CRN.Info and Analysis

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.

So often I’ve tried to convince those in the blogosphere that what they are printing is false or less than accurate with no success.  But I can tell you that whenever someone sends me an email from the “source” I dismiss it out of hand because…well…that source is less than credible.

Often times we here try to point out that what is being promulgated as fact is actually skewed opinion wrapped with shreds of truth. This is done with a varying degree of success.

In lieu of the following article appearing this morning on MSN I will forgo my previous planned closing of the article.   Irish student hoaxes world’s media with fake quote.

The student Shane Fitzgerald had this to say:

“I am 100 percent convinced that if I hadn’t come forward, that quote would have gone down in history as something Maurice Jarre said, instead of something I made up,” he said. “It would have become another example where, once anything is printed enough times in the media without challenge, it becomes fact.”

[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?

Stunned - That might approach my initial response to what I read today at Slice of Laodicea. The post, Rob Bell Wades Into Nuclear Disarmament, contains such sophomoric rants as this:

I think Rob Bell may have gotten into some wheat grass juice that fermented into something else altogether. USA Today is reporting that he is now on the anti-nuke bandwagon.

and this gem:

Maybe Bell could try his line out on North Korea’s Kim Jong iL. “Hi Kim, uh, your honor, I’m an American emergent guru and life is beautiful and nuclear weapons are ugly. Would you mind dismantling your nuclear weapons for me?”

which is surely outdone by this:

Nuclear weapons are certainly ugly, but so is communism and totalitarianism. Soviet communism fell because we in America had a powerful deterrent in our own arsenal. In short, we were stronger than the thugs. And that is something only a fool would attempt to change.

______________________

A few of us here at CRN.info have some thoughts on this post by the author of Slice and her criticism of Bell’s words. So in the spirit of our Christmas and Easter posts, we share with you: On Wolves, Lambs, Plowshares and Rob Bell.

*************************************************************************************

Contributed by Neil:

As we have often pointed out, one of the tragedies of Christendom was the mixing of faith and nationalism. Whether it is thinking all Serbs must be Orthodox, or Socialism is somehow unchristian – no good comes from such blurred lines. And for one who seems to like lines, Ingrid misses this point regularly.

I will admit that calling for multilateral nuclear disarmament sounds like the proverbial pipe-dream. But hey, there is nothing wrong with dreaming as long as the dreams are not careless. And this is what distinguishes Bell’s (et. al.) call from the No-Nuke Movement of the ‘80’s. In that decade the call was for America to unilaterally lay down its nukes – an idea no thinking person could accept. This call is different. A nuance that is lost on Ingrid – ironically, the discerner is unable to discern.

It is worth noting that Ingrid only calls out Bell. If you read the USA Today article, he is but one person listed. Yet Ingrid ignores the rest and mocks just Bell. Of course, this is no surprise given her propensity to twist his words to fit her own agenda.

Ingrid summarizes her post by saying “In short, we were stronger than the thugs. And that is something only a fool would attempt to change.” I agree, except this is not what anyone is calling for - as before she has twisted someone else’s words creating a caricature she can easily attack… Unfortunately, what she has created does not correspond with the reality of what Bell said.

______________________

Contributed by Chris L:

Every once in awhile, I wonder to myself - have significant pockets of modern Christianity simply become intellectually bankrupt? Is reading comprehension something not taught in the schools (or home schools) that have produced the current batch of “Discernmentalists” inflicted upon the blogosphere? Or have basic honesty and Christian charity been completely jettisoned by those who claim the loudest to possess these treasures?

After reading Ingrid’s spewings in the article on Nuclear weapons and Rob Bell’s (and other evangelicals’) opposition to them, such wonderings only become more troublesome in the answers they seem to provide.

So - let’s examine what he said: 1) Nuclear weapons are an affront to God’s dream of shalom (that’s peace for the completely Hebrew illiterate folks out there); 2) We believe things can change for the better.

Now, let’s examine how Ingrid has interpreted this:

Picture [Iranian President Ahmadinejad] coming in, fresh from his latest holocaust denying speech where he called for the utter destruction of Israel.

“Hi, I’m Rob Bell, and I’m an American emergent guru and I’m here to say that life is beautiful and nuclear weapons are ugly. Would you mind dismantling your nuclear weapons for me?”

Bell is the hidden ace up Obama’s sleeve to change the world. You read it here first.

Followed up with:

Soviet communism fell because we in America had a powerful deterrent in our own arsenal. In short, we were stronger than the thugs. And that is something only a fool would attempt to change.

