"Fundamentalism provided fertile recruiting soil for ... the Ku Klux Klan"
[Pastor Joe Roof] Lou is not a friend of fundamentalism. He repeatedly mispresents men, their positions, and their ministries. He repeatedly mispresents SI, especially Aaron.Ya think??? :O When I last checked his anti-SI blog he had the only comment. He obviously has pontificated himself into complete irrelevance.
As a moderator, I was the one who brought this filing to SI’s attention. Stokes made a strong claim about fundamentalism, and I thought it would be good for fundamentalists to be aware of his claim and to discuss it. So, Jim Peet agreed to post the filing.
So what does Lou do? He writes an article claiming that this posting on SI is proof that SI is not fundamentalist. He is obessed with questioning the authenticity of fundamentalists who do not agree with him.
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
You can never be relevant or helpful to a cause in any other way when you scream “you lie” to people who are not lying. Lying means you said something that is not true. To Lou, lying means that you did not comply to his demand(s). I explained why the filing was put on SI. There was no sinister plot to diminish the cause of fundamentalism. Stokes took a jab at fundamentalism, and fundamentalists needed to be aware of that jab and discuss it. That does not hurt fundamentalism, it helps fundamentalism if it is discussed in a way that pleases the Lord.
I think we’ve talked enough about Lou for now. Let’s move on. :)
I’m glad to hear that Graves dorm was renamed by BJU, not because I knew anything of Graves or his history, but simply because it’s one less area for people to complain about the school (although I don’t ever remember hearing complaints about that previous to this thread). They’ve got enough going on and enough areas of legitimate complaint.
I’m glad to hear that Graves dorm was renamed by BJU, not because I knew anything of Graves or his history, but simply because it’s one less area for people to complain about the school (although I don’t ever remember hearing complaints about that previous to this thread). They’ve got enough going on and enough areas of legitimate complaint.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
is it a good idea to make a decision based solely on what others think or what is the popular consensus?
If it’s not a hill worth dyin’ on, then why not? Especially if it is related to something with such a potential of being offensive. Although I agree that one could easily be perceived as or even become a Caspar Milquetoast if this is practiced at every supposed provocation. But I think Christians far too often dig in their heels on things that just don’t matter in The Grand Scheme of Things.
[RPittman] Both intolerance and compromise (as in giving up fundamental convictions) for the Christian are untenable but the problem is how to balance the two without falling victim to one or the other. IMHO, the pitfalls and dangers make this topic worth airing and discussing to seek a healthy, sane, and reasonable balance without intolerance, political correctness, compromise, or stonewalling.1 Corinthians 10:32 KJB
Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
[RPittman]O yes, do read the context.[J Ng]Does this mean that one ought NOT offend the sinner by telling him that he is a lost sinner under the condemnation of the Law subject to the judgment and wrath of God?[RPittman] Both intolerance and compromise (as in giving up fundamental convictions) for the Christian are untenable but the problem is how to balance the two without falling victim to one or the other. IMHO, the pitfalls and dangers make this topic worth airing and discussing to seek a healthy, sane, and reasonable balance without intolerance, political correctness, compromise, or stonewalling.1 Corinthians 10:32 KJB
Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. (1 Timothy 5:20)
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy 4:2-4)
As for proof-texting, it often becomes a pretext out of context. One must be under the sway of the whole counsel of God.
One may have the right to eat, drink, or exalt a Christian brother (assuming that he is, this Guv’ner Graves), but if in so doing it causes others to stumble (into the sin of racism), we should refrain from giving offense.
Now, how do all those verses you cited relate to racism?
Like I said, wisdom.
I can’t seriously compare the compromise of sound doctrine to renaming a building after someone/something not of questionable character.
I don’t think the underlying question is about racism per se, but about the propriety, based on Scripture, of honoring men in such a fashion as to name things after them. Any time you honor a man for ‘his’ accomplishments, you are going to run into problems, as all flesh is grass, and God is the reason any man has the sense to tie his shoes.
