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.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Saturday, August 18th, 2007 at 4:39 pm and is filed under Ingrid, ODM Writers, Slice Commenters. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

162 Comments(+Add)

1   samo    
August 18th, 2007 at 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.

2   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 18th, 2007 at 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.

3   samo    
August 18th, 2007 at 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.

4   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 18th, 2007 at 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…

5   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 18th, 2007 at 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…

6   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 18th, 2007 at 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.

7   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 18th, 2007 at 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…

8   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 18th, 2007 at 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.

9   amy    
August 18th, 2007 at 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.

10   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 18th, 2007 at 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.

11   phil    
August 18th, 2007 at 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.

12   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 18th, 2007 at 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.

13   amy    
August 18th, 2007 at 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?

14   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
August 18th, 2007 at 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.”
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.”
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.

15   Chris P.    
August 18th, 2007 at 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.

16   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
August 18th, 2007 at 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?

17   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 18th, 2007 at 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!

18   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
August 18th, 2007 at 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

19   samo    
August 18th, 2007 at 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

20   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
August 18th, 2007 at 7:00 pm

I wonder how many people said Jesus was a fraud? Were they all wrong?

21   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 18th, 2007 at 7:03 pm

Samo – you are in the flesh.

22   amy    
August 18th, 2007 at 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.

23   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 18th, 2007 at 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.

24   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
August 18th, 2007 at 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.

25   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
August 18th, 2007 at 7:12 pm

I’ll take an unsaved patron over the saved one any day. Almost always nicer, and almost always a better tipper.

26   amy    
August 18th, 2007 at 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.

27   Sandman    
August 18th, 2007 at 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.

28   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 18th, 2007 at 7:27 pm

When he observes that I am a hypocrite of the highest order I hope it wasn’t in the Spirit.

29   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
August 18th, 2007 at 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?

30   amy    
August 18th, 2007 at 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.

31   Sandman    
August 18th, 2007 at 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.

32   amy    
August 18th, 2007 at 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?

33   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 18th, 2007 at 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…

34   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 18th, 2007 at 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….

35   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 18th, 2007 at 8:02 pm

By the way, Chris L., you are a hypocrite of the medium order but you are climbing!

36   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
August 18th, 2007 at 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?

37   amy    
August 18th, 2007 at 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.

38   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 18th, 2007 at 8:18 pm

In light of Amy’s comments, I hereby elevate Christ into the highest order.

39   David C    http://davidcho.blogspot.com
August 18th, 2007 at 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!

40   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 18th, 2007 at 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?)

41   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
August 18th, 2007 at 8:30 pm

Amy,
Do you really believe you have no agenda?

42   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
August 18th, 2007 at 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

43   Tim Reed    
August 18th, 2007 at 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.

44   robbymac    http://www.robbymac.org
August 18th, 2007 at 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?”

45   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 18th, 2007 at 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…

46   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 18th, 2007 at 9:27 pm

Joe,

John D is from Saddleback.

47   phil    
August 18th, 2007 at 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!”

48   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 19th, 2007 at 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!

49   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
August 19th, 2007 at 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.

50   Russ N.    http://russ-ramblings.blogspot.com
August 19th, 2007 at 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.

51   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 19th, 2007 at 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

52   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
August 19th, 2007 at 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.”

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.

53   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
August 19th, 2007 at 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.

54   Tim Reed    
August 19th, 2007 at 10:09 pm

Amen to point 4 especially Julie.

55   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 19th, 2007 at 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.

56   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

57   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
August 20th, 2007 at 4:31 am

Rick,

Ditto.

58   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 20th, 2007 at 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…

59   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

60   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

61   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 20th, 2007 at 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

62   amy    
August 20th, 2007 at 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.”

63   amy    
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

64   dave    http://www.mindfulmission.com
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

65   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 20th, 2007 at 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!

66   amy    
August 20th, 2007 at 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 . . .

67   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 20th, 2007 at 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…

68   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 20th, 2007 at 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?

69   amy    
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

70   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

71   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 20th, 2007 at 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

72   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

73   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

74   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 20th, 2007 at 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?

75   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
August 20th, 2007 at 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?

76   amy    
August 20th, 2007 at 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 order”?”

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.

