In a rant published today, he is arguing against the practice of putting on appearances. The general tone of the article is against something that most fundamentalists know to be a problem that does occur in fundamentalism. I agree that it is true that hypocrisy is alive and well everywhere.
But I want to focus attention on two specific statements in my erstwhile friend's rant:
So, really, who gives a rat’s behind about what anybody thinks about you? Stand up and be yourself. If people can’t hack the real you then don’t worry about being their leader.
Does that one bother you? Here's the second one:
Sometimes a Gospel-driven leader needs to conscientiously and publicly defy their pet righteousness. That requires a man with testicular fortitude and gutsy courage.
So... 'a rat's behind'? 'Testicular fortitude'?
In an article where the subject is 'being real', why does the writer not use the real profanity that these cleaned up versions hide? And is there any real difference between the "real profanity" and the gussied up version our friend uses?
Does the use of such language strengthen or cheapen the argument? Does it bring glory to Christ?
I know this man's father, heard him speak at the church we were members of when we were in SC a long time ago. I think their family were members there also. I recall seeing our pastor stop a preacher from making a joke about something my pastor would describe as 'bathroom humour'. He did this right in the middle of the sermon. Then he told the speaker to carry on. It was the strangest message I ever heard from then on! But I have to wonder, Bob, what would pastor Handford say about your post if you were giving it in his pulpit? Would he let you continue?
Would you call him someone who was concerned about perception, as well as reality? I would.
I will be happy to delete this post if you clean up yours.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
2 comments:
Don,
Somehow it seems hard to respect your approach here. If you really find offense and want to address Bob directly, do it where the perceived (pun intended) offense occurred. Don't make your personal digs unless you're prepared to do it on his turf. And especially don't do it with your comment moderation protection enabled.
But hey, it's your blog. It's your conscience. You can do whatever you want in the blogosphere. So do what seems right in your own eyes.
Well, Ben, the blogosphere is said to be a self-correcting medium. There is no single ettiquette for posting responses to blogs, as far as I know.
It seems to me neither here nor there as to where I respond to any posts I see. I have stated my reasons for posting here on Bob's blog, I have no idea if they are still up or not.
As for moderation, I don't think that I must allow any and all posts to be published. I intend to communicate my point of view here. You have your own blog, you can do what you like with yours.
It is interesting, however, that you choose to shoot the messenger rather than deal with the substance of the message. I am preparing a post that I may or may not publish concerning the Young Fundamentalist 'old boys club'. It is quite amusing to see you all circle the wagons and refuse to deal with substance.
The criticisms of 'old fundamentalism' can continue unabated, but the 'new fundamentalism' looks a lot like the old, just younger.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Post a Comment