Or – “Responding to Ingrid’s Response to ‘Anonymous’ Critics Whom She Won’t Respond To”

Phase I – Digging a Hole

Well, if that title isn’t a bit confusing to you, more power to ya. An interesting few days, it has been… For the unaware, a minor blogstorm was set off earlier this week by Mrs. Schlueter of Slice fame, when she posted an article on a parody blog I noticed a few weeks back entitled “Patrick Lane: Be a Man“. Since I became a part of the storm late yesterday, I’ve allowed myself a night to sleep on it, while my wife discussed predestination with a Calvinist, and a day to work before blogging on it.

What was simply amazing about Ingrid’s article was the combination chutzpah and obtuseness that went into it, and the feeding frenzy that ensued. To wit:

• The basic premise of the article was that Patrick Lane, who started the blog, was somehow hiding behind a woman’s nome-de-plumme out of some desire to be anonymous. And so, to ‘out’ him, Ingrid was performing a service. What made this funny was that Patrick’s pseudonym, Christen Guilder, is an anagram of Ingrid Schlueter, which he spelled out back on December 22. To anyone paying attention, it was obviously parody, and the anagram was pretty hard to miss (as the same was done with Ken Silva’s name and others). So, Ingrid’s basic premise was shot before the gate opened.
• Ingrid then attempted to make this parody part of her assault on the favorite Slice boogeyman, the Emergent Church. She wrote
  

  If I as a woman am willing to take flak for what I believe, surely a man should be able to handle it. That’s the problem with the new emerging church version of masculinity. To write in a filthy manner about a Christian woman is considered truly masculine. Yet this individual is such a coward he won’t even use his own name, but rather assumes the bogus name of a woman.

  And this

  I want to thank Patrick for once again underscoring the moral squalor and essential effeminacy of a movement that is in rebellion to the Word of God.

  And this

  I noticed that the site included emergent big guy Dan Kimball on his blogroll. I wonder if Dan Kimball would approve of the vulgarity if it was his wife being written about in this manner and not me? That’s some emerging conversation, boys.

  (Just to note, I in no way condone much of the crudity on the parody site, as I noted in my previous article…) Why is this interesting, though? Patrick Lane has no ties to any emergent church, and he claims no affiliation to one, which he documented on his reply to Ingrid. It was pure assumption on Ingrid’s part. Should we expect that she will correct this? Should we expect that the Cubs will win the 2007 World Series?

• The commentator-sharks of the ‘amen chorus’ climbed aboard, one of them posting Patrick’s personal contact information, including address and phone number, sparking a bit of outrage. This doesn’t really bother me all that much, as the information was readily available via WHOIS (the same way that one can get information on Slice writers, etc.). What made it interesting was Ingrid’s later hypocrisy in complaining about our posting Ken’s church phone number (public record – Google it) and his place of business (which he has written about on occasion). The commenters also jumped on the ‘bash-the-ECM’ bandwagon, and added all sorts of sillyness of their own. As part of the commentary over at E-What?, Coop wisely noted:
  

  From the comments [at Slice]

  In my eyes, Ingrid, you are more of a man than most Christian men.

  And that is meant to be a compliment of some sort; sn’t it just becoming ever so difficult to differentiate between Slice of Laodicea and its parody? Where is the Pastoral Advisor to SoL when you need him most or when you most need him?

So, as a result of the furor over her post, she pulled it off the main Slice page, but, as of this writing, it still exists and is searchable. This is nothing new for Ingrid “Don’t Push Me Steve” Schlueter, who may pull items off the main page, but won’t actually retract them, and will allow them to float out there in the Google-able internet. What makes this somewhat humorous is that the article she won’t completely remove or print a retraction of makes he look more foolish than her object of ridicule.

Phase II: The Non-Retraction

In the next phase of the storm, Ingrid posted an article called “A Few Thoughts“, Ingrid tried to backpedal and save face, making clear that she is not printing a retraction, but not making it clear why she pulled her first article. In it, she compounds her previous error and then adds a few lengths of rope with which to hang herself later.

Her first point in writing was thus described by her:

Patrick’s vulgarities written about me demonstrated with great clarity just how sick many in the emerging church movement really are.

