Here is a quote from a “pastor”:

“I was frightened and thought I was dreaming, it was such a thunder clap, such a great, horrid f@rt did the papal @ss let go here! He certainly pressed with great might to let out such a thunderous f@rt – it is a wonder that it did not tear his h*le and belly apart!”

This quote reflects the heart and church philosophy of this pastor all those who have followed after him. This pastor needs prayer, and so does the church family he “ministers” to. This pastor and the rest of those who are just like him in their lack of understanding, remind me of what Jude wrote: “For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ…These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame…These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lusts (sensual); and they mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage…mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts. These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.”

The most amazing thing about these is that they are unable to detect their own behavior through and see themselves in the word of God and gain repentance. They will continue to do what they do because their eyes are blind to the truth that would save them.

Martin Luther, Wittenberg Germany, I do pray for you. Repent and trust the Savior before it is too late.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Thursday, June 19th, 2008 at 4:06 pm and is filed under satire really. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

145 Comments(+Add)

1   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 19th, 2008 at 4:22 pm

No one can argue that Luther wasn’t a man given to bouts of flesh and carnality.

2   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
June 19th, 2008 at 4:30 pm

Tim, you just love to stirr, don’t you?

3   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
June 19th, 2008 at 4:35 pm

Rick,
Believe me, this post wasn’t for you, you are entirely consistent.

4   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 19th, 2008 at 4:39 pm

I do not question your office or your salvation, Tim.

Your intellect? Well… :)

5   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
June 19th, 2008 at 4:40 pm

So now we just wait for the ODM’s to show up then we can run around in circles again. Yeah, what fun!

6   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
June 19th, 2008 at 4:46 pm

Hold on…we gotta get this in before one of them shows up and it’s too late….

***SATIRE***

Ok…let the misunderstanding and quote-mining begin!! lol…

7   Richard Abanes    http://abanes.com
June 19th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Hmmm, this really bad. I found a great quote in the historical archives about this:

“Additionally, you have Pastor Martin Luther as a speaker. Martin’s filthy language and vulgarity is not fit for any woman’s ears, and I’m not about to subject myself to his disobedient use of coarse jesting in the name of ministry. It does not comport with the Scripture’s requirements for conduct in the office of the ministry.”

c. 1522
signed, Goody Schlueter

(fyi, a joke)

8   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
June 19th, 2008 at 5:16 pm

haha, Richard made a joke about Ingrid being alive in 1522, which means she’s obviously a witch, or just eats a lot of Smart Start cereal or something along those lines.

9   Richard Abanes    http://abanes.com
June 19th, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Uhm, actually, I was simply thinking more along the lines of it being her great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grand relative of some kind. No “witch” allusion intended.

RAbanes

10   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
June 19th, 2008 at 5:24 pm

Right whatever.

11   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
June 19th, 2008 at 5:25 pm

As I said, it could have been either witch or heart healthy cereal…

12   amy    
June 19th, 2008 at 5:29 pm

Tim,
One article (Shootin’ the Bird) gets closed down, after some nasty comments (called “silly” of course) as well as some “legalistic” comments (called “legalistic” of course.)

Here we go again. Is cussing some kind of idol to you? You seem to be doing whatever you can to push it.
I’ve heard Luther made some really bad comments about Jews as well. Do you follow his example in that as well? Use him as an excuse every time you want to make a racially-biased comment?

13   John Hughes    
June 19th, 2008 at 5:32 pm

Yes, but Calvin was so saintly he did not have to c*ap like the rest of us so you’ve lost your whole argument with him.

But Tim, it was the tone and unadulterated vitriol of the lyrics that offended me, not the crass words themselves.

14   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
June 19th, 2008 at 5:33 pm

amy,
You missed the point entirely. Again.

15   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
June 19th, 2008 at 5:34 pm

But Tim, it was the tone and unadulterated vitriol of the lyrics that offended me, not the crass words themselves.

John,
I assure, you I didn’t offer it with vitriol of any kind. Nor did the original write it that way.

16   John Hughes    
June 19th, 2008 at 5:34 pm

RA’s imaginary Schuleter: “It does not comport with the Scripture’s requirements for conduct in the office of the ministry.”

I agree. It does not.

17   nc    
June 19th, 2008 at 5:43 pm

round and round the judgement bush
the ODM chased the people
they thought it was all for God, but
Pop! Goes the people.

again.

18   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
June 19th, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Tim,
You stop beating Mandy yet?

19   John Hughes    
June 19th, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Tim: I assure, you I didn’t offer it with vitriol of any kind. Nor did the original write it that way.

O-tay. Sorry. Must have read the wrong lyrics.

20   nc    
June 19th, 2008 at 5:45 pm

For the sake of consistency, then people ought to not just point to the behavior of Luther, they should jump to the broad proclamation that he is a “pastor”, a hireling, etc. etc. etc. etc.

I mean if it applies today in the 21st. c. then it surely was the case back then.

Timeless, absolute Truth and all….

21   John Hughes    
June 19th, 2008 at 5:45 pm

NC: round and round the judgement bush

Oy yeah, ** those ** lyrics were not judgemental. Way to set the example guys.

22   John Hughes    
June 19th, 2008 at 5:48 pm

I mean if it applies today in the 21st. c. then it surely was the case back then.

I agree. Luther could be a jerk in his private life. I probably not have sat under him for that reason. Hey, did any contemporaries ever call Luthor on it?

23   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
June 19th, 2008 at 5:49 pm

I believe the term we’re looking for is prurient pastor

24   nc    
June 19th, 2008 at 5:54 pm

John,

Actually, I’m expressing my exhaustion with this particularly tedious go around on “language”…again and again and again.

Is there a part of the humorous revamp of a nursery song that does not reflect reality? Is that being judgemental?

I could give it another whirl and make it judgemental, but it wouldn’t fit the pithy song format. Aesthetics still matter….(I’m smirking)

Here’s reality:

We go around and around on this issue, the ODM’s have clearly stated they are doing it for God, and all these dead-end convos do is stir up caca–thus, the Pop!

Any questions?
great.

25   John Hughes    
June 19th, 2008 at 5:55 pm

Did any of his contemporaries ever call Luthor on it? Ahh, yes they did:

“However outrageous to Christian feeling and abhorrent to Christian principle was his habitual filthy talk, it is far surpassed in vileness and obscenity when he treats of womanhood, a fertile theme for his dirty tongue and pen. On this subject he was quite at his ease and allowed himself singular license. In the Colloquia no fewer than a hundred pages are devoted to the fair sex. In this work he surpasses himself in vulgarity and shows his brutality in indecent references to women. No one could quote him in this respect without the blood rushing to his head. His warmest biographers are ashamed of his vulgar and unmanly references to women. The filthy expressions he recorded in his books were so habitual with him that he even used them in his own home before his companion and the children. “Certainly,” Fr. Johnston says, “no Protestant woman can read them without – I will not say utter shame and womanly horror – but without indignation that any man, above all a spiritual leader and cleric at that, could speak of her sex with such ordinary common familiarity and courseness and vulgarity and downright obscenity; that could joke at her sex in its most sacred and venerable moral and physical aspects, taking a stable boy’s unclean delight at rude witticisms over poor woman’s physical differentiation from man; that could make her very body the inspiration of jokes – all evincing a cynical and vulgar contempt for woman as such; that could even have the vulgarity to lift the covers of the nuptial bed and disclose its sacred secrets to the gaze of others. Had any Catholic writer dared to utter a fraction of what Luther thus wrote and said, he would be an eternal and shameful reproach to the Church he so unworthily represented.”

To give any idea, even the faintest, of this man’s filthy and loathsome language would be impossible unless one is willing to descend into the gutter and wade in obscenity. The original sources are extant, and anyone who wishes to consult them may do so if he is prepared for the shock of his life. Then he will discover that EVEN THE BULLINGERS AND ZWINGLIS OF HIS OWN TIME were weak indeed in their description of Luther’s language when they upbraided him for its “doggishness, dirtiness and lasciviousness.”

26   nc    
June 19th, 2008 at 6:07 pm

Ah, yes. But then again, that’s an RCC guy attacking Luther. His position is born of the idolatry of Mary and it’s oppressive views on women.

We know we can’t take anything from the apostate whore of babylon.

I mean, that critic wasn’t even a Christian.

(You’ve GOT to know I’m joking around.)

27   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
June 19th, 2008 at 6:32 pm

Hey, did any contemporaries ever call Luthor on it?

I think superman did once or twice, but General Zod didn’t seemed bothered by it in the least.

;)

28   nc    
June 19th, 2008 at 6:35 pm

That potty mouthed Lex! An evil genius with an evil mouth.

tsk. tsk.

