hi just notice the site was down to..I have a love hate relationship with the site…I agree with some post and disagreed with others,but always hated their tone..I was banned from posting also,no doubt half my fault as i am pretty cynical/double minded..

Ironically i sent Ingrid the site about people signing over their souls, pretty sad site which i felt needed to be seen (used a different email address …

Well lets see if they come back with some Grace..

anyhow cool site aj

Nevermind, I found it in your last post

I’ve been a reader and infrequent poster on Slice of Laodicea for a while now. I share the sentiments that you posted here, Chris.

When Ingrid puts her new website up, I probably won’t read it. I think there are more edifying discernment web sites out there. I am definitely in favor of standing up for Biblical truth, however the tone of SOL has been a concern of mine for a while now. It does seem to provide the most up-to-date information about the church in America, but I don’t think that is enough to redeem it. The Biblical mandate to speak the truth in love seems to be shunned in favor of speak the truth in any way you feel like it just so long as you’re speaking the truth. That is just as wrong as liberalism.

Ingrid says in the quote above, “However imperfectly the information was presented, our hearts desire here at Slice was to lift up the name of Jesus and to draw people back to the Word of God.” I do believe that her heart’s desire is to draw people back to the Word of God. I don’t doubt that at all. At the same time, I think that this statement minimizes the gross sin of self-righteousness that some of the contributors and commenters at SOL regularly engage in. It implies that self-righteousness is a minor flaw. I am opposed to and often grieve over the lack of reverence for God that I see in many churches today, but I think a lot of the ministries that are erring on the side of liberalism could make the same statement that Ingrid makes but substituting the following words: “However imperfectly we present the Gospel, our hearts desire is to lift up the name of Jesus and reach our communities for Him.” She seems to be applying a different standard to herself than she applies to others. I do not think that this is intentional. If we are to take Ingrid at her word and consider her motives to be pure (which I do), then it is incumbent upon SOL to do the same for the ministries that they are criticizing. The Bible commands all of us to be gracious and loving in our defense of truth. SOL doesn’t get a free pass on this one.

Having said that, I am not sure that this website (Sliced Laodicea) is a good idea. I understand the temptation. The tone at SOL can be quite galling, but I am not sure this is the best way to address the problems at SOL. I think this may be a case where we simply have to trust in the sovereignty of God.

As Ingrid said, yes, let us all return to the Word of God (the whole counsel of God – Truth with Grace and Love), and that includes the folks at SOL and Me! On that note, I’ve got some of my own Bible studying to do.

May the Lord bless you.

Chris, I appreciate your Hebrew context studies. Thank you for posting those.

SDE,

I agree that the Bible IS the perfect mirror. The unfortunate thing with Slice was that most folks who disagreed and used well-thought dialog with scripture in their comments never got those comments approved.

I seriously debated this site and if/how if should be done. There were a number of events that occurred the same week which I took as a ‘push’ to go ahead and do it. I was going to write about that this week, but I would like to take a more hands-off approach, wait to see what Ingrid will do with her new site, and mothball this one if the basic problems are dealt with.

What would signal to me an understanding of a need for change from the old Slice? Outright and forever banning comments OR allowing all comments that meet certain decency standards (language, blasphemy, etc.) would be the first one. Not having Ken Silva on staff would be another.

SDE,

I addition to my response to amy (which I would also include as part of my response to you), I would add:

1) re: commenting at Slice – were it just an issue between the commenters and God, I would completely agree. However, because of the way things were moderated there, the appearance of the whole often gave an impression of proof by assertion, and (in the manner they were moderated) could easily be argued to be the views of the article posted. When such things then get forwarded as ‘proof’ by parishoners to church leadership/staff, it then really creates problems. It is in this that a counter-balance seemed appropriate.

2) I would have to have an awful high view of myself to think I could force a change in Slice with an ‘ultimatum’. It take God to move men’s hearts. I gave my two examples as something that would be a clear signal of ‘change’, as they were, in my view and that of a number of others, root causes of the problems with Slice. Should they find other ways, these two suggestions might be moot.

