The apostle Paul wrote, inspired by God,
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
As many of you know, I am working this week on the Ute reservation in southwest Colorado with The Legacy, teaching art and music to Native American jr. and sr. high school students. So, aside from this brief post, this is why you aren’t hearing anything from me this week.
Something you probably don’t know is that last night, my wife and I had a truly wonderful dinner with a Christian brother and sister here in the Four Corners area, Chris Pajak and his wife.Â
Several weeks ago, Greg Boyd guest-preached at Mars Hill (Grand Rapids), and commented that ‘if something is made of flesh and blood, it is not our enemy’, hearkening back to the words of Paul.
I would like to report to you that Paul’s words, as reiterated by Dr. Boyd, are as true today as they were when they were written. And in being so, I have experienced a deep lesson, I wish I could share with you.
As many of you know, I am a rather strong proponent for understanding the context of scripture when reading and interpreting it, for the very reason that without that context, we are only left to supply our own – which is likely very different from the culture and context in which it was written.
In the same way, I believe that when we tend to agree or disagree with someone, we supply a sympathetic or antagonistic context to their words when we read them – ESPECIALLY if we have never met them. Having met Chris P, listening to him and experiencing his ‘context’, I realize that the context I have supplied has more often than not been wrong.
I am sorry for that Chris.
Please, please, please – let us keep Paul’s words in mind. Our struggle is not with flesh and blood – but with principalities and powers – words and dominions of this world. While we may disagree with a much of what is written on CRN, and probably more/most of what is on SoL/AM, our disagreement is not with Chris, Ken, Ingrid, Dwayna or others – it is with ideas on how to serve in the Kingdom of God.
If we are serious in our belief in balancing orthopraxy and orthodoxy, an independent brother or sister should be able to read this blog and see WHY it is different than those it criticizes. A non-believer should read our disagreements and see a respectful disagreement unlike any experienced in the non-Christian blogs of this world.
We are not there yet. I am not there yet.
But I hope that we would strive to move in that direction.
59 Comments(+Add)
Amen. Strong and conviction laced disagreement, but always with respect and even love. We’ve been out of practice for a long time.
Chris L.,
“our disagreement is not with [Chris L, Joe, Tim, Neil] or others – it is with ideas…”
For the record. Indeed; agreed.
This is the best post on this web site.
I know I could never be as cruel as I sometimes let myself be online, if I were to be face-to-face with a person.
Thanks for this post. Such posts should be part of the “about” or “mission” page of any Christian web site.
Yes, Julie, but your cruels are sometimes very creative.
(But that’s a weakness, not a strength.)
Ken,
what ideas do you hold against me?
I have given glory to God in another thread and you mocked God!
So yes I do think it is against ideas… you seem to think it fine to mock God workings in others lives… and in that mock God Himself!
You seem to thing slander is good… and gossip is better…
You seem to be one that calls good evil and evil good…
So yes I for one stand against your ideas…
In the Name of Jesus and by His Blood.
I still pray for mercy and grace to come to you by His Blood that saves us.
Be Blessed,
iggy
iggy,
“yes I for one stand against your ideas.” You do what you feel you need to do, but just so you know I’m not losing any sleep over it. LOL!
“but just so you know I’m not losing any sleep over it.”
What do you lose sleep over Ken, Ingrid’s approval? How fleshly and even juvenile you are with some of those self serving atatements. Just when I think I’ve read the most infantile retorts (go pray some more), you emerge with another.
And then you add LOL. Your comment and blog demeaner is rarely Christian.
Shelley and I, would like to thank Chris and Suzanne for a very enjoyable evening. I agree in that context is all important. I also apologize for any false assumptions and assertions.
My intent is and will always be God’s Truth.
2 Cor 10:
1I, Paul, myself entreat you, by the meekness and gentleness of Christ–I who am humble when face to face with you, but bold toward you when I am away!– 2I beg of you that when I am present I may not have to show boldness with such confidence as I count on showing against some who suspect us of walking according to the flesh. 3For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. 4For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 5We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, 6being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.
Btw iggy and heinrich, why must you always hijack a thread?
Chris P. – It’s because of my insatiable need to dispense wisdom.
And in the same hijack thread, please pray for me, I will be going into surgery on Wednesday to fuse my deteriorated ankle in three places. It is not life threatening except that I have had two heart attacks and that always complicates things. As a diabetic I don’t heal real well either.
