Ephesians 2:4-6 (NKJV – emphasis mine) — But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together …

I have noted before on my blog that legalism mocks God’s grace. If we are raised in a home that doesn’t perform “worldly” externals, and all Christianity is about is not doing those “worldly” externals, then God hasn’t really saved us from much — we weren’t dead in our trespasses; we just had the sniffles.

A couple weeks ago, Neil wrote about labels, and how they can be helpful at times — and downright useless and silly at other times. The latter issue was the larger portion of his post and (although he didn’t initially identify it at the time of the writing), I was one of the people that he wrote about who had been incorrectly and unfairly labeled. (He later went back and filled readers in on who the label-ers were. ‘Twas a hop, skip, and jump from there to figure out who the label-ees were.)

Unfortunately, for any “fact-checkers” out there, the background of my incident can’t be accurately checked, as the moderators of the site on which I was labeled chose to conveniently excise large parts of the exchange in which either (a) I made a strong point or (b) they looked foolish in retrospect. But that’s not why I’m writing this, anyway …

I was attempting to answer the question “Is Francis Chan emergent?” by noting that the important question was not whether or not someone had attached a label to Chan, but whether or not what he teaches/writes is the truth. As the questioner appeared to truly be researching Chan, but coming up empty, I pointed her to a couple of book reviews and a brief (and, for me, convicting) video by Chan.

(For what extremely little it was worth, one of the book reviews included a quote from Chan that pretty much answered her irrelevant question.)

Having just made the point that the issue was truth (not labels), the very next comment — by a moderator, no less — asked me if I was emergent. Quite frankly, I was stunned at how incredibly and thoroughly he had missed my entire point. I felt like tapping the mic and asking, “Is this thing on?”

I temporarily evaded the question, as it was no more relevant for me than it was for Chan. However, after a while, it became obvious that I was never going to get that point through, even though I repeated it numerous times in different ways. So I just (metaphorically) threw up my hands and answered their question. I worked off a list of teachers/writers that one of my accusers had provided, and (I’m sure to their utter shock) largely agreed with their stances on these men.

But then I “messed up” and dragged God into the conversation (what was I thinking?):

Bottom line though: While none of those men are on my bookshelf, I do not think God incapable of using them to speak truth to me.

The responses to this statement (all of my others “disappeared”) made things abundantly clear — they were so utterly focused on these men, that they totally (dis)missed God. One can only come to the conclusion that they do think God incapable of using those men.

There was even a great, though certainly unintended, illustration of this. One of the moderators has an image in his signature line — riffing off of President Obama’s “Hope” slogan — that says “Hopeless” (complete with the same logo in the “O” as was in the original). While no fan of the president by a long shot, I have to note that this image says infinitely more about the moderator’s view of God than his view of the president.

I ran across a post on another blog today about some truly horrific people — murderers, drunkards, adulterers, pimps, prostitutes — the scum of the earth. Oddly, they’re all characters cited in Genesis, many of whom were greatly used by God. And some of them don’t even have the “good” testimonies of how they did all that bad stuff before they met God, and walked the straight and narrow ever since.

The phrase “another gospel” (riffing off Galatians 1) has been perverted in its overuse to mean “that with which we do not agree”. And, to be sure, I saw that phrase used often in the discussions surrounding Chan and others. But to claim (even indirectly) that God is incapable of using anyone requires not only the ignoring of large portions of Scripture, but an outright mockery of God’s grace and the heart of the gospel message.

That, my friends, is truly “another gospel”.

Galatians 1:9 (NKJV – emphasis mine) — As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Don’t blame me — I didn’t say it.

(or Ingrid never ran over my puppy)

OK, people, time for a level-set.

It would appear that the (irrelevant and inaccurate) references to this site in the meta of Tim Challies’ post the other day have garnered us some new readers.  To them I say “Welcome”.  This post is actually in response to “pre-Challies” readers of this blog who seem to have missed something.  Before you new folks make the honest mistake of ascribing to the same misconception, maybe we ought to clear it up (again).

Many of the veteran detractors of this site routinely state that the purpose of this blog is to spew hatred against a select few.

