Silly Watchdawggie - go buy some glasses... …As demonstrated by CR?N this afternoon.

Apparently one of the mysterious “editors” (hiding behind anonymity, of course), is completely blind and obtuse to logic and contextual criticism. Whoever the “editor” is, also must have missed Humor Day two weeks ago (see my link midway down the thread), along with the post on my website nearly a month ago.

In an article entitled, Emerging Church Pastor Bob Hyatt Does Something Dum Dum Dum Da Dum!, the cowardly* “editor” attempts (unsuccessfully, I might add) to paint pastor Bob Hyatt as a hypocrite.

[Hyatt] is also one of the most vocal critics who have been whining about the Emergent-See Po-Motivators For Emerging Christians posters put out by Pyromaniacs, which satirize the Emergent Church, supposedly being offensive and mean-spirited.

Well, Hyatt has now indeed done something rather foolish in linking this video at his Bob.Blog. You see this South Park production actually is mean-spirited and offensive to those of the Mormon “faith tradition” thereby exposing his own Hip Hip Hip Hy-pocrisy!

Where to even begin?

1) Hyatt’s criticism (far above whining, which you would think might be recognized on CR?N in the same way one recognizes one’s own face when looking into a mirror) of the “Characture of a charactures” from John MacArthur’s chief supplicant and water-carrier at Team Pyro has consistently been that (as noted above) the ‘posters’ don’t characterize actual belief of most (if not all) ECM churches. Instead, they snarky stabs at inaccurate characatures created by the very same author(s) of the posters. Above all else, they are public displays of Christians being nasty to other Christians.

2) Most ECM and Fundamentalists recognize that Mormonism is a cult that puts on a public face as being connected to Christianity. Criticism of Mormonism, and giving a pretty accurate account of the origins of this pseudo-religion, aren’t even in the same ballpark as criticizing the strawmen you have created to represent other brothers and sisters in Christ.

3) I could go on, but I think that the silly, morally tone-deaf post from the downwardly-spiraling CR?N shows just how spiritually obtuse these “discernment” folks can be…

_______________

*Before anyone suggests that “cowardly” is name-calling, I would note that it is an adjective describing an act in which a person writes something offensive on a Christian website about another Christian, but is too afraid (for whatever reason) to attach his/her name to their childish rantings. “Cowardly” is a mild start to describe such behavior.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Friday, September 28th, 2007 at 3:16 pm and is filed under Commentary, Hypocrisy, Legalism, ODM Responses, Original Articles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

43 Comments(+Add)

1   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 28th, 2007 at 3:25 pm

I have never seen even 15 seconds of Southpark (I’m holy), but that was hilarious and I have watched it with my sons. Check out this Webster’s dictionary definition:

Apples and Oranges: When someone compares mean spirited satire about mostly brethren using pictures of lost people to further hatred and promote pride – WITH – an educational humor about a cult who denies the deity of Christ.

Oh by the way, I never said I agree with the Southpark video!

2   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
September 28th, 2007 at 3:29 pm

I showed the SouthPark video where they go to church to my leadership team once

3   Bob    
September 28th, 2007 at 3:32 pm

I still think it was hilarious…
(and for the record- so’s Ken Silva. He’s become a caricature of himself.)
I’ll have to see what else I can do to get my very own mention on c?RN :)

Thanks for the mention.

4   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 28th, 2007 at 3:34 pm

We’d love to metion you again, Bob, but God won’t let us translate from the plate of Nephite anymore, only the plate of Silva.

5   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
September 28th, 2007 at 4:31 pm

So let me get this straight…

1) Pyro makes posters about fellow Christians that are mean spirited.

2) Bob posts a video, that he did not make, on his blog that accurately portrays a cult.

3) CR?N jumps in the fray and says that Bob is mean-spirited because he decrys the Pyro posters and posts a video from South Park.

If that’s accurate then ??????????????????????????????????

6   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
September 28th, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Chris, I think the letters you are looking for are FWT. Pershaps, not in that order.

