the7ones.comRealizations about graceconversation.com
Here are a few realizations I have come to as a result of reading the comments on graceconversation.com:
- The format of the discussion is conducive neither to learning nor to resolution. Although it is always good to have an “open forum” situation, an open forum where everyone is chattering non-stop and chasing rabbit trail after rabbit trail is useless. Unless, of course, one wants to promote confusion. I appreciate the attempt at dialogue, but it is not working. It has turned into a brilliant opportunity for progressive bloggers to attack and ridicule conservatives, and backslap and cheer one another on as they do so.
- Although I started reading the site with the thought that most progressives are kind and open minded, I have instead learned from graceconversation.com that the majority of progressive bloggers are just as close minded as those they accuse of the same. I have lost a lot of respect for some of my progressive friends due to their actions, language, and tone in the comments on the site.
- Finally, I have come to the realization that graceconversation.com is damaging the image of the church. I know that those who started the site desired for a good, productive dialogue to take place, but the comments section has become a place for those who are disgruntled with the church to teach everything from denial of God’s plan of salvation, to “original sin,” to religious pluralism.
To Jay Guin and Todd Deaver, I ask you: Is this the result you had in mind?
Greg Tidwell and Phil Sanders, I appreciate the great job you are trying to do. Jay and Todd, I have read your articles as well, and though I do not agree with your positions, I appreciate your kind manner.
I am sure no one is interested in my opinion, but I think you need to close down the comments section, unless you plan to moderate the way people speak to each other, and what doctrines they teach. If this does not happen, you are simply sponsoring a forum for Christians to be led into false doctrines. Alternately, what would be wrong with an actual moderated debate?
If you do not agree with the doctrine of “original sin,” why have you allowed it to be openly taught on your site? If you still hold to the biblical teaching that baptism of those who come to faith is necessary for salvation, why are you allowing those who oppose God’s teaching on salvation to run free on your site?
Just my humble opinion, but it appears what started out as an interesting way to hold a discussion, has instead played directly into the hands of those who want to change the simple teachings of the church into a more denominational form, not to mention those who come by just to ridicule the church. In the comments section, the church is being held up to open shame!
I enjoyed passing by there occasionally, but I will be staying about my own work and avoiding the site until a more useful format is implemented.
May God bless you all as you seek to serve Him according to His will,
Matt
Comments are currently closed.
Matt,
I respect you giving your opinion on graceconversations, but I storngly disagree with your assessment that the blog is a “brilliant opportunity for progressives bloggers to attack and ridicule conservatives, and backslap and cheer one another on as they do so” and “majority of progressive bloggers are just as close minded as those they accuse of the same” and “damaging the image of the church.”
First, I have sensed what seems to be a very condescending attitide from the “more traditional” Church of Christ posters toward those who are less traditional. Perhaps you have sensed the same in reverse, and that is what prompted your attack in what seemed to be a parting shot post there. This kind of discussion is needed for the very reason that too often, the more traditional members give their packaged speeches then seem to recoil when anyone has an equally valid and scriptural point that disagrees. This kind of discussion is needed for the very reason that too often, the less traditional are frustrated and it shows in their words because they feel the more traditional are dismissive of anything that does not fit the party line. This kind of discussion is needed for the very reason that too often, both sides are talking but not to each other, and this forum is a way to learn to talk TO each other, and not past or at.
Your last point is not accurate at all – this kind of discussion is needed for the very reason the world NEEDS to see differing views discussed – and even frustrations vented – in the Lord’s Church, with both sides reaching out and embracing one another in Christ even when they disagree.
If you expected perfection at first, then your expectations were too high. If you expected what the founders of the blog expected – a forum for discussion – you should not be disappointed. Perhaps your disappointment is from the realization that your view point IS disagreed with, disgreed with by more than you imagined, and disagreed with more loudly that you expected? Then why leave? Why not submit yourself to a forum where you can be challenged and you can defend yourself, but in which you have submitted to someonelse’s control? It is temoting to post only in one’s own forum where one has complete control, but it isn’t really a realistic dialogue.
God bless,
Alan Scott
Alan Scott, welcome, and thanks for your message.
Please read carefully what I said. You make is sound like I am accusing someone of setting up graceconversation.com for that purpose. But that is not what I said. I said it has become a brilliant opportunity for progressives. Because you are a “progressive,” you may not have noticed that progressives outnumber the conservatives on the site at a ratio of about 10 to 1. Generally there is one conservative at a time discussing a question, while 5 or more progressives pile on. And yes, progressives have shown me clearly in the comments on that site that they are not open to hearing the views of conservatives.
It is not really condescension that I sensed from the progressives. It was more along the lines of “piling on,” and using ridicule and emotional arguments in such numbers that no one could converse coherently.
I somewhat agree with you here, but for members of the church of Christ to act so roughly against one another in public is basically putting the name of Christ to shame. This discussion would be better had in private, not for the whole world to see. Not sure someone would desire to know more about Christianity after reading some of the exchanges.
