Oh Ingrid you’re so cute when you distort
One of the biggest complaints about Slice and the rest of the watchpoodles out there is that they moderate comments in such a way that legitimate criticisms are never seen, while letting through mostly complimentary comments thus shutting down any real sort of conversation as well as creating the impression that most of their site’s viewers are in rabid agreement. Now Ingrid has decided to push back against such criticisms in this hit piece:
This morning I had to raise an eyebrow at the protestations of one emergent pastor we’ll call “Mikeâ€. He was shocked, just shocked, that I wouldn’t post his rage-filled comments. He was angry at this blog for daring to question the public promotion of filthy movies by another “pastor.â€
Ah… I get it now, the only people who oppose Ingrid are people who are “rage filled”.
She continues:
I have wondered many times at the boiling indignation of emergents who can’t understand why Slice will not let them have free reign in the comment section, regardless how personally nasty, profane or heretical they may be when these same men are really, really good with the delete button on their own blogs when Christians try to defend those they like to shred for upholding biblical truth.
Ah, not just “rage filled” but also “personally nasty”, and they even censor their own blogs! Why, I bet Ingrid would be fine with people who point out her various distortions, personal nastiness, and poor Biblical interpretation if they weren’t all blog censoring, potty mouths with a penchant for rage.
Of course we all know that’s not the case. I’ve had comments that disagreed respectfully with Ingrid that somehow never made it out of moderation, several individuals I know both in real life and over the internet have had the same experience. And somehow, we’ve all had most of our comments deleted.
And just in case you’re thinking that I and everyone I know are “rage filled”, “personally nasty” and are busily censoring comments from anyone who thinks like Ingrid check out this comment on the Submissions page from a gentleman named Ian.
Ingrid has recently promoted and is selling through her site and radio show an album of Hymns by Huddersfield Choral Society. I live in Huddersfield (a random little town in England) so I know this group quite well, I know that they are not anything to do with a church or ministry, they are a purely secular society. They take people on based on their musical ability, not religious persuasion or lifestyle. With around 200 members, there will be adulterers, fornicators, yes - probably even homosexuals within their ranks - and Ingrid feels this is a suitable group to be promoting on her blog and radio show?! Ah well, anything that helps the Huddersfield economy!
Anyway, I tried to point out this hypocrisy to her in a (very reasonable) comment, but it was deleted… Here’s what I put:
My goodness, how did my little town of Huddersfield get on this website! They are indeed an excellent choir, I saw them perform live recently in the town square and it was a fantastic performance.
One question though Ingrid, and I mean this in all sincerity: This choral society is a secular society - it is not associated with any church or ministry, its requirements for membership is based on musical skill not religious belief or lifestyle. I personally have no problem with this, they are a talented group and I enjoy listening to their performances, even more so if they are singing songs of worship to my God. However, I’m surprised at you promoting them after your recent post on Sinead ‘O Connar’s psalms set to music?
Now was that nasty or rage filled? Was that heretical in the least? Absolutely not. So why was that censored? The easy answer is that it made Ingrid look bad. It exposed her penchant for judging by appearances and style rather than actual content.
Give it up Ingrid. While there may be a few less than gentlemanly comments that Ingrid deletes, to generally characterize all of the disagreeing commenters as “rage filled” and “personally nasty” is dishonest. Of course admitting the truth would mean that she’d have to admit that the positions she takes, and the way she takes them are indefensible.
Edit: BTW, for those interested in seeing what Ingrid views as “rage filled” and “profane” I believe the minister’s blog she’s talking about can be found here. His responses and blog don’t strike me as all that outrageous at all.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
forceful disagreement is “rage”…
It’s amazing.
Ingrid freaks out, calls names, casts aspersions, distorts–on a good day, outright lies–most days, and when someone forcefully expresses actual, justifiable indignation at being unfairly smeared, etc. THAT’s rage.
here we go again…
but this is like blaming an abused spouse for “ruining the marraige” because she got mad that she unfairly gets slapped for not having the dishes out of the sink. Yeah. That kind of injustice isn’t worth being upset over…that’s just being rage filled. Yep.
