Go To FailSometimes the truth is so much better than anything you could make up. Tonight, we can witness a case in point.

First, just to establish some context: As many readers may know, one of the frequent “discernmentalist” sites we take to task for injurious action toward the Body of Christ is Slice of Laodicea (SoL). Slice’s primary mode of operation is to place itself in a position of sanctimonious judgment over anyone/anything its primary author deems to fall short of her shallow, externalist view of Christianity. Unfortunately, Sol’s author is also a radio personality with a larger-than-average platform from which to spew her “discernment” on unsuspecting masses.

Frequent readers of SoL will recognize that one of its author’s primary sources of scorn against the modern church is its lack of older hymns and “proper” externals (with “proper” being defined as 1950’s idealized church culture). And so it is no surprise that SoL would publish an article like this one (here is a link to a screen-capture (and a full one), since it is highly probable that its author will attempt to make it disappear into the ether, as if it never happened).

In this article, SoL’s author begins by staking out a “moral” high ground:

I have heard hip, healthy young Christians laugh about the musical format at VCY America during the wee hours of the morning. Over the night hours our radio network airs quiet hymns and instrumental music interspersed with Scripture readings and devotional thoughts from the host, Vic Eliason. Oh, if only these young people could read the mail that we get.

Before we go on, it should also be noted that the author trumpets, with great pride, her vastly over-inflated ability of “discernment”. With this “gift”, she is able to spitefully trash all sorts of Christian brothers and sisters – Rick Warren, Ravi Zacharias, Rob Bell, Bill Hybels, Mark Driscoll and many more – along with casting aspersions at entire bodies of believers all over the world. For instance, her magnified powers of ‘discernment’ have recently been raking Ravi Zacharias over the fires of hell for not mentioning the name of Jesus in a prayer during a program on the National Day of Prayer.

But let’s continue with Ms. Schleuter’s discerning piece on the superiority of soft hymns over the “booty shaking” (her words in previous articles on the subject, not mine) music performed by most contemporary Christian artists:

I want to share a card, written in child-like handwriting with many cross outs that we received today. I am posting it exactly as it was written, without edits.

“Dear Station Manager:

How are you. I hope your doing OK. Anyway, I want to thank you for putting together your program Music Til Dawn. I listen very often to your program and wanted to express my gratitude. I am so glad to have found a good radio station like yours. I also do send gifts to your cause. I am just crazy about Jesus. Besides what else is there to talk about but the truth. Theres so much wisdom in the Bible. I also have the old, new and completed testament on cassettes. I just love to here about Jesus. I also work for a church and I also have to work alone in the basement. However I have a radio to keep me company so its not so bad. I wrap and sell flowers for Unification Church. But I’m hopeing some day to work full time. So If your working alone alot there’s people who are thankful for it. I know I am. So anyway you have my best wishes and keep up the good work.

Truly,

R.

Sounds touching, yes? No? Before we go on, perhaps a little bit of actual discernment is in order. Let’s note that the author of the letter, lovingly quoted by Ms. Schleuter, writes:

I wrap and sell flowers for Unification Church.

Now, I realize that I’m probably not a good test subject for “the average guy” when it comes to recognizing theological underpinnings, but I still remember my junior high school youth group’s short course on cults (circa 1982), and this little ditty should have sprung some alarm bells from anyone with even the slightest inkling of what ‘discernment’ entails.

From the Wikipedia article on The Unification Church:

Unification Church beliefs are based on Moon’s book, Divine Principle, and draw from the Bible as well as Asian traditions. These beliefs include a universal God; in the creation of a literal Kingdom of Heaven on earth; the universal salvation of all people, good and evil as well as living and dead; that Jesus did not come to die; and that the second coming of Christ is a man born in Korea in the early 20th century. This Messiah is believed by Unificationists to be Sun Myung Moon.

That’s right, boys and girls, Ingrid’s case study on the superiority of hymns on the radio above other types of Christian music is that it gives aid and comfort to the Moonies! Now, my first thought was to give Ingrid the benefit of the doubt, that she missed the Unification Church reference. However, I then read in her next paragraph:

Those like this person who labors alone in a basement, getting paid to wrap flowers in night hours for the Unification Church, are being pointed to the truth of the Bible through the airwaves. [emphasis mine]

So, it’s now obvious that she read this and repeated it on purpose. This brings up all sorts of questions – ones like “If Slice can’t discern the difference between the Moonies and the Christian Church, why should we trust what is says about Rick Warren, the emerging church and other targets of its slander?” Really.

So, the next time you see one or more Moonies handing out flowers on a street corner or in the terminal of the airport you’re traveling through, remember that VCY America, host of Slice of Laodicea, is the Moony station of choice.

And when you do so, also consider that perhaps it would be better to leave true biblical discernment in the hands of professionals.

Like Ravi Zacharias.

[NOTE: I believe that ALL types of music can and do honor God, and that no one style/type is superior over another. There are a large number of hymns I love, so don't take this as me "dissing" them.]

HT: Rick Frueh

____________________

UPDATE: As expected, there is a certain crowd that is pathologically incapable of understanding nuance and humor. As such, they’ve taken this article seriously, rather than as a demonstration of absurdity by being absurd. So, I will briefly explain.

This is an article of satire. (look it up)

Do I actually believe that Ingrid supports (or approves of) the Unification Church?

Please.

I believe this as much as I believe that Rick Warren denies the gospel.

That such folks can’t “discern” the difference between a straw man argument they like and one they don’t speaks in FAR LOUDER volume than anything I could write.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Friday, May 23rd, 2008 at 1:21 am and is filed under Commentary, Hall of Fame, Ingrid, ODM Responses, ODM Writers, 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

189 Comments(+Add)

1   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:24 am

Thank you SO much for the link Rick. I do my best not to read Slice, so I probably would have skipped this one.

Perhaps they should incorporate this into their next ad campaign:

VCY AMERICA: The choice of four out of five Moonies.

2   Matt P    
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:23 am

I think a charitable reading of Ingrid’s piece is she believes she is reaching this woman through the power of hymns.

Not that Ingrid doesn’t know what the unification church is but rather is pleased to be reaching a non-believer through the hymns…

You all would know her intentions better than I probably would but that would be my understanding on first reading.

3   Matt P    
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:25 am

Actually she refers to them as “dear brothers and sisters in Christ” so that blows my theory. Nevermind.

4   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:02 am

Crazy.

Somebody should find out if Ingrid thinks the Washington Times or Insight magazine are valid news sources, because that would be really funny.

5   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:39 am

This week we are featuring the Album “The Hymns of Wesley” as sung by the Rev. Sun Yung Moon. We are so thankful for men like Moon who haven’t succombed to the avalanche of modern drivel that passes for music.

Someone once said, “You can’t make this stuff up!” :)

6   Dave Muller    http://blog.thewebsiteguy.com.au
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:56 am

in keeping with my sad history….

bool Saved = (Hymns || FleshlyService) ? true : false;

7   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:02 am

Your reference to Ravi (who brought me to tears Sunday morning) got me to thinking. Many hymns, even ones written out by SOL, do not mention the name of Jesus. Check out Amazing Grace! John Newton – apostate! They say the same type of things as Ravi’s general prayer.

Do a search of SOLs written hymns and many are without Jesus’ name. And what do you say about the classical pieces Mrs. Schlueter touts when they have no words? Are they ashamed of Jesus? And why is the flag and the Statue of Liberty on the website of VCY when the founders were too apostate to use the name of Jesus in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?

When you make every issue a “Custer’s Last Stand” you run the risk of your biased hypocrisy being exposed. Having the flag and Statue of Liberty on a Christian site is compromise at best and idolatry at worst. (sorry, I couldn’t help myself)

8   Dave Muller    http://blog.thewebsiteguy.com.au
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:25 am

Besides which, Hymns are often VERY different in theology to each other. I can remember at Christmas time one hymn was severly Calvnistic then the next VERY Arminian. I was thinking..”Do they actually read the words to make sure the believe this?”

9   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:29 am

At least New Zealand has Christ’s Church as one of its capitals!!

10   andy    
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:22 am

To be fair i think her piece moves on from the person in the Unification church , to another person who as been recently widowed…That she says of the Unification member “is hearing biblical truths through the show” makes it clear she doesn’t agree with them..

A little rich of me i know, but i just think its badly written…

11   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:52 am

A couple of things. I think a charitable reading of it would be that she both believes she is edifying this person (she refers to the notes she receives as “touching” and places it in the context of being one among many who have no comfort from anyone else) and reaching this person with truth. However, at the same time Ingrid has ridiculed church’s efforts to reach those with that same truth through modern music and other efforts that vary only in style as “conforming to the world” based on how it looks and who is listening to it. If we apply that same measuring stick then the hymns she believes are fundamentally different in reality are not and fail in the same way. She has also criticized stylistic changes as being ineffective and producing shallow Christians at best. It seems the hymns her dad plays at night don’t even do that.

This is less an issue of the hymns and more an issue of Ingrid’s own evaluations condemning the things she trumpets.

12   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:02 am

If we were an ODM, from here through eternity, every time we quoted Slice, we would have to include adjectives linking it to the Moonies:

VCY America: The Officially Endorsed Radio Station of the Unification Church

13   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:19 am

The logic here is flawless.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. First abortion. Now the moonies. And since the Pastor and the Voice are cronies, I am sure they support each other’s heresies. APOSTATE! APOSTATE! APOSTATE!

Iggy’s gonna love this one.

jerry

VCY America: The Officially Endorsed Radio Station of the Unification Church…

14   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:21 am

So, let me understand this. Ingrid is quick to judge and condemn Ravi Zacharias, Rick Warren and many others that they water down the gospel and do not take opportunity to promote Jesus.

Yet, here she does not take the opportunity to contrast the true Jesus with the cult leader who claims to be the Messiah or second coming of Jesus, and instead uses this time to promote her radio station.

Hmmm…. I am reminded of a scripture.

Romans 2

1. You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4. Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance?

Truly sad,

Oh…. yeah I almost forgot.

In Jesus Name,
iggy

15   JohnD    
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:42 am

What is so palpably sad in all of this is that Ingrid can’t discern the simple truth that Chris has recognized:

I believe that ALL types of music can and do honor God, and that no one style/type is superior over another.

I am so reminded of this observation:

You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! Matthew 23:24 (ESV)

16   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:50 am

hmmm….

17   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:21 am

you need tp update your post. I almost did an article about this last night. Go to the VYC link and watch the movie. It announce says

Music till Dawn will provide a relaxing, contemplative atmosphere, where the Holy Spirit can speak to quieted hearts

Moonies AND Contemplative Spirituality! She’s obviously connected to Satan himself… I can prove it with a diagram :)

18   Neil    
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:25 am

After reading this post on SoL I also read Ingrid as promoting the music as an outreach to the Unification Church.

Neil

19   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:27 am

There is no doubt that Mrs. Schlueter’s point was that hymns were far superior in “to be pointed to the love of the Good Shepherd who never leaves his broken sheep to suffer alone.” However my point still stands. Many hymns do not use the name of Jesus. Is it not inconsistent to trumpet hymns without Christ while labeling others apostate for “God the Father” prayers? I would think that hymns could be more justified as evangelistic than prayers.

But it just struck me that this lady who works for the Unification Church is so blessed by VCY. Let me propose this:

If a modern Christian music station printed a letter from a Unification Churc h worker who said she loved their music SOL would pronounce that station apostate and say that “the case is seen to be water-tight and the argument sound since this is a deductive argument whereby all the premises are true, and the argument flow is valid”.

And in her opening, she addresses the thoughts of “hip, healthy young people” who criticise that music. What do you call a person who says the same thing about their music but takes offense when it is done to her music?

20   Richard Abanes    http://abanes.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:29 am

Sorry, I can’t resist, so here goes.

These will be my headlines for the coming here, posted all over the internet, regardless of what Ingrid really meant to say, why she said what she said, or where her heart was when she said it – it all makes absolutely no difference. So, here you go Ingrid:

“VCY America and Ecumenism”

“Ingrid Schlueter: Heretic or Christian Sister?”

“Why Ingrid Schlueter Has Critics”

“Ingrid Schlueter continues to deceive the unwary”

“Ingrid Schlueter Promotes and Endorses Rev. Moon’s Unification Church”

“Ingrid Schlueter Connections – Rev. Moon”

“Cult Education Forum: Destructive Radio Shows – VCY America”

“False Prophets & Teachers: Ingrid Schlueter”

“A Little Leaven: VCY America’s Broadcasts = Steady Diet of Cult Support”

“Ingrid Schlueter and VCY America: Rev. Moon’s Unification Church is Christian and Moonies are Brothers and Sisters”

“VCY America and Ingrid Schlueter Deny the Gospel”

“IRREFUTABLE LOGICAL PROOF THAT SCHLUETER IS AN APOSTATE HERETIC” [see chart]

Goodness, I am running out of space. I can keep this up for years.

