, needs, concerns, perspectives and convictions of all parties concerned.
I firmly agree with this. But with respect to what I said above.
---------------------------
6)Trosie believes that Doc’s, Mode’s, and my expressed perspective leans too much to the left.
Ok. Let’s say that my perspective leans to the left. Is it a problem for me to express my leftish leanings? I don’t think so, given everything I’ve said above.
-------------------
My main concern in bringing up this thread was due to some of the comments that Greg Boyd, Modes, and Mephi have made on this board regarding George Bush. Through some of the things that were said I felt they were causing division rather than unity within the body of Christ. I know there was division being created because I felt defensive within myself about how I voted and I was not a person who had been passionate about either candidate. I cannot imagine how some might have felt if they were strong Bush supporters. My main concern was that the comments against Bush were not productive in bringing about unity and bridge building.
Extending this thought. This means that that a person cannot have and express a thoroughly negative perspective about another person (or their policies)…because there may be some people who support that person, possibly very strongly…and they may get defensive because they feel attacked. I don’t think this works. Do you?
Somethin’ else…
Think about this. Let’s say that someone’d have said the following, AFTER I said I voted for Kerry…
"Anyone who would vote for Kerry is an idiot of the highest order. No decent Christian would ever do that!" and then went on some tirade about how they felt about Kerry.
Hmmm…how should I have felt about that? Should I instantly feel judged because THAT person felt they way they did? Should I take this as something trying to abridge my freedom to vote as I feel?
------------------------
Lastly, there seemed to be an idea about my perspective being inconsistent with that "Cross and the Sword" notion. I’m wondering how. My perspective with respect to the evangelical situation was a negative assessment of the CONFLATION of American nationalism and Christianity that seemed very apparent in certain circles. So, what was the issue? I don’t see it.
------------
Ok. I’m stopping now. I’ve spent hours on this and I’m tired.
Later,
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2004 5:42 AM (GMT -6) | | | I KNEW someone was going to say that. I just knew it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 12/16/2004 6:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephiquote:
No one is saying that EVERYONE who happens to be Christian and voted for Bush falls into this syncretistic category, by definition
In the same light, no one is saying that all people on welfare are lazy but people do feel judged by having to be on welfare because there are some folks who make comments and judge people who need to use the system. When we throw a blanket statement out, whether we are intending to or not, we are alienating people.
Mephiquote:
1) Reconciliation and bridge-buiding involves people sharing their AUTHENTIC feelings in a setting of openness
Then in all fairness we shouldn’t have a problem with people such as John or Justvisiting expressing their passionate feelings. I am not getting the difference?
Mephiquote:
Before any true healing can take place, all hurts have to be acknowledged and discussed, as they are for what they are. Otherwise, true movement can never take place. Now, this is not saying that this can take just any form. There are definitely limitations to how these perspectives and feelings can be expressed.
What I am hearing you say Mephi is that it is okay to throw out unkind words towards people groups as long as we don’t get physical or verbally abuse others? What/where is the fine line? Personally, I believe before we speak any words anywhere that involve passionate feeling we need to humbly take them to God in prayer. We are to speak slowly. We are to walk humbly. Of course we all miss the mark.
Mephiquote:
Long story short. Just because a person is critiquing a perspective, venting negative feelings, or intensely talking about a subject doesn’t mean that others are being judged just by virtue of having a different perspective…perhaps even the one being critiqued at the time.
Doesn’t work, Mephi. If I label a people group of any kind I am by that nature alienating all of the people who fit within that category even if I don’t mean to.
I personally believe the reason Jesus picked such DIFFERENT folks from different backgrounds to be his followers was because he looked at the HEART. Here’s how I view people: I attend WHC which is much different from my suburban church which I also attend yet the hearts of people I encounter are extremely similar. Some are more outwardly loving than others. Some are more invested in ministry than others. I have encountered folks from the inner city all the way out to the rural areas who have hearts for God and his people.