The Greek word for such a viewpoint is “skubala“.  A (very) rough English translation would be “baloney”.

Some time ago, Chris Lyons (with input from other contributors here) wrote Our Mission, detailing what this blog is all about.  Chris outlines six guidelines for this blog, only one of which deals with the addressing of points in which we disagree with those that write the various watchblogs out there.  In fact, Chris calls this “the lowliest” of these six tasks.

Even if we throw several bones to the skubala-merchants and ignore the existence of the other five tasks, their viewpoint is still inaccurate.  Which brings me to the point of the title of this post.

I don’t hate Ken or Ingrid or Chris R or PB.  Regardless of the mutuality of the sentiment, I consider them all Christian siblings of mine.

Now, admittedly, I do hate theological error — very much so — especially when it is presented at the expense of others.  And this is what I write against.  This is why I am here.  The fact that it often happens to be presented by one or more of the afore-mentioned people (that I allegedly hate) is either purely coincidental or cited as an example.  While I sometimes cross the line, I do my best to remember that my anger is not directed at them, but at the error that they are presenting and the damage that it can do to others.

Sidenote: I do find it rather telling that one of the most vocal (and oft-repeated) accusations against Tim Challies’ post was that he didn’t “name names”.  The fact that he didn’t screams that his “beef” was with a concept, not a person.  Such writing demands that the reader not simply write Tim off as a “hater”, but actually determine if the points he made are applicable to themselves.  (Or at least gripe about the fact that he didn’t “name names”.)

As Chris noted about himself recently, I used to wield a weed-eater indiscriminately, too.  But God worked on my heart, both directly and through others, to see my sin.  My purpose here is to try to be the “others” for someone else.  Not as someone who has arrived, but as someone that’s been to a few “places” that you’re better off avoiding.

For you new(er) folks here, please be warned — the veteran dissenters on this site will state unequivocally that I am lying and what I have written here is not the true nature of what’s in my heart.  They will most likely misappropriate the first half of Matthew 7:16 as proof-text of their ability to read my heart.  These are people who apparently ignore passages such as 1 Samuel 16:7.  By tacitly stating that they are God (by the measure of this latter verse), they are committing nothing short of blasphemy.  I would ask that you think for yourselves, rather than take the word of a blasphemer.

Maybe even use a little discernment.

Since the very beginning of this blog, we’ve been pretty firm in our “no comments are deleted” policy, with only a couple minor exceptions (with neither an attempt to silence/whitewash voices).  However, it’s becoming apparent that we need to add a little bit more to the way we’ve been managing this.

Some general observations/policies (for those unfamiliar) on this topic:

1) First-time commenters are automatically moderated until their first comment is approved.  We often run down IP addresses and match against some other sources to verify who someone is (or is not), and whether they’ve commented on this blog (or other blogs) before under different names/aliases.

2) For some people, relative anonymity is important (i.e. preventing people from tracking down personal/ID information and misusing it) and understandable.  As such, we do not demand full names.

3) “Moderation” (which puts comments into a queue for delayed approval) is used, rather sparingly for commenters who almost exclusively post items which:

* are consistently  nasty
* are consistently derogatory w/ little/no OP relevance
* ignore warnings on personal attacks against other commenters
* consistently ignore requests from CRN.Info writers

Ch-ch-ch-changes

With these in mind, we’re currently examining some changes in commenting policy (while keeping the “no comments are deleted” policy, as-is). Here are the proposed changes:

1) Commenters who wish to retain relative anonymity may continue to do so.  All that we ask is that you have a valid email address with your sign-in (which is only visible to CRN.Info writers) OR that you have the name of a CRN.Info writer who can verify your identity contained in the email field.  [example: We at least one commenter who is a single female and is concerned with her safety, and only one of our writers knows here and vouches for her as a commenter)]  If you have a regularly maintained blog that you’ve established, that’s good enough, as well.

2) We expect all regular commenters to maintain ONE name/alias by which they post (Example: We know who nc is, and he’s always nc).  If, for some reason (for instance, the overabundance of Chris’s and Nathan’s) you need to change in the future, just clear it with us so that we can keep track of you.