I consider the state/future of this site to be in flux, and I honestly hope and do pray that such a thing would not be needed when the ‘new’ Slice returns. I also have taken note of my own sarcasm, and will seek to keep it in check.

Hi Chris,

I appreciate your response. I understand where you are coming from, and I don’t have anything further to add. I will join you in hoping for a positive outcome.

Elizabeth,

I remember reading a post from Ingrid saying that sometimes posts get dropped, so it’s not always intentional when a comment gets lost. I think there is a problem with the software.

I don’t think you’d ever confuse Slice with a Mensa Club meeting. And that’s precisely what made it so much fun.

Regardless of the issue, if there were shades of gray (and real life is made of that), you’d rarely see that discussed, when its so much easier to cut and paste a bible verse, and blast virtually everything as being of the world. TV…..bad…..movies….bad….popular music, CC and secular….bad. It just seemed that in Ingridland, everything is bad. I know a great many Christians who enjoy a good cigar, or a fine brandy after dinner, take in an occasional movie, play or concert, and at no time is their “moral compass” or deeply held sense of faith ever at risk. Yet, if you’re a regular reader of Slice, you’d get the impression that anything, and everything, is evil, satanic, worldy, lustful, carnal. I guess all I’m saying is that there never seemed to be any level of tolerance…for anything that maybe, just maybe, required a little thought and reasoning.

Chris i fully understand why you would disagree with the second part of my post,as a Christian you want to be a reflection of Christ..
But i’m not a Christian any longer (not sure what i am these days double minded maybe)..After 25 years of backsliding i stumbled on slice among other places,but i found myself getting more and more turnt off the body and the faith..
I unlike you have no responsibility to God for my behavior just to my conscience..Of course if ive broken any rules here i apologize..andy

So, are those really the options? Either “have a ‘love-affair’ going on with any and everything that [comes] out of the mouths of Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, etc.” or spew forth vile and hatred, disregarding facts – all in the name of discernment?

As so many have pointed out – why not engage in a conversation as opposed to hateful attacks.

ps It is my understanding that the reason we have been given the Word of God, the Bible, is so that we can avoid all the endless questions and have an answer from God to cover the “so-called grey areas of life.” If we believe the Word of God has been given to debate and toss back and forth, as to what it means or implies, we end up with no standard, no target, no mark to strive for. Unfortunately for many of us, we know that left to those divices ( where we think we can debate the Word rather than accept it) we will choose the way of the flesh, the easiest path of resistance. We will choose to pamper ourselves and others rather than obey God. What you call “cut and pasting” scriptures inorder to blast various things as being “wordly” is misinterpreted by those who would seem to rather live in the grey areas. Instead of viewing it as ” cutting and pasting,” we view it as “underlining and bolding” the very words of the Creator who told us how life works and how things will “go well for us.” We believe it is “loving others as ourselves” to make this information known to others. We believe it is “not loving” to blurr the information and call it grey! What you don’t seem to understand is that in our personal relationships with others there is a way to give them this information and truth and still be longsuffering with them. You only assume that we expect others to line up with just a snap of our fingers, as we spout out these truths. That is very far from the truth. In our daily lives, just like you, we are required to be patient and gentle and longsuffering with others. But apparently we differ in that we insist on telling them also what God has said in His Word. It is then their responcibility to ask God to help them become like Christ by obeying His Words. This is love. ” Jude said, ” Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And on some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, snatching them our of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy….”

Karen,
Chris pointed you to a discussion that he’s been having with Tony Rose. If you look through some of the discussions on that site you will see Tony discussing some very difficult issues with some people with whom he has strong disagreements. I have yet to see Tony compromising his beliefs (though he rightly admits that he doesn’t have all the answers), and I have yet to see him be unloving. It is possible to be firm and unwavering in your beliefs, while being compassionate towards those with whom you disagree.

I think we need a Christian corollary to Godwin’s Law:

“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of one person claiming they believe the [insert adjective] Word of God approaches one.”

