Unsettled ChristianityOne blog to rule them all, One blog to find them, One blog to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
Archive for the ‘Controversial’ Category
First, for the background, see here.
Then, go here.
Do you see the Feedback box?
Would you like to report this content as inappropriate? Click here
I would recommend something simple, like this:
This book is contains plagiarized material. See…
And include links to the blog post at the top of this post or some of the links in that blogpost. Or your choice of links.
Let’s do this.
This post floated by on FB. IN sum, the author proposes in regards to the criticism of Islam and the rise of Islamophobia:
When does criticism become bigotry? The line is crossed when criticism of Islam, of ideas or beliefs, become transposed into prejudice about people; or when critics demand that Muslims are denied rights, or be discriminated against, simply because they happen to be Muslims.
Christians, hear me well. You aren’t persecuted in this country. There isn’t Christophobia either.
However, it seems we have become a rather overly sensitive lot. There should be no challenge leveled at what we believe we mistake for a phobia of our religion. Otherwise, Christianity is xenophobic because it present a challenge to most if not all systems of belief (or disbelief). Challenges are going to happen and must happen if we are to continue to grow.
The article is a good one. Read it.
Sorry for the quip.
Anyway, the Christian Post is running this article:
The article begins,
In what some are calling a sign of the almighty, a statue of Jesus Christ atop a small hill in the town of Tanauan, in the central Philippines, withstood the destruction levied by typhoon Haiyan and has become a beacon of hope in the heavily Catholic region.
The article never really address who says that. But, you know what – when there are between 5 to 10000 DEAD a still-standing statue is not a “sign of the almighty” anymore than a tree still standing.
This is stupid theology, stupid logic, and a grasping of straws. This is meant to deflect the questions of ‘why would God allow this tragedy’ and replace it with ‘hey, look, white jesus is still standing so god loves us.’
This is stupid.
Also, why point out that it is a “heavily Catholic region?”
This is nuts.
SO MANY THINGS WRONG WITH THIS.
One – the United States is not Israel. Moses wasn’t speaking to the U.S. Military. This is not a FRACKIN’ THEOCRACY BASED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.
SELF-CONDEMNATION IS NOT THE ROOT OF PTSD.
Remember, this is the same group of morons who preached against vaccines.
David Paul Kirkpatrick has a great post he shared on facebook the other day:
I have no need nor standing to tell him what cinema portrayals are best, but it helped solidify something I’ve been thinking about.
The 2006 movie, Son of Man, portrays Jesus as a modern day African in a war-torn part of the continent. It is startling because it is the depiction of Jesus is unlike anything I witnessed before. When Mary, on the run from militants seeking to rape her, hides, it gives a new twist to envisioning the danger the Holy Family endured.
Lately, we have seen the Bible series portray Jesus as another British white guy. I am not criticizing this because frankly, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to do so.
I want to see a different cinematic portrayal of Jesus. Here are the things I’d do.
- Jesus is a tanned, short, rather mundane if not completely ugly looking male actor played by a Jew.
- The disciples are younger, sort of like the Outsiders, but you know, 1st century Jews.
- The Romans are played by superman-types. Blond, blue-haired, robust and stoutly fellows.
- The torture of Jesus includes rape. Yes, I know. Very controversial.
- The conclusion ends where Mark originally does.
What are you thoughts?
The ineffable Dr Cargill has retweeted several less than critical reactions to the announcement of the new scholarly series on the History Channel.
Note, these people have yet to see the series but are already willing to throw out the books of Proverbs and James and their prohibitions against rushing to judgment.
These ‘statements’ are false, but they aren’t really addressable.
according to Mark himself security at John MacArthur’s place confiscated his book.
he begged them to take his books… as a gift… begged.
…I cannot arrive at any conviction other than the one that says sodomy is a sin…
…But his disapproval and the disapproval of many other men and women I respect cannot change the conviction I have when I try to work through this matter. My conscience is captive to what I understand the Word of God to teach…
…And so, this is where I stand. God help me.
