Julie is a great writer with creative literary pictures. She can sometimes hyper analyze which in my view can obscure the overall observation she is raising. The forrest for the trees thing.

One of my favorite comments of hers is when she referred to the ODM comment section as “incestuous”. (Or something like that)

Well that is something like I would write about (just not as eloquently). I can’t belive this is getting ANY sympathy in these parts. Where’s the lecture about personal preferences in worship styles and relevance? Just when you about had me convinced of my own error(s) now you posit this. Hmmmmm.

Now, if only we can get the right people to read what she wrote…

Provoking, you bad boy….

I am a 56 year old, been a Christian since I was 16. I have had the pleasure to be a member of about 5 different denominations from Baptist, Episcopal, Penetecostal/Charismatic. I have seen the good and the bad. I have been congregant, elder, vestryman, on staff worship leader, teacher, and representative between church and superintendent of a denomination. Again, I have seen the good and the bad.

But, more recently, I too have also walked away from the church. I do so as an obedient move to the what the Lord is moving me towards. What that looks like, I don’t know. I do know that He has put in my heart a desire to know His word better, and in knowing His word I will learn to know Him better.

I could go into all of the things that caused me to move away from the church (denomination, not the body of Christ) but I won’t because it matters not. I am to be obedient to whatever the Lord has for me.

For me I agree with Julie, it seems that real evangelism should be “out there” on the job, in the neighborhood, at the park, atthe store, driving down the parkway, writting on blogs, etc. I appreciate this post and the links it provided to read.

Bo Diaz says,

If you don’t like the pastor’s clothes and choice of beverage well maybe the problem isn’t with the pastor or that particular church.

I would imagine that this is just a personal preference on the part of the author. I don’t really find that to be all that important or have anything to do with the tenants of faith. I think there are more important issues in the article.

Why does this part of her article bother you? Or is it the article in general you have a problem with?

Here is a question I would like to present… At what point or when does a “program” even though we may think it is proper type of evangelism, or “way of doing it” become an abherant practice?

Or is it an “anything goes” attitude as long as they raise their hand when asked to commit or recieve Christ?

I am genuinely asking as I don’t have an answer when we cross the line or if there is a line to cross?

Obviously you know her better than I do, but reading this as an article which stands on its own all I see is a lot of kvetching about external matters, and assuming because what is present in the larger culture is present in the church that makes the the church “insincere”.

You can’t have it both ways. If the church is present in the larger society there will be spill over on at least things that don’t matter into the church. While I don’t know the specific church she’s running down in public here I do know churches like that and there’s no insincerity involved with wearing and drinking the fashions of the day, they happen to be Christians and pastors who are fashionable/up to date/whatever not Christians who are pretending to be fashionable/up to date/whatever.

She comes off as an ODM-Lite, all the same complaints with half the venom.

IWTT:At what point or when does a “program” even though we may think it is proper type of evangelism, or “way of doing it” become an abherant practice?

I like what Julie said in the I-Monk interview:

…having people come to put wrappers on water bottles to hand out at a parade so people know where the church is and what it’s about, I would like the church to save the money and time and tell those people to get involved in their local community theater or join a club or something totally unrelated to the church whatsoever — let them be the message.

I too am a wanderer. I gave up church shopping a long time ago. Occasionally I might stop in one but, it usually ends up the same and that’s the end….

I got fed up with programs MANY years ago IWTT. We don’t need ‘em IMO. Julie nailed it in the quote I put up here. I love her wit always have!

Sorry, I should have said Phil!!

amy,

I agree with your statement, I just wish you really believed it and did what you wrote here at this site.

Yet, the funny thing is that most ODM’s rant against “comfortable churches” because the bible is not preached in them… so I wonder… is it possible that a church can be both.

To all,

I wondered quite a bit myself… and believe me I understand what Julie is talking about very much. Yet, I wonder if it is not just that “church” but that we also need take responsibility.

For me I wanted something real and authentic that was about the people of God and what God is doing. I had been part of a people’s church that did what they believed God wanted them to do, yet I was never quite sure how I fit there.

I started a new church plant in hopes that I could find what I was seeking. In the end I gave that up and joined a Vineyard church plant. I never imagined I would be with Vineyard yet here I am. I see that in some ways, just letting God love you and letting Him love others through you is both the easiest and hardest thing one can do. It is not about being cool, (I left that ability years ago, though some still think I am… I really do not see myself as “cool”)

People are people and need love. I have been to seeker/pdl churches and people were loved, I have been to mega and small churches and people have been loved… not always perfectly yet still loved.

