How do you like your garbage? Because that is what you are getting here at Fundamentally Reformed. Let me tell you! Garbage, garbage, and more garbage—it’s all garbage around here. It might look pretty, but its really rotten—and definitely ugly.
Pardon me, but I am ranting a bit here. I am a little worked up about a certain detractor of mine who has mentioned me on his blog, again. [The “garbage” line comes from a comment under that post, more on that comment later.] I have had various interactions with this person since my break with fundamentalism–some debates on blogs, a round of emails, and no matter what I say, this person refuses to believe me. (I say this in case you run into this fellow. Please contact me for my side of the story—I’ll leave it at that.)
Anyways, this time he started off by exploring why “the left” seems so appealing. He went on to note that among conservatives, those who are culturally “liberal” will not quote from or link to any people/blogs who are culturally “conservative”. Or if they do, he notes, they will do so with “disdain”. Now I am not exactly sure why he is all worked up about this curiosity, but I do know that he has his own blog and a team blog besides, and he has gotten into quite a number of blog brawls on a couple of theologically conservative blogs I read.
At this point, then, he claims that my blog was one of the things that got him thinking about this (that cultural liberals disdain and ignore cultural conservatives). Why? Because he has noticed that I have been regularly linked to and quoted from “major evangelical and ‘fundamental’ blogs”. When I had calmed down after reading his post, I wondered if some big evangelical blog had started linking to me! I checked Technorati and my stats for referring links with no pleasant surprise. Nope, I am still linked to from mostly small blogs which often deal with much of the same content I do.
Maybe he is so frustrated at my blog that he just isn’t thinking straight. Perhaps he has misinterpreted a few facts. As this is one of several misrepresentations of me in his post, let me pause here and prove that he is wrong. He mentioned “fundamental” blogs, and I think he has in mind blogs associated with Sharper Iron. I double checked to be sure, and I am only linked to from 2 of 19 blogs currently listed on Sharper Iron’s blogroll. I think he might be referring to two other things, however. 1) I have joined a few different aggregators (listed toward the bottom of my sidebar), and one of those in particular, the League of Reformed Bloggers, gives me quite a few links in Technorati’s tally. It is simple to join the League of Reformed Bloggers, and a good many members on the list link to the entire blogroll in their sidebars. I would list the blogroll too, but WordPress doesn’t let me do that as easy as Blogger did. So while this means I have many links, the links in no way endorse me, because most of those bloggers have never even looked at my blog. 2) I have recently been linked to from Pyromaniacs a few times. But those were merely blogspotting posts where Phil links to as many decent blogs as quote him during the week as he can. Sure it sent more people my way, but it was not an endorsement of my blog, per se. And if my detractor wanted to, he could link to Pyromaniacs and be delighted to receive a spot in their next blogspot post. The same goes for a recent link from a Pulpit Live blogspotting post. Now all this is not to say that I haven’t had a few blogs link to me independently. I have, and I am glad they did. (Thank you for reading!) But most of my regular readers and most of the blogs who link to and endorse my blog are those interested in my topic—reforming fundamentalism. And I should add that many of my readers do not agree with me on a number of things, but they appreciate (I think) many things I share here, nonetheless, otherwise they would just be ignoring me.
Anyway, back to my real beef with his post. I want to quote two sections of his rant against me and show that he is not honest with his facts.
He takes the hottest cultural positions—booze OK, dancing OK, immodesty OK, most television and movies OK, and to him music is essentially amoral. He hardly misses a favored cultural liberalism among those theologically conservative. For that, he is mightily rewarded in blogdom. Even those who don’t side with him, in every one of these cultural leftisms, will include him at their table. He has the compromise to make the connection.
Hopefully, some of you just raised your eyebrows a little. Have you ever read anything on my blog which condones immodesty, most movies, and dancing? Now I have discussed booze and music at some depth here, but he makes it seem like I defend every practice he mentions. Dancing has only received a passing “endorsement” from me. I have claimed that dancing to music is found in Scripture as a good thing (think David dancing before God in 1 Chron. 15-16). I have never claimed that dancing with someone of the opposite sex in a way that is designed to incite sensual passions is “OK”.
Regarding TV and movies, I have only claimed that I see no Biblical reason not to go into a movie theater. I did claim that The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was a good movie. But you will search in vain for me defending “most” TV and movies as being “OK”. I’ll go on record here saying that most TV and movies are NOT OK. My wife and I have not watched virtually any prime time TV. We might watch a game show or a football game, now and then. I do like to watch Public Television specials, and we record some of the decent “weekly movies” which might be aired on Saturday nights or something. And yes, we are careful about what movies we rent or borrow from the Library. (By the way, check out kids-in-mind.com. It is a great rating tool for movies.)
