Ingrid continues on her nit-picking campaign. This one is just as outrageous as the last. She begins her post with the following statement,
If you wonder why the church is such a carnal mess these days, looking at the pastors will provide some clues.
What is the carnality that these men have brought into the church you ask!?! Is it sexual misconduct? Is it heresy? Is it new age practices? No, it’s Superman!
Thant’s right these men have been accused of answering the following question on their church website: Who would win in a fight, Superman and Batman. Senior pastor Lance Hahn answers, “Hands down Superman because he really has powers. Batman’s a regular dude. Although in my book, Batman’s way more interesting.â€
Their other big offense that proves why the church is a carnal mess? The executive Pastor’s favorite movie is Snatch. Which he acknowledges is a “Great film if you can get past the 493 F-bombs! (This film is rated R and neither endorsed nor sanctioned by Bridgeway Christian Church or its corporate officers).†This doesn’t exactly sound like a carnal mess to me, especially when they are speaking out against profanity.
My bigger problem? In my early one on one discussions with several members of CRN and other watchdog sites, they stressed the fact that they were exposing these men and women because they were influencing people on a national / global level. That it was no longer a local church issue because it has now come to their front door. But, has anyone heard of Bridgeway Christian Church in Rockin, CA? How bout Late Night Healing Place? Maybe South Hills Church in Corona, CA rings a bell… anyone?
>
anyone?
The fact is that this site has now become a doctrinal Gestapo, roaming through the internet looking for any picture, blog or comment on a church’s site that they disagree with. They are no longer just going after the big guys, but are attacking even the small unknown ministries in America. Either Ingrid has just gone crazy, or she is running out of material.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
53 Comments(+Add)
You know I feel very badly for Ingrid. Where is the joy in her life? Unless it is in tearing down other ministries she doesn’t agree with, I don’t see it in any of her blog postings. (and if that is where she gets her joy, then even more reason to feel badly for her)
I’m wondering if the last few months where she has been quiet on Slice 2.0 if there isn’t something going on. I am concerned for her. I disagree with most of what she writes, but I am concerned for her.
I think you are the ones running out of material.
Now we have blogger psycho-analysis.
Better a nitpicker than a nitwit.
your responses get deeper and deeper Chris. It seems like all of you guys over there are running out of material. Sad.
I don’t know if she felt inspired or what, but Ingrid managed to spin her tortured logic and non sequiturs into an entire column for Christian Worldview Network, the same outfit that gives intellectual giant Dwayna Litz a platform to wax hysterical:
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/1896/Ingrid_Schlueter
All this from a couple of web pages. And of course, the great evil is the…(wait for it)…EMERGING CHURCH!
What I don’t understand is why these people think it’s productive to go fault-finding in the Church at large, when they obviously have no control over it. Worrying about things you have no control over is the sure way to a nervous breakdown.
The other thing that I find funny, if not ironic, is that by pointing these ministries and authors out they are giving them free publicity to some extent. I can’t speak for others, but I know for myself, if I see an author criticized on that site it kind makes me want to go buy his or her book and read it for myself.
From Ingrid’s latest post, promoting her column in CWN:
“Tell that to a generation of Christians that has only known hardship as the 3 minutes they are required to wait when their local Starbucks runs out of fresh joe and has to brew more.”
This is funny coming from some one in suburban middle America whose greatest danger is receiving a contrary e-mail or two and getting criticized in the comment section of a blog.
Boundless hypocrisy.
After dilineating the outward appearance of the American male and the immaturuty of the average pastor Ingrid concludes this,
“The result is a flourishing of false doctrine, the spreading of carnality and ultimately, the loss of souls for all eternity.”
Since I assume Ingrid is a Calvinist how can she claim these modern trends result in the loss of souls for all eternity? The reason they are lost has nothing to do with anybody or any false doctrine, it is because God didn’t choose them – or so I thought she believed.
But it makes good watchwoman melodrama when you need it.