The person employing the corollary does so to make the point that they take the Word more seriously than the other, or conversely, that the other does not take the Word as seriously as they should.

The weaker the argument is, the sooner the corollary will be employed.

Also there is a direct and inversely proportionate ratio between the emotionality of the adjective inserted (see definition above) and the weakness of the argument, that is – the more emotional the adjective, the weaker the argument of the employer.

Karen,

Just to expound on the “grey areas” you seem to question.

Here’s an example. I just finished reading David Kuo’s book, “Tempting Faith”, and (I forgot her first name), Sandler’s book about youth in the Evangelical movement. Both books, while in very different ways, spotlight the growth of Evangelicals in the U.S.

David Kuo is a born again Christian, and has devoted his entire career to Jesus and faith-based programs within the framework of the government. Many of the people he has worked with, inside and outside of government are the same people that frequently get blasted by the Slicers in one way or another. So, by Slice standards, many of them are false prophets, Emergents, (anything Ingrid doesn’t like or understand is Emergent), or worse.

So, are you really ready to dismiss their efforts, or question their intentions because because they don’t fit the narrow, and I mean no wider than a pinstripe, parameters of Slice’s interpretation, and it is just that, of God’s word? After all, don’t you think that they believe in their hearts that their faith and their belief in God drives them to make a positive impact on the lives of Americans.

Sandler covers an entire spectrum of Evangelicals. From the tattoed Skate board culture all the way to the students at Patrick Henry College. On the surface, the two cultures couldn’t be any farther apart. But get past the superficial, and their love of Jesus and the need to bring Him into people’s lives are the same. But again, by Slice standards, their methods, appearance and choice of music are dangerously close to being “of the world”.

Here’s another example. I think its Fred Phelps, and his band of crazies from Kansas, that assemble and harrass mourners at military funerals. Now, assume he’s a Christian, and assume his message has some biblical foundation. Does that make him, and his actions appropriate. After all, it is God’s word, right? If you want to interpret all of life’s decisions in strictly black in white terms…then he’s your guy.

But do you really want to associate yourself with a wack-job of that magnitude?

Again, shades of grey. The message and the messenger are supposed to be on “your team”…but are they really the guys you want out there, so that when people think of Christians, they think of them?

Sorry if I rambled on a bit. But after finishing both those books, I can’t help but see things from a very multi-faceted point of view.

Kieth,

I’m sorry to hear of your experience and I certainly do not want to suggest you should stick around if things became as bad as you described.

My comment about conversation as oppossed to attack was level at sites and attitudes like those of Slice contributors (and most commentators). It was not directed at church involvement.

I think Slices, among it’s many faceted failures, fails to distinguish between a plan and those who implement the plan. What churches do with Rock’s book and plan is no more his fault than people killing Jews in the name of Christ.

OK – extreme example, but it makes my point. Unless Rick says, “…and when you implement the 40 days, make sure you drive out all opposition” – you can hardly blame him if that’s what they do.

Yes, I think things like Disneyland-style baptstries, Harley giveaways, circus-like productions, etc. in the church need to be met with some firm (harsh) opposition/critique. but I see no room for name calling, salvation questioning, or legalism.

Again, sorry you had the church experience you did.

Neil S.

“I am like the one who needs to hear the facts. This will happen if you do this, if you do this, this will happen. If you don’t do this, this will happen.”

kgraves, I understand what you’re saying here. I fear that many people, when viewing scripture this way, misinterpret or unintentionally distort Jesus’ original intentions. The Christian life isn’t one of check boxes and do’s and don’ts, it’s a life of love, charity, grace, faith and justice (to name a few). When we engage in those types of activities, we become holy.

One doesn’t become holy by becoming perfect, but as one begins to live the way of Jesus – putting others above themselves – every aspect of their life changes and they desire to live a more Godly life.

“He did not just say love each other. He said if you love me you will love my Word and if you love me you will keep my Word.”

Actually, Jesus says the greatest command is to Love God and the second is like it – love others. Yes, we need to obey God’s commands, but the commands of Jesus are much deeper and transformative than simply changing lifestyles. Obeying Jesus means changing our paradigm, becoming more righteous than the pharisees and laying down our life.

