Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

Historically there was a time when wearing underwear was considered of Satan, and when the organ became popular the more rigid in the churches denounced it as satanic as well (oh to go back to the "good old days" when the organ was of the Devil - can we make it satanic again...?)
Like the rest of the world Christians seem to enjoy an ebb and flow of things that are evil then good, then evil again, so to quote what a wise person once said when confronted on doing something that others thought to be "unbiblical" and "heretic" (in this case having Communion at the lunch table, in a dining room, informally):
"Why don't you go take that up with God directly?"
 

heh heh... she said underwear, organ and more rigid in one sentence...

heh heh...
 

Good exegesical work there Dan! Yep, you've uncovered the subliminal message - hubby always accuses me of thinking of nothing else...(of course only as my christian duty as a wife..., being the good submissive woman:))
 

"Not to convince them that I'm right and they're wrong, but to keep them from tossing me and others out of the Church. We will not go at all, let alone peacefully. We think we were here first, and that history is on our side. Of course, they thik they were here first. A real dilemma."

Yup, I agree completely.

I've worked hard to try to find some common ground with these folks, only to be insulted and ridiculed and mocked, but I keep trying.

Unfortunately these conversations always go the same way ... initially pleasant and polite but then turning snarky, snotty, and confrontational once they realize you're not buying what they're trying to sell. Eventually they just shut down dialogue. You'll notice that Neil no longer allows me to post on his blog. Did I swear? Nope. Curse? Nope. Insult? Nope. Blaspheme? Nope. I disagreed with him one too many times -- oh, and I happen to be gay. (*gasp!*)

But I continue, if for no other reason than to be there if someone else happens to stumble across one of those blogs on their way through the interweb. Then they might find another voice amid the chaos of judgmental legalism -- one that actually speaks to them about Christ instead of Leviticus, one that speaks to them about the law of love, rather than the love of the law.

I'm far from perfect at it, but I keep trying. I'm glad you're out there workin' at it too!
 

"Unfortunately these conversations always go the same way ... initially pleasant and polite but then turning snarky, snotty, and confrontational once they realize you're not buying what they're trying to sell. Eventually they just shut down dialogue."

Yes! Isn't it amazing!? The same thing has happened to me, time and time again. Quite often they literally shut down communication, banning me from their site.

If I ask them about it, they'll nearly always acknowledge my politeness, but then insist that I'm being deceptive, deliberately twisting the bible's teachings so that I can encourage sin!! They seem to honestly believe this in spite of an absence of evidence.

It's quite an interesting phenomena. I've heard it suggested that it might be attributed to cognative dissonance - they run across something that is totally unfamiliar with anything in their history.

"Christians who have a difference opinion about these traditional Christian teachings? Well, there's no such thing, is there? He seems sincere enough, but since there's no such thing, they must be deceivers deliberately setting out to divide the church!..."

Maybe I'm wrong, but that explanation seems fitting.

Very interesting.
 

I try very hard not to question the motives of those I disagree with, even when those motives seem pretty obvious.

Some people seem to think it's ignorance or fear that leads them to either insult what they disagree with and cut off dialogue. It's a convenient explanation that also happens to set us up as the educated & fearless. :) However it's just as arrogant and wrong as the "Well, you don't take the Bible seriously" mantra they spout.

So, I take them at their word. And in Neil's case, he says he doesn't have time and/or doesn't like to get off topic. (Though I know of no single blog anywhere in which comment threads actually stay on topic.) And, this isn't just about Neil; he's just a convenient example. I've seen the exact same thing on plenty of other blogs involving either myself, or a myriad of others. Doesn't matter the people involved, the results are always precisely the same.

However, having said that, I do always enjoy though that, after the insults, the snotty jibes, the intentional misrepresentation of opposing viewpoints, etc., they always end it with the passive-aggressive "I'll pray for you", "No, no, I'll pray for you." exchange. :)
 

Everyone (all denominations, creeds, and dare I say it, sexual orientations) is finally in Heaven (new or old), or Paradise,whatever, and are assembled before God, who says in His magnificent, inimitable voice: "Well, my children, I have good news and bad news".

The Presbyterians pipe up and want to know the bad news first (at this point in the story everybody always laughs, and until the Pastor T episode I could never figure out why), so God complies and says:
"The bad news is....you were all wrong!"

The fundies all gasp, the rest aren't that surprised, they'd been told all along they were wrong - by the fundies.

