CRN.Info and Analysis

Source: Verum Serum

Comments: John dissects the Slice view on the only way one can ‘do church’, eschewing laughter, music written while anyone currently living was around, and personal stories by pastors.  He uses two articles by Ingrid contrasting a ‘God-centered’ and a ‘man-centered’ (in her view) church.
Memorable Quotes:

I’ve written about that divide before using some definitions of those terms I found on another site. As I said then, the terms themselves are loaded. In fact, it seems to me that they are little more than code words for a type of church or a particular way of doing church that the Slice authors don’t like. This includes churches that use rock music or praise hymns, pastors who tell jokes, etc.

—

She mentions “hand shaking, back slapping, and occasional loud shrieks of laughter” as if these are out of place at church. Later, she mentions a series of jokes by the pastor. She obviously feels these are out of place as well. Again, I’m fine with her holding that opinion. My problem is when she crosses the line and suggests that God holds it too.

—

To invalidate personal anectdotes as teaching tools is to invalidate most of the Bible itself.

—

Source: Verum Serum

Comments: Part of the hue and cry at Slice is that modern theology is “Man-Centered Theology”, and that anything that brings pleasure or laughter has no part in the church.  John dissects this idead and puts it to rest as only being “wishful thinking” of these modern acetics.
Memorable Quotes:

First off, these are loaded terms. Man-Centered Theology is an oxymoron. So you immediately get the sense that, if both terms were to appear on an exam, it would be unwise to choose the one that sounds sketchy and self-defeating.

—

Or consider fellowship. God clearly establishes the church for the purpose of believers gathering to edify one another. But this begs an obvious question. If theology is ideally God-Centered, why do we need fellowship at all? Why can’t we just focus on God at home? Wouldn’t we be more efficient without all the distractions presented by other people? And here again, I don’t believe fellowship is simply a “work-around” in light of our sinful nature. Had man not sinned, there still would have been fellowship among men and women. It was part of the design. It was good and also enjoyable.

—

I believe the core problem with GCT proponents is that they often seem to see our existence as a somewhat grim, zero-sum game. Under this view, anything which is not God-Centered, anything which is merely human, is in effect a moment stolen from God. I find this wrongheaded. Worse than that, I find it dehumanizing.

—

Source: Lone Prairie Art Works

Comments: Julie finds herself accused of malfeasance by ex-Slice-writer Jim Bublitz, who responds to her with a message (a la Ken) ending with a smiley face.  Julie responds sans the smiling face, so as not to be hypocritical.
Memorable Quotes:

Did you know I have been running a nefarious campaign against a blog I’m no longer allowed to comment on? Did you know that? Did you know I’ve been spending much time finding other sites that are slamming this blog so that I might chime in? That I have nothing better to do in my busy real-life days than huddle over the computer and spread the infectious disease of malcontent?

—

Why do people sign off with a smiley face or a “God Bless You” when they are thinking anything but God’s blessing upon you or their words communicate anything but kindness and smiles? That’s lying. It is.

—

I don’t know which spiritual gift it is that Bublitz has. Which of the spiritual gifts requires arguing people into the ground on a regular basis, or requires the collection of debating ammunition by spending time scouring the web for seeming inconsistencies with which to blast them with and sign off with a smiley face? We needn’t be weak and spineless, but there ought to be control and thought on who and what we lash out against. Knowledge and discernment are one thing, but mixing that with pride and self-assuredness of being “right” creates what I like to call a pompous ass.

Yes, I used a naughty word. This will be taken as a sure sign that I am fallen, vile and vulgar, another symptom of the ills of the modern church that doesn’t think; a person who settles for crass pragmatism, who only uses The Message for serious discussion; a person of no serious literate level with little knowledge, a classic example of why women should just shut up and wear a bonnet. Anyone who knows me, either through my own church or just via blogging or through the Nicaragua stuff or work or my own parents KNOWS - I am sure of this - that I am not such a person. And if they do not know this? Then I have surely failed and Bublitz, who knows me only via bits and bytes on a few blogs was able to, in all his “godly” knowledge and discernment, read me right. I don’t think that’s the case.

—

Source: Verum Serum

Comments: John becomes acquainted with the beginnings of Slice’s selective commenting policy, and its effect of creating a self-validating echo chamber.
Memorable Quotes:

When the 2nd and 3rd comments never appeared on the site, it seemed clear to me that the issue wasn’t technical but one of content. Because I had disagreed with various Slice authors, my comments didn’t see the light of day. (Note: One of my comments was allowed several hours after Jim and I started having our discussion about comment practices at Slice. Jim later claimed that it had been there all along. It hadn’t.)

—

This next line almost made me laugh:

There were commenters on Slice who seemed to make a ‘ministry’ out of shooting everything down.

If there is a more perfect summary of what Slice itself acutally does, I haven’t seen it. Ingrid and Jim have made it their ministry to shoot down every believer they disagree with. Often they do this in the most heavy-handed way, and yet they don’t like the same treatment. Maybe this should tell them something about their approach [It won’t].

—

A little later on we get to the section titled Friendly but Over-the-Top Commenters. Here is where my own part of the story comes up:

There were many good commenters who had better things to say than the Slice authors sometimes, but then a few bad apples would simply go over the top. For example, a while ago a pastor posted a comment that compared Rick Warren to a child molester; he meant it as a hypothetical non-direct comparison, but it caused Slice’s critics to go wild. Their blogs lit up with postings on how “Slice people” compare Rick Warren to child molesters, etc.

Yes, I am proud to say that I did go wild over that absurd comment. The same thread contained another comment comparing Warren to a hit-and-run driver. In fact, my comment in response — stating that this particular individual had gone over the line — was one that Jim says didn’t get posted because out of line. Got that? I went over-the-line by saying this sort of thing was, well, over-the-line. The “child molester” comment however was approved and presumably not-over-the-line by Slice standards.

—

Unfortunately what Jim fails to see is that the problems at Slice go far beyond the comments. Over-the-top is a perfect description of so much of their output. For instance, Ingrid’s comparison of Purpose Driven Ministry to the Soviet Gulag (which I called “flaky”, much to Jim’s consternation) was and is an absurd, over-the-top statement. The comparison of the Catholic church to the “the beast” of revelation just a few days earlier was over-the-top too. If the over-the-top comments deserve to go, so do the over-the-top posts by Jim and Ingrid.

Shutting down the comments won’t begin to address the real problems at Slice. In fact, I’m quite sure it will only make things worse. With the closing off of the site from any and all disagreement, it will become nothing but an echo-chamber for its own brand of Christian-bashing vitriol. This is one Christian blog that I’m happy to slice off my regular reading schedule.

—