77   amy    
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

78   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

79   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

80   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 20th, 2007 at 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 :)

81   amy    
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

82   amy    
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

83   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

84   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 20th, 2007 at 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…

85   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

86   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

87   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

88   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
August 20th, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Punching: open hand or closed fist?

The latter is unbiblical.

89   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 20th, 2007 at 5:57 pm

A little known fact – Julie’s Indian name is “Punches With a Fist”.

90   Tim Reed    
August 20th, 2007 at 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. ”

Then reread the discussions where Mclaren came up.

I had no idea being nice to obvious sinners was heretical.

91   amy    
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

92   amy    
August 20th, 2007 at 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.”

93   Tim Reed    
August 20th, 2007 at 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.”

Do you hold Ravi Zacharias to the same standard for speaking at the Mormon Tabernacle?

94   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 20th, 2007 at 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!

95   amy    
August 20th, 2007 at 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?

96   amy    
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

97   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 20th, 2007 at 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!

98   amy    
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

99   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

100   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
August 20th, 2007 at 7:47 pm

*morale*

101   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

102   amy    
August 20th, 2007 at 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.)

103   Tim Reed    
August 20th, 2007 at 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).

104   Tim Reed    
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

105   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

106   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 20th, 2007 at 8:16 pm

Not me, I entrust my kids to the ooze!

107   amy    
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

108   amy    
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

109   amy    
August 20th, 2007 at 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.

110   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
August 20th, 2007 at 9:36 pm

How do we always end up back at McLaren? HOW, HOW, HOW????
Go Yankees!

111   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
August 20th, 2007 at 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, though he wasn’t as prolific a commenter and his comments rarely turned the conversation in such a way that required reading them to understand the flow.

I want to tell you to lighten up, Amy, but I’m afraid I’m going to be told that Hell is a Serious Matter or something similar that feels like a non sequitur to me. You need to really read my earlier comment to you carefully and not when I use “you” and “us” and if you really think I am out to cut you down.

Now, bringing this back on topic:

Obviously, as seen in this exchange, our tone and words matter and Mrs. Pilgrim and Ingrid can justify their actions all they want but their tone and words give us all we need to know about their attitude on the matter: “you are here to serve me, so do so, for I spend money here.”

This is not the servant’s heart that is trumpeted on ODM sites when they point out churches that encourage their congregation to come and be served rather than serve. The only explanation I have for this sharp discord would be that for them, a servant’s heart does not apply to the marketplace.

Wrong.

112   Tim Reed    
August 20th, 2007 at 11:30 pm

Joe,
Its very simple. McLaren is self-evidently a heretic, so those who say anything nice about him at all are also heretics, so when all else fails, bring up McLaren.

113   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 21st, 2007 at 12:21 am

So here is my choice… to think and explore and question and grow and and be called a heretic for asking the wrong questions….

Or.

Become like Ken Silva or Ingrid… hmmm

I will be a heretic and love God and love others as Jesus called me to and depend on the Holy Spirit to teach me as Jesus promised as I explore my new identity in Christ Jesus.

I think that having a relationship with Jesus is more important to me than if I agree on every doctrinal stance with either Ken or Ingrid or… John MacArthur.

I have never seen Brian McLaren stab a friend in the back… nor slander anyone… He has raised issues and then called a heretic by those who cannot read and understand what he states as he is not talking to them, but to the postmodern mindset… a modern mind cannot understand a postmodern mind any more than the carnal mind can understand the spirit.

If one states that he does not beleive one goes to hell, but believes that at the resurrection some will be judged and sent to the Lake of Fire… (leaving out the fact that this “hell” that now exists will no longer exist as it to will be tossed into the lake of fire). IOW, people are arguing over the eternal existence of a hell that was created for the fallen Angel who will be judge and eternally condemned in the Lake of Fire… not some eternal hell… there is a difference between the two so to say one dies without Jesus and “goes to hell” is technically wrong yet taught most often… so Brian, brings this up and discusses it… and points out the Bibles actual teachings on this and is said to not beleive in “hell”… whatever.

I have not heard Brian state any of the things that are brought up here or elsewhere… in fact I keep asking for a link or a quote or whatever to back the accusations and none are ever given.

So, I can only conclude that people are misinformed or lying… or believing a lie.

