In the previous post, Todd Burus asked a question concerning the response to Calvinism among some in the SBC. The post has generated a number of comments that are helpful in understanding the issue. Of course, Calvinism is only one among many issues present in the SBC today. Similar issues, even some that came up at the annual meeting last week, include Baptist identity, alien immersion, alcohol, separation, cooperative missions, who can take communion, neo-Landmarkism, church growth methodology, contextualization, the list could go on…
Having read much about doctrinal controversies in Baptist history, lived through the tail end of the Conservative Resurgence, been to numerous Baptist meetings on the associational, state and national level, listened to Pastor’s Conference sermons and committee reports, participated in blog discussions, had late night debates, participated in doctoral seminars and colloquia, read Baptist newspapers and editorials, met with entity Trustees, and generally been willing to discuss any topic with anyone on virtually any occasion, I have experienced and engaged in my share of disagreements on various issues. Often, I am disheartened by the nature of such disagreements. At times, I have been mischaracterized, mistreated, or just frustrated by the lack being able to come to any common ground. Too often, I am ashamed of my own conduct and failure to handle disagreements in a Christian manner and one that seeks God’s truth.
I do not suggest that there should be no disagreements or there should be peace at any cost. Some issues are worth a fight and some hills are ones on which to die. I want to be diligent in my quest for truth and fighting for those things which truly matter and about which I have an informed conviction. Still, not all disagreements rise to that level. Further, I want to handle disagreements in a Christ-like manner. I offer the following as my own reasons for why, many times, we engage in fruitless arguments and come out so strongly against brothers with whom, rather, we should unite around the gospel. I offer these not only as observations of the actions of others, but traits I have sometimes seen in myself and am working to avoid. I offer such for your consideration.
Things to avoid in our disagreements with others:
- A willful ignorance in which we choose to embrace a caricature of someone’s view rather than truly seek to understand it – or worse, an intentional dishonesty in advancing such a caricature we know to be misleading or untrue.
- An unwillingness to allow persons to speak in their own words and argue against the actual content of their position.
- Rejection of a view “out of hand” without having considered the merits of the argument.
- An unwillingness to engage in real discussion, either talking past each other by ignoring the honest questions of others or engaging in debate/rhetorical techniques that are designed to win an argument rather than actually seek the truth.
- Taking offense or rejecting an argument because of a perceived practical implication or application of someone’s view rather than the view itself.
- Ascribing a perceived logical outcome of an opponents view and attacking that outcome rather than the view itself.
- A willful blindness to our own presuppositions and or a failure to acknowledge those presuppositions of which we are aware.
- Parsing words to the point of ascribing hidden agendas or extracting meanings never intended by the person.
- Failure to give one’s opponent the benefit of the doubt in terms of personal motives.
- A blindness to our own motives and personal agendas.
- Attacking the character of the person rather than the argument made.
- Responses that are reactionary not thoughtful – i.e., responding to something which we have neither read, sought to understand, reflected, nor considered the merits yet on which we have a strong, unwavering opinion that must be heard.
- Responding to critics from a defensive posture rather than engaging in real discussion in a common desire for truth.
- Name-calling or lumping a person into a particular camp in order to dismiss one’s argument without engaging it.
- A dogmatic approach to issues which are tertiary in nature, on which persons of good conscience disagree, and which are more unclear in Scripture than we are willing to admit.
- A failure to do theological triage resulting in an elevation of tertiary issues to secondary or even first order status.
- A failure to have an irenic spirit and treat our opponents with respect.
- A lack of humility.
I hope this list is helpful. I certainly need to monitor my own actions in disagreements with others. Also, I should say that I have had far more disagreements that have been handled in a Christ-like, truth-seeking manner by all involved than ones characterized by what I have described above. I am encouraged by men who are willing to engage in cordial debate and a common desire for God’s glory as we seek to be faithful to Christ and His word. Ultimately, I want to see Southern Baptists finally and forever give up fighting over non-essentials and unite around the gospel of Jesus Christ. My heart longs for that day and the recent annual meeting of the SBC advances that hope. Lord, let such begin with me.
