Ok, Ken actually responded (?) to my open letter. In the interest of fair play I want to reproduce it here in its entirety.Â
Â
“In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves;”
“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. [Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.] Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.”
(Matthew 23:13-15)Note for the self-righteous: Looks like Jesus must have missed your
memo. (satire)
P.S. Chris, do you know why Ken’s Comments don’t seem to make it into the side column?
87 Comments(+Add)
I’ve had them set to be moderated when someone’s around. He posted comments during a flurry of commenting, and when they were moderated, they were beyond the most recent 10.
Is Silva calling himself a “son of hell”?
More of the same…
*sigh*
Self-righteous?
I don’t get it.
Chris, did you spell hipocrisy like that on purpose?
I am not sure what Ken meant. Is he suggesting that Paul’s words are not valid as Scripture, or that Jesus disobeys His own Words, or that the Bible contradicts itself. Of course by implication when he quotes “you do not enter in yourselves” is he now admiting that he doesn’t believe Warren, or Bell, or some of the others are really saved? Or more probably he is using Scripture in an innappropriate way to justify his behavior.
It is obvious that Ken has a gift for research and apparently not adverse to hard work. It is a shame that he will not even consider altering his approach without compromising his beliefs. I will openly admit that I have benefited from some of his factual research and have similar concerns although dissimilar tones. I guess that makes me self righteous? I don’t know, sometimes confusing.
Rick – nope, but it’s fixed now…
Thanks (spelling w/o spell-check is not my forte…)
I just don’t think the issues people have with Warren, etc. are in the same category as the Pharisees who were receiving the harshest rebukes.
Those rebukes are given to hard hearted folk who were controlling, oppressive and adding burdensome extras to the path of God.
Warren, et. al may be mistaken in their approaches, etc. but I hardly think they have the same heart issues that the religious establishment of Jesus’ day did and their “purity discerning” children today.
It’s interesting when people speak against certain attitudes and cultural perspectives WITHOUT NAMING PEOPLE, that those who actually share and live those problematic attitudes get on their high horses, create watch dog websites and attack people by name while using half-truths, guilt by association and outright assertions of truth by force of will.
I remember saying in the pulpit that when Jesus made it clear that he wasn’t going to play by the Pharisees rules they hated him.
But when Jesus helped everyone else see they didn’t have to play by their rules they started to try to kill him.
Seems things haven’t changed.
When the basis of institutional power, control and extra-biblical practices are being off-loaded, it makes legalists angry.
But when that freedom and change is proclaimed to the people of God, it inspires the murder in the heart Jesus taught us about.
It’s crazy how power, control and unbiblical practices are the substance of the accusations against certain people when in reality those are the deep seated problems of the “discerning” today.
I don’t dig the mega-church, church growth philosophies of the day, the consumerism at all. I am not an apologist for it.
But the stats out there show that on the whole Church in North America is in decline–across the spectrum of liberal to fundy.
We don’t have time for this crap. That’s what it is–a big, steamy pile of it.
I just feel bad for the people who use their time this way. What a waste.
I find it funny that the only people Jesus got really fuming mad at were the religiously pious. Silva is pretty much fuming mad at Christians, Gays, Hindus, Democrats, Jews, Hollywood producers and the Beth Moore Conference people.
side note…
I thought today, why would Ken attack people of different faiths for not upholding Christian values? Of course they are going to act sinful and different than us! That’s just weird to me. Oh well.
OK…
we now know Ken has a Bible… and can quote a passage… but what is he saying? Can this man actually answer a question? I think this settles it all… he is admitting to being a Pharisee and saying he will not make it to heaven…
And it seems he does this three times… for what ever reason… in different version so we can’t miss his repentant heart…
Yet… for some reason I hold this all in high suspect… there is a game at foot… and it seem Ken is searching the seas to make some converts… or has he lost his marbles? Honestly I can’t say… cuz you might not like it…. LOL!
Be Blessed!
iggy
Joe,
If you’re referring to the “Open Letter to Mike Corley” then I would guess that this quote by Ken Silva: “Note for the self-righteous: Looks like Jesus must have missed your
memo. (satire)” refers to this quote by you:
“I am going to pray three things for you Mr. Corley. I am going to pray that either
You will repent of attacking the Body of Christ
God will shut you down and your influence will be silenced
God will show me that I am wrong and you are right.”
Just a guess.
Amy,
Yeah, I was fairly certain that was what he was referring to. I’m still not sure I understand what he meant. Except to call me self-righteous. But he’s already called me apostate so I guess being self-righteous goes hand in hand with that. I truly am praying those things.
Joe,
What if God shows you that you are at least partially wrong?
Amy,
Then it wouldn’t be the first time and I would write and open letter apologizing.
I think, with the human factor being a factor in everything we humans do, we are all at least partially wrong. We might get the right message/directions/instructions from God, but we tend to flub it up eventually because our humanity/sin get involved (pride, dishonesty, knowing how to do it better, etc.)
I mean seriously, isn’t that part of the issue here? That Silva, et. al. don’t believe they are, in any way, shape or form, partially wrong?
Kind of the definition of pride.
Joe,
One thing that bothered me about your letter to Mr. Corley was this statement: “I’ve stopped short of calling you Apostate although I myself have been called that by Ken because I exposed his lying to the world.” I just wonder if you still really think that. Ken himself said that that was not why he called you an apostate. Who am I to believe?
Amy, You’ll have to decide who to believe. That man lied.
Let me ask you a question. If, he’s willing to lie (go back and read the post—he just flat out lied) and he’s willing to deny that he did anything wrong do you really think he’s trustworthy? Do you really think that he’d be willing to say, “You’re right Joe, I did lie and that made me Angry so I called you Apostate.”
It just doesn’t make sense.
Joe,
In which post did he flat out lie?
The one where he quoted Erwin McManus. If you go to Relevant Christian.com to the No apology necessary thread, I reference it there with a link or you can search our archives here. I’m off to bed.
Amy,
Here’s the link to my article here. I just can’t see how anyone can read what he wrote and not believe that he lied just to have something to write.
http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/03/25/ken-silva-is-against-paul-and-jesus-himself/
I would not have chosen to take that quote and let it stand alone. But this is my understanding of what he said:
His point is that Mcmanus is rejecting biblical Christianity – not just based on that quote but on other information he has. Yes, that is an assumption on my part, but isn’t that the essence of what he believes about Mcmanus pre-barbarian quote? If my understanding of what he is saying is correct, then he lied if Mcmanus is not rejecting Biblical Christianity. If Mcmanus is rejecting Biblical Christianity, then he did not lie.