Blessings,
iggy

114   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 21st, 2007 at 5:16 am

I think it is being somewhat disingenuous to say that MacLaren hasn’t said some things that when understood in the plain meaning are departures from orthodox teachings. And to discern what the Scriptures teach about the existance of eternity, the nature of eternity, and the eternal destinity of a sinner is both important and actually paramount.

Isn’t that the basis for two thousand years of witness and missionary work? If indeed everyone ends up together eternally regardless of their belief or unbelief in Christ, then our witness of Christ is purely a benign sharing without any eternal value. It changes the entire foundation and character of Christianity.

So if Jesus redeemed everyone (Burke) then it would render our witness and missionary work as conversation rather than conversion. But if Jesus provided redemption for everyone but it only becomes a personal reality upon conversion, and if conversion can only take place through hearing and believing the gospel before one’s death, then any hint of teaching otherwise is not only heresy, it is damnable heresy since it undermines the very fabric of our faith.

You can talk of a victory view of Calvary, but if that changes the eternal condition of unregenerate sinners by assigning them a blancket salvation apart from personal faith, it has done a spectacular disservice to Biblical faith. This is not doctrinal quibbling, this rises much higher than the hair splitting homosexuality question. This is the faith.

Throw out all of MacLaren’s musings about all kinds of things, granted, he is a dreamer. But when he erects a thought provoking possibility about a kind of universalism, he has just stepped from mud to quicksand. When he and others talk about the nature of Scripture that is extremely problematic especially for any future understandings of truth, but when he suggests salvation for any without hearing and believing the gospel, that is an unmovable mountain in the present.

So you may be right in defending Kinball and Driscoll and others as orthodox believers with a post modern flavor, but to deny that the open teachings of MacLaren on their face depart from previous understandings must be volitional probably due to a defensive reaction to the unscrupulous attack dogs.

Let the emrgents have some jingle-jangle in their approach and in their teachings about a variety of things, but let them come forth and openly declare what they believe about redemption and the plight of the lost. That is the core question about which some are either being unclear due to their own uncertainty, or in reality they do not believe as Wesley (for instance) did. MacLaren is unclear at best.

115   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
August 21st, 2007 at 6:02 am

I can’t talk about McLaren: I’ve not read anything he’s written. Same with a lot of the other authors/teachers that get blasted. I have read Rob Bell, but that’s it. It’s difficult to talk about the teachings without talking about the teacher perhaps, though I’m not familiar with either in the case of McLaren.

From the sounds of it, I don’t even know if it’s worth my time to read one of his books just to familarize myself with him. Hard to say…

116   phil    
August 21st, 2007 at 7:27 am

Don’t want to get completely off track here, but I found this article the other day that relates to a lot of the things we talk about here. It is actually from Christianity Today in 1990, which is amazing because it sounds like it could have been written last week.

It does kind of relate to the whole idea of how we treat others, though. If we see God as a judge primarily concerned with making righteous judgments, we will almost think it our place to pass rightous judgments on others. If we see him as a loving Father, we will treat others in a living way.

Julie,
Personally, I think McClaren is valuable as a springboard for clarifying one’s thoughts on different things at least. My wife and I have an extra copy of A Generous Orthodoxy that you could have for free if you want. And no, I’m not some sort of McClaren evangelist, I just had an extra copy from a book discussion group we had a few summers ago.

117   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
August 21st, 2007 at 7:42 am

So if Jesus redeemed everyone (Burke) then it would render our witness and missionary work as conversation rather than conversion. But if Jesus provided redemption for everyone but it only becomes a personal reality upon conversion, and if conversion can only take place through hearing and believing the gospel before one’s death, then any hint of teaching otherwise is not only heresy, it is damnable heresy since it undermines the very fabric of our faith.

Rick in my understanding of Calvin and salvation he also straddles this line. Does he not? If God predestines in advance those who will spend eternity with him what’s the need for missionary work. I know this is simplistic. But when I tell people I’m a youth pastor in a Reformed church this question always comes up in various forms. i.e. Maybe God didn’t predestine me. Or how could God allow those people to be born who won’t choose him? etc… BTW Richard Mouw wrote an excellent book entitled “Calvinism in the Las Vegas airport” which deals with this issue.