General Zod was cool though. He didn’t have to cuss.
He just lasered you to death with heat beams from his eyes.

29   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
June 19th, 2008 at 7:16 pm

Tim,

It must just be a Restoration Movement thing. One of my profs in college made some mocking comments in class one time, I think after we read The Frogs by Aristophanes, about people who don’t think farts are funny having no sense of humor, and being sticks in the mud. And it was the same thing when we read Luther by John Osborn. We also had to read Of Mice and Men which contained considerable, uh, offensive language and a guy with a glove full of vaseline. All this at a Bible College mind you; a Restoration Movement Bible College!!! At the time, I was a prude thinking out loud to the dean of students, “Why are we reading a book with such language?” I’m embarassed now that I just didn’t get it then.

For my money, I’ll take a good f**t joke over a half hour of theology any day of the week. Then again, I have three sons. You ever try to go a minute or two around three boys without one?

“I once knew a poster named Amy,
She wrote loudly so that all could hear.
She spoke her piece, we all had a laugh,
She continued to bore us to tears.”

“I once knew a poster named Amy,
Luther’s fart jokes got her all out of joint.
So she posted replies, from somewhere on Mars, titled,
Adventures in missing the point.”

Amy, I don’t know you, but I love you with much Jesus love and affection. I do hope you have some sense of humor.

Aloha!

jerry

30   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
June 19th, 2008 at 8:21 pm

Jerry,
That’s hilarious, I had a prof that enjoyed talking about Luther’s quirks.

31   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
June 19th, 2008 at 8:30 pm

I’m proud to say that I own a remote controlled maching that changes the quailty and the sound many times……I’ve had a LOT of fun with that thing!!

Childish I know….but who cares!!

32   mandy    
June 19th, 2008 at 8:53 pm

Here we go again. Is cussing some kind of idol to you? You seem to be doing whatever you can to push it.

amy,
are we reading the same piece? I don’t see it being about cussing. and cussing is not an “idol” to us as you would suggest. we hardly ever cuss, (we do have a one year old who likes to repeat sounds) we just don’t have a problem with those who choose to express themselves in that way.

sorry to everyone (PB) who thinks I just comment here to defend my husband.

carry on.

33   andy    
June 19th, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Rick,
Believe me, this post wasn’t for you, you are entirely consistent

But it was made to get a rise out of someone then??

Is this really the spirit of this blog??

34   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
June 19th, 2008 at 9:14 pm

But it was made to get a rise out of someone then??

It was written for the same purpose as most satire is written.

35   andy    
June 19th, 2008 at 9:41 pm

Well you wrote it so you should know i guess,but to me it just seems to want to add to the friction.

36   merry    
June 19th, 2008 at 10:10 pm

Such a loving, Christian environment around here.

Um guys, a lot of people don’t think those kinds of jokes are funny. Everyone is different, and that’s all right I personally don’t find it funny at all, and I assure you I have a wonderful sense of humor. ;) And I’m sure Amy does, as well. I just have to say I didn’t find the poem about her particularly amusing, and I’m fairly certain the kind of loving Jesus displayed did not involve making up ridiculous limmericks about people.

I know that if I saw something like that posted about me I probably would not appreciate it, and I doubt Amy would, either. Trust me, it’s a female thing. Huge differences between male and female humor, if you weren’t aware. You guys all have wonderful senses of humor, but please, let’s keep this mature. I’m not particularly impressed with the jokes about Ingrid, either. Just a friendly thought. Thanks.

37   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 19th, 2008 at 10:11 pm

Andy,

“add to the friction.”

My friend you know Tim would never do that. ;-)

38   andy    
June 19th, 2008 at 10:24 pm

Its just a personal observation and what do i know anyhow,but to me theres seem’s a shift in some of the threads and some of the comments..

There just seems to be more snide remark to people,for instance your “Again” to Amy just didn’t seem needed (i’m aware thats a two way street)..

It just seems easier to get a consenting nod for an irreverent comment ,then it is to get a graceful reply to a comment from an opposite view, like Amy’s was

39   andy    
June 19th, 2008 at 10:29 pm

I think ur out of line Jerry,and just because you say i love you in Jesus afterwards doesn’t really make it fly..

40   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 19th, 2008 at 10:38 pm

Agreed, Andy – my reasons for shutting down the other thread were the degenerating limerick meme, which had become personal and degrading, and the circular argument going on that had nothing to do with the OP.

41   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
June 19th, 2008 at 10:54 pm

Personally this is the stuff that makes Luther interesting. He was not agreeable on many things. He was crude and even lewd, the once again revisionists like Steve Camp, Ken Silva, Ingrid and so on twist the historical Christianity on its ear and make up things in their place.

Ken ignores that Calvin and Luther were heavily influenced by the Christian Mystics and that from them the very doctrines of Grace were kept and retrieved by Luther and Calvin.

The ODM are the liberal revisionist relativists and they mock themselves every time they speak against others as being what they are themselves.

I have asked questions that they refuse to give answer to because if they do, they would have to face their own sin and be honest about it… and that is not in their repertoire.

iggy

42   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 20th, 2008 at 4:04 am

It makes absolutely no difference what anyone did or did not do. Luther, Calvin, Moody, Finney, Graham, Frueh, or anyone else does not detract or substantiate Scripture.

43   jazzact13    http://jazzact13.blogspot.com/
June 20th, 2008 at 7:06 am

Still waiting for Tim to show us where Luther said he hoped his daughter would get ‘knocked up’ so he wouldn’t be tempted to boast about her righteousness.

–I’d rather see my teenage daughter knocked up
- – than boast in her righteousness.–

–I’d rather be damn near anything
- – than be a legalist.–

youbecomewhatyouhate

44   jazzact13    http://jazzact13.blogspot.com/
June 20th, 2008 at 7:13 am

On a better note, my thanks to andy and Chris for their responses to JH’s poem directed at Amy.

45   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 20th, 2008 at 7:14 am

In retrospect, and as I have ingested the thread, I have increasingly become uncomfortable with the core question. Not the question of coarse language, but the title of the post which was taken I believe from SOL.

It is one thing to discuss and dialogue about the language issue, but I now find it wrong to discuss the validity of the office of pastor esepcially as it has pertains to Tim Reed. That I think was a wrong ingredient from the beginning.

Tim is an ordained pastor, and although he and I come from different perspectives, his office and calling should never be a subject of some blog thread. It is a sacred calling that should only be discussed by those he is accountable to.

This kind of personal post, even when satire against the SOL post, gives the wrong impression that everyone has a say in a pastor’s calling from God. I can confront Tim on things, but I would never question his anointing as a pastor, that has not been given to me by God.

I am sure Tim ministers in many good ways to his flock and I find it offensive to publicly toss around his calling as if we all were part of some authoritative forum designed to pass judgment on what God has called him to.

I am sorry, Tim and Mandy, for commenting on this thread. I believe I have sinned by participating in a thread that even gives the appearance that we have a say in your calling as a pastor.

You are not perfect and I do not believe in some things as do you, but I do not want to carelessly and unbiblically step into a role that I have not been called to and one that can wound your ministry and your sheep. Again, I think everyone should reconsider participating in a post that says Pastor? when we have no spiritual authority to make that judgment.

Tim may be rugged around the edges but I still see no Scriptural reason for him not being a pastor, and indeed none of us have been called of God to pass that judgment.

It is precisely that kind of thing that I vehemently take issue with when obscure blogs, most not run by pastors, and almost all not familiar with Tim personally or his church, post something that calls into question that which the Holy Spirit has separated him to. It is unbiblical at its core.

46   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
June 20th, 2008 at 7:26 am

Andy,

I agree. I should not have written limmericks picking on people or pointing out the true nature of their comments. (Although, I have not written about anything other than what I have read at this blog, in this thread, or that thread that was shut down.) My intent was to lighten the mood because, as Chris said, the argument had become circular and was getting nowhere at all. I enjoy levity and wit. You are wrong to question whether or not I actually do love someone. You have no ability to judge whether or not my intent is sincere. The love I expressed to Amy was sincere because she has been taking quite a ‘beating’ here. I was trying to make her laugh a little.

However, I agree with ‘merry’ (that’s ironic). I should not have written limmericks poking fun. Jesus, as you rightly pointed out, would not have used limmericks either and I should have just modeled my comments after his. After all, I think we can be fairly certain that Jesus never laughed, never had a sense of humor, and probably never dabbled in the ancient art of Hebrew poetry. For example, there is certainly nothing absurd about a camel going through the eye of a needle. And, as we were warned the other day by another good friend, there is no place for Dr Seuss or his clones in church. (Nor Faux Sumo Wrestling either!)