To know whether Mcmanus is rejecting “biblical Christianity” one must know for sure just what “biblical Christianity” is. Then one must know and understand Mcmanus ministry, and compare it to scripture.
I don’t know what “biblical Christianity” is to you. If you want to “defeat” Ken Silva’s “lies,” then start teaching what “biblical Christianity” is from scripture and prove that the people you defend are teaching it.
When I read the Relevant Christian post the other day, I thought it interesting that Mrs. Pilgrim made some remarks to you similar to the ones I have made. When you were a pastor did you talk to people the way you talk to them on the blogosphere? Did you ever treat people who had a different viewpoint than yours with respect? You seem like a very angry person who is going to take the part of the people who are walking “on the edge” as much as they can and find offense with those who are more “conservative” than you, even when there is no offense intended. What’s at the root of your anger?
People have said to and of Ken Silva, that he could get his message across better without hostility. Your message, to me, is completely clouded by your hostility. I don’t know really know what you believe; I mostly know that you are angry.
In the second paragraph above, one of the sentences will make more sense if you put a comma in it: “Yes, that is an assumption on my part, but isn’t that the essence of what he believes about Mcmanus, pre-barbarian quote?
Amy, I just commented to my wife how I thought you were an angry person. Ironic to say the least. Anyhow, Ken misquoted Erwin in that post. He left out parts of what Erwin said that did not fit his agenda–that’s a lie. As for what I believe, feel free to peruse my personal site. I’m not sure if you’re saying I’m angry with you or Ken. If you’re saying I’m angry with you, that isn’t true at all, if you’re saying I’m angry with Ken–there’s some truth there. But the truth is Amy, you don’t know me at all, right? BTW, I’ll be contributing over at Relevant now and again. If you don’t believe Ken lies, and misquotes then I don’t really know what else to say.
Peace
Amy, why is it that you are willing to give Ken Silva the benefit of the doubt that he has reasons for saying what he did and using quotes the way he did, even if you wouldn’t have: “not just based on that quote but on other information he has. Yes, that is an assumption on my part”,
but you aren’t willing to give Rick Warren the same benefit of the doubt on the Obama thing?
Amy, I just went back and read the thread (fairly quickly) and I’ll ask you the same question I asked her, “Where was I sarcastic or mean?” Here’s what I find interesting about that post
1. Those people (the one’s who were appalled) came to that blog to find an offense. When they were questioned, they didn’t defend their position they attacked the people doing the questioning. (this doesn’t apply to all, but some see #3)
2. They made wild leaps in logic—from alcohol to child porn. If you believe in the former you’re a step away from the latter.
3. Some of them were quite agreeable they laid out there point and we disagreed agreeably. Lawrence made wild assumptions about me based on one question, which was “Could you please define the offensive term and how old are you?” I asked that question because I believe slang tends to be a generational thing.
4. Mrs. Pilgrim accused me of questioning the veracity of her praying for me when I wasn’t the one who made the comment that upset her, someone else did. When I questioned her she got upset. The emergent/emerging are the one’s accused of being defensive when they are questioned. Personally, I think that is just some good old fashioned projecting on the part of the “more conservative” crowd.
Peace
Deborah,
What other information could Rick have about Obama that would make me think differently about him?
I’ve read most of Obama’s book by the way, that explains his beliefs, positions, etc. Can’t remember the name of it – you can probably find it in your local library if you’re interested. Also, if you want to check out his history with abortion, it’s easily found on the internet.
I’ve looked at some of the things that Erwin Mcmanus has said, and I think there are valid concerns there. I wouldn’t choose to write about them in the way that Ken Silva does, but I think the concerns are valid.
Amy, I’m not saying Erwin can’t be questioned I’m saying when you (not you literally here but Ken) quote him don’t pick and chose out of the article because a lot of what he said won’t support what you want it to say. Choose another article if you have to, if there is so much out there to choose from it should be easy.
Joe,
You and your wife are free to think whatever you want about me. You wouldn’t believe how careful I try to be talking to you. If you think I’m angry, chippy, or whatever, it will give you all the more reason not to hear anything I say.
Just so you know what I’m like in real life, I went through a whole church confrontation with people – who did not agree with my final conclusion, to leave the church -affirming my attitude and the way that I handled it.
I think you should take what Mrs. Pilgrim said to heart.
I find it ironic that the person on that post that I first noticed you having a pleasant attitude towards was the pastor who is full of his freedom to use profanity.
And you of course Amy, are free to feel any way you want towards me. Yet again, you (like Mrs. Pilgrim) failed to answer the question, you went a different track. I was pleasant with people I disagreed with as well. Some of those people and I corrosponded. As for the profanity, I think someone pointed out from the dictionary how that word is actually listed as “slang.” which was the point I was trying to make before someone made some rather wild leaps in logic about me based on one question.
Amy, let’s look at your pattern here since this is as close to real life as I can get with you.
1. You engage, ask some questions and ussually disagree.
2. Sometimes you and the person that disagrees with you (and you with them) come to some sort of solution.
3. Other times you don’t. When this happens you disengage for a while. You just post and run. I imagine you’re going to say I lack intelectual integrety or I’m being mean but it’s a pattern. Sometimes it seems that what you are saying is that you are so grieved about what we say here that you can’t even bring yourself to comment on it and you need to stop posting for a while.
Then you come back. That seems dishonest to me.
Amy, I am afriad you won’t believe this but I really try to chose my words carefully with you as well.
Amy, good question, I would have no idea what information Rick Warren would have about Obama and therefore, while I disagree with the decision he made, would still give him the benefit of the doubt that he has given great thought to this and is prepared to answer to God for his decision.
Similar question for you: What other information would Ken Silva have about Erwin McManus that would make me think differently about him?
Why do you think Joe is angry? Even if he is “angry” is that wrong?
Joe,
When I said this: “I find it ironic that the person on that post that I first noticed you having a pleasant attitude towards was the pastor who is full of his freedom to use profanity.” I was specifically referring to your seeming support of Dave Anderson’s post with all kinds of “slang (????)”
You said, “Sometimes it seems that what you are saying is that you are so grieved about what we say here that you can’t even bring yourself to comment on it and you need to stop posting for a while. Then you come back. That seems dishonest to me.” First of all, I don’t normally “post and run” on purpose – I have a busy life, and other folks use the computer I use.
I was overwhelmed, regarding the Bell video. I also purposely stayed off of here for a couple of weeks after having the abortion discussions. Yes they grieved me.
How is any of that “dishonest?” Do you only post where you agree? Obviously not. Do you not try to write truth as you see it in places where you are not welcomed? Most definitely.
Does my coming back and posting mean that I’ve changed my mind about the things I said before, that I, for example, am no longer grieved about the abortion argument? Of course not.