Taking the principle at hand…
Ingrid defecates and urinates on people she doesn’t even know. (Us rage filled, immature folks call that “crapping on someone’s reputation” or “putting someone on shout”.) Mix her public written/verbal defecations with the rightly offended party, their friends and other by-standers who are concerned for injustice and abuse by religious folk and then all of sudden everyone else is filled with rage.
Makes sense.
Never mind it takes a real, deep seated level of cold, calculating…could it be…”rage”?…to make a life’s work out of Ingrid’s daily endeavors. A burning, emotional upheaval is a vent or a purge. A sustained “ministry” the likes of that woman is a mission of rage.
So Christlike, she. Papa Vic taught her well.
I still wonder what her reaction would be if her pastor said he agrees with her in principle on everything, but her tone, demeanor and gender are limitations that should be considered? I’m sure she’d pack up and go, anathemizing him on the way out.
And I’m sure this whole post is “picking” on the poor little person and her little fits.
At least Ken actually wades in here. She sits in an ivory tower and makes pot shots at people. And then claims she’s too busy with her “higher calling” as a wife and mother…
pheh.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
I also found it interesting that she is now deciding who is a “real” pastor and who isn’t, yet at the same time takes the position that women shouldn’t be elders. What is the job of an elder if not to decide when someone is the pastor of their church and when someone isn’t? It’d be nice if she could live up to her beliefs at least one time.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Tim,
I appreciate your piece here but in my opinion you missed the scariest part of her rant. She said,
Did you catch her distinction? You are either Christian or Emergent. There is not Christian emergent. That’s sad.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
You’re absolutely right Joe, I did miss that, and that is scary.
BTW, its interesting how Ken goes on about semi-pelagian this and that, but everytime I see Ingrid or him posting about how groups or people aren’t real Christians it has to do with how their works aren’t measuring up.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I posted a comment on her site regarding the bashing of Scott Hodge’s Baptism video that said “Rock On Scott” - it was not approved - but all the messages that called Scott a heretic and people in his church unsaved were freely posted. Inrgrid approves what tickles her ears.
I don’t think Im the “emergent pastor called ‘mike’” because since the first wave of attack on me - I haven’t posted comments or referred to her site. (except for the Rock On Scott comment) I might be the other “pastor” who “publicly promotes filthy movies” though.
Who is “mike”? Inquiring minds want to know!
July 13th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Ingrid and her hypocrisy has now moved solidly into the “tediously redundant” category. Why do visions of Mrs. Olson on Little House on the Prairie continue to come to mind?
It’s not enough to just delete comments, that is her clandestine right, but she feels the need to uncover the sins of others which have nothing to do with doctrine. To castigate comments from a “Mike” without printing them and allowing for cross examination is the steriotypical straw man, set up and knocked down to serve your own prrposes. If her speech and behavior is Christian I’m a Buddhist.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
I love her post “headlines say it all” - somehow we go from “the world has problems” to a diatribe against what she calls the emerging church. Yep - its my fault that a child was kidnapped and al qaeda wants to blow up the US. Im probably responsible for N. Korea’s nuclear weapons too - but she failed to point that out.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I’m with Henry on this one. It’s generally bad policy to take a comment, regurgitate your own spin of the comment, not allowing your assessment to be scrutinized against the actual comment.
Think of how easily the owners of this site could do such a thing to Ken if they wanted. Hold all his comments for moderation, not let one through, publish a post full of lies (masked as “criticisms”) and slander him. If he tries to protest your mis-characterization, just moderate that comment too.
I’m not saying that’s what Ingrid has done, but we’ll never know so long as she chooses to hold comments in moderation. For someone who lectures people about avoiding the appearance of evil, she sure doesn’t seem all that consistent.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
I was tempted to try to post such a comment about Ingrid’s choir CD, but I assumed it wouldn’t go through, so why bother. And it worth a mention that many of the great choral masterworks she mentions as being pleasing to God were written FOR PROFIT by many men who weren’t. I guess since they are dead and unlikely to be found in some scadalous on-line post, it’s ok.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Why is this scary??
