What needs to be flushed is the boorishness

A Baptist church in North Carolina has a sign which reads, "The Koran Needs to Be Flushed."

However much one might agree with the sentiment as far as the spiritual value of the Muslim holy book is concerned, the sign isn't real tactful- nor is it likely to make Muslims anything but more defensive and belligerent and resistant to Christ than they are.

It's kind of like the unfortunate habit that's spread widely among some conservative Lutheranism of referring to females who claim the pastoral office as "priestitutes." The disapproval of pastorettes I share, but why be deliberately and personally insulting about it? The truth needs to be spoken, but Paul suggested that it be spoken in love, not as offensively as possible.

Comments

ghp said…
Bob, why, I think I might be the one who prompted you to finally speak out against the "unfortunate" habit! There's almost something nifty about that... ;-)

Anyway, I don't want to rewrite what I wrote over at my place in response to your charge of boorishness; however, I do think you're overreacting just a tad and/or being just a tad oversensitive. I just don't see the need for trying to soften the truth, particularly when such softening (e.g., "pastorette") is quite possibly just as offensive to the erring, while still yielding to their semantic redefinitions.

As I said at my place, "priestitute" is quite accurate in terms of what's been done to the Pastoral Office. Those who have usurped the office are offended because they don't like having their error pointed out (which is why I would contend that "pastorette" would be just as offensive to them, when push comes to shove...). I use the term because it's truthful & accurate, not because I want to offend them. The Law is harsh, but necessary. Clear, straightforward, unambiguous, & truthful statements/observations are, IMO, a more loving way to point out error, than is to attempt to do so by softening things such that ambiguity is let in.

-ghp
Actually, Glen, I had quite a knock-down, drag out fight with one of the less reasonable characters over on the CAT41 list about it- one which prompted my departure from that list.

It's not a question of what they find offensive. It's a question of what is in itself appropriate. They may have prostituted the pastoral office, but they haven't prostituted themselves; it isn't accurate, and it isn't truthful.It's just boorish.
It doesn't communicate; it just offends.

There is no truth involved here. It's simply name-calling of a sort which has no particular aptness or relevance. It isn't the proclamation of the Law; rather, it's rude behavior which actually obscures the Law.

By all means, point out their error. It's just that I see no reason to go out of your way to be offensive about it, particularly in a way which really doesn't point out their error, but just makes you look crude and ill-mannered.

Glen, there's nothing wrong with a clear sound of the trumpet. It's just that a fart is a poor substitute.
Eric Phillips said…
I'd have to agree with Bob that when you call someone a "priestitute" you unavoidably sound as if you are accusing her of selling her body, perhaps to priests, rather than of holding an office she has no right to. If she does get just as mad at the term "pastorette," that's her business. At least I haven't invoked grossly inaccurate and inflammatory connotations, but rather restricted myself to identifying the problem.