I have been loved at all these types and models, for Jesus used people at these churches to love me and used me to love them.

iggy

Some people grew up in mega-chruches and they love it. Some grew up in liturgy and they love it. Some grew up in Calvinistic churches and they love it. Some love their pastor being “cool”. Many who got saved in some style or format swear by it.

So when the single mother with four children, one with special needs, comes to your small country church they do not seem equipped for her obvious family needs. She goes to a mega-church and they have a class for her special needs child, one for each of her children, and a SS class for single moms. That may not be my cup of tea, but God can and does use anything.

You have pastors with tattoos now who minister to a specific group. The bottom line is there is no formula, God sees the heart. Find an imperfect church that you like, drop the criticl glasses, and serve.

From my independent Baptist days I can tell you that analyzing can be addictive and immobilize you spiritually. There is no other way than to walk in total grace and hope for the best in all circumstances, and what rings your bell may not be what ministers to everyone.

And remember, someone may come to your church and walk out with a list of things they do not like either.

Iggy said:

we let people come and go as God moves them. If we just let God do as He wills the Body works very well, yet if we place our preferences and agendas ahead of God, that is where we fall into many issues.

I look at church membership as the place where God plants you, the pace where He wants to use you at that specific time. We often look for a church where I feel comfortable, where my needs are met, preach the way I like or believe the same as I do. Like Iggy said: “we place our preferences and agendas ahead of God”. God has plans for us and we should seek to find out what those plans are and then get our lives in tune with God’s plans and this includes in what church we should serve. If we fail to do this we end up cynical about church, get hurt and stay hurt and start up blogs criticising and analyzing churches thinking that I can do it better than those churches.

I am not saying that Julie R Neidlinger is one of these people. I actually quite enjoyed reading her article. I just have had so many conversations with people who left churches or wanted to leave our church and it was all about them

P.S. Sorry for the rant. I had to get that out of my system. I feel better now.

This is the will of God: Sell your motor car and go live on a kibbutz.

Not surprisingly here, I find myself agreeing more with Bo’s assessment of the article than others. She said she wanted to dump coffee on the guy’s head! Why? Because she can tell how lame he is by looking at a picture in a magazine.
She railed on about how guys don’t become men. If Ingrid wrote this article–I am even willing to say word for word– many here who are upholding Julie would have had a problem with it. We cannot have it both ways.
Here’s a grace filled statement,

If I see another cool Bible college student or pastoral studies major wearing the hemp choker necklace, flip-flops, open-at-the-collar shirt that’s untucked, and baggy jeans, saying words like “dude” and “sweet”, I will kick their ass.(Emphasis Mine

This was a rant. Which is fine. It’s her blog, she can write whatever and however she wants. I’m sure Julie is a nice person, but she IMO she rants a lot.

“If I see another cool Bible college student or pastoral studies major wearing the hemp choker necklace, flip-flops, open-at-the-collar shirt that’s untucked, and baggy jeans, saying words like “dude” and “sweet”, I will kick their ass.”

I just cannot imagine walking around the church with that kind of attitude. It is very judgmentally voyeuristic. If I read some of Julie’s posts and was a member of her church I would always be wondering what she was thinking.

That’s the thing, she gets frustrated because people didn’t agree with her. They thought her “rant” was whatever and she (once again) puts the blame on them. Why doesn’t she extend the same grace to those pastors she’s all fired up about?

Scotty,
I think those who have a problem with it get it. They see an angry single woman who’s ticked off at almost everything. I’ve lurked here for a long time. She’s a classic passive/aggressive. She walked out because she was mad about the Childrens ministry being brought before the church. You sum up her entire post into, “Wa, Wa, Wa, my needs aren’t being met.” Can the parents of children walk out when they do a service about singles?
Of course not. Her post was an angry rant, period.

I think she wrote pretty clearly. She wants to kick the asses of anyone who wear particular clothes or speak a particular way because they are what’s wrong with the church. The only thing I’m surprised by is the fact that so many agree with her.

Knowing that Julie is probably covered most of the angles for which people have commented I have to wonder “What was the point”?

I’m not trying to be glib here but she has adequately portrayed the inadequacy that she feels in Church today. However as I’ve read and re-read the post I continually came back to one recurring theme. “I don’t like the church because it panders to others needs but doesn’t pander to my needs.”

Understanding completely that she openly admits it’s tough to articulate none-the-less, for all of the traction swirling around this post, it would seem that some resolution would be in sight.