7   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 28th, 2007 at 6:10 pm

chris…

The end to your logic is that CR?N now officially consider Mormons brothers in Christ.

That is how bad the ec has become… we have surpassed the Mormons!

Wow!

blessings,
iggy

8   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
September 28th, 2007 at 7:25 pm

Rick: You said…using pictures of lost people to further hatred… (emphasis mine) Rick! How do you know all of the people in those posters?

9   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
September 28th, 2007 at 7:30 pm

The only question we have to ask ourself is would Jesus condone purposely making fun of someone and would He agree that it’s OK to do it if your frustrated b/c they are not giving you answers that you feel are clear. That sound like Jesus in the New Testament, doesn’t it Keith?

10   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 28th, 2007 at 7:42 pm

Well then if we assume they are brethren is it still OK to mock them? You know that many are supposed to represent lost people, even represent lost people who the emergents say are saved, etc..

Bottom line – Lord, I am glad I am not like those tattooed freaks! Even Pyro admits it, they just say they are funny and Spurgeon would love em!

11   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
September 28th, 2007 at 7:46 pm

Joe: If I agreed the posters were “making fun,” the answer would be “No, Jesus wouldn’t do that.” But if the posters are merely exposing inconsistencies or pointing out doctrines that may have been or are being trivialized/twisted by a group, then I would say: “I don’t think Jesus would have a problem with that.” He certainly didn’t have a problem expressing His displeasure with certain groups on occasion.

(And I’m still not upset that some of the posters depict “white folks” with dreadlocks.)

I realize we are on extremely opposite sides of the fence on this one, but one thing I will say is that you guys certainly are gracious in allowing people like me to express my opinion here. I see these are conversations that no one will “win,” but it is interesting to me to hear what/how others perceive things. (I think we’re both pretty close on our opinion of PCC–that place is NUTS!)

12   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 28th, 2007 at 7:50 pm

And that’s all you have, posters? I didn’t see MacLaren or the rest on the posters with their quotes, I saw civilians, not suit wearing MacArthur civilians, no, emergent caricature civilians mainly in a satirical mocking.

I hate (and I said hate) when some use people like goth, tatoos, piercing, hip hop, and any other outwardly identifiable sinners and refuse to even consider the fact that some of these people have severe problems even stemming from abuse. Read this and see why I hate using the most vunerable among us for theological levity. Shameful.

http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2006/08/i-will-have-mercy.html

13   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
September 28th, 2007 at 8:25 pm

I don’t even understand the post over at CR?N.

Making fun of making fun of a non-Christian religion, but not making fun of those using posters to make fun of either a) fellow Christians or b) distorted Christianity (as CR?N perceives those the posters make fun of) which would be the same as making fun of non-Christian religion?

Completely illogical. Another great CR?N post!

14   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
September 28th, 2007 at 8:48 pm

Thread Hi-Jack warning:

Rick is that group of guys from South Bend actually gonna show up for a game this year.

15   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 28th, 2007 at 8:54 pm

I live 20 minutes from University of South Florida so tonight I am pulling for the bulls.

16   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
September 28th, 2007 at 9:20 pm

Of all the thread-jacking topics I despise the most, sports is the top of the list.

Email! Must use email!!!!!

17   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
September 28th, 2007 at 10:09 pm

WELL, if Julie despises then….
Smile Julie
Keith, I cannot believe that anyone would defend something that is making fun of someone else.

18   Bob    
September 29th, 2007 at 8:46 am

This is a pretty standard tactic of these guys.

Find a perceived infraction of an emerging church value you despise anyway and crow about it at the top of your lungs.

It’s akin to guy who owns a butcher shop pointing out and mocking a vegetarian because he eats a piece of fish.

dum dum dum dum dum.

19   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 29th, 2007 at 9:17 am

Bob is smart smart smart smart smart.
ig

20   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
September 29th, 2007 at 5:07 pm

You call it “making fun”…I call it exposing error. Half empty/half full.

21   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
September 29th, 2007 at 5:37 pm

Julie – please ignore this comment.

