Recently there’s been a lot of talk about whether or not this blog is significantly different from the watchdoggies out there. In response to this Ingrid writes:

We now have a CRNinfo commenter calling Jim Bublitz the devil. Imagine that. “Iggy” always has the flamethrowers at the ready to take down those he disagrees with, even going so far as to liken them to the devil himself, in Christian love, of course. I think the point here has been made very well by CRNinfo. Fix yourself, guys, before you start attacking others for being unloving.

And with that she magnanimously shuts down any further discussion. Of course what she doesn’t point out, or allow to be pointed out by commenters is that Iggy was called into account for that comparison.

First by Houston John:

Your comment about Jim in regards to fleeing the devil crossed the line I think.

And then by Chris L:

I agree with HJ – The correlation crossed the line…

Iggie ultimately concludes:

… Then I am rebuked.

And that ultimately is the difference.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 19th, 2007 at 10:32 am and is filed under Ingrid, ODM Writers. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

28 Comments(+Add)

1   Rick Frueh
September 19th, 2007 at 10:45 am

She is irrelevant, the tone and teachings are toxic. She teaches a works salvation (baptism) and a Roman communion (transubstantiation) but as you peruse her posts you will not see those doctrines front and center. Why? Because it would drive away some of her followers.

These people who are such champions of doctrine and yet are afraid to fully expound their own. The cost is too high. The emperor has no clothes.

2   Rick Frueh
September 19th, 2007 at 11:02 am

Our reproving of Iggy will not make the Laodicean Gazette.

3   RayJr    
September 19th, 2007 at 11:23 am

One thing about Ingrid, et al: You will never, ever hear them say they are wrong and repent. They would rather remove a post (or an entire blog) and pretend nothing happened.

4   David C
September 19th, 2007 at 11:29 am

Guys, this is about the most useless exercise.

- To demonstrate how iggy has been “rebuked” smacks of self-righteousness.

- No amount of facts will change minds in this particular debate.

Just my two cents.

5   Sandman    
September 19th, 2007 at 11:32 am

And yet Iggy accepts the reproof and life goes on.

I don’t know if what Ingrid does is teaching as much as it may be espousing, promoting or advocating her pov. Aside from knowing she homeschools, I haven’t really seen her go into teaching mode the way, say, Beth Moore teaches.

6   iggy
September 19th, 2007 at 11:36 am

David C…

I don’t feel too self righteous over the rebuke… I think that you are missing the point…

If one cannot be humble to admit they may be or are wrong and cannot apologize, then that smacks of self righteousness to me…

Though Ken after many many months, gave me a rose… but never stated he was sorry… but I received the rose as an apology…

Be Blessed,

7   Chris L
September 19th, 2007 at 11:38 am


Perhaps you missed the memo several months ago, but Beth Moore has sold out because she teaches large crowds and charges for her conferences.

8   iggy
September 19th, 2007 at 11:40 am

Also, I stand rebuked but I did not sense a bit of hostility or anger towards me…. I sensed that they cared enough to point out I may be being more forceful than they like here on this site.

I also am praying about it as I take rebuke seriously… as I know I may be rationalizing my actions… even if I have biblical reasons I stand on.

Be Blessed,

9   Tim Reed
September 19th, 2007 at 11:41 am

David C,
I disagree. Had I simply posted this in a vacuum, then sure. But I wrote this as a deliberate response to what has become a concerted effort at criticism.

I think this is especially true when Ingrid points to this as an example of how wrong we are, when that wasn’t the end of the story.

This is classic watchdoggie behavior. No context, just a single line, and a gotcha attitude. They’ve done it so often that whenever I read a criticism on their sites I assume they’re at teh least wrong, and at the most lying.

10   iggy
September 19th, 2007 at 11:44 am

Also, did you notice Ingrid closed comments… as she made “her” point?

She gave me no opportunity to give reason or answer… she just wrote her comment then wrote me off… She has done this many times and no one even calls her on it. I see that as truly not “Christian” as there is no open door for restoration… just judgmental rebuke.

