CRN.Info and Analysis

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?
:2 This only I would learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing of faith?
:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, do you now perfect yourself in the flesh?
:4 Did you suffer so many things in vain, if indeed it is even in vain?
:5 Then He supplying the Spirit to you and working powerful works in you, is it by works of the law, or by hearing of faith?
:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.
:7 Therefore know that those of faith, these are the sons of Abraham.

We have discussed the issue of salvation on this site many times and I can confidently say that we are in unity on this subject that salvation comes through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ alone and that we are reborn by the Spirit. The works of righteousness that follows rebirth are a result of that what the Spirit has already done inside.

Now I have these questions for you:

• Can any works of righteousness make us more righteous?
• Or can any sin make us less righteous?

What do you say?

This guy seems to think he has the answer (does anybody else see the resemblance to Nooma here?):

Click To Play

OK…I know there is a lot of…uh…controversy surrounding Mark Driscoll. People don’t like his mouth…they don’t like his Calvinism…they don’t like that he hangs around with the so-called ‘big-wigs’ of the Reform party church, they don’t like that he talks about s** from the pulpit, and much, much more. The guy can’t win. I understand. Driscoll is a complicated kind of fella. Here’s where the irony comes in in this post.

Our good friend and truth defender Mike Ratliff wrote this the other day at Walk By Faith:

The vast majority of evangelical Christians exist in an extremely shallow spiritual condition. The Church worship they experience is man-focused. The sermons they hear from the pulpit are specifically designed to offend no one. There is little if any mention of sin, the need for repentance or Biblical discipleship. Their shepherds are guilty of being more concerned with numbers rather than the health of the flock. To these ministers, size matters. The larger the better, therefore, they preach vanilla, seeker-sensitive, feel good sermons that attract those who have no use for what the Bible says about sin and its consequences. They design their Sunday morning worship service to entertain the goats rather than to feed the sheep. The flock’s Bible knowledge is rudimentary at best. (My emphasis.)

OK. OK. So everyone, or at least the ‘vast majority’ of those of us who actually have the calling and nerve to stand behind pulpits and preach on Sunday mornings are white-washed here by Mr Ratliff–and, as you can see, our congregations aren’t any better. You know what they say about preachers. Those who can, preach; those who can’t sit in the pews and throw rotten tomatoes. It’s rather easy to do isn’t it Mike? What did the church do before we discovered the Holy Spirit given spiritual gift of blogging?

Then tonight, as if I am not stupid enough, I decided to go to Slice of Laodicea for a quick laugh before bed and I saw this: I’ve Had it with Mark Driscoll and His Mouth (posted by ‘admin’). When I clicked the embedded link it took me here: I’ve had it with Mark Driscoll and his mouth. Now it’s Personal. When I get there, I read this:

My wife told me about a sermon Pilgrim Radio was playing on the radio as she was returning home from the grocery store with our young children in the car. She said that the man preaching (she had no clue who he was) was talking about “prostitutes,” “whores,” and “lesbians” and that he kept using these expressions as if trying to be shocking.

Bingo! My wife who knows very little—if  anything—about Mark Driscoll hit the nail on the head in her evaluation of him.

She then told me that this same man began talking about wives in submission to their husbands and how oftentimes men abuse this. Instead of using an innocuous example to make his point, what did Mark “The Cussing Pastor” Driscoll do? Why, he did what apparently comes so natural for him: Driscoll expounded on such abuse by illustrating an example in which men misuse their wives’ submission by making them watch porn!

Are you kidding me? That’s the best example he could come up with? For crying out loud, my kids were in the car and heard this trash before their mother turned it off. Does this guy’s mind ever come up out of the gutter for air? (Their emphasis.)