I often feel the need to speak what I believe is true. And sometimes I do it here. I believe that “my truth” is somehow not truly acceptable here, whereas “your truth” is. “Truth as I see it” often contradicts “truth as you see it.” Therefore, I am not really welcome here; you or others could tell me differently, but it shows in many ways.
I see my “grief” re the abortion discussion and “being overwhelmed” by the Bell video as spiritual battles. I’m sure you think that sound arrogant, but that’s how I see it. Sometimes I need a rest from the way of thinking on this site – and if you knew all of the things I refrain from saying, you would know that there is much more that concerns me than I even share. Maybe one day I will need a permanent rest from this site; then you can rejoice in having established an amen corner.
Would you like me to apologize for being overwhelmed that people defend pastors who buddy up to people who support murder, to work for “righteousness” together? I’m sorry, but to apologize for such a thing would be incredibly dishonest. Would you like me to apologize for being so overwhelmed by a message that I know I can’t even discuss it for a while? How could I give such an apology?
My opinion: What you would really like me, and other people who you probably all lump together as “fundamentalists,” to do, is to just completely shut up. You will continue to find things wrong about people who you disagree with – whether it be their persistent picky posts, the fact that they have problems with cussing, if you discover they don’t go “mixed bathing,” their anger, their “running away,” their overgeneralizations, and on and on . . . you will find SOME REASON to justify turning off what “THEY” say.
Deborah,
I don’t know what would make you think differently about Mcmanus because I don’t know where you’re coming from. The things I’ve seen that put questions in my mind have been from interviews, and from talking to Nathan. Maybe you’ve already read our discussions.
As for Ken Silva, he has posted a number of things about Mcmanus.
Amy,
The title of this post is an appropriate place for us to have this discussion. I was almost tempted to turn around the names and repost it. You made so many judgments about me in that post that I am not sure I can respond to them all. I can’t right now, because I am about to leave this computer and go on a date with my wife. I don’t want to establish an Amen corner.
You seem to get angry when we (Nathan and I and sometimes Chris) continue to disagree with you.
My opinion: You’re a jaded angry person who has probably had a lot of crap happen in your life. Please don’t get passive aggressive with me and tell me how thankful I should be about how much restraint you use when posting here. Post whatever you want, we’re all big boys and girls here. We can handle it.
What I find dishonest, is somehow you expect to have a conversation but when it doesn’t get to where you want it to go, you “need a rest.” By all means, you are entitled to do what you want.
You bring a differing perspective to this site and that’s cool. Often though you seem to disagree and can’t seem to bring yourself to accept that we may have to agree to disagree. Having said that, I don’t care if you post here or not. That is your choice. Either way, is fine with me.
Peace
Joe,
You speak of my being “dishonest” with disdain, but when I try to be honest with you about how I feel, you don’t like it.
Try going and looking at your responses to people on this site alone, who disagree with you. Then come back and tell me you that you yourself are not after an Amen corner.
Agreeing to disagree is fine – but to get to the point where one really knows whether there is agreement or disagreement takes a lot of discussion.
Let’s see, twice during the whole time I’ve discussed here I needed a rest (and by the way, this last time I was gone I was having a holiday part of the time, and wanted to leave off the computer for Easter as well.) I think it’s pretty remarkable that that’s happened only twice, if you go back and look at some of the discussions I’ve been in.
As for who has been getting angry with who – go back and look at the discussions.
I chose not to judge you all as some kind of neo-elephants or some other title that would let me look at you from a distance with amusement or disdain. I have tried my best to learn and understand what you are really thinking instead of taking someone else’s word for it. I hoped to be able to discuss issues that CRN brings up here – but it’s been difficult because often I’m the only one with a viewpoint differing from Neil, Nathan, you, and Chris.
Chris has given me much time and some good discussions. Nathan and I have had a harder time discussing things but I can honestly say that I respect his heart even though I disagree with him and/or am puzzled about a number of things connected with Mosaic. Neil is a good thinker who usually brings a broader perspective to things.
But with you, there is almost always animosity. Where that animosity comes from I don’t know. I still don’t really know what you believe because you mostly don’t enter into discussions about issues.
Maybe you believe deep down that my assessment of you is wrong, and maybe it is. As I said, it is my opinion. Other people have said similar things to you; maybe we are all wrong.
Maybe you feel that you need not listen to anyone who critiques you, because maybe you are convinced that your attitude and motivation is right, and that your convictions about defending Bell, Mcmanus, etc, come from God, and that the way that you interact with people pleases God. I’m not going to convince you otherwise.
Again Amy, I’m sorry you feel this way about me. I’m not sure that you and Mrs. Pilgrim constitute all that many other people.
Again, there is a lot of “maybes” in your post. Again to answer your original question, If God showed me I was wrong–I’d openly apologize.
I think you’re wrong here, but you are entitled to your opinion. Have a great weekend.Â
Amy, thanks for answering my question.
I want you to know that I actually agree with you regarding your concerns about Warren. In fact, I have serious issues with Warren on a number of things. Most of my issues are in the grey area for me – while I may feel strongly about them does not mean that they fall into an un-Biblical area.
I’ve been a lurker for several months, but have read every word in every post and comment for at least 4 months, as well having read several of the personal blogs for the guys here. I am in the middle of the road between fundamentalism and emergence, with a whole healthy dose of Ray Vanderlaan tossed in for good measure. So I don’t agree with everything written here but I also carefully choose which hills I’m going to die on.
There are times when everyone gets too focused on things, it happens to all of us. For some reason the Warren/Obama thing seems to be one for you. I could have easily been side-tracked on the birth control questions as I have very strong feelings on that topic. I also realize that the examples I would have used would have been alarmist in nature, similar to the one earlier about the house burning and being willing to work with an athiest neighbor. I don’t think that would have been right.
Bottom line is this, I see your point about Warren. Some people don’t. Everyone can make their point and it shouldn’t be personal, but you won’t always be able to convince everyone of your opinion. It took me a long time to learn that. If it were that simple then there wouldn’t be so many different denominations and divisions in the church.
You do sound more frustrated in recent days. I hope that things in your life are not contributing to that, and if so, then I pray for God’s peace in your heart regarding whatever struggles you may have.
Lastly, I am the first person to admit that the majority is not always right, so if you feel compelled to disagree with something, you should go ahead and do so, wherever and whenever. Don’t apologize for what you believe, just say it with humility (and that is for everyone).
All the discussion about who is the most angry person pushed aside for a moment, I found this comment of Amy’s to be dead-on:
“When you were a pastor did you talk to people the way you talk to them on the blogosphere? Did you ever treat people who had a different viewpoint than yours with respect?”
