Author Topic: My apology to JSB (Read 8492 times)

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #25 on:** July 16, 2010, 12:53:19 AM »

Urban Dictionary defines brouhaha as such:

Quote from: Urban Dictionary

chaos. often used to exlaim suppuriority. Used by uber nerds amd wana be posers.

Interesting.... almost as interesting as the spelling...

The Schaef · « **Reply #26 on:** July 16, 2010, 01:14:40 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 15, 2010, 11:38:51 PM

I go back to the main thing that bothered me about the current case at hand. Legalism is clearly evident in the claim that Romans 14 means, "You must change your behavior because it offends my personal sensibilities."

Soul Seeker, I hope you can see that I have not taken your question lightly. In return I ask you this: What are we to make of the multiple places in Romans 14 where Paul exhorts Christians to not judge other Christians?

It's interesting that you take this position, considering the context of that chapter primarily is not to judge brothers for being weaker in their faith than you, and therefore engaging in stricter practices. Example:

Quote

If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.

I'm having a difficult time understanding how if my personal sensibilities are offended, you are not acting in love, you are destroying my faith, and in something you consider good, I am claiming you are doing evil, but in no way does that suggest you should alter that behavior in the least.

Or:

Quote

Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

If it is better not to do things that would cause a brother to fall, how is that not changing your otherwise-unconvicted behavior?

Deference is not legalism.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #27 on:** July 16, 2010, 01:50:30 AM »

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on July 16, 2010, 12:53:19 AM

Urban Dictionary defines brouhaha as such:
Quote from: Urban Dictionary
chaos. often used to exlaim suppuriority. Used by uber nerds amd wana be posers.

Interesting.... almost as interesting as the spelling...

I should have used "hullaballoo" instead.

Quote from: The Schaef on July 16, 2010, 01:14:40 AM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 15, 2010, 11:38:51 PM
I go back to the main thing that bothered me about the current case at hand. Legalism is clearly evident in the claim that Romans 14 means, "You must change your behavior because it offends my personal sensibilities."

It's interesting that you take this position, considering the context of that chapter primarily is not to judge brothers for being weaker in their faith than you, and therefore engaging in stricter practices.

I am failing understand the point you are trying to make. This most likely means that I have not explained my position clearly enough, so let me rephrase...

The exhortations in Romans 14 deals with my actions and my requirement to use my freedom as a believer responsibly. In verse 15, for example, we are told that if our action (in this case eating meat sacrificed to idols) distresses our brother we should not do it. Once I start talking about requiring you to accede to my sensibilities, however, we have an entirely different kettle of fish. This is highlighted in verse 3 where the non-meat eater is told to not condemn his brother for eating the meat.

Put another way, in the best case the person who eats meat sacrificed to idols will refrain out of his own love for his brother from eating the meat. Should the eater of meat choose to fall short of that standard, however, his brother has no basis to attempt to compel his obedience.

Quote

Deference is not legalism.

Correct, but commanding others to defer to you is legalism. More precisely, substituting my personal standards on disputable things and attempting to compel everyone else to abide by them is legalism.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #28 on:** July 16, 2010, 02:06:50 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 16, 2010, 01:50:30 AM

in the best case the person who eats meat sacrificed to idols will refrain out of his own love for his brother from eating the meat.

And if someone is NOT doing what is the best course of action it makes sense for others to point that out who wish to challenge him to live up to that.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 16, 2010, 01:50:30 AM

Should the eater of meat choose to fall short of that standard, however, his brother has no basis to attempt to compel his obedience.

No one is compelling anyone here. YMT, myself, SS, Schaef, etc. have all encouraged JSB to do what you yourself say above is the best course of action. But no one is holding a gun to his head. No one is threatening to kick him off the forum, or even warn him. These people are simply trying to communicate to him that they think his choice in this matter should be different. That's not compelling, that's Christian accountability. Iron sharpens iron, my friend

The Schaef · « **Reply #29 on:** July 16, 2010, 02:10:03 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 16, 2010, 01:50:30 AM

Once I start talking about requiring you to accede to my sensibilities, however, we have an entirely different kettle of fish.
Correct, but commanding others to defer to you is legalism.

