Revoice Strikes Again?

[Santos]

I know that a lot of folk dislike the tone of Pulpit and Pin. I don't care for their tone either. However, they seem to be on top of the latest "Church News" that I don't see elsewhere. Has anyone seen this yet?

https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/01/29/lgbt-rebellion-spreads-in-the-presbyterian-church-of-america/

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Actually its not their "tone" we dislike, it's their actual words.

But even still, they are right when they are right.

 

[Santos]

Actually its not their "tone" we dislike, it's their actual words.

But even still, they are right when they are right.

I agree. They are pretty inflammatory most often.

 

[lynnie]

In bending over backwards to understand this better, when the PCA church says this:

This will be a great opportunity to hear from
them about their vision for how LGBT/Same-Sex Attracted people can actually flourish in a church like ours.

Do they mean that they accept progressive sanctification is gradual and often very hard, and they have the aim to see these people change at a deep heart level where they are so impacted by Jesus Christ and the gospel that the attractions lose their appeal? Like saying they want alcoholics and drug addicts and p0rn addicts and all people with sinful longings to actually flourish at church despite their current struggle, in hopes of deep and lasting gradual change?

Or are they saying the attractions are perfectly fine the way they are?

 

[Taylor]

...how LGBT/Same-Sex Attracted people can actually flourish...

This is something with which I was very frustrated in seminary. In ethical discussions, everyone loves to use this word "flourishing," but nobody has ever once actually explained what it means (or what they mean by it) in my hearing.

 

[Tom Hart]

This is something with which I was very frustrated in seminary. In ethical discussions, everyone loves to use this word "flourishing," but nobody has ever once actually explained what it means (or what they mean by it) in my hearing.

I think it's a dance move. A sort of twirl.

 

[Tom Hart]

Pulpit and Pin

Yes, their words can be quite sharp!

 

[Berean]

I think it's a dance move. A sort of twirl.

Not to be confused with Ruffles and Flourishes.

 

[Tom Hart]

Not to be confused with Ruffles and Flourishes.

I didn't know they came in that flavour.

 

[jwithnell]

Ambiguity is the devil's playpen. Use nice words so detractors sound mean, then drive a truck through the hole you've created.

 

[Taylor]

Use nice words so detractors sound mean...

...and also to gain a seat at the table of respectability with people who otherwise hate the Lord and his Christ.

 

[Andrew35]

This is something with which I was very frustrated in seminary. In ethical discussions, everyone loves to use this word "flourishing," but nobody has ever once actually explained what it means (or what they mean by it) in my hearing.

I think it means for an organism or organisms to grow in a healthy, energetic way.

In other words, have lots of kids.

I'm doing my part: #3 is on the way. How 'bout you all?

 

[jwithnell]

...and also to gain a seat at the table of respectability with people who otherwise hate the Lord and his Christ.

That's the danger. I've puzzled over a dear relative in the United Methodist gathering. She has a sweet, pure faith lived out every day.

Only recently has it dawned on me what's happening during Sunday meetings. When she hears the word Bible, she's thinking what she learned growing up: God's authoritative word. Jesus, God incarnate, just like my mom taught me. The speaker, can mean whatever he or she wants.

That's what the apostle John was so concerned about in his first letter: the false prophets who are always on hand trying to prey on Christ's sheep.

 

[Taylor]

I think it means for an organism or organisms to grow in a healthy, energetic way.

Well, yes, but I’m getting at something deeper. By what standard do we say something is flourishing? Furthermore, but what standard do we say something even ought to flourish? These are the things that are never put forward, yet people keep using this word. Without an explanation of the guiding principles of why it means to “flourish,” the word is meaningless.

 

[Andrew35]

Well, yes, but I’m getting at something deeper. By what standard do we say something is flourishing? Furthermore, but what standard do we say something ought to flourish? These are the things that are never put forward, yet people keep using this word. Without an explanation of the guiding principles of why it means to “flourish,” the word is meaningless.