Rick – I just got back from West Lafayette where, despite this year’s Boilermaker tendency to run out to a lead and then sit back the second half, I had an excellent time watching Purdue send the papists packing…

22   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
September 29th, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Oh, my, Keith. I might just take your little wavering definition of “making fun” and make all sorts of fun. I mean, error exposition.

I’m big into error expository.

The posters are making fun, and the proof is in the reaction to those who absolutely love them and show love for the poster and the “wit” and “cleverness” of Team Pyro, and not those the posters claim are in error. The poster-lovers seem to think the group being mocked isn’t even truly Christian, i.e. non-Christian. The South Park episode was also making fun/exposing the error…of a non-Christian group.

One seems to sit well with you, and the other not so much.

Prepare for a little exposition: I call that kind of behavior “two-faced.” And also “infantile.” And also “in error.”

23   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
September 29th, 2007 at 5:41 pm

Chris, I’m unable to ignore.

It’s a terrible thing.

24   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
September 29th, 2007 at 6:33 pm

Julie: Do whatever you deem necessary. I find this whole you-made-fun-of-me-I’ll-make-fun-of-you thing a little infantile myself.

Some posters (people who post; not to be confused with the posters created by Team Pyro) here get all upset when someone speaks ill of their precious emerging movement–like they’ve reinvented the wheel or something…but when it comes to John MacArthur or someone of like mind, then “Katy bar the door.”

I hold no personal ill will toward Iggy–for instance–but get real. He comes here and manages to take most ANY thread and bring it around to his dislike for JM or Ken Silva, etc. I refer to it as “Six Degrees of Iggy”–similar to Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.”

You point out something you think is wrong with “our side;” we point out what’s wrong with “your side.” No body changes their mind. Quite productive, don’t you think?

I’ve never said you, Iggy, Chris L, Rick, Tim Reed or anyone else that posts here isn’t a Christian. Oh, sorry Joe; didn’t mean to leave you out of the list. I’ve never said Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Dan Kimball or anyone else I can think of is not a Christian.

I think the hardest thing for some people around here is to believe that –in spite of your best argument– I and others like myself are not changing our minds. That doesn’t necessarily make yours or my positions right or wrong. Again, it simply means we don’t agree. I’m good with that.

25   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
September 29th, 2007 at 7:02 pm

I’ve never said Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Dan Kimball or anyone else I can think of is not a Christian.

Maybe you haven’t but quite a few of the pro-poster peeps have.

26   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 29th, 2007 at 8:57 pm

Keith,

OK, now the gloves are off… it will be only about YOU!!!!

LOL!

And Ken says it’s all about me…

Not to mention how John MacArthur….. (___________)*

*Fill in the blank.

If it walks like a duck and it takes quotes out of context like a duck …

be blessed,
iggy

“Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless” – Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf”

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” ~ Adolf Hitler

“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.”
~ Adolf Hitler

27   Bob    
September 29th, 2007 at 10:52 pm

“Some posters (people who post; not to be confused with the posters created by Team Pyro) here get all upset when someone speaks ill of their precious emerging movement–like they’ve reinvented the wheel or something…but when it comes to John MacArthur or someone of like mind, then “Katy bar the door.””

What a crock.

As someone who considers himself a part of the emerging church movement, I used to help run a site subtitled “thoughtfully considering critiques of the emerging church.”

The issue is not and has never been “when someone speaks ill.” When someone tells half truths and mis-understands (followed by attacking that mis-understanding) or just plain mocks us and calls it “critique”, then yeah- I have a problem with that and call it what it is- half-baked, intellectually bankrupt, morally and ethically sub-par garbage.

The fact is, when I find good critique of the emerging church, I link it.
I want it. I welcome it.

Too bad I have to wade thru so much dreck from Silva-ites and their ilk to find it.

28   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 29th, 2007 at 11:01 pm

Bob is smart smart smart smart smart…

And I agree!

iggy

29   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
September 29th, 2007 at 11:47 pm

I find this whole you-made-fun-of-me-I’ll-make-fun-of-you thing a little infantile myself.