Now - I think a few points bear additional exploration:

1) Multilateral Disarmament: - If you can read and comprehend the USA Today article, the group to which Bell belongs supports “multilateral disarmament”. Applying just a slight bit of intelligence and reading comprehension, a non-partisan reader could easily break this down into - a) “multilateral” - i.e. all parties involved; b) “disarmament” - to give up arms. Or, to put it all together - “multilateral disarmament = all parties involved get rid of nuclear arms”. Now, just to make sure that the reader understands this point, the article even ends with this statement:

The group is not calling for unilateral disarmament but a “multilateral process where the United States takes leadership,” Wigg-Stevenson said.

In other words - the words of my favorite president - multilateral disarmament can also be called “trust but verify”…

2) Failure to recognize that the ideal state is not to be “stronger than the thugs” - those are the values of the world - kosmos - speaking, not the values of the kingdom of God. In the kingdom of God, peacemakers will be called the sons of God. In the kingdom of God, we will rely on God to save, not the threat of man-made obliteration. Would it not be nice to spend more of the GDP of this country to aid the poor, the widow and the stranger instead of having to spend it for our own defense? The only way that will happen is if America takes a leading role in pushing for multilateral change.

3) Putting our faith in politics. The Slice article does little more than wring its hands, crying about fears and worries of this world and harping at Christians who think that perhaps the actions of our country should mirror the orthopraxy that springs from our faith, rather than just wielding its name as a source of moral superiority.

It is articles like this one from Slice that demonstrate that many Christians have no faith in God or the Holy Spirit. Such voices ignore the Psalms -

I will praise the LORD all my life; I will sing praise to my God as long as I live.
Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save.

The Proverbs:

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;

the Apostles:

For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”

And Jesus, himself:

Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Am I (or Bell) advocating unilateral disarmament and leaving the people of our country unprotected? No. What many Christians, including Bell, are calling for is to look for ways that nations might work together to lessen the instances of and the destruction from war.

To close, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) may have been an adequate (or even successful) deterrent between nation-states during the Cold War, in actual effect preventing the use of nuclear weapons. However, in the modern reality of asymmetrical warfare and islamofacism, MAD is far less of a deterrent. In fact, MAD increases the likelihood of the use of nukes, because it makes it more likely that terrorists and dictators who are unafraid of assured destruction will have these weapons at their disposal.

It should be our desire that all war would cease, and that any weapons - especially the most destructive of weapons - never need to see use. Expressing this Christian desire should not be seen as a partisan issue (who cares if Obama agrees/disagrees w/ Bell? Even a stopped watch is correct twice a day), but as an issue of being the peacemakers - the sons of God - we were called to be.

______________________

Contributed by Jerry:

“Followers of Christ missing the central message of the Bible? It happened the, and it happens now. And sometimes the reason is, of course, empire.” (Rob Bell & Don Golden, Jesus Wants to Save Christians, 131)

I suspect that, when the new heavens and new earth finally dawn upon us, there will be no nuclear weapons in existence. Dare we dream? Dare we perpetuate God’s ideas for what is peace on this planet? Dare we think along the same lines as God who has made it abundantly clear in Scripture that man’s way of doing things will, at last and finally, someday, be done away with?  Isaiah saw it:

How beautiful on the mountains
are the feet of those who bring good news,
who proclaim peace,
who bring good tidings,
who proclaim salvation,
who say to Zion,
“Your God reigns!”

Yes. Yes. Let’s be fair. Isaiah probably wasn’t talking about someone going around and calling for multi-lateral disarmament. And he probably wasn’t thinking of nuclear weapons. And he wasn’t thinking of Rob Bell. But he was thinking of Someone who would make such an announcement. Jesus is one person who made such an announcement. Paul the apostle also seems to think that christians ought to make such announcements too. (See Romans 10.) So I guess we could say that worst Mr Bell is guilty of going around and imitating the words of a prophet. Isn’t that what preachers, christians, are supposed to do? Or maybe we should expect Mr Bell to go around saying things like (hyperbole alert), “God has a dream that all of us will one day destroy ourselves with our weapons. Therefore, I call on the US and Russia to start giving nuclear weapons to anyone who asks for them.”

I suppose it is better to live in fear and with eyes. We have weapons not because we need them, but because we can. We create fear in order to maintain control. We wield power in order to subjugate the weak. This world would be no worse than it is now if all such nuclear weapons were dismantled and the secrets forever burned. With all due respect, I don’t care why or how the SU was dismantled. I don’t know that ‘we’ ‘won’ anything; a lot of Russians have suffered much since as did before. My point is that I am not living in the United States, as an American, with my fingers crossed that our government will be quicker to the button than will the Chinese.

