PROPOSALS INVITED FOR MORE CIVIL DISCOURSE RE RELIGIOUS FIGURES AT ODDS WITH VARIOUS SENSIBILITIES

Quix | 18 MAY 2006 | Quix

[Quix]

PROPOSALS INVITED TOWARD A MORE CIVIL DISCOURSE RE RELIGIOUS FIGURES AT ODDS WITH VARIOUS SENSIBILITIES

The current thread regarding Pat Robertson is but the latest in a long tradition of certain flavors of evangelical Christian and particularly Pentecostal/Charismatic religious figures being thoroughly shredded by what--90% or more of the posts--usually in the harshest, most hostile, even demonizing wording possible.

It seems that when folks are perceived to be in such Pentecostal/charismatic categories, all bets are off, no holds barred--the most viscious attacks are the minimal Standard Operating Procedure. Instead of exhorting one another in Christian Love, the worst attitudes normally evidenced in the most ruthless of groups seems to flood out from many corners of the forum.

The forum rules about personal attacks are thrown to the wind--usually with great cheered-on fervor.

Personally, I don't mind the likes of Shrillery getting thoroughly castigated. They are the evil--even truly satanic opponents to everything this forum stands for. Ditto for the Jihadis. I think on that, all conservatives would readily agree or near agree.

However, when it comes to religious figures, there tends to be great haughty hostility to those not seen as kosher enough--and too often--for all those not members of one's own tidy little group.

We can ALL feel DUTY BOUND to "set folks Bibllically straight" regarding the horrible demonic errors of this or that figure. And, Pentecostals/charismatics usually make easy targets because we say things that are very uncommon in other corners of Christianity--though, interestingly, not at all uncommon in the New Testament Church.

But, from our perspective, we could say the same thing about John McArthur, for example. Or Dave Hunt.

Each homogenic group could come up with a list of popular religious figures from other groups that the first group considered evil and beyond the pale.

Then there's the great hostility between the RC's and the Protestants.

IF WE ARE REALLY SERIOUS ABOUT ACTING LIKE JESUS--THERE MUST BE A BETTER WAY to handle such perspectives. What are your proposals?

It's not up to the beleagured Religion Moderator. And Dear JimRob has been driven to distractions more than a few times and probably wished there was some way to send the whole religion forum into a black hole for good.

It seems to me that if we cannot police ourselves better on this score, that we may well not deserve to call ourselves CHRIST-LIKE = CHRISTIAN.

-----------------------------------------

I'm not suggesting that we ought not be allowed to state sincerely held perspectives which question another's stance as being Biblical enough or full of enough integrity or lacking in duplicity etc. We ought still be able to articulate what we perceive to be true and particularly Biblicly true vs UnBiblical.

But doing so so outrageously and in such devilish terms ought to stop and stop cold. PARTICULARLY ABOUT THINGS WITH REGARD TO WHICH THERE IS BIBLICAL ROOM TO DISAGREE, TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE PERSPECTIVE. I am not talking about the Virgin Birth, The Resurrection etc.

But we ought to have some mutually agreed upon minimal Christian standard for doing so. And we ought to police ourselves as well as lovingly each other.

-----------------------------------------------

Personally, my proposal would be

1. that things such as calling another religious figure a demonized, satanic, etc individual needs to be limited to VERY OVERT DEMONSTRATIONS OF CLEARLY DEMONIC BEHAVIORS AND STATEMENTS. That is, demonized behaviors common in the NT. Statements clearly and overtly blasphemous in starkly brazen and obvious terms--not interpreted, rationalized terms on the part of the hearer.

2. that naysayers from outside the normal Christian community--those hostile to the whole idea of Christianity and all the more so to anything remotely supernaturally Christian--that those sorts of hostile naysayers be soundly, persistently and totally discouraged from getting away with their viscious, demeaning, virulant rants.

3. That once the more strident of us have stated our perspective regarding a particular religious figure--especially 2-3 times--we would do well to let it rest and avoid ranting on and on and on and on for dozens of strident redundant posts.

4. IF WE CAN PUT THINGS tenatively and graciously, OK--perhaps a longer discourse would be warranted or merited. Graciousness deserves something extra in the religion forum! But the haughty, self-righteous-from Mt Sinai sorts of castigating-of-all-not-our-idea-not-our-tidy-little-box--that needs to go and go quickly.

5. Those failing to follow through with such guidelines might voluntarily or even at Mod's requirement take themselves out of the next X or XX such threads. Or perhaps they would be prevented/ordered to avoid all further threads on such a topic.

---------------------------

I'm happy to consider other reasonable alternatives. I'm just groping to try and find a workable, functional way which

1. Allows reasonable discourse and a mutually respectful sharing of all perspectives on a topic and even on a personage.

2. Demonstrates MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MORE of the unity of spirit and mutual charity which Christ called HIS FOLLOWERS to.