He continues and points to Jesus:
"But the good news is, on the cross, my son took care of that too."
 

What say I? I say my eyes glaze over when these things come up and I go merrily on my way living -- not letting such circular discussions interfere with doing the things I think I'm supposed to do. I think these "fights" are a waste of time. Anytime y'all want to just have lunch without spat, come on up and I'll put on my apron and find something in the cabinet or the fridge to fix.
 

Neil was gracious enough to actually post an entire thread dedicated to my "Dead Baby Jokes" post. The results were neither surprising nor interesting, except that I took the step of posting a comment. As I refuse to enter there again unless forced at gunpoint, I would be delighted to discover whether it survives.

Anyway, I do believe this entire subject is just about worn out, and I have other things to do.
 

Trixie, it is a "Y" chromsome thing.
 

Lovin Jesus is like lovin' Chili....

There will never be an agreement between all groups of Christians any more than there was between the ACTUAL Disciples...... and they hung out with Jesus!

We aren't going to ever all agree and people aren't ever going to just play nice....

We are not only God's creation (IMHO) but we are also God created predators (pointy teeth to tear flesh, eyes up front to gauge distance to prey) and we DO get along... Just like a yappy pack of coyotes .... we gang up on whoever it is we are ganging up on today and sometimes it just happens to be our turn.

Ronholio
 

Oh and I forgot... we DON"T have to agree... just Love one another.....

Peace out

Ronholio
 

Hi ER. You're right. I haven't been by in a while. Just been splashin' around in different pools. Thanks for the explanation about E.E. Sure enough, I feel silly not having remembered exactly what it stood for. I listen to D. James quite a bit and just had some brain cramps when you mentioned E.E. Gettin' older, the warranty's lapsing.

I don't know why you folks have such a hard time with these theological discussions. It seems logical that it would escalate as it does, what with it being such a personal thing and all. But you make far too much of our defense of our positions. Of COURSE you can believe what you want. Of COURSE we think you might run into problems for doing so. It's part of how we view the faith. You view it differently.

But quite frankly, we're being accused of some of the same things y'all do at times. Big deal. The problem is that we engage in the discussion at all. It's natural that emotions will rise. Once they do, stupidity will ensue. Can't be helped. Except by not discussing theology at all. What fun would THAT be. We all enjoy it too much.

I've only been visiting Neil's blog for a short time. Thus far, I haven't seen much frustration from him, though he has every right to be as frustrated as Geoffrey now feels. Unless of course y'all are right and we're horribly wrong. Isn't that the problem you have with us? If so, then we are equally within our rights to be fagged out and frustrated. But aside from ELAshley, I haven't seen it from the conservative blogs I visit.

But this notion that we who are considered fundamentalists are are too rigid and intolerant is getting old and boring. We simply stand by what we believe in the same way you do. In a sense, y'all are fundies regarding your progressive views. Equally rigid in dismissing our views as we are in supporting them.

It seems to me that many of you have encountered some really goofy people that you consider fundamentalists. They may be. Karen spoke of some goofy thing regarding Communion at a lunch table. Can't say as I can think of anyone who would have a serious problem with that. Did it happen? Is it just a story? Doesn't matter. I know of no one that would call that "heretical", though I could see some looking for a little more reverence than a lunch table might afford. Big deal.

Dan,

I see you at almost every conservative blog I visit. I don't know who's banning you or shutting you down. Yeah, I'll mock you, but I like snark. I will say that your buddy Mike banned me. I don't think it was the snark as much as the quality of my comments. He didn't respond to them except to say they were too long. Like this one.

Anyway, no one's been banned at my place. Got no plans for it as yet. Snark is welcomed. Snark is distributed. Let the games continue.
 

Note this we managed to keep this meaningful yet civil for the most part. Cool.

(I especially got a kick out of the B&B-ness up top! Hoot!)
 

I'm sure there would be some people who would be upset by the fact that I joined my new church up here -- Wednesday night at a fellowship dinner, at my new pastor's invitation to shake things up a little. Not only did he and I get a great joy from doing things differently, but so did everyone else assembled.

Just thought I'd throw that in for my own pleasure.
 

"I see you at almost every conservative blog I visit. I don't know who's banning you or shutting you down."

I could give you a list...
 

I've been reading about that super large wolf-spider web down in Texas. It would have to be in Texas woldn't it. Then I had an epiphany. Hell that's just like ole ER's Blog.