My hope does not rest in the United States possessing nuclear weapons. Destroy them all.

In what sense is war ever a good thing? In what sense can we say that the proliferation of weapons that can destroy humanity is ever a good idea? I guaran-damn-tee you it won’t be the rich and powerful in Washington, DC who suffer from such wars! Just because the Bible says ‘there is a time for war’ doesn’t necessarily mean that war is ever a good or necessary thing. Just because Paul wrote that governments are the swords of God’s justice (and reward!) doesn’t mean we have to be so quick to wield it.  I’ve come a long way on this precisely because, when all is said and done, we as a people are not protected because we have the biggest guns or the biggest bombs. I might also go so far as to say that God doesn’t need another nation, bigger or smaller than ours, to wipe us out if he, in his Sovereignty, decides to wipe us out.

Try not to be too offended at the notion that God is sovereign enough to make such decisions. Try not to be more offended that I happen to believe getting rid of nuclear weapons is a good idea even if it opens us up to severe consequences from rogues and rebels. Christians do not exist to perpetuate the American Dream nor is the American Dream biblical Christianity. But let me go out on a far left limb here, perhaps one that might make other writers here a bit uncomfortable. Let me say, imitating another prophet, that we are not citizens of this world. We are strangers, sojourners; pilgrims all. “We” should be opposed to the machinations of those in power–those rulers and authorities and principalities who in no way imaginable have the best interests of the kingdom of God in mind. Christians are not allies of the world in their power plays.

Consider:

They [principalities and powers] select as their primary target those whom God elects and sets apart (saints), those to whom God reveals his love in Jesus Christ (Christians), and the fellowship of such people (the church). The efforts of evil powers (I call them such for convenience, although I repeat that they are not powers in themselves nor evil as the antithesis of the good God) focus on the place where God’s grace and love are best expressed. They deploy their full strength on Jesus Christ. They concentrate all the forces of evil on Christians. […] [The Devil] brings all his efforts to bear against those who carry grace and love in the world. For his problem is not to bring people to eternal loss or to carry them off to hell, but to prevent God’s love from being present in the world. (Jacques Ellul, The Subversion of Christianity, 176ff)

I might go so far as to say that a superpower nation is not required to destroy life as we know it.

The prophet Isaiah had more to say. Listen:

^48:22 “There is no peace,” says the LORD, “for the wicked.”

The wicked do not know how to find peace or what it looks like. Nor, for that matter, do they have the foggiest idea how to perpetuate it. What better person (people) than one who knows the Prince of Peace, to make the announcement, the proclamation, that God actually has a dream for Shalom? Or are we just terrified because someone used the words ‘God’ and ‘Dream’ in the same sentence?

Only a person who has the uncomfortable position of not being heard can sit back, behind a computer screen, and write with a straight face the following words:

Picture [Iranian President Ahmadinejad] coming in, fresh from his latest holocaust denying speech where he called for the utter destruction of Israel.

“Hi, I’m Rob Bell, and I’m an American emergent guru and I’m here to say that life is beautiful and nuclear weapons are ugly. Would you mind dismantling your nuclear weapons for me?”

Bell is the hidden ace up Obama’s sleeve to change the world. You read it here first.

Soviet communism fell because we in America had a powerful deterrent in our own arsenal. In short, we were stronger than the thugs. And that is something only a fool would attempt to change.

It takes no amount of courage in this world, rife with war, anxiety, poverty, and latent fears to sit back and boast about strength. This is pure, unadulterated arrogance. It is contrary to the ways of God who prides himself on weakness and the cross. (Let no one boast, he said, save for the cross.) It takes no little courage to walk into the face of ‘enemies’ and suggest that perhaps there is a better way of doing things–a way that is motivated and amplified by the presence and Spirit of Almighty God. “He prepares and table before me in the presence of my enemies.”

I don’t believe Bell is the hidden ace of President Obama’s sleeve to change the world. I don’t believe for a minute that Rob Bell is one who would concede that Christians are those who should be manipulated and cooperative with the very powers that mean to destroy Christ on this earth. Rather, I do believe that Rob Bell, since he is a Christian, and all Christians who are empowered by the Holy Spirit, are the aces up God’s proverbial sleeve and that it is we, us, whom God is using to change this world.

