Well, not being a significant consumer of social media, I had avoided this controversy until just now. I will probably continue to steer clear but at least I won't be surprised if it comes up in casual conversation one day.
You make the good point that we are admonished to speak with grace and allow the Spirit to produce the effect needed. However, it seems the message may be more damaging than the language. Paul's vulgarity was directed at "another gospel" rather than bad language. Perhaps for another post.
I guess that I don't frequent the right places to be much aware of this controversy. My general feelings are that when people need offending, rubbing their noses in death/resurrection and the forgiveness of those we deem unworthy is worth an awful lot of sexual references.
That being said, I think that the church has been poorly served by confusing politeness with holiness. We need a great deal more plain speaking than we have been getting/doing, and that doesn't seem to be taught in seminaries but in places almost as disreputable. I think that it was Mere Christianity where Lewis put his rather useful contrast between chastity and modesty. I think that that is very much how I feel on the subject. But plain speaking is only useful if the words plainly spoken are full of grace and truth.
There is a mountain of evidence to suggest that Wilson himself is a wolf from which people need to be saved, and that Christian leaders have not barked loudly enough about it. He gives lip service to the gospel, but the whole Moscow program reeks of Law and judgment, not grace and forgiveness. The many people I know who have been hurt by that man were not merely struck by a problematic mood, but problematic theology.
Well, not being a significant consumer of social media, I had avoided this controversy until just now. I will probably continue to steer clear but at least I won't be surprised if it comes up in casual conversation one day.
You make the good point that we are admonished to speak with grace and allow the Spirit to produce the effect needed. However, it seems the message may be more damaging than the language. Paul's vulgarity was directed at "another gospel" rather than bad language. Perhaps for another post.
Blessings
I guess that I don't frequent the right places to be much aware of this controversy. My general feelings are that when people need offending, rubbing their noses in death/resurrection and the forgiveness of those we deem unworthy is worth an awful lot of sexual references.
That being said, I think that the church has been poorly served by confusing politeness with holiness. We need a great deal more plain speaking than we have been getting/doing, and that doesn't seem to be taught in seminaries but in places almost as disreputable. I think that it was Mere Christianity where Lewis put his rather useful contrast between chastity and modesty. I think that that is very much how I feel on the subject. But plain speaking is only useful if the words plainly spoken are full of grace and truth.
There is a mountain of evidence to suggest that Wilson himself is a wolf from which people need to be saved, and that Christian leaders have not barked loudly enough about it. He gives lip service to the gospel, but the whole Moscow program reeks of Law and judgment, not grace and forgiveness. The many people I know who have been hurt by that man were not merely struck by a problematic mood, but problematic theology.