He goes out to those other blogs and attracts attention and then lays down his web lines that lead all those fresh meat "literalist" types back to his place. When he gets them here he retreats humbly at first into the silk funnel he has made, until they start to get tangled up in the trap and then he pounces and spins up a bundle around them. All the while they're thinking that they can leave anytime. then it is too late. That's when he invites all of his other liberal leaning wolf-spider friends to join in sucking out the best juices.

Then when he is full, he lays low and posts up some rock n' roll or kitty or puppy stuff and lets it all calm down before he trolls again for some prey.

Maybe that is why they call it the world wide web.
 

Digression:
The following is an unsolicited editorial:(aren't they all)

Being raise on Porter Wagoner and Dolly Parton, my taste in country Music may be a tad slow to change.

I just encountered something called Hick-Hop. Country Rap?
That's enough to bring The Texas Playboys back from the grave to beat Cowboy Troy to death with their sons' Gibsons.

I ain't askin for purity, but shit, cowboy rap? Let's hear it for the "Ole Chisolm Trail" in rap beat!

"Where all the hick chicks"? CBT ask. With their boots up yor deriererererer if they are real country women.
 

Drlobojo, you've made my day. You and the rain, that is. And the farmer's market this morning, with only three people set up. Still I got a dozen fresh-baked cinnamon rolls, a dozen fresh brown eggs right out of the chicken's butt, and some homemade breads. Put on the Dolly CD and let's have breakfast! Anyone have some Flatt and Scruggs?
 

Ronimal, on Jesus and chili: You speak wisely, brother.

Trixie: Mmmm, butt eggs. I was a little bitty ER the last time I had an egg right outta the butt! (I wonder how close Braum's eggs come to that?)

Drlobojo, dude: Take any Baxter Black or Red Steagall pome and speed it up: You got cowboy rap!

And re: the spider web: Quit tellin' my secrets! ... Now where's a new picture of my widdle kitty cat ...? :-)
 

Oh, Alan, I think you got in here without a proper welcome and howdy from me!

Howdy! Welcome!
 

ER --

Why do you fear "getting kicked out of the church?" See, brother? That's no more important to your eternity tnan getting kicked out of a country club for being an Erudite Redneck.

We're so concerned with fighting each other about who's the "real" Christian -- hafta be baptized to enter heaven? Hafta BELIEVE we must be baptized to enter heaven? In other words, not possible to be baptized "just in case."

So we're screaming stuff like that to each other while a non-believer who's seeking SOMETHING in his life watches. All we've done is convince him he don't want none of THIS kinda brotherly love. So he spends the rest of his life feeling empty. Searching for God. But he can't hear God talking about eternity because of the NOISE HIS CHILDREN ARE MAKING ABOUT STUPID STUFF.

Don't fight for a place in a pew. If you get kicked out, consider it a badge of honor that you're following your Bible -- not some social club manifesto.

Christians who use "liberal" or "conservative" like they're dirty words don't get the true meaning of grace, mercy, and God's intent of salvation.

If you wanna stir up some stuff, argue about NASCAR or football or sumthin. Don't turn faith into a blood sport.

Fight to share God's grace with others -- for the sake of eternity.
 

thanks for the warm welcome, ER.
 

I think the question you're basically asking in your original post, ER, is 'why do Christians fight?' It's a good question, because not only does it effect how non-believers perceive us -- and we are called to be witnesses for Christ so it is a big deal, but also our relationships with other Christians and even our relationship with God.

If you look at almost all of church history it is a study of conflict and fighting. Conflict is nothing new among Christians, and it didn't even start with the Reformations. It can be traced all the way back to disagreements among the apostles and certainly the first church in Corinth. Why do you think Paul had to write all those letters?

For two thousand years we have argued and fought over the nature of God, the meaning of the sacrament, who may minister, the gifts of women, what books and letters to put in the Bible, the Trinity, the list goes on and on.

In local congregations arguements break out over whether the preacher should spend a whole sermon on tithing to the location of the Christmas tree. If you want to test your Christian faith, try serving on a church committee.

To those who are not Christian it is understandably a disconcerting process to observe, or a cause for vindication as to why they shouldn't follow Christ. It can be disconcerting to those who are Christians, for that matter.

But here's why I think Christians fight, and I include myself in this group. But first, let's put the first-century church in Corinth under the magnifying glass. Fighting among Christians started as early as that and maybe they came up with a way to deal with it.