Her caring for me is also noted…

be blessed,

11   keith
September 19th, 2007 at 11:57 am

Not trying to hijack the conversation here, but just for the record, the $300 I paid/pay for the SC includes meals, usually some sort of commemortive item (I’ve got a very nice garment bag, briefcase, and leather portfolio so far) and LOTS of “free” books. Yeah, I know…I’m paying for them. The last SC I attended, I had so many books, I had to ship them home–didn’t have room (and would have exceeded weight limits) on the plane. PLUS, you usually can’t beat the LA weather.

If I can get a commemorative Beth Moore fountain pen in the deal, count me in!!

On topic–I don’t understand the closing comments sometimes. I’ve had several scathing comments posted on my blog, was tempted to shut things down, but hey…I asked for it.

12   Rick Frueh
September 19th, 2007 at 12:03 pm

“On topic–I don’t understand the closing comments sometimes. ”

Keith, on closer inspection the comments are usually closed as they open.

13   iggy
September 19th, 2007 at 12:09 pm

I only close my comments if there are just abusive people posting… it seems that it be less productive to let a comment that only tells me I am “going to hell” or that “God will get you”… or is some tirade that is trying to tell me how I am not saved because I am a Trinitarian… or whatever… I get it from all sides and sometimes they come in waves…

But I usually leave my comments open and give an answer especially if I just roasted someone… LOL!

But I agree, why would she close her comments? It seems a bit insincere to mention me then not let me give an answer or even apologize if I desired to… again… she left no room for restoration and forgiveness… she stated her view then closed shop saying …”Thanks, Iggy, for making our point.”

What point?… That she is unwilling to let me answer? That she is unforgiving? That she is more willing to have her say then to listen?

I think if anything, she proves this sites point if anything at all... there is a huge difference in how people are treated.

Be Blessed,

14   Chris L
September 19th, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Before she closed comments, I submitted the comments below. Just to note – trying to note how you graciously allowed someone to comment and following it up by disallowing the back-and-forth of discussion nullifies anything you attempted to do in the first place…


You wrote:

If that’s the case, why not bring one of us on as a contributor; most of us wouldn’t agree with almost ANYTHING you write over there. Truth be told, you and Rick share the usual list of common foes.

I have actually been trying to do an evaluation (not naming names) of folks more diametrically opposed to our viewpoints. The one key thing the writers at have in common is a desire for more unity within the Body than exists today, and honestly, most of the ODM writers I am familiar with, including yourself, are more concerned with externals and pre-sifting the wheat from the chaff than with Biblical unity.

Ingrid, you asked (and my apology for the delay, as I’ve been out this evenint) about my not correcting Rick when he wrote:

A postive article on SOL with minimal projectiles.

Like finding a nickel in a spittoon.

Just to note, later in the same thread, he wrote:

yes, it’s good to actually agree with Slice, and taking the time to point to “common ground” for whatever conversation might still be possible down the road.

Regardless, it was a comment (hyperbolic, yes) about the general tone of Slice, not about you, specifically. Had he written “finding something positive about Ingrid is like…”, I would not have been the only person correcting him. To my knowledge, no person is the sum total of what they write, and our battle is not against flesh and blood…

As for Rick’s comment, I’d say it was fairly mild compared to the CRN suggestion today that OJ use the copy of PDL he received as toilet paper…

Likewise I was told by Chris Lyons that my beliefs can not produce any good works.

I’m not sure where you got that, Jim, as I don’t recall anything of the sort…

If CRNinfo is so diverse and so open, they have a lot of explaining to do for their feeding frenzy pile ons against those they disagree with—us, and their mob attacks on anyone who goes on their site to defend what we are doing.

Mob attacks? We were accused of that once last week, and the individual they said was ‘attacked’ later commented that he felt nothing of the sort. Disagreement is not an ‘attack’, and we do allow disagreement – including following up an initial post as many times as needed in order to reach a conclusion. I can point out a number of posters who often do not agree with us, but continue to come back and are not ‘mobbed’.

Your satire opened up the real issues of hypocrisy that have been going on since Chris L. woke up one day and decided to make a mock-up of Slice in order to attack what we were doing.