“The reason they are lost has nothing to do with anybody or any false doctrine, it is because God didn’t choose them”
Someone needs to make a study of Calvinism, or better yet the Biblical doctrine of God’s sovereign election. Exactly where did Israel make a decision to become God’s chosen (elect)?
Or maybe, Ken, election just isn’t all that helpful a doctrine to tie your boat to when it comes to practicing what Jesus preached.
Once again, Ken proves our point beautifully. The writers at CRN really shouldn’t care becaues God elects feely, and we have no choice. So ultimately the elect can never fall away. Why then warn people of the evil dangers than can lead someone into apostasy when the elect will never be lead into apostasy?
But, then again their use of logic isn’t always the best.
Phil,
If it wasn’t for Ken, I would have never found RelevantChristian. Now, I contribute to them. Ditto for a couple other sites. It’s one of my best resources for finding good stuff.
Peace!
P.S.
Ken Silva, I hope your day emerges to be your best yet!
ken,
My point exactly. God’s election is a mystery and did Abram have the God given ability to say no? Of course even if he did God knew it and he would complete his plan with someone else.
The elephant in the room is that if Calvinism is true than the ministry of false doctrine warning is without purpose. The ones to whom the warning goes cannot understand and the ones who already understand don’t need it.
Rick,
When you say, “The elephant in the room is that if Calvinism is true than the ministry of false doctrine warning is without purpose,” this shows that you don’t realy understand so-called “Calvinism.”
Frankly, the big problem is using the terms Calvinism and/or Arminianism because those names usually end up being red herrings in any discussion about God’s absolute sovereignty. The fact is that the “gospel” preached by those in the idol of $evangelicalism$ is actually a twisted version of Arminianism which only exacerbates this problem.
I suggest you get the CD Dr. John MacArthur did on “election” and maybe he can help you understand the issues better. Your idea of “epiphany” expressed earlier is on the right track. But I’d suggest the better word to use would be “illumination.”
Alright… I am going to say it.
Calvinism, when its logic is followed through, is fatalism.
Ken, please answer these questions (since we all have a bad view of Calvinism):
1. Is it possible for someone who is elect and saved to eventually loose their faith after being led astray by false doctrine?
2. Will false doctrine deter someone who is elect from eventually being saved?
I am pretty sure that the Calvinist answer is NO AND NO. Therefore, as a Calvinist, your whole ministry is pointless.
Ken, I understand Calvinism as you understand Arminianism, both of which are general terms. I agree with you that the watered down version of the gospel is to be blamed mostly on people who would espouse Arminianism.
But let me give you the only reasonable answer to my observation about being a watchman in the Calvinistic persuasion and the purposeless implications.
Answer: “Yes, it does seem like that in the natural, and why God would direct us to speak the concerns we do seems useless to our finite minds, but it is a glorious mystery in which our participation can only be obedience by faith whether or not God every reveales His full purposes to us or not. I hope that answers your question because it is all I have.”
I am not a Calvinist but if I was that is what I would say, not that people don’t understand Calvinism. There are some Arminians who used to be Calvinists so it really isn’t a matter of understanding. If Calvinism is revealed one day in heaven as the truth, then every humble Calvinist must admit that there is an incongruency in the natural which can only be explained as a mystery held in the Godhead. If Calvin had it right.
“as a Calvinist, your whole ministry is pointless.”
*sigh* As I have said on many, I am not a Calvinist.
“As I have said on many, I am not a Calvinist.”
So why did you link to a seven part series on “Why I am a Calvinist?”
Part 1
Part 2
Part 4
And so on….
For not being a Calvinist, you sure do spend a lot of time talking about how you’re one.
I am not going to argue over whether or not you are a Calvinist. However, from your writings it would appear that you subscribe to the five doctrines on Grace (TULIP). We can argue about the semantics, but it seems that you agree with the five points.