Disagree wholeheartedly here, Alan. Why does the world need to see it? For instance, you forcefully stated that I should apologize for saying that progressives are just as close-minded as those they accuse of being the same. Never mind that this is a contradiction in itself. If you were open minded, you might be willing to consider whether or not you are being close minded! Anyway, you then proceed to fire off a few posts at graceconversation.com critical of me and my website because I did not post your comment here quickly enough, and it never crossed your mind that the reason your post had not shown up is because I work at ministry during the day and could not respond to your post. So far, your actions have done nothing to change my mind about the attitude of progressives.
Alan, if you knew me and my modes of ministry on the internet, you would fully understand that I do not back away from controversy. A big percentage of my web evangelism is in the area of apologetics, working with hardened atheists, in fact. Our disagreement is minor compared to the dialogues I’ve had with non-believers.
What I am concerned about, Alan, is a site that claims to be for members of the church allowing denominational folks to come in and contradict and bash. How in the world can you agree that that is a good thing?
Apparently the guys at graceconversation.com have put in some better rules on the comments, so perhaps things will get a little better.
Matt,
I don’t know if you were, are or are continuing to monitor and save my part of the OneInJesus and GraceConversation messages.
My last post was to Jay’s OneInJesus blog regarding a missionary’s question about taxes. I got a prompt that my messages were not going to post until they were approved.
I then got a personal message from Jay informing me of his moderation of my posts.
I then noticed that some of my earlier posts to the gracecentered blog were now showing “subject to moderation” notes; indicating to me that they may be removed after originally posting.
I guess we’ll have to see how that turns out.
I have seen no indication that such action is being taken regarding any other posters.
I certainly recognize bloggers can manage their affairs as they see fit.
Similarly, actions have consequences and folks are free to interpret such actions as they deem appropriate.
Interesting developments from my point of view.
In my opinion, it’s another one of those Matthew 7:1,2 & James 3:1 incidents.
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
Robert,
I guess we’ll just have to take it one day at a time.
Thanks for stopping by, brother.
Matt
“it appears what started out as an interesting way to hold a discussion, has instead played directly into the hands of those who want to change the simple teachings of the church”
Sometimes pragmatism needs to be changed. As for myself I have never heard of the simple teachings of the church. Christianity is a difficult and challenging way of life. If it wasn’t we would all be existentialist.
Hi Mark,
I’m sorry, I am not completely following you. Are you saying conservative Christians teach what they do because they are being pragmatic? The spirit of pragmatism is more in line with inclusiveness, isn’t it?
Well, we shouldn’t confuse the simplicity of the teachings with the difficulty of the walk. For instance, the simplicity of worship in the New Testament is just teaching, giving, singing, praying, and partaking in the Lord’s supper. The elements of worship are simple. Walking in this manner in a modern society bent on worshiping God in any manner it chooses is a difficult walk.
Forgiving a person for offending you is a simple teaching, but it is often difficult in application.
I think you get my meaning.
God bless you, and thanks for commenting!
Matt
Matt, You have got to be kidding. Are we reading the same thing? It appears you and I have nothing in common concerning what we have read. My take is 180 degrees from where yours is. I love you brother but I am convinced you are looking for the wrong answers in the wrong places. Your brother, dell
Dell,
No, we are reading the same thing. The difference is point of view. I am intent on staying with what is found in the New Testament, but some making comments are intent on changing (progressing, as it were) to something different. Since progressives are in a large majority on the graceconversation.com site, I’m sure everything seems “candy and roses” over there to those of that mindset. But when conservatives posts, it’s like a drop of blood hits the water, and suddenly the sharks are boiling everywhere. lol
Well, the answer we seek are in His Word, not in the far-flung and wildly combative comment section at graceconversation.com. I’ll be posting my studies here on my site as I study God’s word on this matter. Since the speakers at graceconversation.com are tightening the comment rules a little, I may drift back that way when I get time.
God bless, Dell. Thanks for stopping by.
Matt
Matt,
As I promised, I apologize for speaking before you had time to moderate. I appreciate your observations even though I do not believe them to be a completly accurate observation. I appreciate them because you are communicating with the rest of us brothers in Christ.
Unlike some, I really do not care for the labels that many are so fond of using. So, of course, I have my own “labels” that I think are more accurate -
“more traditional” and “less traditional”.
The Christian Chronicle just published an article on multiple generations in the Churches of Christ and how the younger ones are more willing to question our traditions and hold them up against the Word of God. I am not a part of the younger generation, but I am more than willing to test our traditions against the Word of God.
I am also willing to trace our traditions over the decades and centuries, and see how they have evolved from “Restoration” and “Reform” to become “Status Quo.”
What I see many in the Churches of Christ doing today is not challenging the authority of God’s Word, but recognizing how our history has influenced our traditions and how it is never too late to go back to God’s Word. Thus, less traditional. And prayerfully, more Biblical.
Blessings to you and your family, and to your ministry to bring people to Jesus the Christ.
Alan,
I assure you no apology is necessary, but I appreciate your kindness. All any of us want in these conversations is mutual respect.
Labels are something I have never cared too much for, either. I begrudgingly using the labels “conservative” and “progressive.”
Like you, I understand that we do a lot of things according to tradition. We sing two songs, have a prayer, sing another one, Lord’s supper, take a collection, sing two more, then sermon, invitation song, closing song, prayer. That’s tradition. It’s tradition that a lot of our buildings look alike. We often word traditional prayers about “ready recollection” coming back at the “next appointed time.” But these are things that are optional, and there is nothing wrong with mixing it up a little in these areas. But there are some things that we practice that are not tradition. The Lord’s supper is a command, not a tradition, and partaking on Sunday only is not a tradition, it is apostolic example. The list could go on, but it’s short.
