|May 30 2010, 10:37 AM |
Dr. Crump, my source of information about Madison is the same as Jimmy Wren's source (The Madison Blog Site).
If it is your desire to compare Madison CoC to the BUBONIC PLAGUE then so be it. I would rather say something positive about them.
Dr. Crump, I would ask that you respect my forum name (Rocnar) as I always respect your name.
|Dr. Bill Crump|
|May 31 2010, 9:40 AM |
Who said, "What's in a name?" Well, no matter. Notice that my name is not an anagram (although someone trying to be cute on this board did turn it into an anagram for his user "name"), whereas "rocnar" IS an anagram for "rancor." So all "rocnar" has to do is cease his anagram game and give his alias as "rancor," and we'll be on the same "playing field"--well, not quite. To be on the SAME playing field, rancor would have to give his REAL name, just as I give my real name. But I don't think that rancor will ever be up to that.
Did I compare Madison to the plague? That's only in rancor's imagination. Notice I said, "Here's a hypothetical scenario about positive-only thinking:" Madison wasn't even mentioned in that scenario. The scenario was an example to show how ridiculous positive-only thinking can become if people take it to the extreme--and many people do so.
BTW, rancor still didn't write anything positive about Madison. All he did was to fret over his user "name" and make an unfounded accusation against me.
Same old rants and raves
|June 2 2010, 4:17 PM |
Dr. Crump, my original post.
"Madison CoC must be in great shape if this is all y'all can find to complain about. How about posting something positive about Madison?"
It was a clear statement and a clear question. Apparently you are not going to address it in any meaningful fashion.
Dr. Crump, I see no need to respond to your last post. Obviously you are obsessed with "word games" and yourself.
|Dr. Bill Crump|
Re: Same old rants and raves
|June 4 2010, 9:48 AM |
Talk about word games, rancor DID respond to my last post by saying there is no need to respond. If rancor didn't want to respond, he would have posted nothing at all. And "rocnar" is STILL an anagram for "rancor." But if he wants to deny it, that's his prerogative.
BTW, rancor STILL has not made any positive comments about Madison. He wanted to see positive comments from others, yet he chose not to write them himself. Surely rancor knows the old adage, "If you want something done, do it yourself."
I think we're done here.
Phil Barnes: Cautioned Prior to Employment at Madison
|June 2 2010, 5:36 PM |
Yes, Barnes had been cautioned prior to joining Madison some 5 years ago that the congregation was in the process of "recovery" from the havoc that had about half of its membership and its eldership leave in 2000-2001. Of course, the departure [firing? or replacement] of the "Worship Leader," Keith Lancaster, who pioneered the "revolutionary concept" of and who installed the controversial and unnecessary "Praise Team," is an accomplishment in itself. [The implementation of the professional services of the "Praise Team" is only part of the entire Community Church's "church growth scheme that didn't work at/for Madison. The fact that the "traditional" assembly does not use the services of the "Praise Team" still leaves us with the impression that having a team continues to be a controversial and divisive issue. It is a long story.]
Phil Barnes' ability to make the congregants laugh at his jokes [many of which are personal in nature] in the sermon and his pretty animated sermon delivery keep them from napping. He is not into the habit of being critical of the "traditional" truth or doctrine, although at times he slips and catches himself doing so and corrects himself. He may slip and say, "Accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior" [a Baptist's teaching that means "saved" by faith (only)]. Then, he follows that with "be baptized." (And baptism: [a] because sins have already been remitted or [b] in order to have sins remitted? He shouldn't be afraid to emphasize the difference and what God's truth really says.)
Attendance has been in the 1700-1800 range -- still a long way from fully recovering, if that's even happening. The congregation still has its designated "traditional worship service" and "contemporary worship service" -- an indication that the church is still divided. Call it "peaceful" division, but division nonetheless.
P.S.: OK, just a quick update.