¹⁰For,
“Whoever would love life
and see good days
must keep his tongue from evil
and his lips from deceitful speech.
¹¹He must turn from evil and do good;
he must seek peace and pursue it.
¹²For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous
and his ears are attentive to their prayer,
but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”

–Peter

My grandfather was the greatest man I’ve ever known. Truly; he was my hero. Everything good that every developed in my life can be traced directly to my relationship with Christ and the wisdom that my grandfather shared with me.

I distinctly remember my grandfather relating to me about his pride in working at the Ford plant. His job on the line was to put a pin stripe down the side of the Grand Marquis car. He would say “Every time I see one of those cars I realize that that pin stripe is my signature. Nobody knows that I was the one that put it on there but I know”. It was his way of saying that whatever you do, do it as though everyone would know that you did it.

My grandfather also would continually remind me that “if anything you do is not worthy of putting your name on it then perhaps it shouldn’t be done.” This was is way of saying if you have to hide behind a veil because of shame, guilt, embarrassment, or fear of response then you should probably not do whatever it is you are going to do.

Over the last several days, months, years, it has been asked/said “What makes you different? You’re exactly the same.” While it would be simple enough to point that we are in fact different in many ways it never truly satisfies those ask. It would also be simple enough to ask; If you have a problem with what we do then why do support what they do? But again this type of introspection never occurs with those who ask. But in one area that we are decidedly different is that we take ownership of the words that we write. We have lots of discussion about pen names, monikers, abbreviations, etc…and all of us are of the mind that if we have to resort to hiding who we are because of what we write then it’s not worth it to write.

I’m continually proud of the accountability that all of the writers here have with each other. I’m not certain that many readers realize that aspect of this blog. Additionally many of us have contact with those who comment outside of this forum which adds another layer to accountability. We work very hard to be above board in all that we do. With the good stuff and the ugly stuff.

All this to say that it truly is evidence of what you believe when you don’t allow comments, responses to emails or questions, or refuse to put your name on your work. My grandfather would say if “you can’t handle the critique of your work you probably shouldn’t be doing it”.

My grandfather didn’t know Jesus but he did understand what it meant to take ownership over your actions. Regardless of the outcome.

Every once in a while a truly and thoroughly evil villain appears, such as a Hitler or Stalin, an Ivan the Terrible or Vlad the Impaler. Folks such as these are easy to oppose. But, when opposing someone who does not exhibit pure evil, building a caricature helps. The first step in any confrontation, be it political, military, or otherwise is to portray your adversary in as poor a light as possible… and the weaker your position/argument the more sever (and important) the caricature becomes.

We have seen this time and time again with various amateur discerners and their blogs. Arguing from a position of weakness, often employing logic based on faulty information, hyperbole, or mere preferences – they must create a caricature of their opponent. Addressing real issues, taking people at face value, using complete statements, bothering to understand the nuances of a thought or comment are either lost or ignored.

The process is exacerbated when the ADM echo chamber kicks in and they start cross-linking and reposting – each time hardening the categories and expanding the caricature.

For example; here is a recent post (in its entirty) by Ingrid on SoL:

Here is an excellent post by Chris Rosebrough at Extreme Theology on the emergent whine that anyone who states anything authoritatively about God is “putting God in a box.” That line is a favorite of those who simply like to make their god up as they go. God has revealed Himself to us in His Word. But emergents, kicking that Word to the curb, would prefer to have a god who changes with them. It is much, much more convenient.

Notice the definitive statements of supposed fact: anyone who states anything authoritatively about God, [they] make their god up as they go, God has revealed Himself to us in His Word. But emergents…

I challenge this ADM to show an example where anyone whom she regularly names says “Any definitive and authoritative statement about God is placing him in a box.” Her hyperbole in caricature creation renders her objections shrill, comical, and useless.  She may have had a point, but her method of re-creating her foe into an unrecognizable caricature renders her argument meaningless.

But this is just the echo chamber exacerbating the ridiculous. If you read the original by Chris R., you will see it is somewhat more tempered – but still guilty of caricature creation and assassination – or straw man – and therefore it is to be rejected.

The very title of the post betrays the false dichotomy upon which it is built - “God in a Box” or God As He Has Revealed Himself? This is not a dichotomy. These are not mutually exclusive choices. God has indeed revealed himself, and we finite humans routinely place him in a box.

The thesis of the post is this:

Today, if you happen to be conversing with a group of CHRISTIANS and you boldly, confidently, and succinctly talk about God and His characteristics, attributes and what He has done you are very likely to be accused of “putting God in a box”?

