Saturday, May 05, 2007

AN OPEN POST TO MY FRIEND, ER


Note: I posted this in comment form over at my blogger buddy, EL's place. I am posting it with some minor changes here, in hopes that ER happens across it and begins to understand what I have been attempting, in my less than adequate way, that I love him as a brother in Christ. I hope and pray that indeed he is my brother in Christ, but often times I wonder. If I were to simply assume he is a Christian, and I said nothing because of it, I am failing my God. Although it isn't my place to judge, I reserve the right to surmise about his and anyone else's salvation.

For background, ER commented in a previous comment that he can't stand me. I posted (with minor changes, as I stated) the following response:

ER, I find it interesting that you state that you follow Jesus, who said, "love your neighbor, even as I have loved you", and then, in almost the same breath, say you can't stand me.

In spite of all of your heretical and apostate misinterpreted statements of tainted faith, I still think you would be a great friend to sit with at the bar, drinking beer, and watching football. If I drank.

I don't hate you, ER. Quite the contrary, I see it as part of my commission to point out the error of your ways. To save you from being one of those, who BOWING before God, hears the terrifying words, "Depart from me you cursed, I never knew you."

Those are indeed frightening words, ER, but more frightening than the words is the very real possibility that you may someday actually hear them with your own ears.

I'll let you in on a secret:

I don't want to hear them, and the thought of the possibility that I might scares the Hell out of me. Literally. It quite possibly is what most motivates me to try to live my life as Christ would have me live. An attempt at which, I have to admit, I fail miserably.

ER, wouldn't you at least make some effort to rescue another person, regardless of whether you personally like him or not, from a burning house?

Or would it be considered a loving, selfless act to warn someone in the path of a tidal wave that he may experience a little moisture?

By the same token, if you see a human being in danger of going to his Maker without Christ, are we supposed to ignore that fact, and justify his sin by twisting the Word of God to mean something completely opposite of what it is intended to mean, or try to do whatever you can to help him understand he is in danger?

What would be more loving? To tell sinners they are in danger of the judgement even when it angers and/or offends them to tell them or to pretend that they are resting safely in the bosom of Abraham in spite of their unrepentant sin?

Is giving fair warning to the sinner, in love, the same as scaring people into Heaven?

I don't think persuading an unbeliever that he is a Hell bound sinner is scaring him, although admittedly, sometimes it no doubt has that exact effect. It is simply informing him of Biblical truth, in hopes that he will understand and repent.

The truism, "Turn or burn" is a valid point. Even if it is overused, it is still very much accurate.

I'm quite sure those religious leaders in Christ's time didn't like being called a generation of vipers, either, but nevertheless, that is exactly what he called them. Do you think he called them that just to anger them or was it to make them think about how they were misinterpreting the teachings of the prophets?

That is all I am doing when I tell you what I think. It sounds as if I make you uncomfortable. Maybe that means I make more sense than what you care to admit.

Our mutual friend, Timothy, has given up on you, ER. I am not so ready to give you up to Satan. So curse me if you will. I am only trying to shepherd you back into the fold.

30 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

You and ER (and I, although you don't mention it here) disagree on some sins. We disagree on whether or not the Iraq Invasion ought to be supported by Christians, on whether or not homosexuality is a sin, on whether or not abortion is a sin (and under what circumstances)... We disagree on some sins.

We agree on the idea that Jesus is the son of God, that we are saved by asking for forgiveness and trusting in God's grace and making Jesus Lord of our lives.

Are you suggesting that those who think differently than you on some individual sins are not Christians? Or is there something else to this?

I know you've said that you don't think ER thinks Jesus is divine, but he has stated that he does. Why this desire to reject those who disagree with you as not being part of the same family of God? Isn't that God's call?

Mark said...

I am definitely not suggesting that those who think differently than me are not Christians. I merely stated that I reserve the right to surmise so.

The things you mention that we disagree on are all things that we as Christians can disagree on without dividing us, Dan.

I have questioned ER many times on whether he believes in the Diety of Jesus Christ, and I have not, to my remembrance, ever heard him say he does. He does, however, appear to think of Jesus as not the son of God, but as simply a mortal man.

Perhaps I am reading him wrong, but when he repeatedly refuses to answer my questions about whether he believes in the Diety of Christ, he gives that impression.