Blessings,
Todd
Dave Miller (75)
Debbie Kaufman (63)
Rick Patrick (41)
Chris Roberts (37)
Bob Hadley (33)
Frank (33)
Greg Harvey (31)
Bart Barber (30)
dr. james willingham (30)
cb scott (29)
Simple solution to disagreements in the church–big or small. Three words for you–Rock ‘em Sock ‘em Robots. For the record I count “Rock ‘em” and “Sock ‘em” as one word each.
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..II Peter 2:4-8 God, the Righteous Judge Part I =-.
Glad to know it wasn’t a counting error.
I agree with the solution. Maybe we should have a Mohler vs. Vines at Orlando next year.
Or Burlson vs Patterson…..Dorthy Patterson that is.
Bwahahahahhaha
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..II Peter 2:4-8 God, the Righteous Judge Part I =-.
haha… wow. that is awesome.
We’re probably gonna get in trouble for laughing at that but, as Stewart Smalley used to say, “That’s…ok”.
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..II Peter 2:4-8 God, the Righteous Judge Part I =-.
That is a fantastic list – did you compile it?
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..The Best Preaching Ever? =-.
Yes, I’ll claim credit for the list. These are things I’ve been thinking about for some time. The list itself began as a comment I was going to make on Todd’s previous post, but morphed into a blog post of its own.
.-= Todd Benkert´s last blog ..A quick word on Tuesday at the SBC =-.
Joe, Matt: Those comments are already a violation of rule number ten. Think about it. I have kept quiet, but if we are going to begin to have unity and peace despite differences, let’s begin with knowing those two comments are way out of line.
Joking about Rock’em Sock’em Robot battles is way out of line? Are you being serious?
How in any way does that show blindness to our “agenda?”
Matt: You just sit awhile and think about it.
Debbie, unless you are joking around, your own comments violate #8 & 9. Are we so far from getting along that we don’t even have a sense of humor?
Matt and Joe, I’m not sure that robots are the best way to resolve complex theological issues, and I’m not sure why you would even suggest such a juvenile activity. Perhaps you should have considered something more conservative and contextual such as corn toss.
Okay, I have… now can you explain? I know you dont want Wade’s robot to get beat up by Dorothy’s, but I think you are being very, very over-sensitive.
In no way do those comments show “blindness to our agenda our our motives.” The motive, for me, was to continue to go along with a funny joke about Robots deciding correct theology. My agenda, to get other people to think it was funny.
Am I missing something?
My motive was that it would be pretty stinkin’ hillarious to watch two fairly well known adults playing a game from when I was a kid. I mean, I don’t care who you are that’s funny right there.
To all concerned, for the record, I meant for this list to be one primarily for self-reflection not for judging the responses of others. I cannot control how others choose to respond to disagreements, but I want to make sure that I myself earnestly seek the truth and handle disagreements in a Christ-like manner.
Blessings,
Todd
Rule 19: Lighten up a little!
Your last comment is dead on. The last thing we need is blog police going around saying, “You violated rule 13.”
If we would remove the log from our own eyes we would have less time to do speck examination on others.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..The Best Preaching Ever? =-.
Yeah, I don’t care what anybody says, Matt and I were hilarious in that particular exchange.
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..II Peter 2:4-8 God, the Righteous Judge Part I =-.
Hilarious? I’ll go as far as mildly amusing!
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..The Best Preaching Ever? =-.
You don’t go far enough my friend!
Okay, chuckle-inducing, but not chortle-worthy
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..The Best Preaching Ever? =-.
I have VERY high standards – I’m a Yankee fan.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..The Best Preaching Ever? =-.
Just so we’re clear, if you were a Cubs fan, you’d think it was hilarious?
If I were a Cubs fan, I probably wouldn’t understand the concepts involved!
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..The Best Preaching Ever? =-.
The last thing we need in our disagreements is humor.
) Maybe we need to take ourselves less seriously which is very different than taking our positions less seriously.
I like the list. I am not sure how often I live up to it, but it would be a worthy goal.
.-= Tom Bryant´s last blog ..Jon Stewart and the RIPpy’s =-.
Robots? Another strawman attack on Calvinism! We just can’t win!
Seriously, Todd, good post.
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Gospel Coalition or Assertions? =-.