31″To what, then, can I compare the people of this generation? What are they like? 32They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to each other:
” ‘We played the flute for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
and you did not cry.’ 33For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.” ‘ 35But wisdom is proved right by all her children.”

or,

42″Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.

43″Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces.

44″Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which men walk over without knowing it.”

45One of the experts in the law answered him, “Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also.”

46Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

47″Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your forefathers who killed them. 48So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. 49Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’ 50Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

52″Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”

53When Jesus left there, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law began to oppose him fiercely and to besiege him with questions, 54waiting to catch him in something he might say.

There are plenty more. I do recall reading something somewhere about people who cannot laugh at themselves. (Recall one of my limmericks was also about some loser named dangoldfish. I also wrote one about Jesus.)

I’ll work harder to keep my comments and criticisms of the strict, paragraph type. I won’t use fun means of commenting like haiku, limmerick, or song. I still to straight forward didactic, profoundly exegetical, professional, paragraph, high-christological, high-church, olde English so as not to offend anyone here who thinks there is only one way to communicate in the English language. Creativity be da****!! (Oops, sorry another offensive word.)

Amy, I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. I was sincerely attempting only to lighten thigns up a little. Obviously, it did not work.

Sheesh!

“I once new a poster named Jerry,
He was slammed by Andy and Merry.
So he packed up his toys, went on his way,
And scratching his head, said, “Have a g’day!”

(I have another version that I’ll be happy to share with anyone in private. I can’t post it hhere because all of a sudden there are rules.)

jerry

47   Neil    
June 20th, 2008 at 8:08 am

…One article (Shootin’ the Bird) gets closed down, after some nasty comments (called “silly” of course) as well as some “legalistic” comments (called “legalistic” of course.) – Amy

Amy, at the end of that thread some comments were made that I thought were in bad taste… although I’m not sure I understood them. I, as a contributor to this site (we do not have moderators as such) chimed in to point out the inappropriateness of the comments.

This is exactly what you lamented that we do not do… yet when I did you respond with this…

Shall we “ban” or “remove” posts to make you happy?

Neil

48   Neil    
June 20th, 2008 at 8:47 am

Amy, I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. I was sincerely attempting only to lighten thigns up a little. Obviously, it did not work.

Sheesh!…

(I have another version that I’ll be happy to share with anyone in private. I can’t post it hhere because all of a sudden there are rules.)

Jerry,

An apology followed by a “Sheesh” is self-defeating.

As for sudden rules; while we do not “moderate” comments like some sites, we do try and maintain standards that are both biblical and serve to differentiate us from ODM’s – one such standard is sticking to the topics and not making personal attacks.

As a contributor (not a moderator) I would say your limerick was out of line. Of course you are welcome to comment and I hope you continue to do… I also hope you see where your humor, regardless of it’s intent, crossed that line.

Neil

49   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
June 20th, 2008 at 8:47 am

Now I am just shocked. Where is the amen chorus from the ODMs? Why hasn’t Luther’s ministry started to be referred to as Luther’s “ministry”? Where is the hand wringing about Luther being in hell as we speak? And why hasn’t there been blanket condemnation issued against all those who have endorsed this man’s “ministry”?

Oh right, team politics, yet again.

On a sidenote the irony that ODMs have so totally endorsed a man they would today condemn is delightful, and of course the double irony that Luther would have said similar things about probably 80-90% of them that he said about the Pope, based on their theology is doubly delightful.

50   Eric Van Dyken    
June 20th, 2008 at 8:56 am

Jerrry,

Nice non-apology. It takes a big man to say “I’m sorry you chose to be offended by my humor”. After all, anything labelled humor, satire, art, hyperbole, etc. seems to get a free pass, especially if the person didn’t “intend” to hurt anyone. It is a shame that you can’t see that directing personal and unedifying barbs at people is not necessarily negated by saying “I’m joking” and “I love you”.

51   Eric Van Dyken    
June 20th, 2008 at 8:57 am

Sorry about the 3 r’s in Jerry. Typo.

52   andy    
June 20th, 2008 at 9:04 am

I didnt realise there were rules Jerry, other then seeking mercy from within ;-)

I think we can be fairly certain that Jesus never laughed, never had a sense of humor,

And of course it goes without saying that because i disagree with your limerick,i dont think Jesus laughed,sheesh indeed..

53   Eric Van Dyken    
June 20th, 2008 at 9:06 am

Tim,

Has an ODM stated that you are going to be in hell?

Has an ODM pronounced blanket condemnation (you do know what the word means, I hope) against all those who have endorsed your ministry?

Of course, your no stranger to team politics.

Can you point out where ODMs totally endorse Luther?

It’s nice that you can know what Luther would have said about 80-90 percent of ODMs. How exactly did you arrive at that number?

Me thinks thou dost protest too much. Convicted perhaps????

54   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
June 20th, 2008 at 9:11 am

Eric,

Has an ODM stated that you are going to be in hell?

Oh, he wasn’t honest enough to put it that blatantly, but my salvation is questioned on a daily basis.

Has an ODM pronounced blanket condemnation (you do know what the word means, I hope) against all those who have endorsed your ministry?

On mine? No. But considering that a footnote gets you into hell from ODMs its a fair statement to make.

Can you point out where ODMs totally endorse Luther?

See the above statement about footnotes. When Rob Bell, or whoever is their target of the week footnotes a single sentence from someone it is taken as a blanket endorsement of everything. Applying their same standard to themselves brings us to this conclusion.

It’s nice that you can know what Luther would have said about 80-90 percent of ODMs. How exactly did you arrive at that number?

Once you start with the general views of ODMs on baptism (including infant baptism) and sacraments you’re already at 80-90%, so I was being fairly generous by not going much deeper than those two issues.

Me thinks thou dost protest too much. Convicted perhaps????

Funny, I thought the same thing about pastorboy, amy, Ingrid and the anonymous coward known only as editor in their response to my condemnation of the sin of legalism.

55   Neil    
June 20th, 2008 at 9:13 am

There just seems to be more snide remark to people,for instance your “Again” to Amy just didn’t seem needed (i’m aware thats a two way street)..

It just seems easier to get a consenting nod for an irreverent comment ,then it is to get a graceful reply to a comment from an opposite view, like Amy’s was – Andy

I agree. This happens from time to time when a particular topic starts to gain momentum and take on a life of it’s own… when it does Chris or someone steps in and reminds everyone why this site exists.

56   Joe C    
June 20th, 2008 at 9:18 am

Eric…

Yeah. They said he was doomed. And that he needed to come to Jesus. Oh and that the people pastored by him are destroyed because of him. And since we’re friends with Tim…..you get the idea. It was on the main page of CRN, and link-ho’ed by many others. Do you really think they wouldn’t do all this? That is their ministry, to condemn others…=(. This whole post was a satire piece on what one website wrote about Tim.

And as for Luther and their endorsement of him…

Any of their website will prove the veracity of that. In fact, many of Ken Silva’s comments here will prove that.

Respect,

Joe

57   Eric Van Dyken    
June 20th, 2008 at 9:32 am

Tim and Joe,

Thanks for confirming again that this site is no different than the sites that it condemns every day (the mission here is every bit as much about condemnation). The only real difference is the presuppositions. I love your logic on total endorsment of Luther…and this site pretends to be above logical fallacies! Too good. Apparently it is too hard to admit when things are overstated, twisted, or judgmental (by the Biblical standard of judgment applied to another that one is not willing to apply to oneself). That is only a fault of the ODMs and never could be done here.

58   amy    
June 20th, 2008 at 9:40 am

(Neil)
No, you shouldn’t ban posts to make me happy. Usually I actually would rather see what people are really like than have their messages banned.

The problem is all the implications that this site, as opposed to the ODM’s, is full of grace and kindness. As Chris said some of those rhymes are degrading.

Jerry,
Any rhyme that mocks a person’s sincere attempt to address what they believe instead of trying to address the problem, especially when such rhymes are made by someone who considers themselves a Christian leader ( pastor?), seem totally out of place. Jerry, believe it or not the “beating” itself doesn’t bother me. It’s the utter hypocrisy of Tim’s putting words down and acting as if they are truth and then not insisting that he defend them.

There’s lots of poetry in the Bible. Don’t you believe it communicates truth? Don’t you ever exigete it, or read someone else’s exigesis? Why should the teaching that is in Tim’s poem simply be ignored? Because it rants against “legalists,” instead of, say, Christian church folks?

Jerry,there’s no mood that needs to be “lightened” around it. Tim’s poem WAS full of vitriol towards “legalists,” and it was full of twisted teaching. From my understanding of Tim, “legalist” by his definition would no doubt include many people I know and care about. I honestly believe that he would use the term legalist to define those who have a problem with cussing. The poem condemns legalist to hell.