As previously pointed out, Patrick is not at all affiliated with any emergent church (some posts on other sites seem to indicate that he is a liberal main-line attender), but that really doesn’t matter to Slice. Where there’s hay to be made, you know… I will wholeheartedly agree that there were crude things on that site, things that were just as offensive as many of things posted on Slice. Yet – not emergent. She noted before that Dan Kimball was on Patrick’s blogroll, seeming to indicate this as her ‘evidence’ of emergent-ness. At best, she’s making a guilt-by-association here. If you are going to hold people accountable for what people who link to their blogs write… (I won’t even get started here…)

Her next point to Patrick was this:

The illusion of anonymity on the web causes people to behave in ways that they otherwise wouldn’t. But that anonymity is, after all, just an illusion. I wanted Patrick to know that he can’t hide for long behind a bogus name while writing moral filth about someone else, all the while claiming to be a Christian.

Once again, she still missed the point of the anagram, and the fact that Patrick hadn’t really gone to any lenghts to make himself ‘anonymous’. I also include this quote for a reason I will get to here in a bit… She next notes that

That’s all we’ll be saying here at Slice about Patrick’s site or the other similar sites that have been created. I simply won’t read them.

This too, will become somewhat humorously contradicted about 24 hours later. She finishes off her article with one of the kindest things I think she’s ever written about the ECM (despite her target having nothing to do with the ECM).

Let’s stay single-minded and let God handle things. After all, these people are not the enemy. They have sadly been captured by him.

It is very difficult reading this without succumbing to the desire to go into depth about how Ingrid and Slice are all about not letting God handle things, and how these people are the enemy and not merely deceived brothers. But I won’t. In the comments section, Nathan slipped one by that I somehow doubt would have made it past the filter if the person approving it were a bit sharper:

Also, I do think it is good to ignore the extreme fringe of critics who only attack on a personal level and ignore substantial discussion about the real issues. I think that goes both ways. =)

Indeed, Nathan. Indeed. I see what you did there…

Phase III: Responding To Sites She Doesn’t Read

From Ingrid’s article, one would surmise that this is the last we’ll hear from her on the topic. One might also surmise that the moon is made of green cheese. About 24 hours later, Ingrid posted an article called “Anonymous Critics Can’t Be Taken Seriously” – an article about this blog, Sliced, and how we’re somehow trying to maintain anonymity. This was based upon a cut and paste error on a post from a few days back, which I’ve now corrected.

Dispite this cut and paste error, the author’s name (me or John, right now) is on all original posts on this site (in the interest of fairness, I had to update the author field on one other article), and I’ve made my involvement no secret since day one, posting links on several sites, including an entire post about it on my own blog. My name (Chris Lyons), location (Zionsville, Indiana), church, myspace page, and other information are all easily obtained from my blog. No attempts at anonymity here, or on John Draper’s part, either.

So what did Ingrid have to say?

I was made aware this afternoon that yet another emergent website has ripped off the name of Slice of Laodicea for purposes of criticism and attack of this blog and its contributors. What was interesting to me was once again, the refusal of anybody to sign their actual name to their attacks!

Let’s see what her batting record is here:

• Emergent? Nope. I’m a lifelong member of the independent Christian churches in the Restoration Movement of the early 1800’s. John is a member at Saddleback. While our blogroll has some emerging church links, the bulk of our content comes from non-EC sites like Verum Serum, Fishing the Abyss and Lone Prairie Art Works
• Purpose of criticism and attack? Critisicm, yes, but not so much attack as to hold up a mirror to Slice in hopes of them seeing their true ‘witness’ and to help educate those Slice or its minions try to strongarm (for a full explanation, read our ‘about‘ page).
• Refusal to sign our names? Nope.

That’s 1 out of 3, Ingrid, and a tenuous 1 at that. Next, she wrote -

They did, however, see fit to list Rev. Ken Silva’s home phone number, town where he lives and place of employment under their FAQ’s about our contributors.

Less than 24 hours after someone did the exact same thing to Patrick Lane (read Phase I above) in comments moderated by Slice, Ingrid has the gall to complain about this. Wow. The hypocrisy is staggering. As I noted above, Patrick’s name and information was easily available via WHOIS, and Ken’s contact information (the phone # belongs to his church) via a single Google search on his church , so posting it isn’t rocket science or nefarious. The chutzpah it takes to do it one day and complain about it the next, though, is pure Slice.