I guess the worst case scenario is that I die and go “Through the Gates of Splendor”. In that case I will turn my comment spot over to my oldest son and you will wish I was back!
(Speaking of hijacking…why do the emoticons always fall between comments? Is it a Firefox browser issue? It drives me crazy. Things should be in boundaries! No touching! No overlap! I also don’t like my food to touch on my plate.)
Please resume your real discussion. I just had to say it. Sorry.
Back to the topic at hand…
Chris L, kudos to you for having dinner with Chris P and his wife, and also for posting one of the best blog entries I’ve ever seen here.
Chris P, a hat tip to you for meeting with Chris L, and for your comment on this post, as well.
Ken,
” You do what you feel you need to do, but just so you know I’m not losing any sleep over it. LOL!”
If you truly seem me as lost… this comment shows how much you do care for my salvation…
And again only proves all that is said about you…
So Thanks! : )
I plead the Blood of Jesus for you to find God’s great Grace and mercy in your life.
Be Blessed,
iggy
SHHHHH…
I think Chris P is a closet emergent… I mean he listens to people like Sinead O’Conner and stuff…. ; )
I have not even heard it yet…
Be Blessed,
iggy
Rick,
“Your comment and blog demeaner is rarely Christian.” Well Rick, if you are ever named Christ then I guess I’d have to listen to you.
But until then my former friend I’ll follow Jesus wherever He tells me to go. No offense Rick, but frankly I happen to think Jesus is a much better Source for what God considers Christian conduct in the world we now live in than you are.
Looks to me like you found your new friends. I wish you well…
Ken,
Jesus tells you to be a jerkhole? Maybe you better test the spirits a little better.
Tim,
*shaking my head* O no, you have come down out of your ivory tower and succumbed to name-calling?
*tsk, tsk* Not exactly in the spirit of Chris Lyons’ post here now is it. The heart of the spirit you have followed now showing perhaps?
My enemy is not you, Ken. It is the devil and my flesh, no matter how it attempts to camouflage itself as a champion for truth. Let me help you discern where Jesus instructs you to go – the cross.
Not just a doctrinal dissertation, not as a battering ram, not as a talisman, but as the instrument that Jesus wants to use to crucify me and resurrect Him.
“I think Chris P is a closet emergent…”
You wish I am.
Robbymac
I don’t believe in happenstance. Last night’s dinner was in the Lord’s day planner before we were born.
Ken,
your theology is all over th board… I confess Jesus and confess His workings in my life and declare His salvation… and you deny it.
It seems that it is you who are semi pelagian yet I must drop the semi as it is you who judges man by their works… you have no understanding of the teaching about fruit…
You think that YOUR fruit does not stink? All men’s fruit stinks… It is only God Who is the Good Tree that bears Good Fruit… but you judge others by the standard of Ken’s fruit?
You declare me not saved, yet i was saved at age 16 and have walked in the faith since then… with struggles and pitfalls… even at times trying to walk away… but being braught back as God promised to finish what He started in me.
So, your delcaration that I am not saved, is calling God a lair and denies His great salvation unless one is approved by you and your full blown pelagian standard.
You are a works teacher as Paul defines one if i ever met one.
Be Blessed in His good works,
iggy
Chris P.
I bet if you took time to actually ask a question… and then seek an answer… hmmm that basically is an emergent!
Be blessed,
iggy
Ken,
Considering your evasive non-answers and any lack of explanation for why what you wrote wasn’t really offensive I think you being a jerkhole is one of the few things we agree on.
I also find it tragic that you consider that someone who doesn’t name call to dwell in an ivory tower.
I believe it is impossible to demonstrably show the love and grace of Christ without being called a compromiser. They labeled Jesus a compromiser when he rubbed shoulders with some not on the approved list.
It is worth noting that of all the adulterty, swearing, divorce, lawsuits, and even misuse of the Lord’s Supper, there was only one man Paul commanded to be removed from the fellowship in Corinth. And after he repented Paul instructed them to receive him back with effervescence!
Love covers a multitude of sins. Like the angel revealed to Daniel, don’t shoot at the Earthly king (Persia), do prayer battle with the unseen principality Hating one for whom Jesus died blasphemes the cross.
BTW Chris L and Chris P.
I am glad that there is some meeting and understanding between you two. It seems that often we do miss each others view point. Some here may do that on purpose… others I think are just blind.
Truly though outside of Ken, I have found very few how having met me… have had the opinion of Ken of me… and rarely have i met anyone who after meeting me walked away thinking the thing attributed of me here by some.