I’m glad you agree. It is shameful, those Pyro posters.

…“our side;” we point out what’s wrong with “your side.”

I’m on God’s side. (I’m also the master of the Sunday School answer.) But seriously, nothing lines up the dodge ball teams like…mocking a group of people. And then delineating sides.

I think the hardest thing for some people around here is to believe that –in spite of your best argument– I and others like myself are not changing our minds.

A revealing answer, suitable for many questions. For example, when you start using phrases like “some people around here” we again have those sides.

It’s also why it’s so fun to have these discussions.

Nothing is accomplished.

30   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 30th, 2007 at 12:20 am

Keith,

I think the hardest thing for some people around here is to believe that –in spite of your best argument– I and others like myself are not changing our minds.

I really do not ever care to change any one’s mind… I pray that God changes people… and that is ONE of the big differences between “you’s guys and us’s guys” as I for one see that only God can change someone… I can’t even change myself… I even let God do that job… He does so much better than I ever will transforming me into the image of Jesus.

So, relax… be yourself for a change… LOL!

And realize God is really in charge.

Be Blessed,
iggy

31   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 30th, 2007 at 7:00 am

Bob – If you are open to legitimate and thoughtful examinations of some of the emergent streams then you have litened to Driscoll’s latest message? Here are two of my non-hyperbolic concerns:

http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2007/09/claims-of-mark-driscoll-o-n-friday.html

http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2007/09/where-is-outrage-s-omewhere-around-52.html

32   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
September 30th, 2007 at 8:01 am

Bob is also anonymous, anonymous, anonymous, anonymous…It would be nice to be able to read some of the good critique of the emerging church, [he links to].

Iggy: I know you mean well; I do not doubt your sincerity…but (and you had to know there was a “but”), sometimes I think you read a little more into words than is there. I am guilty of the same at times. For the record, you are right–only God actually changes hearts/minds. I believe He can and sometimes does use people to accomplish that.

For what it’s worth, I really do believe most everyone that posts here is on the same side–the Kingdom. (I liked Julie’s dodgeball analogy). The difference is our interpretation of HOW we got there. In very general terms, some “chose,” some were “elected.” In the end, we’re all standing before a holy, righteous God, who by His grace, saved us by the blood of His son, Jesus Christ. No more tears, no more pain, NO MORE BLOGS…just me, Iggy, and the guy down the street with dreadlocks and tattoos, arm-in-arm, singing “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty” with the angels. (Sure hope they have hymnals–I like to sing parts!)

33   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
September 30th, 2007 at 8:13 am

Keith,

Bob’s blog is linked to in the article, itself, and in our sidebar.

http://bobhyatt.typepad.com/

34   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 30th, 2007 at 8:24 am

Keith – Amen!

35   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
September 30th, 2007 at 8:30 am

Rick,

I have not yet read the book Driscoll quotes, but I plan on picking it up and at least perusing the section by Padgitt to see how accurate Driscoll’s criticism is on the couple of sentences he pulled to quote.

I disagree with Padgitt’s position on homosexual practice not being sinful. In this case, I am taking Driscoll’s word on it, since it was part of a private conversation.

As for the recorded (thought to be private) comment afterward, I go back to my previous comment:

Not to condone Padgitt’s comment (though off-the-air and to a friend), but MacArthur’s answer seemed rather trite/simplistic, along the same lines as Paul Tautages (sp?) admonitions on the use of Christian counselors and psychiatric drugs.

Certainly we should go to scripture, but does that mean to the written scripture and quiet study? After all, we went 1400+ years between Jesus and the invention of the printing press.

My understanding of Christian “yoga” is that it includes meditation upon scripture. Additionally, we are to love God with mind, soul, heart and strength. In the ‘modernized’ world, people are generally MUCH less physically fit than in previous generations, and much of what is now seen as ’stress’ is partly caused by this – call it a lack of loving God with one’s strength. A number of physical activities – when taken in proper balance – are necessary. So the question becomes, is low-impact stretching (the physical component of “yoga”) an acceptable form of loving God with one’s strength?

