CRN.Info and Analysis

Friends, we have known that for some time now the anti-Christian bias of the United States has been oppressing those of us who are the true, discerning, followers of Christ. It has now come to our attention that part of this oppression has come internally in the form of Christian websites spreading any and all salacious gossip about Christians they can find. What’s worse is they are working hand in hand with secular sources to do their work.

You can go here for a sample.

Hear the hiss.

Edit:
For those that didn’t catch it, the tone of this post was parodying ODMs.

It is no secret that a certain Christian website has taken great pains to vilify teen star Miley Cyrus (of “Hannah Montana” fame), who frequently uses her public stage to reference her Christian faith. We’ve defended Ms. Cyrus, who attends Mosaic Church in Los Angeles, CA at least twice previously (along with a bit of tongue-in-cheek advice for her and other Christian artists). In one of the most read chapters of the Bible, 1 Corinthians 13, we read:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

And so it is that we try to consider love, though we have a lot of room for improvement. In light of this, it seems that almost the OPPOSITE of love is displayed in this article (UPDATE: cached image), which gleefully ‘exposes’ Ms. Cyrus for having racy photos taken of her and posted on the internet:

My congenital detractors hooted and howled with laughter when I posted on Miley Cyrus, rock idol to millions of little girls around the world, and her claims that she is a Christian, doing everything she does for Jesus. Irate evangelical Hannah Montana fans indignantly defended the professing Christian rock star for her “squeaky clean” image and her image as a “good Christian role model” for their daughters. Yeah, yeah, right. The news headlines at AOL this morning:

Yet another batch of probably-meant-to-be-private photos of teen sensation Miley ‘Hannah Montana’ Cyrus have found their way on to the Internet, showing the 15-year-old starlet flashing a bra and laying across the lap of a male with her top pulled up. While certainly scandalous simply because of her age, this wouldn’t be the first time that mature photos of Cyrus have made their rounds. In the past, pictures of the singer-actress in underwear and bikinis also made headlines.

Noting that Ms. Cyrus thanked “my lord and Savior, Jesus Christ” when accepting a recent award, the author sneered:

Just leave my Saviour’s holy name out of it, Miley. (emphasis mine)

So what, exactly is the problem with this response to the news about Ms. Cyrus’ suggestive pictures? Well, maybe the fact that they weren’t pictures of her, and that the reporting standard was just shy of that of the National Enquirer? In this age of frequent “Photoshopped” scandals, it doesn’t make sense to be sensational with ‘breaking news’ - particularly when it is salacious - until enough time (typically one or two news cycles - 1-2 weekdays) has passed for the actual facts of a situation have been ascertained. As for the final comment about “my Saviour’s holy name”, the implication is clear that the author arrogantly believes that her Saviour and Ms. Cyrus’ Saviour are two different individuals. If they are two separate individuals, indeed, I think I will take the one publicly proclaimed by Ms. Cyrus over one that (by the author’s implication) would wholeheartedly endorse the gossip-mongering, externals-focused, deceitful, slander-filled rantings of her critic.

If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

I wonder if a retraction will be forthcoming, or if it will be an Obama-like “I’m sorry if people were hurt by the way I said things, but the underlying truth still exists” non-apology. I am truly hoping for the former. ***UPDATE (with thanks to Matt B)*** It seems that the original author deleted the article (I’ll rescue the original from my cache and link it tomorrow, if possible) and - rather than issue an apology - used her own error to compound her attack against the teenager in her crosshairs, by issuing an increasingly vitriolic non-apology. What is sad is that she links to a rather innocuous video of Ms. Cyrus performing at a charity event to raise money for the relief of human suffering. (See below)

Were we to be of the same, twisted mindset, we could write up a post comparing this author’s ideal of Christian dress with that of the FLDS Texas polygamy cult. Then, we could make suggestions that the two are somehow connected. (See below):

While we could do this, such a comparison would be just as much of an ad homenim attack as the string of anti-Christian attacks made by the author of the attack piece. Instead, we have an author who has had to issue multiple corrections in the past week, whether for being punk’d (along with several other media outlets) by a Yale student, for linking to gay porn, or - now - for posting false, salacious gossip that might be a stumbling block for Christians struggling with porn. Perhaps the saddest thing of all is that this website claims to have the gift of discernment here:

That’s right the Lord gave everything he had for us, the least we can do is to return what we have — the gifts that he’s given us — to use them for his glory and to warn those in the church — as unpopular as it is — to be in the postition of watchman you take a bit of egg in the face from the kids standing down below.