Motivation never excuses imprudent action. I am sure that many a tombstone should read “It seemed like a good idea at the time” or “I meant well”.
I think we all understand that ‘racism’ as it is commonly used means one believes there exists an inherent superiority of an ethnicity over another. I don’t think the term is accurate, since there is only one ‘race’, and that is the human race. But it now has an assumed meaning, and that is how folks use it.
Motivation never excuses imprudent action. I am sure that many a tombstone should read “It seemed like a good idea at the time” or “I meant well”.
I think we all understand that ‘racism’ as it is commonly used means one believes there exists an inherent superiority of an ethnicity over another. I don’t think the term is accurate, since there is only one ‘race’, and that is the human race. But it now has an assumed meaning, and that is how folks use it.
[J Ng] One may have the right to eat, drink, or exalt a Christian brother (assuming that he is, this Guv’ner Graves), but if in so doing it causes others to stumble (into the sin of racism), we should refrain from giving offense.Joseph, I don’t much care about the dormitory name, but, seriously, do you know ANYONE who ‘stumbled into the sin of racism’ because a dormitory at BJU was named after some guy who has been dead for years? Beyond the fact that he was once the governor of Alabama, I didn’t know much about him. How does that name on the dorm cause people to stumble? I don’t get that.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[RPittman]Well, since BJU is trying to get away from the stigma of its previous policy from its testimony, the choice of a name not associated with that previous policy, as is so in the case of Graves (cf. previously mentioned Wiki article and elsewhere) or anyone else with ties to the KKK, is a wise one. Nothing terribly complicated about it.
Because you are endued with the wisdom, let’s hear your denouement of this tangled knot.
As for Don Johnson’s asking if I knew anyone stumbled by the name of the dorm, the answer’s no. Then again, I’m not omniscient. As in 1 Cor. 10, wisdom is not necessarily predicated upon specifically knowing and listing actual or potential cases of stumbling.
[RPittman] Because you professed wisdom, I was hoping that you would answer my questions but you apparently avoided and left the hard ones unanswered. Why?I’m not sure why; perhaps they weren’t specifically framed—a random list of whether Paul or certain Southern gentlemen should be considered racist? And then a suggestion that somehow the ball’s in my court. Interesting.
O well, I think this line of argument is only vexatious and it’s probably best I let you decide where to go with it.
Much as it was considered appropriate in the South in years gone by, even BJU has decided to move on from its previous policy and, indeed, thinking on the matter of race. Apparently, some might think it prudent or wise to rename the halls Graves, Lee, Jackson, and other heroes (would Wallace count?) of the South. But far better, IMO, to let bygones by bygones and find a name that evokes less unnecessary offense to the church.
There’s the offense of the cross, but would you put that in the same category as the offense of racism? (guess that’s meant to be a rhetorical question! :D)
[RPittman] I agree in principle that we focus too much on honoring men but Scripture does say to “[r] ender therefore to all their dues: … honour to whom honour (Romans 13:7).”
The word ‘honour’ is used in more than one way- sometimes it means we should pay folks what their labor is worth, or treat them according to their value in the Lord, or grant them the reverence due their position. We are told to honor our spouse, our parents, our leadership, fellow Christians… but where do we get the idea that naming things after people is the proper way to show honor? And why do you have to reach a certain notoriety in order to deserve ‘honor’? Why aren’t there any buildings named after that little ol’ faithful granny who gave her two mites year after year and wore the floor out next to her bed because she spent so much time on her knees?
Because she didn’t achieve any of the American trappings of success, that’s why.
I think the whole name game is just more Christian celebrity worship, and something we should shy away from, and not defend.
All of the aforementioned men could be labeled racist by the prevailing politically correct sentiment. Do we remove their names from buildings or monuments honoring them? Do we deny these men as part of our religious heritage?
Excellent idea. I’ll have my dh bring home a sandblaster on Tuesday.
Discussion