You rip Ingrid to shreds to show just how “off” she is, but you act as if she has some great power over people. I am sure if all readership is as inteliigent and scripturally accurate as all of you here, then you have nothing to worry about.
If any blog censors comments, which is the right of the blogowner, you have the perogative to not comment and/or ignore the blog entirely. I do not understand the fear of man.
As for semi-pelagian and “works”, there is theology that says we are saved by our own efforts, and there are theolgies that say we “stay saved” by our own efforts. The scriptures say neither. The works of faith that James 2 speaks of, and the good works which were prepared beforehand that are spoken of in Eph 2:8-10, are one and the same. Therefore we do the works of the Father as all obedient sons do, which show we are His. John 14:1-14. This is what Jesus did. So then when your light shines before men they will glorify the Father, not you, or the organization you belong to. Matthew 5:14-16
It is interesting that Jesus says in Matthew 6:1-4 that we are not to perform our good works before men. So in conjunction with what He said in the beginning of the “sermon” we are to let our light, which is Christ, shine before men. John 8:12
Then men will see our good works, not us doing good works, and glorify God. I know Ken well enough to say that those are the “works” he is referring to.
Anyone who performs works to get saved and/or stay saved (which btw, is what the rcc teaches) is pelagian or semi-pelagian. This is why any and all “good works” are not always God’s works.
I would rather do the works that the Father prepared beforehand, than whatever looks good to the rest of the world.
This is why Ghandi, Bono, and the Live Earth folks, etc should be tossed in the bowl.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Why is this scary??
You rip Ingrid to shreds to show just how “off†she is, but you act as if she has some great power over people. I am sure if all readership is as inteliigent and scripturally accurate as all of you here, then you have nothing to worry about.
If any blog censors comments, which is the right of the blogowner, you have the perogative to not comment and/or ignore the blog entirely. I do not understand the fear of man.
As for semi-pelagian and “worksâ€, there is theology that says we are saved by our own efforts, and there are theolgies that say we “stay saved†by our own efforts. The scriptures say neither. The works of faith that James 2 speaks of, and the good works which were prepared beforehand that are spoken of in Eph 2:8-10, are one and the same. Therefore we do the works of the Father as all obedient sons do, which show we are His. John 14:1-14. This is what Jesus did. So then when your light shines before men they will glorify the Father, not you, or the organization you belong to. Matthew 5:14-16
It is interesting that Jesus says in Matthew 6:1-4 that we are not to perform our good works before men. So in conjunction with what He said in the beginning of the “sermon†we are to let our light, which is Christ, shine before men. John 8:12
Then men will see our good works, not us doing good works, and glorify God. I know Ken well enough to say that those are the “works†he is referring to.
Anyone who performs works to get saved and/or stay saved (which btw, is what the rcc teaches) is pelagian or semi-pelagian. This is why any and all “good works†are not always God’s works.
I would rather do the works that the Father prepared beforehand, than whatever looks good to the rest of the world.
This is why Ghandi, Bono, and the Live Earth folks, etc should be tossed in the bowl.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Chris P. attempted to comment on my blog “Following Judah’s Lion” but I had to moderate his comment. It was disrespectful, packed with personal insults, and had questionable language.
The above was fiction, but it represents what Ingrid did. If there wasn’t any cursing she could print the comment and let the commentor suffer the consequences. I have personal knowledge that Ingrid does not let comments through that disagree with her on litergical worship, music styles, and other things even if they are respectful.
BTW Chris P., where did you get off on the semi-pelagian etc. stuff on this post?
July 13th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
And if his name wasn’t really “Mike” she was lying.
(I wish I knew how to put a smiley face right here)
July 13th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Rick,
“BTW Chris P., where did you get off on the semi-pelagian etc. stuff on this post?”