I have stated before that this is a limited media as with any discussion forum. It is hard to read someone unless you can see their expressions.
In that I know I have been heard on Chris P for some things he has said and offer an olive branch. I hope that we can seek mutual understanding also.
I do not see it a sin to disagree… or to argue doctrine… but communication and respect should be there.
Maybe i am tough on good ole Kenny Boy… but if by chance he ever decided to be a man and converse I would be extremely happy to do that…
So, Chris P, I want you to know I have not taken anything from you on a personal basis. I do not recall you saying anything like “iggy is not saved” as Ken has.
In that maybe we can move forward.
As for Ken, i am done with him and give him over to God to do as He wills. It seems that pride has blinded him so much that I will do as God has told me and turn Ken over to his sin completely.
I do hope for better things,
iggy
When I was in second grade, i had a friend – he wasn’t my real friend, but we hung out. He was actually a jerk. He lied about me, was really mean to my other friends and had a way of making everybody angry.
One day, I stopped being his friend. I decided that his “friendship” wasn’t friendship, and that I needed to distance myself from his harmful, unloving ways. (I’m not sure I thought that critically about it in second grade, but we’ll assume, for the sake of the story, that I did.)
Anyway, upon his discovery of my disaffection (I was playing basketball with the other friends when he expected me to play T.V. tag with him) he said, “Looks to me like you found your new friends. I wish you well…”
I’m not sure what made me think of that story.
Oh, and I blame Julie for making me come back and post.
iggy,
“As for Ken, i am done with him and give him over to God…” I might also be speaking for everyone on this board. THANK YOU!!!
Your obsession was becoming unhealthy.
LOL!
Be blessed,
ken
Ken,
Shhhhh there are adults talking here…
iggy
“I’m not sure what made me think of that story.”
Todd, remember to keep the potatoe salad refrigerated next time.
Ken,
I have no obsession with you… I rarely go to CRN or SoL… in fact i can’t remember the last time I went… to either.
It seems that you have the obsession with me as an emergent you deemed unsaved… so save your rarely humorous put downs for the playground…
iggy
Ken,
the peanut gallery called and wants you to resign…
iggy
Tim,
“I also find it tragic that you consider that someone who doesn’t name call to dwell in an ivory tower.” Non seqitur, but thanks for playing along.
You see, just because I said to you personaly that you in your great erudition you appear to have chosen to decend down to my alleged level on name-calling, it does not logically follow that all who do not name call dwell in an ivory tower. My reference was to you Reverend Pastor Mr. Tim.
“remember to keep the potatoe salad refrigerated next time. ”
OK, that was funny. I will steal it sometime. A rose among a jungle of thorns.
iggy,
Now don’t quit your day job. *rim shot* Thank you, be sure and tip your waiters and waitresses…
Now what was that you were saying about leaving me over to my sin…PUH-LEAZE, by all means do so!
Rick,
Consider it my gift…it’s all yours.
Ken,
I don’t know what your problem is, but I’ll bet it’s hard to pronounce.
iggy
ouch…
iggy.
bro.
these interactions only keep things on the “flesh and blood” plane of interacting.
It’s one thing to press for answers, etc. etc. etc. etc.
But snide remark for snide remark…i dunno…
Kids, please grow up. I can think of few things more disrespectful than this kind of bickering, especially in light of the subject and maturity of the Chris’s responsible for this post.
Nathan,
Who said mine were snide? I hold not malice toward Ken. he refuses to answer… an so do I. It is Ken that has set himself up to be superior to all…
Maybe a different word for me… but not snide. LOL!
Actually I think it is a response to the accusations against me.
Yet, since Ken give no answers nor sees that he is wrong in anyway, I will only respond to him in light of his comments toward me.
(Plus i have some really good ones yet to use… LOL!)
Be Blessed,
iggy
Hey guys, i m just loosening the starch from my collar a bit…
Lighten up…
I don’t hate Ken, Ken hates me because i am “emergent” (which technically i am not but why quibble over technicalities. that might be real research)
Be Blessed,
iggy
Todd,
I’m truly sorry.
(I’ll follow your lead and leave a link.)
Ken,
Its also a tragedy that you find the idea that our speech should be free from deceit and slander a “great erudition”.
Ken,
I am saying i will no longer call you to repentance… as I see that you don’t care to repent… as you see gossip and slander of God and your calling.