*sigh*

Jerry,
She got all of that from a picture? How does she know their fake? It seems to me the same charge could be leveled against her. I mean if we’re just pulling that stuff out of the air.
She knows he’s a fraud b/c he has a Starbucks like coffee cup? A co-worker just walked by me with one, I’m going to have to stop typing now so I can go kick his ass.

One more thing:

I get that fact that many 20 something men today seem to “launch” fairly late in life. I have counseled my fair share of guys struggling to find a path. I also very much understand the frustration that swirls in womens circles about men like this.

With the Ingrid posts weak-kneed men, Julies post about latent maturity in men, and IMONKS quote from Mad Minerva about men parsing the thoughts of a single woman I needed to say:

Ladies,

We too (men that is) have our frustrations.

You have been sold a bill of goods. You bought it at Fairytale Land with the Knight in Shining Armor attachment. Along with it came a Romance novel wrapped in a Daytime Soap Opera.

As frustrated as you are with “delayed entry” men, men are equally frustrated with the “shoot the moon” fantasies that most women have.

With divorce rates sky rocketing at over 50% inside the church and the court system continually favoring woman in large percentages for custody, alimony, and child support is it any wonder why men are a little gun shy to embrace the “Happily Ever After”? Or why they choose to embrace singleness?

I’m not suggesting that any of these things are good reasons or rationales for delayed adult hood. Rather I’m suggesting that all of us should evaluate why we are in the situation we are in instead of castigating 50% of the population as being the problem.

For the record I’m happily married. But I’ve been there.

I guess I can emphathize with Julie because I know we are coming from a very similar church background. I know she was raised in the A/G, so she’s probably seen some of the things I have. I guess it comes down to a matter of reading things into comments we want sometimes, but I guess I am willing to read one of Julie’s rants with a bit more grace than Ingrid or other ODMs.

For one, Julie isn’t about masks from what I can tell. The ODMs seem to be all about masks. I think the think the danger is that we can take off the hyper-reformed mask of the ODMs and put on the hip, cool mask of modern evangelicalism. Either way, it’s turning faith into a commodity that marketed.

For me the issue comes down to the fact that it seems in many ways we have made being a pastor more of a profession than a calling. We send kids to Bible College to learn the “skills” they need to be pastors, but a true calling must come from God. I guess I’ve seen too many people who can say all the right things, wear the right uniform, but really don’t seem to give a crap about people. They’re trying real hard to be cool and all, but they still don’t really relate to people. The pastors who I’ve seen really make a difference haven’t been cool. They’ve just been real and honest.

I guess the way I read that piece was as piece longing for authenticity. So maybe I’m being too generous and reading too much of my own feelings in it, but that’s my story and I’m stickin’ with it.

Phil,

I very much hear that. And since you know me beyond the comments of this blog I trust that you know that I agree. Authenticity is what is desired by all people I believe.

But Julie doesn’t necessarily say that. She points fingers at the issues and doesn’t offer that solution. I appreciate her candor and willingness but I would think that if she longs for authenticity then she shouldn’t peg others as being un-authentic rather she should live that out.

Also when she is being authentic she really should be able to understand that peoples reponses are also being authentic. Even if they don’t agree with her take on Church.

Phil,
I think you’re reading way too much of your story into Julie’s post. She drew her conclusions from a picture. She had to walk out why? Well, because, (and I tried my best to get the whole context here)

Today’s sermon at church, for example, was on the importance of children’s ministry. I walked out at the part where we were told, as the call-to-action part of the sermon, to do our duty and sign up for the various children’s ministries. This was right after the explanation that children’s ministries accounted for the largest chunk of the church’s budget because kids won’t pay attention if you just show up with a Bible; you have to have all kinds of programs and themes and activities…

I left.

I had to.

I don’t know that the minister was wrong, though I think he was in some things he said. I am sure parents appreciate the ability to leave their kids at children’s church and know they’ll have activities and learn a Bible story or whatever, but it annoyed me.

She was annoyed. She’s annoyed because there’s a children’s ministry and there’s not good men to date, just guys stuck in the “guy mode.” Never is there a mention that maybe she’s the problem. She’s annoyed and she’s right. Did this pastor teach heresy? Nope, he just annoyed her. I’m just failing to see how this is different than what Ingrid posts.

It would seem that “the ODM’s” value honesty and authenticity as well. Slice has a post called, “At Last, An Honest Headline” which links to an article called “Osteen Arms Thousands with Hope, Not Doctrine .”

Is that a problem for you all? Would it be a problem if another name were substituted for Osteen? It’s someone’s honest, authentic opinion.

