Ingrid, please define “attack”
Ingrid recently posted a heated response against my article, accusing me of “attacking” Peter LaBarbera and Americans for Truth. I am wanting to know how she defines “attacking.” I feel that it was hardly an attack, but my thoughts on the issue and an opportunity for discussion. I know that the open conversation about ideas is a foreign concept to the Online Discernment Community, but they must understand that sharing thoughts is not an open attack. Also, never once did I ever mention the name of Peter LaBarbera, and had/have no reason to critique him at all. Contrary to ODM belief, it is possible to disagree with a method or ideology and not attack a person personally.
Ingrid, for the record, I am not taking “pop shots” at those who oppose public pornographic activity. I am not too sure how you could even pull that from what I said. I am not even opposed to people who oppose homosexuality. I am opposed to Christians creating organizations to politically battle sin. I am opposed to people who oppose homosexuals more than homosexuality. I am opposed to rebuking large populations of nonbelievers while keeping them at arms length.
You can read the conversation happening at the original post, but our job is to help change hearts with the Holy Spirit of God. It is not our place to legislate morality for the western world. When we begin to doubt God’s ability to change hearts (or simply do not care to get involved with the messy lives of non-beleivers), we look for other catalysts for change and methods to preserve a convenient Christian culture. The government is a perfect solution, however unbiblical. When we tie a political ideology to the movement of Jesus Christ, we move into a dangerous place.
By the way, my favorite line in Ingrid’s article
“Sitting safely behind his computer, he can afford to be a critic.”
um… Mr. Pot, the Kettle is calling. Also, I am my own person. You don’t have to keep linking be back to my pastor. Unlike some, I do not find my significance in who I learn from.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
To all:
She’s another example of what I said in the other thread.
Why would any unbelieving person want to enter into fellowship with people who make them feel like outcasts before they even cross the threshhold into the church?
And for the record, though I disagree with many of the viewpoints espoused here, I heartily concur that your post was far, far, far from anything that could be construed as an “attack.”
Far.
Far.
*ahem*
far.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Her entire article misses the point. And why can’t there ever be a heated discussion without making the person the issue? This quote was especially self serving:
So unless you agree with Peter’s methodology you don’t have a problem with school children being taught about homoerotic activity? I love this blog thing, it so allows us such an inflated view of ourselves and such an opportunity to deflate those with whom we disagree. Personal, smug, invective, hyperbolic, sarcastic, I mean who could ask for more?
She continues:
I cannot imagine anything more condescending and personal as well as self defining. And will someone please help me. Isn’t this type of political action whose purpose is to push back the moral onslaught actually dominion theology? Pat Robertson agrees with political action groups that “respond” to the gay activism, so is this guilt by association?
Poor Nathan. I have my issues with his pastor but I find some of the rhetoric from these bastions of approved methodology as unchristian and not seasoned with grace or…respect. From all I can glean, Nathan is a true follower of Christ who is actively serving Him even if I have issues.
Welcome to the Cosa Blogstra - This Thing of Ours!
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Forget crossing the threshold. It creates total alienation. No opportunity for even a work relationship, much less a real friend.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Nathan,
I think you should have let this one go…
Sometimes you have to let other people “be right”.
It consoles them for being nothing else.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:55 pm
They wouldn’t and shouldn’t. Only the elect who will be drawn in despite the condemnation. That’s the gospel, hate the sin, hate the sinner, love yourself. Grab God’s grace personally and dispurse law to everyone else. I still contend that reformed theology sometimes affects methodology as does Arminian theology.
Many of these bloggers believe these gays probably are not elect.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Don’t get me started on Calvinism…
But then again, most people like that misunderstand the theology anyway.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:27 am
After a person has in their mind for so long that certain people are their “enemies,” or they get in their mind that they don’t like this person, or they should stay away from that person, it will begin to seem like everything that person says about them is an “attack.” This has happened to me before; for various reasons I’ll get in my mind that I don’t like someone or that someone doesn’t like me, and I can get pretty defensive about everything they say to me, even if it’s just an honest opinion.
I think this is even easier to do the internet and is more exaggerated because it’s harder to tell exactly what someone means. I think we should pray that we all, including Ingrid, will be careful when we read and slow to pass judgement– and that we can listen to each other’s thoughts and opinions with an open heart.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:33 am
4 lies in 2 sentences, that’s pretty rough….
Joe
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:35 am
LOL! That Ingrid is hilarious!
iggy
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:51 am
Wise words Merry.
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:35 am
Rick said: “Many of these bloggers believe these gays probably are not elect.”