Now for the record, I happen to agree that Driscoll’s ’sex sermons’ are, well, dumb. However, you know what? No one is forcing me to listen to them. I also understand that he is speaking to a specific audience.  And, to be sure, I don’t listen to ‘Pilgrim Radio’ so that’s not an issue either. I guess as the adult in my family, I have the right to censor what my children listen to also. We prefer listening to my own recorded sermons and I don’t let my wife go anywhere alone with my children. (*smile*)

What bugs me is that this person, the one hosting ‘DefCon’, gives us no context whatsoever for the words he cites as offensive. Interesting, isn’t it, that those words are offensive in a sermon but not in a blog post? And if it was offensive on the radio, how is less offensive to repost the same words on the internet where it is more likely that children will find them? I might need to put a net nanny on my computer to block DefCon and protect my children! Still, all jesting aside, what is the context of the sermon? Give us a link so we can hear it and see if you have judged Driscoll correctly.

Please, provide some documentation. As it is, this is just hearsay. Without context and documentation, none of us has any clue if you are telling the truth or just randomly attacking someone you don’t like. You mean this was the first time, you who had Pilgrim Radio linked on your blog, that you heard Driscoll at that hour? You mean you didn’t warn your wife before letting her go? I seriously don’t understand why you didn’t just warn your wife ahead of time to avoid that hour of radio broadcasting.

On another note, fact is there are a lot of whores in Scripture. It might be fun to do an entire sermon series on the whores of the Bible. We could talk about The Great Whore in the Revelation; Mary Magdalene; Rahab; Israel (as described by several prophets); the whore that anointed Jesus with her tears; the whore that Jesus saved from a stoning; the whore in the book of Judges who was cut up and mailed out to various parts of Israel; and so on. So many whores, so little time. (Oh, wait, that doesn’t sound right. Strike that last phrase.) Still, I guess if we are to follow the advice of DefCon, then we preachers must leave out a significant part of the Bible’s witness. ATTENTION ALL PREACHERS: Don’t use the word ‘whore’ in sermons because there might be women and children listening whose ears will fall off if they hear such words.

We live in an impure world. There are whores and queers and lesbians and dykes and transsexuals and crossdressers and pedophiles and prostitutes and alcoholics and murderers and thieves…oh, and the list could go on and on and on and on forever ad infinitum. Are you offended by words? Seriously? Then you should hide in a room with ear muffs. These are the very ones Jesus himself spent considerable time with during his earthly life. “The whores all seem to love him, the drunks propose a toast.” Only Rich Mullins could use the word ‘whore’ in a song and have it sound so elegant, so wonderful. (Better break all my Rich Mullins CD’s this weekend.)

I am angry; spittin’ angry. Let me ask you what is worse. Is it worse for a preacher to preach the truth and use words like whore, prostitute, lesbian, and porn (you know, words that Mike Ratliff wants to hear since these are words that describe ’sin’ he believes is missing from most sermons in American churches); or, is it worse to sit behind a computer monitor and blather on criticizing a man called and ordained by Christ to preach the Gospel because he does use words like whore, prostitute, lesbian, and porn?

I guess we’ll just forget about ever preaching from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Song of Solomon, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, the Prophets, The Gospels–ah, we may as well just forget about preaching anything from the Bible because there are all sorts of offensive words in the Bible, words like whore, death, murder, s**, prostitute, and so on and so forth. God once told Ezekiel to cook food over human excrement. What word does God use when he talks about human excrement? (Better throw away my Bible tonight so that I am not offended by God’s use, his own God-breathed use, of the Hebrew word for ‘human excrement.’ (See Ezekiel 4:12.))

So here’s my question, to either Mr Ratliff or DefCon, or anyone else who wants to answer: Are we preachers to be offensive or not? Driscoll clearly offended someone, and yet it was too much. What about the offense of the cross? Can we preach that? Oh, probably not since there were actually, shhhh!, naked people there being crucified. Can you people please make up your minds about what we preachers can and cannot say from the pulpit so that we don’t hurt your precious ears? Could you, like, write up a list of words your itching ears want and don’t want to hear? And Mike, if you are listening, I guess you should start listening to Driscoll. Since you want sermons that are designed to offend someone I’m guessing Mark’s your man!