Besides that… would you answer the questions?
something tells me that this “non-Calvinist” “pastor” (who just happens to post articles entitled “Why I am a Calvinist”) isn’t going to be able to answer the questions.
kaw
kaw
kaw
kaaaaaw.
such shrieking from the discerning lady.
Chris P.,
3 things:
First, a question:
Taking Ingrid, etc. out of it…
Do you think there is any merit to making a big deal out of a silly picture that was not obscene in any way? Yes or no.
Second, another question:
In the recent comments from Dwanya, do you think the name of a conference center really has any spiritual bearing on the content of a conference or is it just coincidence?
Third, a comment:
Better a nitpicker than a nitwit?
Better neither.
That strikes me as a miserable way to see things. Is it ever better to be accusatory and strain at gnats? Serious disagreement about substance is fine, but nitpicking? I don’t get that.
Chris P. – always the brother with the encouraging word….
Let’s see the psycho-analysis from ingrid…..like this gem:
“Such a concept is now discarded by many grown men who toddle down the streets of America in sports jerseys with giant, 64-ounce sippy cups filled with soda, pacifying their constant need for oral gratification. ”
Seems Ingrid is playing armchair-Freud…
Russ,
Can you link to that quote. That’s priceless. Who needs cable!?
Joe – second paragraph of her last “article” on
Christian Worldview Network….
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/1896/Ingrid_Schlueter
OH MY SOUL!!! I almost fell out of my chair laughing! I have to stop skimming her stuff! Sounds to me like Ingrid has some repression issues. WOW! That’s all I can say is WOW!
Ingrid said: “…with giant, 64-ounce sippy cups filled with soda, pacifying their constant need for oral gratification. â€
Russ said: “Seems Ingrid is playing armchair-Freud… ”
I say: Her shrill warning reminds me of when Ted Haggard bashed gays. And from her comment, I’d say she’s playing 7-11-Freud.
…The archetypal American, 50-100 pounds overweight, enthroned in his Stratolounger before his plasma TV with two remote controls, his Ipod, his cellphone, a bag of chips and a beer…
Ingrid’s “archetypal American” has mastered the fine art of multi-tasking! Why can’t that woman ever give credit where credit is due.
Any one of those things would completely capture my attention. Two remotes, a cell phone and an Ipod all at one time? I’m content with a 21″ TV, a beer and a bag of chips!
The Ipod that she seems to hold in such disdain…is this the same Ipod that her daddy’s radio station, and her own radio show make reference to as a download source for their radio shows?
Just curious.
And as always, forever entertained by the endless flow of “Ingridisms”.
Dude, that’s rich. I had no idea her dad owned the radio station. Do you know where? Do you have support for that? Good Stuff.
Peace
Joe:
Courtesy of Wikipedia…
Vic Eliason is an ordained minister and recipient of an honorary doctorate from Bob Jones University. He is the founder and head of VCY America, a religious broadcast ministry based in Milwaukee, WI. The ministry owns 14 stations across the country, a television station in Milwaukee, as well as several translator and “satellator” stations. VCY America also provides programming via satellite to stations around the country. Eliason is a prominent talk show host on the VCY America stations, and also provides the voiceovers for the stations’ nighttime music program “Music Till Dawn.â€
Well, that’s some much needed explaining.
The BJU connection might even explain it all.
I get it now–it’s the fringe.
Thanks for all your support on this one. I’m the infantile Kiddie Pastor mentioned in Ingrids site. Yes, the Pastor who like “Snatch”!
Since it will NEVER be posted on her feedback, here is my letter to her yesterday:
Hello Ingrid,
I’m the “techno-geek†“fratboy†“spikey haired†and “infantile†Executive Pastor you reference in your article, “Kiddie Pastors and the Consequences of Infantilism in Ministry.â€
Since your article was published on the Christian Worldview Network, we as a staff at Bridgeway have been fielding emails from your readers. It has generated some good, healthy and mature discussion for the most part. There have been a couple of rather hate filled emails that I have not addressed. Most will not even sign their names to their emails.
