25 Comments

• 

  Comment by Kelvin — August 28, 2012 @ 5:17 pm

  I am surprised he is taking the time to fill out a form…seeing as it is an archaic form of communication. By the by, very funny.

• 

  Comment by Mark — August 28, 2012 @ 5:55 pm

  He annoyed me at the sideburns. Very funny. If he really wants to be trendy by pretending old school, “person of The Way.”

• 

  Comment by Les — August 28, 2012 @ 7:06 pm

  Good one! Thanks Angus!

• 

  Comment by debra johnsen — August 28, 2012 @ 7:16 pm

  HeHeHe…”I don’t care how missional he is…” LOVE IT!!

• 

  Comment by DaveyMike — August 28, 2012 @ 7:19 pm

  YRN – Young, Restless and No Form.

• 

  Comment by DaveyMike — August 28, 2012 @ 7:24 pm

  YRR – Young, Restless and Rejects Forms. Better fit.

• 

  Comment by Mark Applegate — August 28, 2012 @ 8:57 pm

  If it was good enough for Antioch…

• 

  Comment by Dominic — August 29, 2012 @ 6:00 am

  ‘Christian’ – a term of abuse first coined in written record as the words of Herod (one of them – probably the least nice one ) and hurled at Paul, who didn’t complain. If it is good enough for Paul it is good enough for me. If it is good enough for the Bible it is good enough for me.

  I don’t find either ‘Jesus-follower’ or ‘messianic jew’ there. Call me odd, but I do like to take my lead from the Bible.

  Sorry – I took this one seriously. I’ll try not to next time…

• 

  Comment by Rev. Wayne N. Hill Sr. — August 29, 2012 @ 12:33 pm

  Want to really wrap Young One around the logic pole? Point: Yahweh was/is the God of the JEWS. POINT: Jesus Christ IS the SON of YAHWEH the GOD of the Jews, Jesus was raised a Jew and could not have convert to Christianity, since he is the source of that branch of Yahweh believers. Therefore Jesus Christ was King Of The Jews when he was crucified for all of our sins! Therefore Christians are followers of the Jewish Son of GOD! IE: Christians are Jewish at their roots! The difference is Christians, as taught by Jesus Christ, can only come before GOD by going through his Son, Jesus Christ!
  Amen.

• 

  Comment by Husker — August 29, 2012 @ 7:28 pm

  Outstanding! Thanks for this one.

• 

  Comment by Kate Akele — August 30, 2012 @ 3:57 am

  Love this especially the pun! Isn’t it what the DAMAGENT Church is trying to do today-change forms?(Yep, pun intended!)

• 

  Comment by reformedsteve — August 30, 2012 @ 6:22 am

  Mark Driscoll the Emerging Church years…So glad Carl was able to open that boy’s eyes.

• 

  Comment by Kelvin — August 30, 2012 @ 3:57 pm

  Hey, Kate…

  I have seen this damagent church reference before, but I am out of the loop. What is that supposed to mean?

• Pingback by Link Fest #3. | The Society of Phineas — September 2, 2012 @ 9:03 am

  [...] Sacred Sandwich (now publishing after a hiatus): Form Fitting — Sandwich [...]

• 

  Comment by Kate Akele — September 3, 2012 @ 5:42 am

  Kelvin,
  DAMAGENT Church= Da Emergent Church. It also refers to the spiritual damage being done to the real Christ centred, Christ and Bible loving church by Joel ‘Pepsodent-enabled smile’ Osteen and his ilk with their bizarre and sappy teachings.

• 

  Comment by Angus — September 3, 2012 @ 10:02 am

  I don’t really have a problem with believers calling themselves “Jesus-followers” and I don’t think the term is synonymous with the emerging church movement. I’m just trying to dispel the notion that we as believers can create a more profound or user-friendly label for ourselves. In the end, I think it is foolish (and even a bit arrogant) to believe that the world will accept us more readily if we just change our title as Christians. John wrote that we should not be surprised that the world hates us, and Jesus declared that we will be hated by all for His name’s sake. No matter what label we give ourselves to identify with Christ as the Son of God and our Lord and Savior, we will cultivate no advantage in the eyes of the world. In fact, it will probably irritate the world even more when we try to “rebrand” ourselves.

• 

  Comment by Lydia — September 3, 2012 @ 5:34 pm

  Angus, you’re completely right about the problem with rebranding. And another point is the explicit desire to separate oneself from history. That is touted as a virtue in the desire not to use “Christian,” but it’s actually not a virtue. Christians need their history. The term “Christian” goes all the way back to the early church at Antioch, which is a pretty ancient and prestigious lineage. There is something disquieting about the idea that we should actively and even with a kind of cultural and historical violence separate ourselves from “all of that” and start over again. If anything, the church today needs _more_ of a sense of connection to church history, not less.

• Pingback by Flotsam & Jetsam (9/4) | the Ink Slinger — September 4, 2012 @ 6:47 am

  [...] Form Fitting – Gotta love it. [...]

• 

  Comment by Heather Joy — September 4, 2012 @ 1:51 pm

  This. Was. Fantastic. Love it.

• 

  Comment by Jim Pemberton — September 4, 2012 @ 4:53 pm

  DaveyMike, try this one: “Young, Restless and De-Formed.”

  Forget taking the church back to the NT times, where the term “Christian” originated. He might take the church back to before creation: “…and the Earth was formless and void.”

• 

  Comment by Janis — September 4, 2012 @ 5:51 pm

  A few weeks ago, a political survey organization called and one of the demographic questions they asked me was what religion I am. They gave me a number of options to choose from, including Christian and Born-Again Christian. I thought this was interesting.

  Is Christian now just a cultural term and Born-Again Christian the term “real” Christians are using????

• 

  Comment by kerux1975 — September 4, 2012 @ 11:31 pm

  On the mark. So funny. So true. So tired of of this new brand of denominationalism. Proud to be simply and profoundly Christian.

• 

  Comment by Carol — September 5, 2012 @ 1:04 pm

  Gee, I thought the terms “Jesus Follower” would have been pointless to have on the “form” when you find that he was sporting a “I Love Jesus” tatoo on the arm that wasn’t showing in the picture. That would have showed who he followed!

  And by the way, it’s not “organic” to waste paper by having them fill out forms. There should have been some way via text message that would have obtained the info without using paper! Or perhaps a “Christian mime” could have used hand signals to convey the message….

• 

  Comment by Ballista74 — September 6, 2012 @ 10:59 pm

  I don’t really have a problem with believers calling themselves “Jesus-followers” and I don’t think the term is synonymous with the emerging church movement. I’m just trying to dispel the notion that we as believers can create a more profound or user-friendly label for ourselves.

  Actually, I’ve observed the movement of people away from the “Christian” label has to do because it’s been co-opted by so many in American culture to mean something different than “Jesus-follower”. Lots will just identify themselves as Christian because their parents were, or because they attend church. The phrase “Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.” comes to mind with most that will make this change in definition.

  “Christian” is the user-friendly worldly definition in the minds of those that change this, simply because they have a desire to differentiate themselves from the unregenerate tares that believe they are saved simply because they said a few words, and darken the door of a building once a week (and let me remind you as Paul wrote that works do not save).

• 

  Comment by Dominic Stockford — September 9, 2012 @ 3:43 am

  Regardless of what the unbelieving world (including that which darkens our church doorsteps) might have made of the word, “Christian” is biblical, and I have a quaint and old-fashioned love (!?) for the Bible and what it says.

TrackBack URL

Leave a comment