I think it’s important to continually ask the questions about theology. It’s never as tidy (T.U.L.I.P.) as we would like it to seem.

In regards to Ravi going to the Mormon temple. I’ve listened to the c.d.s of that entire session, multiple times. It was attended by Richard Mouw of Fuller as well as Ravi. The message unequivocally was that absolute soveriegnty of Christ. Did they come out and say Mormons are a cult destined for hell? No. But Richard and Ravi have long had a heart for missions to other religions and they felt the need to open dialogue. That’s difficult when you trumpet out “I’m right and you’re wrong” just ask Ken and Ingrid.

118   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 21st, 2007 at 8:08 am

chris – You do not want to pull my chain concerning Calvin. In a broad sense I believe he was a heretic, albeit saved, but his view of limited atonement and unconditional election has hindered any passion for souls and soothed people’s conscience using God’s sovereignty as a convenient salve.

You are correct in equating this with a kind of limited universalism, if that makes sense. It is fatalism and presents God as playing solitaire and purposely being the puppet master who knowingly creates people who He doesn’t desire to be saved, so we must assume when he gives birth to a non-elect baby he IS WILLING that he perishes in hell.

God creates His own enemies, makes no provision for their redemption, and like a real estate broker prepares a place in hell for them which is His will anyway. The truth be told if I had to choose between Calvinism and universalism I would lean toward universalism.

Thankfully I can choose what the Scripture teaches, that God love the world and tasted death for every man. Praise His Name!

119   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
August 21st, 2007 at 9:13 am

[quote]You do not want to pull my chain concerning Calvin. [/quote]

No pulling was intended; I promise.

120   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
August 21st, 2007 at 9:13 am

HTML help please. How do you quote someone

121   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 21st, 2007 at 9:18 am

Use the “blockquote” tag, which has to be inserted between “< " and ">” (or just use the buttons by clicking the “>>” button above the comment box

122   amy    
August 21st, 2007 at 9:30 am

Julie,
If your criticisms about becoming part of the fray and your A/B hypothetical example had actually included some of the direct quotes from CRN.Info about their motives for having this site, I could have looked at it as a general summary. The person whose quote you keep misrepresenting is mine.The last time we had a conversation you emphatically told me not to use you as an object lesson, yet you feel free to use my a parody of what my words really meant as an object lesson.

It’s not my problem, it’s yours.

I went to your site once and read your guidelines for commenters. I remembered that someone, maybe you or Deborah, has made references to Ingrid’s musical snobbery several times. I thought of that when I read your guidelines. Your guidelines are a different type of snobbery. The “tone and attitude” are all wrong. You bring some of those guidelines here and dump them on me in the middle of conversations of which you have not been a part.

I have little doubt that you could offer some good suggestions if you went about it differently. It’s difficult to want to listen to someone when they begin by placing you on the defensive. You begin by prejudging the situation: case in point – my long quotes of other people. You don’t know how many times I have addressed something without making clear what I was addressing, and how much trouble that causes. I quote people in more detail than I want to to try to avoid all kinds of things, including having people who are not being addressed reading a partial quote and reacting to that part without taking the time to look back at the whole. Also, many times when I am in a discussion I will be out of that discussion for awhile, sometimes for days. Then I have to go back and try to sort everything out. To not recap things is like coming to a meeting after having been gone for a few days and sitting down and giving an answer to the question that was on the table before you left.

It’s easy for you to say that I don’t have to address everything. If I don’t I’m reminded again and again that I have left something unaddressed.

It’s a no-win situation. Answer the question fully, and there’s too much detail and nitpicking. Answer the question partially and have someone address all the things you chose not to address, and accuse you of believing something that you don’t. Don’t answer the question, get accused of dodging.

123   amy    
August 21st, 2007 at 9:40 am

“yet you feel free to use my a parody of what my words really meant as an object lesson.”

should read “yet you feel free to use my words as a parody of what my words really meant as an object lesson.”

Chris,
How about a “let me correct this one minute after I post it” feature?

You pointed me to a site once that would explain the different kinds of tags. Do you still have that reference handy?