From a Calvinist/Reformed view, the more correct statement would be: “Many of these bloggers believe [many people regardless of their sexual orientation, race, religion, education, etc.] probably are not elect.”
(I’m really not trying to get Evan started…just expressing an opinion)
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:46 am
That, in my view, is an incredibly large problem with many obvious and not so obvious implications. That is why that Biblical view hinders evangelism, effects our view about others, and in people like Ingrid generates a prideful confidence that you will never offend someone and hinder their understanding of the gospel.
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:33 am
It only “hinders evangelism” when you begin to believe YOU KNOW who the Elect are. Since I don’t, I try to share the Gospel with everyone. God gets to sort out the rest. (I wouldn’t want His job.)
The fact (for me) is that Jesus said, “the gate is narrow,” therefore, regardless of how you or I think it is accomplished, i.e. via election or free will, many are not elect/saved.
I do understand and agree with “…effects our view about others…generates a prideful confidence…” Couldn’t we say that about a lot of different religious systems/denominations/”Biblical views”? We (humans) can be a pretty prideful bunch.
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:59 am
All theologies come with their own particular liabilities. Arminianism, as we have seen, can lead to watering down the message and even unrighteous methodologies.
So we all must be open to the liabilities of our own doctrinal perspectives. I find you, Keith, to be refreshingly balanced. I promise not to expose you around the “Calvinism is the gospel” blog nation!
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Oh, it takes a lot more than that to get me started, Keith.
*grin*
But that’s true…i spent some time in a heavily Calvinist church, and the constant reminder the pastor was issuing is that, by that view, we don’t know who the elect are, therefore Evangelism is, in fact, more necessary than ever, we becoming vessels of fulfilling God’s plan.
or something.
when i went to that church, believe me, i read ALL the books, trying to get my head around it.
the problem was that, in that congregation at least, there wasn’t a focus on doing much of anything for anybody, except when they could glorify themselves in the process.
i was proud of them, though, long after i left that church (and others…), when i heard they were doing a clothes drive for Katrina victims.
i was like “Way to step outside yourselves! Back pats all around!”
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
“Sitting safely behind his computer, he can afford to be a critic.â€
That should go under The Best of Ingrid.
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I wanted to take a moment to acknowledge what I think and believe are Ingrid feelings and needs in this post.
Ingrid writes: Nathan Neighbour’s attack against Peter LaBarbera and Americans for Truth is covered in the post below.
Joe replies: It sounds (and I hope she will correct me if I am wrong anywhere here, but I would like to understand your feelings and needs) like Ingrid is feeling hurt and needing reassurance that the post was not a shot at her. I am assuming that when she made her original post in support of AFTAH that it came from a deep place and now feels angry that place has been violated. I hope Ingrid will clarify if I am wrong.
Ingrid also writes: (Nathan works with Mosaic, Erwin McManus’s church.) Sitting safely behind his computer, he can afford to be a critic. But how many clueless American evangelicals go about their business utterly unaware of what is going on in the homosexual battle for America.
Joe replies: I hear that you are feeling scared and frustrated and needing understanding for how you see the culture issue of homosexuality. You seem to feel respect for Peter’s efforts and frustration that others are not seeing what you are seeing. Again, I hope I am connecting with your feelings, but please correct me if I am wrong.
Ingrid writes: You don’t believe me? Peter was there at the Folsom Street Fair in San Fransisco. I would not recommend anyone click on this link from his report unless they have a strong stomach. The tax-funded police stood by and watched the entire thing.
Joe replies: Are you feeling unsure we will trust you and what you are saying? I also sense you are disgusted by what you have seen at this fair and how others did nothing to stop what you believed to be wrong. It sounds like you are angry that the police did not see what you saw and react like you would have liked? Do I have this correct?
Ingrid continues: Offended that I’m linking to this? I’m offended that this is happening in America while the Nathans of the evangelical church take pot shots at those who oppose it. You want this sort of thing our nation’s streets, Nathan? Does it make me a homophobe because I don’t and will vocally oppose it? How much worse does it have to get?
Joe replies: Ingrid, it sounds like you are afraid it will get worse. It also sounds like you are needing a sense of safety from these things not just for yourself but others.
If I have connected accurately with what is alive for you, Ingrid, I would really like to share with you what I am feeling about this issues and the Folsom Fair. Would you be willing to tell me if I understood your post and the needs behind it and if you would be willing to hear what I would like to share with you?
Thanks,
Joe
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Not me, I am using my laptop in the middle of bullets flying in Kenya! I will never stop being amazed at how someone can write a sentence and not see themselves in it as well.