This is an attempt at channeling the moral authority of Martin Luther. Not only does this position Luther as the favorite anti-Catholic hero, but this is roundly taken out of context.
Luther was open to change (at least on paper), with the entire speech not a brick wall, but a challenge to show him where he is wrong.
Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.
Luther is offering a defense, not a refusal to discuss. John confuses his version of conscience with what Luther is meaning. John’s stance becomes mired and mixed with Luther’s, although Luther doesn’t refuse to change, but simply asks where he was in error. Luther, at least here, shows some humility and foresight that he may be in error. John, my good friend, does not.
I admire those who can take strong stands, but if you do not know why and cannot defend your stance, much less refuse to be open to change, then your stance becomes nothing more than fundamentalism personified. Rather than say “this is where I stand. God help me” what should be said is “this is what I think and God help you if you try to change my mind.”
It is time for United Methodists to have a conversation about these issues, but the discussion must be populated more with open minds than false bravado based on out-of-context quotes and a refusal to change.
Here, John, is where I stand. God help me to be open to knowing if I am wrong. Now, let us reason together so that neither one of us are cast into the ditch.
- Martin Luther’s ‘Open Letter to Unsettled Christianity’ (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- Martin Luther on temptation (externalword.wordpress.com)
- Martin Luther (1483-1546) on theology and music (deovivendiperchristum.wordpress.com)
There are often times I take positions opposite of Rodney just to irritate him. This is not one of those times. As a matter of fact, Rodney’s piece is required reading before wading into the water of MacArthur v. Driscoll.
I generally have no issue allowing Mark Driscoll to be taken down a notch and I am not predisposed to love or have loyalty of John MacArthur. So with this, let me move on.
I am here to say that reproaches that are falling on His holy name are falling on me as well, and mostly this comes in the professing church from Pentecostals and Charismatics who feel they have free license to abuse the Holy Spirit and even blaspheme His holy name. And they do it constantly.
He goes on:
How do they do it? By attributing to the Holy Spirit words that He didn’t say, deeds that He didn’t do, and experiences that He didn’t produce, attributing to the Holy Spirit that which is not the work of the Holy Spirit.
He goes on to cite the New Apostolic Reformation, Cindy Jacobs, and a host of other nutters I’ve long called attention to as false teachers and reprobates. I have no qualms about citing them as a destructive force on Christianity. It is not merely that I don’t believe their bunk, garbage, and… well you get you idea, but they stand a part and often against the Great Tradition of Christianity like their father Montanus.
Many believe MacArthur lumped all pentecostals and charismatics together, but it seems he cited several specific examples.
Anyway, while I believe he is correct, I think he misses a great deal. First, I wouldn’t bandy about the concept of blasphemy as easily as he has. After all, what they do, we all do to some extent in pronouncing biblical interpretation. Frankly, if the NAR is blaspheming the Holy Spirit, so is Calvinism because both are wrong.
Further, I think he misses the corporate experience of the Spirit rather than the individual. He, instead, latches on to the actions of these individuals as well as forgetting to give a better view of the Holy Spirit. But, all in all, his take on the specific people, I believe, are dead on (except I wouldn’t go so far as to say they are blaspheming).
Anyway, I wanted to call attention to this and get your thoughts. On one hand, I like what MacArthur said but on the other, I think he goes too far in labeling these people as blasphemers.
- Mark Driscoll to Crash John MacArthur’s Strange Fire Conference? (christculturenews.com)
- John MacArthur vs. Mark Driscoll: Megachurch pastors clash over charismatic theology (religionnews.com)
- What does it mean to blaspheme the Holy Spirit? (jmdansville.wordpress.com)
- Strange Fire Conference: John MacArthur’s Opening Address (challies.com)
- Mark Driscoll Shows Up at Strange Fire Conference; Says Free Books he Was Giving Away Were Confiscated by Security (blackchristiannews.com)
- Strange Fire Conference: John MacArthur Tests the Spirits (challies.com)
- The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in John MacArthur’s Opening Address (marccortez.com)