|
[Compromise] Shooting Whose Wounded?
|
John Henry
|
Mar 18, 2005 05:41 PST
|
--=====================_3074200==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
SHOOTING WHOSE WOUNDED?
OPEN REBUKE is BETTER than SECRET LOVE. -- Proverbs 27:5
For I know this, that after my departing shall GRIEVIOUS
WOLVES enter in AMONG YOU, NOT SPARING the FLOCK. Also OF YOUR OWN SELVES
shall men arise, SPEAKING PERVERSE THINGS, to DRAW AWAY DISCIPLES AFTER
THEM. --Acts 20:29, 30
The new fundamentalists and their fellow travelers have a new
cliche’ to add to the propaganda that they enlist to obscure their
compromising ways"Shooting one’s own wounded." The neo-fundamentalist line
goes something like this, "The ignorant, radical, fringe fundamentalists
are always shooting at their own fellow wounded and fallen soldiers
(because of jealousy and vengeance) rather than at the real enemy [Satan,
antichrist, cults, and false religions].”
On the surface, this sounds very good, right, and reasonable.
Nevertheless, the real fun begins when they try to define the ignorant,
radical, fringe fundamentalists. How do you preach, "Don’t fight the
brethren" or "Don’t talk about the brethren" or don’t shoot our wounded and
still be able to get at and silence the brethren, who will NOT SHUT UP
their mouths? How do you criticize the brethren, who are exposing and
rebuking you and your buddies without it being apparent that you are not
practicing what you are preaching? Well, you either have to HINT REAL BIG,
DIG UP SOME DIRT on them and release it innocently, create a special
dispensation for them, or generate some seemingly innocent rhetoric that
reaks with dissimilation and innuendo. The psuedo-fundamentalist clearly
faces an interesting dilemma (or fundillema), having to shoot his own
woundedignorant, radical, and fringe brethren.
As for shooting our own wounded fellowsoldiers, imagine in
World War II that some American soldiers began to fraternize with the
Nazis, going into their camps, and even putting on their uniforms. Then
suppose that these soldiers began to make their way back to the American
lines. We think that it would hardly be speculation to say that there would
be some shooting going on in such a situation. Now, suppose that someone
would raise the objection, "They are our own soldiers and some of them are
wounded." We think it is safe to say, although we do not approve, many
"expletives (deleted)" would be exchanged. Since we are much sweeter, we
will only say to the neo-fundamentalists and neo-evangelical colleagues,
"If your troops have been hanging around Mormons, Catholics, and traitors
to the faiththen they are YOUR soldiers and not ours. If they do get into
our camps, they are SPIES, and you know what we do with spies in time of war!
No doubt, many of the brethren have fallen for such subtle,
liberal rhetoric. However, if someone were to even suggest that the
brethren implement such a nonsensical philosophy into their congregations,
they would be soundly rejected. Imagine aborting church discipline and
needed rebuke in one s own church on the basis that it would be shooting
one’s own fellow soldiers and wounded. And really, your own members are
your own fellow soldiers in a truer sense than are apostates and heretics
and compromising radio and T.V. pastors and evangelists. Open rebuke is
still better than secret love according to the Book! We prefer to take the
advice from the Book in these matters than from infected peacemakers.
Besides, we do not want to be eaten by a lion, while our advisors go free.
Go and learn what that meaneth.
According to George Dollar, J. Frank Norris "carried the broad
axe, warring on several fronts, digging out RELIGIOUS RATS everywhere,
castigating and breathing fire where compromise was even
suspected." History of Fundamentalism , p. 182. Baptists are in
considerably better shape than other previously fundamental groups, thanks
to the wisdom of Norris in turning his guns on his own apostatizing Baptist
institutions. The only thing that has changed, J. Frank, is that we can’t
convince the apostates and heretics and compromisers that they do not
really belong in our camp. We need to take the javelin of Phineas and
pierce the spiritual adulterers right in front of the princes, who would do
nothing, and receive praise from God as Phineas did. Hallelujah! Amen!
Praise de Lawd! Do I have a witness?
Paul the Sharpshooter
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I (Paul) withstood him to
the face because he was to be blamed . . . when I saw that they walked not
uprightly ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL, I said unto Peter BEFORE
THEM ALL . . . –Gal. 2:11-14
It would be interesting for the "pots" who call us “kettles"
black to apply their subtle and clever cliche’ to the apostle Paul’s
treatment of Peter and Barnabas and their hypocrisy (Gal. 2:11-14); Demas’
worldliness (2 Tim. 4:10); Phygellus and Hermogenes’ cowardice (2 Tim.
1:l5); Hymenaeus and Alexander’s apostasy (1 Tim. 1:20); Philetus’ (worthy
of love) and Hymenaeus’ profane babblings (2 Tim. 2:16, 17); Alexander’s
gainsaying (2 Tim. 4:14); Diotrephes’ arrogance, denominationalism, and
inflated ego (3 John 9); and all the Cretian Fundamental Baptist Liars
(Titus 1:12).
Paul believed in marking and avoiding the ones, who cause
DIVISIONS and OFFENSES, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned
(Rom. 16:17). His motive was not jealousy or vengeance; his motive can be
found in the tears of Acts 20:26-31. Hirelings do not share this motive,
for they do not care for the sheep (John 10:12,13). When the wolf comes,
what will you do O man of God? Ignore him? Give him a free pass to the sheep?
