CRN.Info and Analysis

I’ve wondered this for awhile now, but why do watchdoggies, almost universally, fear any sort of interaction with those that disagree with them? This is almost across the board, consider for a moment:

1. Jim over at New Truth refuses to even allow incoming links to his website from websites that generally disagree with him.
2. Slice, Apprising, and C?N.com don’t have comments at all, while using publishing software that has it enabled by default.
3. Multiple cases of hiding author identities, so stifling any ability to email directly.
4. Deliberately refusing to link to websites and articles they directly criticize.
5. Even for those watchdoggie websites that allow comments the comments are heavily moderated, creating the impression that there’s a huge consensus in their favor. There is not a single watchdoggie website that, to my knowledge, allows anywhere close to the level of dissenting comments that this one does.

So why the fear of conversation and interaction with those that disagree with them? Is it an inability to intelligently converse? Or just insecurity?

Quiz:

1. It is not a sin to be a woman, but it is if she is a pastor. (T or F)
2. Scripture is very clear on that issue that to deny it is to deny the Bible. (T or F)
3. A woman pastor is in direct opposition to godliness. (T or F)
4. A woman pastor is in direct opposition to what the gospel teaches or is about. (T or F)
5. A church led by a woman pastor is not a real Christian church and is, instead, the synagogue of Satan. (T or F)
6. A woman pastor is in clear defiance of Christ’s commands and anyone supporting her can hardly call themselves a Christian anymore. (T or F)

———-

In support of these statements, Chad, an apparently sincere writer at Old Truth, uses the story of Adam and Eve to prove that Eve was deceived, not Adam. He neglects to point out Genesis 3:6 where it notes that Adam was standing there with Eve when it all went down, never saying a word. I wonder what, then, that says about the character of all men in general if the character of Eve speaks for all women?

Chad’s use of the order of creation to support his idea that men are in some way superior, (though he is careful to not state that implicitly) is problematic. Genesis 1:27 is a bit of a monkey wrench, in that case. I would also note that, if we are going to take the order of creation into consideration, it is important to remember that God started with the basics and ended with the pinnacle. From nothing, to water, to animals. I would say to Chad, then, that woman was the final creation.

Actually, I wouldn’t say that to Chad, because I think feuding over the order of creation and what it means to either gender is foolish. It is unnecessary to make one gender higher in the hierarchy than the other; we are both in the image of God.

Women seem to have the burden of an extra sin to be wary of that men do not have, according to Chad. For a woman to be a pastor — no matter the situation, the culture, or the setting — is a sin.

I prefer to call it obedience, often in the face of adversity from both the world and supposedly fellow brothers in Christ. Women are too often left with this “additional” sex-based sin unique to us and not men, as well as having the double burden of forms of persecution and verbal assaults from within our own family, the family of God.

Adam ate the fruit, too, and it was never more evident than in comments like Chad’s.

(The true or false statements above came directly from Chad’s comments.)

[Read more: Are Women Human?]

can’t a guy get some credit without mentioning his famous pastor

In this post even Hitler had his tactics by Nathan Neighbour, who has said his pastor is emerging church leader Erwin McManus

I guess it gets them more Google hits than just mentioning my name. Whatever you gotta do to sell the story, right?

…gongs yet again.

such is the future of the mainstrean evangelical camp of the American Christian Church, which we fear has suffered a mortal wound spirituallly by embracing the views of new evangelical fools like Reed.

Clang… Is Ken really this stupid and arrogant - or is he eisogeting and building straw men (yet again)?

Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca, ‘ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Indeed…

In Part I and Part II of this series, we examined the purpose of God’s people throughout history, both before and after the coming of Jesus. That purpose can be summed up as being a) to be light, in order to b) give light, so that c) the whole world will know that our God is the One True God.

Here in Part III, we will retread some ground previously covered to answer the questions “what is salvation?” and “what is eternal life?”

From Part II of this series:

Paul’s turn of phrase “in Christ” is a key in helping us understand our freedom and our mission. When we are ‘in Christ’, God does not condemn us for our sins, and we are not expected to pay a sacrificial atonement for them. In other words, when God judges us, he sees Jesus (because we are “in” him), and his blamelessness is imputed to us.