Despite claiming such powers, its own powers of ‘discernment’ seem to be on par with the Weekly World News, and just as sinful. Certainly, God has called - and He wants His truth back…

Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.

Such are the words of Paul in his letter to the Romans, as he describes ways we are to be loving of all of those around us, who walk with us in this life. In my days of working in Leadership Development, I became acquainted with all sorts of quotes, but one that stuck with me was one by Rudolph Guiliani in his book on leadership:

Weddings Optional, Funerals Mandatory

Basically, his advice was that when people are celebrating that it is important to let them know that you are happy for their good fortune, even if there are conflicts which prevent your physical presence. In the case of someone in mourning, though, not only is your empathy/sympathy important, but your physical presence is, as well. In Guiliani’s advice, your time and presence demonstrates to a mourner, far and above anything else, your love for them.

In the first century, when a loved one died, it was customary for them to be placed in a 2-chambered tomb. One chamber held the body of the deceased, and the other was for the close friends and family of the deceased to sit in mourning for a week after the death. In many cases, the burial chamber was sealed after three days (as was the case with Lazarus), due to the smell, but the mourner would still remain. This allowed time for news of the death to spread to the outlying communities, and for well-wishers to comfort those who were mourning.

Upon reaching the tomb, the comforters would weep with the grieved, and tear their clothes.

This is part of the image I believe Paul is painting in his advice for Christians.

Sadly, there are those who claim the Christian faith who have turned Paul’s advice on its head, out of a sense of Schadenfreude (taking pleasure in the misfortune of others), who mourn for those who rejoice and rejoice for those who mourn. If you want an example of an anti-Christ spirit of today, you need look no further when something like this happens.

What has become incredibly odious is the practice of using someone’s death as a political or religious platform - whether the death of soldiers overseas, a political figure, a religious leader (or the wife of a disgraced religious leader), or a famous actor. Such an occasion is NOT the time to score political points. Such an occasion is a time to demonstrate love.

Heath Ledger

Last night, I was heartened to find out that Chris Rosebrough was choosing to speak out againt the actions of some falsely acting in the name of Christ, specifically Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, in their plans to picket the funeral of actor Heath Ledger.  Why Ledger?  Because of a gay character he played in Brokeback Mountain (which I’ve not seen), and - most importantly - because his funeral will get lots of press coverage.

Here’s a video (HT: Chris R.) with Phelps’ own words:

Rosebrough writes:

Therefore, We’d like to ask you to pray AND find a way to combat this hate by sending messages that share Christ’s love with Heath Ledger’s family and loved ones. If we don’t take a stand against this type of hate done in the name of Christ then we will become silent accomplices to Westboro’s gross and inhuman sin.

I could not agree more, and I am doubly blessed that this was written by Chris R and that we agree on this matter.  I would hope that the message received by Ledger’s family about the love of Christ is not the one preached by Phelps and the WBC, but the one preached by Paul and affirmed by those truly demonstrating Jesus’ love…
If anyone has contact information of where to send condolences to Ledger’s family, please post it in the comments, as I couldn’t find any online.

Recently discovered document, from backstage at the REDACTED show.

_____________________

TO: “Christians” with Artistic Gifts
RE: Success and Doing Your Best

It has come to our attention that you are employed in the world of entertainment. While this, alone, should disqualify you from the book of life, since you claim the title “Christian”, please realize that we will be watching you like a hawk. At some point, you will fail, and when you do, you will get a foretaste of what your experience will be like in hell, as we will be the hands and feet of God to deliver it to you. So please, keep in mind the following:

1) If you are ever interviewed, our skepticism of the press will vanish to be replaced with an “absence detector”, which identifies anything and everything you never said in that interview. Even if you DID say what didn’t get printed, it does not matter - you must not have said it forcefully enough, or else they would have printed it.

2) If you are involved in an artistic venture that requires dancing, you are going to hell. Unless you are encased in a full-body cast, we will characterize your performance as “writhing around” and “fanny shaking” and “pelvic thrusting”. Fanny-shaking is of the devil.

3) If you’re a woman, it doesn’t matter if you’re wearing a burkha. Your dress will always be called ‘immodest’, and characterized as “fleshly” or “worldly”. Deal with it.