MacArthur’s glib response, notwithstanding, gives no comprehensive answer.

Have you listened to the Mars Hill(GR) podcast from last week (Padgitt)? Have you listened to any recent podcasts from Mars Hill (Seattle)?

I think you’re going to be absent any widescale outrage in the ECM at Padgitt, because – unlike a denomination – Padgitt is accountable to his local church. There is no national organization to “dis-fellowship” him (or MacLaren, etc.). Like MacLaren, I would venture a guess that most people who attend EC churches couldn’t point him out in a crowd or quote anything he’s written. Those sympathetic to, but not part of, the movement, like myself, will likely say “I disagree with him on X”, but unless we’ve got friends in Minneapolis, we have no influence on his church.

36   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 30th, 2007 at 9:14 am

I do not doubt that Pagitt is both a Christian and can deliver a Biblical message. But that is like a man who robs a bank at age 40 and when they arrest him he wonders aloud why the forty years without robbing a bank don’t get him a pass.

I have read his blog and he doesn’t deny anything, he just defends his position. I aslo believe that Pagitt and others have morphed into their present views about many things, having started with different and more “conservative” doctrinal views. What will a young man teach who has grown up under such teachings?

I still did not see anthing dramatic about yoga until I read some of the other books that MacLaen and Pagitt and Bell were reading as sources of thought. I am somewhat of a dreamer also, but I cannot see a parameterless journey that in the end defines the whole of church history as wrong. And of course God dealt with believers before the printing press and literacy, but we are part of an unfolding plan.

Stress – some drink, some temper, some drugs, some gamble, some exercise, and on and on. But to suggest that reading and meditating on the Word of God is somehow simplistic indicates that maybe Pagitt has yet to fully experience the wonder and miracle of the ministry of God written Word.

The Bible is clear, bodily exercise profits “a little”. So to insinuate that reading the Word is archaic and not in step with today’s array of stress relievers, especially coming from a preacher, is outrageous. Much of the Word unashamedly promotes ITSELF! We can fall into the trap of dismissing anything someone like MacArthur says because he can be a know it all, but he is correct on many things.

“Like MacLaren, I would venture a guess that most people who attend EC churches couldn’t point him out in a crowd or quote anything he’s written. ”

It isn’t MacLaren himself that is dangerous, it is what he teaches. That is what will eventually morph into something unchristian and judging by the book MacLaren said would save Jesus from Christianty, it has already begun.

37   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 30th, 2007 at 10:19 am

Keith,

I think you are right to point, yet, (as there are enough “buts” out there causing troubles already…) I see that there is a big difference between someone saying another is not saved because of their dreadlocks… and one that teaches “works” in how they are to be saved. I accepted Jesus for all He is, was, and is to be… yet to add “He must be Lord of YOUR life” and then say the other people are all about “me, me, me”…

Here is the truth…

us: It is about God and His Kingdom and we get to be part of it.

you guys: I get to get out of hell and I get to go to heaven.

us: Jesus died to reconcile all creation and draw all things into Himself

you guys: Jesus died to save me.

us: we are to love others and walk beside them saved or not in hope that they come to love and believe in Jesus. we do this by serving others unconditionally seeking to see Jesus in them.

you guys: WE need to get that guy saved and to get him to come to OUR church.

Hmmm which one has a “man based” focus?

us: God is sovereign, yet is big enough to do all things. He also limited Himself and became a man.

you guys: God is sovereign but cannot limit Himself.
(I always am confused by the “cannot” there).

Which one shows God is truly able to do “all things”?

So, that is the difference… I am not “reading” more into these things for I am told on almost a daily basis that i am not saved by “you guys”.

Be Blessed,
iggy

38   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 30th, 2007 at 10:24 am

Rick,

But to suggest that reading and meditating on the Word of God is somehow simplistic indicates that maybe Pagitt has yet to fully experience the wonder and miracle of the ministry of God written Word.