Anyway, there are areas we can bend in. Namely, those areas of tradition. We cannot bend in command, though. And this is the area where things need to be settled.
God bless, and thanks for coming by.
in Christ,
Matt
Matt,
Jay Guin wrote today on the GraceConversation blog:
> “In my two years of blogging at
> OneInJesus, I’ve only put two
> people on moderation.”
I have attempted to reply with the following, but it has not yet been allowed to post due to me being perhaps the only one there on moderation status and only one there who has had previously posted messages deleted:
—————————————-
April 14, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Jay,
Who is the other one?
)
I figure the moderation, and resulting deletion of some of my posts from your
OneInJesus blog were rather inconsequential.
Such actions might fare better if the moderator simply does so because someone
dares to disagree with the prevailing sentiments.
However, as to the mysterious deletions of some of my messages here, a much more
serious matter, I have tried in my own feeble way to insure that there is an
historical record remaining of such messages on my own, open to all, discussion
list; such as it is.
As a resource, this blog has demonstrated it cannot be trusted to maintain the
historical record of what has happened here.
Similarly, moderators who prefer to delete such posts may be most appropriately
doubted regarding their allegations as to why such actions are taken.
Moderators do what moderators do.
It does, at least in my case, tend to squelch the opposition. I no longer have
any confidence that either blog is a place that I can freely voice my opinions.
I’m sure I’m not going to be missed!
However, I might try to make return engagements from time to time if it appears
there is an “opening”.
————————————-
It will be interesting to see if it is allowed to post at GraceConversation blog.
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
Matt, I have been in the so called conservative camp. I now only want to be Biblical. Conservatism and being Biblical is not the same thing. When faced with choice I choose to be Biblical over conservative. The major problem I see in the discussion at graceconversation is the lack of Biblical answers being offered by the so called “conservative camp”. Matt, you and Robert are the only two conservatives offering any type answer. Where are the usual conservatives? To this point there have been no arguments or answers offered from a Biblical viewpoint from the conservatives. All we are getting are the same tired arguments that have long been proven to not be parallel with Scripture. Thanks for letting me post an opposing view on your blog. Your brother in Christ, dell
Dell,
Then we are together on this thought.
And I choose to be biblical over progressive.
Dell, I’d like to suggest something. The majority of bloggers and people with time to post on these sites are younger people. There is a much bigger portion of younger people that would fit the “progressive” mold than in the older set. Therefore, most of the site visitors are progressives. I have a certain amount of time dedicated to internet ministry, that’s why I have some time to post. But most preachers are busy doing their work, and thank the Lord for that. I am sure there are “conservatives” working on the issue. In this internet age, it is hard to be patient. But don’t think there is no answer just because you have not seen it (or agreed with it).
Graceconversation.com is a helter-skelter place for many. Why would someone want to post comments in there for the sharks to tear apart with emotional arguments and endless “what if” statements? For instance, I will be posting my understanding here on my site, and I invite you to follow along with. Believe me, it will be much more peaceful.
Matt,
I have been following the Grace Conversation blog for all of about a week. I have never commented. I followed with interest the last posting by Mr. Sanders (who I don’t know very much about) because I was skeptical of his thesis and I wanted to know which points of doctrine he was talking about and how he gets around the parts that clearly aren’t discussed in the NT. I found his article long, convoluted and not clearly articulated, which is ultimately what led everyone down “rabbit trails.” The answers I had weren’t even remotely discussed. It was interesting in the discussion when IM was brought up because, to me at least, the NT doesn’t discuss the issue and I wanted to see a clear argument of why using them is supposedly “sinful.” Unfortunately, I didn’t see a clear argument and I understand why certain posters kept pushing him on it. The issue to me isn’t should we introduce them or not (I really don’t think they are necessary) but it is why IM is such an issue with the conservative side and why they push the issue so hard? I think Phil’s hard-line stance, without any solid argument, on why they are sinful continued to bring challenges. That is what happens when you post opinion and try to pass it off as fact. People outside the CofC, especially in places like Nashville (where I currently live) have very negative perceptions of us, largely because of this kind of attitude. And I know from people who have left the CofC, that it has contributed to them leaving. And people are in fact leaving, especially young people.
Sorry for the long post.
Sincerely,
Chris
Chris,
I appreciate you posting your thoughts here, and if I may say so, Phil’s article was long and involved. But remember, Phil is a working minister, laboring hard for the Lord. He has taken on a new ministry challenge with Searching for the Lord’s Way, and he is a family man as well. So his time is limited, as it is with many of us working ministers. I suspect Phil wanted to get a good summary of Bible passages and what they mean out there to set a baseline for his future discussions. We have to be patience with both sides as they get things set up. This is hard to do here on the net, we are used to instantaneous action and reaction. But these are serious subjects were are dealing with, so we need to have them studied out carefully and methodically, and I think that is what Phil has in mind.