Next, Ingrid complained about the letter we wrote to Dr. Frank Page (for which we received a nice reply), saying:

Not only did they place this information on the web but also posted a letter they wrote, slandering Pastor Ken Silva and his research to Dr. Frank Page, President of the Southern Baptist Convention. (Psst. Bright minds don’t usually provide their own evidence of slander on the world wide web.)

Pssst, Ingrid. Bright minds usually understand that slander is false information, and providing links to articles written by numerous folks about Mr. Silva’s well-documented foibles hardly constitutes slander. Also, to call what Ken included in his letter ‘research’ is an insult to high school seniors writing papers for English Lit.

All of this is par for the course when dealing with emergents who for some reason have found this blog to be a threat to them.

Once again – not emergent. But, if you might as well beat your dead horse since it isn’t going anywhere all that fast. In order to make this statement correct, a few changes would be in order:

All of this is par for the course when dealing with emergents Christians who, for some reason, have found this blog broad-brush slander of entire groups of Christians, and individuals within those groups, to be a threat to them God-honoring unity (not just for appearances’ sake) in the body of Christ.

There, with those changes, the statement would now be more correct. What else did she have to say?

We publicly outed the author of one such site who chose to hide behind a bogus name, a woman’s no less. There appears to be a real shortage of character among these men.

*Sigh* Why let such messy things like facts get in the way of your arguments? No hiding here. No hiding with Patrick. Missing the point of Patrick’s anagram still. Also, you keep making the point that he was using a woman’s name. As a severe traditionalist/fundamentalist, Ingrid, I wonder how you justify/rationalize the authority you try to project upon men of God? Does it come from the same book which allows Mr. Silva to demand respect as a ‘pastor’ while he shows zero respect for other pastors?

And then there’s this little rant against the non-existent emergents who were writing about Ingrid’s site:

The second irony in these blogs is that their very purpose is to judge, attack and criticize a blog that they claim judges, attacks and criticizes others. I want to publicly thank these emergents for exposing the myth of judgment vs. no judgment. There will always be judgment of beliefs. The question is always, by what standard do you judge? Unlike the emerging church defenders, we have an objective standard. It’s called the Word of God. These men have no such standard. They have their own preferences, their imaginations, their own opinions borrowed from their favorite emerging authors.

Ingrid, our standard is the Bible. Our standard is not systematic theology, but the Gospel of faith in Jesus and the faith of Jesus. As such, nothing riles us more than self-proclaimed religious authorities who seek to slam the door in the faces of those who seek God- modern-day Pharisees and Sadducees who judge by external appearances, and who do not practice what they preach. We seek to defend our brothers in the church who are being mischaracterized and slandered by folks like Ken Silva. We seek to defend our brothers who are set upon by self-righteous folks who castigate them for externals – such silly things as what building they worship in, what music they worship God with, what clothes they wear (maintaining modesty), whether they invite Christian comedians to their churches on a weeknight, and other trivialities you commonly mock. We seek to defend Christian brothers bullied by gossip-mongering busybodies who play guilt-by-association every time a new conference is announced. We desire justice, mercy and faithfulness in the midst of persecution from within the church, and a desire for shalom that you and your site have no real interest in.

We also seek, as did Jesus, to hold up a mirror to the Pharisees of our day, not to judge or attack, but in hopes they will repent.

At this point, Ingrid goes off on a huge tangent, bringing in Brian McLaren (who I am on record a number of places as being in disagreement with in terms of hell and in universalism), and calling down curses upon the emergent church. Despite her attempts to smear our brothers in Christ who consider themselves to be emerging/emergent, we are not them, and I am fairly certain this has been made clear enough here and elsewhere. Ingrid, will you repent of your attacks on them through us? Will you admit your error in supposing we desired anonymity? Will you admit your error in assuming we were emergent? I hope so, but I fear you will not.

Now, she starts to wind down:

My call to the emerging church fans who create attacks blog is this–stop the hypocrisy! You say we have no love for others and you sign your communiques with “Grace and Peace”.