What if the poem was talking about Christian church folks, and was posted by me? Wouldn’t you want me to explain myself? Just how funny do you think it would be if I started making rhymes about your “boring exigesis that no one wants to hear?” How humorous would you find that?

I acknowledge your apology but also acknowledge that part of your apology seemed to be a justification for what you did. I also acknowledge that it’s sad that you want to overlook the actual meaning/content/vitriol of Tim’s poem. Read further.

Tim and Jerry, Neil and Chris L,

I didn’t miss the point of this article. Articles have more than one point, don’t they? Part of what is happening here is that Tim is carrying on his defense that he had to start after post #99. He’s continuing to try to legitimize his own language, which includes his in your face putting up of #99.

I think the way Tim’s poem and the discussion following it is despicable. Can you imagine that posted with “Emergents” instead of legalists in it? And can you imagine all of the cries of “define emergents!” “the poem says emergents are going to hell!” “you said this was your position, but you won’t defend what it says.”

IF THAT DOESN”T WORK FOR YOU HAVE TIM TAKE OUT THE WORD LEGALIST AND PUT “GAYS.” And post it as a new article, with the words, “Let me reitterate my position” at the beginning. Then make sure that Tim and other writers give the gay community the same type of respect they have given me. Let him beat around explaining “what it means, why he posted it.” Make sure he also doesn’t make it clear as to whether he’s talking about all people with homosexual tendencies or those actively engaged in homosexuality. Let him refuse to answer that question. Let him explain that there is “no vitriol.” Let the pastors come out and scold and make fun of the gays for daring to exigete poems.

Let some of the writers of this site defend the poem and defend Tim as he treats the gays as if they are the one who has the problem. I dare you. See before your very eyes how some people actually take works of all genres, even poems, especially with “Reitterate my position” before them SERIOUSLY.

59   Joe C    
June 20th, 2008 at 9:52 am

Eric

No one here is questioning anyone’s salvation. Could the same be said for the ODMs? In fact, the reason this post exists is because they insult, degrade, condemn, and slander Tim, insinuating he is not Christian, or fit to be a pastor. This should not be.

Nor are we condemning anyone. We’re speaking out against what the ODMs have done to Tim, and others. This sites actions are consistent with the goals stated in the “who we are” tab. But just because the ODMs do this very wrong thing, no one here is saying they are not Christian. The same grace is not extended to us.

So, how exactly are we not different? Are you going to back this claim up?

The point we’re making with the ‘total endorsement of Luther’ is that they never call Luther’s salvation, pastoralship, and teachings in to question (or pretty much ANY Reformer) (find me an instance where ANY ODM does this publicly), but they always and constantly call people’s salvation, pastoralship etc in to question, like Bell, Warren, Tim Reed, and many many others, because of a statement similar to what Luther wrote above, or because Bell puts a ‘footnote’ to a ‘heretical’ author in his book (therefore Bell agrees with everything that person has ever said, presumably). The point is to illustrate that the Reformers get a free pass, while modern pastors they ‘don’t like’ get constantly slammed and slandered, except the Reformers do the same ‘wrong’ things that the modern guys do!

Double standard.

Do you get it now?

Joe

60   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
June 20th, 2008 at 9:55 am

Win the arguement loose the brother/sister.

Will somebody just say sorry and mean it so that we can move on please.

61   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 20th, 2008 at 9:58 am

Eric,

Thanks for confirming again that this site is no different than the sites that it condemns every day (the mission here is every bit as much about condemnation).

I would refer you again to this:

(see here for interpretation of you don’t pick up the connection being made)

I love your logic on total endorsment of Luther

It is applying the basic ‘logic’ of online ‘discernment’ ministries to one of their own heroes, rather than one of their targets. So if you can spot the logic hole when applied in one direction, why not spot it in the other???

62   Joe C    
June 20th, 2008 at 10:00 am

Amy, I’m sorry you were hurt, but let’s be real here, you give just as much of a beating as anyone else does, no sense hiding it, your comments are everywhere just as mine are (though I don’t think we’ve really slammed each other, which is good, let’s not, but we’ve done it to others). So let’s each deal with our own sins first before dealing with others’.

The other point that needs to be made is…

Legalists are going to go to hell. Anyone disagree?

Good.

Wow that was easy…lol.

Putting “church folk” or “gays” in there would be comparing apples to oranges, and you know it.

Besides, the nuance of the poem (NOT WRITTEN BY TIM, don’t forget!), is not about one sin being worse than others, or any of the other ideas people are freaking out about, it’s explaining what Jesus said here (don’t ignore this):

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.

Matt 21:31-32

Simple. And this point shouldn’t be ignored in favor of the other theories spinning around out there about the author’s intent.

Joe

63   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
June 20th, 2008 at 10:03 am

What if the poem was talking about Christian church folks, and was posted by me? Wouldn’t you want me to explain myself?

amy,
I’ve explained myself several times. Just because you don’t like my explanation doesn’t mean one wasn’t given.

From my understanding of Tim

Clearly you don’t understand me.

64   amy    
June 20th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Me thinks thou dost protest too much. Convicted perhaps????

Funny, I thought the same thing about pastorboy, amy, Ingrid and the anonymous coward known only as editor in their response to my condemnation of the sin of legalism.

I don’t believe I would ever be convicted by your definition of legalism, because I think it’s a broad term that you use to describe people who have convictions about things that you don’t have convictions about. People who could never get some of the words you use out of their mouths because those words don’t reside in their hearts; people who wouldn’t want to have a group singing in their church who starts off their video with “Let’s Worship Satan;” people who see something wrong with songs that talk about delighting at the violence that’s happened to a female corpse. If the above is the type of “legalism” that you had in mind when you copied the poem, then I suggest that you need to replace the word legalim with “People who think differently than me.”
And if that’s the case the poem itself condemns you, because such thinking demonstrates your own self-righteousness.

Somehow I think you lump people who think the above kinds of things are displeasing to Christ with people such as “non-instrumentalist Church of Christ,” people, some of who do believe, (correct me if I’m wrong) that people are going to hell if they use instruments in church.

The only legalism that is a “damnable heresy” as you put it is the one of believing that a person can by their own merits achieve the righteousness that only comes through the blood of the lamb. I don’t believe that Ingrid or any editor at CRN believes they are going to heaven by their own self-righteousness instead of through the blood of Jesus Christ.

Wanting to be obedient to Christ is not legalism. An example: God never stated to me “You must go to Country A in order to obtain your righteousness.” I want to go (though often DON”T)want to go, but know I can in God’s power) because of the overwhelming love and compassion that God has towards the people who lives there, and because I believe He wants me there. I WANT to avoid anything that changes the holiness of sexuality to something degrading because to do otherwise makes me cringe – is that legalism, or is it simply God’s spirit helping me to be obedient to God’s word?

65   Neil    
June 20th, 2008 at 10:07 am

Amy,

This site has expressed it’s opinion that certain posts were not appropriate. We have asked that the tone of those comments stop… and they have.

I am sorry that our defense of you and our attempts to keep the tone civil have not be sufficient for you.

Neil

66   Joe C    
June 20th, 2008 at 10:08 am

I don’t believe that Ingrid or any editor at CRN believes they are going to heaven by their own self-righteousness instead of through the blood of Jesus Christ.

No one was saying this, or saying that Ingrid is doomed from legalism. A lot of her approaches to things ARE legalism, it’s hard not to notice it, but no one here is saying she’s trusting in her own righteous acts to obtain eternal life. Who is saying that???

67   Neil    
June 20th, 2008 at 10:11 am

Tim and Jerry, Neil and Chris L,

I didn’t miss the point of this article. Articles have more than one point, don’t they? Part of what is happening here is that Tim is carrying on his defense that he had to start after post #99. He’s continuing to try to legitimize his own language, which includes his in your face putting up of #99… – Amy

Amy,

Just for the record, I have purposfully not commented on Tim’s previous post #99… much less defended it.

Actually, I have done more defending of you since that post than defending it.

Neil

68   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 20th, 2008 at 10:12 am

Legalist: Someone who elevates personal convictions to the level of moral absolutes for everyone else to follow.

Simple definition.

Hedonist: Someone who lowers moral absolutes to personal preference

Simple definition.

No words are ontologically evil, or declared so within Scripture. The idea of “dirty words” came about 1500-1600 years after the Bible was written. Therefore, by definition, the use of specific words cannot be anything more than personal conviction. Elevating the use of specific words – by someone else – to a moral absolute is, by definition, legalism.