“Truth does not need to be debated. Truth is truth and Jesus said my words are truth. Reasoning and debate do nothing but buy the nays Ayer time to continue in his own ways.”

I agree that Jesus is truth, but the way his words are interpreted can often be untrue. THAT is what we debate. As far as making reasoning and debate tools of the devil, I don’t agree with that at all. While we can’t rely on reason, if we are unable to give a reason for why we believe, there is very little substance to what we’re doing.

“My purpose is rather to explain why we come across as being so adamant and what you call ‘unloving.’”

If Ingrid and co. wouldn’t use such harsh language (Warren’s whorehouse, emergent vipers, accusing all those who disagree of being emergent, etc.) we wouldn’t refer to them as unloving.

…and, to contrast saying something “in love” or not… I make the above comments as matters of my opinion. But I do not, nor never have, questioned their salvation… attributed their opinions to Satan, or called them names.

I think all those opposed to Slice who comment here would agree with Amy when she writes:

I believe that Slice would’t be attacked as much by others if they went about their discernment with greater attention to detail, with a different tone, and with the mindset of making sure they clear things up when a mistake has been made.

I never said I need checks to be perfect or even feel good. That is what you wanted to hear because of how you view grace. What I was saying is that I need to know what I can do and can’t do for life to go well for me. (The word is a light to my path. It shows me which way to go. Why is it so hard for you to agree with me on that thought?) It is sort of like honoring your Mom and Dad. I needed to hear that. The Word teaches me that. I need to hear “getting into another person’s argument is like grabbing a dog by his ears.” I need to hear “a soft answer turns away wrath.” I need to hear ” the works of the flesh are ….. And those who practice them will not inherit the kingdom of God.” I need to hear ” the time past is sufficient for me to have walked in certain things that were displeasing to God.” I need to hear that “where there is envy and jealousy there is every evil thing.” I need to hear “not to want to take the best seat upfront.” I need to hear “not to compare myself with others.” I need to hear not to take the credit for the “good things that I do” but rather to “give all the glory to God.” for in me and outside of Christ there is no good thing. I need to hear, “put off the old man and put on the new man who is created in righteousness and true holiness.” That is what I am talking about. Not how I can be perfect. Not how I can win favor with God, but rather how I can bring pleasure to Him and how I can live what He calls the abundant life. After all, the life that I lived prior was anything but abundant! Then concerning the subject of holiness, I want to bring pleasure to God. And please don’t tell me you don’t want to please Him because your are already accepted by Him. There is a greater capacity for Loving God that we can grow into, if we want. He tells us what brings Him pleasure. I want to do the things not to be perfect but because I love Him. I love my husband and, if I want, I can do all kinds of things that he dislikes or I can do things that please Him, my choice- Not to try to be a perfect wife, but rather a loving wife. This whole topic of holiness is a real bugaboo though and I know it is one of the major things that concern many of us about the direction of many Christians. And even separates many of us. And unlike Jim B, I am not willing to try discussing it at length because it seems to be an area that we cannot agree on. However, I feel it is very important so I share the scriptures on holiness with those who believe them and want to apply them to their lives. I want to manifest Christ to others and unfortunately, saying, thinking, and doing certain things does not reflect Christ but rather the World. I want to be different. I want others to sense a purity about me, as well as love. The angels surround the throne of God crying Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord. God’s love is a characteristic of His Holiness. Holiness is the fullness of his Character. Yet many want to ignore it. It is our choice whether or not we choose to put off the old man and put on the new man who is created in righteousness and true holiness. It is something He has asked us to do. It pleases Him, but we don’t have to if we don’t want to. You listed many things that you can do to become holy but you failed to list the things that you could give up (put off the old man) to be Holy. I am not perfect. I will never be perfect. I am sorry you interpret what I have said as my trying to be perfect. However, the bible does say, “be ye perfect as I am perfect.” It also says, “be holy as I am holy.” Must we debate that to get a good take on it? Why can’t we agree on this? Why do you all seem to need so much room to do what God has asked? Why do you seem to fight against everything? Why do you seem to argue with the Word? I said to someone that they would do well not to tangle with you all and I have done just that. It is just not worth it. You see, you can’t say I am legalistic, so you must now say I am trying to be perfect. God bless you all and I hope you have lots and lots of fun debating with others the interpretation of Jesus’ words. I must say I find it rather arrogant to think that after 2000 years Jesus has failed to make His Word clear to the Church. But following your line of thinking, after 2000 years there is coming, through debate and reasoning of the mind of man, new understanding that no one else has had? And in this “age of information,” it is being made available to those open-minded and willing to shift their frame of thinking like you. Wow, That must be a very empowering thought for you! I do know though that not everyone in Jesus’ day was a Pharisee and in need of a paradigm shift! When He said, “take up your cross and follow me”, they did just that. They agreed with His thoughts right then and there. You wrongfully make those who believe His Word out to be Pharisees so that you can say your thoughts are higher than others. God’s thoughts are higher than my thoughts and yours. That is why he gave us His Word. To wait 2000 years and more to make yourself clear is not too smart. I think He was smarter than that! Should I address you as “Chris and Company” or is that unloving?

