February 12, 2007

Yes, we’re saying goodbye to Gabby after all these years. The old girl has ministered through writing for 120 columns and . . . well, we’ll let her tell you about it.

That said, we aren’t leaving you in the lurch. Next week we’ll unveil a new semi-regular feature tentatively entitled, “Ask Andy.” You won’t want to miss it.

Don’t forget to check out this week’s musing on Monday night’s (Feb. 12, 2006) Wife Swap show starring an Apostolic family. We’ll be opening it up for comments at Collideoscope immediately afterwards (and throughout the week).

 

Finally, over at Survey Sez!, we asked you where your primary sources of spiritual meat came from. No one mentioned Sunday school or church services. Does that mean the church was overlooked or that it’s a regular secondary source?

 

 

FUN LINK

Ever have a bit of song stuck in your head but you just can't place it? Hum it to this website and they will find it for you.  

 

RE: Apostolics: The New Priesthood of Readers

Lee Ann Alexander wrote such a fresh, moving article about reading, interpretation, and interacting with the text, I just had to say something. I loved this article. I loved it because, though I have always considered myself a reader, never before have I seen described in such an innovative way the beauty of bringing one’s personal experiences to the text and how wonderful it is to gain additional insight, spiritual insight even, when discussed with others.

I couldn’t help but think that her article was a metaphor for the church, for our relationships with God. Just as she advocates that each reader should have the authority to interact one-on-one with the text, we are able to come boldly before the throne, spiritually speaking. But just as any Joe Schmoe the Reader needs guidance before
he can adequately critique a sonnet, we need guidance in our spiritual lives. There are basic standards and guidelines that need be applied when critiquing art or living a Christian life.

The danger comes in, however, when we convince ourselves that we have a monopoly on those guidelines and standards. But as she beautifully sums up, we must “balance the suggested personal-textual interaction with the use of respected traditional schools of theory as guide rails but not the sole basis for reading and interpretation.” We should never take what was only meant as “guide rails” as the “sole basis” in interpreting texts nor in living our lives for God. Balance is key.

Chantell Smith, Alabama

 

RE: Will the Apostolic Movement Split? Answers

We’re arguing over television while our target audience has moved on to the Internet and iPods. Those who are truly serious about using media for evangelism need to embed themselves in web technology before someone drafts a resolution against it.
 
I think it boils down to moving images. We’re okay with still shots, but nothing animated. That’s really the only distinguishing feature I can come up with—TV has moving images. (The Internet does too, as do cell phones and iPods, which is what makes this all so absurd. What’s absurd to me is that we are spending this much energy on the matter when there are so many other things we need to work on.) 

 

Assuming that the (UPCI’s) pro-Resolution 6 group does not want to get together on Saturdays and watch porn any more than the anti-Resolution 6 group wants to meet at an adult bookstore and read porn, what is truly the difference in one type of media versus another? Assuming that the pros love the Apostolic doctrine and are not compromisers and don’t want to wear make-up and get rich selling handkerchiefs dipped in virgin olive oil, what is the difference in the various kinds of media?
 
Some arguments that may have had merit 30 years ago simply don’t make sense today. But we have difficulty admitting that culture changes, and further, that culture dictates much of what we do.  Many of us (first person plural includes myself) have become experts at defending our positions without ever backing up to evaluate the merit of the positions.

 

One of the mistakes made in conflict management and negotiation is not discerning between one’s interests and one’s position. There are many different positions that can help one satisfy his interests. However, if one comes to the bargaining table with a predefined position, someone will win and someone will lose. However, if positions are set aside and true interests are discussed, often it is possible for both sides to maintain their interests, although they may have to accept a different position. A common example of this is two ladies fighting over the last orange in a store. They finally divided the orange in half and walked away. One of them peeled the orange, threw away the peeling, and ate the orange. The other peeled the orange, threw away the meat, and took the peel home to cook with. If they had given up their position, to own the orange, and discussed their true interests, they would have discovered that it was possible for both to have what they wanted.
 
If we could stop fighting over our positions—whether or not to have TV or not (whether that means advertising, preaching, etc.)—and truly discuss our interest, i.e., evangelism and a holy lifestyle, we may come up with a solution that satisfies both. This points out another common problem in conflict management and negotiation, viz., assuming there are a fixed number of solutions in a conflict. When this happens, there is no collaborative approach, only a vying for positions.

 

“Name Withheld,” Texas

 

 

RE: Wife Swap

I clicked the (enewsletter) link to “Apostolic Wife Swap” in hopes that someone had finally accepted the challenge to write against the real Apostolic wife-swapping going on, which is to mean Apostolic (so-called) people divorcing each other, and then marrying the other divorced spouse, and sometimes (horribly) even divorcing that spouse only to remarry the first (which, according to the Bible, is an abomination to God), all while supposedly “living for God.”

Instead all I found was some diatribe on the ridiculous. I didn’t read it all. Couldn’t. The little bit I read seemed to be written by a person so narrow-minded that she prejudges conservative viewpoints as false simply because poorly-worded condemnations can be found on the Internet. Ugh.

Considering the horrendous name of the ABC show (wife swap!?!?!) I would reprimand any Apostolic that participated based solely on the name! Let alone whatever real weirdness occurs. We’re “debating” this? Whew. Give me a break.

Pastor Doug Joseph, West Virginia

 

 ninetyandnine.com
© 2007, ninetyandnine.com

 

----------