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Rick,
You are such a hypocrite, sitting behind your laptop in a battlefield in Kenya! Is that supposed to be a demonstration of extreme “look at me!” Christianity?
/joking
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:05 pm
are you really over there?
i have a friend here who’s been working in Kenya doing relief work off and on for the last several years. she’s quite worried about things…
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:09 pm
This may have been covered in the previous post about this but I find it interesting in the original article that Peter LaBarbara posted with images of the “Gay” event. These guys take the worst most profain images and post it as this is something that is commonly done. I would content that most homosexuals would look down on that sort of thing. Just like how we look down on what the ODM’s do yet still call them “christians”. Just my 2 cents
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:13 pm
you’re spot on.
which is a giant part of the problem with the tactics of that “ministry” or whatever is.
when you have to exaggerate, misrepresent, or outright lie in order to make your case, your case is probably thin to begin with.
personal anecdote: when AFT first reported on that Folsom Street thing, i showed it to several of my friends, and we all were going “have you ever heard of this thing? i’ve never heard of this thing? what is this? who are these people? what?”
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Evan - I was kidding. I consider friends like yours as the real frontliners. We all are sitting safely at our computers, even the ones who accuse others of the same “sin”. There is a name for that…uh…it’ll come to me later.
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:41 pm
see, i’m new, so i don’t know everybody’s background
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Let me introduce myself. I am the fundamentalist of the crowd. I get along with these guys most of the time, but sometimes they need correction. Don’t let Chris Lyons fool you, though, all of his hebraic stuff is cut and paste, like Obama’s speeches!
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:05 pm
cute.
he and Deval are like best friends, you know…
they all “plagiarize” from each other.
it seems like different opinions are okay here, as long as you’re not outright mean to people.
i mean, obviously, i’m decidedly NOT a fundamentalist…
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Evans,
I am the local heretic emerging/emergent voice…
and even Rick and I get along most the time. And we even agree at times… to his chagrin… ; )
Welcome… I think this is a great group of people for the most part. There are some that appear and just think that they can let a stinker and go and call that ministry… LOL! but most here are pretty smart people who do want to discuss and possibly work out some things.
iggy
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Evan - I am like finding a nickel in a spittoon!
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:23 pm
and i think that’s cool.
i’ve always thought that if people just TALK to each other, then a lot of things could be worked out that seem hopeless.
i’m not sure what i’d call myself…heretic might fit, but that’s someone else’s label…like my Mom’s.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Evan - I am the keeper of the heretic gate. I’ll get back with you…
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:29 pm
I agree, but studies show we need a language that is free from moral judgment, diagnosis, and accusation. I would suggest, as I always do, that people take one day of your life and learn the process known as “nonviolent communication”.
while I am no pro at using the process, I try. I believe it could change the world. It is based on empathy and connection. Two things we all need.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Evan, I am one of (there may be more) Calvinists that hangs around here. I like to stir the pot from time to time.
Iggy really is a “local heretic”…it was predestined!
8^)>
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:18 pm
oh, i know the Calvinism. i used to go to a PCA church.
i’ve been involved with so many different theologies, etc…
maybe that’s why i’m ecumenical.
February 24th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Hi, Evan!
I am your average basic follower of Christ. I have no labels for myself. My motto is love God and love people. Welcome!
February 24th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Keith,
I feel the love… I really do! LOL!
iggy
February 24th, 2008 at 7:23 am
I noble ascent but without the divine power to forgive (through Christ) the years have proven that goal as unsuccessful. Jesus Himself said there would be no peace on earth until He returns. Gee, I wonder how He knew that?
February 24th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Welcome, Evan.
I am a stumbling Jesus-follower.
You will probably find that this will be one of your most frequent stops in the blogosphere.
I am a regular reader/periodical commentor.
Shalom
February 24th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Evan,
I’m the free willing/wheeling calvinist youth pastor. My blog is probably the most fluffed blog out of the group. I ask more questions than I give answers. And Rick Frueh confuses me! He’s one of us, now he isn’t, now he his.
February 24th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Chris - If you are a believer and follower of Jesus then I am one of you!
But if you are a Calvinist, well, you know…
February 24th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
okay, you’re all giving your backgrounds and theologies, so i might as well give up mine:
raised Christian in many denominations…i have experience with Methodists, Southern Baptists, Christian Church (DofC), Presbyterians (USA and PCA…hence the Calvinism…i was on staff at a PCA church). that’s my upbringing.
these days, when i actually go to church (which i’ll freely admit is not often), i have 5 congregations from which i pick (and i’m always willing to add more…i like new experiences). one’s UCC, one’s DoC, one’s PCUSA, one’s Episcopal, and one’s Reformed Jewish. yep, i go to Temple.
religiously, i consider myself an Agnostic, by the most open defintion possible, but coming from a Christian background, i see many things through that lens.
of course, there are many many more details to the story, but that’s a basic religious overview.