Natch.

69   amy    
June 20th, 2008 at 10:12 am

Joe C,
Okay, in the last thread w/ #99 someone (Chris or Phil) I believe said that Ingrid is a legalist. So is she going to hell?

Take a walk through this site and see how many folks have been called legalists. You’ll probably find my name there.

You’re trying to make something simple that isn’t simple at all. The word legalist is thrown around here a lot. I did my best to get Tim to define it in the other thread. He never answered that question.

Why is it alright for you and others to analyze the poem’s nuance, but noone wants to look at what it actually says? At what point does it become a “genre” that shouldn’t be “exigeted?” When I touch it? When John (Pastorboy) touches it?

70   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
June 20th, 2008 at 10:14 am

I didn’t miss the point of this article. Articles have more than one point, don’t they? Part of what is happening here is that Tim is carrying on his defense that he had to start after post #99. He’s continuing to try to legitimize his own language, which includes his in your face putting up of #99… – Amy

Oh, and the point of this article has nothing to do with language and everything to do with ODM methodology.

That’s another explanation from me, about what I wrote. If you’re in doubt about what the point of this article is, and are concerned about truth, please refer to it in the future.

71   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
June 20th, 2008 at 10:17 am

amy,
There are many legalists that will be in eternity with God, just as there are many liars who will be in eternity with God. There will be many more legalists who will not be spending eternity with God, just as there are many more liars who will not be spending eternity with God. Sin doesn’t conquer the work of Christ, the work of Christ conquers sin.

No matter how much twisting of my words you try to do I am not condemning Ingrid or pastorboy to hell (on the other hand, they do exactly that to me).

I’ve told you over and over again on these two threads that I’ve never said or thought that ODMs are hellbound, I’m re-iterating it again. Any further claims by you to that effect are lies.

72   Joe C    
June 20th, 2008 at 10:18 am

Amy,

There’s legalism, and a legalist. Every Christian falls in to legalism at some point, every single one. Chris defined it well above, the ODMS do it a lot, but no one is saying they’re trusting in their works for salvation. But the Galatian-heresy legalist, those trusting in the law, or their flesh to save them, will most definitely be seperated from God. Sept…I’m not God, so I am not going to condemn anyone, instead, I’ll give them the Gospel of Christ.

Make sense?

73   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 20th, 2008 at 10:35 am

“If you’re in doubt about what the point of this article is, and are concerned about truth, please refer to it in the future.”

The point was that if held to the same standard Luther and others would not qualify as pastors. That was my point, why wasn’t there an outcry as to how the coarse language issue was used to attack Tim’s calling? This happens so often in these discussions, one issue is leveraged to parlay it into something that climbs to a whole new level.

That is why the title Pastor? is incredible since it supposes some authority about God’s calling in Tim Reed’s life. How can that leap of judgment go unchallenged?

That is the issue to me. The poem is coarse and innappropriate, but I cannot overlook it when others use it as an across the board indictment of God’s calling. And usually about comment 50 a normally intelligent person will realize that everyone has revealed their opinion about the language issue and after that “in the abundance of words there is sin”.

Tim is a pastor.

Some disgree with the poem thing.

Let’s do lunch. (no alcohol!) :)

74   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
June 20th, 2008 at 10:36 am

Let’s do lunch. (no alcohol!) :)

Legalist!*

_________________________

*This should in no way be taken as an endorsement or denial of Rick Freuh’s status before God.

75   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 20th, 2008 at 10:38 am

What would you call a believer who doesn’t ever drink alcohol, who doesn’t believe it is a sin in and of itself, but would rather not know who does because he may struggle with a little judgment?

A minor league legalist? :)

76   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
June 20th, 2008 at 10:39 am

A nice Baptist.

77   amy    
June 20th, 2008 at 10:41 am

Legalist: Someone who elevates personal convictions to the level of moral absolutes for everyone else to follow.

(Chris)

Sounds a lot like the Roman Catholic church than anything else.

No doubt you think that it sounds like Slice. I see this site as adamant about moral absolutes as them. “That dance WAS NOT wrong.” “There is nothing wrong with using those words, in that context. It’s wrong for anyone to have a problem with words and their use in a different way than I do.” “So and so is NOT a false teacher. ” “That word is “unwholesome talk;” THAT word is obscene.” “THAT issue is a dead horse. ” (None of the above are meant to be exact quotes, but representative of how you come across.)

Those who disagree with your own “moral absolutes” are seen as legalists, divisive, unloving.

Ingrid doesn’t “force” people to follow her moral convictions anymore than you do.

That’s quite different than the definition that legalists are folks who believe that their own self-righteousness is enough.

Or the definition that a legalist is what some folks call other folks who have different convictions than them.

So which definition is Tim going by? What definition is the author of the poem going by?

Which definition was Tim going by when he referred to the “damnable heresy of legalism?”

And which definition was whoever called Ingrid a legalist going by? What about all the other times this site has used the word legalist s?

Whichever definition he was going by, I assume that he, like Joe, and the author of the poem, believes that legalists are destined for hell. Are the people in your definition, “Someone who elevates personal convictions to the level of moral absolutes for everyone else to follow” going to hell?

No one was saying this, or saying that Ingrid is doomed from legalism. A lot of her approaches to things ARE legalism, it’s hard not to notice it, but no one here is saying she’s trusting in her own righteous acts to obtain eternal life. Who is saying that???

(Joe)

The person who called Ingrid a legalist called her that after the poem that demonstrated that legalists were destined for hell. Can you see why I wanted some clarification on definitions of legalism?

You’re using my definition, Chris has a different definition, I think Tim had a different definition in mind. Can you see why I wanted Tim to define legalism?

Imagine I write a poem that talks about Emergents gnawing their tongues, but Prostitutes walking right on in. Then Pastorboy says, a few comments down, “Bell is an emergent.”

Wouldn’t you want some clarification?

78   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 20th, 2008 at 10:42 am

What would you call a believer who doesn’t ever drink alcohol, who doesn’t believe it is a sin in and of itself, but would rather not know who does because he may struggle with a little judgment?

Chris Lyons

79   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
June 20th, 2008 at 10:43 am

Amy,
You’ve been given multiple explanations multiple times, just because you don’t like those explanations because you can’t twist them into an attack doesn’t mean they haven’t been given.

80   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 20th, 2008 at 10:45 am

What would you call a believer who doesn’t ever drink alcohol use certain words, who doesn’t believe it is a sin in and of itself, but would rather not know who does because he may struggle with a little judgment?

Chris Lyons, as well…

81   amy    
June 20th, 2008 at 10:48 am

Tim,
Show me where you have defined legalism.
Let me know who you now and have previously called legalists.
Tell me who the poem is destining to hell.

82   Jose    
June 20th, 2008 at 10:48 am

I agree with Rick in Tim beign called into question his Pastorship.
No one has the right to judge on why God has called Tim into ministry ( Pastor )
I will call into question he’s theology, methodology or use of foul language.
But not his CALLING.
Shame on PB and Editor for their judgemental behavior.

83   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 20th, 2008 at 10:49 am

What would you call a believer who doesn’t ever use certain words, who believes it is a sin, but would rather not know who does because he may struggle with a little judgment?

Rick Frueh

84   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 20th, 2008 at 10:55 am

“You’ve been given multiple explanations multiple times, just because you don’t like those explanations because you can’t twist them into an attack doesn’t mean they haven’t been given.”

Well, isn’t that odd. I would reckon that this is how Amy feels about some of the writers here at CRN.Info.

85   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
June 20th, 2008 at 10:57 am

Show me where you have defined legalism.
Let me know who you now and have previously called legalists.
Tell me who the poem is destining to hell.

Amy,
I explained over and over again (and now yet again) that the point of posting that is I’d rather be with people who are deeply enmeshed in terrible sin and know it than with people who don’t have any sense of their own sin.

Again your assertions that I believe any ODM is headed to hell is a lie.

86   Neil    
June 20th, 2008 at 10:59 am

Amy,

I didn’t take the tongue chewing line in the poem to mean “Hell.” Maybe someone who knows better can tell us what the point of that line was/is.

I think it has been made clear by Tim that he did not intend to say that any ODM in particular was Hellbound.

Neil

87   Neil    
June 20th, 2008 at 11:00 am

I explained over and over again (and now yet again) that the point of posting that is I’d rather be with people who are deeply enmeshed in terrible sin and know it than with people who don’t have any sense of their own sin.

This should suffice and settle the question… no more discussing is necessary unless it relates directly to this preference of Tim’s.