Tim Reed brought it up in his last comment.
Why are you using me as a fictitious example btw?
July 13th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
My comment a bit further up is where he got it from.
Sadly, she does have power, the power to represent and misrepresent Christ to everyone who stops by.
Do you seriously find it acceptable that someone who claims to represent Christ would deliberately distort and, well, lie about those who disagree with her?
July 13th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Because you brought up the deleted comment thing. Nothing personal, I just believe if you delet a comment keep it quiet, don’t use it to point nout the sins of the camp that the unknown commentor belonged to.
There is no way to substantiate Ingrid’s assertions, which is many times the way she likes it.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I see the “watchpoodle” term has made it into your language in this post. Very honoring to have a term now used. It is funny, as I now can only visually picture poodles each time I now read a post that is written.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
I have seen the light. I’ve had a revelation- I have gained the ability to discern by apperances and style alone.
As a result I should lead you all, my sheep, and expose the snakes among us. After having seen a picture of Ingrid I realize that- she is a lesbian.
That’s right, the short haircut is a sign of lesbianism, and she has a short haircut. She also is bitter and shrill to most men she mentions, and she recently joined with a secular choir to infiltrate the flock as a false prophet. Also, I played her radio program backwards and it sounds a lot like the Indigo Girls.
I cry my eyes out at the state of the fundaMENTAL whatchdog blogs. Lord, come quickly so I can leave and shake the dust off my feet at the goats around me as I sneer at their lack of holiness.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Chris P.,
You mentioned: “Anyone who performs works to get saved and/or stay saved (which btw, is what the rcc teaches) is pelagian or semi-pelagian.”
I would agree with your statement, as would the overwhelming majority here, which makes me wonder why emerging types keep getting labelled either pelagian or semi-pelagian. There may be a fringe element that fits your descirption, but they would be a minority only.
I know you and Ken talk a lot together, so without putting words in his mouth, could you help us understand why we keep hearing “semi-pelagian” tossed around so freely when it applies to us about as much as “Martian”?
Thanks.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Dan,
“It is funny, as I now can only visually picture poodles each time I now read a post that is written.”
*Yap Yap* Well, youlaugh while you can.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Chris P.
I didn’t rip her to shreds. I simply pointed out that she makes a marked distinction between “Christian” and “Emergent.” Essentially she says you can’t be Christian and Emergent. Is that a view you want to defend?
July 13th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Ken,
What does that mean? Is that some sort of general advice, like, laughter is the best medicine so laugh while you can? Or is it some sort of threat? Like you’re going to create some sort of Jigsawesque ironic trap that ends up unleashing a pack of rabid poodles on Dan? Cause whatever it was you meant to communicate, it didn’t land.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Tim,
Thanks.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Alright, now you’re just being cryptic.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
I would love to get you guys in a room with a basket of rotten fruit, and then lock the door behind me, watching through the window.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:32 am
It is not good to eat too much honey, nor is it honorable to seek one’s own honor. Proverbs 25:27
July 14th, 2007 at 6:40 am
“really good with the delete button on their own blogs when Christians try to defend those they like to shred for upholding biblical truth.”
I can’t remember Ingrid commenting on another blog, so how can she know anyone’s delete policy? Also, which blog is she speaking about? There’s enough straw men here to lead Dorothy to a thousand Emerald Cities!
July 15th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Can you freakin believe she trashed the event where a child died on a thrill ride? This is one sick and twisted “sister”. Good grief she pisses me off.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:42 am
I do believe God uses people with passion including Ingrid. But sometimes things cross the line.
I have been on the receiving end of Ingrids wrath with a flurry of very nasty emails from both Ingris and her husband Tom who tag teamed me after I wrote Ingrid about her now infamous seamy Christian underbelly 10 hour post.
Even though I responded in a way I thought to be Christ like I was launched on like I was Ingrids worst enemy for even asking why she posted what she posted.
Sometimes we say things we regret (I have).
But it takes a person sans pride to repent and ask forgiveness.
