Replies

xzins just made a note of that, and you called him on the carpet.

I wish my father had always called me on the carpet that gently!

Look, I know that most folks are walking on egg shells right now, and that's unfortunate - maybe necessary - but still unfortunate. Coining an acronym like "fcs" (I think that's what it was) is almost guaranteed to generate complaints, and it did. Perhaps my way of pointing that out was a bit too subtle, but in some ways I'm walking on that same egg shell carpet the rest of you are.

Nor do I think we need to belabor the point, or have an extended conversation about the complaints. If we're going to "heal" around here we all need to stop picking at the scabs of old wounds, however gently it's done.

Your point is well-taken.

FCS was used to avoid saying it again.

I think we should just leave this thread and cooperate with the RM. The point was just that this was an article that has the author SAYING "the average modern evangelical is a pale imitation of Biblical faith."

As a modern evangelical, I responded to that as gently as I could, by pointing out that these folks will never accept anyone but their own group.

I want to cooperate with you, though, because I think the new ability to discuss on the Religion Forum is a good thing.

You might,however, consider coming up with some guidelines on how to respond to a thread that attacks either your denomination or your theology and demeans you.

Ultimately, 'No response' isn't fair to those who are being called "pale imitations.' I can see it being fair during the healing time you want.

As a starter, I would suggest:

1. don't attack the poster of the thread because of the words of the author of the thread.

2. feel free to attack any "lines" in the thread that attack you or your group.

What do you think?

Other than that, I'm leaving here.

From the Article:

I'll begin my conclusion by stating that the average modern evangelical is unaware of the richness of this portion of Scripture because he is not used to devouring large sections of the Bible; he is used to “proof-texting” his way through life. What I mean is that he is able to cite a verse here and a verse there, but has no grasp of the systematic and progressive nature of God's Word.

That's Baloney

If I sound a little defensive, then I think I have a right to defend myself and the evangelical movement in general. I have not attacked anyone personally here except the author of this article, and I have responded because he apparently is accusing the average member of my church and churches like mine of being biblically ignorant. Yet, I would venture to guess that the average pew warmer at his church would fall into the same paint can that he is broad brushing the evangelical movement with. Yet is he pointing fingers at his congregation? No. Its those darned evangelicals that are the problem.

I was pinged to this article by the poster. I read it and found it to be filled with stereotypical nonsense about the quality of the worshipers that attend modern evangelical churches. That they don't receive the whole council of God. That they only study proof texts. That they don't understand the bible like they should. Well I can't help it if there are lukewarm Christians in the evangelical movement. But if Dr. Bordwine thinks the problem is exclusive to the Evangelical movement and is not endemic to his own congregation as well, then he needs to take the log out of his own eye, so that he can see the splinter in the eyes of those he is so broadly maligning.

I think I've made my point.