Sorry, my answer was meant to be a joke. I agree with you. No idea.

Incidentally, one could substitute the word "progress" for "flourish" in your comment for precisely the same validity of observation.

 

[JTB.SDG]

Ambiguity is the devil's playpen.

Yes, true here and also with FV.

 

[augustacarguy]

This is something with which I was very frustrated in seminary. In ethical discussions, everyone loves to use this word "flourishing," but nobody has ever once actually explained what it means (or what they mean by it) in my hearing.

We just called a new pastor, which ended up being a team of pastors. We were told that this team approach would ensure the pastors’ flourishing. Flourishing, flourishing, flourishing, was the word used over and over. That word is all the rage. Incidentally, there was no mention of the sheep’s flourishing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pergamum]

I think it's a dance move. A sort of twirl.

I think it must be more of a prance...

 

[OPC'n]

In bending over backwards to understand this better, when the PCA church says this:

This will be a great opportunity to hear from
them about their vision for how LGBT/Same-Sex Attracted people can actually flourish in a church like ours.

Do they mean that they accept progressive sanctification is gradual and often very hard, and they have the aim to see these people change at a deep heart level where they are so impacted by Jesus Christ and the gospel that the attractions lose their appeal? Like saying they want alcoholics and drug addicts and p0rn addicts and all people with sinful longings to actually flourish at church despite their current struggle, in hopes of deep and lasting gradual change?

Or are they saying the attractions are perfectly fine the way they are?

This is a good question that I wonder if someone could answer.

 

[Jack K]

I know that a lot of folk dislike the tone of Pulpit and Pin. I don't care for their tone either. However, they seem to be on top of the latest "Church News" that I don't see elsewhere. Has anyone seen this yet?

I just took a quick read through this "Church News" article. It addresses an important issue but says nothing enlightening. It republishes a church bulletin/website announcement and then engages in speculation about the church, its pastors, its entire denomination, and the denomination's seminary.

The speculation may be correct or it may not be. But you can't tell by reading a bulletin announcement. This passes for "news" today? "Gossip" would be more accurate. How hard is it to at least make a phone call to the church? Where are the old-fashioned journalists when you need them, the ones who would dig a little?

 

[KMK]

Do they mean that they accept progressive sanctification is gradual and often very hard, and they have the aim to see these people change at a deep heart level where they are so impacted by Jesus Christ and the gospel that the attractions lose their appeal? Like saying they want alcoholics and drug addicts and p0rn addicts and all people with sinful longings to actually flourish at church despite their current struggle, in hopes of deep and lasting gradual change?

Or are they saying the attractions are perfectly fine the way they are?

It appears they are trying to say as little as possible with as many words as possible.

 

[lynnie]

I just tried to call. No phone number I could find online. Saw one from 2015 on FB but it is not in service. They have an office email addy listed. I didn't pursue it, but if I was still in the PCA I would.

I would say the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that they hold to biblical morality. They want the LBGQ, ABCDXYZs to flourish? No clarification that Jesus Christ can set all of us free from our sinful self centered evil desires as we live with Him and for him? No clear sentence about the hope of change for wrong desires? Just "flourish"?

I don't think it is gossip. I think it is a very clear warning for people who move to that area and want a PCA or Calvinist Church to beware. Beware of church leaders whose written communications at best are confusing, even if they were meant to hold to biblical morality. If your RE and TEs can't write this out clearly, on such a huge topic in the culture today, then why would you want to sit under them? They could have said some kind of flowery message about the power of the Lord to set us free from all bondages and into knowing God and his truth and love, and sort of evaded the subject head on if they think the same sex attractions are sinful longings. I get trying to reach out to gays without batting them over the head with a brick first. But "flourish"? The burden of proof lies with them now, not the critics.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Moderating. Given the significant controversy over this, let's elevate any discussion by sticking with reputable sites. Citing P&P simply adds the burden of overcoming their reputation. Find a site by a PCA source and reboot this to a new thread.