124   deborah    http://smallcorner.typepad.com
August 21st, 2007 at 9:58 am

Amy, I have never made a reference to any music snobbery by anyone.

deborah

125   Tim Reed    
August 21st, 2007 at 9:58 am

Here’s some advise on formatting text.

Here’s some advise on quoting.

Wordpress uses HTML formatting in the comments so anything that guides you in HTML will apply here.

126   amy    
August 21st, 2007 at 10:02 am

Deborah,
Sorry for the mistake. I shouldn’t have used your name. I apologize.

127   deborah    http://smallcorner.typepad.com
August 21st, 2007 at 10:12 am

Thanks.

128   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
August 21st, 2007 at 11:56 am

Wow, that’s all I can say after reading this thread. Wow.

129   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 21st, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Yes, Jow – this one certainly ran the gamut…

130   henry frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 21st, 2007 at 12:04 pm

It’s that kind of caustic comment, Joe, that leads me to believe I can no longer conservse with you on a Spiritual basis. Your use of the benign “Wow” indicates a demeaning of my comments, and the “all I can say” will undoubtedly prove a lie in the future. And with the punctuated repetitve “Wow” you again scorn me. I hereby slap you with an electronic glove and challenge you to a duel to save my honor.

OK, a little parady to maybe lighten up some of the more combative comments that I believe you allude to. Peace.

131   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 21st, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Rick,

“God creates His own enemies, makes no provision for their redemption, and like a real estate broker prepares a place in hell for them which is His will anyway. The truth be told if I had to choose between Calvinism and universalism I would lean toward universalism.”

The thing is Calvin came to the issue of universalism… and unlike Luther who stated that Justification, salvation, and sanctification all work together in a mystery and we should not try to reconcile them as they are all sooo far above us, Calvin tried and came up with “limited atonement” to satisfy the issue that all are saved… which the real issue is as I have stated, that all are “forgiven” as all has been justified by Jesus at the Cross and set right… yet not all are saved as the salvation process need the relational aspect with Jesus for one to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ.

That is why i separate the Cross (forgiveness) from the resurrection (salvation) and state that all have the potential of salvation, yet we need to believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus… it was no surprise that Jesus died on the Cross… but it was shocking to say He rose and lives again!

Calvin could not reconcile these nor could Luther… as they looked at the Cross as where salvation came from… Though I do not deny the Cross is a huge part of the salvation process, most teach it is the means and ends at the expense of the resurrection.

Romans 5:9-10
” Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”

We are justified by His blood at the Cross… all men are. We are saved from God’s wrath by His Blood… Yet this does not mean that men who forsake salvation will escape judgment of their sin if they reject Jesus finished works or justification on the Cross…

We are then reconciled by Jesus death… again this is the Door swung open for all men to pass through toward salvation… yet, we are not saved by His death, but by His Life! It is that Jesus Rose again at the Resurrection by the Holy Spirit, this same Holy Spirit which we now receive from the day of Pentecost that we are all saved by the resurrection power of the Holy Spirit… and by Jesus Christ.

Yet, saying all that, justification is not a one time thing, it as is Grace and Mercy and Love… is this Justice of God that we are given to give away… Justice is not all about God’s wrath… which is not all bad in and of itself. God’s wrath will be poured out against “injustice”… and we are to be as God, the Just and the Justifiers… we are to set out to give justice, by the blood of the Lamb (where we are justified meaning the Cross) and by the power of our testimony… that we are Son’s of the Living God… and Live by His Life and not our own.

Anyway that is another reason I am not a Calvinist as when I saw what Calvin had to do to justify his doctrine and make it all fit, I saw that he missed that forgiveness does not equate salvation…

Blessings,
iggy

132   keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
August 21st, 2007 at 1:36 pm

Rick:
You said: his view of limited atonement and unconditional election has hindered any passion for souls and soothed people’s conscience using God’s sovereignty as a convenient salve.

I attend a “reformed Baptist church”, i.e. we hold to the docrtines of grace, TULIP, etc. however you want to phrase it, and yet, we are one of the most evangelistic churches I’ve ever seen. We have visitation/outreach twice a month and it is not uncommon for there to be 75 to 100 people participating…in a church that averages approx 250-300 on Sunday morning. Not all Calvinists are HYPER Calvinists.