I have worked in inner city schools as a substitute teacher and I have worked in suburban schools and to be honest I don’t see a huge difference in how I (a substitute teacher) have been treated by the students. Yet, if I were to say that inner city kids are hyper because I encountered some that were would this be fair? Would it be accurate? Do you think that those who aren’t “hyper” that attend inner city schools would think “Oh, she is just meaning some kids not me” or do you think they would feel categorized? And does the assessment about inner city kids mean that suburban kids are exempt from hyperactivity? No, of course not but I hear these types of blanket statements thrown out from people and in my heart I feel this leads to misunderstanding and lack of respect. IMHO, this type of prejudice is what prevents barriers from being torn down.
In the same way, I don’t think that the election was as black and white in who voted for whom as you guys have made it seem. I know many people who voted both sides who are crazy, in-love with God yet have different convictions.
Mephiquote:
Extending this thought. This means that that a person cannot have and express a thoroughly negative perspective about another person (or their policies)…because there may be some people who support that person, possibly very strongly…and they may get defensive because they feel attacked. I don’t think this works. Do you?
A person can have and express a thoroughly negative perspective about another person but in so doing they need to know they are by nature alienating/ setting up a barrier with those who hold a thoroughly positive perspective about that same person. This barrier will prevent bridge building.
When we had that whole debate regarding ‘love not judgment’ a few years ago on this board I was unable to understand the crux of the argument because in the dialogue there was much labeling. People who didn’t agree with certain issues were being compared to the Pharisees. This labeling prevented me from seeing the TRUTH in what was being expressed about loving not judging until I had the opportunity to discuss my differences in person 1:1 with Greg Boyd in an open dialogue. Through this openness of not feeling judged or labeled I began to understand the heart of the issue hence the plank was removed because I didn’t need to feel defensive. I felt FREE from judging those who I hadn’t been able to understand.
Mephiquote:
Ok. I’m stopping now. I’ve spent hours on this and I’m tired
I truly appreciate your taking the time to interact and help me and others to understand your reasoning. Please know that I am not arguing with you but am throwing out some comments in hopes of bringing about further clarity. Thank you so much!
God’s blessings to all who read this,
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2004 7:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Ok, Trosie. I need something.
I need for you to show me the blanket statements that I made that made you feel judged for voting for Bush or labeled. The specific statements. This would really help me.
I've already given up one prospective one..
"Thoughts
If some of you are wondering what's the beef, here is definitely a significant part. This is COMPLETELY the kind of stuff that Doc had been talking about in the "Cross and the Sword" series! The term "evangelical" is now pretty much polluted to the point of being useless! Unfortunately, in the blurring of terms, THIS crud is what many people will begin to think about when we say the word "Christian" Don't believe it? A tongue-in-cheek picture originated from a friendly Canadian that Michael Moore (aka the DEVIL to many) posted on his site.
I saw this and was like "Damn. I bet people DO associate Jesus with right-wing, fundamentalism, ultraconservative, corporate, Christian belief"
...and YES...they do."
How about the other stuff? Seriously this will help me.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2004 7:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Really quick.
Trosie:
quote:
Then in all fairness we shouldn’t have a problem with people such as John or Justvisiting expressing their passionate feelings. I am not getting the difference?
Did you see me have a problem with JEE sharing his perspective with me? Heck, no. No way. I did have a problem with him reading things into my stuff that I didn't say...but that was it. And the only issue I'd have with Justvisiting is the whole WHC angle. If Justvisiting wanted to talk his head off about how he thought Greg's teaching or theology sucked (but no ad hominem!), that would be on him...and that'd be his perspective.
More later,
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2004 8:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Trosie:
quote:
In the same light, no one is saying that all people on welfare are lazy but people do feel judged by having to be on welfare because there are some folks who make comments and judge people who need to use the system. When we throw a blanket statement out, whether we are intending to or not, we are alienating people.
I'm not seeing your point. In my statement I was making clear that being Christian and voting for Bush did not place one automatically into the syncretistic category. In other words, just because a Christian votes for Bush doesn't mean that they have conflated American nationalism with Christianity.
I just not understanding your point.
-------------------------
Trosie:
quote:
In the same way, I don’t think that the election was as black and white in who voted for whom as you guys have made it seem. I know many people who voted both sides who are crazy, in-love with God yet have different convictions.