February 24th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Evan - You are a theological Baskin-Robbins!
February 24th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
To Nathan’s original post:
Ingrid links to some gays and hopes we have a stomach for it. She sees the deteriorating society, Jesus sees sinners for whom He died. It’s all in whose eyes you are looking. It is all bewildering to me. If you believe that lost sinners are totally depraved and incapable of seeking God or doing right, what could be your reasoning for being frustrated with their behavior?
What you believe
=what you say.February 24th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Baskin-Robbins, but i wouldn’t want to exclude Ben & Jerry’s if they have something i might like…
exactly.
February 24th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Funny how she didn’t link to “Girls gone Wild” or “Spring Break Miami on MTV” or perhaps even the brothels in Nevada. Just gays.
February 24th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Don’t count her out yet, Joe.
February 24th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
so many things to condemn, not enough hours in the day.
February 24th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
When I was in high school we would identify any guy who would act effeminate and who we thought was a “homo”. We would mock him, hit him, laugh at him, trip him, and generally attack him in many other creative and vindictive ways.
Why don’t I do that anymore?
I became a Christian.
February 24th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
what’s sad is that the taunts are still around among kids from so-called Christian families, but to be honest, they’re losing steam in some ways.
so many kids forget that the term has an actual meaning, and it becomes a part of their vernacular.
these days, it sort of makes me laugh, but that’s just my personality. i have a habit of overhearing it and yelling out to total strangers in the next room “watch your mouth!”
and if the person who said it knows me, it occurs to them what they just said and usually they’re like “i’m sorry i’m sorry i’m sorry i’m sorry i’m sorry!”
i work around a lot of college students, so this has happened more than once.
February 24th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
The reason people do this is because we are programmed with enemy images of gays and lesbians that remove their humanity. We see them as weak, not human. We see them as a threat, not human. We see them as “bad” or “Wrong”, but not human. It becomes acceptable to do pick on the gay kid because society has given gay kids enough of an enemy image that we are picking on the image not the human.
Our lack of ability to see each other as something more than the labels, evaluation, moral judgments, right, wrong, is what prevents us from seeing each other as humans with feelings and needs. This only changes when we choose to do something else.
February 24th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
I forgot to add to that one important thing….When you read Ingrid’s article stating she feel’s attacked. Do you read it and get defensive or do you read it and acknowledge her feelings?
It is so easy to write her feelings and needs off, but re-read her post and ask sentence by sentence what is she need. Everything we do, we do to meet a need. What is her need?
Some common needs can be safety, nurture, meaning, passion, individuality, healing, love, affection, calm….and so on….
WHen you recognize needs and feelings, you are seeing the person’s humanity. This is what I strive for in my life.
February 24th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Good comments, Joe, I agree with you. Sometimes we tend to forget that homosexuals are human beings, too, just like the rest of us. The homosexuals that I know are some of the nicest people you’ll ever meet, and they are just normal, friendly, funny, people. (Well, nobody’s “normal”!)
But I think Ingrid’s feelings are legitimate too and shouldn’t be tromped on . . . her opinion’s should be respected, too, just like everyone else.
February 24th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
oh, i can assure everyone that i’m NOT normal.
i’m delightfully strange.
i would amend one thing about what you said, Merry: it’s one thing to respect people’s opinions, but when people use their opinions to tear people down, we enter a whole new realm.
Fred Phelps has “opinions.”
David Duke had “opinions.”
Pol Pot had “opinions.”
so. we should obviously all work harder to respect and love each other as human beings. (i swear i just heard a gunshot….)
oh, the city…
February 24th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Evan, so are you saying we should disrespect their “opinions”? Lol. Respecting someone’s opinion doesn’t mean we always agree with it. And I would hardly put Ingrid in a catagory with Fred Phelps!
You’re right, we should respect everyone all around– their values, feelings, personalities, and everything.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Don’t respect opinions, look past them to what needs and feelings are being expressed. Then, celebrate the connection of being human.
February 24th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Joe - some people have the need to be right, to be important, to be dominant, for violence, for revenge, and entire menu of needs that emenate from a fallen nature.
February 24th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Rick,
Sorry but those are not needs, but strategies to meet needs.
J
February 24th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Some people have the need for strategies to meet needs.