I'm sorry, did the words "require" and "command" suddenly enter into the discussion? If so, then it seems that what you are talking about is nothing like what I am talking about.

soul seeker · « **Reply #30 on:** July 16, 2010, 11:00:35 AM »

First: I can't respond without a wall of text....sorry in advance, I will try to be concise.
MJB: We are coming from different angles, so that is why I asked for definitions.
where I'm coming from:
Accountability: Basic Premise: People turn a blind eye to their faults both large and small, therefore they need someone to come along side to highlight areas in which otherwise they wouldn't know exist. I agree with you on your definition in part. Accountability can be as you state, but I believe that kind is reserved for Stronghold's of sin in one's life that people can't correct themselves. "Large sin" if you will. For most guys, porn and/or lust comes to mind that needs to be taken care of in the way you describe. However, I think there is an accountability to our fellow Christians (which I believe Romans 14 describes) that doesn't need as deep of level and this is more "small sin" or difference in convictions (which ever the case may be) that I think all Christians have a responsibility in. That is why I don't feel YMT or Prof U (on the greater scale) is necessarily wrong when they say something. This leads to my other definitions: judgment & legalism.
*However, before I move on. I must acknowledge that we are interpreting Romans 14 different. I, like Schaef, believe that chapter is about Christian deferment and not judgment (as you will see in my future definitions). The chapter calls for peace (vs.17-19). It calls for restraint out of love, and both sides should not judge. An example: I don't think it's wrong to wear my hat in the sanctuary during non-worship times (business meetings/choir practices/etc.) and yet someone got on to me for doing so during a play practice. I didn't judge them or their motives. I didn't get angry or upset. I simply took it off and made a mental note not to do it again. The chapter calls for us to be considerate of others...to keep the peace.
Judgment & Legalism: I see these two terms interlinked. They both are devoid of love. They both put man in the place of God. They both look after their own interests. They both create a spiritual hierarchy. They both condemn instead of exhort. I don't think YMT or Prof Underwood does this and I don't think it's their motives. They want to help others and are motivated by love. I disagree with you that forcing something onto someone (which I don't think either has ever done) is a complete definition of judgment or legalism. Judgment is an attitude of spiritual snobbery and looking down on others. Legalism is questioning one's spirituality based on a set of laws that a person must jump through to get to God.
To answer your question about judgement: Frankly, I think it's for both sides. Both sides, believing they are right, judge the other side. Paul is encouraging both sides to have peace.

FWIW: I have greater concerns then just this word and the fallout, but for the sake of peace since it seems to be dieing down...I'll let it go.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #31 on:** July 16, 2010, 09:08:34 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 16, 2010, 12:16:31 AM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 15, 2010, 11:38:51 PM
In my opinion accountability comes into play within the bounds of a serious (and primarily formal) interpersonal relationship between believers. It also is something that should, as a matter of principle, be reserved for matters of sin and not personal preference unless you are invited to comment on those areas.

I disagree only because my primary occupation includes keeping hundreds of teenagers accountable on a daily basis, most of which I have never met. If I hear students swearing and do nothing, then I am not fulfilling my duty.

YMT, I disagree with your characterization here. In your occupation you are not holding your students accountable in the Christian sense of the word. You are exercising Romans 13 authority over the students--you are a governing authority and are bearing the sword to curb lawlessness. Although they look superficially similar, I am not sure we should confuse the two. What you do in your job is a good thing, but it is not necessarily a kingdom thing.

Quote from: soul seeker on July 16, 2010, 11:00:35 AM

However, before I move on. I must acknowledge that we are interpreting Romans 14 different. I, like Schaef, believe that chapter is about Christian deferment and not judgment (as you will see in my future definitions).

I guess that is where the difference lies then. I totally accept that Romans 14 is about Christian deferment (and anyone who has read what I've posted elsewhere knows that I view this to cover a very extensive area). Entwined with that, however, are multiple repeated exhortation to not judge our brother.

Quote from: Romans 14:1,3-4, 10, 13

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.

Given this, I find it difficult to understand why you think Romans 14 is not about judgment.

Since Paul is talking to Christians interacting with other Christians in each of these verses, I find Paul's words difficult to reconcile with the conclusion that

Quote from: Prof Underwood

The Bible actually says that we are NOT to judge those outside the church (that's God's job), but that we are supposed to judge those inside the church (that's accountability).