3. Prevents virtually every thread that involves Pentecostal/Charismatic figures and topics from becoming a bloody shredding fest ALWAYS at the expense of those of that perspective.

4. Brings glory to God instead of such a tarnished bad taste in everyone's mouths because of the awful behavior of God's snotty nosed kids.

[xzins]

I understand that under the new mod it is possible to label a thread for "devotional" use by a particular group and that no negative discourse is permitted on such a thread.

For example, I've seen a few Mormon devotional threads, lately. There are the daily Catholic and Protestant devotional threads.

You might consider posting a thread for devotional purposes and labeling it: "Charismatic Devotional Thread" or something like that just to see what happens. My guess is that it will be respected.

[JockoManning]

Hi xzins,

Good idea. Thanks so much.

jm

[Revel]

Sorry Quix. I would never attack Christianity itself. I believe in it. I used to hang on Roberson's every word. You get a little smarter about that after a while. He has dissapointed me many times. One of these days he is going to be right, but it is only going to be based on chance. I will never forget the Karla Fay Tucker ordeal. He flipped flopped on the death sentance issue. He had a right to change his mind, but he lied and said his stand had always been the same. Like I said- I used to hang on his every word and I know what he had said in the past. On a happy note...I do believe that the conversion of Karla Tucker was sincere and that she is with God. In the end she excepted her fate much better than Pat did. Now if Mother Terrisa had told me the sun was not going to shine tommorow then I would have believed her.

[catholicfreeper]

I understand your viewpoint. There is a minister even though I disagree with him that I like to listen to out of Houston on Sunday nights. He got shredded and the whole thing was slightly over the top. Of course that being said I made a negative comment about Pat Robertson on one of thethreads.

I would put people like Pat Robertson in a different category. The Republican and Conservative movement owes much to Pat Robertson. Who cannot forget his performance in IOWA in the 88 race that changed things forever. That being said he is different. Not too many religious leaders are or represent a serious face of the Republican party. In other words when he says things we often have defend it or least deal with it in the political realm. Whether its on storms or on his statements as to the State of Israel.

However you are correct. A little Christian charity should be pointed out. I am getting a tad tired of having to defend the integrity of every Bishop or Cardinal that speaks out on this immigration issue. OF course like Pat Robertson they have entered the political sphere both now and in the past so they are a little different from the average religious leader or Preacher. Still, honest criticism should be tempered a tad by a little humility and God's love if we are speaking from a Christian viewpoint on the thread.

[Quix]

PING for your prayerful comments, if so led.

[Quix]

Sounds like a wonderful new polilcy that I was unaware of.

But it feels a bit like jury-rigging, shoehorning a philosophical/theological/experiential topic into a "devotional" category. Almost not quite honest.

I wonder if it would be possible to declare a thread from the outset as FOR TRULY CONSTRUCTIVE DISCOURSE ONLY?

[Quix]

I understand. Used to live there in my teens and later.

Have gotten to the place that I have begun to believe that God tends to allow lots of spiritual leaders' clay feet to show through so much

SO THAT his kids don't put the human leaders on a pedestal reserved for GOD ALONE.

And, then some folks are just slow learners in terms of pride, humility, wisdom, etc. I know a lot about that slow learning bit, too.

Thanks.

[xzins]

I think that it would have to be devotional in nature....but I'm sure that there are charismatic devotional writers. I don't think I'd try to shoehorn something in that would be dishonest.

[Quix]

Thanks so enormously for your great Christian wisdom and charity.

God's best to you and yours.

I agree with your points, BTW.

[Quix]

I agree with you.

I guess I'm asking for another such protected category.

[Quix]

Actually, OSWALD CHAMBERS is a Charismatic/Pentecostal devotional person . . . who actually didn't write anything. His wife took excellent shorthand and compiled his volumes after his death.

So is Jack Hayford.

Max Lucado often writes like it but is Church of Christ.

Pat R has some good devotional materials.

Corrie ten Boom was.

I think the Gaithers are.

Joel Osteen is. [This is NOT an invitation to the go-for-the-jugular folks to come out in droves--hint!]

Joyce Meyer is.

I'm sure there are others.

Thanks.

