Which of these two response are Christ like?
Pretend, for a moment that you hear two people discussing a third person who was rudely treated at a grocery store check out. The first says:
“How about just asking the courtesy clerk, ‘Hon, I’m so sorry you’re having a bad day! What can I do for you to make it better?”
Try it, it WORKS. Then say a prayer for them when you leave, AFTER you tell them, “I’ll be praying for you today. I sure hope your day gets better”.
The second says:
When I have spent thousands of dollars a year supporting a retail establishment, I see absolutely nothing wrong with requesting courtesy from the staff. Rudeness and lack of service is endemic today because customers put up with it. This young woman Mrs. Pilgrim referred to was in serious need of a reality check. Not only did she do a favor to the young woman who was in sore need of basic teaching, but she did a favor to the store in helping them retain customers. Further, she did a favor to future customers who are often weary and at wits end trying to accomplish the day’s responsibilties and who don’t need an insensitive, boorish individual making them feel badly for shopping in the store.
So which of these two people in this discussion are Christians?
Well you might be surprised to find out that they both are.
Perhaps a better question would be the question posed in the title: Which of these two responses are Christ-like? Because its only one of them.
Posted by Tim Reed, Owosso MI: August 18th, 2007 under Ingrid, Slice Commenters, SoL/CRN Writers.
Comments: 163
Comments
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 18, 2007, 5:40 pm
That is what happens when you are in the world AND of the world. Whatever happened to turn the other cheek? Whatever happened to not returning evil for evil? Whatever happened to suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Whatever happened to forbearance?
Do not the publicans respond the same way? What separates us when we demand our money be respected just as the world does? Perhaps the rude person was gonig through a painful divorce and it was affecting her. It does not matter, we are supposed to endure trials not attack people back. Overcoming evil with good holds true for us especially in circumstances where we are tested.
This type of attitude comes from a lack of walking in the humility that was the Lord Jesus. And Ingrid would be the first to criticize people who demand their rights in other areas. I’ll bet the grocery store where she shops sees her coming. A sweet, kind, charitable follower of Jesus who always has an uplifting word for those who might need one.
You see, when money is involved your speech doesn’t have to be full of grace. And when He was brought to the slaughter He uttered not a word until they lifted Him upon that cruel cross, at which time He said “Forgive them for they know not what they do”. I do not know which Jesus some people are following.
If that is Christianity I am a Muslim.
Comment from samo
Time: August 18, 2007, 6:04 pm
Hey Henry,
Love this line in your comment;
“I’ll bet the grocery store where she shops sees her coming. A sweet, kind, charitable follower of Jesus who always has an uplifting word for those who might need one.”
How about a sweet, uplifting word for Ingrid Schlueter who has been the recipient of your attack posts for months now? If she is wrong and you view her as this obnoxious, shouldn’t she also be the recipient of some of your sweetness and light, just as those obnoxious store clerks are? Instead you reserve nothing but acid in the face for someone who is not only a sister in Christ but another man’s wife. Sir, you are out of line and a hypocrite of the highest order.
Comment from Chris L
Time: August 18, 2007, 6:07 pm
Samo,
Actually, the theme of this blog is primarily the defense of Christian brothers and sisters unfairly and unlovingly attacked from within the church. That these attack dogs would include Ingrid, and particularly Ken, should not be surprising, since at least one of them was identified in Christianity Today last week…
But it is much bigger than that, as well, in that we are seeking how to be salt and light in the context implied by Jesus, which requires being in the world, but not of the systems of the world. In the past week, I have written 3 or 4 articles, and I’m not sure I’ve mentioned Ken or Ingrid’s name in any of them, though they were included in the quotes given in a couple of them. It is not the individuals that are important, but the ideas and actions…
Comment from Chris L
Time: August 18, 2007, 6:08 pm
Samo,
Even when I disagreed with her position (though not naming her) yesterday, I think I went so far as to give the benefit of the doubt in whether her attack was out of ignorance or malevolence, assuming the former and not the latter…
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 18, 2007, 6:15 pm
I love it. Do you feel sorry for Rick Warren or Rob Bell etc., etc., and etc. when Ingrid not only attacks them for months, but for years. And since you brought it up, Ingrid’s husband should be the one rebuking ordained men, not Ingrid. I take extreme exception to her position and tone.
“If she is wrong and you view her as this obnoxious, shouldn’t she also be the recipient of some of your sweetness and light, just as those obnoxious store clerks are? ”
No, she should be reproved as the Word instructs. The lady in the store may have been lost and even if her attitude was wrong, I do not think she makes a living at attacking others. This is just from me personally, I surely believe your die has been cast.
Comment from Chris L
Time: August 18, 2007, 6:16 pm
On a tangential subject to this (but a similar vein - the service industry), I used to work in a restaurant (mid-range) and the servers there absolutely hated working on Sunday at lunch time. Why? Because of the “church people” (their term for them), who were notoriously the most demanding customers and the worst tippers.
I still remember this, almost 20 years later, whenever I go out to eat after church…
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 18, 2007, 6:26 pm
A pastor friend of mine went for breakfast at a restaurant 25 years ago. The waitress was horrible and rude, she threw the plates on the table, and was short in her responses. The bill came to approximately $8:00.
The pastor left a 5 dollar bill as a tip, and the waitress came over to him as he waited in line to pay his bill. She had supposed he left the money by accident. The pastor said it was a tip and the waitress admitted her bad attitude and service and was confused about such a tip.
The pastor told her he thought she must be hurt and her attitude was a response to something in her life. Long story short, she asked to speak to him later and she became a believer.
Gee, what a difference a response makes.
Comment from amy
Time: August 18, 2007, 6:33 pm
Why not give Mrs. Pilgrim the benefit of the doubt in her assessment of the situation? Maybe she felt that this person was not just “having a bad day” but had an underlying attitude problem that would have been apparent on a daily basis.
Maybe this attitude is apparent to many customers but none have had the boldness to say anything about it. So the clerk continues being rude . . .
Perhaps the best and most loving way to actually help the clerk was to speak to the manager. I trust that the manager could make a judgement as to whether the clerk’s actions were out of character for her or not and decide how best to help the clerk change her actions.
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 18, 2007, 6:36 pm
I cannot believe how different people who follow the same Savior see things. Do you know why we never report a waitress to the management? Because we always feel she may be a single mother with several children at home and has major financial problems. I could never live with myself to think I got her fired.
I guess I’m a soft hearted liberal.
Comment from phil
Time: August 18, 2007, 6:39 pm
The problem with people like this Mrs. Pilgrim and the others I see comment on that blog is that they set themselves up as the judge of everybody, everywhere. Actually, isn’t that the whole point of SOL. I will admit that there are times that I have not had the best attitude with sales people and the like, but I usually feel convicted afterwards.
When I read the comments on that site, I just try to imagine Dana Carvey as the Church Lady saying them. It’s amazing how many of them play right into that character.
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 18, 2007, 6:46 pm
As Christians we do not have the luxury of a secular view, ours must always be “What would Jesus do” no matter how trite that saying has become. We don’t always meet that standard, but that is the standard.
I see Jesus making a difference, surely not playing within the system.
Comment from amy
Time: August 18, 2007, 6:48 pm
Samo says, “The self-righteousness on this blog continues to amaze me.”
It would be interesting to count how many commenters have said something like this.
Can they all be wrong?
If someone were to write such a statement in an article in Christianity Today would you then acknowledge that there could be some truth to it?
Comment from Joe Martino
Time: August 18, 2007, 6:53 pm
Chris L touched on this, but I can’t let it go. Ingrid (or Sammo) closed down the comments on the other thread so I’ll say it here. You know what I hate in our service industry? Not the servers who say “you guys” like or not that is a cultural thing. I’ve worked for almost 14 years in food service as a server. Low end to High end. Every single place the one customer group hated the most? Wait for it…the church crowd.