As an aside, Prof, you know we have had very similar discussions on multiple threads previously most of which dealt with other members of the board who were not related to me. You are free to attribute what I have posted on this thread as being solely or even primarily as an attempt to defend my son, but I do not feel that is correct.

Anyway, since I have quoted most everybody else involved in this thread over the past few posts, let me conclude with this...

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 13, 2010, 10:43:29 PM

Maybe I am imagining problems where none exist. Maybe I am exaggerating things because my personal history causes me to fall very far to the grace side of Christianity.

It appears that one of those must be the case. I raised an issue that troubled me, and I have been informed by the mature members of the board that my concerns are unwarranted. I accept their correction and I apologize to anyone I have offended by what I have written on this topic.

soul seeker · « **Reply #32 on:** July 17, 2010, 10:35:53 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 16, 2010, 09:08:34 PM

Anyway, since I have quoted most everybody else involved in this thread over the past few posts, let me conclude with this...
Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 13, 2010, 10:43:29 PM
Maybe I am imagining problems where none exist. Maybe I am exaggerating things because my personal history causes me to fall very far to the grace side of Christianity.
It appears that one of those must be the case. I raised an issue that troubled me, and I have been informed by the mature members of the board that my concerns are unwarranted. I accept their correction and I apologize to anyone I have offended by what I have written on this topic.

I'm not sure how to take the above or how I feel about it. Hopefully, you are not still troubled and my guess is that you're seeking peace too. I agree that we shouldn't judge, and I strive not too. I think the disagreement is more of accountability and what it looks like (both in appearance to others and action amongst Christians.) With this, each Christian must choose their own path. I, for one, will try to limit it to close friends on disputable matters (because I still think some things shouldn't be done by ambassadors of Christ), and every Christian on sin. Above all, I try to make sure my attitude or correction is rooted in love otherwise I would be in the wrong (clanging cymbals and all).

FWIW: I had either forgotten or not realized that you have defended others on the board in similar areas, thanks for pointing that out. That helps make a few things clear to me as well.

JSB23 · « **Reply #33 on:** July 17, 2010, 04:39:00 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 16, 2010, 02:06:50 AM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 16, 2010, 01:50:30 AM
Should the eater of meat choose to fall short of that standard, however, his brother has no basis to attempt to compel his obedience.
No one is compelling anyone here. YMT, myself, SS, Schaef, etc. have all encouraged JSB to do what you yourself say above is the best course of action. But no one is holding a gun to his head. No one is threatening to kick him off the forum, or even warn him. These people are simply trying to communicate to him that they think his choice in this matter should be different. That's not compelling, that's Christian accountability. Iron sharpens iron, my friend

Why have you decided that everyone should be "accountable" to you?

The Schaef · « **Reply #34 on:** July 17, 2010, 07:13:55 PM »

Accountability is communal. I don't think it's particularly fair to presume that because he engages in it, that he presents himself as some kind of warden to whom all must report. I'm quite confident that if he were doing something wrong and you held him equally accountable, he would respond in kind.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #35 on:** July 17, 2010, 07:39:13 PM »

The problem is that the accountability is being done over the internet. It defeats the purpose if the the person who is trying to hold another person accountable is someone that he has seen maybe or twice, max. Accountability is based on trust, you cannot expect JSB to trust Prof (no offense) if his only aquaintance with him is on the redemption board. Personally I don't think you need accountability in situations like this (also when people blow the situation out of proportion nobody is benefited) because accountability assumes that the person did something wrong, either way if he did or not pointing out somones faults like that is not the best way to go. Simply say "I would like it if you didn't use that word JSB." and leave it at that. If he disagrees than that is his choice, right or wrong. You don't have to throw the bible at the guy.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #36 on:** July 17, 2010, 07:45:35 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on July 17, 2010, 07:39:13 PM

Simply say "I would like it if you didn't use that word JSB." and leave it at that. If he disagrees than that is his choice, right or wrong. You don't have to throw the bible at the guy.

So my apology wasn't good enough? I knew I should have included money with the Buckler.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #37 on:** July 17, 2010, 08:00:23 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 17, 2010, 07:45:35 PM

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on July 17, 2010, 07:39:13 PM
Simply say "I would like it if you didn't use that word JSB." and leave it at that. If he disagrees than that is his choice, right or wrong. You don't have to throw the bible at the guy.