To a point I agree, though I would say “You may be accused…” But instead of exploring this thesis, instead of advancing when God is boxed and when he is not -the ADM jumps immediately to a caricature of his own creation.

He writes:

One of these Christians might even throw a Rob Bell quote or two in your face and tell you that you need to not be so arrogant and should adopt a more humble hermeneutic. According to Bell, “The moment God is figured out with nice neat lines and definitions, we are no longer dealing with God. We are dealing with somebody we made up.” (Velvet Elvis, Page 25)
Poppycock!

Humility is poppycock?

It’s supposedly poppycock because

In the scriptures we have God’s revelation of himself and that divine self-revelation gives us some very hard neat lines and definitions about who God is, what He is like, what He has done and what true worship of Him entails. … But, we must always be careful to not allow our imaginations to go beyond what God has revealed about Himself in his word. That which God has not revealed about himself is still mystery.

At this point I would again agree… and so would Bell if he were allowed to speak for himself. After quoting a few of the giants of the faith the ADM points out “…that Paul didn’t say that we ‘can’t know’ but that we only KNOW IN PART.” Here he is denying a statement Bell never made. He’s arguing with a caricature of his own creating not any actual statements made by Rob Bell.

In context, Bell was simply affirming what the ADM himself said; “That which God has not revealed about himself is still mystery.” To deny and subvert this context the ADM must ignore statements that affirm the existence of truth and that Bell affirms the historic Christian faith. Which, by the way, he in no ways denies.

Basically, the ADM and the echo chamber have taken a simple and true statement – If your goal is to figure [God] out and totally understand [Him], it’s not going to happen. and twisted it into “You cannot say anything definitive or authoritative about God.” Then they attack.
This is sloppy at best; it is dishonest as worst… I don’t think they are that sloppy.

Following on the heels of Tim Challies, Michael ‘iMonk’ Spencer has truly outdone himself with a beautiful metaphor that I wish I could just steal and claim as my own.  Weed eaters.

Spencer writes:

There’s nothing quite as empowering to a middle school boy as to be given a weed-eater of his very own. Armed with the machine, safety glasses and an orientation, they come marching across the campus taking on weeds and untrimmed grass like Sherman’s march to the sea.

If there was ever any tentativeness in these weed-eating workers, it all vanishes when they get their first taste of the power of the weed-eater. With a squeeze of the trigger, the power to eliminate weeds replaces the fear of what might happen in using such a dangerous device. Lazy middle school boys are transformed into the scourge of weeds and untidy lawns everywhere.

As I read the article, I can remember my own days as a freshman at a Christian college, incredulous that there could even be a Young Democrats chapter at a Christian college.  What an oxymoron, right?  And the zeal with which I argued and debated friends and rivals, alike, on the evils of alcohol - because teatotalling is right next to godliness.  And the folks who believed in anything other than literal 6-day, young earth creationism?  Make way, you godless heathens, wolves in sheep’s clothing!

There is, unfortunately, a not so charming side effect of this transformation. In the ensuing attack on weeds and sidewalk scruffiness of all kinds, most of the other flora and fauna of the campus is put at some risk from overenthusiastic weed warriors.

So in addition to a tidy campus and well attended faculty and staff lawns, there are frequent attacks on flower beds, gardens and much loved decorative hedges and bushes. Small fences are no obstacle to a boy convinced that some stray sprig of wayward grass is attempting to survive the Day of the Weed-eater.

Flowers and other decorative plants are at real risk when the power of a gang of boys go out into the neighborhood to do good. They are armed and dangerous. The neighborhood will be improved.

Zealousness is not at issue, which I believe sometimes I (and other writers at CRN.Info) am mistaken to be against.  We are called to have zeal for the Lord and to do His work with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength.  Where that becomes a problem is when we start assuming the place of God, in judging the hearts of others, or the Holy Spirit, in convicting them.  We may effectively ‘whack some weeds’, but who knows how many beneficial plants we damage in the process.

Spencer acknowledges this dark side of ‘zeal’ -

So as I get older, I see many of my zealous brothers and sisters armed with the Bible, heading out into the church to do what they believe is a good work of killing weeds.

The results are predictably predictable.

Be less enthralled with your ability to trim the grass brothers, friends. Be less certain that you are qualified to tell the difference between a weed and a flower that has yet to bloom. Learn to use your power equipment carefully. You can do a lot of damage. All does not depend on you cutting down every unknown and out of place plant. You are not saving us from the arrival of the jungle.

