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

(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.

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.

Posts like this make me profoundly sad. In fact, it makes me wonder if this author really can know the peace and grace of Christ (I’m not suggestion this person is outside of Christ, only that they’ve not realized the work that Jesus accomplished between us and God). 

This post is not meant to be a criticism of the opinions expressed about Driscoll (we’ve rehashed that conversation dozens of times, though it does seem odd the author would criticize Driscoll without actually reading the book itself).  Rather, I want to address the assumptions made by the author about the relationship between us and God, and I want to do so because it seems lately that I’ve been seeing these assumptions made by Christians in many different streams of theological thought. 

Consider the following statements, which are representative of the piece:

Scripture says we are to fear HIM:

He destroys the HOLINESS and FEAR for Christ Jesus. There is nothing worth taking from Driscoll’s pig stye to sift through and find truth. Go to Scripture and find the pristine reverence for Christ, held up above all people and all of Creation, set apart as Master, Righteous One, and without spot or blemish, never acting like the pigs, dogs, and vipers of His day.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in this piece that speak of the intimacy we have with Jesus.  Nothing in it speaks of the great love that God has for us. 

Consider, for example, the consistent and overwhelming use of the metaphor of God as father.  It is so overwhelming that when Jesus is asked by his disciples how to pray he begins with "Our father in heaven".  Or consider that Christ is consistently pictured as the bridegroom of the church, which is the exact comparison Jesus uses for himself when his disciples’ actions are being compared to that of the Pharisees.  We also have the description of Jesus as older brother, and we are called adopted sons into the family of God. 

The descriptions of God I get from many Christians, and this article in particular is far from the familiarity and intimacy of a brother, father, or husband, instead God is pictured as this unapproachable, unreasonable, petty tyrant who is looking to punish anyone who forgot to dot an I or cross a T.

Its almost like verses such as:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
Luke 13.34

Have been forgotten.

Ultimately, theology such as the one represented in this article is a Christless theology because Christ is our mediator.  His work is the work that created the easy familiarity of brother, husband and father with God.  The only way that God is an ineffable, unapproachable deity is if Christ’s work didn’t work. 

And if you think this Christless theology is confined to an obscure blog dedicated to re-publishing, and re-hashing the same old critiques against Driscoll, I invite you to read this group of comments.  Here’s some highlights:

Ultimately we (all people) live under the threat of eternal death if we worship improperly, do we not?

The Bible does not say God is “love, love, love.” It does say, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty.”

Great reminder that we are not approaching "the man upstairs" but the King of glory!

Read the rest of this entry »

(Note: I’m not a fan of either of these presidential candidates — nor any of them, for that matter. So I’m not interested in a political discussion. The political realm just happens to be where this example lies.)

In Monday night’s Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama got testy with each other. There was one exchange though, that gave me a serious case of déjà vu:

Obama: I was helping unemployed workers on the streets of Chicago when you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.

Clinton: I was fighting against misguided Republican policies when you were practicing law and representing your contributor … in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.

See the difference? Obama claimed to be working with actual people. Conversely, for Clinton, the important thing was to be anti-Republican, (apparently, the highest calling that any human being can aspire to).

Then I got a flashback.

A bit over a year ago, I wrote an email to one of the group-written incarnations of Slice asking why my comments kept getting un-approved, despite the fact that they were civil and not particularly strident. I contrasted my comments to stuff like:

RICK WARREN IS NOT A CHRISTIAN!

– and –

Houston will be a desert before I accept a liar, a slanderer, a self-promoting name-dropper, and a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit as a brother in Christ. (regarding Warren)

I marveled that such anti-Biblical skubala was permitted on a site on which comments were carefully screened.

Put down your coffee before you read the next sentence. I don’t want to be responsible for the spit-take all over your computer screen.

The response that I received was that comments at Slice were not carefully screened. Rather, the only comments that were disallowed were apologists for the emerging church and Rick Warren, and comments that were truly malicious.

Since my actual point was totally ignored (the anti-Biblical nature of some comments), I re-iterated it again. The response that I got this time stated that even guessing who is saved is unbiblical.

I responded that I was glad that this was her stance, pointed out that this was not the stance of all the writers at Slice, and then asked the following:

Does this mean that you place a higher priority on being anti-emergent and anti-Warren than on being pro-Biblical?

“Surprisingly”, I didn’t receive a response to that note.

Sure, being pro-Biblical will inherently mean that we’ll be “anti” some stuff. But the latter follows the former. Talk about getting the cart before the dead horse that you’ve been beating.

Ken couldn’t let his recent defeat on the internet at wikipedia.com go down without some article on CRN.  I mean, I know he is God’s appointed ruler over all that is orthodox, so he wouldn’t want the world to see that he is immortal and flawed (”pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” comes to mind).  He didn’t bother to bring up the fact that opinion blogs, such as apprising, are not allowed to be cited on wiki pages, or that most of his “proof” is himself citing himself.   Gotta love his closing remarks though

thus the lead Watchdog Watcher Chris Lyons may finally rest easy…

Well, at least for now anyway…

He might as well have said “I’ll get you my pretty, and your little dog too!”

There has surfaced around this country a phenomenon that involves leaving a “noose” around people or their belongings, usually black people, in an outright expression of racism. We as Christians must strongly and abjectly reject any form, outright or subtle, of racism. It is against the teachings of Christ and the designs of our Creator to be racist in any way.

We all deal with prejudice, but let us as followers of Jesus Christ never be complacent or silent about that ugly sin. I know all of us at CRNinfo will agree, racism is unchristian and we must reach out to the human community at large regardless of race. And there is no race in Christ, we are all the sons of God by faith. We must be the voice of God in the midst of this darkness, pray that God will connect you with people who look different than you and by that connection He can use you to heal any wounds and reveal Christ and His colorless love.