umm like best song on the album maybe?
wrong nerds i’m listening to new one direction and THAT’S music so like
"Amuse-Gueule #3: All Shook Up" (Gina Telaroli, 2013)
Gina Telaroli's wondrous experimental video essay on John Carpenter's Elvis. It’s being hosted over at The Vulgar Cinema for their series on Carpenter; check it out there for some instructive thoughts on spaces and frames to complement the work.
Stromboli (Rossellini, 1950) / The Bridges of Madison County (Eastwood, 1995)
Really need to learn to not engage in these ridiculous conversations with Evangelicals who think the Church was born in 1517.
Everything he says makes me want to pull my hair out.
Wait then what did God use to save before the concept of a “sermon” as we know it existed? Because until the last 400 years the Eucharist was the center of the Christian worship service not a time of teaching.
So does God change his nature or do you not understand church history Driscoll? I’m getting mixed messages.
I’m pretty sure you two are missing the point. It’s not about what the building looks like or what symbols they use, but the message that’s being taught there.
Yeah he could have worded it a little better but I have the feeling you two have a prejudice that is overriding your ability to simplify what he’s saying.
No I’m not missing the point of this. Or at least I don’t think I am. What Driscoll was implying was a slight to many Catholic and Orthodox churches who have a high emphasis on symbolism as their way to connect with God and the mystery around that that ties into their tradition (which outdates any Protestant tradition by over 1000 years)
I mean I do have an anti-Driscoll bias, and he might have a slight point that at many churches you might not hear Jesus at the church, but his point about a Sermon being central to God saving people is foolish and discounts Centuries of church action and tradition before.
Still doesn’t change the fact that a symbol is not what saves you, which is the key point of this. Jesus’ death and resurrection took the pomp and circumstance away from the Jewish leaders. And then the Catholic Church just brought it all back.
There’s a lot of the Catholic Church (and the Mormon Church too because they do a lot of the same things) that involves ceremony and symbols and things that do nothing but create a level of idol worship that distracts people from actually worshiping God.
So say what you will about what he’s “insulting”, but you can’t deny that the cliche of “it’s what’s on the inside that counts” is the message of his post.
you are operating from a purely protestant point of view, and that ‘s just not how an understanding of church history functions.
your first point assumes some form of substitionary atonement, and this isn’t the place to debate that- it’s not particularly relevant. though know there are many atonement theories outside of reformed thinking.
And who are you to say that Catholicism, and Orthodox churches (No need to bring Mormonism into this point) don’t have a point to their approach until you understand the reasoning for every tradition and element they include in the service? Just because a practice is very simple does not at all eliminate the legitimacy of a complex very symbolic service, and to claim idol worship is a very high form of overreaction if not just incorrect.
It’s the inside that counts for the person. Yes, but that doesn’t diminish the legitimacy of tradition.
Seriously, if you’re actually concerned with “a level of idol worship that distracts people” then you should be running for the hills from the bizarre, obsessively masculine cult of personality that Driscoll has developed in his growing church-and-marketing Empire.
Donovan’s Reef (John Ford, 1963)
Donovan’s Reef (John Ford, 1963)