I'm having trouble understanding you here. Where did I make things get so "black and white" as far as who voted for whom? I do remember stating my own view. I remember posting newspaper articles. I DON'T remember saying that there was an "us/them" as far as who voted for Bush and who voted for Kerry. Where is all this separation taking place?
------------------
Trosie:
quote:
A person can have and express a thoroughly negative perspective about another person but in so doing they need to know they are by nature alienating/ setting up a barrier with those who hold a thoroughly positive perspective about that same person. This barrier will prevent bridge building.
The barrier that I see is one of passionately held differences of opinion. This need not be alienating. It would only be alienating, in my view, if a person used that barrier to separate oneself from others or put oneself above others. As far as I can see, the only way I separated myself was from using the term "evangelical" I really did (and do) think that the term is polluted beyond repair, by the significant conflation of American nationalism and Christianity. I never separated myself from Bush voters...except in saying that I voted for Kerry. I never downed Bush voters, as such, nor would I have. My main anger was focused on the significant level of merger between nationalism and Christianity.
----------------------------
Oh, something else.
Can anyone show me where I did some ad hominem against George Bush as a person? I can see where I talk about some of his actions (or inactions) in his job...but I can't see me saying doing ad hominem. Maybe I'm missing it...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 12/16/2004 10:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephiquote:
Ok, Trosie. I need something.
I need for you to show me the blanket statements that I made that made you feel judged for voting for Bush or labeled. The specific statements. This would really help me.
Okay , my dear brother, I will “try” but I will not spend too much time looking through old threads. Here is an example of what would cause division:
ModesofThought started a thread called "WWJB?”
He started off with: quote:
Jesus would not bomb anyone and neither should Christians support the destruction of others. At least obstain from supporting it. Don't vote. Fine, but I seriously question the morality of reelecting a man who attacks those who have not even attacked them! Rarely does the world even do such things!
I guess I honestly thought the conscience of America would prevent us from reelecting a war criminal.
Your response on that thread: quote:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/144/31.0.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3973197.stm
Damn it all to hell.
FORMER "evangelical" (for VARIOUS reasons),
#65532;
PS: God told me (through Pat Robertson and Ben Kinsly on 700 Club) to tell YOU, Modes, dear boy, to stay here and avoid the peril of "over there" Remember, God is pro-war, anti-gay, and ambivalent on the economy. Just go to Vega$ (but don't forget to tithe, 'kay? #65532;)
This type of interaction makes those of us who voted for Bush feel that they are under attack. Here’s the thing, when one of our beliefs/values/choices is being attacked the natural response will be to defend/protect. Those who voted for Bush (afterall we could have just not voted according to Modes) were summed up as indirectly supporting a war criminal, and you know us evangelicals... we are pro-war, anti-gay, and ambivalent on the economy. (BTW, I am not those things but I “think” that I might be referred to as evangelical if used within the right definition )
Mephi, don’t you see the type of interaction you had with Modes IMMEDIATELY sets a person up to fight. This type of interaction does not solve the problems in the world but it does create a wall within the body. Do you understand what I am expressing?
I understand the heart you and ModesofThought have towards the war. I understand why Greg has preached about moving away from the word “evangelical” due to the nasty images that have been put on it BUT I don’t understand the tactics you use. The tactics do not promote transformation but they do encourage people to fight or flight. This has been my concern and the purpose in bringing up this thread.
I have said this before but I will say it again -- I wish in many ways I had NEVER started this thread. I was not doing so to point fingers or bash WHC or it's leadership (that is my church too) I was doing so because I care. I wanted to express some concerns with the hopes of bringing about clarity. I pray that the end result of our interaction now will promote understanding and growth.
Thank you,
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2004 10:58 AM (GMT -6) | | The thread in question is...
http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3799&whichpage=1
Modes' first post:
What Would Jesus Bomb?
If you voted for Bush, please list for me all the sites you think would accurately answer the question. This is a totally selfish request as I am planning an international vacation in Dec.
Since the media tells us that conservative evangelicals rocked this vote, and that is you all to a large degree, maybe you can (through discernment) help me stay out of harms way. After all, I'd hate to fall victim to our own violence in the world!
Peace,
Modes
What you've posted, Trosie, was further down the thread.