133   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
August 21st, 2007 at 1:43 pm

Henry-

Don’t feed the hypercalvinistic trolls. :)

134   dave    http://www.mindfulmission.com
August 21st, 2007 at 1:53 pm

I think it is being somewhat disingenuous to say that MacLaren hasn’t said some things that when understood in the plain meaning are departures from orthodox teachings.

Just to chime in… departure from orthodoxy does not necessarily equate with heresy.

And Joe, the Yankees suck! (and I allowed to say suck around here?)

135   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
August 21st, 2007 at 1:57 pm

We have visitation/outreach twice a month and it is not uncommon for there to be 75 to 100 people participating…in a church that averages approx 250-300 on Sunday morning. Not all Calvinists are HYPER Calvinists.

Keith I am employed by a Reformed Church in America denominational church. Prior to getting hired to be the youth pastor I attended a gammet of churches from Catholic to Assemblies of God. Quite frankly I must say that, other than the Catholic church, I’ve never been in a church more internally focused in my life. To take it a bit further most of the activities prior to my arrival we’re “country club” like. In fact the womens ministry charged annual dues to allow people to join the bible study.

The members of this church are huge on knowing the Heidelberg catechism and the Westminster confessional but ask them to share Jesus with somebody and they quake in their boots. It took me over two years to get the students to pray out loud. Elders and Deacons refuse to lead a congregational prayer. Students won’t memorize scripture. I could go on.

I’m glad to hear that your church is different but I’m led to believe (based on denominational stats) that the Reformed Church and Christian Reformed Church hold so hard and fast to their beloved Calvin that his words carry greater weight than those of Jesus.

With all that said the Reformed Church is working hard to change the above mentioned trends. But culture change in a church is a slow moving cow. In some cases the change that needs to happen won’t because of sacred cows.

136   henry frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 21st, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Great, Keith! Your church may be five point but they behave like the early apostolic Arminians like Paul!

137   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
August 21st, 2007 at 2:05 pm

Honestly, as a recovering hyper calvinist, I can say it’s not the teaching of Calvinism that makes one a hyper calvinist, it’s the attitude. I was pretty mean in my day.

138   henry frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 21st, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Matt B., a great testimony of deliverance! Watch out for relapses though!

Just kidding.

139   keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
August 21st, 2007 at 2:18 pm

They just believe what the Jesus/the Bible said: “Go make disciples…”

140   Tim Reed    
August 21st, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Mean people are hardly the exclusive province of Calvinism. As nice as that would be.

141   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
August 21st, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Mean people are hardly the exclusive province of Calvinism.

How true. Ever met a KJVer? :)

142   Tim Reed    
August 21st, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Oh geez, those people are nuts. I hope no one tells them about the interblogtubes.

143   henry frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 21st, 2007 at 2:40 pm

“Mean people are hardly the exclusive province of Calvinism. As nice as that would be. ”

Tim – how right you are. Exhibit #1 – Chris L..

144   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
August 21st, 2007 at 3:13 pm

Wow I wonder if we’ll get to 200 comments?

I actually went to one service at a KJV 1611 church. It wasn’t all that bad. It was small; 7 congregants but you really got to know everyone.

145   henry frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 21st, 2007 at 3:21 pm

Our church has the original manuscripts, we consider the 1611 version a liberal rag.

146   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
August 21st, 2007 at 4:03 pm

LOL that’s funny Rick!

147   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
August 21st, 2007 at 4:16 pm

It’s not my problem, it’s yours.

That’s interesting, Amy.

I pre-judge, I’m a snob, I nit-pick, I make you defensive?…anything else you’d like to add in Christ’s love? Any other faults of mine to note? How do you treat those who aren’t your sister in Christ?

It’s like trying to fend off a cockleburr patch: impossible. There’s a sticker from every angle.

As Jane Austen’s Miss Bingley would say: it was kindly meant.

Ignoring Ken Silva was one thing, but this is entirely different. I do not deserve that truck-load of nonsense that you dumped on me, nor do I feel like staying around and waiting for more. Time to go.

148   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
August 21st, 2007 at 4:20 pm

Well Julie, there was one time I posted a comment on your blog and you didn’t respond. That actually kind of hurt. I’m sorry, some days I just can’t help myself.

