Interesting perspective ...

[jimmyjimmy]

I think the following article is interesting.

No Longer Afraid—The Day My Heart Outgrew Conservative Evangelicalism

I used to be, but today is a brand new day.

I’m not afraid anymore—something has happened deep within my being. New perspectives, revelation, and spiritual understandings have changed my mind completely. No, not in some kind of condescending way nor with a joy that excludes you. I’m just a completely different person now—my soul convictions and overall posture are nothing of the same.

I understand. Perhaps to you, it seems like I’m out of control, descending into a death-spiral plummeting into everything and anything that is backslidden and heretical. Yes, I suppose it’s true, I am out of control and it’s such a beautiful thing—breathing for the very first time. I’ve lost no love for you, mean no disrespect, nor harbor any pride in saying so—but conservative Evangelicalism, it feels like my heart has outgrown you—I can’t lie.

Where I used to curl up in the fetal position, turn off my brain, play dead, tuck in my shirt, and quickly fall in line, a seismic grace-bomb has gone off within me sending waves of courage and freedom supplied with a simple message, “have no fear.”

Call it a spiritual emancipation, a soul-revolution, or a new found courage to walk away. All I know is this—today is like no other, I’ll never be the same. Conservative Evangelical Christianity—with all due respect, I’m no longer afraid. (see more at No Longer Afraid—The Day My Heart Outgrew Conservative Evangelicalism - Chris Kratzer )​

If you disagree with this, what is so interesting about this? What specifically do you find interesting?

 

[JRichard68]

I don't know what this means "I won't use the language I'm sure he would to describe it".....but if you're thinking the author's picture is on the article---that's not him (why is there even a critique of --what you thought was--his appearance?).

I saw the other thread (on this topic) as well, and held off commenting there, as my thoughts may have been construed as against the SOP for that sub-forum. I realize that the picture is not of the author. I was commenting on his tone. Reading the whole piece, in its entirety, leads me to conclude that he is neither at peace nor free.

 

[mkgal1]

I saw the other thread (on this topic) as well, and held off commenting there, as my thoughts may have been construed as against the SOP for that sub-forum. I realize that the picture is not of the author. I was commenting on his tone. Reading the whole piece, in its entirety, leads me to conclude that he is neither at peace nor free.

What you seem to be implying is that one can't advocate for a group of people without being a member of that group. That's not true. We that have the privledge of not being shoved out to the margins *should be* the first to reach out to those in the margins. It seems to me that's a main part of Jesus' teaching...the Kingdom of God..."the least of these" are of great value to Him.

This teacher is an example of someone using their privledge to stand up for the marginalized:

AJ+

 

[PeaceJoyLove]

I find God delightful and i love that He rejoices over me with singing and that His Holy Spirit prompts me to smile from the inside, out, and that His joy is my strength, and that i can rejoice in Him because He is a GOOD God.

I fear you have misunderstood me my friend.

But have no fear, all is well.

Yes, I understand that delight very well. All good.

 

[JRichard68]

What you seem to be implying is that one can't advocate for a group of people without being a member of that group. That's not true. We that have the privledge of not being shoved out to the margins *should be* the first to reach out to those in the margins. It seems to me that's a main part of Jesus' teaching...the Kingdom of God..."the least of these" are of great value to Him.

All I'm calling attention to is the nature in which he's doing it. I agree with your premise, and I'm not implying otherwise. The vitriolic nature of his posts is what I take exception to. That's all.

This teacher is an example of someone using their privledge to stand up for the marginalized:

AJ+

I've seen this, and I agree. But I might ask if the same outrage would be felt toward this man's treatment:

Better recognized as:

The very type the blogger is railing against.

 

[GingerBeer]

All I'm calling attention to is the nature in which he's doing it. I agree with your premise, and I'm not implying otherwise. The vitriolic nature of his posts is what I take exception to. That's all.

I've seen this, and I agree. But I might ask if the same outrage would be felt toward this man's treatment:

...

Better recognized as:

The very type the blogger is railing against.

I've watched some of his sermons. He says some crazy things. He's also KJV Only in a major way. I never really understood why KJV ONLYism became popular. Maybe it has something to do with creating a tradition ...

 

[GingerBeer]

If you disagree with this, what is so interesting about this? What specifically do you find interesting?

It is probably asking a lot for you to review the thread but I did answer that question before. I think Brinny asked it so it is in one of my replies to a Brinny post. Have a look

 

[jimmyjimmy]

It is probably asking a lot for you to review the thread but I did answer that question before. I think Brinny asked it so it is in one of my replies to a Brinny post. Have a look

I saw your answer. It didn't explain much, which is why I ask again.

 

[mkgal1]

The vitriolic nature of his posts is what I take exception to. That's all.

I'm unsure as to why you read a "vitriolic" tone? That's interesting. Apparently you don't relate to his words (I happen to--so do a lot of his readers if you notice in the comment section).

I've seen this, and I agree. But I might ask if the same outrage would be felt toward this man's treatment:

I think you missed my point as to why I posted the video I did (and said that she's an example of one that's using her privilege to reach out to those in the margins. Did you catch her saying that there's a different standard for her (as opposed to someone that's brown with an accent)? She could have easily answered that she was a U.S. citizen and she could have gone on her way. She was trying to promote awareness of the harassment against Mexicans (pointing out the preferential treatment of Caucasians). The video you posted...seemed to be trying to gain sympathy for himself--not any others. There's a difference there.