[Revel]

In 1984, she was sentenced to death. While in prison, she found God, and even as her death date approached and she asked for clemency, she claimed that she'd accepted what she'd done and she would now accept her fate. Amid nationwide appeals for clemency on her behalf, she was executed in 1998---the first woman to be killed by the state of Texas since 1863.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/women1/8.html

Last Words of Real People:

"Tucker, Karla Fay (1960-1998)
"I am going to be face to face with Jesus now. . . . I will see you all when you get there. I will wait for you."
In 1983, Karla Fay Tucker was found guilty and sentenced to die for the murder of Jerry Dean and Deborah Thorton. Tucker, a prostitute and drug addict, used a pickax to viciously hack both of them to death while they slept, leaving the three-foot long tool embedded in Thorton's chest. In her confession, Tucker graphically recounted how she had experienced sexual orgasms with each of the blows. While in prison awaiting decisions on her numerous appeals, Tucker became a darling of the American Christian fundamentalists--led by Pat Robertson--after she married a prison missionary and claimed to have accepted Jesus as her savior. Despite a massive public relations campaign by an unusual alliance of Amnesty International and the religious right to have her sentence commuted to life imprisonment, the State of Texas executed Tucker in 1998.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6537/real-t.htm

[Alex Murphy]

It seems that when folks are perceived to be in such Pentecostal/charismatic categories, all bets are off, no holds barred--the most viscious attacks are the minimal Standard Operating Procedure.

I would disagree, but as I said on the (new) Religion Moderator's thread,

I'm sure that we all believe our own particular theological bent "takes more bashings" than the other person's - especially since (what a coincidence), we believe our own particular theological bent is right, and the other person's is in need of correction.... Everyone claims their own group is being singled out, trust me! Each group has their own cross to bear, justly or unjustly. It's how each of us reacts to the perceived slight that marks our actions as "Christian" or not, IMO, and marks our posts (and our FR posting privileges) for removal when they're not.

Proverbs 25:15 tells us that "By forbearance a ruler may be persuaded, And a soft tongue breaks the bone.". And Proverbs 27:6 says "Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy."
--------------------

That said, I'd like to comment on point 2 made within your proposal. Let me quote it first:

2. that naysayers from outside the normal Christian community--those hostile to the whole idea of Christianity and all the more so to anything remotely supernaturally Christian--that those sorts of hostile naysayers be soundly, persistently and totally discouraged from getting away with their viscious, demeaning, virulant rants.

I completely sympathize with your feelings and reasonings re silencing naysayers, but I am persuaded that, on the basis of John 13:33-35, that this is the wrong approach to take. Allow me to quote the late Francis Schaeffer via a short excerpt from his work The Mark of the Christian, to explain why:

The church is to be a loving church in a dying culture. How, then, is the dying culture going to consider us? Jesus says, "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another." In the midst of the world, in the midst of our present dying culture, Jesus is giving a right to the world. Upon his authority he gives the world the right to judge whether you and I are born-again Christians on the basis of our observable love toward all Christians.

That's pretty frightening. Jesus turns to the world and says, "I've something to say to you. On the basis of my authority, I give you a right: you may judge whether or not an individual is a Christian on the basis of the love he shows to all Christians." In other words, if people come up to us and cast in our teeth the judgment that we are not Christians because we have not shown love toward other Christians, we must understand that they are only exercising a prerogative which Jesus gave them.

And we must not get angry. If people say, "You don't love other Christians," we must go home, get down on our knees and ask God whether or not they are right. And if they are, then they have a right to have said what they said.

[Quix]

I've always agreed with those words of Shaeffer's. Thanks for reminding me.

You are right. I had never thought of applying them to this situation.

I still don't think we need to UNNECESSARILY AND UNFITTINGLY be useless doormats to such visciousness from the outside, however. God can call us to it. But I don't think we need to have flesh driven martyrdom syndromes and I don't think we need to kowtow dysfunctionally to external-to-the Body ruthless shreddings--particularly in this sort of context.

That does not mean that our response should be other than Schaeffer outlined, imho.

Guess I don't see them as mutually exclusive. Maybe I'm missing something or not thinking things through well enough.

[Alex Murphy]

Guess I don't see them as mutually exclusive. Maybe I'm missing something or not thinking things through well enough.

And maybe you're not. IMO figuring it out is part of Paul's words in Phil. 2:12, i.e. "work[ing] out your salvation with fear and trembling"

[MHGinTN]

Bless you for remembering Karla Faye Tucker. I do indeed believe she has met Our Lord before us.

[Quix]

I agree entirely. No trouble at all believing she beat us Home.

[Quix]

I think I may not understand your meaning. Perhaps I'm too tired. Could you put it in very simple terms, please? I think I'm agreeing with you but it sounds like you think I'm not. Or is it the other way around?

[MHGinTN]

We know Paul didn't mean to bring about our own salvation because He taught that salvation was by Grace not works lest any man should boast. So we are left to conclude that once Jesus has guaranteed our salvation (yes, it is guaranteed by His integrity, not ours), our life thereafter will be lived in fear and trembling before His throne ... a notion I'm not at all going to reject regardless of the sources of the fear and trembling, if you know what I mean.