Actually, I set up the site to defend many of those you were attacking with one hand while simultaneously giving the appearance of (in the comments section) unanimity in belief and response of ‘real Christians’ with the other hand (and moreso Ken’s overblown rhetoric than your concentration on externals). The first group blogger I added was John D, a member of Saddleback and once employee of PDL. [Interestingly, he wrote a complimentary article of you a couple months ago when you (correctly) pointed out Rick Warren's prooftexting of 'laughter' in the Psalms.] I then went out and catalogued a years’ blog-responses to Slice and AM, because I found myself being asked for links from friends/acquaintences in response to articles they had seen on Veggie Tales, Rob Bell and Promise Keepers from your site.

My advice is for these gentlemen to admit that what they are doing is pharisaical and to stop their claims of moral and spiritual superiority.

We are all fallen, it is just that we wish to operate in an aboveboard manner, and in a way that repairs the Body, rather than looking for personal reasons to excise parts of it.

15   Rick Frueh
September 19th, 2007 at 12:17 pm

By the way, when I find agreement with Rob Bell’s hell teaching it’s like finding a nickel in a spittoon.

I’ll wait for his reply. I would think he would have to sift through mountains of personal invectives before he dealt with mine!

16   Sandman    
September 19th, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Chris L, I missed that. I thought she was still in outer darkness because of the “Be Still” DVD.

17   iggy
September 19th, 2007 at 12:32 pm

I might also point out that I am only a commenter on this site and Ingrid has elevated me as a writer…

Yet, I wonder if her own commenter’s should also be held to the same standard as she held me.


They really are clueless about their eternal state.

(Faye does say she went too far.)


Haven’t they ever heard of the Holy Spirit and that He will teach us and help us to recall the Truths of scripture when it is needed?


Right, those who say that the Bible cannot be understood almost always use that as a “get out of jail free” card. What a faithless statement.


For them to suggest that they are demonstrating Christian love and tolerance is laughable, and it’s about time someone publicly exposed it.


These are people who demand respect for themselves that they refuse to afford others, while at the same time wrapping themselves in a cloak of “tolerance and love.” It just ain’t so.


If they hate you remember that they hated our Lord first. To be persecuted is not noteworthy. To be persecuted for the truth is of great worth. Well done.


They are so self- deceived and self-righteous and are like the pharisee who prayed to himself, thanking God that he is not like others especially that tax collector, who went home righteous after his humility and brokeness and cry for God’s mercy.

Jim Bublitz:

Truth be told, you and Rick share the usual list of common foes.

(BTW most of those “foes” were his friends… like Ingrid who now berate him… funny now Rick writes for this site as he is no longer accepted by Ken and Ingrid)


My advice is for these gentlemen to admit that what they are doing is pharisaical and to stop their claims of moral and spiritual superiority.


Imagine that. “Iggy” always has the flamethrowers at the ready to take down those he disagrees with, even going so far as to liken them to the devil himself, in Christian love, of course.


Thanks, Iggy, for making our point.

Thanks Ingrid for making mine so easily as it seems that you all me to accountability yet do not do so with you own commenters.

Be Blessed,

18   iggy
September 19th, 2007 at 12:35 pm

That last sentence should be “you call me”…


19   jazzact13
September 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pm

The fact that she stopped comments after ‘making her point’ seems more like a playground ’so there!!’ attitude.

If she is truly interested in fair play (and I’m sure she or some other HiL person will read this), then she will allow the fact that those comments were called out to be known to her audience.

If not, then she has no interest in fairness, but only in ‘winning at any cost’, and has lost any credibility or right to be taken seriously.

20   iggy
September 19th, 2007 at 12:56 pm

I want to state that Ingrid calls me a “commenter”…. but holds me to the standard of a contributing writer.


21   iggy
September 19th, 2007 at 1:02 pm

BTW I also did not call Jim “The Devil” but that I associated him with the devil…

Notice my statement:

And yes Jim I did associate you with the devil… so confess your sin of lack of love for you brothers and turn to the Lord”

So, Ingrid is not accurately stating what I said even with the quote in front of her…

Was Peter “the Satan” when Jesus rebuked him? Or was Jesus addressing the one motivating Peter?