They come in, run you like a dog, tip 8% like it’s still 1956 back in the good old days when we kept the black man in line and sang hymns. We didn’t have “loose dress” and “loose morals” b/c of that reprobate Hugh Heffner yet. We just had good ole fashion bigots, who beat their kids at home.
As a Christian who is trying to share the gospel with my co-workers the absolute biggest detriment was the Christians who come in and leave a fake $20 bill that doubles as a tract for a tip. I also love the one’s who come in with their 46inch thick Study Bible and sit at a table for hours, then leave a $5 tip. Most restaurants limit the # of tables you have in a section so if person is sitting at one for hours you can’t “turn it” and make more money off of it.
Every customer service person has a bad day. Every server has a bad day and I imagine every Christian has a bad day, but I can’ tell you how many times Ive (and others like me) have been left to pick up the pieces b/c some Christian has come in with their undies in a bunch and tipped poorly.
One last example, the last restaurant where I worked was a magnet for upper income Christians. Every Saturday night these two “Christian†families would come in about 30 minutes before closing time. They would only order “tappa’s†which were bar item foods. Then they would sit for 2 to 2.5 hours. The whole time they would loudly complain about their Pastor, and other backslidden Christians. Their bill was almost always around $50. In a high end restaurant –which this was—that should have worked out to about an $8 tip. Probably a lot closer to 10 because the server had to sit and wait for them to finish long after the rest of the restaurant was shut down and then do clean up work. These people always left $6 because they “only ate the bar food.â€
Then one Saturday they actually had the balls to tell a single mom that she should come to church and find what she was looking for in the eyes of “those men.â€
And people wonder why people think that Christians are jerks. That is just one of a hundred stories I could tell.
RRR, this one just irks me.
Comment from Chris P.
Time: August 18, 2007, 6:54 pm
Talk about straining a gnat.
We all see how kind Jesus was to the temple vendors. Maybe he should have talked to the manager.
Comment from Joe Martino
Time: August 18, 2007, 6:55 pm
Amy,
Samo would do well to start giving us his or her real name. There was a lot of people that said, eggs were bad for us in the 80’s, they were wrong.
There was a lot of people that said, Hitler was right–they were wrong.
There was a lot of people that said, Enron was a great company to work for, they were wrong.
I wonder how many people have said that they think you have an axe to grind and don’t really care to learn, can they all be wrong?
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 18, 2007, 6:56 pm
We have morphed from “How shall a believer respond” to “This blog is self righteous”.
signed,
A hypocrite of the highest order. (samo’s label)
That will probably be the only thing in which I am in the highest order!
Comment from Joe Martino
Time: August 18, 2007, 6:56 pm
LOL, Chris P, I realize you and Chris Lyons are friends now that you’ve both met and all, but come on! Did you just compare some service girl to the temple merchants? Does Mrs. Pilgrim shop at the Temple? Is she a practicing jew now? I missed that part of the story
Comment from samo
Time: August 18, 2007, 6:58 pm
I get such a hoot of you guys. You criticize Slice and CRN for setting themselves up as “judge and jury” and you’re doing the same thing!!! Except it’s ok, because Slice and Ken are wrong and you’re not! Geez, that sounds like familiar thinking.
Frueh even tells Ingrid’s husband how to run his home! He has all the answers. He is correct, Ingrid and her husband and her ministry is wrong. Who set you up to be judge and jury of Ingrid and Slice, Rick? As scripture says, “who are you to judge another man’s servant?” Or for that matter all the Slice obsessed people who wait to pounce on every word she writes? You are all doing the same thing you condemn and you justify it because you believe you are biblically right and she is wrong. This is EXACTLY what she is doing yet you say she is wrong. You are all acting the same way and you refuse to see it. I have been reading your attacks for months and marveling that you do the same thing you criticize others for. If you were serious about what love was and what respect was you would shut this attack site down and stop gossiping about other Christians. One emerging pastor saw another side of Ingrid and was man enough to post it. I notice that you never ever mention the missionary stuff, the good sermons, the hymns and encouragement that Slice posts either. You like to demonize her and that’s why you never say anything about that. At least this pastor has character enough to do it differently.
His update says it all.
http://chriselrod.typepad.com/chris_elrod_dot_com/2007/08/four-for-four.html
Comment from Joe Martino
Time: August 18, 2007, 7:00 pm
I wonder how many people said Jesus was a fraud? Were they all wrong?
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 18, 2007, 7:03 pm
Samo - you are in the flesh.
Comment from amy
Time: August 18, 2007, 7:05 pm
Rick,
I have never reported anyone to a manager, that I recall. I think I would recall it, because it would be a difficult thing to do. I usually try to be kind to rude people. But I do think that sometimes the best way to help people is to see that they are held responsible for their actions.
There’s another side to feeling sorry for “the single widow with several children at home.” If a clerk is really rude to a customer that she doesn’t know, chances are that what is going on at home with the kids is very harmful to them. Such a person needs help, and sometimes help (not just firing) can actually come from a manager or another worker who is in the store and is aware of the situation.
I regularly hear some mothers talking to their children in public as if they were dogs . It’s all I can do sometimes not to say either, “Please, can I help you, this is a “gift from God” you’re screaming at.” Or, “How dare you talk to this child like that! Stop it!” Both responses - even though one seems loving and one seems hateful - come from the same heart that is grieved over the mistreatment of children.
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 18, 2007, 7:10 pm
Well then, Amy, every man can do what is right in their own eyes. I guess there is no template for Chrsitian responses. We all have responded inappropriately and we all have been offended and returned evil for evil. But if we cannot even agree what is right, then we are in danger of reflecting what the unsaved patron would also do.
Comment from Joe Martino
Time: August 18, 2007, 7:11 pm
Amy,
Sit down and then continue reading. I agree with your comments to Rick about the mother yelling at their kids and the way they talk to them. So many times I’ve wanted to say something. I haven’t but I’ve wanted to. I have prayed for them numerous times.
Comment from Joe Martino
Time: August 18, 2007, 7:12 pm
I’ll take an unsaved patron over the saved one any day. Almost always nicer, and almost always a better tipper.
Comment from amy
Time: August 18, 2007, 7:25 pm
Rick,
Bitterness harbored will blind and hurt you.
Samo may be partly “in the flesh” when he’s writing his comments. I don’t know, I’m not God.
What I think is that he’s speaking truth in his 6:58 comment.
Comment from Sandman
Time: August 18, 2007, 7:25 pm
Chris P., I don’t get your point. Technically speaking, Jesus was the manager and the owner.
The temple vendors were set up where they should not have been. They were set up in a place meant for other worshippers, thus keeping them out. They were selling animals to be sacrificed at inflated prices. Money changers moved right in as well and help facilite the thievery.
Jesus acted in righteous anger then, just as in the same way, in justice and righteousness, he’ll conduct war in a future time.
I often have to remind myself that the cross is offensive, that does not mean we are to be offensive.
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 18, 2007, 7:27 pm
When he observes that I am a hypocrite of the highest order I hope it wasn’t in the Spirit.
Comment from Joe Martino
Time: August 18, 2007, 7:34 pm
Amy,
If you really believe that “we should shut this attack site down” then why do you comment here? Why read it? Why give us the readership?
Comment from amy
Time: August 18, 2007, 7:39 pm
Joe,
Do you think this particular phenomenon (of mother’s yelling at their kids, saying all kinds of nasty things to them in public) is more of a problem in the South?
Once passing through Kentucky I was astounded at a couple of incidents in a fast food restaurant. One woman was enraged at her child who was about two, for turning around in his seat at a fast-food restaurant looking at us, a normal two-year old thing to do. Another one was talking loudly about “beating the (something) out of her kids” and just carrying on as if she were at home and noone could hear her. I hate to think what kind of problems those kids will have as they grows up.
The opposite of this problem are mothers who let their kids do whatever they want to them in public. I’ve seen a kid beating on his mom with a stick, kids yelling at their moms, slapping their moms, etc. Not just in the south, but overseas.