Pride always comes before a fall.
As anti Emergent as Ingrid is. I have never heard her reply on why she partners with Brannon Howse and Christian Worldview Network.
Josh Mcdowell endorses Dan Kimball.
David Jerimiah like’s Erwin Mcmanus among other things emergent.
Both these guys still are featured on Christian Worldview Network.
Both Im sure are big money pulls as well so lets not rock the boat there huh.
I just thinks its starnge to be associated with a website that has a recent post on Erwin Mcmanus’s false teaching.
and then has a guy who’s endorsement of Mcmanus’s book is still on Erwins website reading-
“I wish I could say I couldn’t put Seizing Your Divine Momement down. The fact is, I had to put it down many times to think about what I had just read! It motivated me like no book I have read in years. I marked almost every page and found myself saying ‘yes’ out loud on several occasions. You owe it to yourself to ’seize the moment’ and read this book.â€
- David Jeremiah - Senior Pastor, Shadow Mountain Community Church; President, Turning Point Radio.”
Yes Ive heard rumors about David supposably pulling this endorsement.
But I just grabbed it now from Erwins site.
Plus Jerimiah still favorably quotes Mcmanus.
My point here is not whether or not you agree with Dan Kimball or Erwin Mcmanus but rather a question about where people really stand.
Or is it jus about big ministry and more benjamins.
This is all very hypocritical and confusing I think.
Ive had some very nice emails from iggy.
I dont agree with where he stands but at least I know where he stands.
Like it or not where I stand I still will publish opposing comments on my blog as long as people dont cuss.
I believe a little repentance of being hateful goes a long way and people will tend to give what you say a little more credance.
As much as I believe that Ingrid gets out some good information that can inform the Body of Christ, I also believe she can be her own worst enemy.
Peace
Tim Wirth
July 16th, 2007 at 6:36 am
Tim,
I have just one question…
Do you happen to know Blake Simpson? He is a former YWAMer who is now in Venezuela…
He is also one great guitarist and has played with Alex Acuna, Abe Laboriel SR, Justo Almario (or some who in that group of artists that hang together)
Also, thank you for your kind words.
I to find it interesting that no matter how much I say I believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and that it is by grace through faith and not works… that people (which seems to be you as you are stating above) disagree with me.
So, if these are not the items that are disagreed on that are on the table, I am not sure how many of the other things we also disagree on…
Like the virgin birth? Do you think that is not true?
The incarnation?
The Trinity?
I mean should I go an as to what I believe that we may disagree on?
Let me see… That the Bible is God’s Word?
That there be no way to salvation except through Jesus Christ?
That Jesus now sits on the Throne with all authority placed under His feet?
That Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow?
What else do we disagree on?
That Jesus is the Son of God and Messiah?
That all things were created through Jesus?
That Jesus is the Living Word of God?
That by His death we are forgiven and by His burial we to are buried and by His resurrection we to also are New Creations?
That Jesus is more than Just a teacher of propositions… that He did not just teach truth, but was the Literal Incarnation of Truth? He is literally THE LIFE? He is literally THE WAY?
That it is not by works we are saved, it is by Grace and the this same grace that saves us sustains us as taught in Galatians 5?
Is it that I believe that God’s eternal Kingdom was established on earth by Jesus and ushered in by the Resurrection?
Again, I guess I am confused on which of these we disagree on so that I may explain my position better…
So?
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 16th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Hey iggy: I know who Blake is but have never played with him. When I did sessions with Alex, Abe and Justo Ramon Stagnaro played guitar. Ramon as well is very talented and plays with Alex in his group “Alex Acuna and the Unknowns”.
Not to get off track on the post but my biggest problem with emergents is their use of occult rituals such as labyrinth, centering prayer and other regurgetated Catholic rituals. Which historically the Desert fathers borrowed from eastern religions anyway.
I dont believe a person can agree with core doctrines the way in fact Dan Kimball does and still promote the occult.
To me its not so much about how a church is decorated but in the rituals that are promoted.