HEY! I actually have something to do with my life now!!!! And it makes me feel all warm and cozy inside — all self-righteous and purposeful as if my life really has meaning!!

I’ll never be the same. Thank you, Ingrid, thank you! I can just keep attacking you now that I have this golden little snippet from you. And people all over — GASP — will actually listen to me. GOD BLESS THE INTERNET.

21   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:34 am

OK Richard, you are having way too much fun. How about this:

When a paid employee of the Unification Church expresses her love for the music ministry on VCY it just proves the station is offering nothing but fluff!

22   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:40 am

Yeah… I guarantee you that if a Buddhist endorsed Rob Bell, it would be on every blog known to the ODMs.

23   Richard Abanes    http://abanes.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:43 am

Rick,

You’re right. :-)

But I mean, the irony of it all is just too too too much. That someone like Ingrid would for so many years toot her horn as this discerner, watchman on the wall, defender of the faith, etc etc etc and then print a letter like that! It’s just too much.

I found myself just blinking at the page in disbelief. Of all the groups out there – she “endorses” one the most obvious, blatant, non-Christian groups wherein the leader calls himself the MESSIAH and says Jesus failed!! Again, there’s just no words.

24   Neil    
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:43 am

I’ve seen a number of posts and comments on ODM sites lamenting the fact that ministries have found favor with the worldly… which is proof of apostasy… “if the world likes you, ya ain’t in Christ” (or so the argument goes).

As we have seen though, arguments are applied selectively.

Neil

25   Neil    
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:45 am

I think it’s cool that a Moonie (if the woman is one, she just may work for them as an employee) listen to Christian music.

I wish the ODM’s would rejoice over other methodologies as well.

Neil

26   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:50 am

But I mean, the irony of it all is just too too too much. That someone like Ingrid would for so many years toot her horn as this discerner, watchman on the wall, defender of the faith, etc etc etc and then print a letter like that! It’s just too much.

It’s like a junior astronomer who constantly trashes a vast majority of PhD astronomers over minor trivia and then turns around and identifies Ursa Major as Orion.

27   Richard Abanes    http://abanes.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:53 am

Oooh, ooohh, I have more now:

“Ingrid Schlueter – Religious Pluralism – Where is the gospel?”

“Ingrid Schlueter’s Ecumenical Broadcasts”

“Ingrid Schlueter Endorses Rev. Sun Myung Moon”

“The VCY America Pluralism Cult”

“Sun Myung Moon, Ingrid Schlueter – Their Connection and What That Means”

“Moon Planted, Schlueter Watered”
______________________

AND FUTURE ARTICLES ONCE SCHLUETER RESPONDS:

“Ingrid Schlueter’s Failed Attempt At Distancing Herself From Rev. Moon”

“Ingrid Schlueter tries to Explain Herself”

“VCY America: More Excuses”

Goodness, it just keeps getting better and better. :-)

28   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:54 am

Of course SOL now highlighted the words “truth of the Bible”. But the point remains, it is hypocritical to say that because this woman listens and likes your music it is a sign that you are reaching people, but when lost people like modern Christian music it is a sign of compromise.

The entire thing is comical and of course gets under their skin because they don’t see that all of us are compromisers on some level. It must be tedious to have to defend yourself and your reputation. And even when you are wrong their is a valid reason, it is not your fault!

29   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:58 am

“Moon Planted, Schlueter Watered”

I love it.

“VCY announces Unification flower drive!”

30   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:58 am

Of course SOL now highlighted the words “truth of the Bible”.

But it still includes the Moonie and the widow in:

Who will minister to these dear brothers and sisters in Christ in those moments of personal loss?

31   Richard Abanes    http://abanes.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:59 am

Yes Neil, I agree. If a Unification Church member doesn’t HATE and REVILE Ingrid, then it’s very very clear that she is not preaching the gospel and she is catering not just to the world, but to apostates and heretics!!

“’If the world hates you, remember that it hated me before you.’” John15:18
“Remember, I am sending you out like sheep among wolves; so be cunning as serpents and yet harmless as doves.” Matthew 10:16
“You will be hated by all men on account of my name; but the man who stands firm to the end will be saved.” Matthew 10:22

And from her own lips: “Jesus Christ himself stated that the world will hate those who follow Him, not applaud them” (INGRID SCHLUETER, ““Hannah Montana”: I Do it All For Jesus,” http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/?cat=9 )

LOGICALLY, given her own words, Ingrid is not a follower of Jesus.

R. Abanes

PS This is just too easy.

32   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:00 am

Remember, this woman said she donates to the station.

“Sen. Grassley opens investigation into VCY/Moon connection.”

33   Richard Abanes    http://abanes.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:04 am

LoL. Okay, Rick. We’re friends now, officially.

34   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:14 am

Thats good, Richard. However being my friend has its ups and downs – ask around! :)

35   Mike Ratliff    http://mikeratliff.wordpress.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:16 am

Hmmmm, let’s see. Person A is ministering to Person B. Person A holds a set theological system (as we all do) and Person B is involved in theology that is wrong. However, Person B likes what he or she hears form Person A. Does it follow that Person A is teaching false things because this is so? No and this is how Ministers minister isn’t it?

Now along comes one who for some reason wants to tear Person A down and uses the ministry to Person B as a club to attack Person A using the theological differences to infer that Person A teaches heresy or is at least a hypocrite.

My, my isn’t this a classic Straw Man Fallacy argument?

In Christ

Mike Ratliff

36   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:22 am

Mike, you missed the entire point. Mrs. Schuelter would strongly condemn, and has, music ministries that worldly people liked. And if a person from the Unification Church said she liked listening to Rick Warren, well, I believe the word apostate would be used simply based on the same set of circumstances.

That is biased.

BTW – I am person C- !

37   JohnD    
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:24 am

The Lord is far from the haughty, the arrogant, and the self-sufficient and He is near those who humbly love Him, with child-like faith . . .

Ingrid, we agree . . . So why can’t we agree on one simple little truth:

. . . ALL types of music can and do honor God, and that no one style/type is superior over another.

???

38   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:24 am

Mike,
Perhaps if Ingrid hadn’t in the past condemned ministries that appeals to those outside of the church in order to spread the truth of the gospel you could defend her with integrity.

If this were an abortionist who enjoyed the musical stylings of Relient K would you still be applauding the DJ? Somehow, I don’t think so.

39   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:26 am

My, my isn’t this a classic Straw Man Fallacy argument?

Mike,

Do you honestly believe that we think Ingrid is teaching the gospel of Moon? Really?

It is quite possible, writing for the publication that you do, that you’ve not picked up on the tongue-in-cheek nature of the article.

To be a bit more blunt: If you can recognize the straw man here (that Ingrid is a Moonie sympathizer), why can you not see it in most of the articles aimed in the opposite direction on CRN, AM and Slice?

It seems like you’re the one practicing selective ‘discernment’.

[Additionally, I think referring to a Moonie as a "sister in Christ" probably deserves comment somewhere on a scale of 'discernment'.]

40   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:26 am

And I do agree that music ministries through the night with old time hymns are very valuable. That is not the issue.

41   amy    
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:34 am

Chris,
Articles like this make me wonder about your motivation in calling for charity to others, for example, to people such as Ravi Zacharias.

Do you really think that Ingrid believes that those who follow the teachings of the Unification church are true believers in Jesus Christ? If not (and I can’t see how you would come to that conclusion) what is the purpose of your article?

A simple paragraph break would have made it clear that she has no such belief. Here is what she wrote, with an inserted paragraph break:

In a world that has gone utterly crazy, the peace and hope of Jesus Christ shines like a beacon in the darkness of the night hours on Music ‘Til Dawn. Those like this person who labors alone in a basement, getting paid to wrap flowers in night hours for the Unification Church, are being pointed to the truth of the Bible through the airwaves.

A widow wrote to say that since her husband of 60 years died recently she simply cannot sleep. She said that the peaceful music and Scripture are like a healing balm to her soul as she grieves the loss of a life’s partner. Who will minister to these dear brothers and sisters in Christ in those moments of personal loss? That’s where ministery-oriented Christian radio can bless so many who are often under the radar, the ones who get overlooked in our bustling churches or who don’t have a support system.

Wouldn’t if have been kinder to write to Ingrid and say, “Um, Ingrid, how about a paragraph break there?” It would have taken a lot less of your time.

I’m sure you could site examples of Ingrid’s uncharitability that would give you an excuse for an article such as this. But since when are we to used others real or supposed uncharitability as our own guide?

42   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:35 am

I’m a bit surprised that hip, healthy Christians were even aware of VCY. Although I’m pleased to learn that Ingrid’s father is able to minister to elderly shut-ins through a common taste in music.

43   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:37 am

Amy,
See Chris L’s explanatory comment that appears above yours.

This post wasn’t a criticism of what Ingrid did or believes in this case. It was a criticism of how she has excoriated others in the past. She has set up a measuring stick that she herself can’t measure up to.

44   Neil    
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:38 am

My, my isn’t this a classic Straw Man Fallacy argument?

Mike,

Our point exactly, we’re all glad to see you agree…

Neil

45   Neil    
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:41 am

Amy,

You should also comment the same complaint on the CRN Supports Abortion post…

Neil

46   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:42 am

Do you really think that Ingrid believes that those who follow the teachings of the Unification church are true believers in Jesus Christ? If not (and I can’t see how you would come to that conclusion) what is the purpose of your article?

Excerpted from my previous comment:

Do you honestly believe that we think Ingrid is teaching the gospel of Moon? Really?

It is quite possible … that you’ve not picked up on the tongue-in-cheek nature of the article.

I’m just measuring Ingrid with the stick she’s provided us with. The reason I categorize it as ‘tongue-in-cheek’ is because I’ve consistently said that such a measuring stick is bogus. Now, I’m just demonstrating it…

47   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:43 am

“Do you really think that Ingrid believes that those who follow the teachings of the Unification church are true believers in Jesus Christ?”

No.

Do you really believe Rick Warren DENIES the gospel of Jesus Christ?

48   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:46 am

Amy,
Well, if Rob Bell is fair game for Ingrid to take shots at because he has an audience with the Dalai Lama, then by her own logic she is accountable for having an audience with a member the Unification Church.

Sometime the best way to disprove absurdity is by being absurd.

49   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:47 am

“Do you really think that Ingrid believes that those who follow the teachings of the Unification church are true believers in Jesus Christ?”

No.

Do you really believe Rick Warren DENIES the gospel of Jesus Christ?

FTW THIS is my point.

50   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:48 am

Phil – I do not consider those two events as congruous. There are more mirrored examples.

51   andy    
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:01 am

((((Welll, if Rob Bell is fair game for Ingrid to take shots at because he has an audience with the Dalai Lama, then by her own logic she is accountable for having an audience with a member the Unification Church.
Sometime the best way to disprove absurdity is by demonstrating it))))

..

I thought Slice’s all argument wasn’t the meeting/or who listens per se, but what’s said to the listener?

52   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:02 am

When Jim from Old Truth constructed a satirical website complete with humorous names etc. most of us found it very humorous. Some people have no sense of humor. I am periodically saying satirical things about Chris Lyons and Tim and others. Like I said before, it must be tedious to feel the compulsion to defend yourself.

I do find it admirable that men like Bell and Warren and others do not seem to take much time in defending themselves. There is something to be said for that if you are not afraid to say something positive about them.

53   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:02 am

I thought Slice’s all argument wasn’t the meeting/or who listens per se, but what’s said to the listener?

If you go back and check, there were articles about this particular meeting weeks/months before it actually occurred…

54   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:03 am

Both Ingrid and the anonymous coward known only as editor (and could be Ingrid herself echoing what she wrote on SoL) failed to discern the point of this post.

If they can’t discern simple satire what makes anyone think they’re capable of discerning entire systems of theology?

55   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:13 am

Does this quote from the past have some irony here?

“Hmm, and I wonder if a sense of humor must be surgically removed in order to write for/sympathize with the watchers of the ODM’s…”

56   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:25 am

Also, we will see the commitment to teh truth that both Ingrid and the editor have based on how they react to this article. If they update their articles to accurately represent what Chris L was communicating then there’s at least a modicum of respect for the truth, otherwise… well how did Ingrid put it? Hate trumps love, and in this case, truth.

