Monday, May 29, 2006

Terms of Endearment

I'd like to get your thoughts on this discussion:

St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse said...
You gotta remember, -----, that God loves these people and we should as well. The basic sentiment of your rant, fatigue with organizations advocating sin, is a good and noble complaint. But your language to belittle and demean those sinners transforms your message into a "clanging cymbal" (1 Cor 13:1).

Instead, try this:

It is ironic that Amnesty International, renowned for advocating for the freedom of prisoners, is now advocating slavery to sin. All those who profess Christ would do well to remember that He is our freedom, not organizations that encourage the prisons of worldly and unnatural desires. We should, at all times and in every place, proclaim Jesus' victory over sin, and exhort all to follow Him.

As soon as one throws an invective like 'Fudgepacker' into the discussion, ears close, and the effect is as Peter's defense of our Lord during His arrest (Matt 26). If, in our zeal, we remove a sinner's willingness to hear us, then we have lost an opportunity to preach the Gospel.

If we show our love for them as brothers, and respect them as children of God, then we will speak to them accordingly. and they may not like what we have to say about sin and behaviour, but we need to communicate it all with love.

[other blogger] said...
Nahhh.... I'm not trying to demean anyone. If I choose to use phrases as "fudgepackers" and "rump rangers"... why not? I'm subjected to "Queer Nation", "the Queer Studies program", the chant "we're here... we're queer, get use to it!". Hell, the sodomites don't seem to have much of a problem in making their private lives public, not to mention using so-called derogitory terms for themselves, well... who am I to deny them their God given right to ref to them in terms that some may find "degrading".

By the by, I can't think of many things as degrading as the homosexual sex act. Oh, wait... there is one. Propogating it.

As far as "respecting" them, I do. I absolutely respect the fact that they have exersized their God given free will. They've chosen evil. I may not like it, but I can respect it.

In closing, the kid glove, "communicate it all with love" tactic sure has worked well, hasn't it? Lord knows it's worked SO WELL that we now have open homosexuals wearing Roman collars and advocating the sodomite lifestyle.

What the fudgepackers and rump rangers are in desperate need of, is a strong dose of the truth. If it takes a verbal punch in the nose to get their attention... so be it.

St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse said...
I bet you'd agree with me that, collectively, we've heard virtually NOTHING from the ambo about the Catechism's content on homosexuality, divorce, and contraception in the last 30 years. Nothing at all that would make parishoners squirm a bit, nothing that would pack the lines to the confessional. Am I right? And look where we are now.

The silence is not dealing with the problem, it's avoiding it. The unfaithful shepherds in turn led the sheep away from the fullness of the gospel. The Church didn't treat the sinners with kindness because they didn't address their sins at all. We've left people in bondage to their sins, and now that they've grown accustomed to their chains, we forsake them?

My kids, God bless them, are a raucus lot. If I ignore their misbehaviour until I get pissed off enough and spank them, what have I taught them? Little, if not just how far to go until I blow up. If, instead, I take the time to speak with them, rationally, and give them instruction on a continual basis, chances are that they'll learn how I want them to behave.

I'm all for denouncing sin, and people need a reminder of what's in store for those who persist in mortal sin. By all means, slag the sin, just remind the people that Jesus can forgive them (and so should we). I seriously doubt that Jesus, when faced with the adulterous woman, called her a 'whore'. He saved the vinegar for the self-righteous.

[other blogger] said...

Yep, plenty of nuttin' the past 40 years. I'll agree with ya there.

And I just can't help but look back on the Spiritual Works of Mercy, specifically

1. Admonish the sinner

2. Instruct the ignorant

If one is slipping onto the wrong path, absolutely a gentle nudge is more than likely needed to correct the coarse. However... well, you probably know where I'm going with this.

And I do agree that Jesus more than likely didn't ref to the adulterous woman as "whore", but he did say something concerning casting pearls before swine (what a slam that was in the Jewish world!), and shaking the dust from your sandals (another verbal punch in the nose, keeping in mind what an insult it is in that culture to ref to someone as 'being lower than my feet', etc.)

Jesus may not have used verbage such as "whore", but He sure did use words to get someone attention... and in some cases, He would probably be ref'ed to as being 'insensitive' and 'inflammitory' and dare I say it... a caveman. *insert evil grin here!*


So, the question is, dear readers, how should we address sinners to best call them to freedom from their sins? Does Rev. Phelps, of Westboro Baptist Church fame, do better at encouraging sinners to repent than the Courage apostolate?

1 comment:

Paul, just this guy, you know? said...

I saw the Caveman's post on this topic as well.

He makes a good scriptural case in defense of the use of insult. My observation is that he uses insult as a defense, a response to the copious insult that dedicated sinners use for our side.

To answer your question, I don't know the best way, because I've never seen a sinner successfully "called to freedom from sin", much less one who was so deeply in the embrace of sin as to identify himself as homosexual.

If I were to encounter such a person, I doubt I'd start with personal insults, but that's just me. My style hasn't attracted any crowd of dedicated sinners wanting me to explain why Jesus is a better choice, either.