Todd,
Sorry for intruding into your conversation with Karen, but I’m just curious as to how you think one “becomes more righteous than the pharisees.” The Pharisees were completely unrighteous; they thought they were righteous because of their attempt to obey the rules that they had set up. If one substitutes pharasaical rules with biblical principles, such as “lay down my life for others, feed the hungry, be kind to everyone” does that make one more righteous than the Pharisees? Or is our righteousness found because the blood of Christ covers our sins?

Hmmmm… I’ve been gone for the evening, and it will take a while to catch up.

Karen – just a complete non-content-related comment: Your writing would be much easier to read and understand if you broke it up into paragraphs. No offense intended, at all, just a general observation.

Val – just a few observations:
1) you’re at the wrong place if you’re looking for a ‘parody’ site – I’m not looking to poke fun at anyone;
2) I truly feel sorry for you, seeminly triumphant in condemning those who don’t meet your narrow definitions to hell;
3) Peter’s rebuke was not a public one, and Jesus’ comment likely had a double meaning – Peter, out of ignorance, was acting in the same manner as Satan in his tempting Jesus not to go to his death. If you can claim to have the certainty of Jesus in what you condemn, then by all means such titles apply. However, to suggest that level of certainty in such broad-brush paintings of Saddleback or of emergent/emerging folks is truly Pharisaic, in every modern sense of the word.
4) I’m not sure why you seem to be feeling triumphant – I’ve not suggested that Slice disappear or pull the plug on everything. If you read the post this comment is attached to, I have not (nor would I) celebrate over someone else’s misfortune.

Amy, in addition to what C said, the Pharisees were concerned with outward appearance of holiness. Jesus’ commands don’t just change outward praxis, but inward paradigms. The true way to attain righteous is to adopt Jesus’ plan for His people (the sermon on the mount is a great place to start).

I’m not trying to set up a new, social gospel that creates a whole new group of touchy-feely commands – I’m trying to accept Jesus’ teachings in their original spirit and, to a degree, literally.

Chris, I am honored and blessed that your comments would be directed at the format instead of the content. Your insight is truly tremendous and uplifting and makes me feel welcome, in that you would single out my writing abilities as falling short of your expectations. On a different note, I am wondering why is everything that smacks of what you don’t like “pharisaic?” It seems to me that everything Chris and Company doesn’t agree with is pharisaic “in every modern sense of the word. ” (It’s a good thing that they aren’t necessarily “pharisaic” in every biblical sense of the word.) Funny, you accuse SOL of similar negative and unloving generalizations. The Bible says in the last days Christians’ love for one another will wax cold. How is it that you truly see yourselves as above all that? I think you are mistaken.