Dan Trabue said...

He has answered that question at least once, just recently over at Eric's blog here (about post #95) if nowhere else.

Timothy said...

Hi Mark,
You said it much more eloquently that I could have. I've wanted to write him the same thing, but never felt like it would do much good.

As for me giving up on him... not completely... but I have given up on me being able to help, direct, advise, counsel, question, converse, etc. with him. I'm still hopeful the Holy Spirit will work on him and he will leave the apostate church where he belongs and becomes truly born again. (BTW, that has happened since he has moved to Colorado. Maybe he will actually find a Bible believing church, as opposed to the Bible destroying church he attended in Oklahoma).

Anyway, good post. Thank you for doing that. I do still pray for him and hope... in the LORD. It saddens me that we were once friends and no more. To be honest, I had to promise my lovely bride to quit visiting his site because of the vicious nature found there. It was affecting me that much. I hope and pray your words will not fall on deaf ears.
Many blessings

Dan Trabue said...

Y'all know, don't you, that disagreeing with another believer on a few sins is not the same as being apostate. I don't think y'all are apostate because you disagree with me about this issue or that - why must y'all accuse those who disagree with you of NOT being Christians?

Why can't you just say, "He's wrong (in my opinion) on this issue, this issue and that issue"?

It's really denigrating to the Christ we serve and the church of which we're a part, it seems to me.

Marshal Art said...

"...why must y'all accuse those who disagree with you of NOT being Christians?"

Because at some point it becomes true, and for their sake they need to be aware of it. Just like those lengthy debates over homosexuality, wherein you were horribly wrong, our side wishes to enlighten by reminding your side of the only real evidence we have for God's Will, Scripture, and insist that your arguments are tragically lacking. There is a great motivation within us all to be right, correct, or at least, not wrong. There is also a desire to want to show others what we think we have learned or have had "revealed" to us by our meditatios. But our own meditations and feelings from within are generally not reliable and the Bible teaches us that as well. When one's "ephiphany" takes one too far from traditional teaching, how does one support that new revelation? With what? To the rest of us, it's heretical or apostate or simply blatantly stupid or foolish. Should we then just say, "Hey, that's cool. Whatever you want to believe."? Or as Christian brothers should we do a little more? If the other feels insulted, it may have taken that much to rattle his cage or open his ears, if not his eyes.

Timothy said...

Hi Marshall,
Very good response. I'm not inclined to believe that Dan will listen, but you did answer in a well-reasoned way and I commend you for it.
Blessings

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall, by all means, try to instruct me in ways of God. I shall do the same for you.

Disagree with me when you think I'm wrong.

But my question was not "Why do you disagree with me or ER?" but rather, "why must you assume that, because we disagree on the matter of homosexuality or peacemaking, do you feel the need to assume that I'm not a Christian?"

I assume no such thing of you when I think you're clearly wrong on what the Bible says. Why must many on the Religious Right so often do this?

Marshal Art said...

Once again, Dan, how far can one stray from Biblical teachings and still call himself a Christian? That's the point being made here. And I believe any given issue can be enough all by itself. An extreme example to illustrate: Fred Phelps. I really need say no more here, but to be quite clear, this guy calls himself a Christian and says that God hates fags. I can think of no verse in the Bible that would back this up. But he believes it. Seems to me he's created his own god with his pronouncements. Thus, he can't be a Christian because the God of the Christian faith has never said the He hates fags. Fred obviously hates fags, God just hates when fags have sex with each other. So how can Fred really be a Christian? The best one can say is that Fred is a Christian who has a horrible understanding of his God, but I think that means he's not yet a true Christian.

So if one's beliefs stray too far, at some point he is no longer a Christian in reality, just in name. Not good enough. (The other side of the coin is he who claims to believe the right things but his actions don't back it up.)

Marshal Art said...

Timothy,

I appreciate the kind words. Blessings to you as well.

Dan and I have gone 'round and 'round quite a bit in the short time we've been aquainted. I believe he listens, but his hearing is in question. I find no malice in the fellow, so though I find his understanding wanting, I ask for blessings on him, too.

Dan Trabue said...

Oh, I agree entirely that one can wander away from Jesus' teachings to the point that it is questionable why they'd want to call themselves a Christian. And others may well be justified in asking that question of them.

