Battle cries and Slogans are kind of a nuisance, because one ends up defending them as though they were Scripture, and the contention gets simple-minded. “Faith alone” needs patient examination before it can be rightly understood in the context of Scripture or of one’s own spiritual life. RC doctrine however can be — ought to be — mocked before understanding.
= = =
Slogans certainly end up simple minded far too often.
Things warrant being satirized, mocked IN ORDER
TO HIGHLIGHT THE ABSURD LENGTHS they’ve been taken to.
Sometimes, nothing else will communicate such clearly or emphatically enough.
Do Calvinists understand Pentecostalism enough to “fair-mindedly” satirize it? I doubt it. But there may still be some food for thought in their even hostile satires.
Do Proties understand RC stuff thoroughly and comprehensively enough to flawleslly and most righteously satirize same? I doubt it. Not any more than RC’s do a lot of proty stuff that they rail and pontificate about in the most shocking and insulting absolutist terms.
But for the one interested in wisdom and INCREASED UNDERSTANDING, prayerful pondering of even an enemy’s comments can be fruitful.
When such is lovingly thrown out onto the table . . . more fruitfulness can occur because there was caring involved regardless of whether the stark thing on the table is warm and fuzzy, or not.
The choice is in the hearer, reader at least as much as in the sender. Will I learn and grow—and avoid being unnecessarily offended, or not.
If I refuse, there’s likely a sacred cow lurking in the shadows.
I just don't think that is accurate. Does accuracy matter?