But, i am here and will still acknowledge you in likewise as you seem to only want that type of conversation…
iggy
Hello? Re-read the original post, everyone, and see if your conduct here is a fitting response to the post.
Hello? Hell-Oooo?!?
Iggy,
either way…it seems a little tit for tat…
this post was great…it spoke to reconciliation and understanding.
Let’s celebrate that…
Sadly, the only solution seems to be:
/comments
OK I’m rebuked… but you guys are missing some great one line zingers.
So, I will stop answering Ken altogether… not even a zinger for fun.
In the spirit of this post, I apologize to Ken though I have no malice toward him. (I really don’t, I just feel really sorry for the guy!)
Be Blessed,
iggy
Chris L. and Chris P. — very, very glad to hear about your dinner together. I pray more Christians would take notice and do the same.
BTW, that was a great sermon by Greg Boyd at Mars Hill. Convinced me to subscribe to his podcast.
Ken,
You wrote:
And here, in a microcosm, is where we will find disagreement. As in Christian living, it is one thing to hold orthodox belief, but quite another in practicing that belief.
If you, indeed, agree that it is about ideas and not people, why is it you still are still writing hit-pieces about people rather than ideas? Today, you’ve published yet another attempted smear via straw-man, ad homenim and eisogesis against Rob Bell, though this time by proxy, covering no real new ground (which would suggest trying to build proof-by-assertion, as well).
If your struggle is with ideas and not flesh and blood, why the need to attack people – Rob Bell, Erwin McManus and others – and to drag in tons of semi-related hyperbole as well? Why the need to tangentially attempt to prove what a person does or does not believe, when defining what that belief is and discussing how it is manifested in practice is far more useful? Why the need to attach a specific person to your attacks?
Chris L.,
[Out of respect for you I will answer, and this I intend to be the last I speak here. Beyond this we'll have to meet on the field of battle.]
If you, indeed, agree that it is about ideas and not people, why is it you still are still writing hit-pieces about people rather than ideas?
[First, I take except to "hit pieces". Also, I know you are intellegent enough to realize that these "ideas" are expressed through "people". Therefore as I deal with the ideas I then need to address the people through whom they come. And in addition please know that I will continue to do so as long as the Lord chooses to sustain me.]
Today, you’ve published yet another attempted smear via straw-man, ad homenim and eisogesis against Rob Bell, though this time by proxy, covering no real new ground (which would suggest trying to build proof-by-assertion, as well).
[While you are entitled to your opinion, mine happens to be that every time I write, or in this case further publish, something with which you disagree you immediately say it is, "yet another attempted smear via straw-man, ad homenim and eisogesis". If you disagree then you're welcome to try and disprove these but your continual assertions above do not make it so.]
If your struggle is with ideas and not flesh and blood, why the need to attack people – Rob Bell, Erwin McManus and others – and to drag in tons of semi-related hyperbole as well?
[I addressed this partially above re. the ideas come through the people, but "Rob Bell, Erwin McManus and others" openly reject the doctrines of grace and are preaching heresy. I have nothing but a pure and deep hatred for the apostasy and division these men are sowing and I will be fighting their doctrine tooth and nail as long as I breathe. By the way, in my view the "tons of semi-related hyperbole" is in your imagination and that of those who follow those fools.]
Why the need to tangentially attempt to prove what a person does or does not believe, when defining what that belief is and discussing how it is manifested in practice is far more useful?
[There are plenty of people writing in such a way as to define belief and how it is manifested in practice. However, the growing proliference of semi-pelagian new evangelicalism and contemplative spirituality within the American Christian Church doesn't appear to bear out that this style of writing is all that useful in this hour. Still, let them write what they write and I'll write what I write.]
Why the need to attach a specific person to your attacks?
[Again, I covered this. Specific people bring forth specific ideas and I am among those God is sending forth to call these people out. And if you don't see the attacks pushed forward against the doctrines of grace I would suggest you pray that the Lord would mercifully give you eyes that see. Please feel free to do with this whatever you wish but since I'm not open to discussing this with you I'm not going to be commenting here after this. The lines have now been drawn...]
We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him. John 3:14-15
I got an iPod about a month ago and nearly immediately put more podcasts than music on it. Rob Bell, Erwin McManus, Greg Boyd…I almost can’t keep up….more podcasts than I have time to listen…
When you listen to these men speak (in context) – wow! Slammed by some in the watchblog crowd, but passionate, committed men of God nonetheless.
Robby,
That is one of the real things discernment is all about… context.