But neither I nor ER have suggested the FIRST belief that is outside of Jesus' teachings. It comes down to this: We question your interpretation of two or three sins - sins which Jesus was silent on or, in the case of war, where his words tend to agree with us more than with you. And because we question your interpretation on those two or three sins, you question our Christianity.

When folk start out and out rejecting Jesus' teachings, then I think there's room to question their loyalties to Jesus. But when brothers and sisters have disagreements about sins and matters on which Jesus was silent and the bible inconclusive, I see no reason to reject them as my brother or sister. And I have to wonder why it is that y'all do so.

Marshal Art said...

Once again Dan, it goes to straing from the teachings. If you wish to maintain another is still Christian no matter what he believes, that is your choice. Heck, the UCC does it all the time. Others, concerned not only with pleasing God, but for the souls of others as well, are willing to note the distinctions. Though said emotionally at times, it's a mere statement of fact. If you stray too far, or believe sin is not sin, even just one sin, then a false god is created and you can't justly claim to be Christian. More to the point, the concern that you've condemned yourself by your beliefs troubles us, as does how it impacts the beliefs of those you influence. (I'm using the word "you" in general terms.) Now it's spreading the word of the "strayer" rather than the Word of God.

So in the context of debating Biblical teaching, that is debate between Christians, it is appropriate to note the danger of believing that which is contrary to Scripture. Thus, we discuss particular points that stand out and make the distinction between what one side believes and how it compares to Scripture. It's an important duty in which to engage, helping to guide others' understanding. It's appropriate to say, "Christians don't believe that" in the course of imparting and supporting one's opinions on Scripture.

Erudite Redneck said...

My ears were burning.

For the kind thoughts, I am grateful.

For the prayers, I will reciprocate.

For Timothy, you are as wrong about me, and my faith, today as you were wrong about yourself, and your "faith," when we met so many years ago.

And for Mark, this gives the lie to your pretended attitude toward me:

"In spite of all of your heretical and apostate misinterpreted statements of tainted faith ..."

I DENY IT in the very name of Jesus.

And my God, but I could say the exact things about you, based on your hatred toward those unlike you, your murderous heart and your pride. But I don't. Not much anyway. Because I not only don't judge, I don't surmise.

Marshal Art said...

Come, come ER. "Murderous heart"? That's a bit over the top. Just because a man believes shooting at invaders in defense of the country doesn't imply a murderous heart. At worst, it implies impatience with a group of people who insist on breaking our laws and showing no respect for our national sovereignty. I've no doubt that Mark would greatly prefer other scenarios.

Dan Trabue said...

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment."

~Jesus

There is more than one way to have a murderous heart...

One can, for instance, continually misrepresent another's views. One can demonize this strawman, making the claim that it is the Other, and encourage others to also demonize this strawman.

One can go on the attack against the Other's church and the way they worship God, the way they follow Jesus.

Yes, there is more than one way to have a murderous heart.

Erudite Redneck said...

Marshall, Mark and I go way back in blogtime, to when he and I both were a lot less extreme in our views.

I considered myself a Conservative Dem when I started blogging at the end of 2004, and probably would still if not for the way the country has split over the war in Iraq, and the way the most vocal Repubs consider anyone not 100 percent on their side to be the enemy.

But -- and Daddio had a lot of fun with this at one time -- I hold my nose and stand with the Left, because I can't stand to stand with the Right at all.

As far as the changes in my spiritual life and thinking, they came in two main steps:

The UCC "bouncer" TV ad caused me, a Texas dancehall bouncer at one time, to repent of my arrogance and cultural hatred of homosexuals, which is not to say I personally approve of homosexuality, but that's not the point; the point is I simply refuse, literally or rhetorically, to stand in the way of anyone who tries to come to Jesus.

The other step was conviction over several years of indifference to the poor who we have with us always, triggered by the images on my TV after Katrina (not any griping I and others might do about the gubmint's reponse to the hurricane, seriously).

Oh, and I found myself getting involved is online discussions and arguments over religion and public policy, and faith and what it means to be a Christian, and I couldn't do it in good conscience as a non-churchgoing Christian. So, I joined a wonderful liberal UCC church last July and had my name removed from the roll of the small-town Southern Baptist church I joined when I began my spiritual journey -- was saved -- and baptized as a boy in 1972.

