In response to Daniel's article:
You should have listened to some of those poor dear sinners whose opinions and feelings you seem so worried about. Frankly, had Hubert not been just as he was, he'd never have got a word in at all. I have some recordings of him on campus, and those kids had the nastiest, filthiest mouths, and the least respect for anything or anyone I've ever seen--and believe me, I've seen a lot.
I really wish some folks who make so much noise about his abrasiveness would consider how holier-than-thou such comments come across to those of us who have been on some of the same front lines and suffered as he did. We keep looking for these 'critics' out there to give us a hand, but even when they show up, the first day is usually their last. They get one whiff of the stench flowing from the open mouths of the lost, and hightail it for that safe little church sanctuary. I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.
I mean, really, if we aren't willing to put our neck on the line for the gospel, shouldn't we at least refrain from shallow critique of those that do? Seems fair and...kind, doesn't it? Or do we only reserve kindness and fairness for sinners, in complete contradiction of the scripture that says, "Unto the household of faith FIRST"? Frankly, it's shameful behavior to criticize those doing things we don't or won't. Or, as Jesus told the Pharisees: to bind burdens on men's backs that they themselves wouldn't move with their little fingers.
It's like sinners thinking they have the right to criticize Christians. Does the person who makes absolutely no effort to live up to a standard have the right to criticize those that do? Even if they fail? No, and it's quite hypocritical in reality, but people get by with it because no one bothers to think it through--or say the truth if they DO think it through, for fear of attack--attack in the kindest of Christian tones, of course. I mean, God forbid anyone should accuse us of being a 'bad Christian'! They said more than that about Paul, and Christ Himself, so you'd think those claiming to follow Him would, uh, kind of EXPECT that. Even from among some who themselves claim to be Christians. Evidently... *sigh*
I can also tell you that, I met Hubert, and while he told the truth (which surprisingly few 'believers' seem to feel is any part of their call), he was quite amiable and kindly forthright in person (probably because he was ALLOWED TO BE, not attacked before he could even open his mouth, as the campus crowds he preached to were prone to do), and truly humble as well--something I've had a great deal of trouble finding in the ranks of the 'kinder gentler' brand of 'Christian', in all honesty--along with honesty.
Hey, I'll take Hubert's brand of love--which includes honesty and self-examination FOR ALL, not just those who 'like it', but those who NEED IT--any day. It makes for much better people in the long run. But thanks for sharing that unfortunately unoriginal and very common among the religious and NON religious (which one would think would give us cause to pause and examine the source) sentiment.
BTW, in studying scriptural love, the NT word for God's love is 'agape' which refers to a sense of moral and social responsibility, NOT FEELINGS. The word for the touchy-feely kind of love is phileo, and it is set forth in the NT as MAN'S love, which is also as changeable as man's next feeling--and so not too reliable. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Jesus say that those who worship God MUST worship Him in Spirit and in TRUTH? Not a word about likes or dislikes, or anyone's feelings about the matter. In fact, study out the Greek on the words 'damning heresy' sometime. You'll find they refer to a damning opinion, preference or SENTIMENT.
Almost leads one to think God expects us to get to know Him as He is--or 'I Am' if you'll pardon the reference. As if by allowing our preferences, our opinions or our sentiments to get in the way of that, we remain mere acquaintances rather than intimate friends. Oh, wait--there we go again. Where Jesus says to some who claim to have known Him, "depart from Me, I never knew you"--the Greek word there means He never knew them INTIMATELY. He'd only made their acquaintance...and no doubt seen them in passing as they pursued their preferences, opinions or feelings on their way right by Him.
By all these references, Hubert seems to have been far more on track than your own--and most people's--idea of 'what a Christian should be', doesn't he? Add this to your consideration as well: 2Co 3:12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
plainness of speech: parrhēsia
par-rhay-see'-ah
From G3956 and a derivative of G4483; all out spokenness, that is, FRANKNESS, BLUNTNESS, publicity; by implication assurance: - bold (X -ly, -ness, -ness of speech), confidence, X freely, X openly, X plainly (-ness). (From the Strong's, G3954, capitalization mine)
Comments like the one you made above put me in mind of a meeting Hubert attended. The speaker got up and ran down the Jesus movement. He talked about these 'dirty hippie Jesus freaks' and their long hair and dirty feet. Hubert got up and spoke next. He told that man that he could speak disparagingly about that long hair and those dirty feet--but he'd seen the blood run down that long hair for the testimony of Christ and the gospel. And, he added, they didn't have dirty feet--they were washed!
Hubert's feet were washed too, brother. And who are any of us to criticize the Hand that washed them or the job that Hand did? You don't feel led to do the things Hubert did--that's between you and God. But you criticizing how and the way God called Hubert is between HIM and God. Kindly extend him the same kind of courtesy you would like for yourself. And allowing Christ to lead His own flock would be a nice thing to see, too.
You comment that you have no room for the kind of Christianity that 'doesn't allow you to listen to other people'. Just by reading your critique I can see that you did not know Hubert, nor did you ever take the time to find out what he was REALLY like, as opposed to how he SEEMED to be to you, in all the glory of your unexamined assumptions and stereotypical thinking about 'how a Christian should act'. There is not a shred of any kind of examination, such as that I provided above, as to how Hubert thought or why he may have acted as he did. You do manage to damn him with faint praise: big of you from your standpoint, I suppose.
I trust, friend, that this isn't too blunt for you too. Sure seems Hubert was. ;-)