3) We expect that the ONE name/alias by which a commenter posts is not, in itself, purposely offensive or derrogatory toward another commenter/group/pastor/etc.

Comments/Commenters outside of these guidelines will be put in a moderation queue if, after a grace period, things aren’t rectified.

Personally, I hate doing stuff like this – particularly when it’s just a couple of folks currently at issue.  However, this seems to pop up every few months, so we might as well put it out for discussion and act upon it.

Thoughts? Additions?  Subtractions? Division/Multiplication?

Shalom

Todd Friel simultaneously struck out and hit a grand slam the other day. The strikeout was by putting 2 and 2 together and getting 13.72349; the home run was in crystallizing one of the biggest flaws of ADM thinking in just a couple minutes.

On his TV show, Friel joined the OCRPIJNGWHTDHTFSTC* Society to dump on Rick Warren’s prayer at President Obama’s inauguration. Early in his prayer, Warren said:

And You are the compassionate and merciful one

Friel then said, “In fairness, [I] wanna take a look at Psalm 145:8″ and the verse was put up on the screen:

The LORD is gracious and merciful; Slow to anger and great in lovingkindness.

He then said, “In fairness, that may have been Psalm 145:8, although it’s not quite Psalm 145:8; it was different.”

(Gee, that’s twice that he’s said “in fairness”.  Methinks the TV host doth protest too much.)

How, according to Friel, was it different?  It turns out that most of the chapters in the Koran start by saying:

You are compassionate and merciful

Friel then states that this is “the exact phrase that Rick Warren used”.  Um no, Todd it isn’t.  To paraphrase you, “it’s not quite the Koran; it was different.”  The words “And”, “the” and “one” do not appear in the Koran.  Now I realize that this is nit-picking, but not any more than what Friel was doing by saying it wasn’t “quite Psalm 145:8″.

But hey, just because Friel picks nits, let’s not sink to that level.  What seems not to occur to him is that maybe Warren was simply stating a fact that happens to be similar to a Scripture verse and also happens to be similar to something in the Koran.

At least, I would hope that Friel would agree that God is compassionate and merciful.

In other words, maybe Warren wasn’t quoting anything.  See Todd, there’s this thing that some Christians do, where their speech is infused with references and allusions to things found in Scripture, but they’re not quoting it.  This is what happens to some people when their faith constitutes their entire life and isn’t relegated to a few hours a week.  (I’m not saying that none of that is applicable to you, but it does strike me as odd that the concept is so incredibly foreign to you.)

Friel went on to state that Warren twisted two other Scriptures when he prayed:

and we know today that Dr King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in heaven

Yeah, “cloud of witnesses” is a familiar phrase.  But Friel states that Warren was quoting (and twisting) Hebrews 12:1 and Luke 15:10 (a major stretch) to come up with that sentence.  While I am personally unclear regarding the dead’s cognizance of human activity on earth, again we go back to the fact that maybe Warren wasn’t quoting anything.

But here’s the kicker, and how it’s indicative of ADM thinking.  In just a few minutes of video, Friel says the following phrases (some emphases are mine, but many are actually his):

• that may have been
• I don’t think
• I guess only Rick Warren knows
• seems to be quoting
• I guess we’ll find out in eternity
• I think what he’s doing there
• I also think
• maybe that’s what he meant
• I think he basically

That’s a whole bucketload of uncertainty.  In fact, so much so that I have to question the point of even discussing it.  Yet he presents this information with so much certainty and pseudo-authority that it’s clear that he, personally, is uncertain of nothing, and the viewer shouldn’t be either.  He takes some coincidences, mixes in a lot of assumptions, and gives the viewer an (allegedly) undeniable conclusion.  This is the very foundation upon which “discernment” (as practiced by ADMs — not to be confused with actual discernment) is built.