While in the heat of argument I'm as capable of snark as anyone,
I condemn no specific conservative church nor any fundamentalist person, only many (OK, probably most) of their ideas; would that I might be extended the same courtesy, but alas, Mark virtually stalks me online sometimes, insisting that I agree with him on the divinity of Jesus, when I've never denied the divinity of Jesus; constantly questioning my relationship with God because, apparently, he takes my disagreements with him as an insult or attack on him personally; and I grew tired of it to the point where I blurted out: "I can't stand that guy," for those reasons and, well, I think his politics stinks.

I really *can't* stand him, for the most part -- I mean, as much as anyone can draw any sort of conclusions about someone online -- and so, for the love of Christ and in the name of peace, I try to stay away from his blog, for the most part.

Now, to borrow a refrain from Mark, who says " I have questioned ER many times ..."

I questioned Mark more than a couple of times anyway, about his assertion that illegals coming across the border wshould just be shot down like dogs. He repeated it. And I think he still repeats. They're not "invaders," for God's sake, most of them; most of them are coming here for work , for a better life, and to seize back from this country what it has seized from others. Those are facts, although yes, there are legitimate concerns about national security that need to be dealt with. But that's where I relized that Makr has a murderous heart, and I stand by that assertion as long as Mark stands his assertion that killing them is either advisable or moral -- and maybe longer, because I really don't trust him to tell the truth about what he thinks, or much else.

Marshal Art said...

Well, I don't think I've seen any evidence of Mark purposely lying, so that was a baseless shot. Shooting invaders, which are people who sneak across the border rather than go through border checkpoints, is a legitimate policy of any sovereign state. The United States gummint has a right and a duty to regulate who crosses into our country. It has a right to say, "You can come over, and you can't." based on what the USA believes are the types of people we want and need. The USA is NOT the bad guy in expecting these illegals to pack up and leave, and for potential invaders to stop at the border and turn around. The point of suggesting firing on the invaders is not a cherished desire, but a last resort to keep them out until they go through proper channels. It's not shooting that's desired, but for the immigrants to all immigrate legally. All laws carry penalties for those who break them and those penalties are chosen according to the perceived seriousness of the crime. This, with at least 12 million illegals already here, has long passed the point of seriousness. Protecting our borders, our country and the people who are already here legally through birth or going by the numbers, even if shooting is required to do it, does not imply a murderous heart in any way, shape or form, unless you can prove that Mark wants them shot for the fun of shooting them.

Questioning the theology and teaching of a particular church, even insisting that that theology and teaching is wrong and heretical, is not an attack as much as it is a plea for your souls' sake. You, ER, don't like to interfere with the path fellow Christians take, and on the surface, that sounds peachy. But if that path leads over a cliff, you are doing that Christian terrible harm by not appealing to them to re-assess. It's comparable to a sin of ommission. I point to your admission of not approving of homosexuality. Well why don't you? If the reason is at all theological, then to act as if there's nothing wrong with it is as bad as engaging in the behavior yourself. I'm not saying you need to be a pain in the ass (pardon the expression), but when such time comes that your opinion is requested, that your vote is required, to vote or opine in support is a lie as well as leading others to sin.

I will say this, however, as a means to clarify my position, that I don't favor oppressing homosexuals in any way. Now they feel oppressed, or claim oppression, anytime they don't get what they feel they are entitled to get. But in general terms, they have every right to choose their path as you imply, but that doesn't mean they are choosing well, and that I need to in any way comply with their desires, demands or beliefs.

OK, now I'm rambling. G'nite.

Erudite Redneck said...

I don't think Mark puporsely "lies." I think he purposely ignores evidence that doesn't suit him, which causes him to pass along lies. I don't trust his words because I don't trust his thinking. He revels in his lack of education and is dismissive of those who are educated.

Further, I think he couldn't care less about me or my "soul."; I think he is alarmed, and feels somewhat threatened, that since we've been acquainted I've tossed out most of the fundamentalist thinking that I once held, and that he still clings to, as no longer relevant.

Shooting invaders would be a very American thing to do. A Christian thing, not so much.