I am off to check out the New Christian Research Network that was advertised here! They don’t nit pick about my lack of paragraphs. I feel really judged and rejected here. I wonder if you will repent. ” i think i will go to a place where i don’t even have to try to punctuate or spll chick and if they fine out i cant rilly read they wont laff at me. howse that for purrrfection ? did i spll punctuate rite? ”

All kidding aside, you are right! Three or more paragraphs is always more acceptable than two or for that matter “one big fat long winded one.” And I need to have an introductory paragraph and a final summary paragraph! (I could try to write a synopsis of all my thoughts, spell check that, and then submit it to save on space instead. It would probably be less annoying to those who see me as a Pharisee.) How come you didn’t say anything to the ones who only had one or two sentences in a paragraph? Without trying to be offensive, that is really poor, poor, poor writing techniques. The truth is I am really stressed now. I feel so unloved and unaccepted. I don’t think you realize how you have hurt me. I know you said you did not intend to offend me but it is hard for me to believe that you couldn’t understand what I wrote, as much as you like to use your mind. I am really surprised that those, who use their minds to love God as much as they do at Chris and Company, would have a hard time with following someone’s train of thought, no matter how long winded it might be. I feel like you are being too legalistic. I really feel unloved here.

Chris, I remember you saying, “The unfortunate thing with Slice was that most folks who disagreed and used well-thought dialog with scripture in their comments never got those comments approved.” Well, how do you think I feel! I never knew your criteria were so stringent. I am truly beaten down. Please don’t comment back that my thoughts were not well thought out. I wouldn’t be able to survive. I know I cut and pasted enough scriptures so you can’t get me on that one. I won’t bother you again. The minds here are just too sharp for me. I am way out of my league. Who do I think I am?

Sincerely,
kgraves

That escalated quickly.

Kgraves, I’m confused. Why do you feel beat down? I apologize if I was the cause of such a feeling.

Karen,
I really don’t thing that Chris meant to hurt you by suggesting that you use paragraphs. For my own part, I have wished that you would use paragraphs, because reading what you have written is difficult without them. I have wanted to hear what you have to say, and think that many of your valid points are “hidden” because the lack of paragraphs adds a confusing element to those who are trying to read what you have to say.

People often make snotty remarks about other people’s spelling, etc. I’ve seen them at SLICE and other places, and have sometimes commented or tried to comment on them. But I think you’re making a mistake to assume that Chris didn’t have the best intentions in remarking on your lack of paragraphs.

For myself, I know that I need to work on brevity.

And with that in mind, I’ll close .

Karen,

You noted:

Certainly, it would have been nice if Chris had commented on something I had written instead of the form of my writing. After all, that is why I even bother to post!

My apologies again for any misunderstanding – I’ve been out most of the past day, and just hadn’t gotten back to answering/responding to the meat of your comments/questions.

I can’t promise I’ll hit everything, but here we go:

You also noted, in the same vein:

The whole point is that we have to be bigger than getting our feelings hurt because someone did not respond to what we wrote, in the manner that we like. Yes, it was published, but you have to admit what I wrote was brushed aside and obviously took a back seat and was seemingly not very important to the editor of this site.

What you wrote wasn’t brushed aside – I did say “I’m still reading your other replies”. There’s only one of me, and I typically work posts from the bottom up, and some replies are much easier than others (shooting from the hip can get one in trouble, as James 3 points out).

I am not sure why suddenly all the posts about the meaning of Pharisee. However, the word falls into the same category as the word hypocrite or heretic, when it is constantly used to describe other Christians on a frequent basis.

If you read my blog, you will note that I am very concerned about being mindful of the original context of the scriptures we use. As such, I find that Pharisee is often misunderstood and can be mis-used. So, I try to qualify it, reserving it for use when the description actually fits. The link I included above give a much more accurate picture of what pharisees were and were not.

As for ‘heretic’ and ‘hypocrite’, I do use the latter one sparingly, but rarely the former one (and I would include ‘apostate’ with ‘heretic’). ‘Hypocrite’, I use sparingly, when a situation is rather obvious (like accusing someone of running an anonymous blog with a pseudonym while you, yourself, have an anonymous blog with a pseudonym – Or – chastizing those who criticize you for disrespecting an ordained pastor, while you, yourself, have no compunction criticizing numerous ordained pastors).