4) If you’re an actor, you’d best marry another actor and ONLY perform with that person. Otherwise, do not take any part which requires you to so much as hold hands with another actor. If you do so, be prepared for an onslaught of criticism for your cavalier attitude toward sexuality.

5) If you are required to travel as part of your work, please realize that - unless you travel back to your home church EVERY week - we will exoriate you for your lack of faithfulness in attending your local church. NOTE: If you have support from your local church community while you’re on the road, that doesn’t mean you’ll get a free pass. We’ll just criticize you because of all of those people who can’t afford such nicities.

6) DO NOT, by any means, attain any level of ‘success‘. If you do, it will be evidence of your carnality and worldliness, which we will roast you for. If you are successful, that is a sign that you’re not being persecuted, and, therefore, not a Christian. Your best bet is to suck enough to prevent success, but not so much that your tithe won’t pay for the new educational wing at your “church”. Remember - the tallest blade of grass is always the one that gets cut down first.

7) If you do not mention “Jesus” (”God” doesn’t count) at every available opportunity, we will trumpet this as evidence of your fleshly, worldly motivations and your selling out on the altar of worldly success. We will thump our breasts to show what an awful hypocrite you are!

If you are a painter, we’d best not find any paintings of things outside of Christianity (or, worse yet, which depict anything apart from a modernist or romantic view of the Biblical account). If we can construe something to be anti-Christian, we will, and we will blame you.

9) If you are a singer, every song had best mention “Jesus” (not “God”), or you’re a worldly sell-out.

10) If you are an actor, never play the part of a villan or do anything that would be a sin. Additionally, do not ever act in a movie that gets a rating of PG or higher (unless it is a semi-realistic portrayal of the crucifixion, in which case we will only criticize you for being a Catholic instead of being a Christian). We may give you a pass, though, if you act in poorly-produced pre-mill dispensationalist fantasies.

11) At some point in your life, after you are on the public stage, you will sin. We will be there to point it out for you, just in case you don’t see it. After this, we will be sure to label you by your sin for the remainder of your life. If we could (and unfortunately, your lawyers would probably prevent it), we would engrave it on your tombstone. Regardless, we will bring it up at every turn to justify why were were right to hate critize you in the first place. If, by some chance, you don’t have publicly known sin after awhile, we will dig into your past to find it for you.

12) If you attend a church that is not on our short list of “approved” churches (like Grace Community Church in CA), then you don’t really count as “Christian”, as your pedigree is suspect. Should we ever see you in the same photo with Rick Warren, Erwin Mcmanus, Rob Bell or other “Christians” we hate disagree with, you can pretty much expect the ink to flow from our loving pens.

So, please realize that as a Christian artist, you have chosen a profession with more minefields in it than the Kuwaiti border. Your best bet would just be to turn back now. Should you decide to trudge on forward, remember - we will be watching you - like a hawk.

In Christian love,

The watchmen (and women)

Corey pointed out this post over at CRN - which can only be described as a hit piece. It’s short, disappointing, and relishes in the “turmoil” of a fellow member in the Body of Christ. I’m not sure what is more troubling, that they seem to relish in the supposed turmoil within a local expression of the Body of Christ - or the sources they quote. If you follow the links one is a newspaper the other two are blogs (here and here).

I find the second source, the first blog, to be highly ironic since, on the same page as the Mars Hill article, there is a link to “Lustlab” where women can find their “inner slut.”

The post itself doesn’t say much, so there’s little to respond to except to marvel at the peddling that’s being done. Who knows, maybe there’s a scandal brewing in Seattle that will be another embarrassment to the Body as a whole; then again maybe it’s just a few outsiders (media and bloggers) fanning the flames against something they do not understand - either way, the from the other parts of the Body should be a) charity and love not b) relish and condemnation.

It was with great sadness that I read about this past weekend’s shootings in Arvada, Colorado. My in-laws from Allenspark, Colorado (several hours away from Arvada) were here in Indiana with us, so they were rather interested in following the story, as well. It was such a tragedy that a family lost two children in such a sad and senseless way. I found somewhat of a sense of providence in that 40-50 more lives were probably saved because a member of the New Life church, Jeanne Assam, was carrying a gun, as part of increased security, and used it to deadly effect.

There was applause as Assam spoke to reporters and TV cameras saying, “God guided me and protected me.”

New Life’s Senior Pastor Brady Boyd called Assam “a real hero” because Murray “had enough ammunition on him to cause a lot of damage.”

When asked by a reporter if she felt like a hero, Assam said, “I wasn’t just going to wait for him to do further damage.”