A few other issues of note:

1. In criticizing Warren’s reference to praying “in the name of the One Who changed my life”, Friel certainly holds in significant derision the concept of salvation being a life-changing experience.  Was it not that way for you, Todd?
2. Don’t even get me started on Friel’s condescending laughs and sighs.
3. Most error contains a good bit of truth; “a little leaven” and all that.  So to state that someone who said something that appears in the Koran is quoting (or even referencing) the Koran is ludicrous.
   • “This was more than I could understand.” — There, I’ve just “quoted” Mein Kampf at greater length than Warren allegedly quoted the Koran.
4. In trying to bolster his “argument” of Warren being spiritually inclusive by (allegedly) quoting the Koran, Friel refers to the “Jewish shema”.  Funny, but every Christian Bible that I’ve seen has Deuteronomy in it.  By referring to the shema as Jewish, Friel denies the constancy and consistency of God.  I doubt that he actually believes that the God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New Testament; but that’s the misinformation that he purports by that allegation.

There is one thing to credit to Friel, though.  The link to this video was on Slice and it opened by saying “As only he can” (referring to Friel).  And apparently that is so.  In contrast to the ADMs, when Friel starts retrieving certainties and conclusions from bodily orifices, at least he admits to his uncertainty.  Sorta.

* OCRPIJNGWHTDHTFSTC = “Oh, crap; Rick prayed in Jesus’ name; guess we’ll have to dig harder to find something to criticize”

(Note: This is not an indictment of the commenter that I reference here.  Several folks here and on similar and dissimilar blogs — myself included — have been guilty of the same thing.  This is an “if the shoe fits” observation.)

Earlier today, Jerry put up the first part of a multi-part post reviewing Rob Bell’s latest book, Jesus Wants to Save Christians.  Being the lightning rod that Bell is ’round these here parts, I fully expected the comment thread to degenerate quickly, and I wasn’t let down.

The third comment expressed disappointment that supposedly (according to the commenter) “those who have not read the book do not qualify for this thread”.  Jerry wrote over 1400 words, none of which (apparently) provided any ammunition for Bell to be crapped on.

So according to this commenter, Jerry just wasted his breath, because no ammo means no point in having a discussion.

God help us.

ADM Policy:  If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.  If it is broke, don’t fix it.  Just point it out.

You know how, when shopping in a store, if you actually need help, you can never find an employee; but if you’re fine, they come crawling out of the woodwork?  I’ve yet to find a solution to the problem, but I have figured out how to alleviate the frustration a bit.  When asked, “Can I help you?” (which is only when I don’t need help), I respond, “They tell me that I’m beyond help.”  It amuses me, sometimes the employee laughs too, and (if not) it’s always fun to mess with someone who talks as though they’re reading a script and doesn’t really give a rat’s glutes about you.

Well, apparently they (who say I’m beyond help) are right.  Or at least, so would say an ADM owner.

I’m not going to name the person, and will take pains to genericize the issue so as not to make it easy to figure out.  I will give the person a pseudonym — Patrick — and I will note that (surprise, surprise) the issue was regarding the “Emerging church”.  But the exact identity/issue is not particularly relevant, especially given the fact that I’ve encountered the same kind of spirit in many ADMs.

I recently came across a post by Patrick whose main point stood in direct opposition to an argument used by others of his ilk against a statement I have made on several occasions.  Actually, it’s inaccurate to state that this was it’s main point — it was the headline, and was obliquely referenced a number of times — but there was no evidence, links, or information supporting that point.  There were, admittedly, 8 links in the article, but none supporting the point.

I sent Patrick an email noting both the dissonance between his “point” and that of others, and also the lack of information on how he arrived at that point.  His response, though somewhat brief, contained all of the following:

• absolute non-sequitur
• statements that only bolstered my issue
• gross over-generalizations  (What?  About Emerging?  No, never.)
• insight into the inner workings of others’ hearts  (What?  From an ADM?  No, never.)
• snarky and facetious uses of terminology used by some Emerging leaders
• a statement that his point was “quite obvious” to him
• an accusation that I hadn’t provided proof that his main “point” was incorrect (!!!)

This last one really threw me for a loop.  Patrick makes a definitive public statement, I ask him for evidence, and he states that I haven’t provided evidence to the contrary.  But let’s not dwell on that — it makes my hair bleed.

Having sufficiently evaded/ignored my actual questions better than any politician could dream of doing, he closed his note with “Thanks for playing”.