88   Neil    
June 20th, 2008 at 11:03 am

Well, isn’t that odd. I would reckon that this is how Amy feels about some of the writers here at CRN.Info. – Ken

I suppose it’s possible, but I have yet to see anyone here edit someone elses words so as to change the meaning of what they said so as to attack it.

Neil

(Did you notice I said some good thing about you?)

89   merry    
June 20th, 2008 at 11:24 am

Jerry Hillyer,

Whoa, whoa, whoa, calm down, dude! You completely missed the point of my comment. There are several different kinds of humor. Jesus had a hilarious sense of humor; it’s quite evident. But not the kind that came across as making fun of people. Go back and read my comment carefully. I wrote it because I care about people, even if I don’t agree with them, and I don’t like to see people getting their feelings hurt, is all. There was no need for the sarcastic and defensive response. I did not mean to hurt you at all.

BTW, excuse me for going by my first name. I think, once you’re done being offfended by my remarks, that it really does fit my personality! LOL!

Wow . . . I’d forgotten there was a reason why I quit coming to this site.

90   andy    
June 20th, 2008 at 11:37 am

Wow . . . I’d forgotten there was a reason why I quit coming to this site.

lol you have a point Merry thks for the out,think are join you ;-) bye all

91   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
June 20th, 2008 at 11:45 am

Wow . . . I’d forgotten there was a reason why I quit coming to this site.

Merry…that’s not nice! Plus, I’ve missed you and your words here.

I don’t like the ODMs sites anymore but I still visit them to see what’s up, plus, sometimes they have devotionals which are good, instead of ‘discernment’ articles.

You seem to have done the same with this site. Welcome back! And goodbye again I suppose? LOL =)

92   merry    
June 20th, 2008 at 11:49 am

Whatever happened to this? Can this please start applying to comments as well?

A gentle answer turns away wrath, remember that. I’ve been so disappointed in the comments here lately. It seems to be getting less and less mature, and looks less and less like what God would have it as. I would like to challenge all the commenters here to consider thinking and even praying before they hit the ’submit’ button. I do not comment here to be mean to anyone or offend anyone, but because I really care. I know there will be people who comment just to stir things up or try to provoke others, and we need to set a good example and not respond to them on their level.

Is anyone willing to back me up on this? Am I the only one who is seeing this? Am I the only one who thinks 325 comments of ridiculous ‘discussion’ is going way too far? Anybody? I personally am sick of trying to keep peace and getting my head bitten off for it. A little humor is great, but what’s been going on here lately is going way too far.

93   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
June 20th, 2008 at 11:56 am

Merry, you’re right. I’ll stand w/ you on that, being guilty myself of continuing that conversation just as much as the next guy/gal. Stuff like that has got to stop. I think most of the contributors of this site would agree too. Good points of reason merry…

Joe

94   Neil    
June 20th, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Is anyone willing to back me up on this?

Merry, more than back you up, I think the recent posts by Chris L. and myself have addressed the issue.

Neil

95   merry    
June 20th, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Neil,

Yes, you have, and then the very next post the commenters are right back to the same foolishness as before. Would you be willing to write a post to all commenters directly?

I really believe something needs to change. Granted, I know one can’t control the things others say, but I really would think Christian commenters would be open to the idea? :)

96   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
June 20th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Always open.

97   Kyle in WI    
June 20th, 2008 at 12:26 pm

He was a gassy man, always on the pot. In fact they say that is where hi did his thinking.

98   Neil    
June 20th, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Merry,

Yes, you have, and then the very next post the commenters are right back to the same foolishness as before. Would you be willing to write a post to all commenters directly

I posted in direct response to the limerick on the other thread which Chris closed almost immediately after that.

Here I posted in direct response to Jerry’s limerick about Amy and the lame apology he offered. We’ll see if he comes back or takes his ball and goes home as he threatened.

I have also suggested that the issue of the poem (post 99) and the language of it has been settled and no further discussion is necessary.

Other than that I’m not sure what else I can do.

Neil

99   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 20th, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Neil,

“(Did you notice I said some good thing about you?)”

*picking myself up off the floor*

Yes, I did. And in the interest of being nice I’ll just tell you that I do believe you are sincere.

100   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
June 20th, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Friends,

I want to say two or three things at the most.

First, my limmericks were written with a sense of humor. How come no one has said anything about the one limmerick that was truly offensive which was written by, not me, but by break the terror #316? I joked about Ken, Ingrid, Amy, and myself. I also wrote about Jesus. I mean this sincerely for all who have questioned my salvation, calling, motives: I was trying to lighten the mood. That thread was so far off the subject of ‘flipping the bird’ it was absurd.

Amy, I’ll say this again. I don’t know you, but I love you. I am truly, sincerely, sorry if I hurt your feelings or embarassed you. That was not my intent at all and it will not happen again–ever. I ask your forgiveness.

Second, I come to this blog because it is a place of grace. It is a place where I have found that I can be myself with friends who won’t judge me or my motives. I think that in this thread, and the other, I have seen a real reversal of that. I am sorry that has happened. Everyone seems to be right on this subject except for the one who tried to do nothing more than, if you had paid attention, mock Tim’s poetry. And with all due respect, Amy, I am a pastor. The problem with your assessment of my calling is that you have no idea what goes into being a ‘pastor’. In other words, you don’t know me well enough to know whether or not I have lived up to my calling. And the same goes for Tim’s calling. That is the point of this thread. Luther is hailed even though full of a lot of issues and yet because we live now and say those things and not 1100 years ago everything about us is called into question. Like I have said before, it is easy to make those judgements from behind a microphone, a blog, or a website all under the guise of ‘research.’

Third, I have been trying to decide if my internet use is a valuable use of my time. I think the last two days have proven to me that it is not. I love this place. I love all who visit here–even Ken and Ingrid and Pastorboy with whom I disagree a lot, and sometimes agree–and I love the freedom of conversation and expression, the exchange of ideas, the variety of personalities, the friendship. I feel terrible about all this because I sincerely did not mean for my jokes to be taken as anything other than jokes. This place has been an oasis for me, a hiding place, a welcome place–sort of what I imagine the church to be on its good days.

Right now, however, I am sad. I am sad that the church is so full of anger and hatred that the only way those who are ministers of grace can get people’s attention is to write poems like Tim’s and the only way we can band together is when there are limmericks like mine that need to be hated on. What get’s me is that this is a reflection of the church.

Sorry for the long wind, but I am realizing today that all the idealism I had about the church a few years ago has been washed away but the idiocy of the internet, blogs, ODM sites, and ‘ministry.’

Amy, again, I am sorry that I hurt your feelings. I made a poor judgment and acted even worse. I do love you, that was no limmerick, metaphor or satire. That was sincere. Good luck everyone. God be praised.

jerry

101   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 20th, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Yes, you have, and then the very next post the commenters are right back to the same foolishness as before.

Just as an observation – I’m not sure exactly why it is, but it seems that historically the posts that deal with language (i.e. “dirty words”) have been the ones that have gotten the “most foolish” (to borrow your term).

I do find this rather odd-

On one hand, we have Tim, who posted the lyrics to the song from BHT last year. While I did not think it was a sinful thing to do (I’ve yet to have anyone show me a list of forbidden words in Scripture), I questioned its prudence.

As Joe and others have demonstrated, pretty much the whole thing was written in a way that:
1) Paraphrased Jesus’ and Paul’s words
2) Used blunt language to do so
3) Demonstrated legalism by eliciting the responses it did.

Was it necessary at that time, though? Probably not, as it completely derailed the context of the OP.

On the other hand, we (primarily) have Amy, who just won’t let a lot of things die and move on, and seems to be unable to extend or receive grace. In general, I have avoided answering her accusations and hypotheticals, always balancing Pr 26:4 and Pr 26:5, typically settling for the former. Many of the writers here seem to have taken this same tack, though I think in this particular case it was more difficult, as we were no longer discussing hypotheticals, but rather addressing direct, wild accusations.

As with each of us, there are certain others that bring out the worst in us, and others that bring out the best in us. I try to gravitate toward the latter and avoid the former, for good or ill. It is not necessarily all the fault of the other person, as often the fault lies within. With Amy, I find myself in the former camp, thus when I reply, I’ve already asked myself 10-20 times “should I really get into this”.

With Jerry’s limericks, they would have been completely fine had they been directed at me or Tim or Rick Frueh – as we frequently demonstrate the ability to give and take a joke, and it is usually obvious when we are doing so. It was more that limericks rang too close to true feeling and not just casual ribbing (you know – context) that made them ring hollow and inappropriate.

