Remonstrans, again

Is anyone here actually in a church that as a body would willingly associate itself with your writings?

Isn’t that the problem? I wish I could be.

He’s given us the writings of the church from previous generations and asked us if the church in our generation matches up. Curious how resentful church leaders get when that is done.

If they don’t match up, who are you supposed to line up with? Is the present really better just because it is all we have now?

Because the message, given there again and again, is that we will lose even more if we don’t value at least what little we still have. But we have to wake up and realize first all the things we have lost. It is for trying to wake us up dissidens usually takes the heat (not usually too bright though). But what else is he supposed to do?


11 thoughts on “Remonstrans, again

  1. Well I’ll be – quoted!

    You need not wish sire. You could solve that problem tomorrow. Where two or three are gathered… and between you, Dave and Norm you’ve got the numbers. Why not become a body? I really think that idea got knocked on the head too quickly.

  2. Your mate unk here has expressed a wish to be in one of those fragments in the pile Dave – don’t leave him hanging out there on his own. You certainly have nothing to lose, as it appears your current assembly has earned the title of “fragment-in-th’-pile” already. It would be a victimless transfer.

    Count the blessings before you knock it:

    1. No Crosby, Garlock or Majesty Hymns every Sunday.
    2. Quality, meaningful poems from the pulpit rather than movie quotes.
    3. Excellent grass-growing environment – you can have your own discipleship course. Set the required reading. Teach em what’s good, true and beautiful. Not only can they read the book, they can watch it lived out.
    4. The latest article from Bindlestiff in every church bulletin.
    5. The ultimate riposte to those ivory-tower-what-have-you-built-show-us-your-fruit accusations.

    Surely if the above existed 5 minutes from your door you’d be there every Sunday. That dream can still be realised…

  3. Joshua,

    If you read unk again, you will see the desire he expresses is that he could join himself to a body that would associate itself with the sentiments expressed at that now defunct blog. Not that said body would be just another splinter on the pile. But as things stand, should all the remonstrans underlings, groupies, and lackeys (or whatever other epithet there be for us) band together in the wilderness and “do” our own church, we would be exactly that.

    Still missing the point re: #5, I see.

  4. David,

    Seems curious to me still. If you happen upon it (roundly acknowledged as impossible), then it’s not debris and a good thing, but if you have a hand in its creation then it’s debris and a bad thing?

    Norm’s got a specific doctrine he’s teaching about beauty, truth and goodness, and it would seem there are precisely zero churches teaching it. Churches are the best place for the promulgation of doctrine. I really don’t think it would be as bad as you seem convinced it would be.

    I don’t remember swearing not to be involved with people who like Norm, and if you can link to where I called you swine I will outright apologise on the spot as that is well beyond the bounds of Christian decency. I do remember saying I’d hang up my cap as an internet rebuker, and I will stick to that. I’m not here to rebuke, and this blog is nothing like scoff’n’poems.

  5. Joshua,

    I think perhaps your retirement from internet rebukistry is what I was remembering. I didn’t mean to imply that you’d literally called anyone a swine. That was my own fanciful rendition, and I thought it would be recognized as such.

    I don’t think it would be bad exactly. In ways it might even be great. But ultimately sort of false–that’s not quite the right word, but I can’t come up with a more precise one, and I’ve sat here quite while now trying.

    Unfortunately, I don’t think I can make a better case for you than has already been made.

    Fare you well.

  6. Hi David,

    Retired I am, and it seems that in the haze of retirement I misread your rendition as an accusation. Things got pretty heated back then, but I’m glad to hear I didn’t go there.

    If you ever find that precise word, I’d be interested to hear it. I never really understood the case against assembly. Norm’s response was essentially “lol no”, and shed no light for me. Reading some of Unk’s other stuff here, I’m wondering if perhaps it’s a Reformed/UC thing, whereby the individual agreement of believers in a body means a lot less than it does to LCO Baptists. I can live with flawed and growing brethren, but if I believed what you guys do my conscience would force me out of my current assembly.

    Anyway, no reply necessary. Thanks for your responses.

  7. Joshua,

    I think you are correct that part of the disagreement has to do with a difference in perspective between UCers and LCOers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s