I honor your criticism of me in regards to my love of the movie “Snatch.†It is a violent, and indeed worldly movie, but then again, so is “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.†“Snatch†is good story telling with a theme of redemption, but then again, so is “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.â€
Maybe your article could have also mentioned that our website also declares my love for the soundtrack from the movie “Curious George†and my daily tickle fights with my daughter.
If you merely wanted to use me to make the point that I’m immature and somewhat worldly, then that would be fine by me. As evidenced by our website, I’m being honest about my shortcomings. I wish more pastors would be honest about who they are and that in the midst of trying to live up to our callings, we stumble and fall. But we also pick ourselves up by God’s strength and forgiveness. We as pastors serve our flocks better by embodying and living the moment by moment truth of our need for the Gospel opposed to trying live lives of perfection.
But you instead assumed that my church is shallow and short on doctrine; that we are incapable of leading our congregation; that we are a bastion of heresy and stand to lose souls instead of save them. You obviously read little more than my bio on the website when the website also includes a full doctrinal statement, our missional strategy and every lesson taught since 2004. So please bring the same integrity to your journalism that you are encouraging me to bring to my pastorate.
We are doing good work here at Bridgeway. Jesus Christ is worshipped and lifted high. The Bible is preached expositorily line by line and verse by verse. The Gospel is taken from the walls of our church into our community and around to world. The Great Commission and the Great Commandment are taken seriously. We love God and love others.
I guess I’m more passionate about defending the testimony of my church than my self. That’s the passion that makes me a good shepherd.
Russ Graeff
Executive Pastor
Bridgeway Christian Church
http://www.bridgewaychristian.org
Russ,
I am sorry that you have been attacked. I am on staff at a somewhat infamous church called Mosaic. Don’t feel like you have to always defend your ministry. I do it way more often than I should
If God is moving, and it sounds like he is moving, then you have no one to answer to but God and the community you are responsible for.
“That’s the passion that makes me a good shepherd.”
And quite humble I see.
Ken,
another falsehood. Just because you point out that you are good at something does not make you proud. His passion does make him a good shepherd.
You are always pointing out how amazing your church is, and how great you are. Not only that, but you put others down to make yourself look better in the process. That I might call proud.
Pride is the absence of self… both thinking too highly and too lowly of yourself. When pride is gone, courage is what is left. When you don’t care about you, you are able to make courageous moves.
“Pride is the absence of self… both thinking too highly and too lowly of yourself. When pride is gone, courage is what is left. When you don’t care about you, you are able to make courageous moves.”
Is this the kind of hackneyed dribble you learn from the Erwin the “cultural arcitect” at Mosaic? Pride is to be FULL of self. Apart from Christ we can do nothing friend.
This is terrifying to admit, and I’m going to be stroking his ego, but I kinda agree with Silva. Your def of pride sounded very Erwinish.
Matt,
I won’t notice that you semi-agreed. No ego strokes will be applied.
“Apart from Christ we can do nothing friend. ”
Wow, Ken we agree!
I didn’t think we didn’t but i am not sure that you think that of me.
Blessings,
iggy
iggy,
Truthfully, I don’t give you much thought. You’re not my responsibility.
my bad… i was typing too fast… courage (the opposite of pride) is the absence of self. You are right Ken, pride is thinking too highly of yourself. I appoligize for the mix-up
See how that works Ken… I make a mistake, I am corrected, I apologize. take note.
Nathan,
“Your def of pride sounded very Erwinish”
This quote reminded me of the last comment I placed under “Not to beat a dead horse.” I realized the question is still sitting politely in a small chair in the corner of my mind, waiting to be addressed. Perhaps you could resolve it?
