Did you ever play that card game... you know the one... you always called it "BS". The one where you lie about what cards and how many you are putting down... I always did love that game. And I honestly think, if my flawed memory serves me not so well, it was the thing that actually got me thinking about the topic I came across tonight in an email i got from a friend.
First thing I want you to do is check the video out. The man in the video is, in my humble opinion, a very godly, intelligent, and respectable person. I am also guessing that after you watch the video, you will read the article that comes along with it.
My question is this: Who do you agree with? Who's response do you think is out of line? Honestly I want to know.
And, just because I can, I'll add my 1.5 cents... (its my blog anyway)
Shockingly enough for those of you who know me, I agree with Dr. Tripp, and I am irritated by Steve Camp's response. What Dr. Tripp is doing is applying what the Bible teaches (theology) to life (practical theology). He is making a great point about what makes things sinful or wrong. He didn't refer to it in the video, but the first thing that comes to my mind is the Sermon on the Mount. This is what Christ was doing for His audience. He was explaining what is most important. THE HEART!! Words are meaningless by themselves! I can use the most PC, Vanilla, Unoffensive words in the world and express the most vile, foul, sinful things possible.
While I agree with Dr. Tripp, I guess the only thing I would do to maybe help our more easily agitated and irritable brothers and sisters to enter into the waters of practical theology with less reactionism would be to replace the use of the word he chose with the word ass.
Why ass? you ask. Well its even better for making the point, because even my KJV only friends have to admit that this word has changed in acceptability and usage as far as culture is concerned. Notice all the non-authorized versions have since left that term for a beast of burden out.
Alright, lets hop in our little time machine and head on back to 1611 shall we... If i was conversing with any of my good friends, born again or not, and i referred to my pack mule as my ass no one would have batted an eye at me. So far so good, eh? Ok well lets keep it going. Lets say that as my ass and I were trotting along with my friends, we have a run in with a rather unpleasant fellow who felt that my friends and i were taking up too much of the road on with our asses. As a way to express my displeasure and unloving feelings for this man's response I referred to him as an ass in conversations with my friends as we continue the journey.
What made one usage any different than the other. The word itself is culturely acceptable, right? Fast-forward 397 years... replace my friends and i riding donkeys with mountain bikes, and the word ass with donkey. Do you see the difference, or lack there of?
Lets be honest, in most circles i run in, if i were to refer to a donkey or mule as an ass it still wouldn't go over so well, now would it. And i don't! Not because the word has since become sinful and I shouldn't use it, but because the culture I live in dictates that it isn't appropriate for me to use that particular word in a public setting. (Now I may refer to my friend as an ass in jest, but it will only be because i am 100% sure that he and i are on the same page on what matters, and the situation and all that, which would be another whole post) The word isn't the issue. The word is a marker that helps me to understand and navigate the culture i live in, so that I can be as effective as possible in my proclamation of the Gospel, both in my speech and my life.
Why are we as Christians either so afraid of culture that we detach and lose influence (i.e. modern science/nameless and countless other bastions of faith that have disproportionately large populations compared to their impact on the local culture and community) or so enamored with it that we adopt it and begin to change our theology to fit in with it (i.e. the emgerant conversation/seeker-sensative movements).
Where's the freaking balance!?
First thing I want you to do is check the video out. The man in the video is, in my humble opinion, a very godly, intelligent, and respectable person. I am also guessing that after you watch the video, you will read the article that comes along with it.
My question is this: Who do you agree with? Who's response do you think is out of line? Honestly I want to know.
And, just because I can, I'll add my 1.5 cents... (its my blog anyway)
Shockingly enough for those of you who know me, I agree with Dr. Tripp, and I am irritated by Steve Camp's response. What Dr. Tripp is doing is applying what the Bible teaches (theology) to life (practical theology). He is making a great point about what makes things sinful or wrong. He didn't refer to it in the video, but the first thing that comes to my mind is the Sermon on the Mount. This is what Christ was doing for His audience. He was explaining what is most important. THE HEART!! Words are meaningless by themselves! I can use the most PC, Vanilla, Unoffensive words in the world and express the most vile, foul, sinful things possible.
While I agree with Dr. Tripp, I guess the only thing I would do to maybe help our more easily agitated and irritable brothers and sisters to enter into the waters of practical theology with less reactionism would be to replace the use of the word he chose with the word ass.
Why ass? you ask. Well its even better for making the point, because even my KJV only friends have to admit that this word has changed in acceptability and usage as far as culture is concerned. Notice all the non-authorized versions have since left that term for a beast of burden out.
Alright, lets hop in our little time machine and head on back to 1611 shall we... If i was conversing with any of my good friends, born again or not, and i referred to my pack mule as my ass no one would have batted an eye at me. So far so good, eh? Ok well lets keep it going. Lets say that as my ass and I were trotting along with my friends, we have a run in with a rather unpleasant fellow who felt that my friends and i were taking up too much of the road on with our asses. As a way to express my displeasure and unloving feelings for this man's response I referred to him as an ass in conversations with my friends as we continue the journey.
What made one usage any different than the other. The word itself is culturely acceptable, right? Fast-forward 397 years... replace my friends and i riding donkeys with mountain bikes, and the word ass with donkey. Do you see the difference, or lack there of?
Lets be honest, in most circles i run in, if i were to refer to a donkey or mule as an ass it still wouldn't go over so well, now would it. And i don't! Not because the word has since become sinful and I shouldn't use it, but because the culture I live in dictates that it isn't appropriate for me to use that particular word in a public setting. (Now I may refer to my friend as an ass in jest, but it will only be because i am 100% sure that he and i are on the same page on what matters, and the situation and all that, which would be another whole post) The word isn't the issue. The word is a marker that helps me to understand and navigate the culture i live in, so that I can be as effective as possible in my proclamation of the Gospel, both in my speech and my life.
Why are we as Christians either so afraid of culture that we detach and lose influence (i.e. modern science/nameless and countless other bastions of faith that have disproportionately large populations compared to their impact on the local culture and community) or so enamored with it that we adopt it and begin to change our theology to fit in with it (i.e. the emgerant conversation/seeker-sensative movements).
Where's the freaking balance!?