There were probably 150 to 200 christians in the city of Corinth, and it was one of the first congregations that Paul started. Almost as soon as it was formed, it divided itself into three groups, the Libertines, who had a radical view of Christian freedom,
believing that the believer could do anything because of the grace of God. There were the Ascetics who developed a very rigid view of Christian discipline, almost the direct opposite of the libertines. There was a third group who were the Ecstatics. They believed that Christian faith should be manifest in joy and celebration, but their celebrations were a bit over the edge.

Those are the three groups that we know about, but there was probably a fourth group. These were
the people who were not part of any of the three groups in the conflict. They were there at the church to grow spiritually, to practice their faith and to worship God. They were not fighters, and my guess is that they represented the majority. I like to think they were the majority anyway.

Which group do you think was right?

The answer to that question gives an insight into why Christians fight with one another. When we look at the letter Paul sent to them regarding the fighting going on we find Paul affirmed that all three were right, to a degree.

Like the Libertines, Paul was a proponent of Christian freedom. Like the Ascetics, he also believed that Christian faith should manifest itself in moral behavior. Like the Ecstatics, he believed that Christian faith is not joyless, but has its ecstatic moments. All three groups were right... But they were equally wrong!


The key is the last section of his letter when he stated: "Now we see in a mirror dimly." Details were obscured and the total image was often distorted. This was the mirror that Paul had in mind when he wrote those words: "Now we see in a mirror dimly."


He was stating unequivocally that our perspective, our understanding, our experience is neither perfect nor complete. It's as fuzzy and distorted as the image in a brass mirror. To the Christians battling it out in Corinth, (or anywhere else) he was saying "You are all correct, but none of you has the complete picture. The reason you are fighting is because you believe you do."

Christians fight when we believe that we, all of us, need to see and experience God in the same way. The truth is, we do not walk the same paths in life. The truth is that none of us has the same experience of God. Some have found God in an ecstatic moment, others in the silence of contemplation, still others in following a discipline of spirituality.

I am coming to believe that in most church conflicts, one can find truth in both sides.

It's when that degree of arrogance that asserts that MY experience of God, MY experience of Christ, is the right one that fighting breaks out. We've got to let go of that arrogance and recognize both sides have some truth to them. We need to quit fighting each other and start fighting poverty, sickness, hunger and for lost souls who are empty and need to be filled. All of this in-fighting is a gigantic waste of time. You might feel like you're doing something for Christ, but are you really?

Anyway, so what else did Paul tell that first church? Expecting all of us Christians to agree on everything is not going to happen, but he did have a message for them, one I truly believe has urgency for our time.

So, in his own words...

I Corinthians 13


If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

2And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

3If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant

5or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;

6it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth.

7It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.


8 Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end.

9For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part;

10but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end.

11When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways.

12For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.

13And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.*
 

Points taken, Tracey. I suppose it's self-defense, or I usually think it is, when I get so riled up at others whose idea of what it means to try to follow Christ seems to narrow. And self-defense is always suspect for any Christian. Sigh.

Plus, I do just loves me a good rhubarb!


Good stuff, Crystal. So, though, my real questions remain:

What the heck does it mean to say they "will know us (Christians) by our love"? What does the "peace that passes all understanding" mean to you?

(The second one less so, actually, since it's really a personal thing.)
 

"by our love" -- when life sucks. People -- Christians and non -- can be pretty darned cruel when they're bored and comfortable.

When are we proud of our faith and our humanity? During tragedies we are selfless. We sacrifice so that the suffering of others is lessened.

That's when we're too busy "doing" to sit and pick apart another's narrow belief systems. Faith and works are distinct, but they're related. One is evidence of the other.

They'll know we are Christians by our LOVE -- our ACTIONS. Not by what we say we believe. Because actions are evidence of what we really, truly believe.

Keep chewing on your cigar and enjoying a good row, brother. Just understand the difference between eternal consequences and, well, yanking some goober's chain just because he's a goober. Ain't nuthin wrong with that by itself. It just kinda makes me sad when people drag Jesus into an earthly scuffle. That's my opinion, and I love ya whether you agree or don't. :)
 

Lordy, we are all fat and happy -- anybody with the luxury of bein' able to rant and rave, or do anything for the heck of it, online is RICH by definition. Camels and needle eyes do come to mind.

Part of it gettin' used to gettin' along with "others" a story as old as humanity its own self. And the Internets bring it all right home.