Here’s the comment:
“Nathan,
I said this was from your personal testimony, and you apparently took it as such:
From your personal testimony:â€When I gave my life to Christ it was not to go to heaven or avoid hell or even to have my sins forgiven; it was for one reason above all the others – Jesus could change me to become like him in his character and in him my life would not be wasted. For me the gospel was a call to live a heroic life marked by honor, wisdom and sacrifice.â€
But now I realize that the article you posted this in was actually Mcmanus testimony. So I apologize for falsely attributing this to you. But I am confused. Did you not recognize that this was actually Mcmanus’ testimony and not yours when you commented on it? Were you in a hurry and didn’t read it, as I was in a hurry when I read the testimony and didn’t note that it belonged to Mcmanus? Or are you actually Mcmanus? “
What? That is my testimony. I am confused. When did I say that those were not my words or testimony? I think you might be a bit confused.
Amy,
With young Nathan here that should probably be McManus wannabe, just as Erwin is a poser himself – a frustrated performer wannabe. Over in Japan Erwin even told a missionary I know: “By the time I’m fifty I’m going to have an Academy Award, a Pulitzer, and a Grammy.” No one of any note takes Erwin seriously in Hollywood, they see right through him.
I am not confused.
I found those words on a website from Erwin Mcmanus, saying it was his testimony. I just tried to look it up again and here’s what I found:
http://www.thecronline.com/mag_article.php?mid=936&mname=March
When I read it before, I thought, “Wait, I’ve heard that before.” I then went back and read “emerging angle” on this site, which I previously thought was your testimony. THen I noticed on the top that it calls itself “Erwin Mcmanus” testimony.
At the top of “emerging angle” you wrote, “This was a recent article written by Erwin Raphael McManus entitled “Emerging Angle.” The article says, “Broken and Fragmented . . .
I must confess I was a bit apprehensive writing under the moniker of emerging church. There is so much baggage that comes with this term. This is not a term I have ever chosen for myself or Mosaic. Mosaic by the way is the community of faith I serve here in Los Angeles. Yet it seems everywhere I turn this is the designation that is placed on us. . .
In my case I am from El Salvador. That means that I have the Spanish language and the Roman Catholic Church in my background. My grandmother taught me the name of Jesus and my grandfather taught me reincarnation. They both fit comfortably into my belief system – as did aliens, astral-projection, trans-channeling; and pretty much anything else meta-physical.
While studying philosophy in college my mother came to a personal faith in Jesus Christ. Through her and the first Baptist church of Orlando I also came to embrace Jesus.
When I gave my life to Christ it was not to go to heaven or avoid hell or even to have my sins forgiven; it was for one reason above all the others – Jesus could change me to become like him in his character and in him my life would not be wasted. For me the gospel was a call to live a heroic life marked by honor, wisdom and sacrifice. . . ”
I copied this last section primarily to discuss “or even to have my sins forgiven;” You insisted that you had said “just to have my sins forgiven” and I told you that that wasn’t what you said. You reacted to the whole paragraph as if it was your testimony.
And now you are clearly saying that it is your testimony. Yet it is word for word off of an article by Erwin Mcmanus.
I am not confused.
Nathan,
This “last section” refers to the whole paragraph above it, “When I gave my life to Christ . . .”
To make a long question short, how can you mistake a whole paragraph of Mcmanus testimony as your own? Either you are Mcmanus, or . . .
Amy,
Wow! I had to re-read about five articles from way back to figure out what you were talking about. First off, the words in question were not mine. They were Erwin’s. I write ALOT for alot of magazines, blogs and online articles. The phrase
“â€When I gave my life to Christ it was not to go to heaven or avoid hell or even to have my sins forgiven; it was for one reason above all the others – Jesus could change me to become like him in his character and in him my life would not be wasted. For me the gospel was a call to live a heroic life marked by honor, wisdom and sacrifice.â€
would be something that I would agree with and would have written (there is nothing person specific within this statement). I assumed that when you quoted me, you were being honest and were actually quoting me. I will not give you the benefit of a doubt in the future. Erwin and I see eye to eye on many subjects (hints why I am a part of the same church). Our ideas on paper look the same. I assure you that I am not he.