In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus…

This frees us from the need to pay God back - because we cannot - just like when God saved the children of Israel from Egypt. Paul again makes this clear:

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Because we are free, that allows us to complete our mission - to be a light to give light - to be blessed to be a blessing - for the purpose of demonstrating to the world that our God is the One and only God of the universe.

The Kingdom

What was the #1 topic spoken of most often by Jesus in the gospels (Hint: this was mentioned by Brant Hansen in a recent Podcast)? Answer: The Kingdom of God - which is mentioned 102 times in the gospels and 28 times in the remainder of the New Testament. Some examples:

At daybreak Jesus went out to a solitary place. The people were looking for him and when they came to where he was, they tried to keep him from leaving them. But he said, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent.” And he kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea. (Luke 4:42-44)

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is among you.” (Luke 17:20-21)

After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:3)

Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. (Acts 19:8-9)

Per Jesus’ teaching and the letters from his apostles, we know that the Kingdom is not a physical place, but it exists now and it is already among us who believe in him and follow his words. The Kingdom of God exists wherever a community of believers exist and things are with them as God would intend them to be here.

This, then, is how you should pray: “‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Because of our imperfection, the manifestation of His kingdom here is also imperfect, but there will be a time in which we will be made perfect, and His kingdom, thusly so.

For more on the concept of Kingdom, you can read these two articles from earlier this year as a start.

Salvation

What is salvation? Too often, our neo-Classical view of salvation is limited to the eternal destination that will be locked-in upon our leaving this life. When we hear about “eternal life”, we see this as beginning the millisecond after we leave this world. But this is not what Jesus taught.

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

He answered: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

In the Hebrew mind of the first century, and in Jesus’ teaching, eternal life begins now, in the kingdom, and it continues on in the age to come.

So, when Jesus saves from our sins (now), we are set free to heal the world (now) without the need to atone for our sins. Is this a license to sin? By no means, according to Paul, but it is a freedom to live our lives in demonstration of gratitude to the One True God, so that the world may know that He is the One True God!

So What?

How does this apply to us, today? It is all about mindset. If we are just biding time, waiting to die so that we can be in the kingdom, we’ve completely missed the point. Rather, to live is Christ and to die is gain. While we are alive, we have the choice to bring about heaven on earth or hell on earth.

Jesus states:

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of [God], but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Notice that Jesus’ emphasis is on “fruit” and the “kingdom”. Because this is a kingdom where leading is serving, where the first are last, where God’s people depend on him for their needs, and where the poor, the widow, the orphan and the stranger among us are the exhalted, we can see where this ‘fruit’ is manifest. Having all of the right orthodoxy on earth but bearing no fruit is just as bad as bearing bad fruit.

So if you’re a church that has a reputation for being a large country club for self-righteous jerks, you might want to consider that perhaps you’ve given up the kingdom to become a pharisee.

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

Salvation is about here and now - salvation from the sins you struggle with day-to-day, where the only hope to escape from them comes from the Father. Salvation from the need to try to appease God. Salvation from the need to appear holy on the outside, while inside you’re just a dirty cup. Salvation begins now, and it stretches out - into perfection - in eternity.

We’ve already had watchdoggies delete and modify posts in the past without notice, post anonymously (or assume different names) here in the comments, and hide behind the "editor" title over at Castle Grayskull, now we’ve got them deliberately obscuring their identities in posted email conversations.

This email exchange concerning Joel Osteen is presented over at Apprising Ministries with the gracious permission of the original author and has been edited slightly to protect their identity. [emphasis mine]

Obviously they’re not hiding Osteen’s identity, so why are they hiding the original emailer’s?  Why can’t watchdoggies just be open and honest about who they are and what they post?  Are they dishonest, or just ashamed?

While arrogance and ignorance is a watchdoggie trademark, this display by Mike Ratliff is an absolute clinic. In it he references this post which sparked a discussion on the use of language.  Ratliff commented several times using the exact same arguments he uses in his post, and was answered several times.  He either ran out of time to read the response, or simply had no desire to actually process and respond to the comments he received because no where in his post does he address these counter-arguments.  But first on to the arrogance:

What are the motives for using coarse or vulgar language? There are many, but not one of them will cause a believer to edify others or glorify God.