The ADM’s of the world are fond of throwing out some Scripture on their blogs so as to prove their point. Well, I am a preacher so let me throw out some Scripture too:

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: ²Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. ³For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

Preach the Word, he wrote. He didn’t say leave any parts of it out of our sermons–All Scripture is God-breathed; even the parts we find offensive. Like when David’s son had s** with David’s wives in public!  He said ‘preach the whole counsel of God.’ I agree with this conclusion written to a very long essay on this very topic:

So, when we teach the whole counsel of God, we, like Paul, shall emphasize the things unique to Christianity and in the process give godly instruction about living by faith in this sinful world. The “all truth is God’s truth” credo is not helpful in this and often serves as a stumbling block. The question “is it true” is a good one, but inadequate in itself. More important is: did Christ command us to teach this?

Paul told the Ephesian elders: “I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable.” He wrote this to Timothy: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2Timothy 3:16). Timothy was also ministering in Ephesus. It is clear that “all Scripture” is profitable and the Christian teacher and preacher should not avoid any of it. Though we may not be able to expound every single verse of the Bible in a lifetime (though surely a worthy goal), we should never avoid a verse or a topic for fear the audience might not like it. The whole counsel of God is relevant, applicable, and needful to every generation in every culture throughout the church age. There will be no situation in which it will be any less “profitable” than it was for those under Paul’s and Timothy’s ministries. May God give us grace, courage, tact, and insight as we set forth to proclaim the whole counsel of God. (Bob DeWay, at Critical Issues Commentary on line. From the essay, “The Whole Counsel of God: We must teach what Christ commanded to be taught; not what people consider “relevant)

Yes. Yes. Yes. Preach on! This is true! That means that occasionally us preachers are going to have to use words like whore, prostitute, lesbian, and porn in sermons because, evidently, even these words were inspired by the Holy Spirit, or, if you prefer, God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). I guess you pew-sitters are gonna have to decide if it is better for those of us who are ordained and called to preach to obey our God’s call or back down in the face of your complaints. You seriously need to read Scripture some time–to your wives and children and yourselves. You need to be offended, and if you are not, I seriously doubt it is the Word of God you are reading.

PS-The author at DefCon was complaining because in Driscoll’s sermon, he was talking about porn. Re-read this:

She then told me that this same man began talking about wives in submission to their husbands and how oftentimes men abuse this. Instead of using an innocuous example to make his point, what did Mark “The Cussing Pastor” Driscoll do? Why, he did what apparently comes so natural for him: Driscoll expounded on such abuse by illustrating an example in which men misuse their wives’ submission by making them watch porn!

Are you kidding me? That’s the best example he could come up with? For crying out loud, my kids were in the car and heard this trash before their mother turned it off. Does this guy’s mind ever come up out of the gutter for air? (Their emphasis.)

Again, we have absolutely no context whatsoever for this assessment. Still, I wonder how this is different from this.

When we began dating, I noticed that he would never ever comment about a passing woman or look at an attractive female. In the mall, he deliberately turns his head away from stores that feature immodest and in some cases, pornographic displays. Nothing said, just quick evasive action. That sends a message to a wife that she alone is valued and cherished. (See also the last comment left by ‘Steve.’ I don’t see much difference except that Driscoll is in a pulpit and ‘Steve’ posted on a blog.)

I don’t very often post sermons here, simply because I really don’t listen to a lot of recorded sermons very often.  The other day, however, I came across s short sermon on Youtube by Greg Boyd entitled “The Pathology of the Religious”.  Boyd draws a lot from his book Repenting of Religion in this sermon (he also has a new book that touches on similar themes called The Myth of a Christian Religion), but the nice thing is that total sermon is less than 20 minutes long (I’m all for brevity when it comes to public speaking!).  I find Boyd’s comparison of a religious person to a clinically sociapathic person to be spot-on.  Please note that when Boyd uses the word “sociopath”, he is actually using it in the clinical sense and not as an ad hominem attack of any sort.  He is simply making the point that just as sociopathic people try to manipulate others by focusing solely on external behavior, a religious person attempts to in essence manipulate God.

