I read recently where a PCA church in Portland is encouraging all members to just get along after the whole SCOTUS ruling redefining marriage. "Some of us are putting rainbow filters on our Facebook avatars while others are disappointed in the SCOTUS decision but are holding our tongues on social media for fear of being labeled in an unfortunate way," they say. For those in their church who are happy about the ruling, remember not to look down on your "weaker brother". For those who are concerned about the ruling, remember not to force your theology onto your government or those who disagree. Instead, "choose to wish them well in the lives they've chosen for themselves." And then they (whoever wrote this thing) suggest that many "advocating for our gay and lesbian friends" "feel we're being guided by the Golden Rule."
I am intrigued by this idea. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If I was in the reverse position, what would I want them to do unto me? Well, let me think. In the past I have made bad decisions, chosen bad paths, gone down wrong routes. (This is not to suggest I'm immune now.) Far too often I have had people I considered friends nod and pat me on the back and encourage me to "go for it". You know, "Whatever floats your boat, man. We're here for you." And on more than one occasion, as I've hit the end of that line and emerged bruised and bleeding, they've been there to help dust me off and said things like, "Yeah, we were afraid of that." "Wait, what?" I always want to say. "You saw that coming and didn't tell me??!!" What would I want people that care about me to do if I headed down a path -- say, a path that God says He hates -- and didn't see it? I would pray that the people who cared about me would warn me off, would flag me down, would encourage me to repent, would pray for me to stop, would offer help and support in going the right way rather than the wrong.
Maybe that's just me. Maybe others would like to be encouraged in their sin and error. Maybe they don't want to see their error, repent, and do what's right. Or maybe those who feel they're being guided by the Golden Rule don't see it as error. But if we're talking about people in a theoretically good church with theoretically biblical teaching who can theoretically understand that God (Lev 18:22) and Christ (Matt 19:3-12) and Paul (Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10, etc.) (which, given that it is the Word of God, is all the same thing -- God speaking) are opposed to the redefinition in favor of sexual behavior He deplores, I cannot fathom how it could be classified as not an error. Oh, that's right, this new generation of "good churches" with "biblical teaching" have figured out the truth that all of Christianity failed to see prior to their arrival. I don't know ... sounds amazingly arrogant. So I can only guess that there is a radically different version of "the Golden Rule" of which I'm not aware.
12 comments:
But when I correct you, you ban me. So, it would appear you don't like correction any more than other people. hmm...
The differenc here is that when I correct you, it's about demonstrable errors... yu claim we believe X when factually, we do NOT believe X. Further, when you are factually mistaken about something, we are only pointing out "Hey, you're factually mistaken."
Whereas, when you correct us it is you insisting that your opinion is a fact and that for us disagreeing with your opinions, we are not only mistaken, we aren't Christian.
And yet, you don't like being corrected. Won't even face it on your blog, at least from me. Hmm...
I would pray that the people who cared about me would warn me off, would flag me down, would encourage me to repent, would pray for me to stop, would offer help and support in going the right way rather than the wrong.
I know I already said this, but... just the irony! This is exactly what I've been doing for years and you've been pushing me away, saying that I'm not even a Christian in response to me doing exactly what you're saying you wish I would do.
I guess it's to be expected. I just hope that, given the reality that you're doing exactly what you're decrying... that it would help you understand how other people feel in response to your preaching... that it would help you understand the arrogance and hypocrisy in you banning exactly what you're advocating.
May God open our eyes to all Truth and give us the courage to accept it.
If nothing else, these words encourage me to continue to reach out to you. It's exactly what you're asking for! Irony, again.
Dan, I just need to make one thing clear. You have not been banned because you disagree with me. You have not been banned because you dislike me. You have not been banned because you corrected me. You were banned because you opted to attack me and my family. I explained that to you at the time and made it clear.
If you classify your mode of communication and disagreement and assault as kindness, tolerance, love, caring, even friendly, then you have definitions beyond any possibility of my understanding. And since you can't even recognize, after I made the reason quite clear, the truth about why you are not allowed here anymore, there is no reason to allow you to communicate here.
Oh, one other thing before I sign you off again. Despite your strange perceptions and overbearing ego, not everything I write here is about you and your beliefs. Indeed, I can't think of much I write about you and your beliefs. If you see it in what I write, it is coincidence at best and a guilty conscience on your part at worst. Let it go. Go somewhere else. This stuff is not written to you. Say goodbye, Dan.
Fact: I do not "dislike" you, Stan. I do dislike it, though, when you misrepresent facts. But then, you should support that, right?
Fact: To the degree that I "attacked" you or your family, I am certain I have apologized.
What exactly constitutes an "attack" on you? Are you that thin-skinned?
RE: go somewhere else? YOU are stating that you WANT people to correct you. I am striving to do so. Now, if you tell me right here and now: Dan, I do NOT want to be corrected... I would rather repeat falsehoods and not have them challenged by you... if you tell me that, THEN I will go away. But, if you are saying you want to be corrected, then I will strive to correct you.
And why would I do that, Stan? Because I love you as a brother in Christ and because I love truth and the church.
Not because I dislike you. That is an example of a false claim on your part.