I think that comments about honesty/authenticity, making certain comments not being sin open up a much larger discussion.

Yesterday I read a random comment on come article here calling what ODM’s do “sin.” So just what are the Biblical parameters of what is sin in speaking out against others?

I honestly think this is something that needs to be discussed in light of some of your reactions to Julie. Can a person say for example, “I just wanted to punch that person in the face” (similar to Julie’s)without having sin in their heart? What about phrases like “the painted girls of Sodom” (one of Ingrid’s which she will never be allowed to forget)?” Is one somehow okay and the other not?

As Christians we are to examine others’ fruit as well as our own. Speech is fruit, good or bad. Speech demonstrates motive and attitudes, good or bad. We can’t always know motive but we aren’t called to judge someone’s primary motive as “good in God’s eyes” when it might very well be otherwise, or at least, mixed.

Anyway, that’s how you all usually come across – that we are to give grace and judge other’s motives as good. Here the conversation is being extended to the value of being authentic. How does this apply to your treatment of Ingrid’s comments and Ingrid personally?

Another issue: Masks
Phil says,

For one, Julie isn’t about masks from what I can tell. The ODMs seem to be all about masks.

And yet Phil few people have unmasked the details of an unsavory marriage in order to help other people the way Ingrid has. Can you imagine the pain that it causes just to relive those kinds of things? To potentially open up herself to more attacks from the person involved, as a result of making her issues public? To acknowledge that that marriage happened partially as a result of her own turning from God?

I don’t know, I think sometimes it’s alright to get angry. I can understand it. I’ve played on the worship team at some conference where the time spent showing DVDs talking about different programs almost equaled the amount of time the speaker was given. Program-driven ministry is almost too much for me to bear too.

As far as the immaturity in men, it’s not something I worry about as much, but I will say that’s there’s probably a lot of truth in it. When I see the college guys I know calling their mom’s everyday and having their girlfriends packing their lunches for them, it’s kind of a bit annoying. A lot of them don’t have jobs, and are just living off school loans.

Anyway, I still liked the rant…

And yet Phil few people have unmasked the details of an unsavory marriage in order to help other people the way Ingrid has. Can you imagine the pain that it causes just to relive those kinds of things? To potentially open up herself to more attacks from the person involved, as a result of making her issues public? To acknowledge that that marriage happened partially as a result of her own turning from God?

As far as I’m concerned any of the good that Ingrid has done is undone by the harm she’s inflicted on others. That’s the whole danger of double-lives.

Amy,

And yet Phil few people have unmasked the details of an unsavory marriage in order to help other people the way Ingrid has. Can you imagine the pain that it causes just to relive those kinds of things? To potentially open up herself to more attacks from the person involved, as a result of making her issues public? To acknowledge that that marriage happened partially as a result of her own turning from God?

Why do you keep b ringing up Ingrid’s failed marriage… we have in fact called that off limits here in discussion… yet you seem obsessed with bringing it up over and over.

Please stop running Ingrid through the mud Amy, I am tired of you spreading and keeping gossip about Ingrid’s failed marriage.

It is YOU not us that bring this stuff up… YOU AMY…

Not me, Phil or anyone else here, only you.

Stop and go look in the mirror… it is you.

And true honesty in an ODM is rare to say the least… most hide behind a thin veil of honesty but then disregard biblical teachings if they get in the way…

iggy

I think Julie does the latter for the most part in her post and her comments. She perceives a problem and tries to evaluate the reasons for the problem. I just think she misses the mark and paints very broadly.

I don’t know, I guess I didn’t analyze the post that much. I just read more on the surface level of frustration. I know we have “analysis” in our title, and that’s what we do, but sometimes a rose is just a rose.

I guess I tend to approach people with the same measure of grace they give to me. The ODMs do not exhibit grace for the most part. Julie tends to exhibit it more, so I will admit I read a rant from her through a different lens.

Thank you, Chris. At this point, I read with shallow interest. That post has been “live” for over a month and I’ve received just about every response imaginable from every kind of person I can think of.

On this particular blog, I have a more than slight amusement with the responses of some, due to past history of writing for this blog before an inglorious exit that occurred behind scenes.

I do think it ironic for Mr. Diaz to take me to task for allowing the comments I did on my site in light of what passes for comment here.

But, by all means, soldier on. Don’t let me stop your analysis of my mental, emotional, motivational and personal well-being. Glad to provide a case study. I’ll just watch it unfold from my seat in the bleachers.

Glad to provide a case study. I’ll just watch it unfold from my seat in the bleachers.