I hope they are a blessing to you.

Just a quick update to let you know that apparently Pastor/Teacher/Theologian Silva is not without a sense of humor. He posted this at SOL: Martin Luther Says No…To Women Pastors. (You can do your own work tracing it back to Apprising ?.)

I’m glad Pastor/Teacher/Theologian/Father/Rev/Prophet is not without a sense of irony. I wonder how he will explain to his board of directors his affiliation with a certain blogger who is anything but in compliance with Martin Luther after making that post.

Seriously.

As I read this, I wonder which will be more insuffrable - the movement, in and of itself, or SoL, CR?N & Company chanting “I told you so” with this on the masthead in parallel?

To those of you who I told you so - I told you so.  But I’m not all that happy about my ‘vindication’.

To those of you who also told us so, you were right.  It didn’t take rocket science to see it was coming.  Let’s try to handle this one a bit better than we did the question of homosexuality…

K?

Any bets on when this shows up in the ODM world?

[HT: FARK]

In my poking around looking for primary sources on the beliefs of Peter Rollins I came across an interview he conducted on the campus of Calvin College.

Early in this interview it becomes clear that Peter Rollins is interested in a form of Christianity that is life-transforming and expressed in life changing ministry. This is a goal with which we can all agree.

Rollins states that the church (and here I assume he means the western evangelical church of the last 500 years) has placed too much emphasis on belief… belief at the expense of behavior. I agree. One of the strengths of the emerging churches, one of the benefits of the secularization of our culture, is the emphasis on being not just believing. Or as others have put it – the Gospel (and salvation) was reduced to mere assent to a set of propositional statements – this is changing.

That said, I think Rollins has swung the pendulum too far in the other direction. At the 10:40 point he contrasts the existing/historical process of the church with what he thinks it should be. He says the process has been “Believe – Behavior – Belong.” This he says should be inverted and he gives the example of a family as a metaphor. One is born into a family so they belong first, then they start to behave in a manner consistent with the family, this leads to a belief that is consistent with the family. The problem with this metaphor is that birth into the family – which stands as a metaphor for rebirth into the church – is based on belief. Jesus said if you believe what I say you have passed from death to life (cf. John 5:24). You must believe to belong. In a sense you can belong to a community without believing, and I understand the emphasis on letting people belong to see if they want to believe. I think this is a good development and a strength of young churches. But ultimately a person must believe to be born into the church, to be truly adopted into Rollins’ metaphorical family. Until the belonger believes they are just (to continue the metaphor) the semi-adopted kid next do who acts like a son but everyone knows he is not.

I agree that the process should not be “Believe – Behave – Belong” but nor should it be “Belong – Behave – Believe” since one cannot belong without believing… not in the ultimate sense. The best process, the most biblical, is “Believe – Belong – Behave.”

At the 12:00 point he is asked about belief in the resurrection. He responds, “Christians are not called to believe in the resurrection, but be the resurrection.” I understand his point… I believe it was first made by James the brother of our Lord. Belief without transformation and behavior is essentially non-belief. But Rollins severely overstates this when he says we are not called to believe in the resurrection; we are in fact called to believe in… and to live it. He swings from belief without action/transformation to action/transformation without belief. I doubt he actually believes this – but it is what he said.

This emphasis comes up again at eh 19:05 point. Here he is asked about belief. He says he does believe (though I am not exactly sure in what – this is not an indictment against him, just an admission) - he says “I hold to the belief but the belief is nothing if it does not turn you into a more beautiful person… if it is not expressed…” At this point it seems Rollins is again taking up the theme of James.

This emphasis becomes disturbing when asked how he would interact with someone wanting to meet God, how would he respond if someone asked “How do I meet God?” At 20:48 he answers this by saying the person should “…go and do what people who believe in God do…and you may find truth… do the activities and you will find the truth.” I concur that doing the things that those who believe in God do is a good start, and I concur that simply assenting to a set of propositions is reductionist, but the answer should also include some of the propositional truths of the Gospel.