Never said I wouldn't disrupt the path that a fewllow Christian is on. I said I would not condemn someone to hell or chastisement because of the way they walked on the same path. And we are on the sasme path. I do, of course, feel free to slap fundies around for being pro-imperialist, pro-violence and fore being scriptural literalists to the point of absurdity, just as y'all slap me around for sloppily extending Grace to ALL, not just those like me. I don't doubt that Mark is a Christian. He has assailed my faith so much I'm sick of it.

hashfanatic said...

The UCC "bouncer" TV ad caused me, a Texas dancehall bouncer at one time, to repent of my arrogance and cultural hatred of homosexuals, which is not to say I personally approve of homosexuality, but that's not the point; the point is I simply refuse, literally or rhetorically, to stand in the way of anyone who tries to come to Jesus.

hashfanatic said...

Sorry, my post got truncated.

ER, your above statement leads me to believe there could be a Christian community, that has Christ living on the inside of its members, that understands that God is holding the Gates of Heaven open to Christians while folks like Mark seem obsessed with slamming them shut.

Thanks for reminding me who "the real Christians" are most likely to be, ER.

Erudite Redneck said...

Hash, I'm convinced that some, outswide the gates, are trying to slam them shut, thereby trapping not only others but THEMSELVES outside!

Great Keith Green lyrics:

"Close the doors, there're just not coming.

"We sent the invitations out a long, long, long time ago.

"We're still gonna have a wedding feast,

"Big enough to beat them all.

"The greatest people in the world just wouldn't come,

"So now we'll just have to invite the small. ..."

--from "Song to My Parents"

Timothy said...

BTW, I just read what we AIMed about today at the subject's own blog. Sorry you had to endure that. Remember, he wants you to love your enemies, but don't expect him to do likewise.

Erudite Redneck said...

Hey, Timothy: Bite it.

Re, "I asked these questions over at the other blog, and in return, I received a lengthy explanation ..."

And STILL you believed in your voodoo. You pretend to want more information, then you cling to your original ideas anyway, which is why I don't trust you to say what you think, or to think what you say.

If you'e never going to change your mind, then why even get into discussions or arguments with anyone?

That's why you're a joke, to me, and it's why what you think doesn't matter to me: because it really, apparently, to judge from your own remarks, doesn't matter at all.

Yes. I'm still pissed at you for the previous post.

TAKE. IT. DOWN.

You don't even know it makes you look like a prideful, judgmental, ignorant idiot.

I'm trying to help you help yourself: Take It Down.

LOVE has nothing to do with beign civil. I really *would* pee on you if you were on fire.

Erudite Redneck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Timothy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Timothy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Timothy said...

Mark,
I deleted the two previous comments because I don't feel they were helping anything.
Blessings

Erudite Redneck said...

Tim, for the sake of peace, I took down a mean comment of mine, too.

Mark: This post is an insul;t to me personally, and it still makes you look like a buffoon.

Mark said...

I don't see anything in this post that should insult you, unless you think that caring about another person is insulting. I said what I said in Agape Love.

I dont think you really want me to take this poost down. You are getting too much mileage out of it continually linking to it so your readers can get suitably outraged, and then come over to my site for the purpose of insulting me.

Go back and read some of the comments I've made on your blog, and read them objectively without formulating your response before you read them, and you will see, that most times, I agreed with major parts of your posts. For instance, When you said gays should be allowed in church, I wholeheartedly agreed, but for a different reason and you and your friends took the opportunity to call me stupid, ignorant, homophobic, and bigoted.

If you would simply be intellectually honest you and I could discuss disagreements civily.

Erudite Redneck said...

Oh, pbbthth. It's offensive by definition for you to persist in questioning the seriousness of another Christian's walk, after repeated entreaties to desist -- and as long as this post is up, you continue to express doubts about my relationship with God through Christ. You should have neither doubt, nor confidence, about it, because it simply is outside of your, or anybody's, capacity to thoughtfully consider. Dude, you don't know the state of anyone's relationship with God -- no, not one -- and I daresay I deliberately include your own. Otherwise, you are not exercising faith at all. Pbbthth, again! I actually hadn't thought of "mileage" because I really don't think of this mostly nonsense of blogging as that important, one way or the other. But now that you've pointed it out, I reckon this post does provide quite a bit of high-octane blogging fuel. Cool. Leave it up then.