Regarding tipping and Christians, most Christians I know well are not very well-off. Yet they see tipping and treating the waitresses/waiters nice as something that’s quite important.
Comment from Sandman
Time: August 18, 2007, 7:45 pm
Personally, I think the 6:58 I think samo’s and Rick’s comments bring up an important point or two:
How quick and selective we can be in applying first century Jewish/Palestinian culture on each other today.
And
There are all kinds of self-constructed pitfalls we create when we seek to adopt a particular culture or period of time as the ideal for us to adopt today.
Comment from amy
Time: August 18, 2007, 7:46 pm
Joe,
If you really believe that “we should shut this attack site down†then why do you comment here?
For your own sakes you should shut this site down. Sorry if that sounds like a threat.
Why do I comment here? Because I believe it’s what God wants me to do . . .
Are you implying that if I stop commenting you’ll shut the site down? Promise?
Comment from Chris L
Time: August 18, 2007, 7:48 pm
Samo,
I’ve complimented Ingrid on a number of things, and one of our writers (from Saddleback) went out of his way to agree with her assessment of a case where Rick Warren prooftexted scripture in a blatantly poor manner.
As for how this site is different, I go back to the article above, and the focus is on examining two actions (whose actors are not named) and evaluating which one is more Christ-like. Not which one is heretical. No name-calling. But a tangible examination of actions, not actors.
Chris P, I am a bit perplexed on how the money changers apply here, since I didn’t see from the context that the rude worker was Christian or attempting to bilk people or block them from worship…
Comment from Chris L
Time: August 18, 2007, 7:49 pm
Amy,
I will shut this site down when there is no longer a need to protect my brothers and sisters in Christs from false and evil attacks within the church….
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 18, 2007, 8:02 pm
By the way, Chris L., you are a hypocrite of the medium order but you are climbing!
Comment from Joe Martino
Time: August 18, 2007, 8:04 pm
LOL, Amy, I don’t run this site so no I’m not making that promise. Perhaps, we post here because we believe that is what God wants us to do?
Chris L,
We have a writer from Saddleback? Who?
Comment from amy
Time: August 18, 2007, 8:15 pm
Chris,
I wish that you could read this site, from beginning to end, with the eyes of a guest, with no agenda. May God open your eyes.
Consider that the remarks that are made by bloggers and left unchallenged regarding individuals as well as beliefs are ultimately your responsibility. Consider that this is especially true in light of your having put one person on “probation” because of his comments.
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 18, 2007, 8:18 pm
In light of Amy’s comments, I hereby elevate Christ into the highest order.
Comment from David C
Time: August 18, 2007, 8:22 pm
When I have spent thousands of dollars a year supporting a retail establishment,
Talk about showing her narcissistic side while talking about narcissism. The grocery store should be respectful to people whether they spend just a dime or thousands of dollars.
But that she is a big spender should matter that much? LOL!
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 18, 2007, 8:24 pm
As a side note - we just left my youngest son at Bible college today, please pray that God will speak to him in the coming years. My oldest son attends also although off campus.
Jonathan and David (get the connection?)
Comment from Joe Martino
Time: August 18, 2007, 8:30 pm
Amy,
Do you really believe you have no agenda?
Comment from Joe Martino
Time: August 18, 2007, 8:34 pm
Amy,
I missed your 7:39 post. I don’t know about the South vs. the North thing. I think it might be everywhere. As for tipping and treating people nice. I’m not sure I understand. If you are saying that they can’t tip b/c they are poor but they treat the server nice I gotta tell you that doesn’t help my kids eat. If you saying they tip in spite of being poor more power to them. One of the things i was taught as a kid was if you can’t afford to leave a nice tip you can’t afford to eat there
Comment from Tim Reed
Time: August 18, 2007, 8:41 pm
Wow, go out to dinner with grandma and you miss a lot. Honestly, I wrote this particular post because Ingrid and a few other’s comments made me quite angry.
The essence of the Christian life is servanthood. I don’t see anywhere the example Jesus set by washing his disciples’ feet in Ingrid’s statement. Instead what I see is a petty person who feels insulted because she wasn’t given the respect she is due. When I read Paul writing in Philippians “but in humility consider others better than yourselves” and I see Ingrid demanding that she be referred to as “ma’am” and reporting cashiers to managers because she spends thousands of dollars at a retail establishment to support them I see an extreme disconnect. In other words, I don’t see much Christ like in that behavior at all, not even when she disguises it as a favor because the clerk “is in serious need of a reality check”.
Oh and in regards to being a hypocrite, since Christ is the one I try to become like, I will always be a hypocrite, my only goal is to be as small a one as possible.
Comment from robbymac
Time: August 18, 2007, 9:05 pm
My wife and I have had numerous teenagers off the street living short-term with us. During one of these seasons, we ran into some of the elders from our church at a local restaurant, right after church on Sunday.
We accepted their friendly offer to dine at their table with the elders, and our waitress arrived shortly afterwards. We discovered — because my wife & I struck up a conversation with her when she first came to our table — that this was her first part-time job, and this was her second shift.
One of the elders, despite being aware of her newbie status, was absolutely merciless in the demanding, complaining, and insulting way that he treated her. As the meal went on, there were several times where everyone could see the tears in her eyes at the verbal shaming that our elder heaped on her.
In the car, on our way home, we were very quiet, embarrassed by the attitude and actions of the elder. Not surprisingly, the street kid in our rear seat finally piped up with a single question:
“How does an ice-hose (roughly translated) like that get to be an elder in a church?”
Comment from Chris L
Time: August 18, 2007, 9:23 pm
Rick,
I just left my oldest boy off at for his first year in college last week (though technically today, since this last week was ‘boot camp’ for the Purdue Varsity Glee Club, which he is a part of). It was hard to let him go, probably even moreso for my wife.
Amy,
You wrote:
Consider that the remarks that are made by bloggers and left unchallenged regarding individuals as well as beliefs are ultimately your responsibility.
I realize my responsibility and I am completely comfortable with what the writers on this site have written. I would much rather err on the side of grace than on the side of legalism. Were I the owner of C?N, AM or SoL, I don’t know that I would ever be able to sleep (or look in a mirror, for that matter).
Consider that this is especially true in light of your having put one person on “probation†because of his comments.
I believe you mean “moderation” - and it is only because every post of his degenerated to one-liners that had nothing to do with the topic at hand. If he posts something of substance, it is moderated ASAP. If he’s just posting a one-line insult, it will just wait a few more hours before going live…
Comment from phil
Time: August 18, 2007, 10:16 pm
I am reminded of Steve Taylor’s “Cash Cow” by Mrs. Pilgrim’s comment, particularly the last part here:
Woe, woe, woe to you who blow off this warning
Perhaps you’ve already been licked…
I, too, was hypnotized
By those big cow eyes
The last time I uttered
Those three little words
“I deserve better!”
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 19, 2007, 6:19 am
Woe to the man who thinks more highly of himself than he ought. He thinks he is something when he is nothing. When the Amish people had ten of their precious daughters murdered by outsiders, they presented a forgiving attitude that was an example for us all, even to attending the funeral of the murderer.
So while they can endure such a tragedy with grace, would it not seem reasonable that we should provide an attitude which substantiates the title “peculiar people”? In order for us to uncover our light we will have to suffer offense in our daily lives in a way that sets us apart. We must reject the trappings of the common and strive to reflect the uncommon life of the Lord. We cannot think in terms of commerce, but in the Spirit of redemption and grace.
To be fair, the response we have been discussing here is oh so common in Christian circles. The church has been lured into listening to and emulating the tone on conservative radio programs which relentlessly criticize, attack, and generally demean other people in the name of conservative politics. This is not the spirit of Christ.