News Alert: SBC Today has reinstated comments http://sbctoday.com/2009/07/01/sharpening/
.-= Todd Benkert´s last blog ..Two Challenging Sermons from the SBC Pastor’s Conference =-.
Seriously, what I wish I had sometime is a blogging accountability partner. I just got rebuked privately for a “blogging sin” that I committed, which I wasn’t sure was a sin. I apologized since another Christian was offended.
I try to operate on high standards, but sometimes it would be helpful to have someone who monitored my blogging and and sent me little report cards or gentle rebukes when I get a little “mentally irregular.”
I know the Holy Spirit does that, but he uses that “still, small voice” which I find so easy to drown out.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..The Best Preaching Ever? =-.
All: I love to laugh, but humor is only funny if you are not the butt of the joke. I am saying that if all want to get along, then “humor” like that isn’t humor, but is mean humor. I know Fundamentalists I grew up with used it all the time. Bottom line: Give me a break. We are all called to judge from time to time. To say never judge is to ask me to be stupid and goes against the message the Bible intended. If we are not to judge, let’s get rid of church discipline since that requires judging. That would of course be ridiculous. As ridiculous as the do not judge mantra.
Is it Christian to make fun of other believers in any way, shape or form, funny or not?
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..We Need To Begin To Wipe The Slate Clean…And Begin Again =-.
Todd,
News Alert: SBC Today has reinstated comments
Ah… the Baptist Identity Boys have grown tired of talking to themselves and decided upon a new strategy of limited engagement with the rest of us… Or have they?
Does this reinstatement extend to all those they have personally banned in the last year or more, or is this just an invitation to the unsuspecting public?
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..The Rise of Passionate Missionary Calvinism in the SBC =-.
I suppose that remains to be seen. My hope is that all involved could come to the table and have serious discussion without personal attack on the one hand and being easily offended on the other. I remain hopeful that this development will further Baptist dialogue on important issues rather than hinder it. It sounds like the group has made a renewed and sincere effort toward cordial dialogue. Until proven otherwise, I will give my BI brothers the benefit of the doubt.
.-= Todd Benkert´s last blog ..Two Challenging Sermons from the SBC Pastor’s Conference =-.
Debbie, who made you the butt of any joke here?
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..The Best Preaching Ever? =-.
Todd,
“It sounds like the group has made a renewed and sincere effort toward cordial dialogue. Until proven otherwise, I will give my BI brothers the benefit of the doubt.”
Todd you are a good man! I’m not sure I am even going to attempt to comment on their blog, but if I do I will make a sincere effort to keep it cordial.
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..The Rise of Passionate Missionary Calvinism in the SBC =-.
No one Dave. I am just asking a question that pertains to unity and cooperation here. Does it have to be about me to speak up against it? I don’t think so.
If we are truly to have cooperation and to begin to be united, jokes, even if one perceives it as funny, has to be done away with. Mutual respect and love doesn’t make anyone the brunt of a joke. It has been the mainstay of too many and it just has to stop.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..We Need To Begin To Wipe The Slate Clean…And Begin Again =-.
I am sorry. I have great Christian unity with a lot of folks, and achieving that has never required that we do away with laughter and jokes.
I am the brunt of jokes all the time (length of sermons, width of waist, etc). I enjoy it. I try not to make jokes too personal, but laughter is a gift of God.
I just guess I will have to dissent strongly from the idea that unity requires the abandonment of humor. Don’t buy that.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..The Best Preaching Ever? =-.
width of waist? Whatever does that mean?
If it takes abandoning humor to have “unity” it is not unity at all!
“Abandonment of humor” is a strawman argument. Of course if humor means the same as making certain people the brunt of jokes, then yes, I am saying abandon humor.
For the record, I have never, ever, nor will I ever, make a joke about another person. I think it’s cruel and a good excuse to be just plain mean. I will always speak against it. I believe we can disagree with someone. It’s kind of like the women, wife jokes, the mother n’law jokes. They were funny until one was a woman, a wife, or a mother n’law.
I personally put jokes like the above and the ones you think are so funny here in the same category as racist jokes. They are funny to some, but are they worthy of a Christian and are they funny to the one who is being talked about.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..We Need To Begin To Wipe The Slate Clean…And Begin Again =-.