149   Sandman    
August 21st, 2007 at 4:38 pm

KJV-onlyism…Y’know, if that’s the language by which a translation may save a person (in English), why don’t those people speak 17th centruy Elizabethan English in all aspects of their lives?

Now I have to get caught up on the 60 or so comments left since the last time I was here.

150   Sandman    
August 21st, 2007 at 4:41 pm

(Julie, you asked in another post if I had a blog. No, I wouldn’t even know where to start.)

151   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 21st, 2007 at 4:44 pm

Julie,

I just wanted to let you know that I’m jealous of you getting all the cool names. “Punches with a Fist”, “Prairie Princess”, etc. What is your secret?

152   keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
August 21st, 2007 at 4:56 pm

Henry: The first liar doesn’t stand a chance!

OUR church has a rough draft of Romans SIGNED by the Apostle Paul. Look for it on eBay right next to the toast with burn marks resembling Mary.

153   henry frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 21st, 2007 at 5:12 pm

Keith – We have the Apostle Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill on tape. Rob Bell has offered a lot of money for it.

154   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
August 21st, 2007 at 8:03 pm

Chris L: I’m a jerk, plain and simple.

To know me is to throw names at me.

155   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 21st, 2007 at 8:18 pm

Listen Julie, it may be plain but anyone who reads your blog knows it surely isn’t simple.

I appreciate you love for Christ and your inconvenient love for the people of Central America.

156   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
August 21st, 2007 at 8:51 pm

Thank you, Henry (Rick). I was feeling kind of sore inside. So thank you.

157   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
August 21st, 2007 at 9:00 pm

Julie I personally enjoy your comments. In fact I’m kinda jealous that I’m not nearly as articulate as you are.

Amy I enjoy your comments as well they actually make me think. I don’t agree with you often but I appreciate the dialogue you offer.

Keith and Rick you guys are funny!

By the way I’m still punching people in the face. Open handed now because “Punches with fist” told me this was biblical. LOL

158   amy    
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Regarding Ravi Z, like I said I’m not all that familiar with the situation there.

The main problem in Tim’s bringing it up as a parallel to the Mclaren/speaking at a gay church issue is this:

The pastors at the Open Door church fit into the I Cor 5 category. That passage’s teaching applies to someone who calls himself a brother but is living in immorality. The Mormon teachers don’t claim to be “Christian brothers” and I Cor 5 doesn’t apply to them. I’m sure there are other passages that do apply to the Ravi/Mormon situation; I haven’t thought through all of them.

Even if the Ravi Z situation were parallel to the Mclaren situation, my judgement of whether what he did was biblical or not should not affect the “rightness” or the “wrongness” of the Mclaren situation. That is, God’s Word is God’s Word, no matter how consistently or inconsistently Christians apply it.

159   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:20 pm

If a preacher accepts an invitation to speak in either a Mormon or gay church, and they agree he can say anything he feels led to, I don’t see the problem. Paul spoke in unbelieving synagogues and in the humanistic gathering at Mars Hill (where Rob Bell’s great, great, etc. grandfather was an elder).

A friend of mine who is to the right of me methodologically wrote me and asked why I allowed Chris L. to post my writings since it can be misinterpreted as a tacit approval of everything on this blog. Besides the fact that I respect and love Chris L. as a brother, I told him if someone asked my permission to hang up one of my articles on a gay bathhouse wall I would say “Sure!”.

160   Tim Reed    
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:24 pm

You, obviously, haven’t been listening to what Mormons are saying.

161   amy    
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:49 pm

Tim,
“You, obviously, haven’t been listening to what Mormons are saying.”

You’re right, I haven’t. But I would imagine that some of them may be calling themselves brothers. Is this what you’re saying, and is that the case with the Ravi Z dialogue?

If they are calling themselves brothers, then there are certainly all kinds of scriptures that would apply to Christians not acting as if they are brothers.

Is that what Ravi Z was doing? I really don’t know.

162   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Tim have you heard the talk at the tabernacle? I would gladly forward you my c.d.’s of the entire session if you would like.

One Trackback/Ping

  1. Fruit for thought. « Love without Agenda    Nov 07 2007 / 6am:

    [...] What if instead of getting angry with grocery clerks we were more Patient? [...]