We have been taught to fight forcefully for our issues and rights and that spirit has found a place in our daily interactions. Of course we can go to the return goods counter, but the principal here is should we ever repond negatively to rudeness and unkindness? Yes, we should respond, but the Scriptures give us a clear guideline concerning our responses. They must emenate from Jesus via the Holy Spirit and not in like kind to others. We must never be reactionary but redemptive.
Salt and light are metaphors that are used to teach us that this world will be dark but we must be bright. In a truer sense, when we are slighted that gives us the greater opportunity to allow the Christ to minister through us His life and not our reaction. This is even more true when the western idol is involved, money.
Should we, like the world, use our money as a leverage? Do not the tax collectors and publicans do the same? Shouldn’t God’s love be our leverage? Did not the Pharisees attempt to use money to leverage our Lord? We are instructed to live a peaceable and quiet life in this present world so as not to distract from our calling which is to preach as well as live the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
This threads has sometimes gotten off track, which again reflects our ignorance to the Spirit filled life, but it is an important topic. If we can remove the original source and speak in the broader sense it becomes painfully clear that we sometimes, sometimes often, live and react within the culture just like the unregenerate act and react. Is it any wonder we do not stand out in our generation?
And the easiest way to draw attention to Christ is to draw attention to yourself by being so different, so peculiar, so gracious and loving in the midst of attack and offense that men will ask you about the hope that lies within you. This life we live is not our own, it is His. If we are to ever break the darkness that enslaves this world we will have to be light years different than the crowd.
And not just the “don’ts” that we sometimes concentrate on, but the fruits of the Spirit. The same person that rejects the movies (me) and is mean and prideful has done no service to the cause of Christ. The world cannot understand external issues of separation, but they can understand love, joy, patience, and other cooresponding acts of compassion and grace which can be used as conduits to attract their fallen hearts to the glorious Person who was Grace Incarnate.
Our pride, our rights, our views, our positions, our wealth, and everything else must be nailed to His cross and left there. The only thing you should take from the cross is Him, and if that be true He will as He promised “draw all men unto Me”. Let us strive to please Him in all things with a sweet smelling savour that is unmistakably Him and Him alone.
Daunting, yes, but a journey of a lifetime!
Comment from Joe Martino
Time: August 19, 2007, 7:07 am
My oldest starts Kindegarten in 2.5 weeks. Somehow I start before her, doesn’t seem fair.
I had no idea John D was from Saddleback.
Comment from Russ N.
Time: August 19, 2007, 7:58 pm
People should really listen to Greg Boyd’s The New Way of The New Israel
In it he talks about when Jesus sends the 12 out — and that the method is to show people the kingdom of God through our words, actions, etc. and then tell them.
It would seem - bringing this back to the posting - the first person showed the kingdom of God and then told them and second (Mrs. Pilgrim) demanded recognition and an adherence to a set of expectations that had not been communicated.
As for the need of this site - Amy - while I struggle NOT to spend a large majority of my time at SoL (2.0), AM, and C?N (as it proves too much of a distraction to my walk). This is a place to actually, truly debate and discuss. None of us are perfect - and to expect perfection is a meeting with disappointment - every single time.
It would appear that some of the ODMs want to present themselves as having it all figured out — as perfect (I don’t know an author on this site that has not asked for forgiveness when something they have written has crossed the line) - can the same be said of the ODMs this site monitors?
I’ve yet to see Ingrid, Ken, et al say they were wrong.
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 19, 2007, 8:04 pm
Russ - good comment. Although the spoken or written Word can never be supplanted, the substantiation of a living epistle is very underestimated.
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2007/08/god-is-light-i-jn.html
Comment from Julie
Time: August 19, 2007, 9:56 pm
1. Who is Samo, really? It’s funny how Samo always appears on posts directly about Ingrid.
2. Mrs. Pilgrim may not have been wrong to get the manager, but the way she did it was just as snotty and power-grabbing as the employee. Customers like that also help contribute to employees who despise customers. I work/worked retail. I know.
3. And three:
“The self-righteousness on this blog continues to amaze me.â€
It would be interesting to count how many commenters have said something like this.
Can they all be wrong?
Yes. They could be. It depends on who they are, why they come here, and what their agenda is. If it were a scientific sampling of people, I’d tend to pay more attention.
4. There is no excuse to treat people poorly. Ever. The worse they are to you, the better you return. Heaps of coals. The Jesus creed. Love others. Even if you feel it’s “their job” and “their duty” and “I’ve shopped here for years and deserve respect.” A clerk need’s the manager to get her set straight? Do it with love, calmly. Mrs. Pilgrim and Ingrid were not exhibiting one iota of love in their comments. None.
People don’t call you Mr./Mrs., don’t give you the service and respect you believe you deserve, treat you shamefully? Where’s that in the Bible? The part about earthly respect that you so deserve from either the unsaved or the saved. Seriously. Where is that — I’d like to know. It’d make my life easier.
Usually these watchdog sites trot out the “you shall be hated because of Me” scriptures in the Bible if anyone says anything against them, so I’d say Mrs. Pilgrim got a little taste of that. She ought to glory in it.
Comment from Julie
Time: August 19, 2007, 10:07 pm
Confusing:
A: “You are all hypocrites because you’re doing the same thing the other site is doing.
B: “We are only responding to specific people calling out other specific people.”
A: “So you’re a hypocrite, then.”
B: “No. We are only responding.”
C: “You should shut this attack site down.”
D: “If you think we should shut it down, why do you comment here?”
C: “Because I believe it’s what God wants me to do.”
E (me): “So…responding to the posts written here about posts written elsewhere isn’t hypocritical because that’s what God wants, but that doesn’t hold true across the line…”
Summary: The hypocrite is always the other guy, the one that you don’t agree with.
Comment from Tim Reed
Time: August 19, 2007, 10:09 pm
Amen to point 4 especially Julie.
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 19, 2007, 10:10 pm
I am a hypocrite of the highest order, but everyone else is a hypocrite cubed.
The hypocrite card is the blog equivalent to the Old Maid.
Comment from chris
Time: August 20, 2007, 4:28 am
You know what I do when I want respect?
I punch the person right in the face.
It works every time. Plus it’s what God called me to do. It’s one of my spiritual gifts. Well, that and discernment.
Love, Joy, Peace…Boxing.
Comment from Chris L
Time: August 20, 2007, 9:40 am
Julie,
You asked:
Who is Samo, really? It’s funny how Samo always appears on posts directly about Ingrid.
It is interesting that you should ask that question, as “samo” is also posting from the same PC as “Pax On You”, “Valhalla”, and “Tito”. Per your observation, all of these “people” (who, electronically appear to be one in the same) have only commented on articles/comment threads specifically related to Ingrid.
Now, interestingly, if you do a slight bit of research, you will find out that Ingrid has a 19-year-old son named Samuel Guzman.
The IP address of “samo” is 67.53.15.89, if I run a whois on it, I will find out that it is a roadrunner account, and then if I go a little bit more deeply, I will find out that it originates from Wisconsin.
Coincidentally, Ingrid is from Wisconsin and has an IP address in the same general area via the same provider.
Now, the evidence is not, by any means, conclusive, but I would suggest that the most likely answer to your question Who is Samo, really? is that he is Sam Guzman, and that (completely understandably) he is sticking up for his mother…
Comment from Julie
Time: August 20, 2007, 9:43 am
The use of the name “Tito” is bizarre.
Otherwise, it’s interesting how that all works out. IP numbers: they tell so much.
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 20, 2007, 9:50 am
Wow, Chris, you are a sleuth. I can’t even post a smile face and you have tracked down somebody in Wisconson. Can’t you find Bin Laden? If Ingrid or someone she knows comments with an alias that is pitiful.
The Samo Wrestler.
Comment from iggy
Time: August 20, 2007, 10:24 am
Chris L.
You need to stop picking on Samo’s mommy…. LOL!
chris (the boxer) that is the funniest thing I have read in a long time… and it makes perfect sense… in context!
