Fanatics & Fundamentalists

[seanD]

Right, this is what pretty much seems to be the Biblical view of things. But doesn't it make you somewhat uncomfortable to talk like that and at the same time reap all the benefits of our modern society? I think that is the tension that I cannot seem to resolve - for example, why expend all this energy, time, and effort into research of limb regeneration to help amputee's when this is ultimately a body of sin and death that has only a few years of breath? Such a pursuit to make this life better simply seems to be at odds with Biblical revelation and cultivating an eternal perspective: "So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." (2Cor 4:18).

Christ and the world are not compatible because the world is moving to a totally different drumbeat. Struggling to keep that balance between our faith and the material world -- spiritualism vs. secularism – is the paradox we face everyday. It’s not an easy answer. Fundamentalism (even of the “fanatical” variety) is a necessary element that at least helps keep the two worlds distinguished. Jesus’ teachings indicate the tension will never cease in this lifetime, which is why we endure. So as long as the tension is there, I think that’s a good sign.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Christianity was never meant to make the world a better place? Huh? Then why bother with medicine or science? I think Scrawly hit the nail on the head, and maybe it is just me, but I don't see anyone really engaging his original point.

[Dee Dee Warren]

The problem is that America has become a nation of media gluttons, and guys like Steve Jobs have completely capitalized on our obsessive desire for more things and various forms of entertainment. I doubt that most of these guys are in the business to improve society. They're out to make money, and the iPad 3 hasn't revolutionized the world since iPad 1, it simply gave American's another reason to spend money on things they don't need with money they don't have. In that respect, I'd say that guys like Steve Jobs aren't guiltless even though the things they make aren't intrinsically evil.

You don't know much about Steve Jobs if you think money was his motivating factor. You just assumed so. Now, perhaps the rest of the Apple Inc. that IS their motivating factor. But Steve Jobs is a peculiar fascination of mine, and he wasn't motivated by money. Neither was Woz, and neither was Ives.

[KingsGambit]

I might briefly mention that many of the great inventors or innovators in history genuinely did so to the glory of God; for example, George Washington Carter refused to patent some of his inventions because he believed the idea ultimately came from God.

Beyond that, yes, it's important for us to be out winning souls and living godly lives, but it is simply not realistic to expect us to be spending 100% of our waking time out doing street ministry/etc. After all, even God rested on the seventh day.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I bet if the Internet went down tomorrow, the same half of the Church population would be consuming porn. That kind they make up in their own head. Lust is very low tech. It is so easy to blame technology.
Easy, and frankly, retarded.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Forget realistic. It isn't required. I HATE fundamentalism because it puts requirements on people that were not put on by God and turns good things into burdens.

[seanD]

Christianity was never meant to make the world a better place? Huh? Then why bother with medicine or science? I think Scrawly hit the nail on the head, and maybe it is just me, but I don't see anyone really engaging his original point.

Yeah, I guess I didn't phrase that right. It's the world that's incompatible with Christianity.

[KingsGambit]

I can't help but think of how some Christians take the "in this world but not of it" to extremes like saying that, say, Christians can't participate in politics or government (even though the only Christian politician mentioned in the Bible, Erasmus in Romans 16:23, didn't give up his office when he became a Christian).

[John Reece]

I can't help but think of how some Christians take the "in this world but not of it" to extremes like saying that, say, Christians can't participate in politics or government (even though the only Christian politician mentioned in the Bible, Erasmus in Romans 16:23, didn't give up his office when he became a Christian).

You must mean Erastus.

Erasmus (October 28, 1466? – July 12, 1536) was the notable classical scholar who produced Latin and Greek texts of the New Testament.

[theblueprint_Ni]

Christianity was never meant to make the world a better place? Huh? Then why bother with medicine or science? I think Scrawly hit the nail on the head, and maybe it is just me, but I don't see anyone really engaging his original point.

I think he means to say that Christ came to save sinners from their sins, not to improve a fallen society that's reserved for fire and the wrath of God. Scawly's OP embodied the question about whether or not the Gospel requires 100% conscious commitment toward overtly spiritual things like Bible reading or evangelism, naturally extending into the question about occupying ourselves with worldly endeavors. I think he was leaning toward a direction but was undecided on an answer. Some of us were leaning in the other direction, so it was less about engaging his original point and more about not quite agreeing with the slant of his argument.

You don't know much about Steve Jobs if you think money was his motivating factor. You just assumed so. Now, perhaps the rest of the Apple Inc. that IS their motivating factor. But Steve Jobs is a peculiar fascination of mine, and he wasn't motivated by money. Neither was Woz, and neither was Ives.