--by Herb Evans
--=====================_3074200==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<body>
<div align="center"><b><br>
SHOOTING WHOSE WOUNDED?<br>
</div>
<br>
<i>OPEN REBUKE</i> is <i>BETTER</i> than <i>SECRET LOVE</i>. -- Proverbs
27:5<br>
<br>
For
I know this, that after my departing shall <i>GRIEVIOUS WOLVES
</i>enter in AMONG <i>YOU, NOT SPARING the FLOCK</i>. Also <i>OF YOUR OWN
SELVES </i>shall men arise, <i>SPEAKING PERVERSE THINGS, to DRAW AWAY
DISCIPLES AFTER THEM</i>. --Acts 20:29, 30<br>
<br>
The
new fundamentalists and their fellow travelers have a new cliche’ to add
to the propaganda that they enlist to obscure their compromising
ways"Shooting one’s own wounded." The neo-fundamentalist line
goes something like this, "The ignorant, radical, fringe
fundamentalists are always shooting at their own fellow wounded and
fallen soldiers (because of jealousy and vengeance) rather than at the
real enemy [Satan, antichrist, cults, and false religions].”<br>
On the
surface, this sounds very good, right, and reasonable. Nevertheless, the
real fun begins when they try to define the ignorant, radical, fringe
fundamentalists. How do you preach, "Don’t fight the brethren"
or "Don’t talk about the brethren" or don’t shoot our wounded
and still be able to get at and silence the brethren, who will <i>NOT
SHUT UP</i> their mouths? How do you criticize the brethren, who are
exposing and rebuking you and your buddies without it being apparent that
you are not practicing what you are preaching? Well, you either have to
<i>HINT REAL BIG</i>, <i>DIG UP SOME DIRT</i> on them and release it
innocently, create a special dispensation for them, or generate some
seemingly innocent rhetoric that reaks with dissimilation and innuendo.
The psuedo-fundamentalist clearly faces an interesting dilemma (or
fundillema), having to shoot his own woundedignorant, radical, and
fringe brethren.<br>
As for
shooting our own wounded fellowsoldiers, imagine in World War II that
some American soldiers began to fraternize with the Nazis, going into
their camps, and even putting on their uniforms. Then suppose that these
soldiers began to make their way back to the American lines. We think
that it would hardly be speculation to say that there would be some
shooting going on in such a situation. Now, suppose that someone would
raise the objection, "They are our own soldiers and some of them are
wounded." We think it is safe to say, although we do not approve,
many "expletives (deleted)" would be exchanged. Since we are
much sweeter, we will only say to the neo-fundamentalists and
neo-evangelical colleagues, "If your troops have been hanging around
Mormons, Catholics, and traitors to the faiththen they are <i>YOUR</i>
soldiers and not ours. If they do get into our camps, they are
<i>SPIES</i>, and you know what we do with spies in time of war!<br>
No
doubt, many of the brethren have fallen for such subtle, liberal
rhetoric. However, if someone were to even suggest that the brethren
implement such a nonsensical philosophy into their congregations, they
would be soundly rejected. Imagine aborting church discipline and needed
rebuke in one s own church on the basis that it would be shooting one’s
own fellow soldiers and wounded. And really, your own members are your
own fellow soldiers in a truer sense than are apostates and heretics and
compromising radio and T.V. pastors and evangelists. Open rebuke is still
better than secret love according to the Book! We prefer to take the
advice from the Book in these matters than from infected peacemakers.
Besides, we do not want to be eaten by a lion, while our advisors go
free. Go and learn what that meaneth.<br>
According to George Dollar, J. Frank Norris "carried the broad axe,
warring on several fronts, digging out <i>RELIGIOUS RATS</i> everywhere,
castigating and breathing fire where compromise was even
suspected." <u>History of Fundamentalism ,</u> p. 182.
Baptists are in considerably better shape than other previously
fundamental groups, thanks to the wisdom of Norris in turning his guns on
his own apostatizing Baptist institutions. The only thing that has
changed, J. Frank, is that we can’t convince the apostates and heretics
and compromisers that they do not really belong in our camp. We need to
take the javelin of Phineas and pierce the spiritual adulterers right in
front of the princes, who would do nothing, and receive praise from God
as Phineas did. Hallelujah! Amen! Praise de Lawd! Do I have a
witness?<br>
<br>
<div align="center">Paul the Sharpshooter<br>
</div>
<br>
But
when Peter was come to Antioch, I (Paul) withstood him to the face
because he was to be blamed . . . when I saw that they walked not
uprightly <i>ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL</i>, I said unto Peter
<i>BEFORE THEM ALL</i> . . . –Gal. 2:11-14<br>
<br>
It
would be interesting for the "pots" who call us “kettles"
black to apply their subtle and clever cliche’ to the apostle Paul’s
treatment of Peter and Barnabas and their hypocrisy (Gal. 2:11-14);
Demas’ worldliness (2 Tim. 4:10); Phygellus and Hermogenes’ cowardice (2
Tim. 1:l5); Hymenaeus and Alexander’s apostasy (1 Tim. 1:20);
Philetus’ (worthy of love) and Hymenaeus’ profane babblings (2 Tim.
2:16, 17); Alexander’s gainsaying (2 Tim. 4:14); Diotrephes’
arrogance, denominationalism, and inflated ego (3 John 9); and all
the Cretian Fundamental Baptist Liars (Titus 1:12).<br>
<br>
Paul
believed in marking and avoiding the ones, who cause <i>DIVISIONS </i>and
<i>OFFENSES,</i> contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned (Rom.
16:17). His motive was not jealousy or vengeance; his motive can be
found in the tears of Acts 20:26-31. Hirelings do not share this motive,
for they do not care for the sheep (John 10:12,13). When the wolf comes,
what will you do O man of God? Ignore him? Give him a free pass to the
sheep?<br>
<br>
--by Herb Evans<br>
</b></body>
</html>
--=====================_3074200==.ALT--
|
|
 |
|