Trying to drag the conversation back into the same area code as my point, I sent him another note, clarifying my questions, claiming honest ignorance over what was “quite obvious” to him, and (to what extent possible) responding to the points in his email.  Riffing off his “Thanks for playing”, I closed my note with “Thus beginneth round 2″.

I received a reply stating that there would be no round 2.  I asked why, and he replied that it was pointless. I (admittedly, sarcastically) responded with what seemed to be his interpretation of Galatians 6:1 :

Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, unless you deem it pointless.

His response was “Titus 3:9″ which reads:

But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.

Never mind that the context of this verse is false teaching and church discipline, not questions.  If you don’t want to talk to someone anymore because you consider them a fool, just whip out this verse.

I’m glad God didn’t give up on me that easily.

Friends,

Rather than merely update my previous post on Julie Neidlinger’s essay, I’d like to offer here just a couple of comments concerning something that really bothered me in the comments and replies. It was this: Some felt it necessary to compare Julie’s essay, that is, the content of the essay, to Ingrid Schleuter’s writing or commentary on such same subjects. I’m writing this as a perfect apology for everything that Julie wrote even though, to be sure, I have great sympathy for much of what she said. I am writing, however, to dispel this notion that her work, in this essay, is comparable to Ingrid’s. I have re-read the essay again and I have a least seven reasons why I think Julie’s essay differed and, as such, why it appealed to me. (PS–this post is not about Ingrid per se. It is about the comments that I read from several who said that Julie’s essay was like Ingrid’s in tone and content. Please don’t make this an ‘I hate Ingrid rant’ because that is not what it is. Also, I am not ‘on Julie’s side.’ I am on my own side, partially, defending why I found Julie’s article appealing in the first place.–jerry)

First, Julie actually visited (or had a long standing friendship) with the church she mentions in the first line of her essay. Julie was not sitting back, looking in from a distance, scrutinizing the efforts of the church in an attempt to blister them for being heretics. She didn’t go surfing the web ‘looking for a baby Jesus under the trash’ (Bono). Julie went and worshiped with those people (more than once?); Ingrid does not. That is a huge, huge difference in my book.

Second, Julie did not condemn to hell those she disagreed with, call them apostate, consider them unorthodox, write exposes about the preacher’s heretical teaching, or anything of that sort. She said, quite specifically, “I don’t blame the church; it is my own inability to fit that literally forced me to leave. I don’t really doubt their sincerity, and that many people…etc.” I might take exception to the line ‘I’ve even found, in the past, a few sermons to be interesting,’ but that’s not Julie; that’s me. (That is, as a preacher, I would be highly offended if someone referred to my sermons as merely ‘interesting.’ ) Uh, do I need to actually state what Ingrid (and others like her, do?)

Third, Julie did not act as if her angst was necessarily theological. It may have had theological underpinnings; or not. But Julie was rather clear through the article that her angst had more to do with her own preferences than anything else, maybe even a little home-sickness. This could have bee gleaned by most from the first three paragraphs alone, but it is also scattered throughout. Ingrid, on the other hand, frequently offers up complaints that are decidedly NOT theological, but disguised as such when really they are nothing more than her preferences. Again, huge difference.

Fourth, Julie did not blame the pastor/preacher. “I don’t know that the minister was wrong, though I think he was in some things he said. I am sure parents appreciate the ability to leave…etc…but it annoyed me” (my emphasis.) I appreciated, as a minister, that Julie had the nerve to not place all the burden squarely on the back of the preacher. With Ingrid, that is not nearly ever the case. And maybe there is some justification to Ingrid doing so sometimes, but not always. At some point the congregation full of people needs to assume some of that weight.

Fifth, Julie is not opposed to all things modern. “I’m not going to be one of those starched-collar Christians who, based on personal preference, say that this is a sign we’re going to hell in a handbasket and that all things are wrong unless they are done as they were done with the Puritans.” Isn’t this a huge, major-league, huge difference between Julie and Ingrid? Ingrid is opposed on the grounds of being opposed. Julie is opposed on the grounds that so much of it seems contrived.

Sixth, Ingrid would never, I mean never, quote Kurt Cobain to make a point. Julie would, and did. For that alone Julie get’s bonus points.