No, the NT does not deal with the IM question directly. Why? Probably because it was not an issue among the early Christians. No one used IM in Christian worship until about 600 AD. In the 1500′s the reformers rejected the use of IM also, since they were trying to get back to the Bible only. They saw it as an unnecessary and unauthorized practice. But, the principles are in place to tell us why we should reject IM. Since the Bible does not speak of IM being used in the worship of the church, and since our goal as Christians is to deny ourselves, why would we seek to add something to the worship that merely pleases us? Why would we add something that God does not state He wants?
Anyway, I don’t have much on musical instruments on the site here. But here are a few good articles from foracapella.org:
http://www.foracapella.org/acappellaarticles/index.php
And here are some from Wayne Jackson:
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/404-do-the-psalms-authorize-instrumental-music-in-worship
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/615-what-about-mechanical-instruments-of-music-in-christian-worship
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/128-the-silence-of-the-scriptures-permissive-or-prohibitive
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/286-the-divine-pattern-of-acceptable-worship-part-1
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/829-psallo-and-the-instrumental-music-controversy
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/752-responding-to-critics-on-the-instrumental-music-issue
Here is a review of a book written by a denominational fellow about IM. This review is by Denny Petrillo:
http://www.christianchronicle.org/article779~Debate_over_church_music_is_nothing_new,_authors_write
Any of these are good sources on the IM question. I would also be glad to study it out with you, time permitting.
Now, let’s don’t go to a place that causes of to accuse Phil of his intentions. He is not posting “opinion and passing it off as fact.” I suggest we study this issue a little further, look at some of the resources I posted above for you, and be patient with Phil as he unfolds his plan of how he and Greg will approach the issues with Jay and Todd.
I know people who have left the church, but I also know lots of people who have left denominations to be added to the church. I am one of them. Our congregation here is growing at a steady clip. So I do not buy into the progressive threat that “the church is collapsing, we have to change.” Check out Flavil Yeakley’s report on this issue, which I discussed in this article, and maybe it will offer some food for thought.
God bless you as you study and seek His will. If there is anything I can do to help, do not hesitate to let me know.
in Christ,
Matt
Matt, do you have anything written regarding IM in worship?
I am on the fence regarding this issue. As you can tell from my dialoguing with Phil, I do lean towards a progressive view, but not closed minded to conservative views, and I am willing to examine this before jumping off of the fence.
Again, thx!
Randy
Randy,
I don’t have much on musical instruments on the site here. But here are a few good articles from foracapella.org:
http://www.foracapella.org/acappellaarticles/index.php
And here are some from Wayne Jackson:
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/404-do-the-psalms-authorize-instrumental-music-in-worship
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/615-what-about-mechanical-instruments-of-music-in-christian-worship
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/128-the-silence-of-the-scriptures-permissive-or-prohibitive
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/286-the-divine-pattern-of-acceptable-worship-part-1
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/829-psallo-and-the-instrumental-music-controversy
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/752-responding-to-critics-on-the-instrumental-music-issue
Here is a review of a book written by a denominational fellow about IM. This review is by Denny Petrillo:
http://www.christianchronicle.org/article779~Debate_over_church_music_is_nothing_new,_authors_write
Any of these are good sources on the IM question. I would also be glad to study it out with you, time permitting.
God bless you, brother!
Matt
Dell,
You were referring to another Robert, right!
As for me, those guys couldn’t handle this Robert!
I try to keep things too simple in my problem solving efforts, and they simply don’t appear to care for working at my level, “step by step”.
Wayne McDaniel provided an excellent example as to why it is they aren’t really up to even the simple stuff over there.
Maybe that history is still there, maybe not! It’s pretty sad when they aren’t even honest enough to preserve the legitimate history of my involvement over there!
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
Robert,
I believe you are the one to whom I am referring. I intend no ill will. The best I can tell the two of you are the only conservatives offering any answers. I followed your arguments along with those of Matt. Perhaps indepth Biblical perspective will still be offered. To this point I haven’t seen any reason for anyone to have to “handle this Robert!” Maybe the proof is still in the pudding. Up until now this hasn’t been a debate. The conservatives haven’t shown up or brought Biblical arguments. Thanks for your at least offering some thoughts, that is much more than most of the “old guard” did.
Dell,
I don’t really think anyone has brought just a whole lot to the table yet, but that’s just the weakness of the format. Really, I don’t think Phil and Greg gave that bad of a beginning baseline, giving the fact that the four did not really declare the focus of the conversation, or the main point of contention. To just say, “This is a discussion on fellowship issues in the church” is a pretty wide-open statement.
I still think an actual, live, face-to-face debate should be held on these issues. But, I’m staying busy on my work, and keeping one eye on things. Most likely I’ll just post my thoughts here for the most part.
Matt
Hello Matt
“I’m sorry, I am not completely following you. Are you saying conservative Christians teach what they do because they are being pragmatic?
Yes, but it is both conservatives and progressives I believe it is a faith in common sense .
The spirit of pragmatism is more in line with inclusiveness, isn’t it?”
I would disagree with that definition. Instead it is far from ambiguity rather to be pragmatic is iconic of good judgment . Let me demonstrate what I mean with a question , was the restoration moment prophesied in the scriptures? If you say no then the coC can discount much of that history but if you say yes the coC must expand the meaning of the scriptures. What your experience tells you is where you end up in the spectrum of Christianity.