And this is where I often find myself.  Reminded of Jesus’ admonition to serve and to love his bride - even the parts I may not personally like.  In a place of a concerned steward protecting gardens and flower beds from undiscerning, yet possibly well-intentioned youths, armed with their shiny new weed-eaters.

iMonk concludes:

It was the Pharisees that Jesus criticized for their weed-eater mentality. They were obsessed with separation. They were tithing their spices. They were experts in staying on the case until the weeds were revealed.

Jesus wants us to be gardeners, but we do have to deal with weeds. Did any gardener ever say “Let the weeds grow” except for Jesus?

Some of us have set our sights (sites) on being full-time weed eaters and we’re having a very good time. The body of Christ needs a few. But only a few. And be careful, please. Very careful.

And I would wholeheartedly agree.  This is why we support true, professional discernment ministries like Reasons to Believe, Christian Research Institute, and Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.  While we recognize that these ministries may not always agree with one another, nor always we with them, they are managed by Christians who understand that there’s a place for weed eaters, and there’s a place for more careful trimming.

“For all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God…” Paul to the Romans, chapter 3, verse 23

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life…” John the Apostle, chapter the third, 16th verse.

Today, my attention was drawn to this post at a certain ‘that which is not to be named’ blog. It is a serious blog post. It is seriously depressing. And it is seriously stupid.

There I said it: It is stupid. I’m sorry. I feel badly about writing it, but there is simply no other way to express my outrage and heart-brokenness.

I know that is harsh and mean and if anyone from ‘that side’ bothers to comment on this post they will most certainly point out that I ‘missed the point’ or that I am ‘ignorant of the facts’ or that I am ‘a stupid non-Christian who is so unconcerned about abortion and the plight of the unborn that I ought to be defrocked (even though I was never frocked to begin with) and run out of the church to the tune of tar, feathers, pitchforks, torches and labeled anathema.’ To be sure, ‘they’ will probably point out that Jesus does not approve of what I am about to write in this post because Jesus hates abortion.

There I said it: The post is stupid.

I am willing to run the risk that I might be labeled by others in order to point out the sheer stupidity of the post mentioned above.

Did I mention the post is stupid? It has been a long, long time since I read something so incredibly insensitive at a blog claiming to be a voice for the Kingdom of God. I’m sorry. I’m desperately trying to be objective and compassionate. Can’t. Can’t. Can’t. I have read the post four or five times now trying, searching, scanning for hope and I just cannot find it. The most hope we can expect out of this post is that we might enjoy some ‘hauntingly beautiful hymn-like‘ music. If an expectant single-mother or a suddenly pregnant husband and wife swimming in debt is debating her/their pregnancy right now read that post, she/they would be left despairing and hopeless; feeling nothing but condemnation.

There is nothing about the Gospel. Nothing about the hope of Christ. Nothing about the penal substitutionary atonement death of Jesus. Nothing about forgiveness of sins. Nothing about grace. Nothing about repentance. Nothing about the new heavens and new earth. Nothing about resurrection. For someone who writes so passionately, so wonderfully about the damnable offense that is abortion, I just cannot believe that there is no mention of hope for forgiveness. No mention of reconciliation. No mention of peace in Christ. No reconciliation. No ransom. No redemption. No substitution. Just condemnation. *Shakes head.*

For someone who so frequently castigates preachers and churches and bloggers for not including a (the) message of the Gospel, I cannot believe the best there is to offer in that particular post is that we might get some good music out of it at the end of the day. No mention whatsoever of how people who have had abortions can be forgiven and changed by the work of Christ Jesus. (As if a purely moralized America is equivalent to the Kingdom of God.)

______________________________

I’d like to begin by noting a few things for the careful reader of CRN.info and Analysis. You may not agree entirely, but I’ll bet we are close. What I’d like to do, is offer the invitation here, at CRN.info and Analysis, that was not offered at SOL. I begin, however, elsewhere:

• It is wrong to steal.
• It is wrong to have gay sex.
• It is wrong to lie.
• It is wrong to cheat.
• It is wrong to fornicate.
• It is wrong to commit adultery.
• It is wrong to be racist.
• It is wrong to get drunk.
• It is wrong to be gluttonous.
• It is wrong to murder.
• It is wrong to get an abortion.
• It is wrong to lust.
• It is wrong to lie about the preacher.
• It is wrong to abuse your spouse or children.
• It is wrong to worship idols.
• It is wrong kidnap.
• It is wrong to disobey your parents.
• It is wrong to swindle.
• It is wrong to be greedy.
• It is wrong to rape.