Seventh, Julie provided a solution to her problem with the church: She left. This is not what Ingrid (or other AMD types) would do. First, they wouldn’t go to begin with, and, second, they would continue to rail against the church forever and a day thus perhaps robbing some of hope, others of joy, still others of purpose, and perhaps ruining a pastor’s reputation along the way. Julie was feeling angsty so she left. OK. Maybe she was a bit sensitive. OK. Maybe she was being a girl. OK. Who cares? She had a complaint. She voiced it. Some agree and some do not. Julie’s essay was not in any way, shape or form like something Ingrid (or others like her) would publish. Ingrid (and others like her) rarely, if ever, offers solutions to what she sees as (sometimes) valid criticisms. She just criticizes.

From what I can tell, Julie had maybe three complaints and, I happen to think they are valid. In no particular order, 1) fakery/phoniness/lame-trying-to-fit-in-ness/faux trendiness/sameness/faux-coolness from pastors. I agree–it’s like everyone is trying their hardest to look in like Mark Driscoll or Rob Bell physically the way so many pastors are trying to ‘look like’ Rick Warren theologically. Perhaps what Julie wants is for someone to, I don’t know, be themselves? Did you notice how many times the word ‘fake’ or a synonym for ‘fake’ was used?

2) Imaturity among Christian men. Fellas, and ladies, I gotta be honest with you: She’s got a point. One of the best things I did in life was to go to Bible college already married and live with my wife. Talk about having to grow up fast! It was like four more years of high school with all the gossipy who’s dating who and who’s hating who and blah, blah, let’s stay up until four AM playing games and drinking Jolt Cola. I don’t think this is about Julie’s ‘dating-angst’ as some seem to think, but rather about what has been fostered among our men in the church by not encouraging and demanding that they grow up in their faith.

3) Manipulative and trite sermons. This is at the feet of the pastor and I agree. Much of what passes itself off as preaching in today’s church cannot possibly provide hope, courage, or strength to people like ‘Julie’ or people like ‘me.’ It sounds trite and manipulative. It sounds like the preacher doesn’t trust that the congregation can handle a) hearing, b) learning about, c) applying deep theological concepts. So we have to dumb it down. This is her point, I think, about ‘children’s’ church; we are not raising children to be children, but adults. Why dumb it down, for children or adults? I happen to agree with her whole-heartedly. Give the people something eat.

OK. I think that’s about all I want to say. Please remember, this is my impression of her post. I’m not trying to psycho-analyze Julie. I’m interacting with her post and defending the post against those insidious ‘this sounds like Ingrid and so why do you like it and not Ingrid’s?’ complaints that I saw in the comment thread of my OP on the subject. It is amazing that most of this, again, could have been discerned from reading the first three paragraphs of Julie’s post. Have a grand day everyone.

jerry

Tags: apologia, Ingrid, Julie

Over at Apprising Ministries, Ken Silva responds to a letter from a reader. Here are a few excerpts that are quite telling of his attitude when it comes to his status

The following is based on an unsolicited email I received here at Apprising Ministries. Please understand that I do not think any pastor-teacher is above reproach [insert typical Emerging Church whining here], etc. [emphasis mine]
What I wish to bring out is how easy, and I’ll argue arrogant as well, it is for people to simply disregard the teaching of someone like myself who has been studying the fields of apologetics, Comparative Religion and evangelizing non-Christian cults for 21 years….

You said: “I was very surprised to see your negative views on Christian meditation in the article CHRISTIAN MEDITATION WITH MANTRA: DOM JOHN MAIN.” So let me put it another way: I am very surprised to see you so quick in attempting to instruct someone like me whom Jesus has called as one of His pastor-teachers. [emphasis mine]

My dad always told me that you could tell alot about someone based on how they respond to correction or constructive criticism. This correspondence to Apprising was in no way instructional or a harsh rebuke. It sounded like an honest reader that was trying to understand where Silva was coming from. Most of the email was actually the reader asking him questions. But, Ken strikes back with his lofty credentials and how a man of his status should not be quickly instructed. How did Silva know that this reader had not spend some time looking at the Apprising articles and made an educated and simply inquisitive inquiry. On top of that, he sends such mixed statements: no pastor is above reproach, but people should not instruct someone who is a pastor-teacher in this manner.