Basically, I agree with Rollins (as far as this interview goes) in that the emphasis of the recent past has been misplaced. Yet, his response is to over correct, to over compensate the course of the church – and this is as dangerous in theology and philosophy as it is driving on icy roads – of not more so.

[disclaimer: opinions expressed herein are based solely on this interview… and quotes are may be slightly off since I was transcribing them as he went along]

I thought that maybe we could use a bit of levity, especially now that the U.S. folks have to go back to work after a 3-day weekend.

Tim Challies highlights a 1959 book called “Soul-Winning Made Easy”.  One could go on for days about the actual spiritual problems with this book, but (virtual) Mondays aren’t generally for shooting fish in barrels, so just enjoy the overall hokey-ness.  (You can tell the sinner in the pictures, because he isn’t wearing a tie.)

Two alternate things to observe:

1. For a touch of irony, note that Tim gets thrown back under the bus on Slice by a writer who obviously doesn’t get the difference between “occasionally … pointing out the absurdity within the church” and gorging oneself on it.
2. For the ultimate irony, though, recall all the kvetching that was done on Slice because Tim didn’t “name names” when he wrote about blogs that live off of bad news.  Then note that this new post was written by “Admin”.

One way that I offset my amazing salary and my love of music is to D.J.,run sound for weddings, conferences, or public speaking. Having done this for 15+ years I’ve compiled quite the collection of interesting and sometimes bizarre stories. After this past weekend of running sound for a women’s conference I’ve decided to do a semi-regular series on what I see, experience, and generally am amused by from the most powerful seat during any performance.

WHERE THE ODM’s GET IT RIGHT

While I often, ironically, don’t agree with the methods employed by Online Discernment Ministries I do sometimes agree with the fact that, what I’ll call “short theology”, is becoming more prevalent in American Christianity. This is not to say that I think the Church should be hinged to tradition or nostalgia. Rather the church, like missionaries, should speak the language of culture while maintaining the truth of scripture. Where the ODM’s and I part company is their penchant for hyperbole, slippery slope argumentation, guilt by association, and seeming legalistic approach to everything.

All that to say; this past weekend I was feeling like an ODM. Every speaker and most of the worship music was a little “short” on the full gospel. They were really big on “being loosed” and “letting God love you” but nary a mention of “I’m the chief of all sinners”. Speaker after speaker spoke of the terrible struggles in their lives (which were powerful stories), but never a mention of “I’ve fallen short of God’s glory”. Most everything was about those who had wronged them but nothing of “forgive those who trespass against us”. In short it was “short” theology. All Love but no Sacrifice. All Grace but no Guilt. All Freedom but no Law.

Now don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying that these women weren’t saved. Nor am I saying that the Romans road needs to be mentioned every time someone speaks at an event. I recognize that a lot of conversations happen before and after speakers. Also the Holy Spirit works even through bad gospel presentations. What I am saying is that when a unbalanced view of God is presented than perhaps unbalanced growth occurs. In other words is it possible that we risk not having a fullness of faith when we only see God as either a wrathful, angry, smiter of men or an angelic lover of all that we are? I would say yes. It is not an either/or it’s a both/and

WHERE THE ODM’S GET IT WRONG:

Some in the ODM community spend to much time evaluating every word, (well except when they proof text, then they only evaluate certain words) attacking anything that doesn’t line up with their very narrow view of God. They are the same as the women’s conference just on the opposite end of the spectrum.

This weekend I saw ministry happen. This conference had a lot of broken women that really need someone to journey with. It was not enough to say “I’ll pray for you” and then go on their way. It was a blessing to watch these women pray for one another and minister.