As far as Ingrid goes, if she so chooses to cast stones in public then what is said back is to be expected… be her right or wrong… the issue is that her stones are very big and her views very narrow, though painted with a huge broad brush!
IOW, she demonizes all that disagree with her without a thought that she might be out of line somewhere… and that is more dangerous for her than for the people she is assaulting with her lies and slander. It is that she refuses to take rebuke and is without repentance over her withdrawals of posts she decides are possibly “wrong”. To be such a public person and state things without real proof then to delete some of the statements without even acknowledging that she was wrong, let alone possible “sinned” or caused harm to the other people involved shows her lack of true understanding of scripture in that we are to reconcile to one another. She refuses to reconcile… which is a refusal to forgive… which if I recall Jesus states plainly in the Lord’s Prayer that “Forgive us as we forgive others”… if we do not forgive, then the sins are retained if they are forgiven then all are forgiven… so to not forgive or seek forgiveness leaves one only in their own sin… and Ingrid, by refusing to ask or give forgiveness has by the scriptures own teachings placed herself in dangerous territory!
(Now, there is much more to this teaching, but I am using their own “formula” here… )
So, Samo, if you truly care about your “mother” then you need to get her on track with scripture… and take the rebukes of love that are trying to set her back on the narrow path! (funny that an emergent has to explain this to a fundamentalist) LOL!
blessings,
iggy
Comment from amy
Time: August 20, 2007, 10:49 am
Joe asked,
“Do you really believe you have no agenda?”
I write comments on a variety of issues here. If you want to look at all of them and say that I have an agenda, go ahead.
What does it mean to say that someone “has an agenda?” It can mean that they have a viewpoint or viewpoints that is/are important to them that you don’t like. Anyone could go through anyone elses comments here or look at the nature of the articles here and say that someone “has an agenda.”
Comment from amy
Time: August 20, 2007, 11:01 am
Chris said,
“I realize my responsibility and I am completely comfortable with what the writers on this site have written. I would much rather err on the side of grace than on the side of legalism.”
It’s much more than “grace versus legalism” for which you are responsible. There is truth versus error.
Comment from dave
Time: August 20, 2007, 11:06 am
I notice that you never ever mention the missionary stuff, the good sermons, the hymns and encouragement that Slice posts either.
Haha… I am still waiting for Ingrid’s first post about a positive sermon from Bill Hybels or Rob Bell.
Or for he to acknowledge the 95% of a blog that she ignores in order to attack the 5% of the blog that may talk about going to see Styx.
Further… I love that people think that this “attack site” should get shut down but have no problem with Slice and others. I do not want Slice to get shut down. But they do deserve almost every criticism they get.
If you are going to attack, expect to be attacked.
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 20, 2007, 11:11 am
Amy - for many months I have enjoyed reading your comments, many of which I agree with. Of course we see SOL and CRN differently, but generally you were sincere and well thought out. Recently you’ve become embroiled with other issues about blog running and responsiblity and the rest.
It seems to have drained what was a fresh approach that surely is welcomed here. Try not to get entangled with Chris or others, it detracts from your obvious academic skills. You are a commited follower of the same Lord we all follow, and I desire to hear your thoughts. It is hard to stay on topic, we all stray, but I have looked forward to you and your willingness to comment on blogs such as this. God bless you, sister. Keep listening for His voice!
Comment from amy
Time: August 20, 2007, 11:13 am
Julie,
I guess by saying that Sam spoke truth I get to claim all of his lines? Joe attributed the “this attack site should be shut down” to me after I said that Sam spoke truth.
In context, Sam said, “If you were serious about what love was and what respect was you would shut this attack site down and stop gossiping about other Christians.”
What Sam is getting at is the hypocrisy in what is going on here. For example if Slice pulled out a comment from this site such as the one by Mrs. Pilgrim, an article would be written here with a title like “Diggin’ Deep.” I could go on . . .
Love is talked about but there are nasty underhanded comments. I could go on . . .
Comment from Chris L
Time: August 20, 2007, 11:20 am
Amy,
As I read the question and your response, you seem to be treating the word “agenda” the same as the word “bias”. Everyone tends to have a bias - viewpoints of what is important to them. An agenda, though, is a desired outcome (or end in mind) based upon ones biases. Most people who have biases, if they are at all introspective (which you appear to be), cannot help but have an agenda (an outcome that would be desired based upon their biases).
You asked
I wish that you could read this site, from beginning to end, with the eyes of a guest, with no agenda. May God open your eyes.
Typically, if you have enough interest to read opinion articles, then you are already beginning with some sort of bias.
The condescending “May God open your eyes” then suggests that a) you have no agenda (which would, as Joe has suggested, is contradicted by your own writing) and b) somehow your view is so sure and forthright that the difference in our opinions places God upon your side, for which the only solution is that my eyes must be open.
However, I would posit that in the discussions that we (collectively) carry on here, all of us (commenters, posters, everyone) could use some “eye opening” from time to time and that none of us holds a corner on the truth market. Do I have confidence in my own opinions? Certainly, or else I wouldn’t write them down. Am I so confident (or arrogant)that I would say that my opinions are holistically God’s opinions (as implied in your comment)? No.
Joe’s question to you about having an agenda wasnt’ to suggest that having one is wrong. We have an agenda: serving Christ and defending falsely maligned brothers and sisters in Him. I don’t think we hide it, or think that it’s wrong. No, the question to you was in response to your comment which (naively) suggested that you had no agenda and the eyes of God…
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 20, 2007, 11:20 am
Chris - if indeed samo is Ingrid’s son I am grieved. In the same way I always think that MacLaren or Bell or Warren’s children may wander onto SOL or CRN and see their father viciously attacked, I hope that Ingrid would advise her children to avoid blogs that reprove her.
Although the vitriolic posts must be confronted, and the unloving attacks must be reproved, I will personally read my comments with a sharper eye toward personal invectives rather than an impartial dealing with interaction within the body of Christ. If any of my children had read that I was a hypocrite of the highest order they would surely be hurt and probably mad. The Frueh’s have a sense of humor which deflects taking offense, but it is still not in the Spirit of Christ to reprimand someone’s mother or father in fron of their children.
I would hope Ingrid would not only prevent that, she would take into consideration the children of many whom she verbally demeans. Take notice of the thread dealing with going to a concert etc., isn’t that how a dialogue in which people have substantive disagreements should be conducted?
Comment from amy
Time: August 20, 2007, 11:24 am
I realized who samo was quite awhile back, perhaps because I also have a son who has been extremely loyal to me through some incredibly difficult circumstances.
My son knows I’m not perfect. I’m sure that Sam realizes that about his mother as well.
I think you should listen to what he has to say. You can disagree on issues without presenting a distorted picture of who people really are.
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 20, 2007, 11:30 am
If what you say is true, Amy, do you condone a 19 yr. old calling an ordained preacher a “hypocrite of the highest order”? I thought Ingrid’s post was about respect, was it not? Wow, the journey continues to get stranger every day.
Comment from iggy
Time: August 20, 2007, 11:34 am
Amy,
“I think you should listen to what he has to say. You can disagree on issues without presenting a distorted picture of who people really are.”
I don’t disagree with this, yet I hope you see it that she should listen to others also and stop her “imperfect” slander of others.
Also, remember almost every serial killer out there had a neighbor who stated, “He was a really nice guy.”…
Samo needs to also listen and to talk to his mother about the issues that she is causing… (Note she really is not raising awareness but is more inline with hit and run slander and gossip).
Blessings,
iggy
Comment from Chris L
Time: August 20, 2007, 11:35 am
Amy,
You wrote:
It’s much more than “grace versus legalism†for which you are responsible. There is truth versus error.
I agree, and I believe that all writers here have spoken the truth in Christ, to the best of their ability, and that, when error has been identified (whether from within or without), we’ve not been ashamed to admit it.
