Both town and congregation will remain stronger, I'm convinced, to the extent Fox is able to remain a part of both... And, of course, to the extent all parties behave. I suppose that's true for any of us.
Collinsville, AL
Moderator: Dave Roberts
50 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Collinsville, AL
by Mark » Mon Feb 27, 2006 3:49 pm
For good or bad, our friend Fox has called attention to a place called Collinsville, Alabama; having "put it on the map", so to speak. Because some have said that any publicity is good publicity, I thought the world deserved to know a little more about and , particularly their respective and interesting histories, which I enjoyed reading.
Both town and congregation will remain stronger, I'm convinced, to the extent Fox is able to remain a part of both... And, of course, to the extent all parties behave. I suppose that's true for any of us.
Both town and congregation will remain stronger, I'm convinced, to the extent Fox is able to remain a part of both... And, of course, to the extent all parties behave. I suppose that's true for any of us.
- Mark
- Posts: 3182
- Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:05 pm
- Location: Alabama
by Jim » Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:16 pm
F: What about the poem and the references to Fleming Rutledge and the Axis of Evil?
J: This is what Rutledge wrote: “The enemy lines are hard to find. We should remember that the madrasas were financed in part by the US government during the 80s when the Afghans were fighting the Soviets, and then we left Afghanistan to the tender mercies of the Taliban. The axis of evil lies here, there and everywhere.” In the first place, this was part of a Lenten sermon in which Rutledge made the point that the line between good and evil resides within the individual and not necessarily between “them” and “us.” People are or make up the only things that are “here, there, and everywhere.”
However, Rutledge did NOT say that madrasas were intentionally financed by this country, and, for my part, I don’t believe they were financed in part, either. She would be hard-pressed to prove something that outlandish. During the 80s, this country sent the materiel to Afghanistan (mainly the SAMs, but other stuff, as well) that allowed the Afghanis to expel the Soviets after some 8 long years of hell, and the madrasas had nothing to do with that. To say that this country left Afghanistan “to the tender mercies of the Taliban” is a distortion too gross even to contemplate. This country left Afghanistan to nothing and nobody because this country was never in Afghanistan, in the first place, in order to leave. What happened after the Soviets left was none of our affair, and no one in this country had a clue as to what the Taliban could or would do; or, if they (perhaps CIA) did have a clue, what do you propose the U.S. might have done in the 80s and shortly thereafter? The proper reason for intruding into Afghanistan came on 9/11, when U.S. soil was violated. Or, do you believe the U.S. should have marched into Afghanistan just as the Soviets marched out in 1989, even though a shot had not been fired against this country?
J: This is what Rutledge wrote: “The enemy lines are hard to find. We should remember that the madrasas were financed in part by the US government during the 80s when the Afghans were fighting the Soviets, and then we left Afghanistan to the tender mercies of the Taliban. The axis of evil lies here, there and everywhere.” In the first place, this was part of a Lenten sermon in which Rutledge made the point that the line between good and evil resides within the individual and not necessarily between “them” and “us.” People are or make up the only things that are “here, there, and everywhere.”
However, Rutledge did NOT say that madrasas were intentionally financed by this country, and, for my part, I don’t believe they were financed in part, either. She would be hard-pressed to prove something that outlandish. During the 80s, this country sent the materiel to Afghanistan (mainly the SAMs, but other stuff, as well) that allowed the Afghanis to expel the Soviets after some 8 long years of hell, and the madrasas had nothing to do with that. To say that this country left Afghanistan “to the tender mercies of the Taliban” is a distortion too gross even to contemplate. This country left Afghanistan to nothing and nobody because this country was never in Afghanistan, in the first place, in order to leave. What happened after the Soviets left was none of our affair, and no one in this country had a clue as to what the Taliban could or would do; or, if they (perhaps CIA) did have a clue, what do you propose the U.S. might have done in the 80s and shortly thereafter? The proper reason for intruding into Afghanistan came on 9/11, when U.S. soil was violated. Or, do you believe the U.S. should have marched into Afghanistan just as the Soviets marched out in 1989, even though a shot had not been fired against this country?
- Jim
- Posts: 3773
- Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:44 pm
- Location: Lexington, Ky.
by Jim » Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:47 am
F: Jim, I know you and I roughly are on the same side, and everyone is fair game, but to give Fortner and Dr. Morgan a pass, while you take Fleming to task on technicalities from a great sermon that made the Duke Collection strikes me as bad version of the eye of the camel parable.
J: This is a quote from Rutledge in her “generous orthodoxy” piece. “The articles of faith distilled in the historic Creeds and Confessions of the Church are gifts of the Holy Spirit. Christian doctrine is the foundation for a dynamic, courageous intellectual life at the frontiers of 21st-century challenges. Without basic affirmations, we are dangerously unequipped.” So…Rutledge is talking about the importance of creeds, as any good Episcopalian would, but you are affronted by the BFM stuff and insist that creeds or the signing of creeds or even the recognition of a creed is not acceptable. The congregation of your church, while not using the term “creed,” leans to the BFM stuff and also interprets both it and its importance differently from your take. Obviously, there’s a fundamental difference in your positions. You’ve made your battle to change the church for a long time now, and the church obviously is tired of the fight. Neither party is going to change.