Wow… Rock’em Sock’em Robot jokes are equal with racist jokes. And some people are mad a Todd’s comparison… Interesting. I am a Calvinist and I think Calvinist jokes are hilarious. I am a Baptist and I think Baptist jokes are hilarious. If a mother-in-law cant laugh at mother-in-law jokes she is to sensitive and she takes herself to seriously.
A good piece concerning Christian Humor by 9Marks entitled 95 Thesis for Christian Humor. I agree.
In other words, I hear you.
Debbie, I agree. I found no humor in the joke about Wade and Pattersons, or Mohler and Vines. I thought the robot thing was cute, kinda like me squashing eggs when I get uptight. But bringing in these people’s names when they are not part of the conversation is not humorous to me. That’s my take. selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..PROTECTED FROM GOD’S GLORY, LEST…. =-.
I just dont know how Mohler(known for Calvinism) vs. Vines(known for hating calvinism) deciding whether or not calvinism is true by a Rock’em Sock’em Robot death match is not funny!
Thank you Selah. That was my point too.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..We Need To Begin To Wipe The Slate Clean…And Begin Again =-.
I don’t connect rock’em sock’em with anything but fun…
I didn’t think the Dorothy Patterson bit was funny at all… that WAS kinda mean spirited….
Selah — I hope the eggs are cooked and can at least be used in potatoe salad or egg salad or something…. LOL…
And, I’ll throw out an old baptist joke just for the fun of it…
When Christ returns, it is said Baptists will be the first to meet Him in the air. Do you know why?
….drum roll please…..
Because the dead in Christ shall rise first….. ha ha ha ha ha…
ok… admit it… it’s funny…. you know you want to laugh
Ya’ll have a blessed day!!!
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..Do you think we got the hint? =-.
Sallie,
As a Baptist I am very offended by your comment. Humor like that is inappropriate for christians. It does nothing productive, but drive a wedge in conversation.
Yes, I am kidding. Hopefully everyone can see my point!
There’s a difference between not thinking a joke is funny and being offended by a joke. I have a great pirate joke that my wife does not think is funny and rarely lets me tell. Truth is, the joke IS funny and only one person I ever told it to did not laugh (and only then because they were humoring my wife). At the same time, my kids continually do and say things that they think are funny which I find mildly annoying at best, and tell jokes that are pretty dull by my high standard. (What’s a ghost’s favorite dessert? Boo-berry pie.) No one should be surprised that persons of differing genders, ages, and stations in life will have different tastes in humor and standards for what is funny.
Being offended is another thing entirely. The question here: what is there to be offended about? Is it because specific names were mentioned? The names mentioned are indeed on the opposite side of issues. None should be offended that we say Mohler and Vines disagree on significant issues or Patterson and Burleson on others. That’s just a fact. Bringing it up in a joke is not reason enough to be offended. Is it because the joke brings them to a point of indignity? Surely not. The mind picture of adults playing a kids game with plastic toys is strange –part of why some think its funny– but should not be offensive. The joke does not set any of these leaders as a buffoon or in any degrading way. There is nothing distasteful about robots. Rather the joke employs an unlikely scenerio of adults playing a game where plastic robots spar as an alternative and metaphor for the actual verbal sparring by which we currently hash out theological disagreements. And, dare I say, employing such a method of deciding issues, though obviously impractical, would be actually LESS offensive to me than some of kinds of blogging, pulpiteering, and debate my original post seeks to end.
Perhaps I have not convinced you. If we remain in disagreement, please remember that love covers a multitude of sins (1 Pet 4:8) and is not easily offended (1 Cor 13:5) and that a gentle admonishment usually goes farther than harsh rebuke (Prov 15:1). On the other side, we should certainly not delight in offending others (Prov 17:19) and go out of our way to avoid such offense (Rom 14:15; 1 Cor 8:13).
What to do with humor then? Perhaps one of my Voices colleagues will take that up in another post.
.-= Todd Benkert´s last blog ..Two Challenging Sermons from the SBC Pastor’s Conference =-.