‘Heretic’ and (moreso) ‘Apostate’ both have a bit higher bar, as they also imply that you have the only possible valid interpretation of scripture. Prior to and during the time of Jesus, teachers of Torah talked about how every Word of God has 70 facets (which, like when Jesus uses the number 70 (70 X 7), means innumerable, not literally 70), and He blesses us every time He reveals another. HOWEVER, there is a need for discerning false teaching from sound teaching, and this is one of those areas where there are incredibly clear examples of both, but also some that require Christian charity in disagreement.

Homosexuality, for example, is a topic where I truly believe it is heretical to teach that it is an acceptable lifestyle for a believer. Because it is a ‘hot-button’ topic that can drive homosexuals away from even hearing the message, though, there are churches which do not address the issue directly from the pulpit, but who work with individuals 1-1 when they express a desire to become a member of the church to let them know that when you accept Christ, you accept his greatest command – Love the Lord your God – and that to love Him you must obey Him, which means finding a way to leave that lifestyle behind. This second type of church, I would not call ‘heretical’, though at least one writer from Slice called this an ‘apostate’ position. I, instead, would see this as an acceptable way to ‘hate the sin, but not the sinner’. We expect the world to sin, but we expect that when we accept Christ as our Lord that we will root out those areas of sin in our lives.

On the other hand, another issue – the role of women in the church – has a bit more gray to it, sorting out what was contextual to a specific culture (women covering their heads) and what was a cross-cultural command. At either end of this spectrum – from egalitarian to complementarian – there are honest Christian men and women who have wrestled with scripture and believe they are in accordance with the correct practice. While I would not call them heretics, I would say that churches at both extremes have probably misinterpreted what the ‘correct’ practice should be, and that their method of interpretation probably has implications (good and bad) in the rest of their orthopraxy. That said, I do not belong to their local bodies, and for me to denounce one or the other – or both – wholesale, is uncharitable.

I would agree that it is a fine line to walk, and in that regard, Slice rarely made it onto that line, where ‘externals’ were concerned.

What do you think about Christians’ Agape’ Love for one another growing cold in these last days with the end result of them betraying one another? I know God has told us it will happen, but that does not mean it pleases Him.

First, I find it very sad when we lack love for one another, as commanded by the very person we claim to emulate. I do not see this as a function of the ‘last days’, though, as this is Christian fatalism, which, in some ways causes us to act uncharitably to each other and to be indifferent to the state of the world.

I hold a partial-preterist view of eschatology, which John and Verum Serum describes very well here. I also see Jesus message and emphasis on the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ (or ‘Kingdom of God’ – as Jews euphamized ‘God’ as ‘Heaven’ to avoid speaking His name in vain) as two-fold: temporal and eternal. We are to be a blessing to the world – salt and light – temporally – and to be part of the Kingdom of Heaven (the reign of God) here on earth. We also are to be prepared for our imminent departure from here to the eternal, whether through death, which most – if not all – of us will experience, or the final judgement, which none of us – not even Jesus – know the day or the hour. In the first century, this dual meaning of the Kingdom was well understood by the Jewish audience, and Paul tried to express it in more Hellenistic thought througout his epistles. However, over the centuries, the meaning of salvation from sin has drifted from this dual meaning to only one of our eternal, final destination. Bless God for our eternal salvation! Blessed is His name for this! Bless Him also for giving us the opportunity to serve Him here.

You asked

Are you going to continue to make fun of those you do not agree with, in hopes that they will come to the table to talk?

Karen, I have tried through private channels to discuss issues with Ken, in particular, and Ingrid on a couple of occasions to no avail. I have had some dialog with Chris Pajak, and while we still disagree on many things, I have found our discussions to be fruitful. I have few qualms about Steve Camp, though I disagree with his hard-line Calvinist bent (but I appreciate the grace he often does extend to those who disagree with him).

