Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Ethics 301 Guidelines

This forum is for Christians to discuss ethical issues within Christianity. Non-theists, non-christians, and unorthodox Christians should not post here without first getting permission from the area's moderators.

If you have a question about what's OK and what's not OK, please contact the moderators.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The unwell fall of Falwell

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    When everything quietly goes well we never hear about it.
    While true, I think things are entirely different when it reaches "stardom". I actually do know of a couple (probably more) of a son 'inheriting' his father's ministry, but in local settings - not the world stage.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Perhaps the closest would be Charles (who was also a president of the SBC at one point) and Andy Stanley of the First Baptist Church of Atlanta. While there is something about them that seems kind off off-putting, I've never heard of any sort of controversy or scandal surrounding either.
    Actually, there was quite a bit of war between Charles and Andy.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    When everything quietly goes well we never hear about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Huh. I had never heard of Andy. When Charles was divorced by his wife, the two had a falling out, but it seems they eventually patched things up.
    By way of local reputation Andy delivers excellent sermons and the like. And at least no whiff of potential scandal -- so far. But I wonder if after Charles is gone if we'll see that reflected in the sermons afterwards, although I've heard they have distinct styles...

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Perhaps the closest would be Charles (who was also a president of the SBC at one point) and Andy Stanley of the First Baptist Church of Atlanta. While there is something about them that seems kind off off-putting, I've never heard of any sort of controversy or scandal surrounding either.
    Huh. I had never heard of Andy. When Charles was divorced by his wife, the two had a falling out, but it seems they eventually patched things up.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    I'm trying to think of an instance where it DID go well, but coming up blank.
    Perhaps the closest would be Charles (who was also a president of the SBC at one point) and Andy Stanley of the First Baptist Church of Atlanta. While there is something about them that seems kind off off-putting, I've never heard of any sort of controversy or scandal surrounding either.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

    Unfortunately, the whole "sons of the fathers inheriting religious fiefdoms" doesn't seem to go so well.
    I'm trying to think of an instance where it DID go well, but coming up blank.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    I agree this appears to be a violation of this passage, though I wonder what would happen if Christians widely followed it. Likely unscrupulous businessmen would be posing as Christians to defraud Christians, sort of like how a few people have robbed the Amish knowing they won't resist.


    I have heard some Christians say that if one party isn't acting like a Christian, then it doesn't apply. That doesn't make sense. If we're talking lawsuits, then by definition, at least one party is going to be acting poorly to begin with; so in that case, there would be no need for Paul to issue that warning.

    JP Holding wrote about this passage here, and argued it does not apply to modern Christians necessarily: https://www.tektonics.org/af/brotherlaw.php (I don't necessarily agree; one thing that is noted is that lawsuits would bring shame on the faith. A very public lawsuit like this, which is closely being watched throughout the nation, certainly brings shame on Christianity. Falwell's abhorrent behavior in recent years has been shameful enough.)
    When Ken Ham's power grab at AnswersinGenesis (AiG) caused the organization to split up (with the Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, and South African branches rebranding themselves Creation Ministries International -- CMI), they tried arbitration based on the idea expressed in I Corinthians 6. Can't remember for sure but I think it ended up in court anyways.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Faber View Post

    That would be Falwell Jr. From what I have been reading, I really question whether or not he is a Christian. And apparently I am not the only one here that feels that way.
    Unfortunately, the whole "sons of the fathers inheriting religious fiefdoms" doesn't seem to go so well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Faber
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

    Which of the parties is/are not in that category?
    That would be Falwell Jr. From what I have been reading, I really question whether or not he is a Christian. And apparently I am not the only one here that feels that way.

    Leave a comment:


  • Catholicity
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    How does the Liberty U. lawsuit comport with 1 Cor. 6:1-11?
    This would be applicable to believers but it appears that attempts to reconcile privately resulted in Falwell stealing more money. So... courts are fine to settle this. Also I am not sure that Falwell Jr. is a Christian anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    Originally posted by Faber View Post
    I imagine that passage only applies to Christians.
    Which of the parties is/are not in that category?

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    I agree this appears to be a violation of this passage, though I wonder what would happen if Christians widely followed it. Likely unscrupulous businessmen would be posing as Christians to defraud Christians, sort of like how a few people have robbed the Amish knowing they won't resist.


    I have heard some Christians say that if one party isn't acting like a Christian, then it doesn't apply. That doesn't make sense. If we're talking lawsuits, then by definition, at least one party is going to be acting poorly to begin with; so in that case, there would be no need for Paul to issue that warning.

    JP Holding wrote about this passage here, and argued it does not apply to modern Christians necessarily: https://www.tektonics.org/af/brotherlaw.php (I don't necessarily agree; one thing that is noted is that lawsuits would bring shame on the faith. A very public lawsuit like this, which is closely being watched throughout the nation, certainly brings shame on Christianity. Falwell's abhorrent behavior in recent years has been shameful enough.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Faber
    replied
    I imagine that passage only applies to Christians.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    started a topic The unwell fall of Falwell

    The unwell fall of Falwell

    How does the Liberty U. lawsuit comport with 1 Cor. 6:1-11?
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X