Yes. Yes. I could go on and on and on. I agree with the post at SOL: Abortion is a heinous, despicable, vile, disgusting offense. I don’t know anyone here who disagrees with that assessment. Those things mentioned above are wrong; they are sin, abortion included.

But it is not the unforgivable sin. Never has been. Never will be. In the crazy economy of the kingdom of God, a person could have 490 abortions in one day and repent and God, in his mercy and grace, would forgive that person because of Jesus Christ. I mean, why wouldn’t he since he expects us to do nothing less? I don’t think God expects people to do things that he himself isn’t willing to do. Thus, forgiveness.

Abortion is not an unforgivable sin.

None of the things I mentioned is the or an unforgivable sin.

_______________________________

Friends, we have ample evidence in our world of all the things that are wrong with us and all the things we do badly and all the sin we have committed and all the idols we have worshiped and all the judgment we have invited into our lives and all the times we have crucified Christ all over again and again and again…

We have sufficient testimony to all the grievous destruction that our sin has wrought upon this earth.

We have enough people pointing out the sin that plagues the United States of America and Russia and England and Brazil and Antarctica and, well, you get the point.

Jesus did not tell us to go around moralizing did he? (This is not rhetorical.)

I’m not even sure he told us to go around pointing out sin, although, when the Gospel is properly preached I think that sin will necessarily be a part of the discussion. After all, it is terribly difficult to call folks to repentance if some mention of sin has not happened.

Jesus did tell us to go and preach the good news, the Gospel. “…He gave them power and authority to drive out demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the Kingdom of God and to heal the sick…So they set out and went from village to village, proclaiming the Good News and healing people everywhere” (Luke 9:12, 6).

We have good news! We are told to preach good news! Where’s the Good News in the SOL post? A musical legacy? For one who spends a lot of time criticizing the lack of Gospel in churches and pulpits, the post is decidedly barren of any hope and Gospel. Shall we merely criticize and condemn those who have had abortions or shall we offer them the hope of Christ Crucified and Resurrected?

___________________________

Is there any hope for those who were the subject of the SOL post?

I hate to write this post, but the bottom line is that I have decided that I will make it my life’s ambition to teach the grace of God every chance I get. I want to find 100,000 ways to say: God forgives you in and because of Jesus Christ. I hate writing this post because some might conclude that I am not opposed to abortion, but that would be to miss my point. I am very opposed to abortion, but I also realize that people sin and that it was the sick, weak, broken, hurting, desperate sinners, like me, whom Christ came to save, redeem, ransom, and atone for.

Jesus didn’t come to condemn; why do we think he has assigned us that role?

The author of the SOL post did a great job pointing out a great sin, but the problem with the post is simple: She gave us a great picture of a moralized America where everyone plays in an orchestra or knits flags and worships at the throne of conservative politicians. It’s a powerful picture, but it is not necessarily one Christ has drawn. It is a terrible problem, but there was no solution offered. What’s the point of ranting about the problem when there is no solution offered at all?

She didn’t give us a picture of the Kingdom of God. She gave us a picture of her moralized America where there is condemnation for every perpetrator and no hope whatsoever.

The author would have us condemn all who have had abortions and reject them as mere weak Americans who lack courage and are interested only in their bank balance and credit card statements. Christ would welcome them into his kingdom as the very ones he came to save precisely because they are greedy, murderous, and lack the intestinal fortitude to be self-controlled–because they are sinners! Well, of course they are. That’s normally what happens when people do not know or have rejected Christ.

So here I offer what the author of Slice did not offer: Hope. If you have ever had an abortion or over-spent on your credit cards, if you have filed bankruptcy because you have no self-control, if you are a coward, if you are hopeless and think you are running on empty, if you have no where to go and you think you are out of options–there’s hope. There’s grace. There’s forgiveness of your sins. Christ has payed the price for your sins. There’s Good News! Christ has not rejected you. There’s still hope! There’s still a message of peace and forgiveness to you because of Jesus. Christ will take away your guilt. Christ will heal your wounds. Christ will save you from the hopeless, endless cycle of condemnation and death.

You can join us, all us sinners here, all us imperfect, unkempt, undone, depressed, forgiven-by-God sinners here. We welcome you to join in the story that Christ is writing and has written. We welcome you to taste and see that His Grace is Good. We welcome you to be forgiven in the Name of Jesus.

“…and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Jesus Christ.” The same Paul, to the same Romans, chapter 3, verse 24.

“…For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” the same John the Apostle, the same third chapter, the 17th verse.