57   Mike Ratliff    http://mikeratliff.wordpress.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:28 am

:-) Come on you guys. You crack me up. Are you really person C Rick? Chris, let me see if I get this straight. Your article was tongue in cheek and you weren’t really inferring that Ingrid was teaching moonie stuff, just that you wanted to infer that she has no discernment for posting that comment by the moonie. Right? Did I get that right?

I wonder if you guys know that VCY is ministering the “moonie” by giving him the real Gospel?

I also do believe Hymns are superior to any other form of praise and worship music, but not all hymns. Some are downright horrible as far as theology goes. However, the reason I believe Hymns are superior is that they aren’t about us. The good ones are all about God not us. They speak of His glory and mercy and grace. If a contemporary song can do that then I think that would be great. However, what usually happens is that the focus become reversed. People focus on the band or the singer, etc.

Worship is about God, not us. That is why our worship should reflect that.

Have a great holiday weekend.

In Christ

Mike Ratliff

58   Richard Abanes    http://abanes.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:32 am

Mike: If a contemporary song can do that then I think that would be great.

RA: “IF”? How long of a list do you want?

59   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:35 am

However, the reason I believe Hymns are superior is that they aren’t about us.

To imply that all modern worship music is all about us is just showing your ignorance of a lot of the genre. Listen to some Matt Redman, Chris Tomlin, David Crowder, or a lot of the more popular writers of the day and try to back this up.

There are certainly modern songs that are more focused on the imminence of God rather than His transcendence, but the same could be said for hymns as well. Both aspects of God are biblical. Read the Psalms. A lot of them are talking about God’s greatness, but a lot of them are the writer crying out for God to intervene in situations and to draw near.

This may surprise you, but I really don’t think God enjoys hearing theology in a hymn that much. How is a hymn that expounds theology glorifying to God. Ironically, those are about us.

60   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:38 am

Chris, let me see if I get this straight. Your article was tongue in cheek and you weren’t really inferring that Ingrid was teaching moonie stuff, just that you wanted to infer that she has no discernment for posting that comment by the moonie. Right? Did I get that right?

You almost got it, Mike.

Rather, I was inferring that either a) she has no discernment for posting a comment by a moonie, seeming to refer to him/her as a “brother/sister in Christ”; or b) she actually supports the Unification Church.

Do I really believe this? No.

This is a parallel to a number of situations (”Rick Warren denies the gospel”, “Rob Bell is a universalist who supports the Dali Lama”, “Granger Church has sold out because it has a series that uses Spiderman movie clips”, etc., etc.). 99% of her externalist claims hold as much water as the notion that VCY America is an arm of the Unification Church.

That one can see it when one agrees with it, but not when one doesn’t, though IS a reflection of discernment…

61   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:41 am

I also do believe Hymns are superior to any other form of praise and worship music, but not all hymns. Some are downright horrible as far as theology goes. However, the reason I believe Hymns are superior is that they aren’t about us. The good ones are all about God not us. They speak of His glory and mercy and grace. If a contemporary song can do that then I think that would be great. However, what usually happens is that the focus become reversed. People focus on the band or the singer, etc.

So, a) its about the words, and b) it’s about the way they are conveyed.

In reality, this is independent of style (hymns vs. choruses vs. P&W music), then, and hymns hold no more superiority than other forms.

62   Richard Abanes    http://abanes.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:57 am

Hymns? Hymns? Whatever in the world did Christians do before Wesley brothers and the Reformation before that? Could it be that even those most beloved sacred hymns were at one time new and frowned upon – or could it be that music actually changes over time? Nahhh, can’t be! Peter, James, and John MUST have been singing something aking to A Mighty Bullwark, right?

63   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Bulwark? What’s a bulwark?

64   Linda    
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:05 pm

This is loving criticism? Noooo… you sound like a child on the playground making fun of a child that doesn’t quite fit in, bullies trying to pump up their egos by making fun of other kids that don’t fit their view of what kids should look like or how they should act. I assume that you all are older than elementary age, but this diatribe makes me question that. I read Slice and don’t always agree with everything she says, but none of it deserves such a put down as this. Mr. Abanes, I read your book on Harry Potter and appreciated all you had to say. I thought it was very well done. But I was saddened to realize that you, too, are a part of this playground bullying. Making fun of fellow believers is not spiritual maturity, no more than making fun of kids on the playground is a grown up thing to do. It may be a temptation that we all face at some points in our life, but it is also one that the Holy Spirit can give us the strength to say “no” to and I would encourage you to consider that this may be what you need to do. From what I have read here in the past, over a year ago, and from what I’ve seen today, this site has not “grown up” at all. I think Ingrid is closer to fulfilling the following verse than are you. Psalm 1:1-2 Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. You are sitting in “the seat of the mockers.” You can say this is satire and all in good fun, but it looks & feels no different than kids making fun of other kids on the playground, on the bus or wherever else they can get away with it. Before you make fun of me too, seriously consider what I have said.

65   Neil    
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:10 pm

I wonder if you guys know that VCY is ministering the “moonie” by giving him the real Gospel?

That aspect has already been acknowledged – so what’s you point?

66   Neil    
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Linda,

Welcome! A point of clarification – we may mock, but we leave the bullying to the ODM’s. If you read the pages on our mission and how we strive to be different I think you’ll understand better.

Neil

67   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Making fun of fellow believers is not spiritual maturity,

Quotes like this used in defense of Ingrid is the whole reason Chris L used Satire to begin with.

68   Neil    
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:17 pm

If hymns are superior… what makes a song a hymn?

Neil

69   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:20 pm

If hymns are superior… what makes a song a hymn?

Not being a her?

70   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Worship does not ride upon the wings of any music style. And in fact pride about any style reduces the level of worship in anyone. I have seen people singing hymns with a spirit of worship, but I have seen that also in contemporary worship settings as well. True worship comes from the heart, even if expressed in less than theologically perfect verbiage.

If there is one area in which pride or juddgment should never have any place it is in worship. It is incongruous with the act itself. The most theologically pristine hymn, sung by the most committed preacher, and accompanied by a life long missionary pianist, still needs all of God’s grace to be accepted.

God is not impressed with words, He ponders the heart.

71   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Linda,

First, in regards to exegetical meaning of “mocking”, I’d refer you to Mark Driscoll’s sermon on Humor from earlier this year. He does an excellent job describing the differences between “mockery” (as in Psalm 1) and the use of humor for correction (as practiced by Jesus on numerous occasions).

All I am trying to do is illustrate for Ingrid the yardstick she has chosen to use to “bully” thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of other believers, based upon her powers of ‘discernment’. By using the same yardstick with her, it is my hope to fulfil the purpose of a work of satire.

From the wikipedia article on the subject:

In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with an intent to bring about improvement.

Mockery, as noted in Psalm, has no such intent. If, the next time Ingrid decides to mock (in the truest sense of the word) Ravi Zacharias for his choice of wording on a prayer – or some other perceived sin (real or imagined) on the part of a believer – IF this particular instance of having been measured with her own yard stick prevents her from spewing vitriol at another believer, then the purpose of this article will have been fulfilled…

72   Neil    
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:21 pm

WOW – Ingrid says we’re a hate site!

What does that make her?

(rhetorical only)

Neil

73   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:26 pm

“Before you make fun of me too, seriously consider what I have said.”

Linda, you have come perilously close to an unbiblical rebuke of an elder (Tim, Richard). You also do not seem to have an entire understanding of the issue which goes further than this one post. This site obviously compromises your spiritual balance, I would suggest an immediate fast.

74   Neil    
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:28 pm

We have tried to dialogue with these Watchers of Watchdogs – The “Editor”

Really?

75   Richard Abanes    http://abanes.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Linda: This is loving criticism?

RA: Sister, I think the problem here might be that you aren’t familiar with: 1) any of us; 2) the overarching issues we’ve been dealing with here for a long time; 3) the people we’ve been discussing and why; and 4) the somewhat cryptic/insider allusions we are making that are clear to all of us.

As a result, it may sound like we are being less than Christian in our approach. But the truth is that we are responding in a way that for all of us points out a long list of things we’ve been wrestling with for a while. It’s almost as if there was a private discussion going on in a room and you’ve walked in and can’t really see what exactly is being said.

If you want to try to catch up, you might want read through a few of the older threads and posts – might be a long, long read. In short, it is here that we discuss ODMs (so-called online discernment ministries) and their tendencies to build their accusations and attacks against others on:

slander
guilt by association
half-truths
logic leaps
inept research
faulty reasoning
selective quoting of “enemies”
lack of true discernment
ignorance
an unloving spirit
Bible twisting
misinformation
narrow-mindedness
blatant lies

……and other issues that mark their so-called ministries as a mockery of true discernment and apologetics. Sooooo, when one of these discerners does something like use a favorable quote by a MOONIE of all people, it sort of opens up a trmendous can of worms.

76   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Linda – Here is a not so isolated example of an unordained woman mocking an ordained elder of some proven history:

“Having learned that Dr. Bob Jones III is continuing his love-in with Mitt Romney,”

You want genuine and “I mean it” mocking? There it is, and it has many sisters on that same site.

77   Richard Abanes    http://abanes.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Linda,

I will add that I could compile for you a lengthy list of some of the most nasty, mean-spirited, hate-filled examples of true MOCKERY by these ODMs that would make your hair curl (or go straight, whichever the case may be).

78   Richard Abanes    http://abanes.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:34 pm

RICK — I sent you an email – answer me!!!! :-)

79   Neil    
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:40 pm

I will add that I could compile for you a lengthy list of some of the most nasty, mean-spirited, hate-filled examples of true MOCKERY by these ODMs that would make your hair curl (or go straight, whichever the case may be).

Which is basically the reason this site exists on the first place…

80   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:40 pm

“You’re the hater!”

“No – YOU are!”

“Oh no, you post modern dog, I’m the one who loves!”

“Loves who? You don’t know what love is!”

There once was a land named blog…

81   amy    
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Linda, you have come perilously close to an unbiblical rebuke of an elder (Tim, Richard).

Poor Linda. Do the scriptures about confronting a brother who offends, exhorting one another, somehow not apply if the person being confronted is an elder and the person doing the confronting is a woman?

Rick, how about telling the elders here that I agree with Linda’s admonitions. (Is that good enough? Or do I need to ask my husband to ask you this?)

Chris you may note that not only did Mike and I take your article seriously (although I also thought after writing my comment that your article could be pure sarcasm) but Mark and Andy did as well. So I guess you ungracious update refers to them as well:

As expected, there is a certain crowd that is pathologically incapable of understanding nuance and humor. As such, they’ve taken this article seriously, rather than as a demonstration of absurdity by being absurd. So, I will briefly explain . . . That such folks can’t “discern” the difference between a straw man argument they like and one they don’t speaks in FAR LOUDER volume than anything I could write.

Sure hope they (Mark and Andy) aren’t (weren’t) your buddies.

82   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
We have tried to dialogue with these Watchers of Watchdogs – The “Editor”

Really?

Huh?!?

Was I asleep that day/week/whatever? Dialog requires ongoing discussion, give & take, etc. I’m not sure when I’ve really received the time of day in my private or public communications for dialogue.

Now, were I actually serious in believing that Ingrid was supporting the unification church, I would have written to her. Which brings to mind Amy’s question:

Wouldn’t if have been kinder to write to Ingrid and say, “Um, Ingrid, how about a paragraph break there?” It would have taken a lot less of your time.

Yes, it would have. But – in the satirical spirit of the piece – I contacted and dialogued with Ingrid before writing this article as many times as she and Ken have dialogued with Rob Bell, Rick Warren and Bill Hybels for ALL of their articles.

83   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Chris you may note that not only did Mike and I take your article seriously (although I also thought after writing my comment that your article could be pure sarcasm) but Mark and Andy did as well. So I guess you ungracious update refers to them as well:

As expected, there is a certain crowd that is pathologically incapable of understanding nuance and humor…

Sure hope they (Mark and Andy) aren’t (weren’t) your buddies.

Amy,

Just to point out the logical fallacy in your thinking here:

All American citizens are human beings, but not all human beings are American citizens.

So, when I wrote:

As expected, there is a certain crowd that is pathologically incapable of understanding nuance and humor

I linked to the primary group I was thinking of (the one to which you self-selected, as well), just to avoid such confusion.

So – not everyone who missed the satire is necessarily ‘pathologically incapable of understanding nuance and humor’, but everyone who is so ‘incapable’ would miss the satire.

Apples and oranges, Amy – both are fruit, but one is not the other…

84   Neil    
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Chris L.,

Yeah – the claim that they have tried to dialogue is a real laugher. In fact, I have asked Ken Silva repeatedly to open a dialogue on various issues, but so far he has refused.

Neil

85   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:15 pm

We have tried to dialogue with these Watchers of Watchdogs – The “Editor”

By dialogue, I assume the editor means telling us how wrong we are continually…

Now, I’m not a rocket scientist or anything, but I didn’t think the point of Chris’ satire was that heavily veiled. It seems to me that these verses explain it all:

Matthew 7:1,2
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

If you hold everyone to a ridiculous standard, you shouldn’t be surprised to be held to that same standard. Ask yourself this, how long would it take for the discernmentalists to jump on Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, or Rob Bell if they posted a letter that put a member of the Unification Church in a positive light? Faster than you can say “Moonie”, most likely…

86   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:16 pm

“Rick, how about telling the elders here that I agree with Linda’s admonitions. (Is that good enough? Or do I need to ask my husband to ask you this?)”

We already have seen your unscriptural internet verbiage as you alluded to in this mocking fashion. It may seem unimportant to you, but it deserves more than your careless remark. Your husband is welcome to comment.

87   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:21 pm

I didn’t think the point of Chris’ satire was that heavily veiled. It seems to me that these verses explain it all:

Matthew 7:1,2
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

If you hold everyone to a ridiculous standard, you shouldn’t be surprised to be held to that same standard. Ask yourself this, how long would it take for the discernmentalists to jump on Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, or Rob Bell if they posted a letter that put a member of the Unification Church in a positive light? Faster than you can say “Moonie”, most likely…

Phil, I almost included that in the article, but thought it would make the point a little too obviously… I guess I was wrong.

88   DT    http://dead-theologians.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Chris,

All jousting aside.

“Before we go on, it should also be noted that the author trumpets, with great pride, her vastly over-inflated ability of “discernment”. With this “gift”, she is able to spitefully trash all sorts of Christian brothers and sisters – Rick Warren, Ravi Zacharias, Rob Bell, Bill Hybels, Mark Driscoll and many more – along with casting aspersions at entire bodies of believers all over the world. For instance, her magnified powers of ‘discernment’ have recently been raking Ravi Zacharias…”

“As many readers may know, one of the frequent “discernmentalist” sites we take to task for injurious action toward the Body of Christ is Slice of Laodicea (SoL). Slice’s primary mode of operation is to place itself in a position of sanctimonious judgment over anyone/anything its primary author deems to fall short of her shallow, externalist view of Christianity.”

This appears to put you on the guilty stand of the very thing you accuse Ingrid. How does that work?

You accuse her of being judgmental and sanctimonious but explain this post.

DT

89   Kitty    
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:28 pm

“Yes, it would have. But – in the satirical spirit of the piece – …”

A number of responders to your above article have indicated by their responses they took this article seriously, as did I. I “read” nor “sensed” any satire in it. Speaking for myself alone, it may have been your intention, but it did not come across as such. I remember a man who went to King David telling him how he had killed David’s enemy. He could have claimed it as mere satire. David, as I would have done, did not take it as satire. You know the ending of that story.

“…I contacted and dialogued with Ingrid before writing this article as many times as she and Ken have dialogued with Rob Bell, Rick Warren and Bill Hybels for ALL of their articles.”

Oh, by your words, it is O.K. for you do something wrong “because” Ingrid in your opinion did something wrong? I thought, perhaps wrongly, a piece of this article was to show us how “not” to do something wrong. Maybe, just maybe, that too was satire.

90   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:29 pm

I have given up smoking, drinking, cursing, and other questionable things so God can continue a work of sanctimony in me.

Oh wait, I mean sanctified. :)

91   Neil    
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:31 pm

This appears to put you on the guilty stand of the very thing you accuse Ingrid. How does that work?

You accuse her of being judgmental and sanctimonious but explain this post.

DT – have you not read any of the comments?

It’s called satire. It’s called pointing out the absurd by being absurd. It’s called measuring her with the same ridiculous canon by which she measures others.

Neil

92   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:38 pm

DT,
So, is Ingrid infallible? That’s what it sounds like you’re arguing. I mean no one questions Ingrid’s or Ken’s right to post what they do, but certainly posting their poorly researched and often slanderous pieces leaves them open for peer review and checks and balances. Otherwise, they might as well be operating with papal authority. Which is the height of irony, given how they generally feel about Catholics.

93   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:43 pm

I remember a man who went to King David telling him how he had killed David’s enemy. He could have claimed it as mere satire. David, as I would have done, did not take it as satire. You know the ending of that story.

No, he could not have claimed that it was satire, because it was true!

One of the problems with satire is that it is not always ‘discernable’ as such to those not familiar with the context of the overarching subject being criticized.

For instance, A Modest Proposal is considered to be the greatest work of satire in existence. If you are not familiar with the context of it, though, it appears to be quite horrifying (the author suggests that the solution to Irish overpopulation is a systematic sale of 80% of Irish children to the British upper class as food).

So, too, in this case, you were likely led here – with no overarching context – and you were horrified. Why? Because you were confronted with EXACTLY the same kind of article as Ingrid commonly writes about a plethora of Christians, but it was aimed at Ingrid this time.

NOBODY who writes for this site has believed for even a second that Ingrid sympathizes with the Unification Church. However, the Guilt-by-Association built in the OP is EXACTLY the type of tripe Ingrid trucks in. Sadly, Ingrid seems to believe most of what she regularly spews about Rick Warren, Granger Church, Mars Hill Church (both of them), etc.

Now, if you’re looking for an example of King David being confronted in a similar fashion as we’re trying to confront Ingrid, Ken & Company, look no farther than the prophet Nathan. He told David a story and got him to react to it a particular way – then, he said “Gotcha” and interpreted the story for David.

That is exactly what I’ve tried to do here. And – as expected – Ingrid, Ken, Mike, DT and others have responded as if the article were serious and egregious in its accusations at which point I made it more clear that it was satire – using exactly the same methods employed by those who objected to them.

My apologies that you did not understand, but I don’t know how to make it any clearer…

94   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Did Kitty just suggest that everyone who didn’t understand this is satirical gets to kill Chris L?

That seems a little severe?

Or was she being satirical?

And if she was being satirical and I took it as real do I get to kill her now?

But wait, that was satire when she suggested that, so I guess not.

My head hurts.

95   amy    
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:46 pm

As expected, there is a certain crowd that is pathologically incapable of understanding nuance and humor

(Chris L)

So now you’re the judge of who belongs to such a group?

Neil says

A point of clarification – we may mock, but we leave the bullying to the ODM’s. If you read the pages on our mission and how we strive to be different I think you’ll understand better.

How does your judging who is pathologically incapable of understanding humour somehow fit into some mission that shows that you are striving to be “different?” Why are such statements not “bullying?” How is your taking a thoughtful article by Ingrid about some of the “least of those among us” and turning it into something to be made fun of not “bullying?”

How are Rick’s statements not regarded as bullying to any and all females who point out error here? Statements such as

Linda, you have come perilously close to an unbiblical rebuke of an elder (Tim, Richard). You also do not seem to have an entire understanding of the issue which goes further than this one post. This site obviously compromises your spiritual balance, I would suggest an immediate fast.

Even those of us who are nuance-challenged can pick up the arrogance and derogatory attitude behind that statement.

If you all are so “different” than ODM’s, why must you keep pointing it out?

96   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:47 pm

“Did Kitty just suggest that everyone who didn’t understand this is satirical gets to kill Chris L?”

(hand held up high) Oh pick me, please, I’ll do it, please, please!!

“My head hurts.”

And your face? :)

97   pastorboy    http://www.pastorboy.wordpress.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:49 pm

This article and the responses to it are another proof of the hypocrisy that is on this site. Point to your mission statement all you want, Neil et.al. You are doing the very same thing you accuse the ODM’s of doing. And, in fact, you are worse because you recognize it as wrong and then justify using the same methods.

Carlos, I am most disappointed in you and your Itodyaso site (Online Discernment Mafia)

You all are hypocritical, especially in your treatment of Linda and Amy. You who say women ought to have the right to minister, when they call you on a sin that you have committed, accuse them of rebuking an elder?

Why can’t Chris just admit he didn’t have all the facts when he wrote this article? Oh that would be admitting he was just like the ODM’s. This person is disabled, working in the Unification Church, wrapping flowers. The person never says anything about agreeing with the Church, or its teachings.

This isn’t satire. It is slander. And don’t you DARE say “we get to do it because the ODM’s do it” When you do, I will say you are full of ****~ and you can quote me on that. I can say it, because Tony Jones claims that it is a direct translation of Scatalon. Since Tony Jones does it, I can do it. WHAT A RIDICULOUS ARGUMENT

I am very disappointed with ya’ll. Just take down the mission statement. It will solve the moral dilemma you should find yourself in, if you were honest.

98   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Amy – the last sentence has some satire, but my comment is based purely on my Biblical conviction. Everyone here knows that. Many women comment here without being confronted. It is only when someone like Linda brings an air of correctioal superiority that I bring a Biblical view of gender order to the forum.

OK, the fast comment was a little satirical and yet contained some good advice which once in a while we all take on some sites.

99   Neil    
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:51 pm

How are Rick’s statements not regarded as bullying to any and all females who point out error here? Statements such as…

Rick is a commentor, and we do not edit comments. If you find him offensive take that up with him, but please try and maintain the differentiation between posts ans comments.

Neil

100   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:51 pm

“Dialog requires ongoing discussion, give & take, etc. I’m not sure when I’ve really received the time of day in my private or public communications for dialogue.”

Um, since I’m on mderation and my comments normally put on well after the fact, I will attempt to reply and say I feel exactly the same way: “I’m not sure when I’ve really received the time of day in my private or public communications for dialogue.”

101   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:54 pm

“You all are hypocritical, especially in your treatment of Linda and Amy. You who say women ought to have the right to minister, when they call you on a sin that you have committed, accuse them of rebuking an elder?”

That is solely me not them.

102   Neil    
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:54 pm

This article and the responses to it are another proof of the hypocrisy that is on this site. Point to your mission statement all you want, Neil et.al. You are doing the very same thing you accuse the ODM’s of doing. And, in fact, you are worse because you recognize it as wrong and then justify using the same methods….I am very disappointed with ya’ll. Just take down the mission statement. It will solve the moral dilemma you should find yourself in, if you were honest. Pastorboy

More adventures in missing the point…

Why is being absurd to point out absurdity such a hard concept to grasp?

Neil

103   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Pastorboy,

You all are hypocritical, especially in your treatment of Linda and Amy. You who say women ought to have the right to minister, when they call you on a sin that you have committed, accuse them of rebuking an elder?

Rick is quite consistent in his position. There’s not hypocrisy there. There is slander there as you have attributed his position to every single writer on this site when they haven’t taken that position.

This article and the responses to it are another proof of the hypocrisy that is on this site. Point to your mission statement all you want, Neil et.al. You are doing the very same thing you accuse the ODM’s of doing. And, in fact, you are worse because you recognize it as wrong and then justify using the same methods.

I don’t recall anyone claiming that satire was wrong. IF you don’t like what was posted here in satire, then how can you ally yourself with Ingrid and CRN.com? Unless you’re rigging the measuring stick you’re using to judge each.

Why can’t Chris just admit he didn’t have all the facts when he wrote this article? Oh that would be admitting he was just like the ODM’s. This person is disabled, working in the Unification Church, wrapping flowers. The person never says anything about agreeing with the Church, or its teachings.

And John’s uncharitableness rears its ugly head again. You accuse Chris L of being a liar with absolutely no proof other than your own dislike of him.

Carlos, I am most disappointed in you and your Itodyaso site (Online Discernment Mafia)

Interesting you find what Igs writes to be wrong but have no problem with the ODMs. Interesting, but hardly unexpected. Your entire comment was team politics at its worst.

104   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Man, oh, man. I give up.

This demonstrates why so many people never understood a person like Steve Taylor. I always wondered how there were so many people who didn’t understand that his song “I Blew Up the Clinic Real Good” was against blowing up abortion clinics, for example, but the responses here kind of show me why.

Did they quit teaching about satire in school sometime?

105   Neil    
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Actually, this is really rather funny in a hyper-ironic sort of way… how many times have we been dismissed as being no different (despite all the obvious differences) than the ODM’s… and then Chris L. writes a piece using Ingrid’s own style (again for the late-comers it’s absurdity to illustrate the absurd) and we’re a disappointment…

106   Neil    
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:02 pm

I still love Steve Taylor…

Neil

107   Neil    
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:05 pm

This person is disabled, working in the Unification Church, wrapping flowers. The person never says anything about agreeing with the Church, or its teachings. – Pastorboy

Which is why the satire workd so powerfully, employing Ingid’s tactics back upon her.

As for being wrong… we’ve admitted the same when it was the case… something I have seen Ingrid do but once.

Neil

108   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
As expected, there is a certain crowd that is pathologically incapable of understanding nuance and humor

So now you’re the judge of who belongs to such a group?

*Sigh*

I can determine a couple of folks (CRN & SoL) that belong to the group, due to long-time dealings with them and their obtuse responses. I didn’t judge that you were part of that group – you apparently self-selected, but I appreciate your honesty.

How does your judging who is pathologically incapable of understanding humour somehow fit into some mission that shows that you are striving to be “different?”

I was actually trying to give them the benefit of the doubt that they would actually be familiar enough with my writing to know that I wouldn’t actually think that Ingrid would support the Unification Church, and that I would be smart enough to recognize a lack of knowledge and/or copyediting on her part as the likely culprit.

The direct approach (consistently proving them wrong, point-by-point) seems to be somewhat inefficient, though that is the primary method we use. In this case, it seemed an indirect approach might best illustrate it. Instead, it only highlighted their staggeringly humorless and obtuse “discernment” when they continued to respond as if they believed the satirical thesis.

So, how does this article fit with “being different”? Let’s go back to the wiki quote on Satire:

In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with an intent to bring about improvement.

With the ODM’s the surface-level intent is to “warn” sheep too stupid to think for themselves from becoming involved with Christians who hold to theologies apart from the systematic ones of the ODM’s. There is no real (or rarely even partially imagined) attempt to try and “bring about improvement” to the targets of their wrath.

Conversely, our entire hope is that the ODM’s would ‘bring about improvement’ and actually discern, leaving the Body of Christ unharmed in the process.

Sometimes, the best way to demonstrate absurdity is by being absurd. Unfortunately, it requires a bit of nuance and humor to recognize the absurdity for what it is and for what it reveals in its mirror. That nuance and humor, as previously documented, is virtually negatively absent by groups, like the ODM’s, who take themselves far too seriously…

And that’s too bad.

109   Neil    
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:32 pm

This whole thing reminds me of the controversies Rush Limbaugh sometimes stirs when he employs the same tactics. And the only comparison I am making is in the area of tactics.

When he does the tactic is often missed by those who do not or cannot see the nuances and who, as Chris just said, take themselves mush too seriously.

Neil

110   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Pastorboy:

And, in fact, you are worse because you recognize it as wrong and then justify using the same methods.

Do you hear that? That’s the sound of my head banging itself on the wall next to me.

*sigh*

Why can’t Chris just admit he didn’t have all the facts when he wrote this article?

(cue more banging of head)

This morning, when I woke up, my wife and I talked for a bit before I logged in and even saw the first comment on this piece. One of my first comments to her was “I wrote an incredibly tongue-in-cheek post last night”.

Zan: Really? You? No… (not as good without the vocal inflection, but she knows me well)

Me: Yeah – lots of satire. [quick synopsis] I hope it doesn’t go over Ingrid’s head.

Zan: Maybe you should have had a contest for new VCY America taglines to make it obvious.

Me (in faux news voice): VCY America: The Official Radio Station of the Unification Church

________

Zan is the most honest person I know, and if she reads this, she can verify the jist of our conversation (which occurred before I read the first comment).

This was a work of satire from the first words typed. My intent was to mirror Ingrid’s style and denounce her for her ignorance of and support of the Unification Church using that same style, so often used by her (and you) to denounce vast swaths of the Body of Christ.

[I even tried to make it obvious by going over the top in my final paragraphs:

So, the next time you see one or more Moonies handing out flowers on a street corner or in the terminal of the airport you’re traveling through, remember that VCY America, host of Slice of Laodicea, is the Moony station of choice.

Do you REALLY think I believed that? Really?]

In doing so, I suspected that I would get at least one reaction that would provide the “gotcha!” moment to say “If you can recognize when I do it once, why can’t you recognize when you do it all the time?!?”

Instead, I now have a whole plethora or obtuse responses, ripe for holding up a mirror: You, Ingrid, Ken, Mike R, DT, Amy… and the list just seems to continue to build.

This isn’t satire. It is slander.

(Sound of intense laughter – really).

Can you recognize discern slander? Really? Somehow, I doubt it.

I’ve made it abundantly clear that I wasn’t being serious in suggesting that Ingrid would support the Moonies. There is no slander here.

Interestingly, though, as has been pointed out, the mere act of quoting “unapproved” sources (or footnoting them) gives license to Ingrid and her cronies to forever brand their targets as heretics. And she does it routinely. How is that not slander?

111   Richard Abanes    http://abanes.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm

ROFL – I can’t stand it anymore.

112   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Ken,

If you would like to be off of moderation, continue to post on-topic (as you just did), and I’m sure it will happen soon.

FYI – as soon as I saw your most recent comment, I moderated it through without delay…

113   Joe C    
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Ingrid and Ken do exactly this all the time, and they ARE serious. That they would judge you for it is simply horrendously hypocritical.

It’s like kicking a dog and then telling yelling at your friend for doing the same thing 10 minutes later, and acting like you’re the moral authority on dog kicking.

Lame. Time for repentance me thinks…

Joe

114   amy    
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Instead, I now have a whole plethora or obtuse responses, ripe for holding up a mirror: You, Ingrid, Ken, Mike R, DT, Amy

You “forgot” Mark and Andy. I wonder why?

115   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:55 pm

I have responded to you, Ken, publicly and privately. We haven’t always agreed, however we continue to communicate. That is the way it should be.

116   deborah    http://smallcorner.typepad.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Chris L,

That’s the sound of my head banging itself on the wall next to me.

I have run into this kind of situation many times in the fundamental and the not-so-fundamental churches I’ve attended, as well as outside the church. There are people who are never going to “get it”, no matter how well you explain yourself. Just look at the condemnations a lot of the ODM proclaim for examples.

I used to beat my head against the wall as well. I don’t know if it is something in the genetics – that some people are incapable of seeing sarcasm, or if it is some form of denial – if they “get it” then they have to actually interact with the substance of the actual post and therefore the need for correction as well.

A few years ago I read an interesting quote by Charles Spurgeon on the usefulness of sarcasm. I wish I could find it now.

117   Richard Abanes    http://abanes.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:57 pm

JOE: Time for repentance me thinks…

RA: Yeah, that time came and passed long ago.

118   Christian P    http://www.churchvoices.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Wow.

119   amy    
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Compare this:

I can determine a couple of folks (CRN & SoL) that belong to the group, due to long-time dealings with them and their obtuse responses. I didn’t judge that you were part of that group – you apparently self-selected, but I appreciate your honesty.

(2:26 pm)

With this:

Instead, I now have a whole plethora or obtuse responses, ripe for holding up a mirror: You, Ingrid, Ken, Mike R, DT, Amy… and the list just seems to continue to build.

(2:44 PM)

Behold the comparison of the “couple of folks” that Chris has judged as so obtuse that they are pathologically humorous versus the “growing list”of people who have given “a whole plethora or obtuse responses, ripe for holding up a mirror” with 7 specific names, continuing to build.

Those comments made 15 minutes apart.

So when does the “growing list” get added to the “couple of folks” who are pathologically humorous?”

I think this site should be renamed “The judgement seat of Chris L.” And I do not intend that as humour.

By the way, how carefully did you read my first comment? I said,

Do you really think that Ingrid believes that those who follow the teachings of the Unification church are true believers in Jesus Christ? If not (and I can’t see how you would come to that conclusion) what is the purpose of your article?

I left it open that you DIDN’T believe that Ingrid believed that and asked you for the purpose of your article. Somehow that has gotten lost in your apparent need to be the lumping-together judge.

120   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:26 pm

“And I do not intend that as humour.”

I have never found you particularly humorous.

121   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:29 pm

I left it open that you DIDN’T believe that Ingrid believed that and asked you for the purpose of your article. Somehow that has gotten lost in your apparent need to be the lumping-together judge.

Amy,
Chris has responded about a billion times including in the update as to the purpose of his post. Not only has it not been lost, its been explained over and over again.

122   Chris    
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:33 pm

To get back to the original blog on this site, too much assuming and not clearly reading the SoL blog has occurred — if any reading actually occurred by those commenting like me. First, many have assumed that the midnight worker is a Moonie. Not all churches require you be a member to work for them. Secondly, the midnight worker’s “craze” for Jesus does not sound like the typical belief a Moonie has about Jesus. Thirdly, the SoL writer’s comments about “brothers and sisters” is solely referring to brothers and sisters like the elderly woman who lost her husband (”personal loss”). Nothing in the midnight worker’s letter expresses any kind of loss. Therefore, the SoL writer is not referring to the Moonies as “brothers and sisters.” Fourthly, SoL writer gives credit when credit is due to various Christians. However, she does what most Christians don’t do and that’s rebuke and call them on points, matters and teachings which conflict with Scripture. Too many Christians today fail to comfront their brother or sister for the sake of not offending them or for their not being liked any more by them. It’s truly a sad day we live in when the truth is spoken, and Christians (so-called) can’t take it. No wonder our world is going to pot so quickly.

123   Zan    
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:52 pm

I think it is interesting how the extreme right and the extreme left seem to be the groups that have no sense of humor. Everything is a crisis.

Amy, woman to woman, you have been here often enough that you should recognize Rick’s views. What he said should not come as a shock or an offense to you. It is who he is. Whether I agree or not, I at least accept him and respect him for those views, and I try and treat him with respect, as he does me also. I know, also, that he would be the first to come to my defense, and he is nothing but a chivalrous and gentleman. But your reaction leads me to wonder: were you an only child? Did you have an older brother? Didn’t you have someone that you had to just learn to accept certain things about? Things you might not agree with but that are just the essence of who they are?

Learn to let things roll off your back a little more. He actually had some good advice, that if you can’t understand/get frustrated over the humor here, then you might want to consider taking a break or not hitting the submit key for a while.

124   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Chris –

1) Please read all of the comments regarding satire.

2) Please note that the worker for the Unification Church refers to having the Old Testament, New Testament AND the “Completed Testament” on tape when describing his/her faith. Most Christians don’t positively refer to having Moon’s Completed Testament in their libraries…

125   Richard Abanes    http://abanes.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:05 pm

CHRIS….To get back to the original blog on this site, too much assuming and not clearly reading the SoL blog has occurred

RA: You are obviously being paid off great sums of money to defend the heresy and compromise of Ingrid Schlueter. And by defending her, you have now become a partaker of her Satanic deception wherein people of all religions and cults are to be considered Christians! REPENT! REPENT! God;s judgement will not be slow concerning compromisers and heretics like you who deny the Gospel, even though you might SAY the right things. Your true agenda has now been exposed Chris, in these Last Days. I will humbly pray for you.

:-) tee hee. I couldn’t resist.

126   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Thank you for your kindness, Zan. My only issue is when someone like Linda makes such demeaning statements like “you are older than elementary age”. And I said she was close to going over and Amy came back with a sarcastic comment.

In actuality we all should stay on issues and not personalities. And I have found when I have been criticised by some blog I attempt to not take myself too seriously. Mrs. Schlueter should address issues and not rebuke pastors and elders personally and by name and sometimes with condescention.

I do find it revealing that some have gotten so upset with something like this but are at ease with linking to risque pictures of a fifteen year old to energize the base. And the article about Ms. Cyrus wasn’t satire.

127   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Compare this:

I can determine a couple of folks (CRN & SoL) that belong to the group, due to long-time dealings with them and their obtuse responses. I didn’t judge that you were part of that group – you apparently self-selected, but I appreciate your honesty.

With this:

Instead, I now have a whole plethora or obtuse responses, ripe for holding up a mirror: You, Ingrid, Ken, Mike R, DT, Amy… and the list just seems to continue to build.

(2:44 PM)

Behold the comparison of the “couple of folks” that Chris has judged as so obtuse that they are pathologically humorous versus the “growing list”of people who have given “a whole plethora or obtuse responses, ripe for holding up a mirror” with 7 specific names, continuing to build.

Uhm, Amy, not to burst your bubble, but List #1 and List #2 are only different by one person…

List #1: Slice (added by me); CR?N (added by me); You (self-selected)

List #2: Ingrid (Slice); Ken (CR?N writer); Mike R (CR?N writer); DT (CR?N writer); Amy (Self-selected); Pastorboy

The difference between List 1 and List 2 was that Pastorboy hadn’t yet weighed in (that I had seen) yet, completely missing the point (thus proving the point). Since you quoted my reply to PB, who writes an ODM blog, its not like I was arbitrarily growing the list from the ether.

I left it open that you DIDN’T believe that Ingrid believed that and asked you for the purpose of your article. Somehow that has gotten lost in your apparent need to be the lumping-together judge.

*yawn*

My apologies that I missed one of your non-question questions. I assumed it was already answered with my response above it…

You “forgot” Mark and Andy. I wonder why?

Probably because Mark is a fairly new commenter and has never seemed to be acting with ulterior motives. Andy, who has been a long-time commenter, has always asked good questions. While I’ve not always agreed with him, he’s never been thoroughly obtuse in a disagreement (which can’t be said for the ones specifically listed).

128   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Probably because Mark is a fairly new commenter and has never seemed to be acting with ulterior motives.

Who is this “Mark” Amy is referring to? I searched all the comments, and I don’t see a Mark. Does she mean Matt P?

129   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm

I wonder why Mrs. Schlueter didn’t add a delineation about the U Church in her comment. She could have easily said “which most of you will recognize as a cult” and have removed at least one avenue of confusion.

130   Illary    
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm

I share with Ingrid Schlueter the sadness about a evangelical church more and more far from the Bible. I think most material in “Slice of Lodicea” is very useful for Christians, maybe sometimes harsh, but more often painful truth.

Lima-Peru

131   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Who is this “Mark” Amy is referring to? I searched all the comments, and I don’t see a Mark. Does she mean Matt P?

I believe so – sorry Matt P!

132   Zan    
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:18 pm

The more I read it and think about it, I think Ingrid didn’t have a clue what the Unification Church was. She talks in the same paragraph about “R.” and the widow, and then refers to “these dear brothers and sisters in Christ”.

I don’t discount the ministry that this radio program is for many people. I understand the comfort needed in the middle of the night, and the peace and help that can come from the scriptures and soothing, reassuring songs. I think it is beautiful that this is available for those who desire it.

This being said, the point of the article is this: Why is Ingrid allowed the freedom to minister to others in a way that follows her bent (her design, her preferences, her personality), but others (all those that she condemns on her site) would be denied that freedom if she had her way?

The point isn’t that she is ministering to a moonie, it is that she condemns others for taking opportunities afforded them by their God-given ministries, personalities, and preferences to minister to non-believers. Simply because it isn’t the way she thinks it should be done.

btw, I didn’t know that Paul and Silas were singing hymns in the jail! I wonder if it is on the Ingrid-approved list…hmmmm…

133   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm

It’s John Mark, Phil, read your Bible!

134   Douglas    
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:41 pm

Imo, this site is run by a devil and most of the commenter’s sound like those possessed by demons.

135   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:42 pm

Illary,
Where are you in Lima? I was a short term missionary there a long time ago.

136   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm

Imo, this site is run by a devil and most of the commenter’s sound like those possessed by demons.

14Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon left, the man who had been mute spoke, and the crowd was amazed. 15But some of them said, “By Beelzebub,[g] the prince of demons, he is driving out demons.” 16Others tested him by asking for a sign from heaven.

17Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: “Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall. 18If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand?

137   Neil    
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:07 pm

“Do you really think that Ingrid believes that those who follow the teachings of the Unification church are true believers in Jesus Christ?”

No.

Do you really believe Rick Warren DENIES the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Amy,

Speaking of unanswered questions… this one by Rick was directed at you.

Neil

138   Neil    
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:14 pm

I share with Ingrid Schlueter the sadness about a evangelical church more and more far from the Bible. – Illary

It’s only sad if ya think to be Evangelical means adhering to their extra-biblical external behaviours… most culturally based in the 1950’s America.

139   Neil    
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:17 pm

I

share with Ingrid Schlueter the sadness about a evangelical church more and more far from the Bible. – Illary

If you don’t start with the presupposition (Laodicea) and resist the logical gymnastics it takes to prop it up – your sadness will fade.

Rejoice, in what the LORD is doing, and again I say “Rejoice.”

Neil

140   amy    
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Chris has responded about a billion times including in the update as to the purpose of his post.

(Tim)

I realize that, Tim. I was simply trying to demonstrate that my “obtuse” response presented the possibility that he didn’t believe that Ingrid supported Moonies.

Whether I agree or not, I at least accept him and respect him for those views, and I try and treat him with respect, as he does me also

(Zan)

It’s one thing to accept someone’s stating their personal convictions. It’s another thing to see those convictions plus personal “cuts” attached to them.

Learn to let things roll off your back a little more.

It was Linda’s back. Is there something wrong with one woman defending another? I disagree with Rick’s conviction, but I can live with it; I find the attitude that accompanies his conviction worth addressing.

Rick’s comments toward women criticizing elders on this site – as well as accompanying remarks he makes along with his conviction – go for the most part unaddressed, yet there is no lack of writers addressing other’s comments/attitudes with which they disagree. Why the disparity?

If I had the conviction that an unbeliever should not be conversing with believers on this site and brought those convictions up every time an unbeliever had something to say; not only brought them up, but then proceeded to cut the unbeliever down, I honestly believe I would already have been asked not to place such comments here. I don’t have such a conviction, but if I did, and brought it up as much as Rick brings his up, and cut unbelievers down, wouldn’t somebody here have something to say about it?

141   amy    
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:38 pm

Neil,
I wasn’t asking for any “unanswered question” to be addressed, as I explained to Tim.

I didn’t see Rick’s question to me; must be back there aways. I don’t know what the context is, or what is meant by “denies.” I suppose the point of the question was to point me to some article at Slice that I most likely haven’t read yet. Are you wanting to point me to something that justifies Chris’s article plus his ensuing nastiness to those who took it differently than he intended?

142   DT    http://dead-theologians.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:40 pm

I think Pastorboy has shared my sentiments.

Neil, Did I ever say that Ingrid is infalliable? Is that an argument from silence or simply an assumption on your part?

As many have commented here before. The double standard still stands. If ODM’s do something it is bad. If the watcher’s of ODM’s do something it is satire, in jest, or just having some fun.
How do you argue with that?

DT

143   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:44 pm

For the record, I have not brought up the gender issue in many, many months as it concerns any commenters. And I said “perilously close” in deference to a commenter I did not recognize.

As far as the attitude, I do not know to what you are referencing.

144   Matt P    
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:56 pm

Close, but Mark is my brother and he doesn’t post here. If indeed I am the ‘Mark’ of Amy’s previous post.

I should point I always I understood this was satire. I just wasn’t sure if Ingrid was or was not truly ignorant of what the Unification Church actually was! I didn’t think for a minute that this satirical post was suggesting she was pro-moonies.

145   Jonny H    
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:22 pm

Well, it’s not really quite understood that this is satire, I just thought it was bashing. So what are you satirizing?

146   I. Todyaso    http://itodyaso.wordpress.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:53 pm

Ingrid’s Hidden agenda!

147   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:01 pm

I think Pastorboy has shared my sentiments.

Why is it that when ODMs are confronted with their own tactics and agree that they are wrong before realizing that it was satire they respond by accusing Chris L of lying instead of saying repentance and changing how they do things? Is it really such a crucial part of being an ODM to act this way that you have to slander a brother in Christ rather than change how you respond to other Christians?

As many have commented here before. The double standard still stands. If ODM’s do something it is bad. If the watcher’s of ODM’s do something it is satire, in jest, or just having some fun.
How do you argue with that?

Well, you recognize satire when you see it, instead of assuming its real, though when you’ve bought into Ingrid’s ministry I can how you would miss it.

148   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:50 pm

Are you wanting to point me to something that justifies Chris’s article plus his ensuing nastiness to those who took it differently than he intended?

Not sure what nonexistent “nastiness” you’re referring to, Amy, but whatever…

Well, it’s not really quite understood that this is satire, I just thought it was bashing. So what are you satirizing?

I was mirroring Ingrid’s style and logic in the people she frequently criticizes for apostasy and such – via GBA, straw-men, appeal to authority, etc. What made it so effective as satire, was that those it was satiring found it offensive, but failed to recognize themselves in the mirror until it was pointed out to them… (and some, like Amy, who still can’t/won’t see it…)

149   amy    
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:55 pm

He actually had some good advice, that if you can’t understand/get frustrated over the humor here, then you might want to consider taking a break or not hitting the submit key for a while.

You’re talking about Rick’s comments to Linda here I assume. I’ve never really viewed “You have no right to speak to that person, now let me cut you down” type talk as humor. Which is basically what he did to Linda.

Was this also humor?

We already have seen your unscriptural internet verbiage as you alluded to in this mocking fashion.

My “unscriptural internet verbiage?”

This is indeed irony, but not funny at all:

It is only when someone like Linda brings an air of correctioal superiority that I bring a Biblical view of gender order to the forum.

Do you view your own husband’s numerous cutdowns of other peoples’ viewpoints as humor? Would you if they were directed towards you? Does one have to be an “only child” to have a problem with the arrogant and self-righteous attitudes displayed on this site? Can’t you see it or is it only “humor” to you? Or somehow justified because “they do it worse?”

You asked me if I was an only child. But along the same line of thinking I could ask you if you were bullied when you were growing up. Have you somehow gotten used to people treating others with disrespect and cruelty? Have you somehow grown up thinking that it’s alright to categorize and put down people who think differently than you? Is that why you don’t see clearly what this site that your husband controls is all about?

150   amy    
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:08 pm

I left it open that you DIDN’T believe that Ingrid believed that and asked you for the purpose of your article. Somehow that has gotten lost in your apparent need to be the lumping-together judge.

*yawn*

My apologies that I missed one of your non-question questions. I assumed it was already answered with my response above it…

While you’re rudely yawning, I’m wondering if you’ve understood (as I’ve said a couple of times) that I wasn’t asking a question. I continue to want to know why you classify what I said as obtuse (in other words, lacking the brains to take the article absolutely how you meant it,) especially since “I left it open that you DIDN’T believe that Ingrid believed that . . . ” (which would NOT represent an obtuse understanding (because it would show that I did indeed have the ability to read not only the article but to understand it as you intended.)

“Obtuse” means, in this conversation, “Not interpreting something according to Chris L’s intentions.”

151   amy    
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:23 pm

What made it so effective as satire, was that those it was satiring found it offensive, but failed to recognize themselves in the mirror until it was pointed out to them… (and some, like Amy, who still can’t/won’t see it…)

Where did I say or imply that I can’t see the satire? My ongoing discussion with you is about your arrogant attitude. Basically everyone who didn’t “get” the article, unless they somehow meet your standards (Matt, Andy) is obtuse. And most are pathologically incable of understanding humor.

This article was conceived in arrogance, wasn’t it:

Me: Yeah – lots of satire. [quick synopsis] I hope it doesn’t go over Ingrid’s head.

By the way “a couple of folks”would mean “two people” to most readers: if organization names are listed after them then it would be assumed you meant a couple of folks in those organizations.

You defined the “couple of folks” as Slice and CR?N) after I brought up the disparity of your lists. It’s quite difficult for me to believe that you actually meant the organizations of “Slice” and “CR?N” when you said “a couple of folks.”

152   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:26 pm

While Zan can definitely speak for herself, I can tell you that she doesn’t get bogged down in the legalistic minutiae that seems to drive your self-righteous fury, Amy. The “humor” she was referring to, I am pretty sure, was the wit/satire behind the conversation, itself, not a specific comment of Rick’s. So, your trying to Fiske Rick’s comments for something non-humorous will fall on deaf ears, cause it wasn’t what she was talking about.

Do you view your own husband’s numerous cutdowns of other peoples’ viewpoints as humor? Would you if they were directed towards you?

Cutdowns? Really? Satire, while a form of humor, is not meant for laughs, but rather for instruction. It can certainly result in some funny moments – particularly when those who it targets miss the joke until they have written themselves into it, as you and some other ODM writers have repeatedly done today.

Basically, well-written satire weaves a rope which its targets then use to fashion nooses with which to hang themselves. While I would not suggest that the OP is as well-written and tight as it could/should have been, it got the job done. Now, whether those who demonstrated their involvement as the anti-heroes of the story actually improve, we will have to wait and see. We can hope, which is an integral part of the Christian life.

Does one have to be an “only child” to have a problem with the arrogant and self-righteous attitudes displayed on this site? Can’t you see it or is it only “humor” to you? Or somehow justified because “they do it worse?”

Amy, more than 12 hours into this, I’m not sure that you will ever “get it”.

There’s no arrogance in this conversation apart from your own, at the moment. There is no argument that this is “only humor” and “they do it worse” – if that’s truly what you think, its no wonder most nuance in the writing here escapes you. Whether it is willing blindness or a lack of capability, I have no idea.

Knowing Zan as I do, I suspect that her question about being an only child was relative to many/most of the only-children we know, who fit the stereotypical mold of inflexibility with others and inability to laugh at themselves. It has nothing to do with your imaginations of self-righteousness here.

We’re all human and we all make mistakes. I’ve written a lot of things I shouldn’t have, some of which you have (or I’m sure you will) throw in my face when the time is right. This particular article and my responses to your ensuing nit-picking hissy-fit don’t fall into this category, though. You have serious issues, and for your sake (and especially your family’s) I hope you’re seeking counseling for them. I’ve found it to be helpful to me in the past, as well…

Have you somehow grown up thinking that it’s alright to categorize and put down people who think differently than you? Is that why you don’t see clearly what this site that your husband controls is all about?

Perhaps she doesn’t “see it clearly” because the lack of vision is yours? Hm?

153   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:30 pm

“Obtuse” means, in this conversation, “Not interpreting something according to Chris L’s intentions.”

“Obtuse” = refusing to see satire or comprehend its function, even when spelled out by multiple people in multiple ways.

“Obtuse” = dragging out minutiae that the conversation has passed by, seeking demons where none exist.

“Obtuse” = reading the article, reading the note about satire, and still thinking that we’re bashing Ingrid for being sympathetic to a Moonie or too stupid to recognize it.

“Obtuse” = refusing to see the forest because all of the trees are in the way of it.

154   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:34 pm

By the way “a couple of folks”would mean “two people” to most readers: if organization names are listed after them then it would be assumed you meant a couple of folks in those organizations.

Thank you for illustrating my point about the forest/trees and your penchant for irrelevant minutiae. (It’s things like that which are stereotypical of – but not limited to – only children, BtW)

My apologies for the imprecise language. Since Slice = 1 person and the CR?N Editor = ? persons, “a couple folks” seemed descriptive enough prior to them actually showing up. Please forgive me for not initially listing out all of the authors on CR?N…

155   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:42 pm

Basically everyone who didn’t “get” the article, unless they somehow meet your standards (Matt, Andy) is obtuse. And most are pathologically incable of understanding humor.

No, but rather – as Matt pointed out – he got the overall point but was checking on some particulars (where I could have been much tighter in my prose). Andy, as well, has a demonstrated track record of seeking truth rather than just playing team politics.

The ones who didn’t “get” the article (at least initially), in several cases, were exactly the ones it was written to. I truly hope that they “got it” and that the will improve accordingly (as is the aim of satire).

The pathological incapability of humor, though, requires a long-enough track record to gauge such things. The very fact that you and I are even having to discuss this matter almost a day after the article was written should be demonstration enough for you.

My apologies if you find this article to be “arrogant”. The purpose of satire is not to make logical, rational, objective arguments, but rather to provoke emotion leading to change. Only time will tell if it succeeded, or if the planks are too firmly inserted to be removed in a single sitting…

156   nc    
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:11 pm

Waaah, waaaah, waaaaah.

That’s all I hear from people who drive-by on this site to say:

“nah, nah, I think you do it too, you hypocrites!”.

You’d probably get a hearing if you would be clear about condemning and distancing yourselves from the very tactics you claim happen here.

There IS an instigating reality…and just because you may agree with the substance of Ingrid, et. al, doesn’t mean you’re excused from YOUR hypocritical failure to NOT excorciate/renounce/distance yourself from Ingrid and Co. because of their tactics.

Oh, but that’s right…you can’t even if you actually wanted to…because those people are dishonest, controlling and unaccountable.

Every single one of you that comes by this site with that tedious, pedantic “you do it too” playground taunt garbage need to give it a rest until you can prove that you’re taking the instigators to task too.

Until then CRN.info can unapologetically swing for the outfield with every post.

My advice to CRN.info contributors…stop apologizing for what you do, stop trying to explain it, just don’t pick up the rope.

Dialogue is great, if people are actually listening. But it’s clear that the whole “YOu do it too” crowd really just wants an “in” to try to stop the balancing force of this site.

Keep it up, friends.

157   nc    
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:20 pm

another thing,

what happens is here IS NOT the same thing.

When people poke people in the eyes, kick people in the shins and are generally jerks (on a good day) and this site responds by saying,

“OUCH! you Jerk! you poked me in they eyes and kicked me in the shins!”,

it just isn’t the same kind of “anger” or “being mean”.

And when the response is basically:
“You deserved it because I think you deserved it.”

To which CRN.info says:
“Wow. You’re a real arrogant jerk and mean-spirited”.

And you start feeling that churning in your stomach because you’re being called out and your arrogant, self-appointed gatekeeper attitude is getting checked then you say,

“You’re soooo mean and filled with rage”,

basically because people won’t lay down and take it from you….

then guess what?

The problem is YOU, not the people who you’ve hurt.

sheeesh….and you people say you’re the only ones who value truth.

When you find your spiritual Claritin for your religious allergy to honesty, let me know. I might be interested in your “discernment” then.

158   Kirby L. Wallace    http://www.uniuslibri.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:23 pm

THAT’S your big update?

“nya-nya…I meant to do that!”

Someone points out that your post is rather synical, if not outright disparaging of a poor man who does what he can for a living, and when called on it, you claim “Oh, it was all SATIRE… SMART people know satire when they see it.

Let’s cut to the chase – *I* am a “smart person” and I have the test scores, the skills, the life, the career and all that I need to prove it. And there was nothing satirical about your post until AFTER you were called out on it. Only THEN did it magically turn into a “satire.”

Ya bust a weak-ass rhyme, and expect me ta dig ya?

159   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:28 pm

Kirby,
What was your satire score on the SAT?

I guess its easier to accuse two fellow Christians of being deliberate liars than it is to repent, and change the fundamental way that you communicate with and view others.

160   nc    
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:28 pm

last thing:

a basic rule of mature, honest conversation:
When someone says something and it’s misunderstood, the person saying the statement gets to interpret themself.

Chris has interpreted himself. Who cares if you didn’t get the satire, etc.?

YOU misunderstood, YOU judged on the basis of that misunderstanding.

Chris clarified, declared his intent.
Chris gets to interpret Chris in the conversation.
END of story.

And save the “you don’t give Ingrid a chance to do that” inanity.
She doesn’t have the chance because she’s unaccountable, and unable to be approached. There’s no conversation happening there–it’s not allowed.

So the only way to balance the ministry of anger and fear from the angry god of VCY is to post here at CRN.info.

161   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:40 pm

Someone points out that your post is rather synical (sic), if not outright disparaging of a poor man who does what he can for a living, and when called on it, you claim “Oh, it was all SATIRE… SMART people know satire when they see it.

Kirby,

As my wife just pointed out to me, most of the folks like yourself, who linked here from Slice/CR?N, this article isn’t (and never really was) about Ingrid, a Moony and (potentially) her inability to discern that he was one. It was a criticism of Slice/AM/CR?N’s modus operandi.

What is striking is the number of ODMish posters it pulled out of the woodwork decrying it (compared to regular articles here).

Doesn’t it say something that when a writer here purposely apes the method and style of one of the ODM’s that all heck breaks loose and the criticisms come flying? Seriously? Does that not speak volumes of the unaccountable nastiness and slander that are pumped out daily by unaccountable ODM outfits like CRN, Slice, AM and the like?

My apologies if you don’t “get it” – it is likely you’ve been missing from the context of the conversation. In such a case it would not be a lack of “smarts”, but rather a lack of context (see the above notation of the satirical work A Modest Proposal).

Please, if you’re going to be outraged, channel it to the source of your outrage. If you need emails of the SoL/CR?N folks, I can provide them to you…

162   Zan    
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:41 pm

“Ya bust a weak-ass rhyme, and expect me ta dig ya?”

Really?? I mean, Seriously? How old are you? 15?

Do you need to pull your pants up above your thighs, too?

wow, and I thought there were adults on this site! Except for Rick…I always knew he wasn’t a grown up.

163   Zan    
May 24th, 2008 at 12:39 am

Amy,

“Was this also humor?

We already have seen your unscriptural internet verbiage as you alluded to in this mocking fashion.

My “unscriptural internet verbiage?”

This is indeed irony, but not funny at all:

It is only when someone like Linda brings an air of correctioal superiority that I bring a Biblical view of gender order to the forum.”

This wasn’t me. I am not sure who it was, but possibly Rick based on the comment.

Do you view your own husband’s numerous cutdowns of other peoples’ viewpoints as humor? Would you if they were directed towards you? Does one have to be an “only child” to have a problem with the arrogant and self-righteous attitudes displayed on this site? Can’t you see it or is it only “humor” to you? Or somehow justified because “they do it worse?”

You asked me if I was an only child. But along the same line of thinking I could ask you if you were bullied when you were growing up. Have you somehow gotten used to people treating others with disrespect and cruelty? Have you somehow grown up thinking that it’s alright to categorize and put down people who think differently than you? Is that why you don’t see clearly what this site that your husband controls is all about?

ok, I talked to you about your response to Rick. That’s it. Not about the subject of this post. So, why you are complaining to me about this, I am not sure. Since when did I agree with putting people down or treating them with disrespect and cruelty? You obviously speak about that which you know nothing about….Me. I did no such things, nor have I endorsed any such thing. Anywhere.

As for what Chris says/does with this blog…I am his wife. Not his editor. This is neither my blog nor my passion…it is Chris’. If I have something to say to him about CRN, I wouldn’t do it here nor mention a conversation here. That wouldn’t make for a happy marriage. So as far as anyone here knows, I am just another occasional commenter that pokes here head in a couple times a week. (oh, wait…that IS what I am! )

As for the “only child” question… I was only wondering because being a sister is where I first learned that I can’t change people…I have to just love them the way they are, even if that is amazingly different from me and I don’t understand them. that is all. There was no meanness meant there. I am sorry if it came across that way. I find that asking questions (truly inquisitive ones) is the best way to avoid misunderstandings, which is where I was going.

Good night. Zan’s got a long day tomorrow!

164   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 24th, 2008 at 12:44 am

PB,

Carlos, I am most disappointed in you and your Itodyaso site (Online Discernment Mafia)

Why, cuz I pointed out the hypocrisy of Ingrid? Remember my site is satire and I even hit my own at times… you have numerous blogs and only a few even mention Jesus outside of attacking and miss representing others.

I even use humor in hopes the point is taken in love! I use the voice of people like you… I. Todyaso is based on you, Ken and a bit of Ingrid… so if you do not like what you see there it could be a reflection of yourself…

iggy

165   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 24th, 2008 at 1:45 am

Ken,

Um, since I’m on mderation and my comments normally put on well after the fact, I will attempt to reply and say I feel exactly the same way: “I’m not sure when I’ve really received the time of day in my private or public communications for dialogue.”

I still have the entire dialogue in my emails between you and me… not much there as you seemed not interested in dialogue at all so, don’t lie to people, we have tried in private and in public.

iggy

166   Kitty    
May 24th, 2008 at 2:06 am

One take on “What is satire?”

EH 375 Satire
Some Essential Terms Defined
Adapted from entries in A Handbook to Literature, C. Hugh Holman, ed.
Indianapolis and New York: Odyssey, 1972

Satire
A literary manner that blends a critical attitude with humor and wit to the end that human institutions or society may be improved. The true satirist is conscious of the frailty of human institutions and attempts through laughter not so much to tear them down as to inspire a remodeling. Satire is fundamentally of two types, named for their most distinguished classical practitioners: Horatian satire is gentle, urbane, and smiling, and it aims to correct apparent wrongs by gentle and broadly sympathetic laughter; Juvenalian satire is biting, bitter, and angry, and it points with contempt and moral indignation to the corruption and evil of human beings and their institutions.

Of Horatian satire or Juvenalian satire, which defines the article here better?

167   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 24th, 2008 at 4:37 am

Kirby – I happen to have the intellectual prowess necessay to deflate any competition when unwisely challenged. Long ago tests and score became obsolete as it pertains to me and my dizzying intellect has becoame unmeasurable. Even when condescending to engage with someone like you I often become physically ill since the mental emptying necessary to make myself understandable takes a toll on my body.

Having said that, how much is your top of the line vacuum? :) :)

168   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
May 24th, 2008 at 4:44 am

I have come to the conclusion that watching Christians bitch and moan at each other on the internet is one of the most mind-numbing activities in all of Christendom.

Quick, somebody tell me what they did today for somebody they didn’t know to make their day better?

AND DO NOT say you committed a drive-by-witnessing, okthxbye…

169   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 24th, 2008 at 5:05 am

“Of Horatian satire or Juvenalian satire, which defines the article here better?”