This is something that puzzles me about Ken Silva, Chris P. and others who exhibit a similar vein of sarcasm and meaness in blog comments. Ending a post with a smiley face and “peace” doesn’t do away with earlier tone.
I was speaking with my mother about Silva, in particular, because he writes for the Worldview Network. My parents and I have attended a number of the Worldveiw Weekends and I have always valued the experience. I have stacks of books and CDs and really, there’s a lot of great material and I’ve benefited so much. But now, over the past eight months or so, I’m seeing columnists and people associated with CWN calling me (and others like me) names, leaving veiled spiritual threats of damnation on my blog and theirs, etc. Yet CWN is still happy to take my money, host their events in Assembly of God churches (we speak in tongues!!) and so on, even though their columnists talk nasty on mine and other’s blogs.
This is a serious issue for me. It really has turned me off, and I struggle to beat down feelings of GBA.
I said to my mother last evening that I didn’t know if I wanted to attend another WV Weekend, and if I did, I would like to pull Brannon Howse aside and ask him if he bothered to see how his beloved columnists behaved on the internet. This is not a threat, but a sincere curiousity. Is Silva and Chris P.’s and Ingrid’s and all the Slice 1.0 and Slice 2.0 blogger’s behavior by calling me emergent, apostate, heretical, pelagian, and whatever else they can come up with, just fine?
Because it didn’t sound like that at the last WV Weekend I was at which was full of the Silva-themed “Ecumenical Church of Deceit” what with all the Pentecostals (they were a majority), Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists — Baptists are few and far between up here.
The same people paying for registration, buying books and tapes, supporting the CWN are many of the same people Silva et. al. are blasting!
All this to say, yes, Amy. You have an excellent point. Some of these pastor-teachers would do well to check their tone instead of their brain before leaving something on blogs and in comments because they would never speak to me — a mere “congregant” — or others that way in person.
For Ken to recently point out I wasn’t giving a Christ-appointed teacher-pastor correct respect is really rich: he shows very little behavior that I think an actual teacher-pastor would exhibit.
Julie – I may not agree with your perspective on some doctrinal issues but I can understand some of your concerns. I can remember months ago that you made a comment about the comment atmosphere on Slice being – I think you said something like – doctrinally incestuous. I laughed out loud.
Some of the people you mentioned are so far over the top with their brutish approach it has become what I refer to as “flat earth”. What do I mean? I mean it is so far outside the acceptable range that it doesn’t even require arguing about it, like arguing with someone who says the earth is flat.
Anyway just keep seeking Him and do not allow others to impede your journey. Keep in mind also that nice doesn’t always equal truth, but it sure helps to exhibit His nature when sharing it.
I like that — “flat earth” — I like that analogy you just used. I get that, what you’re saying…so far outside the acceptable range that it doesn’t even require arguing about it.
Thanks, Rick. That’s actually helpful. Seriously. I’m going to think about that more…I might have to blog about that at some point.
…and, uh, I did say the incestuous thing. That’s kind of…crude. I probably should have worded it better.
Deborah,
Thanks for your kind words. I am not on edge. Just more honest and open about what I really think than usual.
Amy,
I am a touch curious. Where did I get angry with you, esp. in this thread or anywhere on this blog. Where did I treat you with disrespect? Whether you believe it or not, I wasn’t angry at the 9:01 comment so I’m curious…..
In this thread, my comments about how you come across were talking about the relevant christian blog discussion.
Wow – I’m gone for a day, and I’m trying to piece together what happened while I was out. Just a couple of frank observations before I have to run again (only dealing with some of the back-and-forth between Amy and Joe, and one other small issue):
Amy: While we don’t always see eye-to-eye, I greatly appreciate your willingness to discuss issues without pulling the “who’s a better Christian” (or “who’s the only Christian in this discussion”) card in theatrical prose. You always make me think harder about what I believe. While I think that you sometimes take a conrtrarian view at odd points, I would never want you to NOT be part of the discussion. I disagree with Joe on your seeming angry, but more likely contentious. And I understand you needing to step away from time to time (I do, too). please give Joe just a little slack…
Joe – I think that this time you jumped too quickly into defensive mode (as I do this often, as well), and the only way I have found to deal with that is this: when I feed the head-rush of defensiveness, I have to limit myself (initially) to just 1) asking questions for clarity; 2) citing scripture with my understanding of the passages cited. In this particular conversation, it seems you’ve jumped the gun a bit. Please try to give Amy a little slack – stick to the issues/questions rather than go for the motives (I made the mistake a few weeks ago by blaming her feelings on one issue (Warren/Obama) on her bad experience with a PD church.
All of us – let’s please stick to issues (as much as we can) rather than motives. It’s hard, but please try…
Amy,
Here’s links that were sent to me from the the four RVL sermons at Mars Hill on Discipleship (which Bell condensed into 1 at Willow Creek):
Part 1: here
Part 2: here
Part 3:
here
Part 4: here
Please let’s all back down just a bit
Grace and peace,
Chris
Hey… I admit it… sometimes I am just a meanie… but still saved by Grace and sllllooooowlllly being transformed into the image of Christ! = )
Peace!
IOW Julie I agree 100%. Though I never attended a CWV event I used to read the site with interest… I really enjoy Chuck Missler… and yet I find I like less and less that is going on there… to me it has become a dumping ground for CRN type garbage that is out to tickle others ears and not edify the Body of Christ… it seem readership is more important than substance… so I count them more in line with CRN than a valid and valuable “Christian” World View… I see then as a christian World view… as they are more worldly now than about two years ago…
Sadder still is there is a total lack of understanding that the more Ken and company write “hate” filled posts they are polarizing the Body of Christ… it is not about reconciliation… it is about titillation and divisiveness…
So… what do we have left to do? Speak out about THEIR gospel of hate and bigotry… speak against their legalism and self righteousness… and pray blessings on them in abundance so that they will see that Christ will be glorified with or without them helping…
Blessings,
iggy
Ok, well we’re going to disagree there I guess. As a friend of mine says, “it is what it is.”
Chris, asking for clarification. How did I jump too quickly? As near as I can tell this thing escalated with Amy’s 8:48 am post. She seemed to take offense (and in my opinion) get angry when I said that my wife and I had just discussed how we thought she was angry and I thought that was ironic.
Over at Relevant I disagreed. Strongly, but I wasn’t mean to those people. Again, in my opinion, Amy was very passive aggressive with me in that post. Maybe I’m wrong but honestly, I was never angry in this whole thread. She has no idea what I do with what she says, and she made some assumptions that I wouldn’t listen to her. Amy, I’m not trying to talk around you here. I even thought about sending this to Chris via email but thought that would be underhanded, so I’m posting it here.