“I give credit to God,” she said.

What an example of God providing in a time of tragedy.

Granted, you knew that there would be folks with political agendas to advance in the wake of the shooting, primarily the anti-gun lobby, as Virgil Vaduva noted in his article on Unfinished Christian. Well, just as in the world apart from the church there are those to whom a cloud with a silver lining is only an invitation to call for more lightning, such nasty individuals also seem to find a home in the church. Why allow God to get the glory when there are political points to be scored?

The long knives of the Sanhedrin were out in full force, seeing this as as a time to take shots at a church in tragedy (and not the first time they’ve done it to this church). When you’re at war with the forces of this present darkness, it isn’t surprising that there will be shots that are fired at brothers and sisters in Christ - literally or figuratively. What is really sad is when the get shot in the back.

But it’s not like this is something new for rabid watchdogs in need of being put down…

I daresay I am probably going to call down the wrath of the Sanhedrin of Laodicea for bringing this up, but the recent conversation about the anonymous version of “O Holy Night” raised some interesting points. I have to say I was rather surprised at the number of professing Christians who got their knickers in a twist, treating a song of questionable origin that was not sung for the purpose of dishonoring God as if it were holy writ being spat upon. Bizarre.

Perhaps one of the basic questions to come out of this is “Must a joyful noise be a beautiful one?” One of the Laodicean commenters wrote:

God is a God of order, and if He has not given the talent to sing, you should not try to sing.

To which I wondered where this view was scripturally supported (aside from the book of II Opinions). Of all the replies to this gentleman and a number of other Schleuterites, probably the best one was given by Julie:

I don’t get how this is seen as mocking the subject matter of the song, but rather, the singer either mocking himself or allowing his non-ability to be mocked.

If we’re going to open that little can of worms, fine.

Is every bad piece of Christian music a mockery? Every flawed, non-professional grade, fully orchestrated effort of music by a Christian a mockery of the Creator who perhaps didn’t bother to install a tuner on the voice box? What’s our little litmus test here, as to what’s “good enough” of a performance to be considered honoring, and what’s a mockery with demons cackling and shame following? Is it a matter of the heart? Can we determine that matter of heart, via MP3 playback, if this was a serious effort or not? Can we not all say we know some terrible singers who don’t care and just sing out joyfully and full-bore?

I know that Ingrid prides her husband for his classically trained trumpet efforts and all the work he’s put into it and how valuable all of this work and mastery is to God, as if that somehow makes it more pleasing an aroma as an offering to God. Cain* had some fine, lovely vegetables, I heard. Big whoop. I’ve yet to find a verse that delineates the definition of singing and praising and worshiping and anything else to only those who have mastered some musical instrument or skill or are determined by the human audience without a direct line to the heart and mind as to what they are thinking and feeling as they are making that music.

So, since we do not know the story behind this, and it makes us laugh because it sounds terrible but not because we enjoy some bizarre assumption of mockery, we are with cackling demons.

That’s just stupid.

Amen, Julie.

But perhaps we should look at some REAL examples and ask - must a joyful noise be a beautiful one? If it is not, is it ever acceptable to laugh?

Example #1: One of the commenters posted a link to the video below with the question “what do you do with this?”

I have to say, I was uncomfortable from the vast array of emotions this brought up. I felt embarrassed for the gentleman, imagining myself in his place. I felt moved because his heart seemed to be into the singing much more than a lot of Sunday morning pew-riders I’ve known over the years. I chuckled, because some of the added words were indeed humorous. I felt sheepishly guilty for chuckling. I felt myself agreeing a bit with the “amen”s in the congregation. The whole gamut. But in all of that, I could not even fathom agreeing with Ingrid’s lackey’s comment above.

Examples #2+: A music minister (the same one that gave me O Holy Night) gave me a disc he had received from a friend at a Christian recording studio. On that disc were a number of songs that had been submitted as ‘demos’ for consideration for publication. As such, the singers had to know (you would think) that their work would have to be critiqued. A number of them are hilarious from a “what were they thinking?” standpoint, but at the same time, I would say that a number of them were joyful (though poor quality as determined by human beings - even those that have never heard music before) noises to the Lord.