“Well, we shouldn’t confuse the simplicity of the teachings with the difficulty of the walk.”
5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But if any of you do not have them, you are nearsighted and blind, and you have forgotten that you have been cleansed from your past sins.
10 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble, 11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 2 Pet 1 5-10
This does not sound like it is easy but I do like the part of you will never stumble………
Mark,
Pragmatism is defined as a philosophy that bases actions on practical results. I guess there are some ways that conservatives as pragmatic, if you mean the practical results we desire are reverence for God’s word and obedience to it. But I think the progressive mind tends to practice more of a worldly pragmatism. Many progressives are seeking “bigger numbers” attendance-wise, and a pragmatic outlook is to bend what we believe (do only what we have a command to do) in order to achieve the desired end result (larger attendance).
I really don’t think we disagree on this issue, we are just using terms in different ways. When I speak of the simple principals of the Bible, I mean the straightforward, clear message of how to live a life that is pleasing to God.
Matt
Dell,
Thanks for clarifying who you were talking about. Their “handling” of me has been to NOT post my messages and delete certain earlier postings with nothing in the record to note such deletions.
Their “handling” of me, as clearly demonstrated by my exchange with Wayne McDaniel, was to refuse to play on a level field and first resolve fundamental matters regarding how a conversation might actually, productively proceed.
Of course, special interest arises in the case of the deleted messages relating to my exchange with Todd Deaver, one of the “big names” NOT from Memphis.
As Matt, among others, has noted, it is not a debate as you suggest it should be, but rather a free-for-all; with me excluded.
That’s fine, if the game is not going to be played at my level, I’ll sit and watch. I am learning much about the “present distress”. However, their actions such as I note will be considered and subject to comment in making non-fallacious ad hominem evaluations.
I tried from the beginning to get them to stick to the shallows and resolve, step by step, the details before thinking they were prepared to handle the “deep end”.
They would not!
I think the latest poster to the GraceCentered list might have somewhat to suggest on the; they are trying to wax too philosophical, like blind men in a dark basement, looking for a black cat that isn’t there!
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
Dell, et al:
In further illustration of one of my points, I note that someone called “Todd” has taken a pot shot at my development and opinions on the “Housing” issue on Jay’s blog.
I have submitted two short replies.
Additionally, I submitted another comment yesterday before Todd’s posting this morning.
None of my three latest submissions have posted.
There is no good reason for such antics!
In one of my submissions in response to “Todd”, I noted the problem and suggested that, under those conditions, Jay’s blog is not an appropriate place for a discussion.
“Todd” did not identify himself.
It’s not, currently, a “level playing field”.
It’s true, they “can’t handle me”; and it isn’t because of any unseemly conduct on my part.
It was particularly disappointing to me that Jay Guin has, to date, chosen not to address his error regarding the status of revenue rulings.
He just couldn’t “handle me”! He left the discussion and came up with the idea to moderate me.
Here’s the link to the article and comments:
http://oneinjesus.info/2009/03/15/the-housing-allowance-do-christian-college-professors-qualify/#comments
(Of course, the above will not reveal to you my messages that have not been posted.)
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
Everyone,
With all due respect, I’d like to keep my sight here focused on matters of the gospel and teachings of the Bible. I appreciate that there are some things going on in regard to parity, and I sympathize, but I want people to be able to read about the Bible and things related to that. So let’s keep it there, if we can.
I appreciate each and every one of you for stopping by, and may God bless you!
Matt
Matt,
Just out of curiosity, are you of the “opinion” that private schools like ACU, Harding, et al, are “integral agencies of the churches of Christ”?
If not, do you have an opinion, in the context of all the opinions among preachers about that government decision regarding the 1906/7 census thingy, as to the government’s decision to officially recognize such schools as being operated as “integral agencies” of the church so that basketball ministers and such could receive tax free income?
Surely, you are not ignorant of the historical controversy regarding such schools and their relationship, or lack thereof, to the church and the biblical perspective claimed by those who dared to deal with the issue.
You mentioned the progressive idea that “change” is needed. Well, this is one “practical” area where change has taken place. The government used to recognize such private schools as private schools. Now they are recognizing them, thanks to ACU, Bush & Burleson, as “integral agencies of the church” so basketball ministers and the like can have tax free income.
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
Robert,
No, I do not agree that private “Christian” colleges are “integral agencies of the churches of Christ.”
The church’s mission is to seek and save the lost, not to give secular education.
Matt,
Thanks for your reply.
I didn’t think you did, but now its “official”.
Maybe you can address the other related matters at some later time.
I would certainly appreciate you reviewing the information I’ve posted to Jay’s OneInJesus blog, as previously referenced, and giving us a more informed analysis, exposition from your perspective.
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
Robert,
Thanks for the invite. I will check it out as I have time. I am in a very busy time for my ministry here, so I am trying to balance things out. But when I get a chance, I will definitely study what you have posted there.
Thanks!
Matt
Matt wrote:
“The Lord’s supper is a command, not a tradition, and partaking on Sunday only is not a tradition, it is apostolic example.”