My first and last post on this thread...
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/144/31.0.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3973197.stm
Damn it all to hell.
FORMER "evangelical" (for VARIOUS reasons),
PS: God told me (through Pat Robertson and Ben Kinsly on 700 Club) to tell YOU, Modes, dear boy, to stay here and avoid the peril of "over there" Remember, God is pro-war, anti-gay, and ambivalent on the economy. Just go to Vega$ (but don't forget to tithe, 'kay? )
"Religion is the opiate of the masses."
Karl Marx, Urban Dictionary, under "Religion."
German economist & Communist political philosopher (1818 - 1883)
-------
Now, the most, I feel, that could be said about my response is that it was a smart a$$ response to Modes's question about where to go for his vacation. That's as FAR as I took it and as FAR as I wanted to go. I didn't talk about "you evangelicals" (in so many words) or anything like that. Nor did I talk about what Christians should or shouldn't do with their vote. THAT WAS MODES. He and I are different people. The issue, it would seem, would be with HIM rather than me, on that score.
Personally, I wouldn't have said the things that Modes' said...and if you look on the remainder of my writings...I never did. Modes is his own man.
I could very well be wrong, but I'm starting to get the feeling that the reason why people keep saying "Meph, Modes, and Doc" are because people are NOT keeping our correspondences separate, but are lumping them together in one stew of "Anti-Bushism." I don't think that's fair. If we want to talk about MY words and MY tone, that's fine. Let's do that...looking at MY words. And do the same with Doc and Modes.
Mayber that's why I'm getting so confused. "Tactics??"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/16/2004 11:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi-
It’s Christmas and I just don’t have the time to get into this thread, but eventually I wanna make it in. I’ve not participated in any thread regarding politics since the site began, but I’m willing to try breaking my habit.
What would Jesus bomb?
Well, depending on the factors, that’s a difficult question to ask. Remember Carlie? The train tracks? Zosia? You said there is NO way we can say whether or not God was involved compatibilistically in those events given our ignorance of the specifics. So unless you want to argue there is no such thing, in our fallen and conflicted world, of a just war, it seems to me you at least have to concede that Jesus might be behind bombing Iraq.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2004 11:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
quote:
What would Jesus bomb?
Well, depending on the factors, that’s a difficult question to ask. Remember Carlie? The train tracks? Zosia? You said there is NO way we can say whether or not God was involved compatibilistically in those events given our ignorance of the specifics. So unless you want to argue there is no such thing, in our fallen and conflicted world, of a just war, it seems to me you at least have to concede that Jesus might be behind bombing Iraq.
Is this a response to me? I never asked the question. As far as the war goes, no, I couldn't say whether or not (or to what extent) God was involved compatibilistically. But I don't think that Modes was dealing with providence when he asked the question.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2004 11:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Hmmm...I'm feeling the need to make something clear.
Please read my UberPost and all my correspondence as dealing with MY words and MY perspectives. I'm not Doc. I'm not Modes. And they are not me. I didn't collaborate with them, nor they with me.
If you want to talk to me about MY tone or MY content, please do so from that vantage point.
Just want to make sure this is clear. I'd really appreciate it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 12/16/2004 12:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi, I will be fair to you and think this further before saying any more. I appreciate that YOU are willing to discuss these concerns with me because it appears obvious that Modes and Greg are not (at least not yet) Perhaps I am mixing you all in together and that is NOT fair.
I had a good intention in bringing forth my concerns though now regret this for many reasons. I thought it would be fair to get a response to these concerns from the other two. Again I appreciate your responses and patience. I will respond more when I have the time and have thought this through a bit.
Thank you!
trosie | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/16/2004 1:03 PM (GMT -6) | | My bad Bro. I knew that was Modes' question, but I thought early on in this thread you and he were pretty much in agreement on all this. Sorry.
Peace, gotta run,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
justvisiting
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 12/16/2004 8:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph said-- ) Reconciliation and bridge-buiding involves people sharing their AUTHENTIC feelings in a setting of openness
Trosie replied--Then in all fairness we shouldn’t have a problem with people such as John or Justvisiting expressing their passionate feelings. I am not getting the difference?