I can make anyone sound like a raving heretic if I take a small soundbite of a sentence and use it to prove they are “bad”.
McManus has had this happen a lot… I read one persons review which was really sad as he stated right up front he was “not a barbarian” and of the “civilized Christianity”.
He placed himself firmly in opposition and then took McManus out of context over and over… it was very sad how stupid this guy looked at the end of his review if one took the time to read “The Barbarian Way”…
It seems more often than not context means very little.
Blessings,
iggy
There are three very descripttive words that seem to eminate from the pens of some, and some may include all of us at times.
Disdain, contempt, and scorn.
I have looked at the beginning of the gospel itself, the cross, and I cannot seem to find those words. How can we have disdain for a brother or a sister? Even if we believe that some are not saved and indeed never can be, are we still prompted by the Spirit to show contempt? Not for their view, but for them personally?
Some of these men are husbands and fathers and even grandfathers. Some of these men have experienced great tragedies concerning the Spiritual condition of their loved ones, and some of these men have been broken by the actions and words of their own flesh and blood. Are we, in Jesus’ name, supposed to show them scorn?
Dialogue and even combative dialogue, yes. But disdain, contempt, and scorn? Would I want my sons or daughter to read that someone called me a “Spiritual Pedophile”? I have found so much of the hateful talk to be so self serving and soothing to the flesh. If indeed a person is deceived, major league deceived, he has been so by the Deceiver himself. And ultimately disdain, contempt, and scorn remove any substantive dialogue and surely removed any possibility for true and Christlike love with one another.
Even if Rob Bell is departing from the faith once delivered to the saints, he is not my enemy. And if Jesus loved him enough to die for him, what is my divinely reflective calling toward him?
It is obvious…
Oh, don’t be so pious and self righteous…
Just kidding!
Love you man!
iggy
Ken,
Field of battle? I’m not sure I understand. Our battle is not against flesh and blood (each other), but against principalities and powers, rulers of this present darkness.
Ideas may be expressed by people, but they are not the sum total of that person.
When we choose to attack people or people and ideas together, we muddle the issue. In attacking the person, you end up demonizing them and objectifying them into a characature, not a reflection of reality. You bring personality into the equation and sacrifice their complexity and humanity, ignoring the image of their creator.
When we choose to attack people rather than ideas, it then becomes necessary – as you have chosen to do with Bell, McManus and others – to use straw-men to say “what they really mean”, ad homenim and GBA attacks, and other dishonest means of demonization. It is exactly the opposite of what was taught by the Lord you claim to serve.
On several occasions, as with this one, I and others have given detailed rebuttal, such as the ones here, here and numerous comment sections – to which you’ve not responded in any meaningful fashion. Despite your need to continue to try to prove that Bell denies sola Scripture when he has specifically and on more than one occasion directly said just the opposite (which, as I think about it, says far more about you than him…), it seems more prudent and in line with good stewardship of the time granted me to allow previous , undisputed refutation to continue to stand.
But they don’t openly reject the doctrine of grace, nor have you shown open heresy – you constantly have to play the game of “in this particular sentence in this book they said this (apart from the context), and this is what they really meant…”
By every appearance, your actions show that you are fighting them, not their doctrine and that your ‘pure and deep hatred’ is not really directed at ‘their apostasy’. They have become the Moby Dick to your Ahab – which is what happens when we fight people rather than ideas.
By making it about them, you have to demonize them, making them evil, larger-than-life characters, “sowing division” wherever they go. This flies in the face of the fruit in evidence in the church communities they lead. Pure religion gives evidence in both personal purity and in service to the oppressed, per James, the brother of Jesus – something in evidence in Mosaic, Mars Hill (GRap and Seattle) and in other parts of the body you have chosen to attack. In this matter, between Bell, McManus and yourself, the only person sowing discord appears to be you…
Our struggle is not against flesh and blood. By trying to rationalize and justify your ignoring of Paul’s observation, you detract from any fruitful discussion that could actually be had in regards to ideas which may or may not be in line with orthodox Christianity. Rather than saying here is what I believe to be the best understanding of the text and how to live it out, while here is another interpretation which I believe falls short for this reason, you have chosen to say this person is apostate because if you read between the lines they reject this interpretation of scripture. In doing so, you have made the person the point of contention, rather than the idea, itself. If your hypothesis about the person is inaccurate – even in the slightest – or requires ‘what they really mean’ interpretation, you completely lose sight of the idea/issue, because the argument then becomes the person instead of the idea/issue at hand.