As for Mrs. Pilgrim, she said I made fun of her for saying something and it was not me. I said that to her three times. Finally I said something about saying it as slowly as a Northerner could say it. I meant that to be funny. If you knew, I talk really really fast.
Deborah, your statements about somewhere between fundamentalist and emergent would be spot on for where I am. With a little RL thrown in too. I like to call myself “emergentesque”
I wonder if I can coin that.
Ok, at the risk of beating a dead horse….I went back and re-read that post. Again, I say I strongly disagreed, but that’s it. I never did get my question answered by Lawrence, or Mrs. Pilgrim for that matter.
Joe -
I think it was the 6:44 am post characterizing Amy’s persona that made me cringe, as it (like my bringing up her split with a PD church as what I believed was influencing her attitude about Warren).
I, too thought about just doing this behind the scenes, but I don’t see this as a Matthew 18 type of thing, and I’m also trying to show that when we, posters at this site, disagree that we don’t pretend it didn’t happen and circle the wagons (in the manner of modern politics).
I believe that every person who has posted in this thread is a avid (dare I say fanatical) follower of Jesus, and that this passion which drives us sometimes gets the better of us (like it did me earlier this week).
Grace and peace,
Chris
Chris, at 11:13p.m. Amy said, she “mostly knew that I was angry.” Now, the people that really know me laughed at that. I commented that I had just said to my wife that I thought she was angry. I felt that was ironic.
The rest of my quote to her seems really innocuous to me. To me Ken’s lie seem pretty obvious, but if they don’t to someone else I really don’t know what to say to that person.
Peace
Amy,
I was involved in that whole conversation at relevant christian. Joe was not at all being mean to anyone on that thread! He asked for clarification a couple of times. I know ms Pilgrim was going after him over things he never said and I know he said “he would talk as slow as a northerner could talk. “He was being serious and trying to add some humor to the thread. He talks extremly fast in real life. the whole exchange with Lawerence was not to be funny. He never calls people by their full name. He was not doing it to be disrespectful at all. I am sorry you have taken it that way. Joe would not hurt someones feelings on purpose. I am sorry you feel this way about him. I wish you could see his heart! He is not at all being sarcastic with you through this thread. (Yes. Chris he is being defensive but wouldn’t you if your motives were being judged no matter what you said the person did not listen?) He is trying to see where he obviously ticked you off! I am not sure what has happened. I don’t typically defend him like this but I know him very well. You have mis read his words. He is not out to make enemies or gain an amen corner. He is very passionate about what he believes, he truly could care less about having followers.
I am sorry you feel so strongly about him. I am not sure if you are having a bad day or if you have problems reading these comments. ( I say that because I do! I often have to ask for clairty) It is hard to know someone’s attitude behind their comments because you can not see facial expressions
Sometimes I read things you write and I think WOW she is one defensive and argumentative person. Truth be told I could be reading what you wrote wrong. In fact some people comment and I think by their use of sarcasm that they are against the contributers but they are actually for them. Does this make sense? I would not take what Joe says so personally. If he meant something to be sarcastic he would admit to you. He is a very up front honest person always has been. I hope this helps a little.
Erica
Joe,
Am I just blind this morning (I did wake up really early) or did you or someone remove the post in which you called me “passive aggressive, jaded, had a horrible life or something to that effect?) It should have been there after my 3:56 pm post. If your removed it, why? It’s no reflection on me. I know it’s not true, and I think it needs to stay there because it’s a part of this whole discussion. Why is it gone? Like I said, forgive me if I’m blind . . . but I’ve looked this over 4 times and I don’t see it.
I initially thought that that was the one that Chris L was talking to you about . . . but maybe he never even saw it?
I believe that your 4:07 originally came after the next one I wrote, and the one that is missing perhaps came at 4:07.
Please explain this to me. It’s the one I was referring to in my 5:11 post, I believe.
Your earlier comment from you and your wife regarding my anger had nothing to do with any of my responses. I talked probably a month or more ago about how your responses to people bother me – it may have been the time when you made a statement about Chris P for which I asked you to demonstrate the truth.
The interaction that bothered me on the relevant Christian site was not just your interaction with Mrs. Pilgrim, it was generally with other folks there as well. Seeing how warm you were when Dave Anderson came on spouting his – excuse the judgementalism – filthy words – didn’t help my opinion.
Add that to the way you have responded to people disagreeing with you on this site. Add your articles on top of that – that’s how your articles come across to me.
Mostly what I have felt personally from you is just some kind of underlying antagonism that shows up in various ways – I never feel that I’m doing the right thing – I answer too much, I answer too little, I disengage, I ask too many questions, on and on. I have personally experienced more of what I would define as pure anger from another person on this site – and that’s primarily what I was talking about when I asked you to check this site and see where the anger is -although I don’t want to discuss that, because an apology was made.
As for the “passive aggressive,” “jaded” I’m not absolutely sure what “passive aggressive” means, but when I heard you apply it to me I immediately thought of one of my dogs, because I think that’s what she may be. She would already be in the pound if it weren’t for the fact that one of my daughters sees her mission in life to love the unlovely . . .
Please explain the missing post.
Amy, I posted it. Felt conviction from the Holy Spirit and changed it. When I checked the stats (i posted it right before I left work and changed it when I went home about 10 minutes) no one had been on the site so I took it down and put up the one that is there in it’s place. On my way home I came to this thought about us. You and I are probably too far apart to have agreeable discussions.
The way I see it all I can say, “Amy, I’m sorry you feel this way about me.”
Joe,
Do you think that your unposting that was honest? Isn’t the correct procedure when one posts something one regrets to simply apologize? Doesn’t the post indeed show that some of the concerns I have about your anger could be valid?
Didn’t someone recently post something about team pyro removing posts? Hasn’t Slice been condemned for removing posts?
I’m all for understanding that posts can be made that are later regretted – I’ve done that myself. But the way that you handled this was not above board.
You removed your angry post and left one that showed you to be coolly responding, “I’m sorry you feel that way about me.” Perhaps the Holy Spirit was in your regret, but I don’t see how your removing the post instead of apologizing meets the ethical standards that you seem to be demanding of other watchdog ministries.
Had you asked, if it were okay with Chris, I seriously doubt I would have minded you deleting part of the post.
Amy, yes I do believe it was honest because as I said I didn’t think that anyone had been here yet. The thing is I didn’t take it down because I throught what I said was wrong, I took it down because I’m not sure it will do any good. Somehow, when I talk to you we don’t communicate. I saved what that post on my computer at home (I’m not there now) if Chris wants me to put it up I will.