Jesus Himself told us not to pray in vain repetitions as the pagans do-Matt 6:7.
Many emergents ignore Jesus’ warning and do it anyway just as the Desert Fathers and many such as Theresa of Avila did.
As a result of praying like the pagans do folks such as Thersesa of Avila encountered very real demons because of the methods she used.
Read up on the results here folks. Im a former Catholic and my own mom was reading Thomas Merton before it became in vogue again.
I know the long term damage these occult rituals being promoted can do.
Many of you do not.
Nothing personnal here.
Just the facts.
Be that as it may my apoligies for getting off subject.
Peace
Tim Wirth
July 16th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Cool,
Blake and I have lost touch with each other… I did have his address about 2 yrs ago but in the course of moving and computer crashes I lost his email address. BTW Blake may not know me as “iggy” but by Carlos (from Bozeman).
As far as certain “occult” practises… I see that if used in the wrong way, such as when I practised pentagramic occultism in college, you are spot on… yet, as far as meditation on God and His word… To walk and reflect on Jesus and the Cross and what He did… be it in nature or on a Labyrinth….. we must be careful not to give the occult any equal power with the Power of the Holy Spirit…
Too many live in fear of Satan… when the reality is he is a defeat foe. We are now free in Christ to explore the reality that is Christ Jesus…
I see that many like yourself have become like one who reads Romans and sees how mankind has become to worship the creation instead of the Creator, and then decides that creation itself is of Satan and occultic… do you see the logical leap I am pointing out?
To read a sentence in the bible and meditate and soak it in… and to “contemplate” (think deeply on the matter taught) or to passively read and just let God speak… seems to me nothing like occultic practises of divination or using scripture as an incantation or such to be able to control elements and spirits.
We have the living Christ within us as beleivers… and I trust more in that than anything Satan can pervert.
I have read St John of the Cross and gained great insight into my own times that I “felt” God was not there… I realized that in those times it may be God is more present than when I “felt” He was there… Like his example of if you see light it is not pure light… it is the reflection of dust you see… pure light one cannot see. I see that as going back to “we walk by faith and not by sight.” and not to the idea of any occult teachings I used to study.
I have face very real demons… and not from my practicing occultism… but as I face lies and exchanged them for truth. I realized that Satan is bound. If we say otherwise we then are bound with him… and that is the trap… not in our different styles of worship, but to say Satan has any power at all when he does not, for we have the Cross and the empty tomb to point to to remind him.
In that we are free in Christ… to eat meat sacrificed to idols… or not… to eat only vegetables… or to enjoy the fullness of the banquet Jesus sets before us.
BTW way, it was Blake who helped me to get back on track with Jesus as i was into Edgar Cacye at the time and Blake invited me to a bible study… (If you know Blake, and his mannerisms, can you imagine what I thought as he told me Edgar was a man possessed by demons?… As Blake would take a long breath in mid sentence and toss his head back then back down to look a you and finish the sentence… LOL!)
Now, though, do you stand with Ken Silva and say I am not saved as I profess? Ken has stated that many times here…
Do you agree with Ingrid that it is right to distort the truth to protect it?
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 16th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
BTW Tim,
How many “emergent” gatherings have you gone to to be certain these accusations are based on facts?
The truth is most of us in the emerging conversation, ask over and over, “Who are these people talking about?” as we wonder who the likes of John Mac and others say we do? If we do not even recognize ourselves in what is said, then how can one just assume we do these things?
I think again that before accusations are made… that a bit of foot work is in order to see with ones own eyes and hear what is actually taking place… would that not be real research and in all fairness?
All I have seen is things like Ingrid set up Doug Pagitt in an interview… asking ” what do you base truth on.” and Doug states, “History, Scripture, cultural context, etc…” which is miles above what she wanted… she wanted him to state, “the Bible” which he did, and she later states he did not.
So, again, is it better to distort the truth to protect it than to be as the Bereans did and faithful go to scripture to test things? That is what I HAVE found in the emerging conversation… I may not agree with all conclusions, yet I have yet to see (except on maybe a special occasion) anything that you or others state we do.