I don’t intend to go too far down a tangent, but thought I would just offer a couple of different, Scriptural perspectives. Most NT scholars believe the breaking of bread is also the Lord’s Supper – you likely disagree, but that is the point. You have an interpretation that demands Sunday only based on Acts 20, and other NT scholars have an interpretation that includes both Acts 2, Acts 20, and 1 Corinthians 11 (“as often as you meet”). This makes “Sunday only” a tradition based on an interpretation of one example, rather than taking all examples into account.
Second quotoe you made in another comment, “In the 1500’s the reformers rejected the use of IM also, since they were trying to get back to the Bible only. They saw it as an unnecessary and unauthorized practice.” You are prpobaly aware than may of the reformers also rejected singing becasue they took literally the command to make do so only “in you heart” and not vocally. An extreme? I would agree, but that is what happens when one uses history to prove a point that the NT does not deal with directly – you get the examples one agrees with the and the examples one does not agree with.
I would also recommend another book – unfortunately not available online – that looks at both sides of the IM discussion rather than from one side only, as Brother Jackson does. It is called, “Missing More Than Music” [link deleted by Matt] by a Danny Corbett, who has ministered in the Churches of Christ. Jay Guin has also provided some analysis from both sides of the discussion.
It is a pity that the brotherhood newsletters today do not publish both sides of an issue as they used to at the beginning of the 20th century. I think we were better students because of that older policy becasue we has to stidy for ourselves both sides of an issue. The habit now of only pubishing one view can have the tendancy to make for lazy Bible students.
God bless,
Alan Scott
Alan,
Yes, we will disagree here. One can find a scholar for practically any view. After all, in order to publish, you have to be different.
And I do not think it is accurate to say that “most scholars” think breaking of bread is always the Lord’s supper. There are linguistic and contextual evidences that show whether or not a passage is referring to the Lord’s supper. And “as often as you meet” does not necessarily imply a day other than Sunday. It just means, “whenever you do it.”
I would be very interested to see the names of the “many reformers” who rejected singing. Zwingli rejected song because he thought it distracted from the worship, not because of scriptural argumentation. Of course, if I remember correctly, during the Reformation Zwingli was also complicit to the drowning of people who did not adhere to the practice of infant baptism.
Anyway, you’ll have to show me the Reformers who were against vocal music, because I plead ignorance on this point.
I would not recommend that book at all. From reading the publicity material, it is obviously not written in a manner that is unbiased, as you say. Instead, it is obviously promoting the progressive viewpoint, and I have removed the link.
That’s one opinion. Another is that lazy Bible students make for more than one view.
God bless you,
Matt
By the way, I do not think Robert tells the whole story on ACU and tax breaks. This is a hobby horse for him, and he ridfes it all over anyone who will listen. He has galloped across many of the forums I have been on, and his cadence never changes. I believe only those professors who also are engaged in ministry take advantage of this IRS approved tax break.
It is best to let him ride on and not encourage his one-horse posse.
God bless,
Alan Scott
Alan and Robert,
I really do not want to get into this, so I will not approve any more posts on the subject. Thanks, guys.
Alan, I will approve your other post as soon as I can reply to it.
Matt
Matt,
It’s your call, but it would be rather unbecoming of you to let Alan’s false and misleading report stand!
I am more than willing to tell as much of the story as is welcome. That’s a lot more than the schoolmen will tell, so far as I know.
Of course, the basketball minister is engaged in ministry, as is the english minister, math minister and all the rest.
Aren’t we all ministers engaged in ministry!
Alan has simply taken his cheap shot and indicated his unwillingness to engage in a good faith discussion of what it is that really bugs him about the matter.
Another good illustration as to why Alan’s sort cannot be trusted to engage in good faith discussions of even the simplest of fundamental matters.
Dell, “are you listening”!
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
Robert,
Yes, I would just like to keep on track here. Thanks though. I will read what is on the other site that you have written.
Thanks fellows!
Matt
Robert,
I am listening but totally uninterested in whether the private “Christian” colleges are “integral agencies of the churches of Christ.” I do not see this as an important issue. I argued such issues as this and others when I was in the “Non institutional” segment of the church. I no longer see arguments on these and other issues as of value. I have no intent of hurting feelings. I just do not see this of value in doing the Lord’s work. I hope you understand. Rather than taking up time on Matt’s blog, you may email me to my personal email. Thanks Matt for letting me respond to Robert. Your brother in Christ, dell
Guys, that looks like a great place to end it. We’ll get back to the main topic, though. God bless you all!
Matt
Matt,
If you’ll bear just a little longer with me?
Dell,
I don’t have your personal e-mail address.
I have posted your most recent comments to my own place, referenced in my note posted to our blog. I have not received any direct response or noted any on your blog.
We can discuss matters of mutual interest at my place and your problems regarding the referenced issues as these blogs are not that friendly to my WebTv system.
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
Matt – “I would not recommend that book at all. From reading the publicity material, it is obviously not written in a manner that is unbiased, as you say.”
I didn’t say it was unbiased. I said it looks at both sides of the IM discussion. I think it is good to read even if you disagree with the conclusions. Reading only what re-inforces preconditioned beliefs will not allow for growth and spiritual maturity. Reading a scriptural and historical presentation that one might disagree with can strengthen the original belief, or can open shielded eyes to a point-of-view not previously considered.
Doing my own studying rather relying on someone else telling me what I should believe has led me to find that some of the arguments by both sides are just not accurate.
