Fred Butler responding to this post:
Just a preliminary point of logistics: this is a very inefficient means of communication. I'm not signed up for Twitter. The Triablogue Twitter account exists to notify the Twitterverse of our blog posts. As far as I'm concerned, it's not a debate forum. As the risk of stating the obvious, Twitter is not an intelligent medium for serious intellectual and theological engagement. It's inefficient when Fred leaves snippets on Twitter while I respond at Triablogue.
@Fred_ButlerReplying to@triablogueYou couldve just tweeted yes, if you were a senior pastor. Or begrudgingly no since you're a lay person. So will you write furious blog articles against your local church leadership if they decide to obey government authorities, or just grin and bear it?
What a loaded question!
i) I don't write furious blog articles. I mostly write analytical blog articles, along with some devotional posts, or satire, or fiction.
ii) The question does go to my blogging philosophy. I don't write "furious" blog articles because I don't feel the need to persuade anyone or control the outcome. It's God's world, not mine. In terms of blogging, my sense of duty begins and ends with defending the Christian faith, presenting my arguments, and fielding objections. Beyond that, I'm not responsible. If I have no influence, so be it. I don't live for my work.
iii) If my local church leadership decides/decided to suspend public worship services, I don't have to target them on my blog. This goes to another consideration in my blogging philosophy. There are different ways to make the same point. As a rule, I prefer to aim at a big target than a little target.
The question of canceling church services is a general issue. In principle, that's something I could discuss without using any particular church as an example, since the same issue confronts churches in general at this time. Or I might choose a representative example or spokesman as a foil.
iv) I happen to think the suppression of public worship by the state is a big deal. I'm struck by how many evangelical leaders react with indifference or toadyism. That exposes the amount of dry rot in evangelicalism. If my local church leadership has/had so little faith in the spiritual efficacy of public worship, why would I continue to attend a church like that?
v) In reference to Fred's church, this was originally billed as a 2-week suspension of public worship. But the CA governor has now imposed a statewide lockdown/curfew with a minuscule list of "authorized necessary activities". And even when venturing out to perform "authorized necessary activities," Californians must "at all times practice social distancing".
Does that sound to you like the 250-person limit will be lifted two weeks after the ban was issued? Sounds to me like the duration has been extended indefinitely. Likewise, the scope has been extended to prohibit any social events beyond the "authorized necessary activities." Not to mention mandated social distancing. So that's not just a numerical cap on the size of Christian worship services, but a ban on public worship across the board. All that's now permitted is virtual worship. If so, where does that leave the original defense of the policy by Phil Johnson and Fred Butler?
@Fred_Butler
ReplyDeleteReplying to
@triablogue
You do write furious blog posts. According to your post, you wouldn't lambast your leadership, even though they are doing the exact same thing your blasting GCC. Sounds sort of hypocritical of you.
https://twitter.com/Fred_Butler/status/1241208083499499522
As I said in my response, I generally aim at large targets, not small targets. Moreover, JMac did the "We will now bow" sermon, which sets him up for current comparisons.
Fred isn't privy to my mental states. And I didn't use incendiary language. Fred is free to doubt the purity of my motives. I don't care. I have nothing to prove to him.
And questioning motives cuts both ways. Fred isn't an disinterested observer. This gives him a chance to play the loyal employee, sucking up the boss.
It's also a diversionary tactic to deflect attention away from the substantive issues.
As a matter of Christian tact, it's often better to criticize the position someone you don't personally know to someone you do. Especially in JMac's case, he's a public figure by choice. Has been doing interviews on national TV for years. That's very different from picking on the average pastor.
In addition, JMac had a chance to show real leadership by taking a bold position. That would be an encouragement to ordinary pastors without his megaphone. But he took the path of least resistance, squandering his influence.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhat exactly should have JMac have said? If he had encourage other churches to continue to meet and some of the members had gotten sick then he and those churches would have looked like fools and brought shame on the name of Christ.
Deletei) There are many ways to contract the virus. Many people will get sick whether or not they go to church. It's a fallacy to assume that they got sick because they went to church, as if it's necessarily or presumptively traceable to that activity rather than many other activities outside of church. That may just be coincidence.
Deleteii) I never said that everyone should go to church at this time. Some people are at higher risk than others.
iii) Again, though, I'd struck by the impious, godless attitude that church is nothing but a danger zone to be avoided. As if God won't bless the faithful.
That doesn't mean going to church is absolutely safe, but nothing is absolutely safe in this life. There's no guarantee that you won't get sick if you go to church, but there's no guarantee that you won't get sick if you stay away from church.
i) I agree.
Deleteii) I think people should not physically be gathering at church etc until its safe to do so.
iii) I think it could be testing the Lord if we do gather and expect not to get sick. Reminds of the snake handlers in south who handle snakes based on Mark 16:18 and expect not to get bit and die.
It is true nothing is absolutely safe but we should prudent when we can.
I've been following the different threads on the GCC decision to suspend church services and here's my 2 cents worth (and it's overpriced at that!) - I can see GCC's and JMAC's point of view - the shutdown is not directed at Christianity *because* it is Christianity. It is directed at a concern over social gathering and not worship. However, I also see Steve's point. It is a slippery slope. While I have no intention of formulating a conspiracy theory that the corona virus was manufactured in order to allow government's to suspend church gatherings, I am also keenly aware of how to boil a frog. Put a frog in boiling water and he'll hop out. Turn the heat up gradually and he'll stay in the pot. Perhaps, with the virus and all, we should be keeping an eagle eye on what freedoms are suspended legitimately and ensure that those suspensions are removed once the situation has cleared up. But, again, it is all too easy for us to forget and I can see this step as the thin edge of the wedge. Currently, my only advice is to pray daily - pray for discernment & wisdom. Pray for the same for any public figures of faith. Pray for mercy and God's consolation for those suffering. And, I would say that if you see someone in distress or needing help, to help them. Social distancing may be good idea but let us not fall into the habit that James describes of telling others "Go in peace, be warmed and filled" while doing nothing to help them.
ReplyDelete