Greg,
For the record, the comments are open to ALL who are WILLING (& this statement from a Calvinist) to comment and be respectful and willing to engage (to borrow a phrase) “in intelligent conversation about the issues that matter.” Yes, there will be disagreement. Yes, there will be humor (I do appreciate the Rock ‘em Sock ‘em Robots!).
Again all are invited to join in! See ya ’round.
Sola Gratia!
.-= Scott A Gordon´s last blog ..REVIEW: Alcohol Today by Peter Lumpkins =-.
One more comment on the humor thing – just to make an observation. The men thought it was funny, the women didn’t. Maybe God wired us a little differently, who knows?
Oops, I just opened up a big hairy can of stinky worms, didn’t I?
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..The Best Preaching Ever? =-.
Dave,
How dare you say that God wired men and women differently. There are egalitarians present!!!!
Sometime I despair of finding anyone who can deal with paradoxes or even understands the first principles about such things. So I will take the position of my ordaining pastor. He was a supralapsarian, a hyper-calvinist, who founded the American Race Track chaplaincy (cf. Who’s Who in Religion, 2nd edn. Chicago: Marquis, 1977), a soul-winner, par-excellence. He pleaded with my step-father to receive Chist until tears ran down the man’s face. Dr. Campbell ordained me to the ministry, when I did not buy his theology, but pastoring totally depraved people while being totally depraved will give you a new perspective on the Gospel. Dr. George Truett saidn one of his sermons, “If you knew what thoughts were passing through my mind, while I sat here on the platform, you wouldn’t hear me.” He was speaking of the horrible flow of evil thoughts that are constantly passing through our minds. Jonathan Edwards pointed out the incongruity of attacking the unconverted ministry, then he referred to our Lord’s selection of Judas as one of the 12, one of the Apostles, and put him in charge of the treasury. Think of how Judas must now feel in his place that was appointed and prepared before, and how he could have looked to the hand that dipped in the sop with him, that hand that would be nailed to the cross due to his own free action of choosing to betray Christ an ho he knew that hand could have turned in mercy upon had he truly desired it even out of grief over his infernal depravity. Some one (in another blog whre I am not sure) was so concerned about the reprobates, that they quite over-looked the fact that is the only kind of sinners that Jesus saves, the rerobates, the devil’s castaways, the ones no one wants, not even the devil. And God can and does use only crooked people t accomplish HIS GRACIOUS PURPOSES, AND EVERY THING DONE SERVES THOSE PURPOSES. AND SINCE HE IS IN CONTROL AND I AM NO I CAN FULLY AFFORD TO BE KIND, OPEN-HEARTED, GENEROUS, LIBERAL, EVEN INDULGENT TOWARD OTHERS AND ONLY HARD ON MYSELF. The rule is to treat others the way I want to be treated, and the way God treats me. The rules above are good. Anything advocating the way of peace, which is hardly Satan’s method unless he is running his usual congame, is the best way.
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.
What’s funny is that we baptists can and will argue about anything.
Wait..that’s not funny!
Or is it….
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Gospel Coalition or Assertions? =-.
Mark, yes…that is funny.
Dave and Matt: the problem with you “guys” is you are not in touch with your feminine side.
There, Todd, I’ve tried to be funny with everyone. Agree with everyone. I even proved your points by breaking some of the “avoidance factors” of bloggin. Do I get the prize? I want a signed copy of Calvin’s Systematic positions on how to position oneself on everything from Robots to Pecan Pie. Know if there is any book out there like that? If not, may Arminius (sp?) has one.
selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..PROTECTED FROM GOD’S GLORY, LEST…. =-.
SelahV, I think you got Arminius correct!
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..The Best Preaching Ever? =-.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NGx2sGM1aw
I don’t know what’s funnier: the rock em sock em bots…OR that James said a hyper-Calvinist was a soul-winner.
.-= Stephen Newell´s last blog ..GCR: The Gospel and Deaf Ministry =-.
ok, Tom Ascol just tweeted a news clip where Bill Clinton says he’s a calvinist… can we make some jokes about that? I mean, I find lots of humor in it myself…
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..Going to see Darryl Worley in Concert Tonight… =-.
Good advice!
.-= Joe Miller´s last blog ..Improved Comments and Conversation =-.