And isn’t that what Christians were commended for – doing their own studying?
God bless,
Alan Scott
Alan,
Well, Christians were commended for weighing what Paul preached against the scriptures (Acts 17:11). I think the Christian’s main study should be of the Bible, not what other people think about the Bible. When we do read outside materials (which happens frequently for preachers) it should be done while carefully considering what is being said, weighing it by God’s word.
That’s good. We have to always remember that reading books like the one you are talking about is, in effect, being taught by someone. So there is a difference between “listening” to someone and “relying” on someone, as I am sure you have discovered.
Thanks, Alan.
Matt
Robert,
My email is williamokimberly [at] yahoo [dot] com. Thanks, dell kimberly
Dell,
I edited your email address to help protect you from spam.
God bless,
matt
Matt, you and I have bantered back and forth in various places before. Although we haven’t always agreed on things, we were able to keep the conversation light and respectful (at least in my view).
My last (and maybe only; I can’t remember) post at graceconversation was a question to you. Granted, I was butting into a conversation you were having (or had finished, in your estimation) with someone else. I was very surprised when your response came back and you seemed a bit upset and cut me off. But it did make me step back and take a look at the larger picture of what was going on.
I stopped reading because I realized that no matter what one’s point of view was, no one was listening to anyone else. Everyone was just talking past one another, and none of it was helping me to grow as a Christian.
I’m not a conservative, I’m not a progressive. I consider myself moderate. I may not agree with everything you said about the website, but at least you’re being reasonable in discussing it. I think ultimately Jay, Todd, Greg and Phil are attempting something noble and have the best intentions at heart; but the website would probably best be served to not have comments. As it is, the conversation the “big four” are having is being ignored because of all the passersby who are adding their two cents (Imagine trying to have a conversation on a city sidewalk while everybody that passes by listens in and tries to tell you their side of things without being asked to).
Anyway, that’s enough rambling from me. Wishing you success in all your ministries.
Brad
Brad, I think if you will notice the last post by Phil you will find that he is trying to address everything asked him, even by the “passerbys”. You may not agree with Phil as I often do not, but you have got to admire his effort to answer all those who pose questions.
Brad says,
“I think ultimately Jay, Todd, Greg and Phil are attempting something noble and have the best intentions at heart; but the website would probably best be served to not have comments. As it is, the conversation the “big four” are having is being ignored because of all the passersby who are adding their two cents ”
I dgaree, Brad. I think as long as the comments on on topic, it is a GREAT communication device to further discussion from everyone. The only problem I see is not the comments section themselves, but in that our more traditional brothers have elected not to participate. Whether they are not as aware of the discussion, or just not wanting to come to the table, Ido not know.
I do not buy Matt’s perspective that it is a platform for the less traditional brothers to attack. THere are a few who are difficult to have a discussion with, and there a few that make rather pointed comments, but it works both ways (note our brother Greg’s many derrogatory comments in response to Jay’s query). Neither “side” should engage in such, but both do.
My perspective from my experience, and I suspect Matt may disagree based on his experience, is that most of our more traditional brothers do not want to have to answer the tough questions that we need to all be able to answer about why we believe and interpret what we believe. The entire purpose of the website and the comments is to provide a vehicle so that each CAN ask questions and defend their beliefs.
Sadly, it is primarily the less traditional that are choosing to participate.
I do agree that Phil tries to answer most questions, thought not all, asked of him.
God bless,
Alan Scott
Sugar Land, TX
Alan,
Would you want to defend the positions held by the “traditional” brethren? I would not. I am not surprised by their lack of participation. Arguing a position full of inconsistencies is difficult at best.
Dell,
I think you and many other progressives are jumping to conclusions about why conservatives are not flocking to the fray at graceconversation.com. Among the reasons I believe they are not showing up is because, unlike me, they are not so gullible as to think their time will be well-used in that manner. I have pretty much given up hope of having a decent discussion about the issues at gc. Also, most preachers are very busy. I have had two funerals and a crisis to deal with, in addition to normal study, evangelism, and sermon and Bible class preparation. Most preachers will not sacrifice their time for gc. Third and finally, I have already mentioned that many there are more conservatives who do not use the internet a lot, whereas a majority of progressives do. Therefore, the discussion at gc will always be unbalanced.
Personally, I think it is a cheap shot to try to goad them into responding when they are trying to focus on the Lord’s work in their neck of the woods.
I remain convinced that a live, face-to-face debate is what is called for, not the free-for-all that is going on at gc.
God bless,
Matt
Dell, I haven’t been back to the site in a while (before today). I have no doubt that Phil (and Todd, Jay and Greg as well) is doing the best he can, and I have no gripe with the four principals involved at all.
Allen, I agree that “as long as the comments are on topic” it has the possibility of being a great tool. My perspective coming into this was from Todd’s blog, where he stated the site would be an “on-line discussion” between the four of them that was “open to public viewing” (quotes taken from Todd’s March 24th post).
I guess my outlook on this was skewed from the beginning; I was envisioning something like a presidential debate. What’s the point of a presidential debate: to have the candidates present their cases concerning certain situations and policies so that the members of the audience (very important part; no point to the debate without the audience) can listen and each individual can make up his or her mind about which candidate is the closest to what they’re looking for. But the debate itself becomes useless if the uproar in the audience overtakes what is being said on the stage.