I guess Apple would have been more accurate. And you're right, I don't know anything about Steve Jobs. I know that he died, and as far as we know he died without knowing Christ, and that's all that really matters. From the perspective of eternity his life counted for nothing. And that, it seems, relates to Scrawly's question about the place of technology and the Christian life. In other words, does that make technology a vain pursuit and an ungodly distraction or can we strike some kind of balance between gospel living and earthly living? Well, I say that when your relationship with the Lord is suffering yet you find yourself wasting hours fiddling with an iPad, watching television, and playing video games, it's time to take a step back and rearrange your priorities.

I bet if the Internet went down tomorrow, the same half of the Church population would be consuming porn. That kind they make up in their own head. Lust is very low tech. It is so easy to blame technology.
Easy, and frankly, retarded.

I'm sure you're right on some points. Although, I can't say that I agree with your tone. There's nothing "easy" or "retarded" about the sin struggle that men grapple with in a culture immersed in sexuality.

Forget realistic. It isn't required. I HATE fundamentalism because it puts requirements on people that were not put on by God and turns good things into burdens.

Practical application to Biblical principle can often be confused with legalism, though I don't know what you have in mind when you say this. Do you think the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 was being legalistic by restricting gentile believers from eating animals killed by strangulation? Didn't God already tell Peter that all foods were clean to eat in Acts 10? Money can be a good thing too, and the Bible says it comes from God, so then why does it warn us so much about the evils of money and the corruption it yields?

[Scrawly]

Forget realistic. It isn't required. I HATE fundamentalism because it puts requirements on people that were not put on by God and turns good things into burdens.

I would be standing side-by-side with you in expressing my hatred for fundamentalism if it wasn't for the seeming fundamentalism found in the Biblical text itself. For example:

1Cor 7:31
1John 2:17

Moreover, the fact that we are called to model our lives after Paul the Apostle, who in turn followed the example of Christ, who clearly wasn't engrossed in the cares of this world, because yes, they were too busy out there winning souls, seems to be the only sane option in light of eternity. After all, according to the Scriptures, we are strangers in the world and this earth is not home.

So I can see how perhaps we should adapt to the culture and use its toys for the furtherance of the Kingdom, but to fix our eyes upon the temporal betterment of this world simply seems to be at odds with the totality of Biblical revelation...?

[seanD]

I would be standing side-by-side with you in expressing my hatred for fundamentalism if it wasn't for the seeming fundamentalism found in the Biblical text itself. For example:

1Cor 7:31
1John 2:17

Moreover, the fact that we are called to model our lives after Paul the Apostle, who in turn followed the example of Christ, who clearly wasn't engrossed in the cares of this world, because yes, they were too busy out there winning souls, seems to be the only sane option in light of eternity. After all, according to the Scriptures, we are strangers in the world and this earth is not home.

So I can see how perhaps we should adapt to the culture and use its toys for the furtherance of the Kingdom, but to fix our eyes upon the temporal betterment of this world simply seems to be at odds with the totality of Biblical revelation...?

You just answered your own question from the OP and explained it about as good, if not better, than I could have. I only threw in the issue of fundamentalism because I honestly don't see where the distinction is between Christianity and fundamentalism or why there had to be a distinction with this particular issue in the first place.

[KingsGambit]

I would be standing side-by-side with you in expressing my hatred for fundamentalism if it wasn't for the seeming fundamentalism found in the Biblical text itself. For example:

1Cor 7:31
1John 2:17

Moreover, the fact that we are called to model our lives after Paul the Apostle, who in turn followed the example of Christ, who clearly wasn't engrossed in the cares of this world, because yes, they were too busy out there winning souls, seems to be the only sane option in light of eternity. After all, according to the Scriptures, we are strangers in the world and this earth is not home.

So I can see how perhaps we should adapt to the culture and use its toys for the furtherance of the Kingdom, but to fix our eyes upon the temporal betterment of this world simply seems to be at odds with the totality of Biblical revelation...?

1 Corinthians 7:31 (and the surrounding passages) are definitely something to wrestle with. I think you've been hitting on some great points, and I've also been doing some thinking about the issue of possessions lately (I have bad OCD combined with impulsiveness and it's important for me to remember that do not need to become legalistic and start giving away everything I have, which I've thought about).

The fact that Paul also warns of marriage becoming an encumbrance in the surrounding verses suggests to me that this might be because of a specific situation going on; namely, persecution coming up. biblequery.org suggests that Paul is warning that the people will soon be persecuted and thus they shouldn't get caught up in the world (a situation which applies to any time). I think this is talking more about our priorities than promoting some sort of asceticism that would contradict Colossians 2:20-23.

[Scrawly]

OK, here are the two preachers I mentioned in my OP. If you listen to their entire 1hour+ sermons you'll really get the full impact of their teachings, but just check out these excerpts and that opposition to the world - the ambitions, direction, motivations, and things of the world will rear its head:

[Scrawly]

&