At half-time will you head to concession stand and get me a hot chocolate? I kid, I kid.

Julie tends to exhibit it more, so I will admit I read a rant from her through a different lens.

Agreed. As do I.

“exquisite and beautiful.” Guess I just didn’t say it right.

Perhaps because you sound…well…angry and right. Not sad/frustrated and questioning.

I don’t know it could be the Stop Obama sticker, or the Reformed warning sign, or the Got Socialism? ad. Or maybe it’s the 5pts address.

You seem pretty staunch and unflappable in your view. Tough to have dialog with that. I guess?

I think that part of the problem of interpreting Julie’s post is that, like being relevant, having a problem with relevant becoming a gimmick is difficult to explain.

My church had an assistant pastor who slowly morphed into a Rob Bell look-a-like over 4 months. I didn’t understand why he felt the need to do that.

Some Sunday mornings I look at the stage and every single person in the band as well as the minister is wearing flip-flops, and it is 60 degrees out. I don’t get it.

It bothers me when I read a post on stuffchristianslike about using Michael Phelps as a sermon illustration and next Sunday my pastor does.

Every church has it’s culture and often times I think that the people are oblivious to it. Every so often I find myself stepping out of my normal viewpoint, I look around and everything just looks wrong. I can’t quite put my finger on it but it makes me uncomfortable, and sometimes a little angry. It is like realizing that everything is a caricature.

Note: I don’t have a problem with Rob Bell, flipflops or Michael Phelps. I found myself doing this many years ago at a different church when the minister and elders all had comb-overs.

I spent 12 years in a fundamental, baptist, small church and now go to our area’s version of the mega-church. One of the big differences is that now I can look over a group of people Idon’t know and make a fairly accurate guess as to what each person’s position in ministry is by what they are wearing, etc.

In the small church, because of a lack of staffing, nobody had one role, and therefore didn’t dress or act a specific part.

There are times where I find the “copycatting of success” to be annoying. Of course, there were many annoying things about the small church as well.

Keith,

You posed the question/statement “Guess I didn’t say it right”.

I was merely presenting a hypothesis as to why it didn’t get the same sort of traction that Julies post got. That’s all. Nothing more.

Phil: a longing for authenticity

Yes!

iggy,

watch out.
apparently you need to be reprimanded.
don’t feel bad though, you can chalk it up to ’suffering’ for righteousness or something like that.

I think we should all be fashionable and wear white suits like Benny Hinn and/or white robes.

Might as well get used to what we will wear when we go home.

Seems really important, what do you think? Now that I have been an SmA–!

Maybe the underlying issue is how one has been raised. I was raised in churches that always expected men/boys to at least wear a shirt with a tie and the girls in nice dresses. The thought behind it was to show some “reverence” to the Lord even in how we dressed. I wore a tie until about 6 years ago when the pastor got a hold of either a RWarren or BHybels thing about being “whatever” to draw the masses even if it was we need to dress more casually so that more people will feel comfortable.

Hence many men in the church lost the ties, before long it was jeans and flip flops, t-shirts and shorts, bare mid-driff tops for girls and generally anything goes within reason. I will admit, I have a problem with it and it is ME that has a problem with it. So what am I to do, accept it or go someplace where I am more comfortable.

But there is so much more to the issues I have, but I choose to no longer battle about it because I have not seen much accomplished, from/through it, and I am going to have to answer for myself when I stand before the Lord. So again, the two commandments, Love the Lord with all of your heart, soul, and strength and others in the same way are the foundation of who we should be.

Keith,
I think the real issue isn’t how your post compares to Julie’s, but whether or not hers would have been received in glowing terms if it had your name on it. Undoubtedly not. Most certainly not if Ingrid had authored it.

And that’s sad.

It’s also sad that if I were alone in making negative comments about Julie’s post, instead of being accompanied by others who are sympathetic to this site, I would have been accused of playing “gotcha.”

Because one is only “allowed” to criticize, question, without being criticized if certain others here agree.

If a completely unbiased person who wasn’t aware of church issues or you or Julie were to read both of your posts, I would guess that most would prefer reading Julie’s. Simply because it’s more story-like. One can picture the poor and discerning Julie or the angry and self-serving Julie (however one might interpret it) walking through the various scenarios.

Most certainly not if Ingrid had authored it.

Amy I agree whole heartedly with this. Would you agree that the opposite could also be true? Some don’t like it because Julie authored it.

Amy,

The purpose I wrote was that you may see that you are bringing up things that have nothing to do with the post and dragging Ingrid’s failed marriage up which is wrong.