Ken,
Erwin is someone that I respect, and look to as a spiritual mentor in life. It’s not about being a wanna-be; I assure you I am pursuing my own story apart from his. I do suggest that you spend less time talking with disgruntled ex-mosaic members and spend more time looking at the facts. If you are suggesting that people either can’t have big dreams, or change their direction in life during a 15 year period, then that’s crazy. Besides that, Mosaic does have a HUGE influence in the entertainment industry. In fact, there is probably going to be a pretty big announcement with that in the near future. Looking forward to you spin on it at apprising.
Erwin McManus is the problem, not the disgruntled people he has stepped on. His ego is still the same, maybe larger now. And you say: “Mosaic does have a HUGE influence in the entertainment industry.”
Here’s my spin: O yes, the entertainment industry does have a HUGE influence on Mosaic.
way to spin it…
and commenting on a guy’s ego that you have never even spoken with. come on now Ken. How on earth is your voice credible? Oh wait… I am sure that God told you in your daily contemplative session with him.
Nathan,
Statements like this irk me: ” I assumed that when you quoted me, you were being honest and were actually quoting me. I will not give you the benefit of the doubt in the future.” Under the dead horse article I already apologized to you for misunderstanding the authorship of the article under “emerging angle.” It was at the top and I overlooked it – could have been that I had a mental blip, that the phone rang, that the kids came up and interrupted me. My mistake has nothing to do with my honesty. You may recall that you once attributed an article to Ken that was not his, by the way.
When I quoted the whole paragraph on the “dead horse” article, you responded to me as if it was your testimony. You even said that you insisted you had said “just” when there was no “just” in the statement “or even to have my sins forgiven.” Later when I saw the article on a website, I went back to “emerging angle” and realized that I had mistakenly took you for the author of that piece.
But I was JUSTIFIABLY confused. You responded to a whole paragraph that wasn’t yours as if it was yours. I thought that you, like I, had just done some quick reading, been distracted, or whatever, and so I asked you about it. I rather jokingly asked if you were actually Mcmanus.
When you never responded (most likely because you didn’t see my response) I still had the question in the back of my mind and it resurfaced here. When I requoted the whole paragraph here you said, “That is my testimony.”
I generally take “I” testimonies as person-specific.
I would like to go back to the original question that I asked you when I thought this paragraph was yours. You insisted that you said “just to have my sins forgiven” when “just” is noticeably absent from this testimony. Would you insist that Erwin also meant “just to have my sins forgiven” even though he said “or even to have my sins forgiven.”
Amy,
sorry for the confusion as well. I get quoted all the time, and should probably follow up to see if those quotes are actually mine. No harm done… I am sure I too was doing an hundred things at once while commenting… hence the poor spelling normally
I think Erwin meant to say what Erwin meant to say. For him, coming to Christ was first and foremost a call to die and live life Christ… one “marked by honor, wisdom and sacrifice.” I think too many Christians come to Christ for the prize later. They either get their “get out of hell free” ticket or their “all my sins are forgiven, I can do whatever I want” ticket. Jesus’ call is “follow me, and I will make you fishers of me.” It is a call to actions… not a call to apathy. many Christians want to cut out the sanctification part and move straight to the “I’m forgiven” part. Both need to be there!
Now, Erwin is NOT saying that Jesus didn’t forgive his sins. Erwin has said time and time again in his message that we are broken people who need to be restored to Christ. he was talking about WHY he came to Christ, not what happened when he did. Of course Erwin would say that Jesus forgave his sins, but that was not the reason for coming to him.
Bringing this conversation full-circle….my bets (am I allowed to bet here???) are on Batman.
Because Kryptonite has been discovered.
Apologies – it’s a Saturday afternoon and I’m just having some fun with the kids so we looked up Kryptonite.