Apparently Mike knows, not only every single instance of  the use of coarse or vulgar language, but also the motive for using coarse or vulgar language.  Of course, the actual post in question actually linked to an example of coarse or vulgar language being used to edify others and glorify God. I posted the back story on the song itself and this little bit of information was brought forth:

a few sent me private messages of appreciation

And here was the motive in writing the song in the first place:

Even though that song is supposed to be funny, I really would like to discuss seriously with someone why it is that we tend to be severe with those with whom Jesus was gentle and indulging of those with whom Jesus was severe.

There’s the arrogance, now onto the ignorance.  Mike writes:

In fact, in the Bible, in every mention of coarse language, it is cast as part of sin or sinful itself.

Its hard for me to come up with the words to describe this level of Biblical ignorance.  To give an example, you’ve got Paul’s use of skubalon in Philippians (which is often deliberately mistranslated as "rubbish" and should be at the very least translated as crap).  Then you’ve got Isaiah’s use of the "filthy rags" which is also deliberately mistranslated and could be more accurately translated as "menstrual rags", or rendered perhaps as "used tampons".  Jesus’ use of the word "woe" in Matthew 24 (not to mention phrases like "sons of Hell) all fall into this category.  John the Baptist calling the Pharisees "brood of vipers" wasn’t just a turn of phrase it was a nasty, religious insult, far stronger than anything in the song I posted.  Unfortunately, because of the easily offended nature of Christians in general and especially watchdoggies in particular.  the Bible has been softened and distorted to avoid dealing with offensive passages in it.

Now check out the other side of the issue.  Look what Jesus has to say about speech in Matthew 6 that is socially acceptable, but insubstantial:

5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

But the thing that really gets to me on this issue is this: all those passages from Ephesians, and James and in other places that deal with the sins of the mouth have been ultimately taught to mean "don’t say this list of naughty words".  Just look at the way the watchdoggies conduct themselves.  They have no problem shredding their brothers and sisters in Christ with lies, exaggerations, assumptions and just plain nastiness.  Yet, they maintain they are obeying admonitions to avoid sins of the mouth because they’ve avoided the culture’s no-no words. 

This has even bigger implications, though.  Recently, with the references to what is worldly, the way the watchdoggies look at language, dress, and just generally the outside of the cup they’ve missed the Kingdom completely.  They’re so busy policing worship styles, FCC banned words, and other things that just don’t matter that they’ve bought into the power of the world, and put off the kingdom completely.  In Matthew 20 Jesus says:

Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Instead of trying to dominate our fellow citizens politically, and our fellow brothers and sisters via brow beating and the abuse of scripture, a little bit of servanthood would go a long way to embracing the kingdom and rejecting the world.

Hitler was able to destroy the lives of so many Jews by irrationally blaming most of Germans problems on them. This article from Steve Camp uses similar tactics. He shows irreverent images from pop television shows and clothing lines such as this South Park slide and online shirts, like this one. He then makes this comment

IMHO, this is the number one issue bar none, coming from within the emerging/emergent church culture today. Contextualization of message, defining missional thinking, postmodern cultural relevance, open hand/close hand pragmatics, etc. are all secondary, and frankly child’s play, compared to the issue of the lack of reverence that is coming from within the emerging/emergent church to the greater body of Christ.

He basically uses these images as an example of how irreverent the “emerging-seeker sensible-ecumenical-culturally relevant-evangelical” church(since it is all the same) is today without any logical link. Aside from these pictures, there is no legtitmate examples of how the emerging church is mocking the person of Jesus Christ. In fact, in the comment section, one reader wrote

Oh my, how awful. I expect it from outside the church, but this is coming from “inside” the church (’church’ used loosely in this case!).

to which he responded

Exactly. We expect this from nonbelievers; but when pastors think it gives them greater footing with others within their church or to attract others to their church, then we most “sound the alarm!”

He gives no logical examination as to how South Park is connected to the he “emerging-seeker sensible-ecumenical-culturally relevant-evangelical church. He actually reinforces the idea that these images are coming from within the church. it seems that there are a number of articles coming out from the ODMs that are outright lies and far-fetched stories. Maybe the Christian tabloid business isn’t doing so well these days.