I think a post on the Biblical view of humor(with passages taken in context) would be a worthy post. Biting humor such as the above doesn’t quite fall into the category of loving or mutual respect.
Laughing at ourselves is one thing. Laughing at individuals is another. Biting humor just doesn’t have a place in Chrisitan life. I’ve seen plenty of cruel humor on both ends of Southern Baptist life, and it’s something we need to be honest about instead of defending.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..We Need To Begin To Wipe The Slate Clean…And Begin Again =-.
Debbie, perhaps an explanation on WHY you think the particular joke was out of bounds would be helpful. I think most of us would be in general agreement with you about not being biting or cruel, but don’t see anything “biting” or “cruel” about the particular joke in question or even how it was laughing “at” anyone.
In your view, is all humor out of bounds if it contains a reference to a particular person?
.-= Todd Benkert´s last blog ..Two Challenging Sermons from the SBC Pastor’s Conference =-.
If you hurt or embarrass someone at the expense of a laugh is that simply because someone is offended or is it against what scripture says? What does that do to our testimony to a world who we are to reach for Christ. I love to laugh, just not at the expense of hurting anyone else.
I’ve seen Christians cheer at someone who threw out a acid joke and this on Southern Baptist posts. Let’s really search the Bible and think about it. If I am wrong, I’ll admit it. So far I’m not convinced I am.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..We Need To Begin To Wipe The Slate Clean…And Begin Again =-.
A joke about throwing acid on someone would be clearly out of bounds because it laughs at harm to another person. How is settling arguments by plastic toys rather than heated debate offensive?
.-= Todd Benkert´s last blog ..Two Challenging Sermons from the SBC Pastor’s Conference =-.
Just an honest question, do you know what Rock’em Sock’em robots are? Perhaps you are unclear about the metaphor itself. If not, the question stands: how is this offensive.
For reference, here is an original commercial for the toy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joDjwtjIQS8&feature=related
.-= Todd Benkert´s last blog ..Two Challenging Sermons from the SBC Pastor’s Conference =-.
How is settling arguments by plastic toys rather than heated debate offensive?
Ain’t it the truth? Ain’t it the truth???
Yes Todd. They were around probably before you were born.
You guys keep rationalizing. I’ll keep protesting. Both of us will be happy.
I think I have given my reasons why I find it offensive. Not to be insulting, but how much clearer can I be?
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..We Need To Begin To Wipe The Slate Clean…And Begin Again =-.
I think I have given my reasons why I find it offensive. Not to be insulting, but how much clearer can I be?
Actually, you haven’t. Your point of view is not clear to me at all. No one’s rationalizing here. Since we don’t know what it is about the joke you find offensive, we have no way of rationalizing even if we were inclined to do so.
I understand that you are against any jokes that are biting, cruel, degrading, embarrassing, or otherwise attacking. I agree with you in that assessment. We should not attack our brothers and sisters in Christ and should take care not to offend.
What is not clear is why you think that this particular joke is an attack on the persons mentioned and not just a funny alternative to debate. It is not clear what element of this joke you find biting, cruel, degrading, embarrassing or otherwise distasteful. It is not clear why you would think pouring acid on someone is morally equivalent with playing a children’s game.
So please help us understand what it is, particularly, that you find offensive. Is it merely mentioning specific names. Is including specific persons in any joke offensive in itself? Is it the boxing element (too violent) or merely the ridiculousness of playing a game at all? Was my corn toss reference equally offensive or were you only offended by the rock’em sock’em robots? Could this joke been told in a way that was at all acceptable?
These are honest questions. I mean that. We are not on opposite sides of an issue so much as we are unclear on your reasoning. Again, I agree with you in principle but fail to see how this joke is an example of the principle you state and with which I agree?
If you would answer some or all of these questions and clear this up for us, I think it may go a long way toward coming to some common ground. If not, we are left with yet another debate that has gone absolutely nowhere.
OK Todd, let’s look at scripture here and I preface this as saying anything that tears down another brother or sister in Christ is wrong.
Eph. 5:4–”Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.”
“Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.”
Do those jokes on this comment thread fit that. Who have you heard that you respect tell a joke that involved other names?