Now if I was a true ODM I would fire up the blog and talk ad nauseam about the evil that was this conference. My blog would contribute 3,4,…25 blog posts about the abomination that is women’s conferences. With as much verbose language as I could muster I would tell everyone how they are wrong and I am right. Then I would lay out my theological treatise, call it my thesis and demand that if you don’t live up to all it’s points you are damned. I would petition others to take up the cause. I may even start up a youtube channel to really push back the gates of hell. But I can’t do that. Why?

Because I believe that even in the midst of “short” theology God works. In spite of my poor efforts to communicate the gospel, God works. Regardless of how polished I appear to the outside world I recognize I am a sinner saved by grace who falls short every day. I suspect I get it wrong more than I get it right. So I would rather faithfully, as best as I can, strive to be more like Jesus. Which I suspect most ODM’s also strive for. It’s just hard to see with all the wrathful, angry words they write.

God is still in control. Thank God!

Coop, from While Rome Burns, has posed some interesting questions in a recent article, Buy Black Experiment.  in it, he begins provocatively:

I got the link from a blogger in my home state of Wisconsin, about a couple in Chicago who made a commitment at the beginning of the year to buy only from black-owned businesses. Now, as a white person, if I made the commitment to buy from only white-owned businesses, I’d be called a racist and a bigot, and probably rightfully so.

But lest you think this is a (somewhat accurate) examination of the intellectual inconsistencies involved in racial politics, Coop flips the question through the front doors of the church:

how is this any different than the commitment so many in the church make to buy only from Christian-owned businesses?

This immediately brought to mind Steve Taylor’s 80’s insight in “Guilty by Association” -

So you need a new car?
Let your fingers take a walk
Through the business guide for the “born again” flock
You’ll be keeping all your money
In the kingdom now
And you’ll only drink milk from a Christian cow

Don’t you go casting your bread
To keep the heathen well-fed
Line Christian pockets instead
Avoid temptation

Guilty by association

What do you think?  When I observe my own patterns, I think that where the line is crossed is in the heart.  There are times I shop specific Christian-owned businesses because - a) I know the owners, and I want to help them stay in business during this tough time; or b) I have been their customer in the past and their honesty and values have kept me coming back (thinking specifically about a mechanic that has saved us hundreds of dollars via honest suggestions and estimates, and an appliance repairman with a similar reputation).  This is in line with both good stewardship (loving God) and loving my neighbor.

Where I think the line is crossed is when I either a) judge others for not using Christian-owned businesses; or b) I see myself as somehow ’superior’ for my “lining Christian pockets instead”.

A matter of the heart.

What do you think?

_____________

A slight programming note:  I am taking my wife (and no children) on our first overseas vacation together ever, so I will not be on much - if at all - in the coming week and a half.  You can follow our pics and goings on at my personal blog (if we find a good wireless connection).  In my absence, you can expect that the other .Info guys will “watch the store” and maintain what order we have out here on the frontier.

[Before we go any further, the title of this article is a direct quote from Ingrid Schlueter here.  Our aim is not to make light of this horrible crime committed against women, but rather to use a specific quote in context with its originator.]

“The online gang rape needs to stop.”

These words were written a little less than a month ago by Ms. Ingrid Schlueter of Slice of Laodicea (SoL - an acronym unfortunate, yet accurate for those under its malevolent eye), in response to an article written on another blog by a commenter (not a writer) on this site.  The primary response to this was that it was rather over-the-top and hyperbolic, as the article she was complaining about was not offensive (and had somewhat of a mea culpa included in it), but the thread she interrupted with her outburst was critiquing a Christian blog which insinuated that the electrocution death of an Emerging Church pastor was an act of God in response to poor theology.  Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels!

“The online gang rape needs to stop.”

Far more so today than that day, though, these words are rather accurate, though they are best, and most appropriately, aimed at their originator

Two Fourteen Wrongs Do Not Make a Right

In the past week and a half, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, has taken a good number of hits from the secular press for her answer to a question at the Miss USA pageant in which she defended the Christian stance, that marriage is only valid between a man and a woman. (As an interesting side-note, I saw about 5 minutes of this show - Ms. Prejean’s answer - while flipping through channels that evening.  My instant, and accurate, thought was “well, she just lost the crown for an honest answer”.)

