Sunday, September 24, 2006

HERETIC REDUX: The Beam In The CRIB'S Eye - Part Two

This is the second in a two-part response to critical comments made at RedBlueChristian a few days ago to a post I wrote there. The post was highly critical of the ministry of Joe Beam. See here for Part One and here for my original CRIB post on the same subject.

Principally, I will respond to point number four made by Terry Hull at RBC. Points one through 3 are in Part One. A caption will be followed by a coded paste of Hull's comments, followed by my response according to the code. This will be followed by my general response to the criticisms.

In general I feel the criticisms were a form of intimidation, attempting to get me to apologize or recant; I will do neither. In fact I am more certain now of my criticisms of Beam and his ministry than when I first began.

(4) I read your post, and I read the article about Mr. Beam to which you linked. a) On every score - b) your thirst for sensationalism, c) your reckless slander of fellow Christians, d) your equating orthodox doctrine with your own personal inhibitions - e) I find your post much more offensive than anything I read about Mr. Beam.


a) "On every score" - hyperbole is an acceptable form of writing except when it is untrue. "On every score" is a stretch, and I'm sure Terry would now agree.

b) "your thirst for sensationalism" ... really, how so? All is fair in love and war and blogging, so show me where you see a "thirst for sensationalism"?

c) "your reckless slander of fellow Christians" ... again how so? Show me where any person was slandered?

As far as I can tell, there is an objection the use of a dictionary as a source for the definition of the words "heresy" and "heretic"; and yet I've not seen any evidence that the dictionary's content is materially different than any religious reference I checked.

There were also references to the use of the words "fool" and "reprobate" ... I believe implying that I used them slanderously. Yet no evidence was offered to reveal how my use of those words was improper or inaccurate.

d) "your equating orthodox doctrine with your own personal inhibitions" ... again how so? And, since I know you do not know me to know my "personal inhibitions" I am certain that my best inhibitions make your worst inhibitions look like those of Joseph.

I may be wrong, but the criticisms appear to reveal a certain ignorance of the historical and orthodox church in every traditional body I'm aware of! Can my critics name one which supports a view supportive of Beam's perverted view - historically and traditionally (shoe placed squarely on the other guy's foot)?

e) "I find your post much more offensive than anything I read about Mr. Beam" … that you do, would seem to be expected!

In all seriousness I respect your right to disagree with me or my positions and would still consider you a blogging friend all the same!

As I said in Part One, if you or anyone else is hoping for a retraction, there will not get one! Beam and his ilk are classic heretics, practicing classic heresy, and gleefully leading others to do the same [Romans 1:32].

Maybe their break with orthodoxy outside our Big-Twelve Fundamentals of the Faith but his heresy is undermining those ten nonetheless!

The fact that commenters find more to fault in my post than in Beam’s teachings is revealing to say the least … but not unexpected.

But, the absence of comments on either blog concerning the potential danger to our churches, families, and children is appalling! Not only appalling, condemning!

On the other hand, I really should have taken more time to cite text and source; but RBC's owner request to keep posts brief and the late hour of my posting failed me. Sorry, my bad, no excuses!

Scripture teaches us to earnestly contend for the faith that has been once delivered [Jude 1:3], to take every thought captive for the tearing down of strongholds [2 Corinthians 10:5, 6], and to live lives in the Spirit not the flesh through the exercise of the gifts of God (particularly “self control”) [Galatians 5:16-25].

I try to do that and I teach others to do that as well. Show me where that is wrong! If we had not abdicated the faith of our fathers in the early days of the last century we'd have more godly men and women in public office.

If sin as it affects politics is verboten on RBC, why do we have the categories of “Culture,” "Ethics," "Family Values," "Homosexuality," "Marriage" etc?

I'm not aware of any restrictions at RBC other that the general rubric of politics. If there are, please point me to them? And, may I say, "sensationalism" is not, in and of itself, wrong; sensational sin is though … Beam is a sensational sinner! (In case you want to my authority for that conclusion, the Bible tells me so!)

Likewise, the issue is touched on in DOES DOBSON GO TOO FAR? by mention of Reagan's Commission on Pornography. And what of David Vogel's fine post GERMAN MOTHER IMPRISONED FOR HOMESCHOOLING? How is home schooling more politically charged than sexual perversion? Based on the criticisms of my Beam post, one might have questions about John Sexton's piece on WISDOM FROM ROSIE O’DONNELL!

Peter says,
For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.
1 Peter 2:16
For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error, promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved.
2 Peter 2:18-19
I think it's our culture's sexual ethics.
What this culture lacks is purity. The church - especially Jonah - has not helped here much, because always we want to impose morality. Purity is to morality what intimacy is to acquaintance, what love is to tolerance, what oneness is to equality. Purity is not just a higher thing: it is a category unto itself.

I think we should stop preaching morality and start preaching purity. After all, no one wants to drink merely sterilized water, chlorinated water, water with a drop of iodine.

What awakens and then slakes thirst is pure water. [Mark Buchanan]
And by the way, for what it is worth, some of you have been reading the wrong commentaries on Solomon’s Song!

Enough said, let's all move on!

No comments:

Post a Comment