I am sure that there is “comfort” in Gods word… yet there are times I am more stressed by reading it as it confronts who I am… To say that “just reading the Bible” is the only and best way to get rid of stress seem more simplistic to me… it also makes me wonder is one is reading the scripture and letting it wash over them and confront them… to allow them to be changed. So I can see it more from Doug’s perspective I guess.

Be Blessed,
iggy

39   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
September 30th, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Iggy: Be careful who you lump into a particular group…including me. You make some interesting assumptions about some people you do not know. BUT, I get your drift.

To use an example I’ve seen here:
“They” say Iggy isn’t saved.
Keith appears to be one of “they.
Therefore, Keith believes Iggy isn’t saved.

If that is the case, you made an “F” on this exam, because Keith has NEVER said Iggy wasn’t saved. You know the old saying: Be careful what you ASSUME…it can make an a** out of you and me.

40   Bob    
September 30th, 2007 at 7:44 pm

Glad you asked. Here’s my response to Driscoll’s latest. You’ll notice I agree with him on quite a bit (though not all).
http://bobhyatt.typepad.com/bobblog/2007/09/driscoll-podcas.html

41   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 30th, 2007 at 8:28 pm

Keith,

I never stated you said that or that you feel that… my point is that with all the criticism this is the one that is tossed out the most… and it seems that it is truly the other way around…

In that I then might add that the people one associates with on must be careful not to blindly trust them… I do not with those who are my friends in the emerging circles… I am careful who I listen to and even have spoken out and to many I disagree with as well as Bob Hyatt… in fact Bod is a Calvinist and we disagree on some major things… yet he has never treated me like Steve Camp, and team pyro… or those non Calvinist-Calvinists like Ken Silva… Bob and I disagree agreeably.

Now, as I have stated a few times here you and I had gotten off to a rough start, yet I consider you a friend and a brother. We disagree and quite frankly I cannot see how you justify some of the things you say are fine. Yet, we seem to be able to converse in a civil manner.

Again, it seems your “friends” are judging and condemning me and many others and though you may see that as a wrong thing to know… I just wonder, is it that you have gotten to know me and see that i am not some evil caricature that is on some poster… that I do not have dreadlocks (not that there is anything wrong with that) or that I deny things like “truth”, the authority of the bible, and so on… as these posters assert I do. I find it interesting as I generalized you felt a bit put off and graded me… you stated I got an “F”… hmmmm I hope you can connect the dots there yourself.

Be Blessed,
iggy

42   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
September 30th, 2007 at 8:48 pm

Iggy: You get an “F” only if you believe I’ve stated you were not saved. That was the one and only point. Since you state “I never stated you said that or that you feel that…”, I guess we don’t have a problem. Looky there. We worked it out without throwing a single punch. 8^)>

…I cannot see how you justify some of the things you say are fine. It would probably curl your hair, er uh, scalp if you knew some of the things I “say are fine.” I’m pretty unorthodox in a couple of areas. That’s why I keep those thoughts more to myself (and God, of course.)

43   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 30th, 2007 at 9:17 pm

Keith,

It would probably curl your hair, er uh, scalp if you knew some of the things I “say are fine.” I’m pretty unorthodox in a couple of areas. That’s why I keep those thoughts more to myself (and God, of course.)

I guess I trust that God is bigger than my unorthodox ideas… if they are unorthodox…

I also think that there are others that are either trapped in bondage to similar “unorthodox” views I was trapped in and worked out of… or that they are also a bit further than I am so can help me…

I trust that God is guiding myself and others to be able to talk openly about things that are a bit “dangerous” to some…

Now, every doctrine I have faced and decontructed that then examined, I found I am stronger in my belief in that doctrine… to that the details are not at important as whether I trust God in His Word… (as in inerrancy and infallibility of scirpture which is important but seems to have been hijacked as to the definitions of those words from the original intent… I now state that I am certain that God is faithful at His Word and is faithful to keep it… and that from that it has authority… not whether I can find an error or not in a translation.)

I see that it is more healthy to openly dialog than to shut some things in a closet and have it come out in wrong ways if it is wrong.

be blessed,
iggy