February 24th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Lol, this conversation is getting too deep for me. All I know is I try to treat everyone in a Christ-like manner. I think the greatest need anyone has is God’s love and grace.
February 25th, 2008 at 12:06 am
In your case Rick, that could be true, but only in your case.
February 25th, 2008 at 12:09 am
no, i wasn’t directly comparing her…
but i’m just saying that it’s worth pointing out when the way people express their “opinions” tears people down.
February 25th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Absolutely.
February 25th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Actually, when you examine both social science and theology, bayone the basic needs (food, water, clothing, shelter), the next ‘higher’ set of human needs are:
1) The need for purpose
2) The need to be right
3) The need for love
Where things are thrown off-kilter is when we seek to fill these needs in empty, humanistic ways…
February 25th, 2008 at 9:34 am
When Malow created his human needs chart he place physiological needs as the most basic and indeed foundational. We might call that the need to survive/live. That is why Christ’s offer of eternal life should at least attract some consideration since that would be the greates fulfillment of all.
It is what drew me to Christ. “…that whoever believes on Him should not perish but have everlasting life”. Maslow would suggest that no one desires to perish and everyone desires to live forever.
February 25th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Chris,
Could you show me where you got that from? It isn’t maslow.
I have never heard of “the need to be right” as a higer set of needs and I have been at this for while. I would just be curious where you got that list of “higher needs”.
-Joe
February 25th, 2008 at 9:52 am
In our church, we have a special ministry in which we provide special, corrective prosthetic devices to gays; one is a “stabilizer,” a type of steel framework worn over the torso to correct the “gait,” another is a type of mouthpiece which corrects the lisp.
Taking our queues from pop-culture, our church has developed a curriculum that we call “Straight Eye for the Queer Guy.” Here, we teach effeminate males the joys of “dippin snuff,” bass fishing, and rebuilding a 350 small-block.
February 25th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Joe - the need to be right is not Maslow but it’s Chris’s driving force!
=)
February 25th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Jeff - funny but revealing as to some who suggest simple “techniques”.
February 25th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Hey Jeff,
From a gay man’s place, when I hear people make these type of “jokes” I always feel a bit sad. More stereotypes and misinformation. While you may find that joke fun and harmless, I found it a source of sublte pain. The idea that one is less manly because they are gay just isn’t true.
WOuld you be willing to tell me, would you make these type of stereotypical jokes about gender, race or religion? If yes, then I feel socked. If no, why would you make them about gay men?
February 25th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Joe,
I’ve been to your blog and I appreciate the balanced way in which you present your “arguments”. Furthermore I appreciate your dialogue here.
Jeff,
I found your stereotypical “joke” without merit, classless, distasteful, and without humor. It would be a short step from there to Fred Phelps.
February 25th, 2008 at 10:49 am
I understood Jeff’s joke as a slight to the harsh and entrenched religious crowd. Was I wrong?
February 25th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Dear Joe,
As a fundamentalist, bible believing, compassionate Christian with a sense of humor, my post was actually directed at the stereotype of “my people.”
Define irony.
Love you,
Jeff
February 25th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Henry,
Yes!
February 25th, 2008 at 11:02 am
I am not judging your joke in anyway. I would just like to share with yout how I felt when I read it. I felt a sense of pain as I see another joke that refers to gay men with a lisp and being less of a man. My experience of your joke may not have been what you intended, but it is what it is.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Thank you, Jeff, my dementia is still not total!
February 25th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Joe - Although that particular stereotype still exists, many of us ackowledge the breadth of gay community complete with men and women who exhibit none of the outward aspects that have been denegraded in the past. Jeff’s comment I believe reflected the lack of compassion on the part of the Cro-magnon element of the church that rails self righteously against the gay community and still holds to the stereotypes in Jeff’s comment.
By his tone he doesn’t subscribe to that view.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:11 am
RIck, as soon as you mention cro-magnon I had to smile. Thank you.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Chris, thank you.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Dear Chris,
Did you just use my stereotype (Fred Phelps) to repudiate my use of stereotypes?
Love,
jeff
February 25th, 2008 at 11:55 am
You know what, we need a word that is an amalgam of “straw man” and “stereotype”.
How about “stereoman”?
February 25th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
THIS gay man found what Jeff said extremely funny.
IN FACT he laughed out loud.
as for stereotypes, well, let’s just say THIS gay man was really glad the UT/Memphis game and the Oscars weren’t the same night.
because that would have been DIFFICULT.
February 25th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Good, Evan. If you find that funny here this:
Two gay men walked into a bar, and…
Nevermind.
=)
February 25th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
that joke can go so many different directions…