Today’s Buzz: Chuck Swindoll Redux, Hong Kong, and Foreskins…
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Wed, May 30, 2007
- Viewed 420
- (97) comments so far
Chuck Swindoll: Dirty Old Man?
Wow… never thought I’d get blasted so hard for sticking up for Chuck Swindoll. Yesterday’s post on VCY Radio Network dropping Chuck’s Insight for Living broadcast from their group of stations brought the ire of none other than Slice of Laodicea and Ingrid herself. Her follow-up post made it sound like I approve of every other word being a swear word… that that’s my practice… and I’m on a soapbox to get every Christian to do it. In reality, that couldn’t be farther from the truth.
In fact, I almost changed MMI’s byline to “a textbook case of what’s wrong with the New Pastors” as Slice now calls us.
The issue (for me) isn’t whether crude and course talk is wrong. Scripture certainly advises us to use discretion in our language. The question is where that line should be drawn… what is acceptable and what isn’t. The issue is not whether we should be crude or not; but rather what ‘crude’ really is. The definition of crudeness really does come down to culture somewhat. (And I’m not saying that the Bible does not have it’s standards… it does). Yes, I believe that crudeness changes over the decades… what was acceptable at one time might not be acceptable today; and vice versa. Things like buns and heck may have seemed crude in the 1950s, but they do not now to anyone unless they are still taking their cues from Ozzie and Harriett. The word ‘sucks’ when I was growing up meant something totally different than it does today. Today it’s just an expression with no sexual connotations.
You see, when we judge people ONLY on some of the words that they use, we become the word police. (The same goes with any other legalistic rule). We only associate with people who talk just like us (because we’re right and they’re wrong) even if they hold to the basic tenets of the faith.
And it’s not just words that have changed. Here are some examples of how things have changed in our culture:
1. In many circles, it was forbidden to go to movies at all. Now many draw the line with R rated movies. (The shift has gone from not being seen entering a ‘movie house’ to just not going to a ‘bad movie’.) I’m not saying this is a good or bad thing; just that I don’t know of anyone, even very conservative Christians, that hold that you can go to a theatre anymore. I’m sure there are some still out there.
2. When I was growing up, many people did not shop or even eat out on Sunday. That was considered SIN. Sunday was the day everyone should take off. Now, it’s the older saints that get together after church on Sunday for the lunch buffet. Why? Because it is now culturally acceptable. Eating out on Sunday is no more sinful now than it was in 1950, but times have changed.
3. How about eating or shopping in a place that sold alcohol? Same thing. Some people would NEVER be seen in a place that had a bar (or would only eat in the restaurant section). Those people now love Applebee’s and Cheddars.
So culture does affect what is acceptable and what is unacceptable to some extent whether we like it or not.
It’s affected the more liberal (in theology) as well. Yesterday’s article on the transgender pastor is a great example.
So… you can see… I’m not always saying that this is a good thing.
But in the gray areas, there must be some grace put into the equation. Otherwise, you have fat preachers yelling at people for swearing (when they themselves are 200 pounds overweight); or in extreme cases, people carrying “God Hates Fags” signs.
Those of you who read my writings often hear me call for balance. This area is another prime example. Some of what’s happening in today’s church bothers me as well. There are times when people push the line too far. There are other times when others play it too safe. My perspective is… let’s hold people up to the basics of scripture; let’s keep the main thing the main thing; let’s encourage and exhort one another rather than tear down and judge (unless that’s necessary); and let’s try to find the proper balance between a life full of liberty and one full of legalism.
In Chuck Swindoll’s case; Chuck has not changed his mind on any basic issues of the faith. And an important thing to remember here is that he did not offend ONE person outside of the Kingdom. The only people who took offense were Christians. When this happens, I think we need a reality check. I heard nothing from Chuck that would cause me to ‘break fellowship’ with him.
I’m sure I’ll write more about this at some point in the future. I have many questions and few answers (although I’ve been getting alot of advice… including an email this morning with a ‘word from the Lord’. That one word? “REPENT!”
Chuck Swindoll’s Newest Book
In an ironic twist of fate, if you’d like to pick up Chuck’s newest book, you can purchase it from the VCY Radio Network Online Bookstore here. Interestingly enough, the book is entitled “The Strength of Character” and is a featured item this month at VCY.
Yesterday’s Traffic Drivers
On the bright side, I think MMI was the only website in the world to have the most referrers from SliceofLaodicea.com AND ChurchMarketingSucks.com yesterday. For some reason, I find that kind of humorous.
2,041 Complaints that the BIBLE is Vulgar
In Hong Kong recently, over 2000 people registered complaints that the Bible is vulgar and indecent. The Television and Licensing Authority in Hong Kong rejected the claim. If the Bible had been reclassified as “indecent,” it would have been forced to be wrapped in a statutory warning notice and minors under 18 would not be able to purchase a copy of the Scripture. More here...