This is the part of Rutledge you accept: “True Christian orthodoxy therefore cannot be narrow, pinched, or defensive but always spacious, adventurous and unafraid.” I have no doubt that Rutledge is a fine preacher, but do you suppose she is at sea currently, as well as a lot of others, on the basis of this statement? For instance, her denomination has been losing membership for years in this country at least largely because some members want to make it “spacious and adventurous” enough to sanction marriages of men to men or ordination of practicing homosexuals, and in the process have taken the denominational eye off matters that have to do with carrying out the gospel according to Christ. In my state, Episcopal churches are separating from the ECUSA and linking themselves to African Anglican bishoprics, in which such diversions are not even subjects for contemplation.
I did not score Rutledge on the basis of a technicality. What she said was patently untrue and couched in sarcastic language calculated to make this country appear insensitive and uncaring. And claiming that this country financed the cursed madrasas is just too big a stretch.
Comparing your situation to that of Colleyville, Texas, is an apples/oranges thing. The letter sent to the ones expelled there seems to indicate that there is more to the story than just an arbitrary expulsion. Perhaps you should allow a copy of the document sent to you announcing your expulsion and the reasons for it to be made available. The Colleyville matter involved a huge outlay of money, relocation of a church, and also seems to be rife with misconceptions or outright untruths with regard to the church’s membership. The population of the small city has almost doubled since 1990, and it’s located near Grapevine, Arlington and actually is a suburb of Ft. Worth. What those expelled from a church of perhaps 2,000 (the statistics in the article range wildly) would probably affirm is that it would be better to start a new church in the area in question than tear up what is already a good thing. In any case, the relocation plan, according to the article, has been scrapped. Wonder why?
I don’t understand the “bad version of the eye of the camel parable” thing. Anyway, I think it was the eye of the needle, and maybe that’s why I don’t understand.
J: This is a quote from Rutledge in her “generous orthodoxy” piece. “The articles of faith distilled in the historic Creeds and Confessions of the Church are gifts of the Holy Spirit. Christian doctrine is the foundation for a dynamic, courageous intellectual life at the frontiers of 21st-century challenges. Without basic affirmations, we are dangerously unequipped.” So…Rutledge is talking about the importance of creeds, as any good Episcopalian would, but you are affronted by the BFM stuff and insist that creeds or the signing of creeds or even the recognition of a creed is not acceptable. The congregation of your church, while not using the term “creed,” leans to the BFM stuff and also interprets both it and its importance differently from your take. Obviously, there’s a fundamental difference in your positions. You’ve made your battle to change the church for a long time now, and the church obviously is tired of the fight. Neither party is going to change.
This is the part of Rutledge you accept: “True Christian orthodoxy therefore cannot be narrow, pinched, or defensive but always spacious, adventurous and unafraid.” I have no doubt that Rutledge is a fine preacher, but do you suppose she is at sea currently, as well as a lot of others, on the basis of this statement? For instance, her denomination has been losing membership for years in this country at least largely because some members want to make it “spacious and adventurous” enough to sanction marriages of men to men or ordination of practicing homosexuals, and in the process have taken the denominational eye off matters that have to do with carrying out the gospel according to Christ. In my state, Episcopal churches are separating from the ECUSA and linking themselves to African Anglican bishoprics, in which such diversions are not even subjects for contemplation.
I did not score Rutledge on the basis of a technicality. What she said was patently untrue and couched in sarcastic language calculated to make this country appear insensitive and uncaring. And claiming that this country financed the cursed madrasas is just too big a stretch.
Comparing your situation to that of Colleyville, Texas, is an apples/oranges thing. The letter sent to the ones expelled there seems to indicate that there is more to the story than just an arbitrary expulsion. Perhaps you should allow a copy of the document sent to you announcing your expulsion and the reasons for it to be made available. The Colleyville matter involved a huge outlay of money, relocation of a church, and also seems to be rife with misconceptions or outright untruths with regard to the church’s membership. The population of the small city has almost doubled since 1990, and it’s located near Grapevine, Arlington and actually is a suburb of Ft. Worth. What those expelled from a church of perhaps 2,000 (the statistics in the article range wildly) would probably affirm is that it would be better to start a new church in the area in question than tear up what is already a good thing. In any case, the relocation plan, according to the article, has been scrapped. Wonder why?
I don’t understand the “bad version of the eye of the camel parable” thing. Anyway, I think it was the eye of the needle, and maybe that’s why I don’t understand.
- Jim
- Posts: 3773
- Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:44 pm
- Location: Lexington, Ky.
Jim
by fox » Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:47 pm
Taking you seriously here. Gonna print out your last response and think about it over the weekend. In meantime gonna attempt to bring this exchange to the attention of Fleming herself and if we can get her to come to this board, well just maybe this little dialogue was worth it after all.....sfox
Did you ever look at Ron Rash's poetry link? I hope so
Did you ever look at Ron Rash's poetry link? I hope so
INFORMED GADFLY
- fox
- Posts: 3624
- Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:43 pm
- Location: South Dekalb County Bama
50 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to Baptist Faith & Practice Forum
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests