. . . with Gentleness and Respect
Our brother over at Extreme Theology continues to take the high road with regard to how our conversation should always be tempered with gentleness and respect. Quoting this phrase from 1 Peter 3:15, he writes:
I know that I have been guilty of the very behavior I am decrying in this post and I am deeply sorry for committing this sin and repent of it. That being said, I am appealing to all of my Christian brothers and sisters who have a passion for defending the truth and defending the gospel to repent of ad hominem and personal attacks and let your actions and statements and debates always be seasoned with love, compassion, gentleness and respect.
I agree. And, I for one, will join him in asking for forgiveness and the grace to temper all of my future posts and comments with gentleness and respect. Moreover, I have NO doubt that when he ultimately posts his take on the PD conference, he will NOT be in agreement with all that was said there.
That’s OKAY.
As we engage in a conversation with him about ministry philosophy, the role of sola scriptura in our churches, and the centrality of preaching Christ crucified for our sins, let’s take this opportunity to model what we stand for here at CRN.info which is summarized so clearly and succinctly in the passage that Chris R quoted:
but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good hehavior in Christ may be put to shame. 1 Pet 3:15, 16.
Notice, it is the “good behavior in Christ” that Peter is highlighting here as being the salt and light aspect of our witness, not the cleverness of our defense. So, let’s all take a deep breath and honor Christ in our tone as the conversation continues.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:03 am
Impressive.
RA
May 31st, 2008 at 11:15 am
And Chris is taking quite a beating from within the ODM community. My complimentary comment was met with a criticism of my commenting here. That verbal assault was through a conduit not of my gender.
I continue to be astounded by the way anyone can attribute names to the Pharisees whom Jesus rebuked. It is very easy to see how the Inquisition was generated. Who are these enemies we are supposed to love? Oh, I know, doctrinally sound enemies.
Ground Control to Major Tom, your circuits dead, there’s something wrong, cany you hear me Major Tom?
May 31st, 2008 at 11:23 am
I stand with Chris Rosebrough on this, but I do think you guys should take most of the blame for this mess. If not for you all instigating and fanning the flames, especially Richard Abanes, we would not have to pick up the pieces made by you all.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:24 am
Chris R’s post is fantastic. The comments make me despair. It is clear that for most of those commenters nastiness is a doctrinal issue.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:26 am
Daniel,
Either you are unaware of the way ODMs conducted themselves prior to the creation of this site (sadly, as unChristlike as they deliver their messages are now, they were much worse in the past), or you’re irritated that their sin was actually exposed.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:27 am
I for one am very excited that Chris R is going in this direction… but confused as to you comment!
I read them and immediately thought of
The only one I see fanning flames is your comments.
iggy
May 31st, 2008 at 11:40 am
I am beginning to believe Arbanes is the reason for everything wrong in my life. Prove me wrong!
May 31st, 2008 at 11:40 am
iggy and Tim Reed:
we have always been about loving the sinner and hating the sin. Your tactics now of trying to make it sound like Chris R is actually now different from what he was previously shows you are trying to divide and conquer.
If not for Richard Abanes going over and post at Chris’s site and in so inciting the firestorm, I am sure all would be fine. In fact, may I suggest that if not for the fact that some ODMers lie Tim Wurth have espressed their worries to Chris R, I do not think that you will continue to regard him in such a favorable light? Or are you going to say that regardless of the reaction to Chris R’s post, you would still be favorable to him?
May 31st, 2008 at 11:54 am
Except that Chris R wrote, “I know that I have been guilty of the very behavior I am decrying in this post and I am deeply sorry for committing this sin and repent of it.”.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:56 am
“If not for Richard Abanes going over and post at Chris’s site and in so inciting the firestorm, I am sure all would be fine.”
See, See! I knew it! That Arbanes is a snake. All would be fine but for him. Gas is $4 a gallon - why?
Arbanes.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:57 am
Daniel Chew: I do think you guys should take most of the blame for this mess.
_______________
Dear Daniel,
I am a bit confused by your remark, given your previous statements about me, especially in your blog article titled ““Richard Abanes, Yawn……”
- “all I see is someone so blind that he cannot even see his own pride and arrogance.
- “The stench of self-righteousness just radiates from him, and informs his perpetual ‘crusade’ against Christian pastors”
- “I just can’t understand how such an individual can function really, so deluded that he cannot even see his own pride. And mind you, it is not God or the Scriptures he is defending, but one man”
- “I know that this may be giving publicity-hungry Abanes some spotlight, but it is severely hoped that he repents of his defense of heresy and circumlocution, and submits himself to the Word of God.”
You have also stated to me, “You have NEVER defended heresy? Oh, I forgot, you do not think Rick Warren teaches heresy … silly me. And that is why you are blind, and worse for you now because you claim to be able to see. As Jesus Himself said, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (Jn. 9:40b).”
So, in all sincerity, I ask that you please explain how these remarks match up with you agreeing with Chris R? Do you apologize? Do you repent? Am I still guilty of defending actual, full-blown heresy? How did you come to the charge that I am filled with arrogance and pride? Is that based simply on me disagreeing with some of the accusations that have been made against Warren (e.g., that he is a New Ager, or that he is a heretic)?
Bob Dewaay has stated: “My conclusion is this: the chasm between Chris Rosebrough, and me, and Rick Warren that exists is based on ministry philosophy primarily. Privately, we agree on most doctrines.” And also: “There were no differences of theology that I know of, other than we had a chasm in a difference in ministry philosophy.”
So, how is Rick Warren a heretic, whereas Bob Dewaay is not? Are you now saying Bob Dewaay is a heretic? If not, then how can BD not be a heretic even though he and Rick Warren agree doctrinally and have no differences in theology?
RAbanes
May 31st, 2008 at 11:57 am
Daniel,
I guess you have not been on the receiving end of this “loving the sinner and hating the sin” as a brother in Christ.
I have. Not one has given any real evidence of my “sin” they hate, but they sure have given me much “hate” as a person.
So before you say more, maybe an apology for the hate and lies and other things people like me have had to endure.
i applaude Chris R and any one who sees the error of their ways. I have even given kudos to Ingrid when she has shown read regret for her actions. It seems though that somehow Richard A is still wrong though Chris R seems to be more in agreement with him.
So, to me you just seem to be judging another brother who you simply have a disagreement with. Disagreement is not sin. But to attack slander and lie and cast accusation against others who are nto lying seems to work against all you state.
iggy
May 31st, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Daniel: “If not for Richard Abanes going over and post at Chris’s site and in so inciting the firestorm, I am sure all would be fine.”
RA: I see. Then, let’s go ahead and look at how I am to blame for that firestorm, shall we?
___________________#1
In Chris’s most recent post, “…with Gentleness and Respect” created May 30, I have posted ONCE out of 43 comments, and it states the following:
“Thank you. R. Abanes” (Posted by: Richard Abanes | May 30, 2008 at 03:10 PM)
___________________#2
In Chris’s May 23 post “Thank You to Rick Warren and Saddleback,” I posted 17 times out of 203 comments (a couple of these were duble posted due to a technical glitch).
And in those posts, I spent half my time defending Chris and asking peeps to leave him alone. The other half of the time I was basically trying to simply ask people to stop attacking me personally. I made comments as:
- “He is a Lutheran I am not. I don’t care. He loves Jesus and preaches the gospel and I do, too.”
- “This would be a lot easier if we were all just sitting around a table in a Starbuck’s filling our tummy-tanks with a Vente Kona + an Espresso shot, complimented by Carmel syrup.”
- “There is only ONE Gospel. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ’s finished work on the cross. There’s not much that needs explaining beyond 1 Cor. 3:3-5.”
- “But if you feel I was so terribly lacking in grace, then fine. I apologize. I would only ask that you be equally as critical/exacting and concerned about grace in tone when it comes to those who attack me, Rick Warren, and others.”
- “My issue with so many of Warren’s critics is not their concern with theology, but their concern with condemning, attacking, and criticizing those things that are not connected to theology at all! But they are artificially connecting them to theology.”
- “If they were being spiritually more fed more fully elsewhere, were growing deeper in Christ elsewhere, were experiencing a vibrant relationship with the Lord more completely elsewhere, believed that the liturgy of church services/worship were more biblical and brought them closer to God elsewhere - than I would be gloriously ecstatic that they had found that somewhere other than Saddleback!! Clear enough? Whether it would be some LCMS congregation or some Reformed Church (e.g., worshiping next to the likes of R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, or Kim Riddlebarger). I would say, “Go! Be free. Grow in Christ. Take the road that Jesus is leading you to take in him. You are His servant! Let us serve the Lord wherever he places us. The fields are white with harvest!”
- “WE ARE AL ONE BODY! THERE IS ONE BAPTISM. ONE LORD. ON SAVIOR. ON GOD.”
- “Yes, theology is important. What’s NOT important, and what is tragic, is dividing the body of Christ over those things that are not theology - but man-made dogmas, traditions, and opinions.”
- “I’m actually concerned about Chris and how he is going to be treated if he says anything that strays one millimeter away from the ‘Let’s all get Rick Warren as good as we can no matter what it takes and no matter how we do it’ bandwagon.”
So, I’m sorry Daniel, but I simply cannot see how any of these remarks, or other remarks I made were so intrumental in creating a firestorm anywhere. Please explain. Or, anyone, please help me out here.
And NO, I do not want to get this started into a fight. Let’s all abide by Chris’s admonitions here.
RAbanes
May 31st, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I contend that sometimes Mr. Arbanes’ comments are a little verbose and wordy. And there is no one here who can be more qualified to judge in that regard!
May 31st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I then must assume Daniel does not think slander, lying, and general malice is a sin? If he does think it sin, why would it be wrong for .info to expose this in the ODMs? As this is presumably what you’re saying by stating that we should take the blame for ‘this mess’. Do you think repentance of the aforementioned sins is a ‘mess’?
I find your position untenable. Sorry…
Joe
May 31st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Also Daniel,
I think you’ve manufactured a ‘firestorm’ in your mind, as I’ve gone through all applicable comments and have found little to none malice, slander, and snarkiness, except of course for in your own comments…ie…
“And no, I am not becoming Warren-friendly or Abanes-friendly. Warren is still a heretic who denies the Gospel by his actions, for the record, though I sure desire that he repents and so be saved.”
Sorry, but this can’t be defended as a comment in the vein of Christlikeness.
That’s very backhanded complimentary of you, “He’s a heretic, I am not friendly with him, but I hope he gets saved…”
Thats like when in the south, people insult you backhandedly, and then think it’s okay to do so as long as they say “Bless his little heart…”
=(
May 31st, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Personally on reflection I think Daniel has given CRN.info a backhanded compliment.
I agree, CRN.info should take the “blame” as in “credit” for all the good that is coming out of this. They have worked hard to find reconciliation with their brothers and sisters in Christ.
Good job guys!
iggy
May 31st, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Daniel,
BTW, Chris R and I have had a lot of discussion in the past. He is one that seems to be more able to just disagree than to flame others. You might learn from his example.
iggy
May 31st, 2008 at 12:38 pm
DANIEL CHEW: “The result is one big explosion, no thanks to these foxes who ruined the Vineyard (SoS 2:15), leaving a mess for us to pick up.” (from your blog).
RA: This is in direct reference on your blog to me and the peeps here at .INFO. This passage, according to Wesley’s Notes, refer to: Foxes - The disturbers of the vineyard, or the church, seducers or false teachers. Little foxes - This he adds for more abundant caution, to teach the church to prevent errors and heresies in the beginnings.”
Is this what you are alleging? If so, this is a rather serious charge. Please explain and support how I am a false teacher or a seducer. If you mean something else, please explain.
__________________
DANIEL CHEW: “For example, you can make a short note that you still think Rick Warren has severely compromised the Gospel, even denying it, or something along those lines.”
RA: Bob Dewaay has stated: “My conclusion is this: the chasm between Chris Rosebrough, and me, and Rick Warren that exists is based on ministry philosophy primarily. Privately, we agree on most doctrines.” And also: “There were no differences of theology that I know of, other than we had a chasm in a difference in ministry philosophy.”
How can Warren deny the Gospel if he is theologically and doctrinally in agreement with Bob Dewaay? Does Bob Dewaay deny the gospel?
___________
DANIEL CHEW: As Rom. 14:21 says, we are not to do anything which causes our brethren to stumble.
RA: Can you explain how seeking time to think, pray, and discuss something with others privately is equated with any action that might stumble another? How is it stumbling to anyone to say thank you to someone else - which is a demonstrtaion of kindness, gratitude, and graciousness that God commands us to show?
If I may say so, I think you’ve taken this passage WAY out of context. It is referring to freedoms in Christ - you’ve just twisted this passage in a style that would seem to be reminiscent of the way you accuse Warren of twisting scripture.
___________
DANIEL CHEW: “Another thing which Chris fails to do is to rebuke Richard Abanes. It was obvious that Abanes was instigating much of the heated exchange and bringing out the worst in others.
RA: See above examples of my posts. Please be specific. I don’t see much in my posts that would fit your remarks. And exactly why is it that others who posted some fairly nasty comments would not be worthy of a rebuke as well? Please explain, Daniel, I am interested in your thoughts here.
_______
DANIEL CHEW: To think just because of that that Chris has drank the PD kool-aid
RA: Loaded language, IMHO, which is indeed inflammatory. This conjures up images of Jonestown and cults. And I think it’s THIS kind of language that is causing the firestorms. Do you disagree?
_______
DANIEL CHEW: “Rick Warren, and Richard Abanes is not our main enemy but the pawns of the enemy; Satan is.”
RA: I see. And here it is. I am a pawn of Satan himself. Sigh. Daniel, my friend and brother, you do make things difficult, I confess this publicly.
R. Abanes
May 31st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
“I am a pawn of Satan himself.”
No, more like a bishop!
May 31st, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Oh, Rick. LoL.
May 31st, 2008 at 1:36 pm
“gentleness and respect”
OK, who let them in? No one invited them to the party, lock the door.
May 31st, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Maybe I missed it on the linked post, but the only comment I found from RA on the thread was this one:
Followed by a whole lot of caterwauling (primarily P-Drivel Paula and Tom) and a shot back at RA:
Now, I don’t recall RA writing ANY satire for this site, and while he comments here, I didn’t know he was a writer here (at least yet
) As for “vicious” satire, perhaps they’ve been reading a different site than this one…
May 31st, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Daniel asked:
If you mean, will I still be a brother in Christ to Chris R and act like one even when he disagrees with what he heard at the PD conference, then the answer is YES!
If you mean will I still support Chris R and his right to disagree with the PD conference, then the answer is YES!
If you mean will I refrain from character attack and personal slander regardless of what Chris has to post on the PD conference, than the answer is YES!
Are you willing to join me?
May 31st, 2008 at 2:40 pm
“If you mean will I refrain from character attack and personal slander regardless of what Chris has to post on the PD conference, than the answer is YES!
Are you willing to join me?”
No. Although I try and avoid that approach, everything remains on the table. I have an immeasurable cache that I will unleash when appropriate. Every person is listed in alphabetical order beginning with Arbanes. (The info I have on Richard contains some disturbing footage at a place in Salt Lake City.)
May 31st, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Rick - SSSHShhhhhhhhhh.
And it’s Abanes. Lose the “r.”
May 31st, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Aha Rick,
As one of your “supporters” pointed out in a comment at Extreme Theology:
You can run but you can’t hide.
May 31st, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Paul the apostle wrote this,
“It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter?
“The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoce.”
I’ll say this, piggy-backing as it were on Paul’s comments, I don’t really care why or how or when or from what cause a person learns to love in a different way, demonstrate grace in a generous way, and live in peace with others at their own expense. I’m just glad they did.
What does it matter?
Seriously.
What does it matter? I praise God that perhaps, at long last, some of these wounds, that both sides have undoubtedly inflicted on one another, are beginning to be healed. For that I praise God!
I hope what I’m saying makes sense.
jerry
May 31st, 2008 at 4:00 pm
JohnD - I would have requested her husband but after viewing her website I do not believe she has one. An entire blog called Purpose Drivel?
May 31st, 2008 at 7:40 pm
OK, we have a Tom Schlueter sighting on Extreme. He takes Iggy, Richard, and Chris L. to task about gentleness and respect for Mrs. Schlueter. He accidentally included my name.
Gentleness and respect?
Mrs. Schlueter?
Ahem…the painted girls of Sodom are calling.
May 31st, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Yeah I saw that. His hypocrisy is shining through. Its cool for his wife to shred whoever she wants however she wants using whatever invective and sloppy research she wants, but when she’s brought to task using far less hostile tactics its a problem.
Just more team politics from Team ODM.
May 31st, 2008 at 7:52 pm
It very curious your name, Tim, is not mentioned. Hmm…I believe secretly you agree with much of what Mrs. Schlueter says. It’s all becoming too clear.
You’re not Part of the Restoration Movement - you’re Lutheran. Baptism and all, I knew it!
May 31st, 2008 at 7:57 pm
MY COVER!!! IT HAS BEEN BLOWN!
May 31st, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Very sad.
May 31st, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Ken you and I agree…
I am also very sad
I suspect about different issues though.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Tom Schlueter stepping out from the shadows to chide people for not being gentle and respectful has little credibility in the light of his complicity with the many and continuing posts on SOL which practice the same grievances he has suggested are evidenced in others.
See, respectful and gentle.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:12 am
Wow, I will tackle them one at a time.
iggy:
If you have been shown hatred because you were sincerely deluded and people attack you for being deluded, then I symphatize with you, and offer my apologies on their behalf.
Tim Reed:
Alll of us need to repent at some times due to errors made in the heat of the moment. Do you agree with that?
Rich Frueh:
And this on a post calling for gentleness and respect? Or is the gentleness and respect unidirectional only?
Tim Reed again:
Same as the response to Rick Frueh, now tell me who is the one who is not gentle and respectful.
I’m really sorry, but with such vitriolic comments, do you think any of us is convinced by your call for gentleness and respect?
June 1st, 2008 at 3:14 am
JohnD:
I am willing to join you with regards to Chris R, if you truly mean it.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:17 am
You mean like Rick Frueh’s and Time Reed’s comment like this:
Sorry if I am not convinced by your call for reconciliation.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:27 am
Richard Abanes:
First of all, with regards to the Chris R episode and my post::
What I was alleging is that you are schismatics who divide the Body of Christ.
Refer back to my post regarding Bob DeWaay’s comment on Warren’s orthodoxy.
You are obviously not getting my meaning. This part was to plead for Chris to remember the hurts inflicted on the sheep by the PD paradigm and thus they are the weaker brethren who make wrong inferences due to their past experiences, and therefore they must be assured that Chris is still ok.
See the context. What I was saying is that this is precisely what the commentors likeTim Wurth think may be happening. Whether they are right or wrong is another story altogether, but this is something that must be addressed out of love for the flock of God.
Hey, if I think you are wrong, then this is what you are, right? And you should be thinking the same about me if you are truly consistent with your position.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:32 am
Richard:
But this is precisely the point. Don’t you realize that your mere presence is provocative enough? Rightly or wrongly, your mere appearance and defence of Chris worsens the situation. Your inability to listen properly to Warren’s critics and your defense of all things Rick Warren al over the web does not particularly endear youself to those who are hurt by the PD paradigm. Why don’t you just stop defending Rick and start proclaiming the Gospel? You know, that would really help matters a lot.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:39 am
Richard:
with regards to my post on you. I tell you what. I personally think that the charges are correct, but I am willing to make a deal with you. I will remove the offending comments, and you will stop defending Rick Warren and posting comments in defense of him all across the web, all of wich prove the truth of the offending coments. Also, please remove any material on your website of which you accuse pastors and other Christians of various sins with regards to Rick Warren and the PD paradigm. Deal?
June 1st, 2008 at 6:32 am
Not that I have a dog in this fight I feel the need to respond to some things.
Ricks quote is a direct quote from Ingrid. And the original context of that statement was in a post here on CRN.info that was calling Ingrid to a standard of gentleness to a 15 year old child.
So dare I say Daniel that you once again have missed the point.
This logic simply doesn’t make sense. Nor is it biblical. Quite frankly it only strengthens the case as to why Rich should engage in dialog. But Rich doesn’t need my defense.
Rephrase: Your inability to see things the way we see them and trying to clarify the mis characterizations, lies, or assumptions only hinders others us from doing what we want.
Another Rephrase: Your inability to listen properly to Warren’s defenders and your attacks of all things Rick Warren all over the web does not particulary endear yourself to those who have been helped by the PD paradigm.
I call shenanigans (thanks Chris L.) I suspect that those who are most
vitriolichurt about PD have never stepped into a PD church their only exposure is the ODM’s take on PD. Have their been some who were probably hurt? Sure. But nobody is trotting out all those that have been hurt by legalistic churches as a rationale for their attacks on particular churches or people.Rephrase: Rick Warren in my opinion is not a Christian so defense of him is indefensible. So Rich unplug your computer, shut up, and fall in line like a good little soldier. Oh yeah and let us still defend everything we believe to be “truth” without accountability.
And to think that this biggest complaint I hear about PD is that leadership didn’t allow people to voice their opinions.
Daniel I’ve watched and read much of what you have written, here and elsewhere, and I struggle to see your points in most of what you write. If you are so desperate to “contend for the faith” and “show yourself approved” why not spend more time “rightly” explaining the gospel as you see it. This certainly, IMO, would be greater cause for the kingdom. My favorite quote of late was “The greatest threat to Christianity is not liberalism from the pulpit but laziness in the pews”. Followed up by me favorite quote of all time. “Go and make disciples”.
Good day sir.
June 1st, 2008 at 6:36 am
Absolutely, but my point wasn’t that Chris R repents and that makes him different. My point was that Chris R is indeed doing something different because he repents. I’m not dividing and conquering (as you asserted earlier) I’m only pointing out what Chris R wrote, and I’m certainly not in any way shape or form making fun of him for having to repent.
Now, on to your ridiculous assertion that my pointing out Tom Schueter’s hypocrisy is some how beyond the pale. You’ll note first the lack of personal invective. I did not call him any sort of name or use any derisive term. The nature of gentleness and respect is not one of lockstep agreement. What Tom has done is hypocritical. He has condemned the tactics of Iggy, Chrs L, and Richard Abanes which are much more gentle and respectful than that of his own wife which he affirms and supports.
Which brings us to your hypocrisy. You condemn me for pointing out the sin in which Tom Schueter has engaged. I did so without personal condemnation, instead only noting the sin itself and offering a reason for why I think that it is present. You on the other hand have been quite insulting in your short time here. You have demeaned the intelligence of others and used personal invective on several occasions. Additionally, you have taken it on yourself to point out the sins of others. If you are going to condemn me for pointing out the hypocrisy in the manner I did, I urge you to at least meet the same measuring stick you’ve applied to me.
June 1st, 2008 at 6:51 am
I believe one ODM (Chris R.?) visited either Tim or Chris L. a while back and people here had nice things to say about it. Am I remembering correctly?
Contrast that with the hysterical comments on ET when Chris R. just thanks Rick Warren for being hospitable. I offer a word of charity and I am castigated as someone who’s gone out from the truth. And yet I have strongly sparred with Chris R. in the past.
You see, to be a defender of truth your cache of harshness must be current, no day old manna.
June 1st, 2008 at 7:55 am
Translation: I’ll stop slandering you if you stop defending Rick Warren from slander. Deal?
Unsolicited Advice: Richard, I’d take a pass on this one…
June 1st, 2008 at 8:34 am
DC: What I was alleging is that you are schismatics who divide the Body of Christ.
RA: And that is where you’re wrong. I’m the one calling for unity where there has been unnecessary division in the Body because of critics like you! Did you read what i actually stated over at Chris R.’s website? I listed several quotes above — none of which you’ve interacted with. Let’s deal with only one, if you have the time.
How am I being schismatic by saying: “WE ARE AL ONE BODY! THERE IS ONE BAPTISM. ONE LORD. ON SAVIOR. ON GOD.”
How am I being schismatic by saying: “Yes, theology is important. What’s NOT important, and what is tragic, is dividing the body of Christ over those things that are not theology - but man-made dogmas, traditions, and opinions.”
How am I being schismatic by saying: “If they were being spiritually more fed more fully elsewhere, were growing deeper in Christ elsewhere, were experiencing a vibrant relationship with the Lord more completely elsewhere, believed that the liturgy of church services/worship were more biblical and brought them closer to God elsewhere - than I would be gloriously ecstatic that they had found that somewhere other than Saddleback!! Clear enough? Whether it would be some LCMS congregation or some Reformed Church (e.g., worshiping next to the likes of R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, or Kim Riddlebarger). I would say, “Go! Be free. Grow in Christ. Take the road that Jesus is leading you to take in him. You are His servant! Let us serve the Lord wherever he places us. The fields are white with harvest!”
Now, you have explained what you meant - but I also asked you to support what you alleged about me being schismatic. How are my above statements schismatic?
___________________
DC: Refer back to my post regarding Bob DeWaay’s comment on Warren’s orthodoxy.
RA: So, let me get this straight. You do accept that Warren actually believes the correct doctrine/theology just like Dewaay, and you, and whoever - but he is a heretic, false teacher, deceiver, simply because he doesn’t preach that theology/doctrine EXACTLY how you think he should be preaching it? I mean, even in his statement, Dewaay said he wants Warren to “preach Christ more than he does.” So it seems that all we have happening here is that Warren is not saying Jesus ENOUGH, or hell ENOUGH, or “forensic act of God” ENOUGH, or repent ENOUGH. I’m curious - what is enough, Daniel. Do I have to say “hell” or “retribution” or “wrath” in a sermon every Sunday 3 times? 10 times? 20 times? What would meet your approval? I’m really curious here.
_______________________
DC: This part was to plead for Chris to remember the hurts inflicted on the sheep by the PD paradigm
RA: And what about all the hurts inflicted on the sheep from the Lutheran paradigm, or the Calvinist paradigm, or the Calvary Chapel paradigm? You think people haven’t been hurt in those churches and by those paradigms? Daniel, seriously. Bro, NO church paradigm is perfect. And, TBH, I think some of these issues with people being hurt by the PDL paradigm can also be traced back to SOME of those people simply not liking the ecclesiology of the church they were attending. Who is running a church flock anyway? The pastor (the man whom God has raised up as a shepherd or the sheep)?
_____________________
DC: Hey, if I think you are wrong, then this is what you are, right? And you should be thinking the same about me if you are truly consistent with your position.
RA: Ahhh, and here’s why we differ, my friend. First, given my position, you do not have to jump to the conclusion that I am a pawn of Satan - for goodness sake. Second, no, I do NOT have to think you are a pawn of Satan to be consistent. In fact, that’s not at all what I think. If you’d like, I will post exactly what I think of you in all honesty and fairness - but I will leave you to decide if you want me to post that.
_____________________
DC: Why don’t you just stop defending Rick and start proclaiming the Gospel? You know, that would really help matters a lot.
RA: Well, uhm, I just released a 200 page book against the new Age Movement, Eckhart Tolle, and Oprah Winfrey wherein I staunchly defend the Gospel. And I haev been posting like crazy over at YOU TUBE beneath one of my videos, defending Christianity against the Tolle devotees, Deists, Hindus, and assorted New Agers!!! Soooooo, Daniel, tell me now, has that helped matters a lot now? What do you say now?
________________________
DC: Deal?
RA: ROFL. Nothing like censorship. I’ll tell YOU what. You list where I have factually lied about something or someone - and I’ll remove it. You list where I have not clearly expressed and opinion about something/someone - BUT NOT BACKED IT BY FACTS - and I’ll remove it. My concern at this point is: I’m not sure you can discern between things like verifiable facts, logical conclusions vs baseless opinions.
RA
June 1st, 2008 at 9:03 am
You gentlemen may find this to be of interest concerning your discussion here:
Pastor Bob DeWaay On His Meeting with Rick Warren
June 1st, 2008 at 9:09 am
In case you missed it, it was already posted here on a different thread (though not on the AM site). I don’t know that any of us had claimed that Bob agreed with RW - just that he was willing to meet with him.
Newsflash - RW isn’t a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist. Who knew?
June 1st, 2008 at 9:26 am
That is most definitely untrue, and I am one example.
Tim Reed:
Sometimes what you think is not demeaning is actually very demeaning to the ones you direct it to, and vice versa.
Rick Frueh:
you should know why people castigate you. Peopl are not castigated you primarily for speaking up for Chris R, but for coming over to CRN.(mis)info and saying one thing, then coming over to ET and Mike Ratliff’s blog and posting another thing altogether. Don’t think we do not notice your double act.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:28 am
Tim Reed:
OK, I take your word for it. Let’s see if your attitude will change if Chris R starts criticising what Warren is teaching.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:32 am
Certainly, that is slated for one of my future posts. I do not operate on a post-when-I-feel-like-it basis. I create my own schedule to adhere to, and this will be one of the posts that I have scheduled. In the meantime, you can always check my website where I have listed a ~10 point Gospel presentation if you would like to see it.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:41 am
Daniel,
I have never (as far as I recall, and if I have I apologize for it now) heaped abuse on anyone for repenting. I don’t have any plans on starting now.
If Chris R wants to critique Warren in a Christlike way you won’t hear word 1 from me. In fact, I rarely defend Warren at all, even when the attacks reach the level of being anti-gospel (the times when I have commented on those attacks have been more out of my love for the absurd and extreme than out of a theological agreement with Warren).
That’s certainly true. And sometimes, many times even, I have gone too far, and have tried to deliberately offend. All I can do is the same thing Chris R has done and repent and carry on in a more gospel oriented way. If I offend unintentionally I apologize, but when I make it clear I didn’t mean to be demeaning to yourself or others there does need to be a certain amount of reconciliation and forgiveness rather than just more catalogueing of my sin (which those who consider me their enemy have gladly put together).
June 1st, 2008 at 10:09 am
Richard Abanes:
sign…. your anger is coming through.
When I say you are schismatics, I mean that in the context of this discussion, in which, like it or not, you all have not helped but have in fact alienated many of those who have been hurt by the PD paradigm. Yes, you can say that was not your motive until the cows come home if need be, and it is probably true, but what exactly has occurred? Isn’t it true that if you have kept quiet, this mess would not have occurred?
Rich, it is not how many times you need to mention the word “hell”, “sin” or “wrath”. It is not even that Warren does not say the word Jesus enough or any other word for that matter. What we are asking for is that Warren matches his professed faith with his actions. Since we believe that what a person truly believes causes his/her works/actions, therefore we do not think Warren actually believes the truths he claims to believe. Warren can start by reforming his deeds according to his own “seond reformation” in order to prove us wrong. I would love to see that happen.
OK, so how about this: Rick Warren can make a statement that the idea of PD resistors being Sanballets to be demonised and attacked as described in hs friend Dan Southerland’s book Transitioning is wicked and wrong; then I will believe that Waren at least cares a bit about the flock.
You can email me that if you so wish to.
Rich, nobody is saying that you are not standing for the Christian faith. What we are saying is that you are spending a ridiculous amount of time and effort defending Rick Warren. And yes, I know you claim not to be a Warren apologist, but ever consider whether by your actions you behave as such? I leave you to reflect on that.
The problem is: When we give facts to you, you say that you are right and we wrong. So what’s the point?
Rich, I think this is not going anywhere. You obviously are not open to listen even though you claim you are, and I will not accept ipse dixit answers from you either. Let’s go our separate ways, and may God show you your error in His time.
June 1st, 2008 at 10:13 am
Tim Reed:
OK, thanks for the post. In a spirit of reconciliation then, I apologize also for any offense I have given to you. But I still do not accept your Modernism label.
June 1st, 2008 at 10:25 am
Hey that’s exactly what I want! We agree!
Do you think that those that profess the “grace” of Christ could start living that out?
June 1st, 2008 at 10:31 am
Well, it is a process, and we would like to see that from you at CRN.info also.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:05 am
“but for coming over to CRN.(mis)info and saying one thing, then coming over to ET and Mike Ratliff’s blog and posting another thing altogether. ”
Please give me an example.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:32 am
Ken - I read your post and Bob’s letter to RW, but I was disappointed in the generality of his statements. I hope he will dileneate later the specific problems he still has with RW and what he actually saw and heard from Rick’s lips and writings that he can place against the Scriptures.
I go on record as agreeing with Bob that Rick is an evangelical believer and that our discussions should have a decidedly Christian tone to them. Perhaps there is some iron sharpening iron is going on here.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:46 am
I have no posted at Phoenix preacher MY OPEN LETTER TO BOB DEWAAY
This response will also be going up elsewhere on the Internet.
R. Abanes
June 1st, 2008 at 11:58 am
Richard - you must allow Bob some wiggle room and his friends must allow the same in the other direction.
An Open Letter to Everyone:
Let’s do lunch!
Rick Frueh
(Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde)
PS - More Mr. Hyde (if he was the bad one!)
June 1st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
DC: your anger is coming through.
RA: What? Where??? LoL. This is odd. Anger? Seriously, bro. Where? I took great pains to bend over backwards at non-confrontation and just ask questions.
_________
DC: Isn’t it true that if you have kept quiet, this mess would not have occurred?
RA: Sorry, but the MESS started happening years ago when people like Ingrid Schlueter, the Dombrowskis, Tim Wirth, Warren Smith, James Sundquist, Paul Proctor and others began attacking Warren with hate, vitriolic slander, and bizarre end time conspiracy theories. That’s when the witch hunt began.
_________
DC: What we are asking for is that Warren matches his professed faith with his actions. Since we believe that what a person truly believes causes his/her works/actions, therefore we do not think Warren actually believes the truths he claims to believe.
RA: Ahh, I see. So please, then, do list the “actions” that should be following his profession, which to you, would PROVE his profession is real — and that he is not a wolf in sheep’s clothing; a false professor of the faith; a deceptive talker.
_________
DC: Warren can start by reforming his deeds according to his own “second reformation” in order to prove us wrong. I would love to see that happen.
RA: You don’t seem to even understand what Warren is saying about a Second Reformation, nor what he means by “deed, not creeds.” I suggest you actually take a moment, set aside what you erroneously think he means, and actually read about what he does, in fact, mean. Please read RICK WARREN’S SECOND REFORMATION: Deeds Not Creeds. It’s not what you seem to thikn it is.
__________
DC: Rick Warren can make a statement that the idea of PD resistors being Sanballets to be demonised and attacked as described in his friend Dan Southerland’s book Transitioning is wicked and wrong; then I will believe that Warren at least cares a bit about the flock.
RA: Actually, DC, I tihnk this would be a good idea. I always have thought that Rick was too flip about those in various churches who might disagree with a pastor’s decision to convert to PD. Would I have been that flip? No. But am I a pastor? No. I do have my opinions, however. And I think Rick has been insensitive.
At the same time, however, I will ALSO say that when it comes to those who have disagreed with their churches going purpose driven and have left (and now are more than a little bitter), the issue seems to be two-fold when it comes to THEIR culpability.
1. They need to let go of their bitterness, anger, resentment, and unforgiveness. It is eating them up and helps nothing.
2. Who is running a church? Is it the Pastor, raised up by God, along with his hand-picked associates, and a board of elders (where they have such positions)? Or is it the congregation, specifically, however many people out of a body who don’t want PDL? This is an issue of ecclesiology. In non-democratic churches, it is NOT the congregation, or a small group of people within the congregation who runs things — sorry to say. It is the senior pastor and other church leaders. And this is why those who do not agree with the direction of a church/pastor are, indeed, supposed to leave and find a church more in agreement with their needs. God has NOT given them the responsibillity, the rights, or the authority to tell a pastor what he should or should not do. Whose church is it?
And I wonder why these people, who are so hurt, have not looked at their situation in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAY! Maybe God actually wanted to move them on to a new/different church so they could grow differently; perhaps have them meet others in a different church to whom they could minister; find new experiences in Christ in this adventure we call the Christian walk!
But no, instead, they sit and stew and brew and moan and complain about how bad, nasty, and awful Warren is. To me, if Warren has been flip/insensitive, then on the other side of that coin, the people having left newly converted PDL churches are equally guilty of not accepting from the Lord a difficult trial, allowing bitterness to take root, and being unwilling to let go and move forward in Christ. Just my opinion.
___________
DC: You can email me that if you so wish to.
RA: I will do that.
_____________
DC: What we are saying is that you are spending a ridiculous amount of time and effort defending Rick Warren.
RA: Two things bro. 1. I type very very very very fast. And the words come easy. I don’t spend as much time as you think on Warren. And I feel teh bulk of my work in ministry can show that.
As I’ve said before. I posted some stuff in mid-2005, then said NOTHING about Warren for almost 3 years. I only started posting again barely 5 months ago. And during THAT same period of time - wrote a 200 page book against Eckhart Tolle and the New Age. And I have been ministering to unbelievers at YOU TUBE. This sliver of time out of years of apologetic ministry is like a drop in the bucket to me. And as I have also said, THIS IS NOT ABOUT RICK WARREN PER SE TO ME ANYMORE!
Pleeeeaaase, understand that. It’s about truth, accountability, caution, godliness, humility, agape, unity, and the nature of apologetics/discernment in general. For me, it stopped being just about Warren a LONG time ago. Warren is a catalyst for such discussions, and his critics give ample examples to show how NOT to do apologetics and how NOT to use “discernment” as an excuse to attack people unfairly.
R. Abanes
June 1st, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Lunch?
June 1st, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Daniel stated concerning living out grace:
It should not matter what CRN.info does or does not do… You are not responsible by their words but to the words of Jesus. He said forgive and be forgiven.. and if you do not forgive you will not be forgiven.
I hope you learn to forgive!
Also, can you give a specific example where grace is not given? Meaning, that someone here through actions and words have stated that they do not see anyone “not saved” that professes Christ?
I see “painted little whores of Sodom” as lacking grace.. as it cuts across the very words of God to Peter concerning what God has made clean in Christ… meaning people… but I ahve never seen anyone here state that Ken, Ingrid, or anyone else is not “saved by grace”… I do see myself asking over and over that if they profess the “doctrines of grace” that why do they not give grace to others? I ask why it seems that Ingrid feels that she can judge others and then be just like the world in other ways as in using the world’s ways to promote her own station. I ask why it seems so many act as if they had received some greater grace than the rest of us that makes them able to judge other sinners thus saved by said grace as lesser than themselves?
I ask many things like that and all I get is “iggy is arrogant” like answers for even asking! LOL!
I get “iggy is ’superior’ acting with his “LOL’s”
I see the only thing that CRN.info does is call others to grace and if someone does not return to it, hold them to their own standard… and I see you whine about your own standard!
iggy
June 1st, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Let’s be clear here, Daniel, about the accusations that have been flying back and forth -
The ODMS: Rick Warren & Me & anyone who supports Warren = false teachers, non-Christians, deceivers, scripture twisters, of the world, outside the church, false brethren, need to repent, New Agers, tools of the Anti-Christ, lying prophets, evil, monsters (yes, Time Wirth called me a “monster”), akin to Nazis (thank Tim Wirth again for this one).
The AODMs: The ODMs are unloving, untruthful, harsh in their criticisms/accusations, often inaccurate, not Christ-honoring, judgmental, cause division, will not hold themselves accountable to the same standards they place on others, are inconsistent in their judgments, misuse scripture, need to repent.
Never once (I don’t think) have any of us who stand against you critics ever dared question your standing within the church as true Christians - especially given your public confessions of Christ as Lord and your public calls for others ot come to faith in Jesus.
And yet the same cannot be said for you and other ODM peeps. And you base your willingness to excise some of us (particularly Warren) from the true Body of Christ based on:
1) our unwillingness to see the PDL/PDC issue YOUR way;
2) our expressions of a different ministerial philosophy (to borrow Dewaay’s words);
3) our external practice of our internal faith, which might not match yours on all levels or in all ways.
Who is dividing the Body of Christ? Who is being unbiblical? Who is going BEYOND scripture for measures of true faith? I submit the guilt ones are those ODMs who have caused no end of strife and division.
But it’s not too late. We can all sit down and talk about these things if some individuals can set aside their hate, bitterness, fear, anger, and unteachable spirit. I am NOT completely right. Warren is NOT completely right. You are NOT completely right. Dewaay is NOT completely right.
A good example is the whole issue I have already noted about how Warren, I think, has been insensitive to people whose churches have gone PDC and they have disagreed about it. I do believe that publicly he has been too flip about it. But there are errors that have been made on the ODM side too, like the absurd statement that Warren is a pantheist and that he doesn’t care about doctrine at all (based on snippets taken totally out of context).
Shall we continue in this fashion? Or make changes?
R. Abanes
R. Abanes
June 1st, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Richard,
Between me you and the lampost… I am most greatful for this one! = )
iggy
June 1st, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I’ll go to lunch w/ anyone
ra
June 1st, 2008 at 4:01 pm
“Rick Warren & Me & anyone who supports Warren = false teachers, non-Christians, deceivers, scripture twisters, of the world, outside the church, false brethren, need to repent, New Agers, tools of the Anti-Christ, lying prophets, evil, monsters (yes, Time Wirth called me a “monster”), akin to Nazis (thank Tim Wirth again for this one).”
I think Nazis was a little over the top. The rest are theologically substantive meant for your good.
June 1st, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Rick, you’re sooooo bad. Stop it. LoL.
RA
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:46 am
iggy:
I do not know where you are coming from, so I cannot say anything about your beef with Discernment ministries. My statement was not to say that I am not going to forgive CRN.(mis)info and its contributors, but that I would like to see the people here practice the very same grace they claim to say they have to those who disagree with them. In fact, I would say CRN.(mis)info has been a positive help to the Kingdom of God, in a negative sort of way, in helping us to a certain extent in examing ourselves so that what we say is not wild conjecture.
With regards to whining about my own standard, let me just say that the same can be said of the commentors of CRN.(mis)info. If you think I am whining about my standard, I similarly see you all whining about yours. Need I remind you what the firs reaction to my chart was? “Wow, how stupid!” “Modernist!” You think that was gracious?
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:48 am
I thought that you all think blanket generalization and condemnation is wrong? Tell me again, why is the sin of one person the sin of the group? Or is that acceptable only for “the ODMs”?
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:53 am
Again, why are all of us critics lumped together? Show me where did I ever say that
1) Richard Abanes and the folks at CRN.(mis)info are not Christians
2) Warren is a pantheist (even Warren Smith didn’t say that by the way), or Warren is a New Ager
3) Warren doesn’t care about doctrine at all
?
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:12 am
Daniel,
it seems that you are hurt over that some did not see your chart as accurate. Again, also, critic is not the same as judgment and condemnation. When I stated you were a modernist was after you tossed out “post modern” at myself and others without understanding where I come from.
Have you even considered trying that? You came in like a bull in a china store and used ODM inflammatory language then accused everyone here of not showing you grace… maybe if you showed grace first as the example you might have received it. Personally I was nice to you… never angry with you… and tried hard to show you my perspective against your constant assertions and accusations of what you thought I believed yet, (as you have just confessed) you still ahve no idea where I am coming from?!?!?! LOL!
I responded with mostly scripture and you responded with comments that were often meant as put downs… and again attacked stating things like crn.(mis info) which is name calling… and such… You seem consistent in speaking blessing and curses in the same sentence then tell us to give grace… LOL! Grace was given… I think you missed it in your condemnation of us!
A wise man listens to both sides before he decides… Chris R has found wisdom…
My prayers are with you,
iggy
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:20 am
BTW Richard’s comment in #71 are the things he has been called… not that he is calling anyone else that… I am not even sure what you are stating in your response as it makes no sense at all…
Yet, if one is part of of a group as an individual and has responsibility for that group, such as how they reel me in at times here… they are taking responsibility as a group and I am individually.
I have personally corresponded with many of the people at CRN. Almost without exemption they state they are nto responsible for what others say at that site and are responsible only for themselves.
God judged individuals and nations… So God will judge the individual and the group. If you want book chapter and verse… I suggest starting in Gen 1 and go until you hit the last verse in Revelation…
So, yes if the leader… AKA editor (Ken Silva) let’s slander go through, and someone else like Chris R sees it and does nothing, then Chris R may be chastised by God for not doing anything, Yet so far CR is trying to call for a change. I think God will honor that.
iggy
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:23 am
RIchard,
If I answered Daniel’s quesiton for you and was out of line I apologize, I did not mean to give answer for you but just have no idea what Daniel means by that comment. I look forward to your answers as I bet they are better than mine! = )
iggy
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 am
Good question. Here is my answer:
1) Stop allowing Mormons and Roman Catholics to take part as churches in the 40DOP or DOC or whatever program Warren wishes to start, without they first becoming Christians and renouncing their false religion.
Renounce playing politics and involving the Church in social causes void of the proclamation of the Gospel. Take part only in social causes that are coupled with a clear proclamation of the Gospel of Christ
2) Publicly call on the Pope to repent of denying the Gospel, to repudiate the Council of Trent with its attendent anathemas against bible believers
3) Do not preach “how to grow your synagogue” messages to unrepent Jews but call on them to believe in their Messiah Jesus Christ
4) Publicly repudiate what he calls a pervasion of his teaching in churches kicking out believers (Purpose Driven resistors) and stating that those who say that this is what they have learned from him or the PDC are in serious error.
5) Stop using the Message pervasion and stick to good Bible translations like the NASB, NKJV and the ESV. Repent of using 13 different bible “translations” and of ripping the verses out of context in his PDL
6) Emphasize that what the Lord requires is not sacrifice but obedience, and therefore what is required is holy living more than what any member can contribute to the Church and her programs. Emphasize that the Church should love and treat all her members equally whether they are serving in the church or not.
7) Set himself against the relativism and inclusivism present in the Emerging Church Movement. He can do it lovingly the way Carson does it.
9) Stop being unequally yoked with members of the CFR in politicking. Get back to calling all Man to repentance, including the big shots over in CFR who are lost apart from the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ
I will rejoice the day Warren does all of this.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:13 am
Those are your issues with RW? Most of what you request is unreasonable at best and unbiblical at worst.
As Richard has said many times before what you really want is for RW to do things like you do them. And believe exactly what you believe.
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:25 am
Daniel,
I agree with what Chris said. It sounds like you want Warren to be your puppet, really. To me it’s the real irony in all this stuff. A lot of Warren’s critics seem to accuse him of being a “people-pleaser” or “ear-tickler”, but it seems they are really only mad at him because he’s not pleasing them or tickling their ears.
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:41 am
Daniel Chew… Holding Rick Warren Hostage for Jesus!
I see the head lines now…
Good grief… and he tried to hold everyone here to his standard of Grace!?!?!?!
I think that was surpassed… I would not want people here to stoop as low as that grade is…
I hope CRN.info holds to the Grace of Christ that it has and not cow tow to the likes of pseudo grace Daniel pushes…
Repent Daniel, repent. Come back to Grace through faith and stop holding people to works righteousness for salvation.
iggy
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:02 am
The line of demarcation will always be the way in whcih Rick Warren is spoken of as it concerns him and his teachings. To say he over pragmatizes the gospel, or to say he has questionable associations, or to say he is unwise in some of his dealings and verbiage is a legitimate platform for discussion.
But when you say he denies the gospel, or is an anti-christ, or even that he is not saved then you have not only raised the stakes, you have removed any room for Christian dialogue. And as evidenced by the comments on Extreme Theology, some will not even allow any respect or gentleness when it concerns Rick Warren. It is unseemly at best.
I have come this very day to believe that is a demonic spirit which infests the pride of people and deceives them into believing they are some sort of Truth Knight dispatched to slay the dragon.
Truth is most dramatically, profoundly, and most powerfully revealed within the context of humility.(see “The Cross” as reference). Jesus told Paul “My strength is made perfect in weakness” and like the monkey who cannot turn loose from the peanut because he attempts to solve the problem through his own strength, we so often refuse to speak in humility