So my apology wasn't good enough? I knew I should have included money with the Buckler.

Man, I didn't mean it like that, your apology was fine. By apologizing you essentially retorted to the stament above, which was good. Either way your intentions were good, it is just that on the message boards it is easy to misconstrue intentions and is hard to successfully set up kingdom accountability.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #38 on:** July 17, 2010, 08:15:18 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on July 17, 2010, 08:00:23 PM

Either way your intentions were good, ...

Awww, shucks.

The Schaef · « **Reply #39 on:** July 17, 2010, 08:15:33 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on July 17, 2010, 07:39:13 PM

Simply say "I would like it if you didn't use that word JSB." and leave it at that. If he disagrees than that is his choice, right or wrong. You don't have to throw the bible at the guy.

It's my understanding that is exactly what happened, in addition to which there was an attempt to resolve the matter privately first.

You apparently don't agree with this, but people build and foster relationships in the digital realm as well, and in this climate it seems to be more and more popular compared to face-to-face interaction. For better or worse, a lot of people build their social structures around Twitter and Facebook and Foursquare these days. I think there are some differences there to face-to-face and not all of those differences are for the better, but I don't think those relationships are to be so easily dismissed as trivial.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #40 on:** July 17, 2010, 10:06:42 PM »

What's foursquare?

The Schaef · « **Reply #41 on:** July 17, 2010, 11:02:27 PM »

You could just go to the website, but I'll give you this one for free.

The short version is that it's a place that uses geolocation to let you "check in" at various places you go. There are various things you can do with those locations and/or the locations your friends are visiting. In addition, they have an "achievement"-style system built in where you can earn badges and even become a virtual "mayor" of a town, among other things.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #42 on:** July 17, 2010, 11:13:30 PM »

Do you play?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #43 on:** July 17, 2010, 11:42:32 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 16, 2010, 09:08:34 PM

As an aside, Prof, you know we have had very similar discussions on multiple threads previously most of which dealt with other members of the board who were not related to me. You are free to attribute what I have posted on this thread as being solely or even primarily as an attempt to defend my son, but I do not feel that is correct.

I also thank you for pointing that out. I too have forgotten those times. I'm actually not very good at remembering who I've had conflict with or what area that conflict was in. Generally speaking, I say my piece, discuss it if the other person responds, and then move on. This is particularly true if it is someone who I don't disagree with very often (such as yourself).

Quote from: The Schaef on July 17, 2010, 07:13:55 PM

I'm quite confident that if he were doing something wrong and you held him equally accountable, he would respond in kind.

This is 100% correct. I hope that all of you here on the boards care enough about me to let me know if I do something that seems to conflict with either the Bible, or my previously stated beliefs.

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on July 17, 2010, 07:39:13 PM

Accountability is based on trust, you cannot expect JSB to trust Prof (no offense) if his only aquaintance with him is on the redemption board.

Actually, I think that people can build up a lot of trust here on the boards over enough time. For instance, there has been a guy (whom I had never met except on the forum) who entrusted me with some very personal information about a sin that he was struggling with in order for me to help hold him accountable in that area. God used that relationship to help him overcome that. Another example was when my wife and I were traveling to Fla to celebrate our 10yr anniversary (a couple years late) with a free cruise that God blessed us with. YMT (whom I had also never met except on the forum) welcomed us to stay in his home with his family including young children. For that matter other examples are all the people who host a tournament at their house and post where they live. Or all the people who make a trade online and send hundreds of dollars worth of cards through the mail hoping to get other cards back in return. Or all the people who play online with RTS and trust that their opponent really is getting their "bottom card" from their deck when they look at it. Or people who share deep burdens and pains in the prayer request part of the forum. These are all varying degrees of trust, but they are all built up purely based upon relationships here on the forum.

The Schaef · « **Reply #44 on:** July 17, 2010, 11:43:18 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on July 17, 2010, 11:13:30 PM

Do you play?

I do not. I don't have a smart phone and I'm not particularly interested in broadcasting "I'm at work" "I'm at home" "I'm at work" "I'm at home" "I've gone to the store" "I'm home" "I'm at church" "I'm at home" all the time.

News:

Author Topic: My apology to JSB (Read 8492 times)

Rawrlolsauce!

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

The Schaef

The Schaef

TheHobbit13

The Schaef