In Christ,
Dan
Dan,
1. I didn't say you dislike me. I said I didn't ban you for such a reason. I didn't make such an accusation. Like so many other of your complaints about my misrepresenting your views (which, in almost every case these days, is not a representation of your views), you're hearing something I'm not saying.
2. I explained at the time what the attack was, how unacceptable it was, and how it was the end of dialog. You acknowledged that it was an attack and haven't apologized for it. I hold no ill-will over it, but choose to no longer allow you the option of repeating it. The fact that you don't even know what I'm talking about is the primary reason for not allowing you that option.
3. No, I'm not asking for the general public to correct me. I'm asking for people who I know care about me to correct me. You are not one of those people. I'm asking for people who love God and His Word to correct me. You are not one of those people.
4. If "love you like a brother" includes rude, offensive, foul-language, personal attacks on my character and family, we are, again, at a verbal impasse, not speaking the same language.
So, please, stop. You say "love" and mean something different than I do, "brother" and mean something different than I do, "in Christ" and mean something different than I do. And you don't even know it. So I continue to pray for you, but I won't continue to dialog with you.
1. A simple mistake on my part. My fault. Forgive me, please.
2. Well, since I don't recall (and truly, I am sorry, but I don't have the memory I should have), all we have is your word that there is some vague "attack" on your family and my certainty that I have NEVER attacked anyone. Calling someone out on a mistake on their part is not an attack. So, please provide the details or remove the claim, to be fair and reasonable.
3. So, you want the option of correcting the general public (ie, your repeated chastising of culture at large, or of Christians who you deem liberal or others you think are mistaken), but you don't want the general public correcting your mistakes. Why not? Why do you want to claim a freedom that you don't want others to engage in?
4. Yes, being loving might involve using harsh language. I did not attack you or your family, that is a falsehood. Stop repeating false claims, Stan.
Again, you appear to want to do something you don't want others to do. Isn't that the definition of hypocrisy? (and my asking you that question is NOT an attack, it is a reasonable question, given that you want to demonize and misrepresent others but you don't want them to correct your false claims.
So, by all means, if you want to be consistent, then give up the constant attacks and false claims you make about others and I will give up trying to correct you. OR, if you think it is okay to attack/make false claims about others (ie "correct" others), then have the moral rectitude to be willing to be held to the same standard you impose upon others.
I'm just asking for some consistency, or at least that you admit that you are being inconsistent. So, if you want to be inconsistent, then all you have to do is say, "Dan, I don't want you to correct me, BUT, I wish to be inconsistent and reserve the right to correct others publicly, even when it's sometimes demonstrably false claims that I use in my correction..." Admit that and I will leave you alone forever, although, it will sadden me to see you make that choice.
It is astounding that he believes he is correcting you when he can't give any scriptural reference to back up what he says. Plenty of extra-biblical data, anecdotal evidence, and baseless claims that the Bible doesn't say what it says.
It is far more astounding that he is so persistent. He's not been allowed to comment for quite a while. Has been completely ignored and nearly forgotten, and yet he continues to pursue this trolling. I think that might be a Guinness record for longest lasting troll.
See, this is how it works. "I'm sorry ... but, of course, I don't know what I did and I doubt that it happened and I'm sure you're liar."
Or, "You won't allow anyone to correct you" even though people disagree with me all the time.
And Dan would still like me to think this it would be fair and reasonable to include him in the dialog.
(Oh, and, Dan, the definition of hypocrisy is not what you think. It is claiming to have moral standards that you don't hold. And pointing out how ideas are wrong is not the same as "chastising liberals". On the other hand, correction without reason as David points out is not helpful correction.)
You want consistency and I will return to consistency and block you from commenting again.
Yes Dan, Stan held onto that communication where you attacked him and his family just for the occasion to prove to you that it happened. He definitely did not delete it so as to not have it linger, to be reread whenever he starts feeling good about himself.
Believe that Stan would not make such an unfounded accusation out of thin air. If he says you said these things and subsequently apologized for it, then it happened. I have known the man my entire life.
This is one of the more amusing interactions I've ever seen with Dan. And that's saying something.
You just want to make sure he doesn't rebuke you in the name of Jesus, he's done it to me. There was lots of profanity and attacks, but little rebuke, and no Jesus.
I love how he wants to "make nice" while calling me a liar and demanding proof.
On a side note, or perhaps on topic...not sure now...
This post puts me in mind of the common admonition: "who are YOU to tell ME..." or words to that effect.
Somehow, no one wants to be held accountable. Clearly most people want everyone else to be, but not necessarily themselves. I, too, am guilty of at least insisting I am not in the wrong, but I do prefer sound evidence to support the contention before conceding. However, this is not the same as prohibiting anyone from holding me accountable. I do indeed want to be corrected before I totally destroy myself. I really don't like being wrong. Not in the sense of vanity, but in the sense of self-protection as well as for simply getting along.
Fortunately...or unfortunately depending upon perspective...I am usually well aware of my faults and corrections are most often a matter of "tell me something I don't know". But I take each correction as a gentle kick in the pants and will strive to do better, at least for the duration of the situation at hand.
So as to that common admonition, my answer is "I'm one who cares."
Post a Comment