Another Controversy...
Another Methoblog controversy occurred and I had no dang part in it!
Jason Woolever wrote a post on the Methoblog about heresy and listed these five attributes of Christian 'orthodoxy':
(1)The inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures.
(2)The Virgin Birth and Deity of Christ.
(3)The Blood Atonement of Christ on the Cross for mankind's sins.
(4)The Actual Bodily Resurrection of Christ.
(5) Christ will return again to Earth.
I felt it was implied in the post is that anyone who does not ascribe to these beliefs is a heretic and, not ascribing to a couple of them myself, had planned to write a very respectful and civil rebuttal.
While I was at work yesterday, however, some other folks took up the task and rebutted Jason to no end. So, I guess I don't need to do that, especially since their words are more eloquent and insightful than mine would have been.
Apparently, some of these words 'distressed' Jason, especially those from Jay Voorhees. Apologies were made and clarifications went across the hyperspace to settle things down...
For the record, I want it said that I offended Jason first. These others are only mimicking me:)
In all seriousness, I don't think the words were meant as a personal attack on Jason any more than my post about his abortion post were. But if you make your thoughts and opinions public, you must expect that some will agree and that some will disagree.
I've read many political blogs and a few theological ones where the lanuguage and the arguments would make this stuff look like child's play. I'm talking about obscenities, insults to one's mother or sister, blatant disregard for common decency and so on. I'm glad that the Methoblog is so much more civil than that but it is a forum and disagreements will arise and tempers will flare...
I will never say that Jason ought to shut up or that he does not have a right to his opinion. Quite the contrary in fact. One of the main things I tried to get across to him in our controversy was that I DID NOT want him to shut up.
I may think his ideas are all wet, but he speaks his mind and he represents a portion of United Methodist thought. That's a good thing because it gets a debate going. If we all just sat around agreeing with each other all day, it wouldn't be very thought provoking (nor near as much fun).
Jason, keep it up but please don't take attacks on your ideas as personal insults. I don't think they are meant that way.
posted by Art @ 11:44 AM
5 Comments
5 Comments:
This is very weird!!
How so, un-named person???
Art, you are quite the provoker.
Interestingly enough, about the original post of what makes one orthodox, most orthodox Christians would disagree that the things listed constitute orthodoxy. Rather, they seem to constitute evangelicalism or even a form of fundamentalism.
LP? A provoker?
Moi???
Je ne crois pas!
Otherwise, I had very similar thoughts. Especially with regard to Fundamentalism.
And I think I know what you mean by 'evangelicalism', but personally, I think the term 'evangelical' has been hijacked - stolen from US.
You, sir, are, after all, a minister in which denomination?
The Evangelical Lutheran Church???
And I am a lay person in a denomination created by a merger of the Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren.
Are you and I evangelical? I think we are. I hope so because I believe very strongly in evangelizing.
But are we 'Evangelicals' in the sense that you used the term in your comment or in the sense that the mainstream media uses the term?
God help us, I hope not!
i would be typically described - in the media and personally - as an evangelical. not a problem there. there's a wide variety in the ev world.
for instance, my pastor preaches that God directly wrote the Bible all by himself, he just used the autors as a type of scribe. that's bad history and bad theology. but i haven't confronted him on that. if that's what's meant as 'inerrancy' of scripture, than of course i would disagree with that. of course, there's ever more baggage that goes along with that, including the idea that the Bible alone is sufficient to give us insight into all of humanity, history, biology, knowledge, etc.
but the most obvious part above would be the reordering of the classic creeds into a type of modern disclaimer, straight outta early 20th Century Fundamentalism movement.
oh and the fact that mr. woolever began his post in the negative, eliciting hell as being the primary reason to shun heresy (or, rather, unorthodoxy).
btw, the methoblog's comments section is a mess without a method.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home