I recently got involved with a post discussion that relates to churches using “pop culture” to share the Gospel or as an aid for weekly sermons – and whether that is a sin. I don’t want to open a can of worms so I won’t link to the post right now (and that is another discussion altogether) but one of the things that disturbed me was the approach that some Christians take when commenting or giving their two cents.
Discussing one’s view is great. I think that it is essential we debate on different topics and learn from others about the way they see things. But I do not agree when a Christian begins to get hateful or becomes self-righteous by attempting to throw Scripture at another so that they can “prove” they are right when there is no decisive way to “win”. For example, we can say that the Bible speaks clearly about Jesus being the Son of God and God in the flesh. There is no dispute in that. We can discuss the topic of speaking in tongues and agree to disagree that some believe it is a valid gift today and others who do not. This is a non-essential that can go either way.
What has really chapped my hide is that I have been involved in many blog posts where a devoted, hardcore Christian will respond with an air of superiority and pride – and do all they can to “thump” Scripture into the heathen’s head (believer or not) and whose only purpose is to prove their point as if God is awaiting their great spiritual victory. I am all for sharing correct teaching and Scripture. I think too many people have backed down from what they believe in, but there is a way to dialogue these beliefs in a way that isn’t condescending.
How we approach conversations is very important as Christians. This is one reason there is SO MUCH division in the Church today and why most non-Christians don’t want to even hear what we want to share. What do you think? Is “Bible Thumping” really and truly effective for today’s culture?
Related posts:
The title of your post caught my eye. This is such an important topic..how we communicate to other people, whether it’s about doctrinal discussions or just our interactions with people in general (both on the internet and our day to day dealings)
Last month I “hot-linked” a photo to my blog and got a kind but firm note from someone who I’m guessing may not be a believer. I am still new to many aspects of the internet and didn’t realize it was not appropriate. I had to ask what “hot-link” even ment. To make a long story short…I apologized to the person, made things right..a couple of days later on my blog she posted this comment:
” On a more personal level, I’ve appreciated your respectful and polite treatment of me, a relative stranger. I really think how people treat the semi-anonymous sort of human contact that we have across the internet says a lot about the sort of people they are deep inside. ”
________________________________
It also bothers me ALOT when “Christian” brothers and sisters snip at each other. good post!
I’m always fascinated with etymology. We’re does the expression “Bible Thumping” come from. Do you know the origins?
@DM – Thanks for coming by and your response! I wouldn’t have known the “hot-link” deal either and it’s cool you apologized. It’s great that a simple misunderstanding was made right!
The hard thing with blogs and posts is that sometimes we don’t get an actual feel for what the person may be really saying. It opens up for misinterpretation – a small downfall to technology.
What is a shame is when Christian people DO get venomous or snippy in order to prove their point. Of course sometimes we are human and make mistakes, but I have seen some bloggers who seem to enjoy throwing stones.
Thanks again for your input!
@Steve – I honestly have no clue and have only heard it as an expression growing up. I could have used the terminology wrong for this application as I am definitely not a scholar! LOL. Please let me know if you find out the answer.
Your context is right. I’m always interested in how expression happen. For example, how about the expression, your name is mudd!
Here’s the answer:
John Wilkes Booth broke his leg while escaping after shooting Abraham Lincoln in 1865. He was given medical help by Dr Samuel Mudd, who didn’t then know about the assassination. Mudd was convicted of being Booth’s conspirator, although he is widely believed to have been innocent. Actually, whether Mudd was innocent or not is of little consequence in regard to the origin of this phrase. It was in general circulation before Lincoln was assassinated. This comes from John Badcock’s (aka ‘J. Bee’) Slang – A dictionary of the turf etc., 1823:
“Mud – a stupid twaddling fellow. ‘And his name is mud!’ ejaculated upon the conclusion of a silly oration, or of a leader in the Courier.”