I know it’s an imperfect analogy, because we don’t look for candidates in a presidential debate to end up coming together in agreement, but hopefully you get my drift. The discussion itself is indeed vital to our coming to an understanding of one another and hopefully coming together in agreement, and that includes the comments from readers who can indeed over valuable insight to be added to the main discussion. The rest of the “jawing” back and forth (such as the mean-spirited comments aimed at Greg after his apology to JMH – I’m not favoring one ‘side’ or the other; that’s simply the most glaring example I could think of)) is useless and simply further degrades outsiders’ view of our brotherhood. Hopefully everyone involved can overcome this and truly begin to rationally discuss these vital topics of concern.
Blessings to all,
Brad
Matt,
I respect your thoughts as a brother. I too realize how busy a preacher of the gospel is if he does his job well. This is my 32 year in the pulpit. I don’t see that conservative preachers are any busier than any other preacher. This week I have held three home Bible studies, baptized one from these studies, prepared two sermons, taught 2 classes, visited the hospitals, and a nursing home, written 3 posts for my blog and it is only Thursday evening. I genuinely do not believe that many of the conservatives want to deal with the issue of consistency. I could be wrong and I certainly hope that I am. Whether we are conservative, Biblical, or progressive we need to be consistent in our teaching. God bless your work.. dell
Of course, there are the “traditionalists” like me who have been, effectively, banned from GraceConversation for daring to try and get folks on a reasonable track and for doing less than the many “progressive” critics.
Alas, providing further insight into a fundamental problem which it is unlikely the principals will deal with (i.e., resolve) are the postings today, from Wayne & Dusty, to GraceConversation clearly indicating that “pentecostal” claims fuel “progressive” theology.
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
Robert,
I assure you, I am no more pentecostal than the first century Christians. I grew up in ‘gestopo Chruch of Christ’ and have found grace. I still attend Church of Christ and am jazzed about the CofC.
I am excited that people are talking. Just because the conversation isn’t easy, doesn’t mean it isn’t productive. Conversation is the beginning of understanding.
Be careful of the names and categories you place on people for the purpose of proving a point or maintaining a position…they may not be correct.
Sincerely from a Prodigal,
Dusty Chris
Dusty,
Thanks for proving my point!
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
Dusty writes, in part:
> “Be careful of the names and
> categories you place on people
> for the purpose of proving a
> point or maintaining a position…
> …they may not be correct.”
Go figure!
Dusty attempts to admonish me/us here with such things, while seeming to violate the same in the article he posted to his own blog earlier today wherein he declares his righteous superiority over his critics.
> “Conversation is the beginning
> of understanding”?
Well, I think I am beginning to understand where Dusty is coming from!
As I earlier opined, it represents a fundamental problem that needs to be recognized early on in any serious discussion.
Dusty, thanks for the added “proof” of my point as evidenced by that article you posted today on your blog.
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
The article on my blog dated April 24th was referring to the older brother in the prodigal son story. I was not referring to you. Who do you see as the “older brother” in our modern church?
Trust me, I have no superiority over my critics. I am a man who is sold out to Jesus. I have trouble arguing over religious matters because the whole arguing thing doesn’t make sense to me. I am a stumbling sinner who humbly seeks the mercy and grace of God to save me. Where is it you think I am coming from? what do you understand about me?
I accept, Robert, that you are my brother in Christ and that we do not have to argee on 100% of things. That’s OK. I can still appreciate your beliefs and your testimony of faith.
I don’t understand your hostility, if any, toward me.
Oh, and what point, exactly have I proved to you?
By the way, I sure enjoy reading ya’lls entries on grace conversations. I hope ya’ll will keep it up.
Dusty,
I understand the concept of “plausible deniability” when it comes to your article and what I have had to say about it in the context of what has transpired here. Interested folk can read the comments here and your article and form their own opinions as to my evaluation.
My April 23, 2009 entry above seems to have been clear enough to me as to the point I was opining about and the proof you offered as to it.
I notice that, since your original response thereto, you have not chosen to further pursue your fundamental claims.
You now suggest a certain lack of interest/ability if seriously taking up such “disputable” claims.
That’s fine with me. This would not be a particularly effective venue to pursue such a “conversation”.
For now, I presented my point for consideration; you, Dusty, offered confirmation of the point I was suggesting; and there have been no rebuttals submitted here to the point presented.
Dusty, I have no hostility towards you. I deny certain of your claims referenced in my earlier comments here, but I have no hostility towards you.
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
Matt,
I’m curious & meddling. Has the reaction to this post given you new perspective on how hard it is to keep the commenters (myself included) on target? lol
Have a great day,
Brad
Brad,
I spent about three years as a moderator on a large Bible discussion board. During that time, I learned a lot about how online discussions work (and don’t work). The biggest problem with internet talk is lack of moderation. Since people tend to say things online that they would not say face-to-face, or act in ways they would not act face-to-face, moderation of discussions is an absolute necessity if anything is to be accomplished.
In regard to your question, so far the comments here have not strayed too far off topic. So no, I have not gained a new perspective, but I think the comments here do show why it is a difficult task to get any real discussion off the ground in a free-for-all environment.
Thanks for stopping in, Brad!
Matt