Our goal is unity and cooperation. We have voted in the GCR movement. That means we get rid of things we formerly were doing, including jokes about others in any form. It makes one or the other or both look foolish. I am talking about using both Mohler and Vines, as well as Burleson/Patterson. I feel strongly about this and am not just disagreeing to disagree. It has to stop. Not in my opinion, but simply it has to stop. Now.
I’m not saying leave it up to your conscience. I am saying the goal is clear, the Bible is clear. I’m not even giving wiggle room here. And as you know there is maybe a handful of that of things I am so adamant about.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..We Need To Begin To Wipe The Slate Clean…And Begin Again =-.
That should be, as you know there is only a handful of things that I am this adamant about that I give no one any wiggle room.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..We Need To Begin To Wipe The Slate Clean…And Begin Again =-.
Jonathan Edwards said this concerning James 3:
Resolved, never to speak evil of anyone, so that it shall tend to his dishonor, more or less, upon no account except for some real good.
31. Resolved, never to say any thing at all against any body, but when it is perfectly agreeable to the highest degree of Christian honor, and of love to mankind, agreeable to the lowest humility, and sense of my own faults and failings, and agreeable to the golden rule; often, when I have said anything against anyone, to bring it to, and try it strictly by the test of this Resolution.
34. Resolved, in narrations never to speak any thing but the pure and simple verity.
36. Resolved, never to speak evil of any, except I have some particular good call for it. Dec. 19, 1722.
38. Resolved, never to speak anything that is ridiculous, sportive, or matter of laughter on the Lord’ s day. Sabbath evening, Dec. 23, 1722. [although I do think we can laugh on the Lord's day, because every day is the Lord's day, not just one set day of the week]
70. Let there be something of benevolence, in all that I speak. August 17, 1723.
This is what brings unity, love, and camaraderie. I have waited far too long for the Convention to do the right thing as we did this year, and to keep saying the same way we did things is still ok is exactly what Satan is going to do to undo us.
We have just begun. Either we change or we don’t. If you always do as you have always done, you will always get what you always got.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..We Need To Begin To Wipe The Slate Clean…And Begin Again =-.
Debbie,
Thanks for following up with me. Now I think I understand. I think we agree, in principle, on the improper use of humor. I agree with nearly everything you’ve posted in response to my questions (except perhaps laughing on Sunday:). However, my answer to your question: “Do those jokes on this comment thread fit that” is no, they do not.
If I understand you correctly, you are offended by the use of specific names. By using names, you suggest that we are tearing down a brother or sister in Christ. Thus, comment #1 was OK, but comments 2&3 crossed the line.
We both agree, as I surmise do also Joe and Matt, that tearing down a brother or sister is wrong (BTW, as far as I know, none of the three of us have ever participated in the kind of scornful, mean-spiritedness that has plagued the SBC blogosphere in the past). Our disagreement boils to this:
Your position: The thing that makes a joke offensive is that you used a specific name.
My position: The thing that makes a joke offensive is how you use that name.
However, read on because in the end I’m going to agree with you
…
Here are three criteria for me on the proper use of this kind of humor:
1. Intent Was the joke intended to demean, degrade, or put down the person? In this case, no, I do not believe that it was the intent of Joe or Matt to attack any of those named. Naming potential match-ups merely brought the joke from the abstract to the concrete. The joke would have worked inserting any two names in Baptist life that disagreed about anything. Their motive was not harmful.
2. Content Did the joke contain any elements that are biting, cruel, degrading, embarrassing, etc.? Again, no. The joke referred to the fact that Baptists disagree (the original point of my post. Given my long list of things to avoid, the joke suggests it might be easier to not have arguments at all but just settle issues by playing a fun game (if you’ve never played rock’em sock’em robots, let me assure you, it’s fun). Rather than finding the joke demeaning, I rather find that two leaders having fun playing a game with 8,000+ spectators would be more uplifting than the kind of rhetoric and mean-spirited wrangling to which my post is a response. I think Joe saw that, and made the same point I was trying to make in a serious essay by using humor.