100 Foreskins for Your Daughter
One more thing on this. (And I’m glad Chuck didn’t share this story). Do you remember the story in the Old Testament how David wanted to marry Saul’s Daughter. Of course, Saul hates David, and wants to do him in. But his daughter absolutely adores David (and David likes her too). So, Saul comes up with a foolproof plan. He tells David that he can have his daughter’s hand in marriage… all he has to do is bring the King 100 Philistine penis tips. (Surely, one of these semi-upset Philistines will kill David before they let him… well… you know.
So, what does David do? He goes out and slaughters 200 (not 100!) Philistines. David decides to ‘play it safe’. He brings the king 200 Philistine foreskins.
A sidenote… can you imagine? Scripture says that David himself brought all the booty to the King. Can you imagine the scene? Saul and David sitting at a table. David’s counting (with a big smile on his face): 197.... 198.... 199.... 200.
Check out I Samuel 18. (Here’s a link to the KING JAMES version)
Now that, my friend is vulgar. At least my 9 year old daughter thought so as we were working our way through I Samuel.
OK… enough for today.
I’d love to hear your comments!
Have a great day!
PS—You KNOW that David had to share that story with everyone he met for the rest of his life. And I think he may have even embellished it a little as he told it. (I’m just guessing here).
A big day at MMI yesterday... quite a lot of discussion on the Chuck Swindoll report. Today, I'll debrief a little on that story, and we'll talk about vulgarity, Hong Kong, and foreskins. That's quite the combination!
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
bishopdave on Wed, May 30, 2007
That whole post was just excellent, Todd. The Bible is not vulgar—just real. All the sex and violence—and our loving God calling His beloved Israel a “wh*re”—reflect that it is an honest revelation about holiness and sinners.
Daniel on Wed, May 30, 2007
I just hope for the philistines’ sake that David killed them before he circumcized them. Ouch! You’re right though Todd, the mental picture of David unloading his 200 newly acquired foreskins is priceless.
Zachary Forrest y Salazar on Wed, May 30, 2007
Nicely done.
Brad Raby on Wed, May 30, 2007
FYI, The VCY Radio Network website has a brochure on the “Purpose Driven Movement”. In the brochure they advocate dissention. Let me qoute directly,
“What You Can Do? If your church is in the initial stages of change (music or the first 40–day program), your church could be saved by talking other church members, and with activist intervention by 10–20 percent of the membership.”
There is no mention on going to the leadership first. I thought it was just us liberals who didn’t use the Bible???
David Trotter on Wed, May 30, 2007
That’s funny. This week’s “teaching film” at Revolution included the foreskin passage. The question I asked our congregation was…
“Have you ever thought about what Saul did with all those foreskins? Did he post them on a board, fry them up like onion rings, or what?”
Seriously, have you ever thought about it? What did he do with them?
You can watch the film at [url=http://www.revolutionfamily.com]http://www.revolutionfamily.com[/url].
Todd Rhoades on Wed, May 30, 2007
Brad,
Yes… I saw that yesterday. (That’s a whole other post for a whole other day!)
They actually advocate ‘activist intervention by 10–20 percent of the membership’.
Todd
Leonard on Wed, May 30, 2007
You cannot win with people who are convinced they are right. All their actions stem from being convinced they are right. Dialog doesn’t work because dialog is used only to point out where they are right and someone else is wrong. When you are right your ends justify your means because that is pursuing holiness but when your wrong, well your just wrong. I would much rather lead my neighbor to Christ than to bicker with the folks at slice. I believe everything I believe is true but I KNOW that not every thing I believe is correct, that is why I study. Here is a litmus test for a teachable heart: when I study, do I study to learn from God or to confirm only what I already believe. When I get these out of balance I become unteachable.
kent on Wed, May 30, 2007
With all the issues that desparatrely need our attention in this culture to get our shorts in wad, yes shorts in wad over what Chuck Swindoll has said is a perfect example of why so much of the church has nothing to say to dying world.
I do not know the constituency that VCY plays to but I guarantee you they are small and irrelevant. If that is waht they have to bringto the table, well let them listen but beyond that let them be. I was going to say broom them, but that is not gracious.
Nathan on Wed, May 30, 2007
Todd,
Once again, you have proven that truth and logic win out over hysteria and knee-jerk reactions to what some Christians (as you pointed out, no non-believer was offended) consider offensive.
I’m getting a bit sick of preachers having to limit their vocabulary of innocent euphemisms to that of the “approved” words on the Slice crowd’s list. I wonder when they will realize that they don’t make the rules?
As always, your post exposed the prudes for what they are.
DanielR (a different Daniel) on Wed, May 30, 2007
Was VCY involved in the Contempory English Version (CEV) translation of the Bible?