So, please Ingrid, when you quote a person… do not twist it to mean something else… that is called slander.

Be Blessed,

22   Phil Miller
September 19th, 2007 at 1:15 pm

It responses like these on Ingrid’s part that make me think it all a big parody. I mean, how can she with a straight face say something like, “My advice is for these gentlemen to admit that what they are doing is pharisaical and to stop their claims of moral and spiritual superiority” and call other “flamethrowers”? I know I shouldn’t be surprised, but it really unbelievable to me.

If someone asked me for a definition of irony, I would point them to that thread on her site.

23   Rick Frueh
September 19th, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Is the “meek and quiet spirit” verse a suggestion or is it part of the inherant, verbal, plenary, insprired Word of God? I guess it’s a Sunday morning suit, easy to take off, difficult to put on.

Nobody in particular…

24   nate    
September 19th, 2007 at 4:37 pm

I noticed the misrepresentation on the article in question as well. I read it and went “huh? where did he call him the devil?”

I think we’d all save ourselves a little time and effort if we just assumed that 90% of the stuff on those site’s is an exaggeration for effect or emphasis. That number may be slightly off, but I think it’s close enough to be reasonably reliable.

25   M.G.    
September 20th, 2007 at 11:33 am

I have a response to Jim’s post at Hope in Laodicea. I can’t post it over there because the comments are closed. I hope Jim reads this.


I have just a few comments to make. First, I think that you downplay the importance of free and open debate on this site, Hope in Laodicea, and others. Particularly, I must confess that I am even more deeply troubled by the practice of allowing limited dissenting comments before shutting down debate than merely refusing to post comments. The practice of not allowing dissent, I think, is aptly characterized as censorship. The practice of allowing dissent, but then reserving for oneself the last word so as to give the appearance of “winning” the debate, is aptly characterized as propaganda. It’s manipulating the conversation, or message, to present a misleading or disingenuous picture of what is occurring. Just because you gave the “last word” in our conversation at Hope in Laodicea does not mean that I was cowered into silence or that I concur with what you have to say. People, however, who are not familiar with this site will not know this.

Second, I think that propaganda is an apt term for this practice because of the overall attitude that I have observed with CRN, Hope, and other discernment ministries. (I am not, however, that familiar with your site. Nothing I say pertains to it. I’m addressing you, however, because you responded to the comment I left at Hope.) The posts are all nearly identical in content and tone. And I believe, firmly, that they bring very little honor to the Lord we both serve.

They all operate with an unspoken, but widely understood, thesis: “Evangelical Christianity is in its last throes. These are, in fact, in all likelihood, the last years of planet earth. But there is a remnant of believers who take truth, five-point Calvinism, and God’s word seriously. They are but a few. Most “Christians” are man-loving, works-doing, neo-Catholics and are probably going straight to hell. But certainly not me. (Soli Deo Gloria!)”

Then there is evidence presented with a link. It could be a pastor with a bed on the stage, a Christian comic, a pastor who quotes an R-rated movie, a pastor who is a registered Democrat, gross sexual immorality amongst the faithful, a quote by Rob Bell, pernicious greed and financial immorality, a quote by Brian McLaren, or idolatry. I could, of course, go on. The actual nature of the evidence is usually, well, irrelevant.

Then there is the analysis. It usually consists of a statement how the evidence presented confirms the unspoken thesis.

The difficulty I have with these sites is that there is *no nuance.* There is no distinction between serious doctrinal errors and the silliness of contemporary Evangelicalism and there is no serious engagement with the arguments put forth by dissenting voices. There is, however, a rabid protection of the unspoken thesis, a separation of us v. them, remnant v. mainstream, and a commitment to suppressing dissent and manipulating the message to preserve an aura of perfection and God’s prophetic anointing. There is no *real* discussion, debate, or understanding given of contemporary Evangelicalism.