I have had a number of pastors who have asked my “Chris, I have become familiar with this thing called ‘the emerging church’. What can you tell me about it, and what can you recommend as a response?” I have typically recommended books by Kimball and Driscoll and Bell. I have talked about the spectrum between conservative and liberal thought in the movement. I have warned about loose orthodoxy (using some of Burke’s writing as an example), and praised the churches which emphasize relevance and missionality without sacrificing the message of Christ. I have talked about folks like Kimball and Bell who do a great job of separating tradition from scripture, without slipping out of orthodoxy. I talk about theological drift (as with the church of Ephesus in Rev. 2) within all movements of the church, and the need to keep some pressure pushing towards balance.
I take this very seriously, and I would strenuously disagree that we have supported anything unorthodox or heretical on this site. You have not seen us supporting Word-Faith or Health-and-Wealth-Gospel beliefs. You have not seen us supporting overt fundamental legalism. These movements have drifted theologically over time and still hurt the church far more than anything I’ve seen from the ECM holistically.
Comment from Chris L
Time: August 20, 2007, 11:44 am
Henry,
In regards to samo, I agree. This is why I noted that I could completely understand why he would defend Ingrid, and why I would also understand that objectivity would be more difficult for him, and how (as in the case of the article above, where nobody was named) he can read criticism of a position held by his mother as criticism of his mother.
This gets back to the issue of people of flesh-and-blood not being our enemies.
I allow my two teenage boys to read both blogs I write for, though I haven’t allowed them to comment (they haven’t asked, either). Phoenix is in college now, so it’s up to him if he wants to or not. I trust him fully and think he’s got himself together as much as anyone else. Still, when they know I (personally) am being criticized for something, we talk about it and I tell them (or show them) my response - or why (as is the case many times) I have chosen not to respond. It is a good place for learning - both from positive and negative example.
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 20, 2007, 11:51 am
I agree, Chris. But if you wrote a post demanding you be referred to with respect, and then Phoenix called a preacher a hypocrite of the highest order, would you not see a major disconnect?
Comment from Matt B
Time: August 20, 2007, 12:21 pm
I don’t think I’ve distorted Ingrid. That comment about AIDS being a gay disease was one of the most unChristlike comments I have ever heard uttered by a Christian. Who’s site should be shut down?
Comment from amy
Time: August 20, 2007, 12:22 pm
Rick said,
“If what you say is true, Amy, do you condone a 19 yr. old calling an ordained preacher a “hypocrite of the highest orderâ€?”
No, I don’t condone it, and I almost said something about it (you’ll have to take my word for it.) I immediately reacted negatively to that statement. Saying something about it would have been giving away Sam’s identity which was not something I was willing to do.
But honestly, I think I should have said something about it, regardless.
I don’t condone it because of the age factor. As far as the “ordained preacher” having something to do with it - I don’t know, Rick. I have had issues with Ken Silva using that as an argument.
There are ordained preachers who I think are apostates and hypocrites. Would I tell them that to their face - in certain circumstance, probably yes - and believe me I would be shaking and weeping when I did it.
Even with the age factor, there are circumstances in which I would tell a person much older than myself something that they didn’t want to hear. In light of my saying this last statement and in light of my feelings about what Sam said my position on what is appropriate for a person to say to an elder is inconsistent.
Another thing to consider. There are things I’ve thought of saying to you that I’ve hesitated on, because I thought that you would be immediately defensive because I am a woman.
Maybe it boils down to this: Should a person’s position/gender/age place them above being confronted with the truth?
If Sam has said the same thing in a different manner - for example, giving some examples of how you support some people’s ugliness towards Ken and Inrid while continually putting down their ugliness towards others- I would not have had a problem with it.
Comment from amy
Time: August 20, 2007, 12:24 pm
Chris,
“I take this very seriously, and I would strenuously disagree that we have supported anything unorthodox or heretical on this site. ”
Then reread the discussions where Mclaren came up.
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 20, 2007, 12:27 pm
Amy - my point was that samo is a teenager and Ingrid is outspoken about respect. Remove the preacher label, I would NEVER let my 19 myr. old. (I have one) tell an older man that he was a hypocrite. It is massively incongruous with what Ingrid says about teenagers showing respect nowadays.
Oh well, add it to the list. I just think it is really irresponsible to be training them this young to be throwing around the careless invectives.
Comment from Julie
Time: August 20, 2007, 12:37 pm
I can’t help but agree with Henry (Rick) here. In a post(s) discussing young people and the lack of respect for elders, Samo missed the boat on calling a preacher a hypocrite of the highest order.
Whether or not we all thought we should say something and did or didn’t, or whether it is difficult for him to read things about his mother…moot points. He’s 19. He chose to get involved. He chose to defend his mother. That’s fine. But you enter the fray, you become part of it.
Which leads me to the futility of entering a fray and claiming you are doing it for noble purposes, because God told you to, but that somehow you aren’t part of the fray.
Everyone, being part of their own “higher ground” end up actually at the same level. That’s the great challenge/problem: in order to critique the critics, you must enter the fray.
You enter, you’re part of it.
I’ve never sold myself the lie that I wasn’t, that I was noble and opening eyes of the confused for God in a purely uni-directional way of help (i.e. me to them).
No.
It’s bi-directional. You enter the fray, no matter your intention, you become part of it. You might not play dirty, but you’re still in there.
Comment from Chris L
Time: August 20, 2007, 12:43 pm
Rick,
You wrote:
I agree, Chris. But if you wrote a post demanding you be referred to with respect, and then Phoenix called a preacher a hypocrite of the highest order, would you not see a major disconnect?
Not only would I see a disconnect, but you wouldn’t want to hear the phone call behind the scenes to Phoenix 
Comment from amy
Time: August 20, 2007, 3:25 pm
I have kids around this age, and they wouldn’t think of speaking this way to an older person either.
What is ironic about Tim writing this is that up until a week ago I thought he was very young, most likely early 20’s, and was appalled at the lack of respect he showed to me.
I was amazed to hear that he was a pastor.
There you have it. Honesty.
Comment from amy
Time: August 20, 2007, 3:43 pm
Julie,
I said, “Why do I comment here? Because I believe it’s what God wants me to do .”
You’ve really added a whole different attitude to that by saying this:
You said, “Which leads me to the futility of entering a fray and claiming you are doing it for noble purposes, because God told you to, but that somehow you aren’t part of the fray.
Everyone, being part of their own “higher ground†end up actually at the same level. That’s the great challenge/problem: in order to critique the critics, you must enter the fray.
You enter, you’re part of it.
I’ve never sold myself the lie that I wasn’t, that I was noble and opening eyes of the confused for God in a purely uni-directional way of help (i.e. me to them).”
You do realize that Joe asked me the question about why I wrote here based on something that someone else said?
And that instead of nitpicking about that, or ignoring his question, I answered it.
In the only way I know how. Honestly. I do believe that God wants me to write here.
Did I ever say “that I was opening eyes of the confused for God in a purely uni-directional way of help (i.e. me to them)?” I hope not.
Do I feel that my opinions are sometimes more biblical than the ones I’m arguing against? Yes. Why else would I choose to share them? Why would anyone choose to share any opinions if they don’t feel they have a biblical basis for them?
Do I ever wish I could take back something I’ve said? Realize that my understanding was wrong? Commented when I should have been doing something else? Yes, yes, yes.
Do I believe that I’m opening someone’s eyes? Yes. My own eyes. Maybe someone elses, but noone who comments here on any regular basis.
Back to what I said: “Why do I comment here? Because I believe it’s what God wants me to do .”
You could ask me, “Why did you volunteer for that job?” ” Or, why did you go talk to that old lady?” or, “why did you take that course.” or, “Why did you spend the afternoon shopping with your daughter?” or “Why did you spend the afternoon doing “nothing.” And I could often give the same answer. I think God is involved in every part of my life, big or small. Why the need to mock that?