I do believe that you are extremely passive aggressive. I find it hardly plausible that anyone would suggest that post is when this escalted.
You and I just see the world differently. Perhaps I’m wrong perhaps you are.
One thing you said is true. I do find that ussually people who get all fired up over “mixed bathing” have very little to say that is worth hearing. It’s not about who’s more conservative than me or more liberal than me, it’s about what they want to get riled up over. We all have stuff we get riled up over.
For whatever reason, you and I seem to speak English but we don’t speak the same language. I’m sorry about that I really am.
I’m sorry, I realized I forgot to address one of your comments. I have and will criticize TeamPyro and other watchbloggie sites for deleting comments that people write who disagree with them. I deleted my own comment. I didn’t delete yours.
Joe,
You’re right that that post had nothing to do with any escalation on my part. You may have noticed that I didn’t even respond to the nasty part.
But that post was extremely nasty, and if any of it were true -for example that I had a “crappy past” as I believe you put it, it could have really hurt. You say no one saw the post. I saw it, and you know it, because I responded to other things on that post.
“I took it down because I’m not sure it will do any good” doesn’t cut it.” If the Holy Spirit truly convicted you about it, is that what he was convicting you of, that the post “wouldn’t do any good?” I assume there was no conviction that it could have bee a)untrue or b)hurtful. Because if there had been, I assume that the Holy Spirit would have led you to apologize.
I’m confused about what the Holy Spirit had to do with it. And I don’t buy the ethics of deleting a post in a thread when its your own comment and not someone elses. I have no freedom to delete my comments – any errors I’ve made in attitude, words, are there for the world to see – and there for the world to see if I’m led to apologize as well. By your standard, you – as well as Chris – and others? (Neil, Nathan?) can go back through this blog and delete any of your comments. That’s a form of revisionist history.
I think that you need to talk to Chris about this.
As far as the mixed bathing stuff, there are plenty of people in this world who choose to quietly follow convictions such as that – including some males for their own purity’s sake – I think that you need to be careful about mocking them. Not everyone feels comfortable swimming, walking around, with half or three-quarters naked people. It’s unfair to make a general classification of “fired up” and “having nothing worth saying” – you paint with a broad brush some who are honestly just trying to please God. Perhaps it would be much better and helpful to use the broad brush – with some very thick paint – to paint those who seem quite comfortable walking around in little more than underwear.
Amy, I’m going to put that comment back up. To be honest I wasn’t sure what you were respondng to in your rant. What I said, “My opinion: you are a jaded angry person who had probably had a lot of crap happen in your life (I may have said past)” Why can you say, “In my opinion” and then judge me? But if I say, “In my opinion…” I’m wrong, I’m angry, etc? Why can you share your opinion but when I do. When I disagree I’m angry, I’m mean etc?
Please explain.
BTW, Amy I get it. You’re mad at my Fightin Fundie post.
Amy, since the point of escalation (wherever you believe that was) here’s the pattern for our conversation to this point:
A. )One of us gives an opinion on the state of the other one (pesonally I believ that it was you who started with the post about me being angry but you could have a different opinion)
b. )The other posts back giving their opinion
C.)We disagree some more.
D.) Then one person posts and we disagree again.
E.) See A through D
You don’t care for me. I get that. But then why worry about whether or not you’re “doing the right thing” If you want discussion why can’t I disagree with you? In my opinion you want me to say I agree with you and when I dont’ I have to be angry.
How should I disagree with you?
Everyone –
Since I can’t set the site up to allow editing of comments (and I’m not sure I should), I think we what CAN edit should only do so for grammatical purposes (I fix spelling every now and then – and have even fixed it for others, upon request), to delete duplicates or to remove copyright protected material or other similar type issues.
Thanks,
Chris
Amy,
You are right one of the things that are complained about is deleting comments. When people complain about it.(Like Joe) They are complaining that commentators comments are being deleted. Or they complain that posts that have been up for a long period of time get grief and than CRN takes them down. He told you he did not think anyone had read it so he took it down. Why was that wrong?
Could it be possiable that the Holy Spirit convicted Joe to take the comment down because what he said was not the best way to communicate with you? Maybe the Hold Spirit did not convict him it was wrong but that it was not helpful!
Here is what I see in this discussion. You comment to their articles they a write. You are very passionate about what you believe but you don’t want them to disagree with you. This is were I am confused. Isn’t that what discussion is about? It is also the nature of debating. The other person gets to state their opinion. Joe has the right to believe the way he does about mixed bathing just like you have the right to believe the way you do. You do not have to agree. As far as the comments he makes about your “life” a lot of times the things people are the most passionate about is because of something personal impacting their life. For instance on the thread you guys have been talking about there was a gentlemen who had strong feeling about drinking. The more we talked it came out that his wife was injured by a drunk driver. It would make perfect since that his experience has affected his opinion on the issue of drinking. All he is saying is that some of things you are the most passionate about is because of personal experiences. We are all that way wether we realize it or not.
You keep saying is you do not like the way he respondes to people. Enlighten us, give us examples and tell everyone how you believe he should respond to each person. I find it ironic that you can say whatever you want but you do not like it when anyone is less than “gentle with you in their response” that does not seem fair to me. Please lay out a case with examples. One more thing, how do you know what his attitude is behind what he says? You do not know him to know if he is being sarcastic, loving, funny, or mean. When you ask him he tells you the emotion behind the comment and you still continue to tell him that isn’t what he was doing. Here is what I am seeing it is ok for you to question his emotion but you do not want your emotions questioned. If this is the case than just say it. When he does question your emotion you get all fired up! That does not seem right either. Just some thoughts!
Ok, the comment is back up and in bold. I did not edit it from the original I simply put it in bold so it will be easy to find while scrolling.
In my opinion all comments are welcome no matter how passionate and somewhat harsh. Respect should be observed but strong dialogue should be encouraged. When someone steps over the top, they should be corrected and only when they continue to ignore correction should they be lovingly banned from that particular thread.
All inappropriate language should be blocked and warned. I do believe that even people whose blogs do not allow comments should be allowed to comment on other blogs even though there is some hypocrisy in that. Ingrid hardly ever commented on other blogs so when she closed comments she was consistant in her approach even though I believe everyone should allow comments.
Views from all, sincerety from all, persepectives from all, learning from all, passion from all, but love and respect TO all!
Joe,
You’re welcome to disagree with me.
Responding to your 10:48 am post: My post to you about anger came way before you put up the post about passive aggressive, jaded, crap in my life, etc. I would hardly call any of my posts rants (you’re welcome to that opinion.) The 5:11 one that came after your now re-posted post is definitely in no way a rant. If you’re referring to my later post asking about why you removed your post as a rant, I definitely disagree. Did you think I would just ignore it? I think what you did was wrong ethically and was not sorry to say so. And thank you for putting it back up, by the way.