This can only be brief, but it only needs to be. Here, Slice says: “Shack Author Denies Substitutionary Atonement.” I’m sorry to say, that this is simply not true. What the author denied is the Penal version of Substitionary atonement. The author of The Shack specifically states that he believes in some form of substitution and quotes 2 Corinthians 5:19 in support of it. It is simply not true that the author denied substitution. What he denied is the Reformed Calvinist version of substitution. What he denies is the penal version of the substitution. I think the author of Slice needs to correct the title of her post because Young specifically states that he believes in some form of substitution.

Now, just a couple of finer points. The person conducting the interview with Young states at the end a whole list of people, one who even did one whole sermon on The Shack that included ten whole points (!; talk about avoiding the Gospel!) (and others like Driscoll, Mohler as if anyone outside the SBC cares what Mohler thinks; as if we are not people with minds and can think on our own without these all powerful guardians; as if Driscoll is always right and never wrong and the ADM’s are always for Driscoll), who are ‘opposed’ to the book The Shack. What they didn’t do is include a whole list of people, theologians and preachers alike, who are not opposed to The Shack and there are many. The interview itself was little more than the interviewer trying his damnedest to convince Young that there is a literal hell (even after Young stated that he believed in Hell as literal). Young was gracious, but he was in the lion’s den. The interviewer was just beside himself that Young denied penal substitution is central to the Gospel. When Young tried to point out that there is actually great debate about this right now, the interviewer didn’t seem to care too much.

Young stated unequivocally, “I believe the only hope for any of us is Jesus.” That’s pretty clear to me. However, denial of the penal substitution is not a denial of the Gospel. It is a denial of a particular interpretation of the Gospel. There are many, many, many theologians who deny that penal substitution is the ‘core’ of the Gospel. Consider the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:

¹Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. ²By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

³For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ⁴that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, ⁵and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. ⁶After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. ⁷Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, ⁸and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

⁹For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. ¹⁰But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. ¹¹Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

The author of Slice needs to correct her post to reflect the truth because as it stands, it is simply wrong. Again, a denial of penal substitution is not the same as a denial of the Gospel. It is only in the minds of Reformed Calvinists and The Shack haters that penal substitution is the center of the Gospel. I don’t think you will find it in the Scripture.*

*The author of Slice does have it correct in her post, but not in her title. The title is misleading. The rest stands on it’s own as a criticism of what one considers ‘gospel.’

This post amused me:

After hearing an interview with Bono recently in which 1/3rd of it was bleeped due to his fondness for the F-word, I’m sure that this album will make a deep and lasting Christ-honoring impression on the world.

As a U2 aficionado (ah, who am I kidding; I love U2!), I think I can confidently say that our dear friend at Slice is far too worried about U2. Actually, I’m rather surprised because recently, our dear sick friend (who needs our prayers for his back and money for his ‘ministry’ by the way), Pastor/Teacher/Prophet/Reformer Ken Silva posted this, which is a collection of music he himself has written.

I listened to the song ‘Eye of a Hurricane’ and I specifically heard Kenne drop the ‘d’ bomb several times in the song. Yet, no sarcastic calls from Slice about the ‘deep and lasting Christ-honoring impression’ that Kenne will leave on the world.  Then Kenne defended his decidedly ’secular’ music this way in a terribly verbose and rambling missive of which I will quote but two sentences:

At the same time apparently there was also some confusion as to the recent posting of some of the many songs I’ve written. I was pretty clear that they were not worship songs, though I have written some of those as well, but were instead geared primarily to a secular audience.

Two thoughts.

1. To the author of Slice, can you please provide a link or some substantiation of your remark that a recent interview with Bono had to be 1/3 deleted because of the ‘f’ word? I’m interested in seeing if you counted correctly.

2. To the author of Slice, and in the interest of fairness, can you please rebuke Pastor/Teacher/Prophet/Songster/Poet/Reformer Kenne for his absolutely appalling use of the word ‘damn’ in the song ‘Eye of the Hurricane’? I am offended and I feel like Kenne might be leading some people down a path towards damnation with his ‘music geared towards a secular audience.’

One more thought.

1. I suspect that U2’s influence in and around the world and the church will, despite Bono’s ‘fondness for the ‘f’ word’, will be judged by the fruit it produces. At least Bono understands grace. And has a recording deal.

Do you people really have nothing better to do with your time? Why don’t you buy a U2 CD and listen to it? You will learn more about grace in one U2 song (say, Daddy’s Gonna Pay for Your Crashed Car or Grace) than you will in 10 pages of Slice or Apprising posts.

The utter hypocrisy of the Slice post (and a similar post at Apprising) sickens me.