I do agree with your basic statement that it is morally and ethically wrong to target any race just because a person belongs to that specific group no matter what the reason is. There remains no justification for any of this hostile type of behavior.
While I do agree with your main premise for authoring the article concerning Asians, I find myself yet again defending a group of believers that as a group had nothing to do with this heinous act. So, therefore, how we criticize the individual's lack of teaching because of the group he belongs to. An analogy that could be used is we going to condemn all apologists for the actions, oh I don't know, like Razi Zacharias for the sinful actions he did while as leader of a parachurch organization that defended the existence of God.
Michael, I love you brother. We cannot isolate an entire group for the actions of one simply because the actions of one do not label an entire group. Still better, questioning an individual because he claims to belong to a group as to the quality of his teaching. You are better than most people, aware of what Matthew recorded as Jesus saying in Matthew 7:21-23.
On another note, I like this platform that you are using. It is worth every cent!
Thanks Jeff. Point taken. The first thing I said was that we shouldn't think that he did this because he's Southern Baptist. I don't want to impute one man's evil to an entire denomination. I also said that I suspect that porn, mental health, and gun access will probably be big factors too. And I pointed to genuine sadness by SBC people in the form of Danny Akin's tweet. But I do want to ask, painful as it is, whether certain teachings about Christian manhood/masculinity, can be twisted into some wicked directions.
I stand corrected to a degree. At times, you come off with an axe to grind that is directed at SBC. The last question of your post has an excellent question regarding the teachings of the church and more specifically, the teachings of the evangelical church.
That question has disturbed my mind the entire day. Michael, I grew up in the sleepy hollows of West Virginia. As a youngster, I can still remember going to a revival meeting in the late summers. The church seemed like a well-knit family whether you are from the area or not. The preacher, holding the revival, had never attended any formal training nor cared about it. He preached from the Bible and during the two weeks or so many were converted. At the age of fourteen, I was also converted. My point to this is many people because of the Word of God being preached was like Abraham, they believed God. Nothing more and nothing less.
Fast forward to now. Michael, once I had gotten into academia, the things I didn't know seemed to dwarf the things I thought I knew. Many pastors have informed me, Jeff, do not let what you are about to find out, shake you lose from your faith. Information that seventy-five percent is based on truth and the rest you must throw out. And I must admit there is information that at times was hard for me to swallow.
I will bring everything into context now. Your question is a reality question, as evangelicals, must be addressed, not in the context of the implications, but the implications of the cause. What are we teaching? How do I know it is the truth? One can line up ten evangelicals with an academic background and bring up the topic of inerrancy and be hard-pressed that two of them would agree on the proper view of inerrancy. Standing in the background, is many congregations are listening to the debate. Thank you, internet! How many of those people will walk away and in their own mind saying the Bible is not worth the paper it is printed on? Why should I believe it? Then you bring in the many social issues such as homosexuals in the church, women teachers, and pastors and porn, just to name a few and the continued erosion that is caused by bickering among academics that causes many more to question their view of God. Michael, we who are supposed to be teachers have caused a lot of this. Because we cannot agree. So, to answer your question, yes, we as Christians must bear some responsibility to teachings but not because it is twisted but because we are not providing a better understanding of the Bible with consistency or agreement.
I will get off my soap box now, thank you Michael.
Hello Michael,
I do agree with your basic statement that it is morally and ethically wrong to target any race just because a person belongs to that specific group no matter what the reason is. There remains no justification for any of this hostile type of behavior.
While I do agree with your main premise for authoring the article concerning Asians, I find myself yet again defending a group of believers that as a group had nothing to do with this heinous act. So, therefore, how we criticize the individual's lack of teaching because of the group he belongs to. An analogy that could be used is we going to condemn all apologists for the actions, oh I don't know, like Razi Zacharias for the sinful actions he did while as leader of a parachurch organization that defended the existence of God.
Michael, I love you brother. We cannot isolate an entire group for the actions of one simply because the actions of one do not label an entire group. Still better, questioning an individual because he claims to belong to a group as to the quality of his teaching. You are better than most people, aware of what Matthew recorded as Jesus saying in Matthew 7:21-23.
On another note, I like this platform that you are using. It is worth every cent!
Jeff
Thanks Jeff. Point taken. The first thing I said was that we shouldn't think that he did this because he's Southern Baptist. I don't want to impute one man's evil to an entire denomination. I also said that I suspect that porn, mental health, and gun access will probably be big factors too. And I pointed to genuine sadness by SBC people in the form of Danny Akin's tweet. But I do want to ask, painful as it is, whether certain teachings about Christian manhood/masculinity, can be twisted into some wicked directions.
Michael,
I stand corrected to a degree. At times, you come off with an axe to grind that is directed at SBC. The last question of your post has an excellent question regarding the teachings of the church and more specifically, the teachings of the evangelical church.
That question has disturbed my mind the entire day. Michael, I grew up in the sleepy hollows of West Virginia. As a youngster, I can still remember going to a revival meeting in the late summers. The church seemed like a well-knit family whether you are from the area or not. The preacher, holding the revival, had never attended any formal training nor cared about it. He preached from the Bible and during the two weeks or so many were converted. At the age of fourteen, I was also converted. My point to this is many people because of the Word of God being preached was like Abraham, they believed God. Nothing more and nothing less.
Fast forward to now. Michael, once I had gotten into academia, the things I didn't know seemed to dwarf the things I thought I knew. Many pastors have informed me, Jeff, do not let what you are about to find out, shake you lose from your faith. Information that seventy-five percent is based on truth and the rest you must throw out. And I must admit there is information that at times was hard for me to swallow.
I will bring everything into context now. Your question is a reality question, as evangelicals, must be addressed, not in the context of the implications, but the implications of the cause. What are we teaching? How do I know it is the truth? One can line up ten evangelicals with an academic background and bring up the topic of inerrancy and be hard-pressed that two of them would agree on the proper view of inerrancy. Standing in the background, is many congregations are listening to the debate. Thank you, internet! How many of those people will walk away and in their own mind saying the Bible is not worth the paper it is printed on? Why should I believe it? Then you bring in the many social issues such as homosexuals in the church, women teachers, and pastors and porn, just to name a few and the continued erosion that is caused by bickering among academics that causes many more to question their view of God. Michael, we who are supposed to be teachers have caused a lot of this. Because we cannot agree. So, to answer your question, yes, we as Christians must bear some responsibility to teachings but not because it is twisted but because we are not providing a better understanding of the Bible with consistency or agreement.
I will get off my soap box now, thank you Michael.