My friend and bloggy buddy Geoffrey, I'm pretty sure, probably never would have encountered anyone who takes the Bible literally if not for the Internets. And I know that nowadays, I never would have any personal encounters with such, if not for blogdom.

Somethin' to think about there.
 

Why do Christians fight? Simple. They are people, still flawed, still in need of amazing grace. That's all.
 

My issue with these fights is not that I'm surprised they occur. That's just history.

The issue, I think, is the level of polarization and venom. I mean, what drives someone to call someone they've never met a heretic, to question the faith of someone you've never met in person? Or not even to go that far, but what drives people who are not only Christians, but leaders in their churches to lob snotty, catty, petty, & bitchy comments on a public blog?

We should expect better from Christians. But if they can't even muster up some Christian brotherly/sisterly love, you'd think they'd know that manners make the man (or woman).
 

Knowing us by our love to me means that no matter what the person's convictions: I would help them, I would listen to them when they needed it, I would do whatever it took to see that they got what they needed, and I would work to make sure that their rights were upheld as i believe mine should be (except if it's criminal). Even AP, "military wife of 4" whose blog I have to avoid like bubonic plague, or I get too upset - she really does it to me.

The peace that passes understanding (and I prayed for it for years and years) was mine when I came to the realization that Jesus is constantly telling and showing me that no matter what I do,no matter how I act, no matter where I am in my life, He loves me without conditions and always will (and believe me I've tested Him on that! ), and that nothing can or will change that, ever!
 

*That's* where you and I bumped into each other! I'm with you on steerin' clear of that joint. Makes. Me. Crazy.

Heh-heh. Drlobojo, check her out:

http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/
 

Dang you, Karen! You mighta just as well thrown a piece of red meat on the ground in front of Bailey!

I just HADDA go over there. And I just HADDA correct her on a point of Scripture. (Kucinich post).

What. Irony. :-)
 

I know, I know, it's like an addiction - you just can't believe that she's serious, so you keep going back....but NO I WILL NOT....today.
And don't you think her CNN and Fox videos have increased, as have her labels of "the nearly won war", " the war that's about to be won", "the war that can be won" etc (paraphrased, 'cause I WILL NOT GO THERE, to check her exact wording!) :)
 

Oh drat, I went.
Well it certainly was good you went, someone has to say something.
 

We should start a 12-step program for certain blogs. :-)
 

E.R., I declare! You're the guy who takes a carton of milk out of the fridge, notes the expiration date is 10 days past, takes a big swig, gags, spits and then says to the person next to him, "Here, smell this! Does this smell bad to you?"
 

Ha! I didn't say I'd be a GOOD righty blog 12-stepper. I'd prolly be gettin a "desire" chip about every other day! :-)
 

Trixie you got him cold on the milk thing, except he would spit it "back into the carton" and then....
 

Dan,

A list? No, I don't need to see one. But it does tell me one important fact: it means that you are in front of your computer a heck of a lot more than me, and that ain't a good thing.

Alan,

"I mean, what drives someone to call someone they've never met a heretic, to question the faith of someone you've never met in person?"

When one hears what is a complete contradiction of Scripture, and that contradiction is supported by non-Biblical and irrelevant data, and then it is insisted it is a more accurate way to interpret a verse or verses that say nothing of the kind. If you get my meanin'.

There's a difference between disagreeing on a point here or there, and totally rewriting Scripture. When that happens, it is the definition of a heretical position.

Karen,

I don't think you'll get an argument regarding the fact that Christ loves us all unconditionally (Except from Fred Phelps, but he don't count, cuz he's a heretic.), But that's not the same as saying all will spend eternity with Him.

For anyone who doesn't believe: It isn't necessarily a good thing to expect perfection from Christians of any stripe. If one is going to make a decision regarding one's own faith on the everyday behavior of the average Christian, one will be disappointed. Someone mentioned being on a church committee. Serving on my church's Board of Elders and Church Council, I often wonder why in such an arena all involved cannot act in a more Christian manner. I mean, if not in church, where?

But here on the blogs? Good gosh, stand back! It's the anonymity that brings it out and frankly, I think it's a good thing. Despite the vitriol, and it can be high, one can speak freely and honestly and get right down to it.

But to expect pure holiness, well, that's the goal, but we are just human beings. And snarkiness is fun.
 

wasn't looking for an argument, just answering a request.....