Attitutudinal Issues

Then what were you implying in that post?

 

I have no problem with all All About Grace posting here.

As you look at the debate, which side has showed an "attitude" toward the other and which side has been gracious?

I think to any unbiased reader entering here it is clear who has an "attitudinal issue".

On to the numbers thing bapmom. I appreciate your spirit. I do have a problem with the "convert slip" idea and making claims like those posted on the site. If I were to attend the church and knew those in charge I would question why that claim was made. I think it does hurt our cause when we claim 53,000 professions in 10 years and there are only 300-400 in church.

We need to re-evaluate our stress on numbers. I have always been bothered by this, even WAY back when I was at Tennessee Temple. The Sword's publication of top baptising churches helped make it kind of a competition to see who could produce the greatest numbers.

I regret that the numbers issue was brought up from the outside, and am impressed that it all he could find wrong with the church, but I think it is an "attitude" that we need to work on.

Please understand - this is in no way an attack on your church, but the whole numbers emphasis in our circles.

[ November 04, 2005, 03:03 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Are you realy saying that one is not preaching unless he is yelling?

I reckon then that out of all the mnay, many hours I have spoken from the pulpit I have only preached five or six minutes total in my life then.

 

C4K,

I understand what you are saying about numbers. And I most likely would question it as well. Im going to go ask him where he got his number, because I don't know that we've actually kept up that sort of record that would count them all. In fact I question that number right now, and its from my church! I still believe that that "over 5,000 saved" number is over the last 30 years, not 10....BUT, you understand, our church has always had a large emphasis on soul winning, and it has been a big concern that more are not coming and sticking. A big part of it is our location, we are in one of the worst areas of town, so people who actually HAVE cars are very reluctant to come and park for church.....not to mention the potential drive-bys that occur sometimes. We are changing that part, as we are building a new building.

I know that a very large part of the reason that I do not question our specific number more, or our attitude about it, is because I know the church leadership so well. These men are not out for numbers, they truly love people, and they just want to see people be saved. Ive been around most of them either when they are out presenting the gospel, or when they are training others to do it. ANd when I say "church leadership" Im including the 5 men on staff, as well as the Sunday School teachers and other sorts of leadership in our church.

Ive got to say too, our convert slips are for the purpose of visitation at a later time during the week. The Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday morning soul winning times are geared toward gospel outreach, then theres another time on Saturday which is specifically geared towards going to visit those who were saved during the week. Without the convert slips we'd have no way of knowing where they live, or their number, in order to contact them and make an attempt at seeing them grow spiritually. The soulwinner is also encouraged to make a copy of those slips so that HE can go visit those he talked to himself, as well as pray for them, of course. I should think THAT aspect of it would be a plus, rather than a minus.

In some ways I wish we didn't have to be concerned at all by numbers. But there are some aspects of it that are necessary. Like what I said above about going to visit them all later.

THe man who runs the website is not part of the church leadership, though he has authority to run and create the official church website, so I would not yet claim that his number is not an official number. But I do feel that I can ask, so I will.

 

My only actual concern bapmom os that they felt a need to advertise the numbers online. That, in my mind, reflects a view that says numbers is important.

The record keeping and follow-up is important and I don't have a problem with that aspect of it.

Who are we trying to impress when we advertise our numbers?

 

I see, C4K.

The man who runs the website is probably very proud of our church, although I would not characterize him as a "proud" man himself. Does that make sense?
He pretty much puts up what he wants on there and, as long as its not heretical, Preacher doesn't have a problem.

You understand, the entire site is run by one man, and he's not a staff member.

 

I know, I don't like the idea of advertising our numbers either. I don't think we need to do that at all.

Others see it as just telling people what kind of church we are, being able to say that we do have an emphasis on seeing people come to Christ.

 

Please understand - I am NOT crtical of what your church does and does not do.

It just remminded me of one of the problems I see with our movement.

 

I know, C4K. You are right. I guess I just don't know what to do about it. I don't mean to still be "defending", but it really does bother me too, so thats whats showing through.