Please stop…

You seem to not take reprimanding nor polite requests…

Again, please stop bringing up things about Ingrid this site has already stated was off limits… it is you not this site that do this often… check your own heart… please.

iggy

Who are you thinking of?

Nobody in particular. Certainly in this world of blogging though things get parsed and agreed with or disagreed with based on whose camp you most align yourself with.

I only wholeheartedly agree with everything I write. Everything else I approach with caution and suspicion.

Socialism is much closer to Christianity than is capitalism.

Socialism is much closer to Christianity than is capitalism.

Uh oh…I said that once at church Rick and almost got fired.

Be careful you may get your citizenship revoked.

Avete amici! :salutes Roman style:

So…we’re not imperial fans then I’m guessing, eh?

Amy,

The only one that seems to not be able to see beyond themselves between us is you…

I did not twist your words. You brought up something that was agreed on to not discuss… and accused us of bringing it up…

You lie to and deceive only yourself.

iggy

Amy,

You kind of are missing my point.

I choose to associate with these other contributors because though they are imperfect like myself, I believe they are all trying to do the right thing. I do agree with their sentiments concerning the purpose of this site. I was told I could write as little or as much as I want, on the subjects I feel led to write on, and that is what I am doing. I’ll leave the analysis of the ODMs specifically to those who are better equipped, and I’ll level only personal comments in that regard. I’m hoping the topics of my studies are themed around the subject we encounter here on the blogsphere. Not that I needed to explain myself or all of this to you and others, but there you go, it’s out there.

Now on to my point.

The point is that most of this discussion has been no better than the 100+ comment discussion earlier on whether Jerry’s comment meant ‘himself included’ or not. And no, that is me saying “let’s start that discussion again hooray!”, I’m just using that to make my point.

Take it for what you will Amy

Joe

Because you are going to be held in some way responsible, linked to, the attitudes and views of other writers and contributors who are given free reign – whether you want to be or not. So whatever good things you have to say are going to be viewed in light of what you appear to give tacit approval to on this site.

Hmmm…sounds a lot like this:

Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and ’sinners’?”

I wonder if the Pharisees thought Jesus was giving “tacit approval”?

Yeah I wasn’t even going to deal with that logical conundrum Phil, good point though.

It’s been a fun ride today.

Thanks.

Someday I would like an answer to be accepted by Amy without all the accusations and twisting of others words she does.

Seriously… she can’t face herself so must project onto me her own issues…

Amy, can you ever let anything go… in your self righteous stupor?

good grief!

iggy

And someday I’d like an answer about Iggy. – Amy

see above

And Julie, the first part of my comment could be, indeed you may completely believe that our communication is completely my fault.

I am not partial to blogs that are about the author. “I did this, then I went here, and now I am going there and my dog is sick.” It’s a little narcissistic.

OK, maybe not gentle enough, but still it all seemed lost on her…

iggy

Mr. Martino:

1. “I’d have liked to have taken that cup of coffee and dumped it on his head. But it’s nothing personal against that guy or his beliefs or sincerity. It’s an anger at something else.” I don’t know. How many times shall I write that across the various blogs, and provide ample links, before I realize the waste of time?

2. I do not, for example, discuss Geoff Surratt’s (the pastor in the photo): ugliness/attractiveness, validity as a pastor, emotional being, sincerity, salvation, whether or not he’d make a case study in something, etc. As I have said ad naseum the photo was the flash-point but was not what the entire post was based upon. If this escapes you, then it all escapes you.

A working definition of personal is going after the person instead of an issue. If you do not see this…well. There you go. Check your own logic page on this site. Then, look at your comments. Are they about Julie, or are they about age segregation or maturity levels or emotional herding (which are the actual topics in the post)?

3. I thought people might agree or disagree, but I didn’t think that I’d get some random schmuck wondering if I were…ugly and old. Or saved. Or emotionally stable. Or that people would debate if I compared to Ingrid and waste multiple comments on the curious phenomenon of those who agreed with me and whether that was tied into my super-cuteness. For example.

I did think, once the post was linked here, that I’d have this exact fabulous moment that I’m having now. Which is kind of fun.

4. I take it personally when people are being personal. Hence the definition. Disagree all you like; allow that I might like to discuss your disagreement. But when you start making comments that I might make a good source of material for a class, or that “in your opinion” all I do is rant a lot, that is what’s known as “being personal” and “off topic.” I linked here so that I would not leave a book in the comments section in order to lay out the whole story as transparently and linked as possible to curtail further assumptions. Silly, wasn’t it? Also, some of my readers like train wrecks.