Anyhow, this all too telling of the attitude of both Apprising and CRN:
We are educated, anointed and experienced, therefore we get to criticize whoever we want, whenever we want. And, you better not say anything about it.

In the controversial post below, Chris Lyons pointed out how Ingrid was so encouraged by a listener who wraps and sells flowers for a cult in the evening. We get the full story in this article later, that this man was unable to find work and was forced to do this job at night for the Moonies.

My first thought was “I wonder if she would extend the same grace to a purpose driven pastor that was unable to pay the bills and took this job.” I could see the headlines now… “purpose driven pastor supports cult practices.” I really think this is a matter of showing grace where you want to, and upholding the law where you want to. It is acceptable for a believer to work for a cult until they can get a full time job, but Rick Warren can’t partner with secular organizations to help eradicate human poverty. No one is saying that it is wrong for this guy to enjoy VYC America’s programming –not any more wrong than a Buddhist monk enjoying the teachings of Rob Bell.

A year ago, Brian Gordon, the well-known new age energy coach, cited some writings of Erwin McManus on his blog. He definitely tweaked McManus’ words to fit his own ideas and philosophies in the process. Well, the ODMs went nuts over this! They went on and on about how this new-aged energy coach has similar theologies as McManus, and how he was really teaching unbiblical energy philosophies. All of it could not be further from the truth. In fact, when Gordon read what the ODMs were writing, he immediately contacted McManus, ashamed of the negative publicity he had brought him.

It’s amazing how certain groups are unable to see past their own logical processes. For example, if you follow the link in the original article to the VYC America webpage, you will find a video that says

Music Till Dawn will provide a relaxing contemplative atmosphere, where the Holy Spirit can speak to quieted hearts

relaxing contemplative atmosphere? If that was on Doug Pagitt’s website, he would be speared to death by the ODMs for it. There would be all types of arguments as to why we shouldn’t have contemplative prayer where God speaks to us individually. Sola Scriptura! But, somehow contemplative spirituality is ok for VYC America. I am just wondering when the double standard is going to be recognized.

Tags: VYC America

Ingrid engages in guilt by association tactics again by trying to link Jeff Foxworthy’s belief’s with Ravi Zacharias because they appeared at the same event together.

The event in question occurred on September 13th, 2007 and was entitled, “Is America Really Christian?” After looking around the blogosphere for a bit I found two blog entries that contain first hand accounts of the event in question. The first has disappeared from the web, but Technorati saved a snapshot of it for us to enjoy:

Challenge to the soul September 14th, 2007 Yesterday we trekked through rain, wind, and traffic while heading to Atlanta to hear Ravi Zacharias and Michael Ramsden speak on the topic of “Is America Really Christian?” Such a strong, powerful, and passionate message of Jesus Christ who crosses all cultural boundaries

The other comes from a myspace blog:

they covered everything from various world-view philosophies – and the flaws in them to explaining in the most beautiful of terms Salvation — and what comes next!

Her account of the message delivered by Ravi and others continues:

in order for America to be “Christian”, the people that belong to America must be Christians.. not just in name, or because their grandmother and granddaddy were.. but because they were called, and they consciously made the decision to cast aside who they were — and become born again in Christ. <---- that really shot me straight in the heart, i mean -- how many people have i made the mistake of asking if they were Christians -- when i really should have been asking if they were a follower of Christ? do they know Him? have they known Him, but He's become one of those friends that they put away when they "grew up" and became a mature adult?
and, for us Christians -- have we become so "mature" in our lives that we no longer feel the "need" for God, unless something breaks down, or the money is getting tight..or a loved one is sick? in our minds, does God become a vending machine that we drop in a few good deeds for someone we may not like, or pray an eloquent prayer at Bible study, or even put a little extra in the offering basket -- and we expect to have our wants answered in a timely manner..and wonder why if the answer was "no"?

Doesn’t sound like Jesus is disappearing to me.