This was my thought exactly. However, I feel I have shown very little passion. I have expressed my feelings re: Boyd's teachings, but is it any different than anyone here expressing their feelings about someone, such as John Piper, who I recall seeing a post I read yesterday where he was called "John Piper and his Piperettes" and pretty much mocked with sarcasm.
I have not mocked Boyd nor have I called him any derogatory name. What I have stated is that I disagree with his teachings and have no desire to listen to his teachings. I attended WHC for a time, but would never do so again.
I find it odd that Boyd's beliefs are somehow separate from WHC, considering that he is a pastor. Someone please explain how a person can separate their deepest beliefs from their teaching. Boyd teaches many persons. His beliefs influence what he teaches. His political beliefs, his beliefs about God, his world view- how can he separate them and teach any belief contrary to those?
I personally take no offense whatsoever to be called Evangelical. I probably am fundamental as well. And, I am also Republican and a very, VERY strong supporter of Bush. You cried tears of sorrow when he was elected. I cried tears of joy.
My father, who is not a Christian man but is very Republican, said to me, "What I don't get is how these people call themselves Christians but yet they vote for a man like John Kerry who supports abortion, supports homosexual marriage, and is not a Christian man." My father shook his head. He does not have a bad view of Christians for being "religious right," or "evangelical" or "moral." He has a bad view of them because to him, they seem like hypocrites. They say they are against abortion, yet vote for a man who is pro-abortion. And so forth.
I do admit that I have a very difficult time understanding the mindset of a Christian, such as Meph, who could vote for a man who did/does not honor or revere God, who would no doubt appoint pro-abortion, liberal judges to the Supreme Court, and to be honest, this is the very first discussion I have had with any Christian who voted for Kerry. I personally know of none who have (although I'm sure there are those I know who did but I'm not aware of it).
I am not saying that Meph is some terrible person, but that I do not "understand." That is the truth, bottom line. I simply do not understand, and I would bet that Meph would say the same of me. He can not understand how a Christian could acutally, not only vote for Bush, but do so without a single reservation, which I had none. Not one. I did not struggle with the decision, I did not agonize over it, I did not doubt it. I voted for Bush in the first and the second election and literally praised God that he won.
In all honesty, I could not attend a church led by a pastor with beliefs re: Kerry and Bush that Meph and Boyd have. But I left WHC long ago because I didn't agree with Boyd's views. When I saw this discussion, for me, it somewhat reaffirmed that decision and reminded me of how much I disagree with his views in so many areas, including political.
Another question- how does a person separate their Christian beliefs from their political beliefs? I am not two people. I am one person with core beliefs. Those beliefs affect how I vote and what I think of God and Christianity. There seems to be this upset on Meph's part at how Christians merged their American patriotism with their Christian beliefs, but I personally, don't see how you can separate the two, for if you do, you would have to deny some of your beliefs.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
justvisiting
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 12/16/2004 8:38 PM (GMT -6) | | I also do not think the election was detrimental to the way the world views Christians, or, ahem, "evangelicals" which has been mentioned as the "polluted" word. Prior to the election, there was much hostility towards anything Christian. How long has it been that Christian values have been mocked on prime-time t.v. and movies. Need I name the titles such as the movie "Saved," among others? Do we need to take a trip down memory lane back to the 60's, the 70's, the 80's? Evangelical is merely a word. Why do I sense that Meph wants a "politically correct" term for Chrsitians, one that is accepted and respected by the world.
The term "Christian" was not accepted during Jesus' time. For anyone to be labeled a follower of Christ- in all of history, it hasn't been a respectable term by the world. But is that what our goal is- to gain the world's respect by having a label that is non-offensive to them?
Personally, I beleive this election "empowered" many Chrisitans. In other words, "God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love, of self-discipline."
For far too long, Christians have allowed the "left" to be empowered. Of course, we know that this world is not our home, and we are aliens. Thus, it really is the non-Christians "home." However, we are not to shrink back. We have been called to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves (such as the unborn children). We are commanded to obey God and his laws and ways, REGARDLESS of who mocks us.
In many ways, Christians "spoke up" during this election. And why shouldn't we? Why should we sit on our hands and let immoral people dictate the laws of our land?
