what was your point, again?

Posted in: political rants, theological rants- Oct 09, 2008 No Comments

(or Cutting off your face just to spite your nose )

While I will name “victims”, I’m not gonna name the offenders:

  1. It’s not relevant.
  2. Why would I give them free publicity?
  3. I’m old and can’t remember 2 of the 3, anyway.

Illustration 1

Some time ago, a well-known pastor released a video series on the problem of the Bible not being taken seriously enough and/or the Bible being twisted in these days.  As part of his defense of this topic, he played audio clips of “preachers” that illustrated his point.

Among his issues was the alleged irreverence of using humor.  And yes, if your church has a two-drink minimum, then maybe there’s something wrong.  But among the clips played was one of Ken Davis.  For those of you not familiar with Ken, he isn’t a preacher; he is primarily a — wait for it — comedian.  Ken uses his comedy to segue into issues of a serious nature.

Apparently, this pastor has a problem with a comedian being funny.  Or at least, if he’s also a Christian.

Hezekiah 2:43
Whatever you do, in word or deed, do all to the glory of God.  That is, unless, it’s being funny.

So, with such a silly thought, how am I supposed to take any of what you say seriously?

Illustration 2

During one of Rob Bell’s recent “tours”, a blogger who adamantly disagrees with him attended his city’s stop on the tour.  While the blogger spun his response as simply a report of what occurred, it was an obvious fisking.

Regardless, in the midst of a theological analysis of the evening, the blogger felt it necessary to note that several of the men in the audience looked similar to Bell, particularly in hairstyle and glasses.  He made the declaration that obviously, these guys were idolizing Bell, further “proving” his point that things were amiss.

(It was pointed out that Bell is somewhat fashionable, and if others are fashionable as well, there’s a good chance of overlap, rather than idolization.  No response was made to this rebuttal.  I was shocked, shocked.)

So, let’s take a serious theological questioning about Bell’s teachings, and throw in a judgment-passing, divinely-revealed analysis of others’ actions, that Bell has no control over, and probably wasn’t true in the first place.

But I’m supposed to buy your larger points?

Illustration 3

Someone email’d me what turned out to be a copy of a blog post.  The thrust of the post was intended to be critical of Rick Warren shortly before the forum in which the presidential candidates participated.  In passing, the Democractic nominee was referred to as “B Hussein Obama”.

The implication was clear — let’s focus on Obama’s Muslim heritage.  Such silliness obfuscates any legitimate arguments that one might have, drowning them out by those who simply dismiss you as a xenophobe.

Now here’s the kicker

  1. Much of what the well-known pastor teaches is spot-on, IMHO.  Even in that series.
  2. There are some major theological differences that I have with Bell, some of which were highlighted by the anti-Bell blogger.
  3. If you’ve read this blog for any length of time, you know that I’d rather sit next to David Dukes at a Jeremiah Wright sermon than see Obama in the White House.  And with the kind of goofballs that he hangs with, it would not surprise me to find out that Obama is overly-friendly with those he should not be, who happen to be Muslim.

In short, on a lot of issues, and sometimes even in their main thrust, I agree with all three of the unnamed men that I have decried here.  But in their passion to dismantle those that they oppose, they are all three perfectly willing to use any and every issue that they disagree with, regardless of its accuracy or relevance to the main point.

And so the main point gets totally clouded over and ignored.  And for those that don’t know better (and that’s more than you might think), everything that that person says gets ignored.  For the guy in “illustration 3”, it’s political suicide, as he drives more people over to his opponent’s side or further affirms those that are already there.

But when you start mixing personal opinion (and/or gross stupidity) with Scripture, then you’re driving people away from God — a much more serious offense — “two-fold the child of hell”, “millstones around the neck”, and all that stuff.

No Responses to “what was your point, again?”

Leave a Reply