Ken,
Your words to me remind me or another accuser of the Brethren… it seems that you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance. But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.
God will not be mocked as you are doing… with every word to me… I answer as Jesus did to His accuser with scripture…
and you give no answer except that you “think nothing of me”… then as i am quoting scripture you are really ignoring it… but that was obvious from the start…
Your heart has been revealed greatly here these last few days… and it seem that you need to go and study more of the bible… not Calvinist doctrine… for it seems doctrine is blinding you from the Truth in the scripture…
Also, I thought you said you were not a Calvinist… and now you fight for it… hmmm
Oh yeah that was another post… here in which you threaten me… then say I tucked tail and ran… but… wait a second…
yep, I am still here!
Blessings,
iggy
I know I’m late to the discussion – I was literally out of the country the past few weeks – but as a member of Bridgeway, I wanted to share some of my thoughts on this thread.
My first thought: Has anyone gone through this thread with the eye of an outsider? Is this the church of Christ? Is calling names – either from the “free-will” or “sovereign grace” camp acceptable? I mean, haven’t we all read 1 Corinthians? “I am of Appollos”, “I am of Cephas”, “I am of Christ”. It’s interesting that Paul didn’t say “Oh, you guys who are claiming to be ‘of Christ’ are the right faction”. No, his point was that we need to be united by our love for Christ, not divided into camps. I would add that our love for Christ, as well as a hefty dose of humility, should shine through in the way we defend the truth.
This leads to my second thought: If someone is concerned that my spikey-haired pastor (and sorry Russ you’re really not the spikey-haired one. That would be Lance. And I think Jeremy may also have you beat in the hair gel department, but I’m not sure) is leading Christ’s church astray, or has some other concern about something someone who names the name of Christ is doing, then why not use a Biblical model for addressing the perceived problem:
Step 1. Go to the one who is supposedly offending and bring the problem to their attention, with the loving intent of restoring them.
Step 2. If they don’t respond, bring in a couple of other brothers in the Lord as witnesses. Again, the motive has to be love: love of both God and your brother or sister in the Lord.
Step 3. If Steps 1 & 2 don’t work, THEN you bring the issue before the whole church. AGAIN, the motive is to restore, not “make an example”, of the offender. (Though one would hope examples for others to follow and/or avoid would come out of the process).
My third thought: You know, I don’t like *everything* about my home church, Bridgeway. But I don’t like everything about America, my wife, my kids, New Coke (I still haven’t let that one go yet), the second Becky on Roseanne, or even the 49ers (may they ever reign over the NFL). Seriously though, Bridgeway is a church full of – gasp! – people. Sinful people, no less. But, as I think Russ was saying (I could be misinterpreting him, we haven’t consulted on this), it’s better for us to be honest about who we are in Christ at this moment and then move forward towards more Christ-likeness in the power of the Spirit than to try to “keep the image clean” (apologies to Steve Camp).
Please note: I am *NOT* contending that we should sit around saying “I’m OK – You’re OK†while playing kumbayah, or advocating an approach of “Can’t we all just get along†at the expense of defending the truth. But we have to defend the *WHOLE* truth, including the truth that we’re called to love each other.
This brings me to my fourth thought: Why is it that we feel free to smack each other around in the name of “defending the truthâ€? It’s like we think: “Don’t worry Lord, I realize you are incapable of defending yourself and the truth, and given that you have given me an infallible understanding of every jot and title in your Word, I’ll just jump in and take a verbal battle axe to those who oppose us. (There’s room in the Trinity for one more, right?)â€. It’s like we call “olly-olly-auction-free†and then just beat the tar out of each other and think that’s supposed to be OK. We can’t wait until people wander into error – or what we perceive to be error – so we can lop their little “heretical†heads off with apparent impunity.
If we love the truth, we’ll do what it calls us to do: speak the *truth* in *love*. We must realize that to compromise one is to compromise both.