And of course, Selah, you should pray how you feel led to pray. You and I obviously view things differently, and in America, fortunately, we are free to do so. I pray for the President in a much different way than it sounds you are. As for your other comments, I will have to get back to that.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 12/17/2004 5:02 AM (GMT -6) | |
Really, I'm not getting your point here either Trosie.
The meaning of communication is about the receiver, right? When you use examples like the one above or just comment saying things like "Personally, I believe before we speak any words anywhere that involve passionate feeling we need to humbly take them to God in prayer. We are to speak slowly. We are to walk humbly. Of course we all miss the mark." it seems that you are implying that meph doesn't believe this. It also seems as though you don't see that you are doing it as much as the next person. All I'm saying is that being specific - using actual words - is the only way to reflect back misunderstanding in a way that you truly seek to understand (as a learner). Accepting what he says as truth from his perspective is as important as being slow to speak in the first place (in my opinion). Hopefully we can allow each other this grace. Me included.
Mephiquote:
Before any true healing can take place, all hurts have to be acknowledged and discussed, as they are for what they are. Otherwise, true movement can never take place. Now, this is not saying that this can take just any form. There are definitely limitations to how these perspectives and feelings can be expressed.
Trosie: What I am hearing you say Mephi is that it is okay to throw out unkind words towards people groups as long as we don’t get physical or verbally abuse others? What/where is the fine line?
what I'm hearing mephi say is be authentic, then seek healing using authentic thoughts/feelings. I'm also hearing him say "this cannot take just any form" meaning the context of a "discussion" board is probably ok for discussion...
Mephiquote:
Long story short. Just because a person is critiquing a perspective, venting negative feelings, or intensely talking about a subject doesn’t mean that others are being judged just by virtue of having a different perspective…perhaps even the one being critiqued at the time.
Trosie:
Doesn’t work, Mephi. If I label a people group of any kind I am by that nature alienating all of the people who fit within that category even if I don’t mean to.
Again, I don't see Mephi labeling.
NOw to critique Mephi...
Meph, here's the thing, in my view there is nothing wrong (within the context of a disscussion board) venting negative emotions...especially if it means you are being authentic. amen. good. However, the problem (I think) comes when you (and modes and doc - in this case) vent and then disappear. If you are wanting to vent (IN ORDER to move toward authentic anything ) I think it would be good to stick around and actually "move toward" something. To vent on the discussion board and then leave... leaves everyone else wondering about purpose and motive. They end up filling in the blanks because you aren't here to do so. know what I mean?
ok sorry to bud in,
peace,
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/17/2004 5:56 AM (GMT -6) | | BJS;
quote:
Had to work late, so I just can't jump in here with much. Trosie speaks well, though, as usual. Mephi, I love you, bro, but I think you're being pretty evasive all of a sudden. If you disagreed with Modes so distinctly, it sure didn't seem like it back when you were Amen-ing his rant.
Evasive? Amen-ing his rant? Lookie here. Just because Modes and I agree on a lot of stuff, don't mean we'd do the same things all the time. I said that I wouldn't have said some of the things that he said. I wouldn't have necessarily called out people for voting for Bush like he did on the "WWJB" thread. But that's him. Just because we feel the same disappointment and wonder at just how many people voted for Bush does NOT mean we'd express it in the same way. And we didn't. So please don't make it sound like I'm trying to sell him out or something. That ain't cool. And it ain't THAT crucial. Sheesh.
Matter of fact, after my SOLE post there, I spent most of my time on the "GREAT Article!" and "For Your Review" threads...because that's where MY interest was. (Check it out, if you like) So, when I was responding to Trosie stuff, THAT's where I looked. I knew that I had only ONE POST on that other thread...so I didn't even BOTHER to look at THE REST OF THE THREAD when I went over all my stuff. This is why I couldn't understand what the HECK was going on with Trosie saying that I was labeling her.
I said from the jump that I was going to speak from MY perspective because ultimately that's all I could do anyways. I tried to be nice about this whole thing and say SOMETHING rather than ignore it.
Man... | | Back to Top | | |
| 124 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:05 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|