Re: Phil Barnes urges 'insanity?'
|June 3 2010, 10:18 PM |
"Insanely" is used in the vernacular as a synonym for "extremely".
|Dr. Bill Crump|
Re: Phil Barnes urges 'insanity?'
|June 5 2010, 9:22 AM |
I wonder if Jesus taught His Gospel in the "vernacular." Today, English "vernacular" language commonly includes the "S" word, the "F" word, "damn," "hell" (the latter two words used as expletives), the expression "Oh my G*d!" (which is not an expression of praise) and similar words or phrases. That is, a number of words and phrases in the English "vernacular" are also vulgar or inappropriate. So did Jesus teach His Gospel by using "street" language--the vernacular of His day? Imagine Jesus using the equivalent of the "F" word when He taught against fornication. That would be the "vernacular" would it not? I think the Gospel was and is on a much higher level than that.
When I was an intern in the emergency room, one day an elderly woman came in complaining of abdominal pain. When I asked about her "bowel movements," she didn't understand what I meant. So I asked her about her "stools." Still, she didn't understand. Finally, in order to find out what was wrong with the woman, I asked in the vernacular, "Are you [the 'S' word with 'ing' on the end] OK?" She replied, "Oh, yes, yes, I understand it if you say it RIGHT!" Good grief! I literally had to get down into the proverbial gutter (the lowest vernacular) to talk to that woman! Did Jesus use the equivalent of such vulgarity to get His Gospel across to the people?
This is not to say that the word "insanely" is vulgar. It is a vernacular word that does not impart any dignity whatsoever when talking to people about Christianity. It is a "cool," "hip," worldly word. One need not use the worldly, "hip" or "cool" phraseology of the day to talk about Christianity and the Gospel. Use plain, simple, straightforward, decent language to preach the Gospel. I believe Christ used plain, simple, straightforward, decent language of His day to preach His Gospel.
The bottom line is that "insanely" is a poor choice of words for a minister to use to describe the kind of week that people should have.
|June 6 2010, 10:31 PM |
Looking up the definition of vernacular in the dictionary, and there is NO connotation about it being related to vulgarity or profanity, but simply "the plain variety of language in everyday use by ordinary people." "Insanely" also has no connotation that is vulgar or profane, so I'm have a little trouble accepting your flawed reasoning as proof that Jesus didn't use vernacular words.
In fact, the opposite is true. In Jesus's time, the formal language of the day was Greek (hence why the New Testament was written in Greek), but the masses used Aramaic as their vernacular. Jesus spoke to the masses in Aramaic not Greek. He used vernacular expressions like "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" which was a common Aramaic expression for something difficult to do. So Jesus spoke in the vernacular all the time.
Your whole story about having to use the "s" word speaks volumes about you, not the lady. The Jesus I read about in the Bible would have felt compassion for the lady who didn't know proper names for bodily functions, not be indignant that he had to lower himself to her level...that sounds a whole lot more like the Pharisee praying "God, I thank you that I am not like other men."
Jesus was criticized routinely for associating with the "indecent" people..."Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and 'sinners.'" Matt 11:19. Considering that Jesus was willing to die on the cross for our sins, if he had to use some base (not blasphemous) terms that common people would understand to get his message across, he would without a doubt do it.
Life is GOOD!!!!
|June 7 2010, 1:46 PM |
William Crump said,"This is not to say that the word "insanely" is vulgar. It is a vernacular word that does not impart any dignity whatsoever when talking to people about Christianity. It is a "cool," "hip," worldly word. One need not use the worldly, "hip" or "cool" phraseology of the day to talk about Christianity and the Gospel. Use plain, simple, straightforward, decent language to preach the Gospel. I believe Christ used plain, simple, straightforward, decent language of His day to preach His Gospel."
William, do you think that Jesus would have told someone that they have bad breath, instead of halitosis, as you did?
Straightforward, as you say?
Perhaps Jesus would not have told them that they had halitosis or bad breath. Jesus had more important things on His mind. He didn't have the time nor the inclination to do so. He wasn't into slander and wise cracks, as some people are.