And oh. Your last question makes scant sense.

Now, as I recall (if history serves me correctly), Joe, anytime I disagree with you, you sing the same old song about me taking it personally. And a bunch of other ridiculousness related to me as a person i.e. your projection of my emotions and thence reasons, and how you read that in my reaction. The first time you did that, it really hurt. At this point, watching you in action for some time, it’s a bit of a joke.

You are dancing to the same song you sing. Be aware of it.

(How’d I do, Rick? Over-analyze? Or did I get it under control?)

Carry on.

“I am not partial to blogs that are about the author. “I did this, then I went here, and now I am going there and my dog is sick.” It’s a little narcissistic.”

Are you referring to my blogs, Rick? Tsk tsk.

What have we here?

Uuh oooh. My mundane, narcissistic blog didn’t seem to bother you then.

Give me a minute to analyze the situation…

Your blog still doesn’t bother me and I sometimes visit, I’m just not partial to them.

“carry on”.

I love this game!

I love Julie’s writing. I am sad she is not a contributer here anymore.

I think we have to be careful not to pick a church a part after being there one time.
Not to long ago a friend of ours was attending a church, he is single, and he left because he felt out of place. However, I noticed he expected people to reach out to him. He did not make much effort to reach people or get involved. it was much easier to complain. I think Chris Paytas is right, church is about Jesus not about us. Being a pastors wife for several years it was one of my biggest problems with the church; everyone had a better solution but no one wanted to die to themselves and their own needs and desires and live for Christ and Christ alone.
Also I think churches need to be careful not to be a babysitting club but it is also important to reach kids on their levels. There is nothing wrong about creative learning. I personal believe God uses a lot of creativity in the bible when sharing stories.
I am a huge fan of integrating everyone together. I don’t like the idea of separating married people from singles, or children from their parents. We can all learn from each other in our various walks in life. I like it that our church has a gathering once a week. We are all separated during this time but my kids get taught at their level. As a mom I could not ask for anything better. During the week we have house churches were everyone comes together as a family, a single person, ect, ect. You learn from each other.
I don’t have a solution to helping the single people not feel lonely. I wish I did. I have a lot of friends in the same situation and I know it stinks.

Rick,
Ha ha ha your funny! BTW, I take it you hate my blog since it is a good ole stream of conscious blog?:-) That is ok I still like you Rick.
Once in a while I meander back here, especially when the topic is about church and their perception on how they think the church should be doing things different… I find those poss amusing.:-)

On break from the FAA regs.

“Personally, I like a hottie that is nottie. That’s why I like my wife.”

Soooo…we’re going interact on a personal level, then.

‘Cuz that’s what it sounds like.

I mean, that’s what you’re doing there. Delving personally, and all.

Except I thought I was the one taking it all personally. Woo hoo! Let’s keep going with this. It’s like a verbal Mobius strip!

Well, back to the books. This is a good study break.

Eugene Roberts Says:
At the start of this thread I hoped that this would be a good conversation about why people stop going to church using Julie’s post as a conversation starter. I am very sad that the thread took the direction it did. Is it possible to bring it back to a meaningful conversation please?

I agree.

I applaud the fact that most/if not all comments are allowed through, but surely there comes a time when both the personal trading of insults and/or accusations becomes both tiresome and unedifying. Please don’t misunderstand me, this is not specifically just about this particular thread.

It just seems that lately, many of the posts start out with good intentions and then predictably descened into he said/she said type arguments. When I first started coming to CRN.info I didn’t see so much of this.

I have learnt that sometimes it’s better to just remain silent on certain things. Especially if I know what I am going to say has the potential to cause discord and strife. I do not visit this site in order to wade through endless personal disputes and exchanges, but yet it seems as though this is what is happening.

Does there come a time when certain exchanges are moderated?

Just sayin’

My first sentence should read

Is it possible to bring it back to a meaningful conversation please?

The quote about Palin was from another commentor.

I was just trying to answer your question. What I thought was the funniest blog statement I had read in a long time.

I find many of you repugnant and of a base nature. You are natural brute beasts and the shallowness of your intellects is only rivaled by your looks. Your opinions are worthless and your Christianity is razor thin.

Dang they found me out…Run and hide, run and hide!

I found Julie’s original post and Mr. Spencer’s interview challenging and edifying.

Keep writing, Julie!
I’m going to keep reading.