1. “Kill me, Kill me, Kill me” - You must listen through to the chorus
2. Hot Summer Nights - Really, what was he thinking, submitting this to a CHRISTIAN label?
3. I Am a Man - Yup
4. That’s Peculiar - And again, Yup
5. Oh Lord (with a LONG introduction from the artist) - You know the drill…
6. O Nightingale - O, indeed, I believe my ears are still bleeding
7. Our God is an Awesome God - I loved Rich Mullins, and I’m so glad he never heard this
8. We Are the Champions (of God) - Freddy Mercury, eat your heart out. No - really…
9. His Eye is on the Sparrow - I really had to wonder if they played this recording for any of their friends. If so, with friends like those…
10. Chock Full of Love - the first, and probably last, time you’ll ever hear the word “chock” in a song. The tune, itself, may end up playing on your ‘head radio’, so proceed with caution!
11. Satan, You Lost, Lost, Lost - Think “first week of American Idol”
12. Soul Saved Tonight - there are a plethora of reasons that secular songs should not be completely rewritten for Christian audiences. This is one of them. If you ever want to listen to your Eagles’ albums again with untarnished nostalgia, do not listen to this. Seriously. I warned you…
13. Amazing Grace - If you were going to submit a demo tape to a record company, wouldn’t you want to remember the words? And if you didn’t remember them, wouldn’t you want to record them over until you got them right? Hm?
14. We Want to Fish For Men - I am guessing this is part of a larger work. I hope I’m wrong.
15. God Give the Devil the Measles - This is actually a quality song with cheesy lyrics. I once put together a video of this with a friend and some staff members during break time as a way to entertain some campers (and demonstrate some video techniques). Here is that monstrosity (yes, that’s me with the guitar at the beginning, my wife popping out of the trailer, and my son with the painted stomach.)
16. Holy Jerusalem - Can anyone explain to me what happened here?
17. Come Back America - scary stuff
18. Safe Sex Rap - some words you never thought you’d hear in a Christian song (and not because they’re naughty)
19. Thank You, God - Really weirdness
20. Jesus is About to Rap This Up (Bonus Track) - Something to make dispensationalism just a little bit more wacky…

There were a few more, but I couldn’t find them online (and I don’t have the server space to host them), so you’ll just have to trust me that they’re more of the same.

What do y’all think? (NOTE: If you are going to be critical, please read this article first and couch your criticism/accusation as either an “Absolute”, a “Conviction” or a “Preference”. If you don’t do this, I probably won’t take you all that seriously, because you really are just wanting to self-righteously spout off and not dialog. If that’s what you’re looking for, start a blog and ask Ingrid for advice on your writing.)

In a bizarro-world sort of logic, CR?N has posted an article which seems to combine schadenfruede and misplaced belief in the ‘rightness’ of factions within the church.

Referenced is this article in which Frank Page, the head of the SBC, expressed concern over divisions within the denomination:

“There are forces at work today to try to divide and distract Baptists from our primary mission. We cannot allow methodological differences, generational gaps, or stylistic preferences to divide us,” said state convention president Willy Rice, according to Florida Baptist Witness. “We need each other and we truly are better when we are together.”

[…]

“There’s a lot of negativity out there toward religious groups, and certainly toward our group, because we’ve apparently come across as very legalistic and mean-spirited, and I think that’s sometimes accurate, because sometimes we’ve acted that way” [emphasis mine]

You will note that division over doctrinal differences is not what is being addressed, and that it is orthopraxy being self-criticized, not orthodoxy. [To be fair, I would hold some concerns about this particular convention, since Bill Clinton and Al Gore are invited, but that’s a whole other topic…] The divisions being discussed are, to reiterate: a) differences in method; b) differences in generational expectations; c) stylistic preferences. Hmmmm… I don’t see ‘heretical doctrine’ in that list.

In addition, it appears that the mysterious “Editor” is using a different Bible than the rest of us.

…for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. (1 Corinthians 11:20) [emphasis theirs]

When I look up 1 Corinthians 11:20 in my Bible, I get this:

When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat,

That’s odd. So I did a bit of searching for the passage that perhaps they meant to quote, starting with the query of ‘factions’. Perhaps they meant 2 Corinthians 12:20:

For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder.

Well, the verse number is similar, but the message from Paul seems to be the opposite of what the CR?N writer wishes us to believe the Bible says, though the subject of its criticism fits right in line for that ODM’s like CR?N seem to be striving for.

Perhaps they meant Galatians 5:19-21:

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Well, no, that doesn’t work either, because it again suggests the very opposite of what the “Editor” was suggesting, but fits right in with the turf ODM’s like CR?N frequently inhabit. So perhaps they were using a different translation. So I checked the NASB and found that they were trying to cite 1 Corintians 11:19 (one verse off). Here it is in the NIV:

No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.