” Everyone, being part of their own “higher ground†end up actually at the same level.” I strongly disagree.
Comment from Julie
Time: August 20, 2007, 4:39 pm
I think the best way to respond, Amy, is agree with Henry (Rick) that I often find some of your comments good.
The problem is the next 400 or 500 comments of yours per post in which you split hairs, grab onto one concept, quote huge chunks of other commenter’s text, starting with “You say” and then fisking it in a way that makes me wonder what in the world the point is.
Example: pointing out in my rather joking attempt to clarify a discussion on the hypocrite conversation that I essentially had my person A/person B non-quotes attributed incorrectly. (Your 11:13 comment where I attributed Samo and you to the same fictional, nameless person).
To borrow a technique of yours (which is incredibly patronizing, starting a sentence with “You do realize” as if, because you felt responses were not up to some standard or followed sensically for you, that you must ask us if we’re correctly comprehending) I say to you: you do realize that we don’t all deal with specific quotes and points and argue them into the ground, don’t you?
That yes, I understand you were responding to Joe, and whoever else, and that I tend to step back and see the comments stream as a whole since that doesn’t tend to lead to thread hijacking, unnecessary hair-splitting, etc.? You do realize I often answer a number of comments or ideas at once in a comment, and that just because you recognize a reference to you doesn’t mean the entire comment is about you?
Amy, you say “I think God is involved in every part of my life, big or small. Why the need to mock that?”
You do realize I wasn’t mocking God’s involvement in your life, don’t you? But merely pointing out yet another somewhat hypocritical way we justify our rightness and the wrongness of those we disagree with? That you were saying the creators of this site out to reconsider their purpose and that it ought to be shut down but that you commented here because God was directing you to do that? How rich it is to think God only speaks to us in such a uni-directional way, somewhat like the guy at Bible college who informs a woman God told him he would marry her only to have her reply that she would have to wait for God to tell her the same thing. Perhaps God is telling the site contributors to keep writing, and for them to listen to your call to quit, is ridiculous.
You do realize this, don’t you?
And you do realize that being unable to answer absolutely every single thing you disagree with makes you an incredibly defensive person? That you don’t have to answer every charge dropped at your door? That you aren’t the only person here who disagrees at times? That you aren’t the one person responsible for “reason” among the “philistines”?
You do realize this, don’t you?
Side note:
Might I just suggest that if you (and anyone else) are going to quote someone, particularly whole or long chunks of comments, just for visual kindness, bracket your quote in blockquote HTML so it is clearer as to what the quote is and what the response is. It makes a huge difference in appearance as well as understanding, since it is clear what is what.
Comment from Chris L
Time: August 20, 2007, 4:44 pm
Julie,
Also, to make blockquoting easier, the little “>>” symbol just above the comment box opens a menu of tags which you can use to add bold, underline, links, blockquotes, etc. to your posts…
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 20, 2007, 4:57 pm
One of the problems is when we place specific, divine direction for ourwords and actions. God allows us some parameters of choice in our lives, it isn’t always all or nothing. God doesn’t say “Buy a big Mac” when you go to MacDonalds, He allows you a choice(If He spoke audibly He would tell you don’t eat anything there).
So God allows me to read and comment here. I haven’t fasted and prayed about it, I just enjoy it and I try and speak things He would approve of. It might help if the marjority of our caomments are presentation of our views and no so much confronting the comments of others. The post itself is fair game, our comments should be an expose of our views.
And sometimes we use some phrases that sound condescending, but as long as we don’t sound like we are attempting to educate the poor ignorant believer of the opposite view. Let me say publicly that in thirty years of following Christ I have had many times that I was sure I was right only to change my mind down the road. Surely I’m the only one, right?
We are so adept at defending a position that we have lost the art of brotherly exchange. OK, let us let God hone these skills again so we can show the world that all of us can dine at the same Christian table, eating somewhat different doctrinal meals, but enjoying some edifying fellowship during the meal.
Comment from chris
Time: August 20, 2007, 5:21 pm
Have I mentioned that I punch people in the face.
Sorry just want to bring some levity. Perhaps though; this blog/thread is of the most serious order and doesn’t need levity. My apologies.
Comment from Julie
Time: August 20, 2007, 5:42 pm
For some reason, the >> doesn’t always work in my older version of Firefox… I end up doing the HTML by hand if I want it to work. So I got in that habit, I guess.
It’s working now, of course.
Figures.
Comment from Julie
Time: August 20, 2007, 5:48 pm
Punching: open hand or closed fist?
The latter is unbiblical.
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 20, 2007, 5:57 pm
A little known fact - Julie’s Indian name is “Punches With a Fist”.
Comment from Tim Reed
Time: August 20, 2007, 7:06 pm
Amy,
Chris,
“I take this very seriously, and I would strenuously disagree that we have supported anything unorthodox or heretical on this site. â€Then reread the discussions where Mclaren came up.
I had no idea being nice to obvious sinners was heretical.
Comment from amy
Time: August 20, 2007, 7:10 pm
Julie,
As far as your A,B hypothetical conversation, if I did that kind of mixing of people’s quotes, Chris would send me to the logic lesson site.
Your 12:37 comment, with a few adjustments, could have been directed to CRN.Info. CRN.Info thinks their purposes are noble. Because you inserted ” because God told you to” in it, I knew you were talking to me., because of your 10:07 comment.
You directed the comments to me based on taking Sam’s comment which Joe attributed to me, and based on a misinterpretation and misrepresentation of my believing that my writing here is something God wants me to do.
In your second comment, (4:39) you continue to misrepresent these two things. This is not a reflection of who I am: “How rich it is to think God only speaks to us in such a uni-directional way, somewhat like the guy at Bible college who informs a woman God told him he would marry her only to have her reply that she would have to wait for God to tell her the same thing.”
As far as my “patronizing” use of “you do realize,” you’ve probably looked more closely than I have, but on a quick reading, I see ONE use of that in all my conversations here. I said, “You do realize that Joe asked me the question about why I wrote here based on something that someone else said?” I’m not sure how I could change that to suit you. I am mystified as to how you can be so sensitive to someone “patronizing” you when your 4:39 comment is so much more that than anything I’ve ever written.
I believe that these things that you have said have come about as a result of your stored up venom since our last communication.
I have no interest in communicating with you on this level.
Comment from amy
Time: August 20, 2007, 7:17 pm
Tim,
I took the time to write out the conversation on the video for you. I don’t see how you can continue to say that he was talking about “obvious sinners,” not unrepentant Christians.
Nor do I see how there is any biblical justification for a pastor speaking at a church that makes God’s grace a license to continue sinning. That goes way beyond “being nice to obvious sinners.”
Comment from Tim Reed
Time: August 20, 2007, 7:20 pm
Amy,
I responded with multiple critiques for why your assessment was wrong. You never responded to them, you simply re-stated your initial remarks.
Nor do I see how there is any biblical justification for a pastor speaking at a church that makes God’s grace a license to continue sinning. That goes way beyond “being nice to obvious sinners.â€
Do you hold Ravi Zacharias to the same standard for speaking at the Mormon Tabernacle?
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 20, 2007, 7:23 pm
Amy - huh?? Wow, it’s like comment Risk. I will attack comment 12:32 with comment 5:16.
Go to Julie’s blog, Amy, and you will understand her a little better. She has a great but obtuse sense of humor, and she is wonderfully philosophical. I love to banter with her and as you can see she sees things differently than you who are more direct. And she cares about missions as do you.
So without continuing to exchange about styles, what are you guys desiring to say about responses to rudeness in the marketplace? I say “Punches With a Fist” knows how to deal with them!
Comment from amy
Time: August 20, 2007, 7:32 pm
As far as the blockquote idea, it’s something that I’ve wanted to do but haven’t taken the time to look up.
I didn’t realize how easy it was. (I’m saying this in faith, hoping what I did worked.)