Shalom

Pastor Boy,
I am so sorry you are confused:-)
I think everyone likes to be a critic.
You are right I think you have to be careful, in your case, to not talk about churches you no nothing about or books, video’s ect, ect, ect.
My thing to Julie would be the church is not for her but all her issues with the church seemed to be it simply did not fit what she was looking for. Did you see one doctrinal complaint? I did not. She did not like the way the church operates. Right?
Is there really a perfect church out there? Can we not pick a part every church on something. You know why? Because it is filled with humans.
We often look at church and ask ourselves the question “What does this church have for me?” Instead we should be asking the question “What can I do to serve others?”
You can pick a part every church, no church is perfect. Just recently I knew of a lady who left a church, and complained to everyone she came in contact with, because the church would not let her be a part of the children’s ministry, and another outreach she got involved with she could not be the leader. Is that really acceptable among Christians to even listen to? I know another lady that left a church because another family joined the church and she no longer had the best voice and did not get all the major roles in the church cantata’s. Does that not sound selfish to you?
Let me also say, It is Julie’s blog and she has every right to vocalize her day. My concern was with Jerry and how he thought it was such a great post. She had a bad experience in her eyes but someone else might have loved the church. Maybe the problem is simply it did not meet her needs and there is nothing wrong with the church.
Does that answer your question?

Joe C,
Regarding not being responsible for all comments:

The problem is that there seems to be no shortage of time in moderating/criticizing comments of those who come from a different viewpoint. Suddenly everyone has time.

But have you ever considered the amount of abuse that is reigned on some folks regularly and actually LOOKED at the stuff that Iggy says and noticed the great lack of correction? Yes there’s been occasional correction, and probably some behind the scenes. But others can’t slip by with anything, even good-turned-into-bad things, while Iggy continues, mostly unchallenged.

Take Iggy’s current goings-on about my statement about Ingrid. Ingrid has been REAL, probably at great cost, in a way that helps other people.I pointed that out because Phil said something about ODM’s not being real. All I got in response from him was further condemnation of Ingrid, not even an acknowledgement of the truth that she has been real. A truth that needs to stand in place of or at least alongside of his previous remark.

Is this site for truth or not? I have pointed out something that is good and true about one of your enemies. What evidence do I have that anyone cares to acknowledge the good I’ve pointed out about Ingrid?

Iggy twists that I am gossiping about Ingrid when I am talking about something she writes freely about on her own blog, talking about it in a positive, not a negative way.

He does this kind of twisting and then making general derogatory statments about people on a regular basis. And to be honest I don’t know what he has truly come to believe what he says or if he is purposefully writing lies for malicious reasons.

I don’t know whether he’s trying to think logically and coming to illogical conclusions, or whether he’s so motivated by something ugly that he doesn’t even grasp all that he is saying. That’s why I asked about the health issue.

If one could only take Iggy’s comments. tweak them slightly using for example “Joe M” and “Rob BEll” instead of “Amy” and “Ingrid” and sign them “Pastorboy.”
Then everyone would have plenty of time to address them. And I’m guessing Pastorboy would be on moderation at best.
_________
Look at the kind of stuff that Iggy writes, to and about lots of folks, on a regular basis. Are the writers here ultimately responsible for it? If they can’t see that what he does is extremely wrong and harmful, probably more so to himself than anyone else, what business do they have being a correction site for ODM’s?

amy,

Wow talk about spin…

I know I was a bit rough on you yesterday and I apologize. It just struck me that you seem to twist things as negative when they are positive.

It was also obvious you wrote about Ingrid in that way.. which I pointed out at least twice if not more times is off limits here… mostly because we are all so mean I suppose… but still I did not twist your words… you meant it as you stated and used it as a way to make the point we gossip here…

And yet Phil few people have unmasked the details of an unsavory marriage in order to help other people the way Ingrid has. Can you imagine the pain that it causes just to relive those kinds of things? To potentially open up herself to more attacks from the person involved, as a result of making her issues public? To acknowledge that that marriage happened partially as a result of her own turning from God?

If you just read what you wrote I think you should see what you did. You used Ingrid’s divorce to make the point that we are out to harm Ingrid… and that is not true at all.

I am glad and have stated so a few times that Ingrid is in a good marriage and that she is happy. I pray for her to be blessed in all the way of God daily…

Instead of trying to see that you may have written something offensive, you attacked me by stating things about my mental health… again… to harm me… and that also was uncalled for.

So, I apologize again for using such a harsh tone toward you yesterday… and forgive you for twisting the truth and the things I state as you constantly do…

Sadly you miss that I am attempting to defend Ingrid… which I also do at times…

iggy