In saying that as an insider, I find it even stranger that I am called naive by critics… I think being immersed in the “conversation” for 3 years should give me a bit more credibility than one who stands outside and thinks he sees something but may not truly understand what they saw.
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 16th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Iggy - Pagitt is intelligent enough to discern what Ingrid was looking for, and why not give her what she wanted if it was what you believed?
“Scripture is the final authority for all truth, history and cultural considerations are helps to more accurately define the Word of God.”
If I thought of it, so could he.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Rick,
Doug and many others do not live in a “christian” world that practises deception. He did not know who she was and agreed to an interview which was really a witch hunt.
In other words, Doug was a bit naive and I believe shocked that a “christian” would misrepresent herself as one way and the attack him behind his back.
I think that is the real issue. I see this loving unity as I look at people like Doug, and when I look out the other way I see people who claim Christ, but use Him and the bible as tools to harm instead of heal… I see a group of people who live in a trust of each other and lean on each other as a loving community and then turn to see people like Ingrid mouth Grace and then teach works and lie about others…
So, as far as looking as what God is doing and what others are doing I am attracted to what I see God’s fruit as being…
Love, Mercy, Grace, a caring for Justice, and a relational accountability that is built into the community of believers…
Vs.
rugged individualism, dualism, based on correct beliefs and yet no real action on said belief except to attack and harm others.
But, then I value honesty.
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 16th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Rick,
“Scripture is the final authority for all truth, history and cultural considerations are helps to more accurately define the Word of God.â€
Also, Doug stated this, not in this sort of defined way, but he stated this and Ingrid ignored it and said he did not.
She lied.
Blessings,
iggy
July 16th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Hey iggy: No I would not say yo are not a saved Christian even though I disagree with you on many things. I do not agree with your views on how a ritual is not occult if its focused on God. The Desert fathers borrowed these rituals from eastern religion. You cant make the occult into something it is not. Again Jesus told us not to pray with vain repititions. Using scripture or Jesus’s name does not make it any less vain if its being chanted or stated repeately.
It seems to me you are having trouble perhaps parting with your professed old ways.
I know this is a hard thing to do.
I pray you part from any rituals such as labyrinth etc..
But then again we all have to give account to God sooner or later.
I hope you finish well.
Peace
Tim
July 16th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Tim,
If you are against vain repetitions, then I assume you are against liturgy… which is practiced by may mainline denominations and can be traced back to the early 100AD
If that is your position i want to introduce you to our Lutheran friend Chris Rosebrough. i woudl be interested to see what he thinks about liturgy.
Blessings,
iggy
July 16th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Iggy - Chris R. believes that baptism washes away sins. He also espouses a form of consubstantiation, but the baptism issue is serious. And even further, he believes that baptism cleanses infants from original sin.
These things were inherited from Rome, and I personally believe that these and the litergical ceremony are shadows of the law. As a matter of fact, these type of services disregard the Tabernacle of David and return to the Tabernacle of Moses.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Rick,
Actually this was my point as i was being a bit abstruse on purpose.
Though I think you miss that in the early days of the church, Roman authorities would send in spies to see what the Christians were doing… and part of it was… (I am writing from memory as I can’t find the source)
They rise early on the first day of the week and gather together and recite the promise to be good citizens and pray. They then go to work… (Sounds a bit like Pauls letter to Romans)
They return after the days work and gather for a meal and prayer they recite prayers together and then someone reads letters to them from their leaders.
Again, this is out of my faulty memory, but it is pretty much like that as recorded by the Roman authorities…
So it seems liturgy was used at that times.
I think the issue is that if liturgy or any symbol can turn into something it was not originally intended. If a liturgical service replaces a relationship, then of course it is wrong and just religion… but if one has the relationship and understands the meaning behind the liturgy, then it can be a great “tool” of worship.