Later, it was also revealed that when she was a teenager, she posed for lingerie modeling shots while topless (from the back).  So, it was also predictable that sins of the past cannot be forgiven in some corners of the church, and even if forgiven will never be forgotten, and will dog us to our dying days.  Not because the world remembers them.  No - because some in the church will never allow us to forget them.  Just ask Amy Grant.

What was not so predictable was that Christians (albeit a few nasty, yet vocal, ones) would would choose to pile on top of Ms. California and - instead of praising her for sticking to her guns on a biblical answer - vilify her for even being a participant on the stage where she gave her answer.  In fact, like a shrieking harpy dining on the misery of others, Ms. Schlueter has swooped in with no fewer than fourteen articles on the subject of Ms. Prejean and her immoral participation in this ‘carnival of flesh’.

“The online gang rape needs to stop.”

How true, how true.  But when vultures are in search of meat (noting that it was also Ms. Schlueter who cackled last fall that Ted Haggard was a “gift that keeps on giving”) and receive back pats from the main stream media, you can be sure that their cadaverous mouths will keep spilling their putrescent schadenfruede across the ‘net.  It seems that when women and/or sexuality are the topic at hand, the only difference between SoL and the National Enquirer is that the Enquirer has ethics it must adhere to - and if you are of the fairer sex and in the sights of SoL, you really are SOL.

Schlueter’s unhealthy obsession with Christians and sexuality is so well documented by her own poison pen, that one need look no further the SoL.  Whether it’s Ted Haggard’s scandal, or Mark Driscoll daring to preach from the Song of Solomon (which IS one of the books of the Bible, last time I checked), or churches teaching about sex, or “painted girls of sodom” following in the footsteps of Miley Cyrus, or a beauty queen attacked by the world for her Christianity, you can expect that Ingrid will be there, licking her chops, waiting for an opportunity to pile on, even if she has to quietly retract statements later.  But when is enough enough?

“The online gang rape needs to stop.”

Christians Fighting in the Press

The Apostle Paul tells us:

If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?

Now, the literalist will tell us that this is only applicable to lawsuits between Christian brothers. However, Paul continues:

But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!

The principle Paul is dealing with here is that Christians should not be using the systems of this world to duke it out in front of the world. In today’s society, where confidentiality laws, legal obscurity and closed courtrooms are actually more private than 2000 years ago, the press has come to the forefront as the public venue for duking it out. And so it is that Ingrid, swelling with pride from the mainstream notoriety she’s received for being a Christian willing to eat her own kind, seems oblivious to the mockery she has made of Christ and the sport she has provided in this modern coliseum.

Carrie Prejean’s teenage error, and her participation in a beauty contest are mere trifles in comparison to the trainwreck Ingrid has provided for the world (which desires to crush Prejean for standing up against the homosexual marriage juggernaut) to see and by which to be entertained.

This is exactly what the Apostle Paul was condemning the Corinthians for - and if we at CRN.Info were ever contacted by the MSM, I would hope we’d have the guts to consider the greater agenda of the world before we consented to being quoted. I will be quite happy if we never appear, or are quoted by, a secular publication.

But for Ingrid, the gravy train is coming home, and there are corpses to feed on.

Like a stopped watch that is correct only twice a day, Ingrid has given us a quote that is fully applicable and appropriate to this situation.  If only she will listen to her own advice:

“The online gang rape needs to stop.”

___________________

NOTE:  The following item recently passed my desk.  I’d decided to pass on it, but I think it’s much more appropriate now:

Is there any appreciable difference between these two quotes?

quote 1 : I refuse to answer emails from those complaining that this material [that I put in my post] isn’t suitable for Christians.

quote 2 : If  someone thinks [what I wrote] is an example of what I have decried, that person hasn’t understood what I am saying at all.

Don’t they both say, “if you think I’m wrong, that’s your problem”?

And if so, does that mean that John MacArthur is pregnant, too?