The purpose of this site was not to ‘make fun of’ them – that was Patrick’s parody site, which I found to be rather crude, and said so many times.

The first purpose was to provide some counter-point that could be used when someone was approached with the latest Slice article condemning Veggie Tales, Nooma, dancing, modern worship music, [insert other Slice dislike here], and to refute any sense of ‘proof by assertion’ an accompanying comments section may hold.

The second purpose was to provide folks attacked directly (or indirectly) by Slice, a place where they might be able to counterbalance such attacks in a way that would never have been allowed in the comments section at Slice, via post-length articles. John Draper, a member of Saddleback, has written a couple of these.

Thirdly, I hoped that Ingrid and/or Ken might start to see the common threads in commentary specifically about their writing. I realize this, from a human standpoint, is only wishful thinking, but I believe in a power beyond the human that controls the universe. If nothing else, the elimination of the comments section is an excellent start. I would have preferred allowing them, but (as noted to you above) it is very time consuming to respond to all comments.

Earlier, you wrote:

It is my understanding that the reason we have been given the Word of God, the Bible, is so that we can avoid all the endless questions and have an answer from God to cover the “so-called grey areas of life.” If we believe the Word of God has been given to debate and toss back and forth, as to what it means or implies, we end up with no standard, no target, no mark to strive for.

Karen, I believe that we were given the Bible as an inerrent standard, but that God also left part of it up to us (like He did in creation, where he left the naming of animals up to Adam), as a community, to apply to everyday situations. When we disagree on an interpretation, we have one of three choices -

1) disfellowship from those we disagree with
2) discuss and debate, but allow charity in the end for disagreement within the bounds of fully clear scripture
3) ignore the disagreement as unimportant (or bury our heads in the sand)

I see #1 and #3 as both being unhelpful. Slice is often in #1, and some of the folks they criticize as being in #3. In Jesus’ time, and prior, this discussion and debating of scripture was highly important and was part of the community. It is what Jesus was doing at the age of 12 in the temple, and a part of what he did 20 years later as a rabbi.

As for ‘grey areas’, the sin in this world gives all sorts of scenarios not directly/tactically covered in scripture. Mark Driscoll talks about one such case he had to help someone work through. A lesbian couple with a adopted children wanted to join the church and follow Christ – how exactly should they work out their personal situation that would honor God and care for their children? They knew they couldn’t go on as they were, but who had the wisdom of Solomon to work out the details with fear and trembling?

There really are gray areas where God expects us to apply scripture to come to the best conclusion possible. In the Pentatuch, there are 613 laws that Hebrews had to follow, and they often came into conflict, which led to questions like ‘Can I heal people on the Sabbath?’, ‘Can I kill someone in self-defense?’, ‘Can I become ceremonially unclean to help someone who may be about to die?’ To help answer these, rabbis would rank these commands in order of the most important to least important so that one could know better how to decide in these ‘gray areas’. Jesus’ answer was that the most important command is to love God, and the second most important is to love your neighbor, and that all the other laws can be sorted out by using these two.

Because of what we see wrong with ‘love’ in society and their view of what Christian ‘love’ should be, we often (me included) tend to react violently in the opposite direction, opting for ‘tough love’ – and probably overreacting as often as those we are reacting against. As I heard once, truth without love is abuse and love without truth is dysfunctional enabling (which most 12-step program recovery community folks would recognize as something just as bad as abuse). I do not want to be at either extreme. The liberal main-line churches have opted for the latter route, and a number of Reformed churches (and blogs, like Slice) have opted for the former. Neither is acceptable or Godly.

You expressed sentiments which suggested that we are all different in our daily practice than in how we write on-line. I agree, and I would also say that this is to our detriment. I do not object to ‘cutting and pasting’ scripture, but I think it should be accompanied with even a short exegesis on why one thinks it is relevant to the situation at hand. (How often have you seen the same scripture used as a proof-text by both sides in a debate?)

My kids are getting ready for school, and I must be off to help them. My apologies again for not answering sooner, but I wanted to consider your thoughts and answer them thoughtfully.

Grace and peace,

Chris