Because instead of foreskins, the CEV says “All you have to do is to bring back proof that you have killed a hundred Philistines!” Sounds like a change they would have made.
Randy Ehle on Wed, May 30, 2007
A couple thoughts have come to mind yesterday and today: First, why is it that a post about Swindoll using crude language inspired more comments from both sides than I’ve seen in some time here at MMI. (Todd can verify whether my observation is in line with the facts.) I’m pointing the finger at myself here, because I was going to comment, too, but my computer failed me. Still, if the issue is as much a…well, non-issue…as many of us seemed to suggest, then why bother? Makes for great blogging, of course, with all the back-and-forth from various viewpoints, but is it something really worth spending our time on? (signed, Pot, calling you Black!)
Second thought: I tend to think Mrs. Pilgrim was right on the money yesterday. Here we are slamming VCY and Slice of Laodicea for voicing their opinions about Swindoll, but aren’t we really doing the same thing? No, we’re not removing any links to their sites or “actively” censoring them, but look: In a nutshell, VCY condemned Swindoll for his speech; Ingrid apparently agrees with VCY. We (again, I include myself for what I would have written) condemned VCY and Ingrid/Slice for their speech. Perhaps we used less vitriol - we didn’t call their words sin, after all; but nonetheless, aren’t we saying that they’re essentially wrong? Someone here accused them of promoting dissension for suggesting that church members use a “constitutional” means of guiding a church rather than going to the church leaders. But by posting that accusation here, aren’t we guilty of bypassing the scriptural principal of going to the offending one privately?
What’s my point, other than simply trying to be the conscience of MMI for a few minutes? Well, for starters, we’re all hypocrites in need of grace. But that doesn’t mean it’s okay to be a hypocrite; after all, we are new creatures who ought not remain enslaved to sin. Maybe we could focus more on how to advance the kingdom instead of attacking those who (in our opinion) are subverting that advance. Just some thoughts….
Carl on Wed, May 30, 2007
I would call all of our attention to the Bible - Which is God’s Word - and judge what VCY did against it and not our personal opinions.
1. There is a verse that states WIDE is the path that leads to destruction. Narrow is the path that leads to salvation and FEWthere be that find it. I have learned that to be Christian is to often be in the minority. We should all consider that verse.
2. It is one thing to let slip a bad word. It is quite another to intentionally use one and think it is funny or cute. I personally do not feel the need to swear or use slang to make a point. All I need is a good point. I do not feel the need to be personnaly relevant when teaching Biblical matters. All I need to do is use God’s Word.
3. There is another verse in the Bible that talks about how a little leaven….. Well a LITTLE of any bad thing can be too much. Consider 1 ounce of dog feces in a batch of brownies… Would YOU eat it?
4. I see no example in the Bible of either Jesus or any apostle stuppng to the level of using crude language to get a point across. If they did not, should we?
5. The Bible teaches that we are to die to self that Jesus may live though us. WHen a person like Mr Swindoll has to be in the world to be reelvant (by using innapropriate language) he ignores the Biblical admonishion that we are to be in the world but not OF it.
Perhaps if people actually read the Bible and followed it, there would be less need to do another thing that the Bible commands - to reprove and rebuke each other when we fall.
VCY FOLLOWED Matthew 18 with Mr Swindoll in trying to get him to recognize his fault. Everyone should READ Matthew 18 and see what we are commanded to do when our brother refuses to repent.
At the end of the day. we either obey God’s Word or we don’t. People here nned to stop being immature Christians and hold up what people say to the light of the Word and stop shooting the messenger when they don’t like what the Word says.
Nathan on Wed, May 30, 2007
Carl,
#4 - Check out Philippians 3:8 - dung or rubbish is hardly a correct/accurate translation. I’d say that most of you would consider that pretty crude.
Also, Galations 5:12 would be considered quite crude by the Slice crowd, according to their own definition, huh?
Carl on Wed, May 30, 2007
Nathan,
I am not interested what Slice, you or I consider to be crude. The final authority on the matter should be the Bible.
1. Did VCY follow Matthew 18? I think they did
2. What does the Bible say abuot crude language? Consider Ephesians 4:29 whish states, “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.” Philippians 1:27 states, “Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ;”. And, in Titus 2:7-8 it states, “In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, Sound speech that cannot be condemned ; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.”
Carl on Wed, May 30, 2007
Nathan,
You said you thought the use of dung in Phillipians 3:8 was “hardly a correct/accurate translation”. So I looked it up in the original Greek to find out if what you are saying is true. You are wrong . It IS an accurate translation…
it can mean refuse as in
1. excrement which is cast out of the body or
2. the “leavings” for a feast which is thrown away from the table.
In either case, the word dung is correct AND accurate in the context of that verse.
Be like a Berean like the BIBLE says…..
Page 1 of 7 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Post a Comment