Comments on: Christian Affirmation – A Closer Look http://www.tysonkirksey.com/2005/05/christian-affirmation-a-closer-look/ Something funny should go here... Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:57:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Greg McKinzie http://www.tysonkirksey.com/2005/05/christian-affirmation-a-closer-look/comment-page-1/#comment-41 Greg McKinzie Wed, 05 Oct 2005 06:14:15 +0000 http://www.tysonkirksey.com/?p=5#comment-41 I suppose at this point you are willing to agree that we are a denomination among many. I also figure you don't think 'denomination' is as dirty a word as our tradition's forebares did. So at last we take our stand shoulder to shoulder with all the rest of Christianity, making a muck of Bible interpretation. Of course, as a denomination we--no less than any other--have a distinctive community identity that may or may not be worth preserving. Having finally left behind the impulse toward uniformity, however, we ought to be leaning more on the side of preserving our identity as a contributing voice to the aforementioned muck. That is, if we are a denomination, we are so because we have a distinctive voice. In that case we are talking about our tradition here (ironic isn't it? surely not what the framers of the "affirmation" had in mind), and our tradition, in both inertretation and practice, has been acapella. In fact, more than any other thing acapella defines and distinguishes our movement from other evangelical churches who would esteem both baptism and communion. Certainly this is not to affirm a sectarianism rooted in something so, as you note, questionable. But as far as identity goes, I'd say the affirmation is on the mark. I only pray that all for all of those men the most important identity markers were not mentioned because they are so deeply assumed. Now if you want the real irony, note the sources of argumentation for acapella. Rather than scripture, it's tradition, particularly Calvin! Well, thank God they didn't affirm a hermeneutic of silence. I'd be less sympathetic in that case. I suppose at this point you are willing to agree that we are a denomination among many. I also figure you don’t think ‘denomination’ is as dirty a word as our tradition’s forebares did. So at last we take our stand shoulder to shoulder with all the rest of Christianity, making a muck of Bible interpretation. Of course, as a denomination we–no less than any other–have a distinctive community identity that may or may not be worth preserving. Having finally left behind the impulse toward uniformity, however, we ought to be leaning more on the side of preserving our identity as a contributing voice to the aforementioned muck. That is, if we are a denomination, we are so because we have a distinctive voice. In that case we are talking about our tradition here (ironic isn’t it? surely not what the framers of the “affirmation” had in mind), and our tradition, in both inertretation and practice, has been acapella. In fact, more than any other thing acapella defines and distinguishes our movement from other evangelical churches who would esteem both baptism and communion. Certainly this is not to affirm a sectarianism rooted in something so, as you note, questionable. But as far as identity goes, I’d say the affirmation is on the mark. I only pray that all for all of those men the most important identity markers were not mentioned because they are so deeply assumed.

Now if you want the real irony, note the sources of argumentation for acapella. Rather than scripture, it’s tradition, particularly Calvin! Well, thank God they didn’t affirm a hermeneutic of silence. I’d be less sympathetic in that case.

]]>