Interestingly, from a case study standpoint, some of the other threads are going on right now – with respectful dialog on topic and a good example of how to better disagree…

As for why the topic of language brings out the worst in some folks, I am at a loss. Perhaps it is a bit of legalism that is unwilling to say “you have the freedom to say any word, but it is almost always best not to say certain words – not because they are sinful, but because they needlessly offend,” and, perhaps, a bit of pride saying “I’m going to prove you’re legalistic by using such words”.

102   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
June 20th, 2008 at 12:49 pm

PS–

I also wrote this:

His grace is enough,
So let us draw near to Him.
Then we will make sense.

jerry

103   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 20th, 2008 at 12:50 pm

How come no one has said anything about the one limmerick that was truly offensive which was written by, not me, but by break the terror #316?

Jerry – I was only commenting on the one posted in this thread, as I didn’t want it to start up again. I shut down the other one without reading most of the ones posted there. I’d seen enough to shut it down…

104   Neil    
June 20th, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Jerry,

And since I called your previous apology lame, I will acknowledge that this one is nicely worded. Thanks, I hope Amy responds in kind.

As for the limerick in the other thread, I addressed it although, in hindsight, it may have not been strong enough.

Neil

105   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 20th, 2008 at 1:08 pm

The limricks were only in bad taste because, as Chris noted, they were not about someone who would not take offense.

As in the words of Miracle Max:

“I’ve seen worse”.

106   merry    
June 20th, 2008 at 1:12 pm

All right guys, thank you. I wasn’t trying to “hate” on anyone. I just didn’t want to see anyone hurt. Maybe you guys knew this, but I’m really just a confused teenager trying to figure out my beliefs and values. :) Christians have hurt and confused me with their anger and hatred for a long time now and I really believe it’s time for a change.

I may come back here, but I don’t know. I think I’ve had enough of blogworld for awhile. ;) Good-bye and God bless.

107   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
June 20th, 2008 at 1:14 pm

It is said that familiarity breeds contempt, but it also allows for loving jabs to be delivered and received because we know the one who is teasing us loves us.

In an open forum setting such as this one, I cannot see the twinkle in your eye, or the smile tugging at the corner of your mouth as you are typing.

So wisdom is required.

When it’s all said and done, we are still brothers and sisters. And our mutual faith in our Lord Jesus Christ overrides the stupid things I might say and hurt feelings.

I’m sticking to my conviction that love wins.

108   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
June 20th, 2008 at 1:15 pm

merry,
spread His joy.

shalom

109   Neil    
June 20th, 2008 at 1:23 pm

I may come back here, but I don’t know. I think I’ve had enough of blogworld for awhile. Good-bye and God bless.

It’s good to take a break when ya need one.

:)

Blessings

110   amy    
June 20th, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Tim’s position yesterday:

Legalists are going to gnaw their tongues forever
- – while the prostitutes come on in.
For Jesus loves all kinds of sinners,
- – though yes he tells them to stop
But Paul wishes that legalists would
- – cut their ____ right off.

If this isn’t a clear portrayal of Legalists in hell, and God loving everyone except legalists . . . ?

Would it seem clearer if we substituted “gays” or “emergents?”

Tim’s comment today:

No matter how much twisting of my words you try to do I am not condemning Ingrid or pastorboy to hell (on the other hand, they do exactly that to me).

I’ve told you over and over again on these two threads that I’ve never said or thought that ODMs are hellbound, I’m re-iterating it again. Any further claims by you to that effect are lies.

Tim,
Today is the first time that you made an attempt to define legalism. You did state previously that God decided who was in hell. But you also stated that the poem was “your position.”

I’m just not the kind of person that can see
1) Poem preceded by “Let me reinstate my position = NOT FACTUAL .
2) Lack of explanation about legalism for a whole day = “I’ve said it over and over.”
3) Seing a poem says one thing and trying to determine if the person actually believes what they’ve said they believe = TWISTING OF WORDS
3) Acknowledgement that only God decides who goes to hell accompanied by lack of apology for what the poem actually says = You should stop analyzing the poem that states my position. It’s all your fault for not getting it.
4) blockquote>There are many legalists that will be in eternity with God, just as there are many liars who will be in eternity with God. There will be many more legalists who will not be spending eternity with God, just as there are many more liars who will not be spending eternity with God. Sin doesn’t conquer the work of Christ, the work of Christ conquers sin. blockquote> This can be said a day after the poem that clearly condemns legalists to hell as if it’s fact? When what the poem has said has not been refuted by you, or apologized for? The poem contradicts what you’ve said. Don’t you have a problem with that? How can you state the poem as your position, when you really believe something else? How can you hold me and accountable for your own misleading statements?

Wouldn’t it just have been simpler to say, “I shouldn’t have copied that poem and stated that it “reitterated my position.” It says things I can’t defend and don’t really believe. As many have been called legalists on this site it is especially divisive.

Jerry,
Thanks for your apology.

Chris L you may have noticed that I didn’t even mention the language in the poem for a long, long time. The other teachings that it communicated are awful enough in and of themselves.

I’ve already been mocked by Chris (the other one) for saying that “Words mean something.” Let me suggest that one reason that words in the poem apparently haven’t had to mean something is because “legalists,” whatever your definition may be, are someone that you all feel free to bash. Another reason this poem was not to be taken as Tim’s beliefs (apparently, I’m still confused on that one), even though it was preceded by “let me reitterate my position” is because Tim, not an ODM, wrote it. A reason that he can take it and say “It means this” when it actually says much, much more, is because he is not an ODM and you are letting him get away with posting something he can’t defend.

I meant sincerely my suggestion to substitute the word “Gay” for legalists in this poem. Think about it without thinking “apples and oranges.” Think about why it’s okay to flip up a very vitriolic poem about legalists that you probably wouldn’t dare do about people who are gay. Not only because you might be afraid of the consequences but because you KNOW how unloving such a posting would be.

I know hundreds of people who have been called legalists by others. It’s a well-worn term that people use to describe those whose convictions are different than their own. It’s easy to add the additional “self-righteous” judgement onto the term whether or not the person is self-righteous. It’s so easy to have a hateful attitude towards those who are different than you.

Merry, thanks for being yourself.

111   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
June 20th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

boring.

112   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
June 20th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

dear amy,
can we take a break from this?

shalom

113   amy    
June 20th, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Nathaniel,
Yes, I just came on here to say that I need to be finished with this.

114   amy    
June 20th, 2008 at 3:11 pm

On the other hand, we (primarily) have Amy, who just won’t let a lot of things die and move on, and seems to be unable to extend or receive grace.

Chris, if I wasn’t interested in grace I would never seek to try to get to the bottom of what you all are trying to say. I would simply write you off. You might rather be “written off” than have my questions; that’s fine. But please don’t see what I’m doing as demonstrating a lack of grace.

115   Neil    
June 20th, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Amy,

I’m glad you acknowledged Jerry’s apology.

I’m disappointed though that it was a thin slice of meat sandwiched between too massive paragraphs of self-defensiveness.

Neil

116   nc    
June 20th, 2008 at 6:29 pm

so much for “the break”.

If it actually happens can it be an indefinite one?

117   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
June 20th, 2008 at 6:58 pm

Amy,
I posted similar explanations in that thread on posts #124, 127, 140, and 192.

This does not include comments which tell you to go back and read those comments, nor does it include the comment which links to a further explanation by the original author, nor does it include clarifying comments about my view on the ODMs status before God.

118   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
June 20th, 2008 at 7:23 pm

Tim,

I am sorry for my language on my post on Tim Reed- Pastor that you thought I was condemning you.

God is the only one who can condemn, I cannot. I do not desire to have my language to be misinterpreted as though I am condemning you, or anyone.

I do condemn quoting language that is crass as a Christian. Since I am not lutheran in my theology, I cannot answer for Dr. Luther, however, in my own language, I always try and keep it clean and seasoned with salt. I do try and use the law of love as not to cause another to stumble.

Luther apparently to one level or another was anti-semetic, and had other views which I do not personally hold to, so therefore I do not support those fallen parts of the man which he struggled with. However, I do acknowledge the grace of God in his life, and look at the volumonous way in which he impacted Christianity.

Again, if by saying Tim, repent and trust the Savior, I indicated that I thought you were condemned, that was in no way my intention. I would only encourage you to examine yourself, as I must on a daily basis, to see if you are in the faith. As I am sure someone has noted, out of the heart, the mouth speaks. Therefore, I would say that if in any way my tone was judgmental, or if it was even perceived that way, I wish to ask forgiveness of you while saying that I would encourage you to examine the way that you use your tongue and your pen.

As a matter of testimony, when I was saved, one of the ways that God changed me immediately was the way that I used language, therefore, it is a stumbling block with me.