Responding to this: “BTW, Amy I get it. You’re mad at my Fightin Fundie post” Definitely not mad for myself – I don’t quite qualify, or maybe I do, because there are numerous varieties of fundamentalists – and definitely not mad for anyone I know who is a “fundy.” Protective, yes. I think that generalizations such as the one you made on that post are completely unhelpful to brothers and sisters who call themselves fundamentalists. You may feel it is helpful to characterize all by some list. Why is everyone so free to criticize those who they claim are busy dishing out criticism”all the time?” There are some, yes, who spend too much time criticizing, as there are in any group. There are plenty who don’t.
One of my grandfathers, who really struggled with alcohol, was driving down the road one day listening to a fundamentalist preacher way back when his daughter, my mother, was a young girl. He pulled over on the side of the road and rededicated his life. He quit drinking. He was a wonderful man who was a friend to the poor including black people in the south, when many white people treated them poorly or ignored them. I thank God for the heritage I have, and I thank God that at least one side of my family was positively affected by the message of a fundamentalist preacher.
I personally was helped by two different fundamentalists at some very critical times of my life – believe it or not what I learned from the first was that being a dedicated Christian can be really, really, fun and being a dedicated Christian is a great thing! The thing that I learned from the second was how I could find joy and delight in ministry, as a young teenager.
Erika,
Joe is welcome to keep being who he is. I am glad you think he’s kind, etc – he probably is. I am welcome to keep thinking that he could use a different approach when talking to people. You are welcome to think anything and tell me anything about how I come across. It doesn’t bother me.
The fact is that even if I were absolutely perfect and milk-toasty that something I said would still offend someone. That’s the way of disagreements.
I’m not trying to force my beliefs on anyone. I do believe that certain things are clearly scriptural or unscriptural and I see absolutely no reason not to discuss those things “to the death.” I think that things like discussing what the essence of the gospel is and what the essence of obedience in Christian/non-Christian relationships is important. Maybe that offends you – if so then, we are coming from two opposite mindsets – I’m not planning to change, and my guess is that you aren’t either.
I’m not trying to convince anyone about mixed bathing. It’s not even my own personal conviction, although I do add shorts for swimming and although there are some places we don’t go to swim. I used mixed bathing as an example from Joe’s previous fundamentalist list, because I see no reason to criticize someone for holding a conviction about it, or for lumping those who simply have a conviction about it with some who may want to try to force it on everyone.
Joe writes a lot about Ken Silva’s hurting “innocent” people, calling people/ideas wrong that he believes are not wrong. He demonstrates that with great, shall we say “passion?” Can I not show some passion for ideas, people who I think HE may be hurting?
Sometimes I wonder, when I get involved in a discussion, at what point I am willing to set aside all my personal history. What I’m saying is that it is impossible for others involved in the discussion to know all the background in my life, impossible for them to understand how I might react to it differently than they — basically, at what point can I approach a discussion to the highest degree possible without relaying all of my personal history first?
I could start posts discussing bad church experiences, alcoholic grandfathers, etc. (both of which I have had) but… well, what I’m not trying to do is attack Amy. She brings a valued set of “brakes” to a discussion that might be approaching an “amen corner” kind of thing. What I am noticing is a repeated method of relating something from the past as the basis for now.
Obviously our past affects us now. And no, we can’t ever step outside of it completely. What I’m wondering is, though, if it is possible to set it aside as much as we can and approach a discussion with the idea being presented as that instead of an idea being presented as relates to my personal experience.
Sometimes when people start telling me about their “personal experiences with Jesus Christ” as some kind of proof that I or others should believe or behave as they do, I think it a poor method to rely upon constantly.
It’s when things get personal that things get personal.
Does this make any sense to anyone? I’m having trouble vocalizing my thoughts on this…
Rick,
I just read your comment and appreciate it. And I would especially like to say that I would appreciate it if you would tell me if you think I’m out of order – to a point. ( I assume that you already think I’m out of order because you don’t like women correcting pastors, which I assume makes all my discussion about Warren out of line?)
Julie,
I agree completely. past experience should only play a small part in most of our judgment calls. How many women today say “all men are pigs” because of a bad past experience. This blocks them from ever having joy in life with a man. Same goes with church.
People go to one “bad” purpose driven church and suddenly the movement is a cult. People experience one church with new age practices and now any church that feels mystical is new age. We have to be careful about making blatant stereotypes based on past experience.
Amy, I’m going to repeat what I have said many times about the fundie post. It was satire. You either simply won’t or can’t answer the question posed to you. Back up your accusation with quotes please. (I asked you this and my wife asked you). You say a lot but don’t back it up. I’m going to say this again. I have friends that are fundamentalist. I have good friends that are way more conservative than I As for your story about your Grandfather. That’s a great story. I could share some similiar ones. I could even share some stories about how Rick Warren, Rob Bell and Erwin McManus have been used by God the same way in peoples life. You think I’m…mean, emergent, unkind, unwilling to stand for the truth, angry… whatever. That’s ok, I’m more than cool with that. As for everything else you and I are just going round and round so I’m going to stop now.
Peace to you.
Amy,
I appreciate your responding back to me. Please go back and re-read your comment to me. In your comment you mentioned how have the right to say the things that you are thinking, feel the way that you do, believe what you want to believe, etc. All I ask is that you show Joe and for that matter everyone the same grace that you claiming for yourself. I think it’s great that you have opinionsn and want to share them. Everything you said in that comment about yourself and how you want to be treated proves my point as to how Joe wants to be treated. You still have failed to answer the questions I asked. Since we obvioously agree that everyone has the right to their own opinion and the right to voice that opinion. Let throw this out there to you; Joe said something that hit you wrong and that is why you got all defensive. He hit a nerve. Because if you firmly believe what you commented in this last comment than Joe’s done nothing wrong.
Amy,
Here’s the link to the post that inspired the fundie hot list. You’ll notice one of the problems with the emergent movement is they promote fasting. I imagine you might enjoy this webpage.
Peace.
http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2006/04/emergent-hot-list.html
Erika,
Just so it doesn’t get lost, let me put my main point here: WHAT MATTERS IS WHAT GOD THINKS.
Joe can say what he believes, the way he wants to say it. And I can voice my opinion about what he is saying and how he is saying it. He or you can then voice your opinion about my opinion about what he is saying and how he is saying it. Freedom of speech. On and on, it doesn’t stop, round and round, and round. .Someone must have had the gift of prophecy when they came up with the title here.
And you don’t have to think that the way I voice my opinion pleases God. Nor do I have to think that about your or his opinions.