And on the immodesty point, I am really upset. I have never said anything which could even be twisted into an endorsement of immodesty. That is just a patent falsehood aimed at trashing my reputation. I do claim that women should be allowed to wear pants, but that does not mean every pair of pants is acceptable for my wife to wear. Just like skirts/dresses, there are modest and immodest pants. In fact, many pants are more modest than dresses. My wife and I do not condone mixed swimming, and she does not go around in a swimsuit or revealing clothes in other’s presence at all. I am against immodesty. I have not come out with a detailed definition of immodesty, but that does not mean I endorse immodesty. Now on to the second snippet from his post.
I’m using this just as an example. I think it only represents something consistently occurring. This brings me to that original question….What makes the cultural left so appealing?…One could call the cultural left the lustful left. We all are allured by the dark side. It’s fun. It feels good. It’s easy. It actually allows a conservative either politically or theologically to fit into the world. You can get acceptance here (cultural liberalism) on earth and still get heaven (theological conservatism).
How do they justify all this?…They scoff at cultural conservatives like the apostates in 2 Peter 3, mocking while they walk after their own lusts, making space for their lifestyles. They don’t argue Scripturally on these issues. They use mockery and ridicule, which are often effective, you may have noticed. The cultural liberal calls this unity. They say we shouldn’t divide on cultural issues, only theological. They say that these cultural issues are second or third tier, so that those who separate on these issues are misguided and divisive. The cultural separatists, often called personal separatists, especially are spoiling their fun, what they call liberty to make it sound like something theological….
Just from reading this section, I can guess you might be thinking that you know why “culturally liberal” conservatives ignore people like this guy. He does go on to say, “My own opinion is that this is the major tool of apostasy today, this separation of theology from culture.” It is obvious that when he says “liberal” he has in mind almost any departure from his fundamentalist cultural positions. To deviate a little is to earn some pretty strong statements of rebuke. So who is censuring whom?
Since I am mentioned in all of this, I take exception to his statement “They don’t argue Scripturally on these issues.” Have you read my blog even a little? You may disagree with me, but please don’t tell me I am not using Scripture. Just look at my defense of my positions in my long letter (“my story”), it is loaded with Scriptural arguments. I have yet to have anyone provide any serious rebuttal to my Scripture-loaded post on the wine/alcohol debate. I have had plenty express their disdain for my position, but no one has argued with my Scriptural arguments to any degree.
One last point to mention here, is his claim that “cultural liberals” are “making space for their lifestyles” and see people like him as “spoiling their fun”. These are loaded statements. Could it possibly be that some of these “liberals” have actually come to their positions from a study of Scripture and concluded that their lifestyles are okay. I would venture to say that many of these so called liberals are totally willing to change their lifestyle based on Scripture, and many have in different areas.
Recently someone gave the following interesting comment under my long letter explaining why I left fundamentalism (“my story”): “Thank you for your transparency, I almost began to laugh when you made a comment that your friends would think your change flippant. You had just spent page after page describing how you had come to this point, it would be ridiculous to call the change flippant.” Yes, people do think it flippant. My detractor repeatedly claims that I plotted to leave fundamentalism to make room for my lifestyle of choice. Yet everything I say in my letter contradicts that. I was convinced against my will that the positions I held to dearly on various cultural and doctrinal points were wrong. I make this very clear in my letter, and I do so also in my whole treatment of the alcohol debate. I make it abundantly clear that even after I came to believe from all of the Scriptural evidence that drinking alcohol was okay, I was still loathe to do it. I made the plunge only because I felt that not to drink was to spurn what God said He gave us for our joy. It is not that I always wanted to drink, and now I found the perfect excuse. And I know that my case is not alone. Many “cultural liberals” were once conservatives and changed due to their study of God’s Word and not out of a desire to have their cake and eat it too.
Before I go, I should mention the comment that birthed the title of this post and the first paragraph. A commenter on my detractor’s blog said the following:
His blog looks sharp, and he does have the time to put lengthy “well-researched” (highly footnoted) posts together. And honestly, he can write decently well. I guess some are beguiled by good presentation, even if it’s garbage that they’re being offered.
So there you have it folks, I hope you like the garbage you’re getting! Just like you can sort through trash and determine what is worth keeping, I am confident that my readers will be able to ignore anything I say that is unBiblical and unwise, and stick to what they find to be true and helpful. Or maybe it’s all just plain garbage!
∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7
Like this:
Like Loading...
We’re all excited about voting today. But only 1 party will win, and there is bound to be disappointments for everyone.
This is a rare political post for me. But I thought the concise sentiments of Norbert Vollertsen, a German doctor and human-rights activist who has worked in North Korea, quoted in the cover article of