OK. I signed my letter to Dr. Page ‘Grace and Peace’, and I meant it. I desire everyone would receive God’s grace, and that His peace would come. While we fight within, this will not come about, which is why we only exist as long as your unwarranted attacks do – to hold the mirror and hope for repentence. You do often come up with good stories (like with the whole ‘funds for souls’ deal, Pat Robertson’s silly predictions, the scary athiest site and others). However, in areas where grace can be extended and discussion may occur, or in areas where actual sinful behavior may be pursued via Matthew 18 and Galatians 6, that they may be – without all of the sanctimonious recrimination and accuasation – restored to the flock, this does not occur at your site, and it makes a mockery of Christ. The sins of the Pharisees Jesus railed against were exclusionary and legalistic, and in this, we try to be like Him.

She finishes with this:

So, anonymous critics, I’m sorry I cannot listen to your concerns when you refuse to even sign your name to the attacks you write. Anonymous critics cannot be taken seriously. You know who I am. I give my name each time I write. I stand by what I have said and I urge you to show the same strength of conviction. It’s time for you to come out of the bushes and quit yourselves like men, as the Bible says. If you can’t bring yourselves to do that, it’s time to take a look at the heart issues that prevent you from standing behind your beliefs.

We are not anonymous, and I offer my apology for seeming so – it was never my desire (as I’ve mapped out above). My name is attached to this post and the others I’ve written at this site and my own. Will you apologize for your misunderstanding in this matter?

Phase IV: An Odd Coda

There’s a bit of a post-storm flurry, where this website has come up: Goatees and Funky Glasses. It is a site that either Ingrid or her son put together a long while back (in internet time) mocking and parodying the Emergent Church. The blog owner does not identify himself/herself, but uses the blog handle Kyrie66, which was Ingrid’s handle on the original Slice. Eventually, it came out that she blogged about it on Slice back when it was created, and she wrote:

The site is pure satire. I’ve decided to keep adding posts regarding various aspects of emergent nonsense. Satire is highly instructive as it shows the foolishness of what you’re skewering!

So, at least at that time, Ingrid claimed to be posting to it. I wonder how this is any different than what she was accusing Patrick of: Anonymity? Check. Parody/Satire? Check. Crude mischaracterization? Check. Possible gender-bending pseudonym? Check.

Hypocrisy? Check.

Source: beChurch

Comments: John Griffin writes to Slice in regards to their open letter to ‘anonymous’ bloggers (who aren’t anonymous).  He takes probably a better approach than we have, hoping to engage them in face-to-face discussion.  I don’t know how fruitful it will be, but it is a well-thought-out, well-written article that succinctly boils down the essence of Slice.

Memorable Quotes:

I mentioned that the site is not really a blog. Let me explain: there are two kinds of blogs – those that just post news, and those that allow comments. Either one of those methods are fine. But Slice does not function like that.

They allow comments, but those comments are HEAVILY moderated (read censored). The comments that Ingrid and the other contributors tend to post are either a) supporting their positions or b) rude or easy-to-shoot-down arguments from those they disagree with.

Posts that disagree with them and cite specific reasons, scripture and are respectful and designed to bring peace are simply ignored.

The thing that’s made me most upset is that sometimes, they’ll allow you to post something that 10 people jump on – accusing and ridiculing the post. Then, if you try to respond with clarification or humility, they simply don’t post it. They “spin” posts to continue the vitriolic exchanges and don’t even allow you to defend yourself.

If you complain about it, they ban you. If you try to get around the ban, they ban your whole IP range. They’ve made a lot of people very angry using these tecniques – and then they claim to be “persecuted” for their actions – when their unfair, un-Christian approach to things is often at the root.

—

Here’s what Kyrie66 had to say over at pomomusings:

I host a syndicated radio show and have to say your original profane comments on the Lighthouse Trails site pretty much sums up why we now have “emergent” leaders like . . .Posted by: Kyrie66 | 21 February 2005 at 11:21 AM

Yep, Slice readers, you guessed it. Our own Ingrid, incensed at so called anonymous bloggers, uses the same parody anonymity to make her points, even has a blog by the name of http://www.goatees.blogspot.com/.

Goatees? Ingrid, are you trying to disguise yourself as a man? For shame!!