 

As you said, this is not a forum for theology - but I think both are things to consider. The stress on numbers can lead to false presentation of the gospel.

 

It always cracks me up when fundamentalists accuse someone who challenges their position of having an "attitude". Fundamentalism is known for its belligerent spirit. As you have testified yourself, it is difficult to challenge someone's attitude w/o displaying a spirit that could be perceived as improper by others. I could make the same argument against your words directed to me (I think I recall earlier the word crap being used in reference to one of my posts). So the argument is circular and self-defeating, so that leaves us with the issues at hand. Here are the primary subjects I have addressed. Anyone is free to agree or disagree with these statements:

1. Fundamentalism is known more for what it stands against and not what is stands for.

2. Certain circles of the IFB are very legalistic.

3. The name "fundamentalism" carries a negative connotation in the eyes of most of the evangelical world and among unbelievers.

4. Fundamentalists have a tendency to cast judgment on those who look differently than them or who have a different belief about philosophy of ministry (see my list above and CK's lack of response to my question).

5. Certain circles of fundamentalism strongly resemble the religious leaders of Jesus day -- emphasizing outward conformation over inward transformation.

6. It is fair to question the beliefs of people to the right of us as much as it is to question people to the left of our position.

7. MAKING girls wear coulottes over their ski bibs in the name of "modesty" is stupid.

So there is the gist of what I have said. I stand by each of these remarks. Now who would like to disagree with any of these thoughts?

 

Disagree? Are you crazy! You are right on, man!

 

we don't (I believe) disagree with the general idea that these things could be true of SOME, but we certainly disagree that those things characterize the majority of fundamentalists.

In fact, all of your points could be applied just as well to any group of people, SBC included.

 

Like I implied earlier - when a fundamentalists critcises it is a beligerent spirit.

When fundamentalists are criticised it is just and proper.

Your broad brush is still showing. No one would deny that your criticisms are true and just of some, but not all. You have painted all fundamentalists with one brush and are content with that.

You have never heard me use the word c**p.

I won't deny that some won't be harsh to the one youy mentioned above, but look at the harshness your manifest.

Chuck Swindoll set the pattern in "The Grace Awakening." Christians have the liberty to exercise their faith anyway they want, as long as they are not fundamentalist.

You as been beligerent and laughed at others views in this thread?

 

I will add one ...

8. Most, if not all, fundamentalists would deny that they belong the "legalistic-belligerent" circle.

 

why don't you listen to #8 a little more, then........

 

There appears to be no monopoly on number eight.

Can you point out one harsh statement that I have made towards those who are not fundamentalists?

Apologies for this typo

You as been beligerent and laughed at others views in this thread?

Should be

Who has been....

 

I have said repeatedly that what I say does not apply to all "fundamentalists" but all "fundamentalists" by their very name fall into the stereotype (whether the characteristics are true or not). I am content with that statement.

With what do you disagree in these words?

The word is crap. It is actually a common phrase now that falls within the norm of most cultures (it might still be offensive in certain parts of the country) ... but I know you would not judge or criticize someone for using it would you?

Actually the word "crap" is far less offensive than the word Paul used that is often translated "dung" or "waste". He would definitely be banned from the BB for such usage.

Call it harsh ... call it reality. I still stand by it and continue to wait for anyone to demonstrate that what I have said is untrueor exaggerated.

If you are calling my sarcastic remarks "harsh" that is fine, but I would venture to say that regardless of how someone addresses fundamentalism, they will be referred to as "harsh" or other phrases often employed to make someone outside fundamentalism appear somehow less "spiritual" than the true fundies (such as the term "higher" standards).

 

So you contend that fundamentalists are due harsh comments but no one outside fundamentalism is?

One of the things we are most criticised for is a critical spirit - it appears that a critical spirit is acceptable if pointed in our direction.

Seems like something of a double standard here.

You did not see me critise anyone for using the word c**p. My refusal to use it is not a critism. Apparently even that is a mark of my vicious fundamental spirit which is obvious for all to see.