1) The ’semi-related hyperbole’ includes the need for pulling in “the apostate church of Rome”, “Hollow Men”, and all of the hyperbolic titles and invective that seem to accompany the lion’s share of your ‘miss-ives’, whether actually related to the heart of the story or not.
2) I will not go into it in depth, but the propensity to demonize via name-calling, particularly with the term ‘fools’ as noted in Matthew 5:22, says more about you, again, than those you have choosen to demonize. I have seen your rationalization for allowing yourself to do so, but Jesus does seem rather clear on the point…
So, do the ends justify the means, then?
While I am certain that the Jerry Springer Show is probably more ‘entertaining’ on a base level than a reasoned discussion on how to recover from addictive behaviors with a Christian counselor, I suspect that the latter is far more in line with a Biblical model of confrontation and correction than the former.
If showing the world that we can be as much of a self-righteous jerk to each other are we are to everyone else appears to be ‘more useful’, I’m not sure I’d want to be a part of that…
Ken, our struggle is not against flesh and blood – which God makes rather clear. As such, He does not send us forth to ‘call individuals out’.
Of all that you write, what raises my hackles more than anything is this particular bit of invective, which, at the least is a violation of the Third Commandment, and at most could even be termed blasphemy.
It is the root of the distrust in Christianiaty across the centuries, whether it was Pope Urban declaring that ‘God’ wanted the infidels removed from Jerusalem, or Torquemada declaring that ‘God’ needed to cleanse the church via the Inquisition, or Jim Jones declaring that God wanted him to take his church to Guyana to ‘cleanse’ it.
Gods words are His and they are infallible. When we choose to inject them and our situational interpretation of them as if, combined, they are still Gods words alone and infallible, we desecrate them. When we presume to speak for God, and declare in battle with other individuals that He is ‘on our side’ (implying that those we fight against are NOT ‘on God’s side’), we discredit Him rather than honoring Him.
Let your yes be yes and your no be no. Acceptance and allowance that your situational interpretation of God’s word may be fallible and that your ‘fight’ may be of your own making – which it IS if it is against flesh and blood – is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of humility before your Creator, and it honors him. Language like “I am among those God is sending forth to call these people out” grants no allowance, nor gives any appearance of such acceptance.
No matter how you wish to rationalize it.
The arrogance displayed in this and the previous quote are thoroughly saddening. Again, I will let God speak for God and you to speak for Ken. You don’t speak for Him, and neither do I, thankfully.
Why the battle language again? Why the willingness to snipe and harp and zing when we were all too willing to snipe harp and zing right back, and now the battle language (’the lines have now been drawn…’ – What’s up with that?) when we have decided to try to step out of the boxing ring and into the coffee house?
I just don’t get it…
OK, I’ve been pondering this:
What is up with the whole battle metaphor? Why were you content to get into a juvenile sniping war on the boards here, but now when hostilities have been called to an end that you feel you must leave?
If you are ‘meeting on a field of battle’ and ‘drawing lines’ but no longer discussing anything, does this not create a dichotomy of sorts?
“Why were you content to get into a juvenile sniping war on the boards here, but now when hostilities have been called to an end that you feel you must leave?”
A self-defining behavior.
The battlefield language goes against the premise of your post. It assumes that we are enemies. Can we ever get to the point that I can feel that Bell (for instance) is wavering from the core of the truth and yet exhibit and even feel true love for him? That has been so out of vogue in these days that I fear the trench has been dug much too deep.
I disagree with Bell on many levels, but I do not question his sincerety, his love for Jesus, his fatherhood, he as a husband, his love for his people, or his heart. The body of Christ is permeated with pride and self righteousness, and that has evaporated the love of God.
Come Holy Spirit…
Chris and Rick,
When one has objectified their God, they then can objectify anything.
If God is “Objective Truth”… then how much less is the value of the people you see and think are against that “Object”.
I still say that if it is wrong to objectify women, then why is it good to objectify God?
The infection of modernism that has injected itself into the very fiber of Christianity… Dualism and the ideals of German mathematician Gottlob Frege who coined the phrase “objective truth” seem more important to believe than what the Bible teaches… being the Truth is a Person and that Person is Jesus Christ.
Again, to set up a false god that is “objective” then you can justify objectifying people and give them lesser value than your own “beliefs”… it is sad and very Satanic at its very core.
Blessings,
iggy
John 1
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2. He was with God in the beginning.
3. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
4. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
5. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.