Probably Socratian satire. And now let me illustrate what is know in literary parlance as “classic irony”. When Chris Lyons suggests a tongue in cheek agreement with the Unification Church by Mrs. Schlueter it is pointed satire.

When Mrs. Sclueter calls a meeting between Gov. Romney and Dr. Bob Jones III she calls it a love in and she means it. Ravi Zacharius, Rick Warren, and even Frankilin Graham are all compromisers and even apostates. And there is no satire intended.

Now the reason Chris’s satire is so witty and biting is because it is so absurd and in fact reflects the absurdity of some of the suggestions on SOL whcih are not meant as satire. The foundation for such great satire is the fact that there are posts by Mrs. Schlueter that SHOULD BE satire but are presented as truth.

See, humor! I believe the reaction to this post indicates a severe overestimation as it pertains to self importance. When one expands his or her view of themselves the capacity for being offended becomes disproportionately greater.

S – Skilful
A – Articulation
T – That
I – Illustrates
R – Ridiculous
E – Erudition

Enjoy…

170   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 24th, 2008 at 6:46 am

Rick,

There are times I am amazed by you…

= )

iggy

No satire intended.

171   Brock    
May 24th, 2008 at 10:48 am

Chris,
It seems that some are not picking up your “satire”. You should either become better at it or stop it all together. Just my opinion. You say that you are Christain but I really can not be certain of that. Even after reading your mission and all that you are about here at this site. I still can’t be certain. I guess that comes with the territory of the internet and really not knowing who you are. So be careful as to how you go about your blog…there are people who are not christian reading. Maybe before you close this blog out or whatever you do with it, you could tell others how they could become a christian. Just a thought.

Have a nice day

172   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 24th, 2008 at 11:06 am

It seems that some are not picking up your “satire”. You should either become better at it or stop it all together.

Brock,

I’m not sure that the answer to a few folks “not getting it” is to consistently play to the lowest common denominator. To do so is to repeat one of the defining failures of the American public school system. In this case, though, I’m pretty sure that those who “don’t get” the satire is fulfillment of the old proverb:

“There are none so blind as those who will not see…”

Rick F did an excellent job laying it out in probably the most modernist terms possible:

And now let me illustrate what is known in literary parlance as “classic irony”. When Chris Lyons suggests a tongue in cheek agreement with the Unification Church by Mrs. Schlueter it is pointed satire.

When Mrs. Sclueter calls a meeting between Gov. Romney and Dr. Bob Jones III she calls it a love in and she means it. Ravi Zacharius, Rick Warren, and even Frankilin Graham are all compromisers and even apostates. And there is no satire intended.

Now the reason Chris’s satire is so witty and biting is because it is so absurd and in fact reflects the absurdity of some of the suggestions on SOL whcih are not meant as satire. The foundation for such great satire is the fact that there are posts by Mrs. Schlueter that SHOULD BE satire but are presented as truth.

I’m not sure how clearer it could be.

You say that you are Christain but I really can not be certain of that. Even after reading your mission and all that you are about here at this site. I still can’t be certain.

I’m afraid this sentence says far more about your belief system than it does of anyone in your critique.

So be careful as to how you go about your blog…there are people who are not christian reading. Maybe before you close this blog out or whatever you do with it, you could tell others how they could become a christian. Just a thought.

Again, let’s go to the lowest common denominator argument. We’re pretty up-front that the conversations held here are primarily aimed at professed believers in Christ. While we do often reference the gospel, much of what we deal with is not specifically evangelical in nature.

Perhaps you are familiar with the Apostle Paul’s comparison of the church to the body of Christ, in which each part plays a different function. A nose can’t (and shouldn’t) be an eye, nor an eye an ear, etc.

My apologies that we don’t meet whatever standard you have created for what a “true” Christian blog should be. Fortunately, we are covered by the grace and mercy of Christ in the final day, and not the judgment of the readers of Slice of Laodicea…

173   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 24th, 2008 at 11:07 am

Brock – After reading your comment I still can’t be certain you are a Christian. There are people reading your comment who are not Christians. Perhaps you could give the Roman’s Road before you end your comment.

Just a thought. :)

174   amy    
May 24th, 2008 at 11:08 am

My apologies if you find this article to be “arrogant”.

I do find the article to be “arrogant.” But I don’t think I’ve ever stated that. The arrogance that I talked about was your treatment of people who “didn’t get” your article.

You said that you were copying Ingrid when you wrote the article. I didn’t look at the author of the article (you) until way close to the end. Inititally I went back and forth between two other writers on your site in my mind as to who was writing it – because it so fit with previous things that have written by them. I had settled on one, but then came across something that was more like what you would write; I then looked at the author and saw that you had written it.

What I am saying is that, from the outset if I had known you were writing it, I probably would have recognized it as satire. But, not knowing you were writing it, and that it was most likely satire, it fit well with illogical and unfactual accusations that have been made by other writers here. So, I pretty much assumed throughout the article that it was written as perceived truth. I didn’t switch back to “Oh, Chris is writing it therefore it’s satire.”

In other words, in my opinion you did a great job parodying your own writers.

175   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 24th, 2008 at 11:08 am

Well done, Rick – would that be Socratic satire, as well? ;)

176   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 24th, 2008 at 11:12 am

OK, Amy, just to end the breach Mrs. Schlueter does endorse the Unification Church. No satire, I MEAN it. She really, really does. Rev. Moon is her pastor. There, are you happy now?

I beginning to explore deeper levels of satire and I am feeling light headed! :)

177   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 24th, 2008 at 11:15 am

In other words, in my opinion you did a great job parodying your own writers.

Nice try, Amy. Seriously.

I can’t think of a single writer here who comes close (not the same state, let alone zip code) to parroting the irrational vitriolic style of Ingrid. I can’t think of a single one who would suggest that Ingrid was a Moonie sympathizer and believe it. Not one…

178   amy    
May 24th, 2008 at 11:41 am

Zan,
You had defended Rick, calling what he did humor. Yes, the comments I wrote were Rick’s, and I wanted to know if you defended them as humor.

I was only wondering because being a sister is where I first learned that I can’t change people…I have to just love them the way they are, even if that is amazingly different from me and I don’t understand them.

Let me just say, Zan, I have no animosity towards you and I’m sorry if it comes across that way. Your comment and explanation to me about “only child” was interesting in light of your husband’s running this site. What you seem to be saying is that a person who addresses others’ faults may be doing so because he/she is an only child and not used to give and take. One of the main things this site does is address people’s behavior. So, are there only “only children” writing here, or is there some other principle at work?

I believe that loving people includes addressing their faults. We are to spur one another on to be Christ-like. For myself, I would address something someone close to me regularly does publically if I thought that it didn’t honor Christ. Occasionally I address things that people who are not close to me (for example, on this blog) do regularly that I see as harmful, and so much like the behavior they speak of despising.

In personal relationships many people adopt a policy of appeasement. In some churches, cultures many women seem to learn this as a part of “submissiveness,” especially in their relationship with their husband. I think that part of being in a loving relationship with someone is admonishing them to be Christlike. Being an appeaser can actually hurt both parties. The one accepting the bad behavior either to “demonstrate love” or “to keep the peace” enables the one with the behavior that really needs to be changed to carry along happily in their behavior – behavior that can be harmful to many folks. Eventually this can result in 1) a general “squashing” of the one who is being abused; 2) even more erratic behavior on the part of the abuser. What is sad about #2 is that there are people who don’t realize how bad their behavior really appears to others and they could be helped by having it brought to their attention.

179   amy    
May 24th, 2008 at 11:44 am

Nice try, Amy. Seriously.

I wasn’t “trying” anything, Chris. I didn’t intentionally think ahead of time “Oh this is ____ writing.” One picks up on attitudes, tone, and content from simply reading what people write.

180   amy    
May 24th, 2008 at 11:46 am

If I recall, by the way, it seems like at least a couple of people in this thread do think that Ingrid didn’t know what the Unification church was. Your writers? I don’t recall.

181   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 24th, 2008 at 12:08 pm

What is sad about #2 is that there are people who don’t realize how bad their behavior really appears to others and they could be helped by having it brought to their attention.

Thus the whole reason this site exists…

There is a “discernment” cottage industry that doesn’t realize the harm it causes to the body of Christ. We’re trying to point that out and counteract it to some extent.

182   amy    
May 24th, 2008 at 3:39 pm

There is a “discernment” cottage industry that doesn’t realize the harm it causes to the body of Christ. We’re trying to point that out and counteract it to some extent.

If I felt that this site was indeed counteracting some of the harm (and I would disagree about the level and details of harm, but would agree that there is some harm, just as there is no doubt harm in some things I’ve done that I thought were done God’s way) in a Biblical manner, I would feel free to add any negative views I had about other ODM’s (besides this one.)

As it is, thinking about making a comment about Slice or CRN reminds me of about a month ago when I made the mistake of taking my cat to a “rabies clinic” in a church parking lot. The poor thing, though in his carrier, was the only cat, surrounded by yipping, snarling, DOGS, about 40 of them. Not the proper place for a cat to get treatment that could help him from getting sick.

There is a place for discussing issues and even people behind the issues. No one including myself should consider themselves above needing input from others. But a lot of changes would have to happen to this site before I would start critiquing Slice or CRN here on a regular basis.

(. . . please no comparisons between my cat needing a rabies shot and . . . whatever :) )

Slice and CRN are also concerned about what causes harm to the body of Christ. When Slice posted comments, I sometimes had a hard time posting there because of the level of the comments – the atmosphere was for example, to Rick Warren, what the rabies clinic atmosphere was to my cat. I strongly disagree with Rick Warren’s philosophy but don’t understand comments about his Hawaiin shirts, etc . . .

You’ve set a goal to be different than Slice and “other ODM’s” – but for quite awhile I’ve seen much more of the attitude you talk about striving towards as exhibited more by Ingrid than yourselves.

(”You” is “you plural,” not “you, Phil.”)

183   nc    
May 24th, 2008 at 6:29 pm

Amy,

if that’s the case, then the answer is that YOU should do an article criticizing SOL/CRN with the tone and decorum you think should be in place.

1. It would show that you’re not a sycophant for ODM’s.
2. It would effectively demonstrate exactly how you think criticism should be articulated.
3. Then we all (ODM”s included) would have a standard by which to post by.

I’m serious.
Really.

184   andy    
May 24th, 2008 at 6:32 pm

Not sure if i’m the andy above , but if so i did react in a “hes read the slice quote wrong” i was just trying to be fair,but its obvious its satire now that ive read it again..

Anyhow i’m struggling and all i can say is what a family we are…

185   Neil    
May 24th, 2008 at 7:14 pm

Neil, Did I ever say that Ingrid is infalliable? Is that an argument from silence or simply an assumption on your part? – DT

Neither.

186   Neil    
May 24th, 2008 at 7:16 pm

If ODM’s do something it is bad. If the watcher’s of ODM’s do something it is satire, in jest, or just having some fun. – DT

*sigh*

Since the intent is different the standard is as well. They are serious, Chris was satirical… you are right though, it is hard to argue when people refuse to see the difference in intent.

Neil

187   kenn    
May 26th, 2008 at 7:05 pm

Having spent a career in in radio, I have to laugh at the description of Ingrid as a “radio personality”. Ingrid is woman with a barely listenable voice, marginally effective communication skills, and the good fortune of having a father that runs the place. I’ve met a lot of “radio personalities” through the years, and under no circumstances would I ever use that term to apply to her. Personality being the key missing ingrediant.

188   merry    
May 26th, 2008 at 7:45 pm

^Lots of people are not fit for the professions they chose. I’m not sure what the purpose of pointing this out serves, except to add more fuel to this long-since exploded conversation. Why don’t we stick to disagreeing with Ingrid and try not to insult every aspect of her life.

189   mandy    
May 26th, 2008 at 7:54 pm

i agree with both Kenn & Merry…

2 Trackbacks/Pings

  1. Slice of Moon Pie! « The Online Discernmentalist Mafia    May 23 2008 / 8am:

    [...] has now gone so far as to promote Rev Moon who claims to be the second coming of Jesus Christ. CRN.info was a help (I know they are the enemy!) in that they captured this heretical abomination. Just in [...]

  2. Christian Research Net Supports Ingrid’s Contemplative Backslide! « The Online Discernmentalist Mafia    May 24 2008 / 7am:

    [...] true Truth Warriors extraordinaire for some time. I was surprised that even those Apostates over at CRN.(Mis)Info. can see this a mile away, that my own mentor and great Pastor/Teacher/Discernmentalist Giant/ has [...]