Something that would really be helpful to me us numbered comments, such as on VS and Slice. Would that be difficult to set up?
Comment from amy
Time: August 20, 2007, 7:35 pm
Rick,
If Julie’s comment had been directed to you it wouldn’t have been “huh?” It would have been you trying to sort out what she was saying and trying to correct misperceptions . . .
as well as telling her that she had no right to speak so rudely to an ordained pastor.
Conversations and attitudes look quite different when you’re not the brunt of the criticism.
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 20, 2007, 7:42 pm
My “huh” was meant to indicate your comment was very intricate and hard to follow. I am the brunt of criticism many times, including from my wife so I’m used to it.
As far as the ordaine pastor thing, I can dialogue with anyone, male or female or both, but a woman should not rebuke an elder. keep partcipating but slow down a little. Are you from New York? I am!
Comment from amy
Time: August 20, 2007, 7:45 pm
Tim,
Your responses seemed to be ignoring the context of what Mclaren said and did. I didn’t see how to respond other than to repeat what I’d already said.
It’s like if I heard someone say, “Dogs are canines.” And someone kept saying, “but he didn’t say “dogs are canines,” he said “cats are canines.”" I wouldn’t know how to keep responding to that.
I don’t know that much about the Mormon Temple thing. Whatever I would think about it has no relevance to what I think about Brian Mclaren’s speaking at the church where he spoke.
It would be interesting to know just what all you are wanting to defend regarding Brian Mclaren.
Comment from chris
Time: August 20, 2007, 7:47 pm
It’s me again.
*open hand smack* *karate chop to the spleen* *round house kick to the adams apple*
The beatings will continue until moral improves.
Comment from chris
Time: August 20, 2007, 7:47 pm
*morale*
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 20, 2007, 7:48 pm
Tim - in many things Brian MacLaren is very difficult to defend. There is a wide gap between MacLaren and Kimball.
Amy - I would agree that some attempt to defend the indefensible. But on the other side someone like Kimball, no matter what he says, cannot get out of the line of fire.
Comment from amy
Time: August 20, 2007, 8:03 pm
Rick,
It was complicated. I didn’t know how to make it less so.
Back to Sam’s comment: I really would like to see him apologize to you.
But please consider what he’s said about this site.
It seems that there is something at the root of your struggle with Ingrid and Ken that goes deeper than what is happening on this site.
Maybe it’s something ya’ll need to deal with. (The ya’ll was to show you that no, I’m not from New York.)
Comment from Tim Reed
Time: August 20, 2007, 8:04 pm
Whatever I would think about it has no relevance to what I think about Brian Mclaren’s speaking at the church where he spoke.
Yeah it absolutely does. Ravi speaks at a religious institution that is heretical in the extreme. You don’t seem to have a problem with it. McLaren talks at a religious institution that has fewer problems, but still issues. You have an extreme problem with that. Your bias is such that it condemns in one case, and not in the other, which brings us to the second issue.
It’s like if I heard someone say, “Dogs are canines.†And someone kept saying, “but he didn’t say “dogs are canines,†he said “cats are canines.— I wouldn’t know how to keep responding to that.
Your biases are showing here. McLaren never stated anything like “homosexuality is all good” or anything close to it. Which is why you’re left stating over and over again the same tired line, your biases aren’t letting you see this clearly.
Henry
Tim - in many things Brian MacLaren is very difficult to defend. There is a wide gap between MacLaren and Kimball.
I agree, I’ve stated in several places that I’ve had problems with thigns he’s said. The problem is the guy isn’t given a bit of credit anywhere. We had a commenter here not too long ago that claimed he denied the atonement, something that just isn’t true.
But on the other side someone like Kimball, no matter what he says, cannot get out of the line of fire.
There’d be a bit more credibility for e/e critics if they’d be honest (and a bit kinder).
Comment from Tim Reed
Time: August 20, 2007, 8:06 pm
Maybe it’s something ya’ll need to deal with. (The ya’ll was to show you that no, I’m not from New York.)
Just don’t call Ingrid ya’ll. You’ll get in biiiig trouble.
Comment from Chris L
Time: August 20, 2007, 8:12 pm
Ya know (to show I’m not from NY),
I do have some serious issues with MacLaren, but to put them in perspective: Were I on the verge of death with a choice between entrusting the raising of my children to MacLaren or MacArthur, Brian MacLaren would win every time, without a second thought.
Comment from Henry (Rick) Frueh
Time: August 20, 2007, 8:16 pm
Not me, I entrust my kids to the ooze!
Comment from amy
Time: August 20, 2007, 9:01 pm
Tim,
Please.
“Ravi speaks at a religious institution that is heretical in the extreme. You don’t seem to have a problem with it. ETC”
Like I said, I know almost nothing about this. I never said I didn’t have a problem with “it.” I don’t know what “it” is.
If he went there and said, “Hello my Christian brothers” I’d have a big problem with it.
If he went there and communicated that they were all headed in the same direction, I’d have a big problem with it.
Whatever I thought about it WOULD NOT CHANGE what I think about Mclaren preaching the sermon series at the church.
Comment from amy
Time: August 20, 2007, 9:09 pm
Chris,
I do have some serious issues with MacLaren, but to put them in perspective: Were I on the verge of death with a choice between entrusting the raising of my children to MacLaren or MacArthur, Brian MacLaren would win every time, without a second thought.
I just read “A New Kind of Christian.”
If you would entrust your kids to Mclaren, we are walking in opposite directions. I say this very strongly, because one of my kids could have been affected very much by Mclaren.
I believe with all my heart that Mclaren is a ________, one who will be used to lead many young people away from God.
I’m leaving that blank because I don’t quite know how to fill it in yet.
Comment from amy
Time: August 20, 2007, 9:17 pm
Tim,
Some more thoughts regarding Ravi Z: I don’t know why he went to the Mormon Church. I can’t think of any biblical reason why he should have gone there with one exception:
if the people in the church were realizing that Mormonism was a false teaching, and wanted someone to come and clearly explain Christianity to them; if they were actually interested in repenting of their unbelief and turning to Jesus Christ as their Savior.
Comment from Joe Martino
Time: August 20, 2007, 9:36 pm
How do we always end up back at McLaren? HOW, HOW, HOW????
Go Yankees!
Comment from Julie
Time: August 20, 2007, 10:34 pm
Amy,
Far be it from me to misrepresent, speak in broad terms, try to cover a larger patch of discussion ground than a pinprick, or point out something using “us” instead of “you” meaning “us” instead of “you.”
Just forget it.
You’re right. I have no desire to communicate with you on this — or any — level. It’s as if our styles are different languages. Do you think I am attacking you? And only you? Is everything an attack to you unless you agree with it 100 percent? What I say in general is taken in specific, what I say in mild jest or by analogy is taken as an attack of sorts that must be answered. Not one thing is small enough to not be quoted or addressed.
This is the third or fourth comment thread on this site I’ve ended up in a similar position in regards to our communication. So I’m wondering, at this point, what the option is for me.
I obviously comment in such a way that is easily misread. Back when Ken Silva was annoying the daylights out of me, I decided and quietly announced I would ignore him, and from then on, did. I never responded to another of his comments, didn’t justify them with a response. I obviously didn’t affect him, but it helped me. Perhaps I need to do that now, th
Comment from samo
Time: August 18, 2007, 5:38 pm
Tim,
Sheesh. So Christians may not speak with the manager when there’s a problem in customer service and if they do, they aren’t like Christ? Like you’ve never complained when you’ve had a problem with trying to pay your cable bill and the person on the other end of the line isn’t helpful? It’s wrong to say anything to anybody at any time, in love? I notice you didn’t quote the other things that were said about doing so in love. Only ONE of those responses is like Christ? And I also think you’re being highly hypocritical in that your entire blog is dedicated to bashing Ingrid and Ken Silva. How Christ-like is that? The self-righteousness on this blog continues to amaze me.