3. Context Did the context in which the joke was told, cause it to be appropriately received? In this case, no. Communication is “receptor-oriented.” That is, real communication only takes place if what the receiver hears what the sender intended are the same. In the case of humor, what is funny in one context is often offensive in another. Here is the rub. While the joke was not intended to offend nor offensive on its face, several things in the context of the blogosphere led to it being received as offensive:
(A) There have been a lot of sinful, un-Christ-like, mean-spirited jokes directed at fellow Baptists on blogs in the past few years and some of the names mentioned have been the target of such attacks. History, makes such jokes suspect.
(B) The names mentioned are representative of particular issues about which we feel strongly and have often been the target of the kinds of misunderstanding and negativity to which the original blog post referred, and
(C) The joke is really “guy humor”, as Dave Miller pointed out in comment #46, and this blog has a mixed readership. When something does not seem funny, it may also come off as offensive.
Thus, I submit, that while in many contexts the joke would not be offensive and was not intended to be offensive, in this context it was perceived as such. The joke had an unintended result.
With all that said (I’m a preacher and am sometimes longwinded), here is what I propose:
1. You and others who may have been offended let Joe, Matt, and I off the hook and give the benefit of the doubt that no harm or offense was intended by the joke.
2. We recognize that we offended you and ask your forgiveness.
3. Given that many in our readership see such jokes as name specific people offensive, I agree to refrain from these kinds of jokes or reserve such jokes to private correspondence.
Is this agreeable to all?
Blessings,
Todd
May I suggest a 4th option?
4. None of us preacher boys will ever tell another joke for public consumption. Everyone knows preachers mangle them.
It’s obvious by the content of this thread that instead of relieving tension, all it took was a single offended party to put the tension right back.
.-= Stephen Newell´s last blog ..GCR: The Gospel and Deaf Ministry =-.
Todd, all understood here. Thanks for sharing. I appreciate you taking time to communicate your thoughts in this Christ-like manner. selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..PROTECTED FROM GOD’S GLORY, LEST…. =-.
This dialogue, I think, has been a good test case for the principles I put forth in the original post.
.-= Todd Benkert´s last blog ..Two Challenging Sermons from the SBC Pastor’s Conference =-.
Stephen…now, brother. That is probably a commitment few in the blogosphere could ever live up to. Kinda like one of those New Year’s resolutions.
selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..PROTECTED FROM GOD’S GLORY, LEST…. =-.
Todd Benkert, I think you are right. And hopefully we can all appreciate your words in the post and use them to guide our blogging. There’s a lot to remember, though…more than the ten commandments.
I find myself thinking more and more of my own contributions to the blogosphere and seeking to allow more of Jesus to live through me in my words. There are times I have come up short, and believe there is always room for improvement. selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..IS IT POSSIBLE? =-.
Yes Todd, you are correct in that when I laughed at the first comment. It was when it began naming names that it was no longer funny but belittling.
I hope you choose not to do it privately for the same reasons I mentioned, but there is nothing I can do about that.
Everything is fine. Thank you for hearing me.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..We Need To Begin To Wipe The Slate Clean…And Begin Again =-.
You’re welcome. I’m glad we could carry the conversation as far as we did to really understand each other’s position and end on a positive note. I look forward to future conversations.
Blessings,
Todd
Hi, I enjoyed the list of suggestions and wanted to let you know I shared it with my readers
HERE
.-= Joe Miller´s last blog ..How to Disagree Without Being Disagreeable =-.
Glad you thought my post worthy of passing along. Thanks
Recently, a president of one of the Moderate Baptist divinity schools delivered an address dealing with the tendency of Baptists to argue over everything. He especially cited an Episcopalian from the period under consideration (lte 1700s). the really interesting thing to my way of thinking was that in all of that ferment of that period, the Baptists blessed the whole world with religious liberty, united Separates and Regulars, used both educated and uneducated men in the ministry, evangelized in quantity and quality at the same time, establsihed on the early attempts to deal with slavery (Friends of Humanity), worked with people like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc., established our first educational institutions, began the great century of missions, and experienced two great awakenings. Some ferment. Some controversy. I called it the climax of the reformaton. One Baptist in 1816 thought that if it were not a miracle, it was something remarkably like it. Certainly, that period was a wonder to him. In the midst of our ferment, let us have the good grace to laugh at ourselves and not take ourselves too seriously. A little humility about our understanding of our views might go a long way. God bless.
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 2 trackbacks }