Freedom of speech. The American way.
And your opinion is okay, and my opinion is okay . . . NO. STOP. In some things, but not in all things.
GOD does know and care about whether or not what we say pleases him, so if one of us says something to the other of us in this round and round that actually makes us PAUSE and consider – is this my mouth, or God’s mouth speaking, and, are these my thoughts or God’s thoughts, and is this my attitude, or God’s attitude- and if we come to God’s opinion, then all the round and round is worth it. God’s opinion is actually worth thinking about.
And how do we determine God’s opinion – well there’s all kinds of things in scripture on the tongue, about words, about attitudes, about beliefs. For myself, I know I need to spend less and less time here, and more and more time there, in that Word.
So with that in mind, consider this: To try to make an effort to answer your questions about the relevant site, I looked it up for the third time. I started copying down things that Joe said that contributed (along with his comments articles on this site) to me saying this: “When I read the Relevant Christian post the other day, I thought it interesting that Mrs. Pilgrim made some remarks to you similar to the ones I have made. When you were a pastor did you talk to people the way you talk to them on the blogosphere? Did you ever treat people who had a different viewpoint than yours with respect? You seem like a very angry person who is going to take the part of the people who are walking “on the edge†as much as they can and find offense with those who are more “conservative†than you, even when there is no offense intended. What’s at the root of your anger?”
I started copying down comments but stopped because I realized I was copying down almost every one. I read that thread the whole way through, and that was the way it was, the whole way through. ( I would add that I think that sometimes there probably was offense intended on that particular blog, but that doesn’t change my thinking about what you said and how you said it.)
Now, after my third and perhaps most careful reading, I almost agree completely with Mrs. Pilgrim when she said, “Joe, I don’t know why you are so surprised that people are upset with you. Every single one of your comments thus far has either been sarcastic or outright insulting. (Starting with “Let me guess, Chris P called you “limpwristedâ€? What a great guy. Keep on keeping on, man.†This was your first comment.)” I would not say “every single one,” but I would say most of them.
You may read several other folks comments about Joe’s remarks on that site as well that are similar. You can decide that Joe hit a nerve with all of them if you want, as you have decided about me. You can decide that all of them or voicing their own opinions and that it has nothing to do with God. You can classify them – as fightin fundies, as baptists, or simply as Ken. But the fact is God can speak through all kinds of people. You might consider that at least one thing that one of them said to you might be on track.
And perhaps the issue isn’t whether or not Joe is angry – sometimes only God can know that really. (I mean, I think that even people don’t really know that they’re angry sometimes.) The issue is does his speech, attitudes, and beliefs honor God. And that is the issue that I must consider as well, regarding myself.
I think this thread needs to stop… it is getting too personal and not progressing to anything edifying.
Chris P is the one that called him limpwristed! Did you even bother to read that? Somebody didn’t like that they used the word suck and they called them limpwristed–and I’m the one that was mean! That’s unbelievable. Amy, your answer, I can’t copy any down because there are just too many doesn’t hold water. Quote three and show me. Email me if you want. I don’t care.
Joe,
The fact that Chris P said that someone was limpwristed has nothing to do with what I’m saying to you. I’m not doing a comparison between you and Chris P.
The quote was from you:” Let me guess, Chris P called you “limpwristedâ€? What a great guy. Keep on keeping on, man.†– and Mrs. P used it to show your sarcasm. She could have chosen a number of others.
No I won’t send you two or three. I’ve already spent about an hour on this, just tonight. I tell you, I started and would have continued copying almost all of them. My answer does hold water if you choose to believe it. If not, well that’s your choice.
The sarcasm, in case you’re confused (and I’m not trying to be sarcastic) is “What a great guy.”
ok,
you both need to stop now. This is turning into a name calling thread. **ding ding** fight’s over. Go back to your corners… end of game.
Sorry Nathan, I am tired of this woman attacking me and not backing it up. She can say what she wants but I’d like her to back it up. That’s all I’m asking for.
Amy I missed your explanation when I posted to Nathan. I was saying that I didn’t think Chris P wasn’t that great of a guy (for the record I have no idea if it was Ken’s Chris P). Is sarcasm sin? Read Job 38-41. Then the last part of my comment was attempting to be encouraging to the author that post.
Amy,
I live with the man trust me he is not an angry man. My point to you is I was on that same thread commenting, he was not being mean at all! In fact since you have read it so many times you obviously can see that everyone their had an attitude with him. I think this is the problem with the blog world it is hard to know someones attitude behind what they say. In fact what is funny about all of this is I have problems interpreting attitude in your commenting. You are right there is freedom of speech. I am sorry you feel the way you do about Joe. You have that right. Joe is a very fun, passionate person who stands behind what he believes. He and I have had many debates some that have lasted hours. He loves to talk and he loves to talk about God and the bible. You are right God knows ours hearts that is what is so great!
To answer your question he is an awesome pastor. He was always compassionate, caring and loving. The people loved him, in fact most people who know him love him. You just can’t help but like him. He is very friendly and outgoing. He gives a hundred percent to all he does. Yes, he is human, he makes mistakes. The very first thing that ever attracted me to him was the fact that he was loyal and compassionate. We went round and round ourselves many times because when we met he was very “wild” and I was a hyper conservative baptist nut job!lol We had many fun, passionate talks. He has taught to me to loosen up a lot and to know what I believe and why I believe it .
Really, I could care less what people think about him because God knows him and I know him. What bothers me with you is you judge him so harshly. I don’t agree with half of what you say in fact I think you can be rather sarcastic yourself. Many times I have walked away and not come back to my computer after reading some of the things you have written. Here is my point in sharing this, I do not know you, for me to go off on you and judge your motives would be wrong. I choose to believe that you are not an arrogant, self righteous person. Instead I believe that you love the Lord, you enjoy conversation, and you are a passionate person. I think that is great!
Now I am rambling, but I am sorry you feel the way you do and I am sorry that you mis read Joe’s comments. I wish you well. I am not angry with you. It just makes me sad that you won’t listen to him or me, since I was part of the conversation, that he was not being mean.
****Upon further review***
I’m done with this thread. No matter what is posted here after this I will not respond. I’ve stated my case. I believe I have been unfairly maligned without provocation or support. Amy, I am going to pray God’s best for you.
In the interest of fairness if you want to send me that email with the examples I will read it. I will not respond however.
Grace and Peace to you.
I’m concerned this thread is/has deteriorated. Perhaps we should pull a Pyro and close it.
Great peace have they that love thy law and nothing shall offend them.
As always, Rick, you say the perfect thing.
Rick, was that statement directed towards Joe or Amy?
Closed