Personally there is not much difference between a person in the Anglican tradition who says, “Peace be with you” and answered, “and also with you.” and someone in a AoG church repeating “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.” or “Holy, Holy, Holy.” in a service as they worship God.
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 16th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Iggy-
I didnt state I was against vain repetitions. I just stated what Jesus said in scripture. Jesus said not to do this. Its very plain. Not my rules but our Lord Jesus.
I grew up Catholic so I know all about what liturgy is.
I just choose to obey Jesus in what He very plainly states in scripture.
Peace
Tim
July 16th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Tim W,
You are making a lot of assumptions of me and have not answered my one question…
How many ‘emerging churches’ have you gone to and witnessed the things you are accusing them of?
If you have gone to more than one… what was the repetitive thing that was occultic.
I have renounce all that BTW and am securely under the blood of Jesus… so please don’t even go there as that is not even what is the topic…
I too choose to obey Jesus in what He plainly states in Scripture… and seem to get a lot of hate from your side of the fence… it seems that what we disagree on is more important that what we do agree on…
I am centered and firmly set on Jesus Christ. I am a New Creation… so please do not try to drag me back to some sort of “can’t let go of the past” theology of the “sins of the father” and so on.
But, please, tell me of all the emerging churches you have gone to and witnessed the things you state as happening?
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 17th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Ive been to Dan Kimballs and Rob Bells(not to far a drive from me here in Ohio) and other churches that are not as famous but still do things emergents tend to flock to -like centering prayer, Lectio, Labyrinth, contemplative.
Names tend to change on rituals in order to hide them.
Jesus Prayer by Ingnatius of Loyola etc..
Liturgy I believe is different than chanting the name of Jesus in order to come up with some sort of supernatural responce from God.
Chanting a verse of scripture or a holy name ( even if that name is Jesus) in order to have a supernatural encounter is vain repititions and even borders on dangerous.
Im sorry if you dont understand that.
If you do understand that I think thats groovy.
If you can let go of your past and dont try to Christinize old rituals-well thats great.
Many emergent churches are just Christinizing old catholic or new age rituals.
If you dont follow that in vogue practice good for you as well.
Seems to be a lot of hate(and some cussing) on both sides of the fence.
If your firmly set of Jesus Christ who is our firm foundation.
Good for you.
I hope you finish well.
This has really gone off topic feel free to email me privatly if you have any questions or comments.
I do care what you think.
Peace
Tim
July 17th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Tim
I have been to many “charismatic” churches where they “chant” to get a “supernatural encounter”… and some that do not…
SO there is a big difference even in that…
I do respect that one does not see the differences yet to me this is more the idea of “meat sacrificed to idols” where Paul teaches that there is no other God but God alone… and demons do not inhabit food (or other things) if one gives thanks to God in what they receive…
I know that Romans 12 and 14 deal with this idea… and that is a great place to start… so my view is biblical in its understanding and base.
Now, if a church i drawing pentagrams on the floor to control “spirits” or The Spirit” or demons or people or whatever else we are in full agreement… yet I do think you are throwing out a great bulk of historical tradition in the name of Satan… when if understood can enrich ones walk in Chirst Jesus.
You see though you think it is me that has not given up my past, I think it is really you who has not given up yours and seem to not be able to view all things as pure in Christ… do notice “in Christ”. It seems you limit the Power and freedom that comes from Grace through the Holy Spirit.
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 17th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Tim,
BTW,
I do want to thank you for a very good and refreshing discussion. Often as two do not agree on certain things as these the discussion moves away from being civil to being juvenile… (guilty as charged at times)
Mostly if there be a tone that seems to undercut love from me to you, I apologize as that is in no way my intent…
This has been rather enjoyable.
Blessings,
iggy
July 17th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
In worship, I am a raving charismatic with a Jewish bent. Dancing is preferred, but a sacred awareness of our Holy God is the destination. If we sing “God is Holy” many times, so be it. That is different than what the Catholic Church does as a perfunctory exercise. We used to do almost the same ceremony in the Lutheran church.