 

[GingerBeer]

I saw your answer. It didn't explain much, which is why I ask again.

How about you being more specific about what you're asking. You say you saw my answer. You say it doesn't explain much. Exactly what do you want to see in an explanation?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

How about you being more specific about what you're asking. You say you saw my answer. You say it doesn't explain much. Exactly what do you want to see in an explanation?

Exactly why would someone who says that he does not agree with the content of an article, post it without critique. If you disagree with it, then post it, and explain at what points you disagree with it and why. Without that, one is bound to think that you are promoting the article and views contained within. I certainly do,

 

[JRichard68]

I'm unsure as to why you read a "vitriolic" tone? Apparently you don't relate to his words (I happen to--so do a lot of his readers if you notice in the comment section). That's interesting.

I did notice that about the comments in his blog. A lot of folks do relate. As far as me and my take on it, I clarified it in post #205. That's as succinct as I could make it. Whether I relate or not is an assumption.

I think you missed my point as to why I posted the video I did (and said that she's an example of one that's using her privilege to reach out to those in the margins. Did you catch her saying that there's a different standard for her (as opposed to someone that's brown with an accent)? She could have easily answered that she was a U.S. citizen and she could have gone on her way. She was trying to promote awareness of the harassment against Mexicans (pointing out the preferential treatment of Caucasians). The video you posted...seemed to be trying to gain sympathy for himself--not any others. There's a difference there.

I understood the point, and I agree there is a double-standard. The teacher was quite in the right to do what she did. Apparently she was only let go after another four hours of questioning, and she never did answer their initial question about citizenship. Good for her. I am 100% behind why she did what she did.

But what would your thoughts be if I had just said "Oh, it's just about getting sympathy for herself and what minorities supposedly have to go through. Everyone knows that these agents treat everyone the same. She's lucky she didn't get tazed and beat up, too..."

I suspect that you'd be a tad upset.

As for the second guy, he could have answered questions and gone on his way, too. But my question wasn't about sympathy, it was about feeling outrage toward his treatment by the same folks (border agents) who (apparently) mistreated the teacher in the first video. Apparently not. But he's just one of those "conservative Evangelicals"...

*Disclaimer: This post is not intended to reflect in any way an endorsement on my part of the views of Pastor Steven Anderson*

 

[GingerBeer]

Exactly why would someone who says that he does not agree with the content of an article, post it without critique. If you disagree with it, then post it, and explain at what points you disagree with it and why. Without that, one is bound to think that you are promoting the article and views contained within. I certainly do,

I read your posts without offering a critique of them - unless there's something specific that I think needs a reply. I treat the blog similarly. I posted it because a member of my church drew it to my attention as something that was interesting and after reading it I too thought it was interesting. That is why I posted it in a thread called "interesting perspective ...".

 

[Daniel9v9]

This article is simply mixing secular notions with Christian teachings. I fail to understand the idea of being liberated from God's Word when we are already liberated in Christ.

There's a critical difference between living under the law and upholding the law through grace. Because the person who wrote the article got this elementary thing wrong, no wonder the whole article is full of errors. I don't say this in attempt to attack, control or scare anyone, but what I am saying is that there is a greater freedom found in Christ than what he embraced, which is really his own idea and not the truth as found in Christ.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I read your posts without offering a critique of them - unless there's something specific that I think needs a reply. I treat the blog similarly. I posted it because a member of my church drew it to my attention as something that was interesting and after reading it I too thought it was interesting. That is why I posted it in a thread called "interesting perspective ...".

Reading posts requires no comment. Beginning threads does.

 

[brinny]

Yes, I understand that delight very well. All good.

Then please extend the grace to me to bear with me as i attempt to explain in my clumsy way, what the "fear of the Lord" is, my friend.

David, delighted in fearing God. Perhaps that is why God called David "the apple of His eye" and "a man after His own heart".

It's worth a study.

God bless you.

 

[brinny]

This article is simply mixing secular notions with Christian teachings. I fail to understand the idea of being liberated from God's Word when we are already liberated in Christ.

There's a critical difference between living under the law and upholding the law through grace. Because the person who wrote the article got this elementary thing wrong, no wonder the whole article is full of errors. I don't say this in attempt to attack, control or scare anyone, but what I am saying is that there is a greater freedom found in Christ than what she embraced, which is really her own idea and not the truth as found in Christ.

I agree with you Daniel, except that it's a he.

Otherwise you're spot on.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Then please extend the grace to me to bear with me as i attempt to explain in my clumsy way, what the "fear of the Lord" is, my friend.

David, delighted in fearing God. Perhaps that is why God called David "the apple of His eye" and "a man after His own heart".

It's worth a study.

God bless you.

Come, ye children, hearken unto me: I will teach you the fear of the LORD.

Forgive me...

 

[brinny]

Then the Bible promotes pantheism--because that's straight from the Bible:

“But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness.”—Romans 8:10

“I am crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me.”—Galatians 2:20

“Christ in you, the hope of glory.”—Colossians 1:27

"Remain in Me, and I will remain in you. Just as no branch can bear fruit by itself unless it remains in the vine, neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in Me." --John 15:4

Being "in" Christ is not the same as calling myself "Christ" and claiming to BE Christ the Savior.

 

[brinny]

Come, ye children, hearken unto me: I will teach you the fear of the LORD.

Forgive me...

Thank you.