I am sure that I will be attaked for this post, but I do mean what I say in all sincerity. I also ask your forgiveness publicly for bringing up the vulgar language/suggestive talk about sexual relations with someones mother on an earlier non-related blog post. That was wrong and that is why I will measure my responses on this blog in the future.

May God richly bless your ministry as you are obedient to Him.

119   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
June 20th, 2008 at 8:57 pm

however, in my own language, I always try and keep it clean and seasoned with salt. I do try and use the law of love as not to cause another to stumble.

Really? Then why did you tell Tim to “take his plank and shove it?” Where did you want him to shove it John? What was the love there? Where was the salt?

120   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
June 20th, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Here’s the truth, for whatever reason you’ve got a thing for Tim. From the “take your plank and shove it, no really” comment to your latest lie and fraudulent misrepresentation of another pastor you have consistently made bad choices and have shown your true colors. You are a liar and a fraud. You are mean and unkind. I tell you these things in the hopes that you will repent of these hateful and malicious actions.

121   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 20th, 2008 at 9:30 pm

“You are a liar and a fraud. You are mean and unkind. I tell you these things in the hopes that you will repent of these hateful and malicious actions.”

Well, how ODM of you.

122   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
June 20th, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Joe,

I was not speaking to you. I was speaking to Tim.

123   I. Todyaso    http://itodyaso.wordpress.com/
June 20th, 2008 at 10:47 pm

Ken,

Well, how ODM of you.

You should know, you set the standard… and we adore you my dearest and most affectionate Uncle!

Go tear them a new one for Jesus!

Your loving Nephew,

I. Todayso

124   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
June 20th, 2008 at 10:50 pm

Pastorboy and Chris P. seem a little “anal” when it comes to telling people where to put things…

Makes you really wonder…

Personally I would leave a church if a pastor was telling people that sort of thing… it seems a bit toooooo worldly and carnal.

iggy

125   nc    
June 20th, 2008 at 11:01 pm

so sad, too bad.

That was actually a great statement from PB.

round and round….

126   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
June 21st, 2008 at 7:17 am

Joe,

John said
I was not speaking to you. I was speaking to Tim.

I imagine so. It must be rough having the fact that you lied being exposed like that. I don’t care who you were speaking to, I’m speaking to you. Would you mind explaining to the class where you wanted Tim to shove that plank? How what you said was loving?

127   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
June 21st, 2008 at 8:39 am

I didn’t say it was loving.

I said it was satire.

If I caused you to stumble, Joe, because you are a weaker brother I wish to humbly apologize, if you are as offended as you claim to be.

And I Todyaso’s altar-ego?

I would not be caught dead in that ‘church’ due to the ugly nature of the false web site.

128   M.G.    
June 21st, 2008 at 9:16 am

Ken,

Actually, the ODM thing would be for Joe to call PB something like the “Lord of Lies and Instigator of Insults.”

I find it a breath of fresh air not having to run across the kind of playground insults that are better suited for recess than ministr :)

129   M.G.    
June 21st, 2008 at 9:16 am

Ken,

Actually, the ODM thing would be for Joe to call PB something like the “Lord of Lies and Instigator of Insults.”

I find it a breath of fresh air not having to run across the kind of playground insults that are better suited for recess than ministry :)

130   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
June 21st, 2008 at 9:57 am

John
What offends me is your hypocrisy. The fact that when you use your words you deem inappropriate you are just playing around. But then when Tim quotes someone else you question his salvation and his call to the office of pastor.
I’m offended because you seem to think you can pick and choose which truth is convenient for you. You can lie, and it’s OK because you are on God’s side.
It’s sad really

131   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
June 21st, 2008 at 10:45 am

Afterall…Jacob was allowed to deceive his father…and Elijah mocked the Baals! It must be OK!

:-)

132   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 21st, 2008 at 10:58 am

“something like the ‘Lord of Lies and Instigator of Insults.’”

*stroking my goatee and thinking*

Hey…

133   amy    
June 21st, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Tim,
Thank you for taking the time to point me to your quotes. Anyone if free to check them out. I just want to note that I find it amazing that you think that those things actually explained your view of legalism or contradicted your support of the poem:

Here’s the first of them:

The “things I said” (which I didn’t write originally) was a Biblical allusion, and specifically cites that what’s Paul wrote. There is nothing in that anywhere that abuses, or wishes bad things on legalists

.

There is nothing in that anywhere that abuses, or wishes bad things on legalists? Come on, Tim.

I’m not planning to take up this whole argument again. I simply find your defense of yourself indefensible.

Neil,
I can accept someone’s apology without pretending that that apology means the real issues have been addressed and taken care of.

134   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
June 21st, 2008 at 3:39 pm

The big difference between the character I. Todyaso and the real pastor, John Chisham, is that I. Todyaso would never tell someone to stick something where John told someone to.

This should show that even the satire character of I. Todyso has higher standards than Pastorboy!

Note that is not satire, but a sad, sad, observation. Again, if my pastor of my church told people to “stick it” I would leave as that is not a loving thing to say to anyone. It is a sign of a sick mind. So far Chris Pajak, who is a worship leader and ODM follower and apologist, and an ODM who is a pastor have used this sort of language and not one ODM has stepped up to rebuke them! That seems to show the double standard and hypocrisy and true character of these people.

I am truly saddened and sickened by the leadership of these so called Churches who defame the Name of Jesus by their sick and evil minds. Hate is not a virtue nor a gift of the Spirit, yet these ODM’s spread it with glee and continue to sin as if it was pure worship.

Sick puppies is all I can say…

Not ashamed of the Gospel, but ashamed of some so called pastors,
iggy

135   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
June 21st, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Amy,
No you’re lying by omission. Here’s what you left out:

It only states that I’d rather deal with people who are obviously sinning and know they’re sinning than hard hearted, self-righteous people who are as deeply in sin, but justify it through the scriptures and other means.

Note the similarity to what I wrote in my comment earlier of which you wrote that it was the first attempt to define legalism:

I explained over and over again (and now yet again) that the point of posting that is I’d rather be with people who are deeply enmeshed in terrible sin and know it than with people who don’t have any sense of their own sin.

136   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
June 21st, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Amy,

The poem condemns legalist to hell.

The legalist is already condemned to hell… as Jesus pointed out about them and their disciples.

Matthew 23:15. “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

But then again here I am quoting scripture to people who seem to not care, see or understand it.

so tell me, how is any one that states a legalist is going to hell wrong? If Jesus stated this and other things about the legalist and their disciples, and you disagree, then it is you who may need to rethink your position.

iggy

137   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 21st, 2008 at 5:40 pm

“But then again here I am quoting scripture to people who seem to not care, see or understand it.”

Dude, I so relate. That’s how I feel about this website. Amazing.

138   nc    
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:58 am

Ken,

Then why don’t you shut down your sites and then there won’t be a reason for this one to exist.

Help us help you.

;)

139   Neil    
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:24 pm

Ken,

Do you really believe that the posters on this site do not care or understand Scripture?

Neil

140   Neil    
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:24 pm

I’m a little more than disappointed that the tenor of this thread has continued as it has.

Neil

141   Neil    
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Neil,
I can accept someone’s apology without pretending that that apology means the real issues have been addressed and taken care of. – Amy

Agreed. I was just hoping that since apologies were offered, and you were defended, that you would respond in kind.

I guess not…

Neil

142   amy    
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:29 pm

Neil,
What game are you playing? Control, control, control ?

My post #110 has an acceptance of Jerry’s apology, addressed to Jerry, along with other things, addressed to several other people. I could have posted the apology to Jerry separately. Would that have satisfied you?

It’s interesting that on this post I apologized, Jerry apologized, and John apologized . . . but unless I missed it Tim never has. Yet #99 remains the most vitriolic thing written here no matter what Tim wants to say he meant by posting it.

It’s also interesting that Tim’s supposed reason (what he says he meant by posting it) seemed to have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The discussion was about cussing. I still think as I submitted before that Tim posted the post as a “comment” on cussing – not a comment about how he would rather be with sinners who know their need of grace than those satisfied with their own self-righteousness. I may be wrong, but that’s what I think.

143   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:59 pm

Amy,
You can’t go more than about three posts without slandering someone.

144   Neil    
June 24th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Amy,

I am playing no game. All I did was express my hope that you would respond to the fact that you were apologized to and defended in like kind.

I’ll not expect nor hope for anything further.

Neil

145   Neil    
June 24th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

I still think as I submitted before that Tim posted the post as a “comment” on cussing – not a comment about how he would rather be with sinners who know their need of grace than those satisfied with their own self-righteousness. I may be wrong, but that’s what I think. – Amy

One a person has said “Here is what I meant…” that’s about all they can say.

Neil