An important question: How does it edify anyone to present shallow analysis that convinces no one of anything, but rather affirms those who believe they are of “the remnant” that they are, in fact, pretty good people. (At least my church doesn’t [fill in the blank]!) And that’s all these sites do. They make some people mad, and they make the rest of the readers think to themselves that they are better than mainstream Evangelicals. What is the value of puffing people up by appealing to their pride? Is that how the Holy Spirit moves?

So, yes, there are real differences between this site and discernment ministries, notwithstanding the issue of insults. About that, I’m rather fond of saying that a ministry isn’t perfect… but only if change then results. You took issue with calling discernment ministries “malcontents” and “gossip mongers.” I’ll grant you, you have a point. If I were in charge, I’d change it. But then, if you really have a problem with insults, you would agree that much needs to be changed about discernment ministries. Let’s all be more charitable, more loving, more gracious. You have no argument from me there. But change needs to happen *everywhere.*

And, your response didn’t address the heart of my comment. Ingrid’s quote implied that the love of Christ had nothing to do with this place. What a comment, and far more serious than a mere insult! And it’s a common refrain. You see, it’s all about the unspoken thesis (just to tie things up). It’s us v. them. It’s the remnant v. the mainstream. And it is, to be completely honest, it’s the saved v. the unsaved.

I find this mentality reprehensible. It takes tremendous hubris to presume that one’s critics are unsaved, and that the criticism is part of the persecution that comes to true Christians who dare to boldly proclaim truth. How do you break through that mentality? You can’t. It’s an impenetrable circle of logic that impedes growth and Christian maturity because every supportive comment builds you up and every critical comment confirms your belief regarding persecution and the coming wrath. Yet this mentality *infects* several online discernment ministries, and especially the comments. But it does not honor Christ, whom we both serve.

I do not find that mentality here. Iggy, a commenter, did make one, rather stupid comment (sorry Iggy!) recently. He was excoriated. Other than that, the men who run this site are usually interested in debate, edification, dissent, and making discernment ministries better.

And that is what I want. I hope this site gets better, along with Hope, CRN, and Apprising Ministries, and I hope that some sort of common ground could be found. That would bring much honor to Christ.

Grace and peace,

26   Sandman    
September 20th, 2007 at 11:44 am

Well said, M.G.

27   iggy
September 20th, 2007 at 12:02 pm


I agree with most of what you stated… and it was well stated.

As far as the “stupid comment” (I accept the apology) = ) I think that one need realize that when I have tried every means to communicate with “those” who have proclaimed people like me their enemy with many accusations and no real proof, I admit I am a bit calloused to them now. I do not take them serious at all…

Statements such as JM latest has not substantial backing to it… it is just lies, plain and simple.

“It allows them not to take a position on homosexuality, premarital sex, or anything, besides ‘Let’s light some candles and incense, think good thoughts about Jesus, and give to the poor.’”

Yet, those who back him do not question JM… they blindly support him and blindly trust HIS research… though many have pointed out that there was very little if not any… and accuracy seems to mean nothing…

It is all about demonizing people… it is about fighting flesh and blood… and disregarding that God loved the world enough to send His Son to die so that we can be saved from “lies”… that lead to death.

It saddens me to see a group of people that have bitten the apple of lies and tasted its fruit and now exchange truth for lies. They replace love for judging others, wrath with kindness and war instead of peace.

The biggest difference is that I do not feel free to comment at or Ingrid’s kinder gentler Hope… yet both are free to come to this site and comment freely and no one will close the comments on them.


28   speared4me    
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:28 pm

I for one find it interesting that the ODMs have such short, selective memories. In this case, I like Ingrid’s use of the term ‘flamethrower’ when it was the ODMs (specifically Al Mohler) who all but suggested that houses be firebombed (his comments about Chad Allen playing Nate and Steve Saint in end of the Spear). Not to mention Ingrid’s piling on, without so much as checking the facts. In that particular case, the ’source’ for their information, from which they drew their conclusions, was a homosexual activist magazine. If that is what ODMs use for reference material, without gathering other facts, then they should get all of the rebuking they deserve.