OK. So what’s Paul talking about here? Let’s check this out in context (1 Corinthians 11:17-22)

In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

Hmmm. This doesn’t seem like a discussion on doctrinal differences at all, but rather a rebuke for piggish behavior when the body has come together for a feast in celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The verse in question (number 19) has been suggested by some commentators to be sarcasm, but most see it referring back to the situation Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 1:10-12, and not to division cause by false teaching:

I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas[Peter]”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

Note what Paul says in verse 10 (emphasized above) - That he desires unity within the church! Well, I suppose I can understand why the “Editor” wishes to remain anonymous after seeing this attempted prooftexting of scripture to support something condemned by Paul.

One of our commenters recently noted that perhaps the only reason more than half of the articles/posters on CR?N hide behind the cloak of anonymity is because we have criticized it, pointing out its lack of accountability and observed abuse. If that is the case, it is just a micro-example of the marcro problem with CR?N and ODM’s like it: the desire to shove one’s thumb in the eye of a brother, when given the chance, outweighs the biblical morality of doing the right thing.

I have a lot of issues with Juanita Bynum’s ministry.  There is a lot to be said about her theology, teachings and even her current marital situation.  Having that said, this attack at CRN is simply unfair.  Bynum is divorcing her husband after he attacked her in a hotel parking lot.  There was apparently a history of abuse.  Now, if this was anyone else, the advise would be to get out as soon as possible before you are in serious danger.  However, the ever so elusive “editor” at CRN slips this little jab into the beginning of the story

“I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel. (Malachi 2:16)

This is a classic case of using the scripture to passively and cruelly abuse people.  It’s not that this scripture isn’t true.  But I wonder if Ken the editor would barge into a battered women’s home and proclaim this over the bruised and battered women there.  It’s sad when the ODMs have to make underhanded attacks for headlines.  This one has nothing to do with the Word of Faith movement (as this article is categorized), but keeping their opinions about Bynum fresh.

We have discussed how and to what extent should a leader be restored when he or she has been caught in moral failure. But all through the discussion I continued to have an overall question about the entire way in which some blogs handle the sins of others.

Why does SOL and some other blogs link to secular newspapers as they report moral failures of a youth pastor and others? Isn’t it just sensationalism akin to the National Enquire? Even if they argued that these were warning examples for all of us, why would it be necessary to provide names and places, why not just the scenario itself? How can people possibly adhere to Phil.4:8 and think on good things when they are absolutely bombarded with gossip and dirt about other people? We all know about moral failures, they happen in churches in all of our communities and they are tragic, but why do we need to be informed about moral failures that happen in churches in Anywhere, USA?

Is there not a wide difference between a Scriptural teaching about moral purity and a blog peep show into the sins of strangers? I find it interesting that Paul did not share the issue of moral failure in the Corinthian church in his epistles to other churches, but it was dealt within the church where it occurred. It is a disgusting display of spreading filth about specific people and it encourages everyone to have the “I’m glad I’m not like that publican” attitude. Isn’t that EXACTLY what Jesus was trying to teach us NOT to do?

You can teach Biblical warnings without providing a smorgasbord of the sins of others, many times gleaned from the secular press and posted with a self righteous effervescence that draws the hungry sharks. And with the comments on those type of posts outnumbering the comments on devotional posts 10 to 1 at least, we have proof that some blogs have created a kind of “Christian” gossip newsletter that rivals the Hollywood rags. And in two years of seeing these posts, I cannot remember once reading for everyone to pray for these fallen brothers or sister.

Moral failures in local churches are not exclusively a symptom of liberal or modern churches, they occur in the most orthodox of local gatherings. I continue to wonder, what spirit could possibly lead a believer to read a secular report about a brother’s sins and be energized to reprint it and add to the chastening and misery that he, his family, and the entire church is painfully going through? The personal dirt that is served on these sites is void of any semblance of the redemption that appears once in a while in the reprinted hymn words and devotional writings of various authors. When Haggard fell he was systematically dismembered on Christian sites, complete with some of the shocking details, and with comment sections that mirrored wolves gathered around the carcass of a fresh kill. Unseemly, unchristian, and a sad misrepresentation of the grace and mercy that defined our Savior’s earthly ministry.

Sorry, I was affected by that self righteous pile on.