Tim,

To be fair, her response was very loving to this individual who called her, in direct opposition to the fans who in the midst of being Christian used some un-Christlike language. Her concern is clear: That we who call ourselves shepherds are doing a poor job of shepherding our sheep, which does include how we speak, what we preach on, and what we approve (I believe you are giving tacit approval to the music if you allow them to use the building which houses the body of Christ)

I note that she gave this young man the Gospel, which is a question I have been wanting to ask: How are you going to take advantage of all those kids coming into your sanctuary? How are you going to present the Gospel to them? Will they come out of that place influenced by the church (the invisible body of Christ) or what they heard coming out of the death metal bands in the church building?

By the way, I LOVE Julie’s responses on the other stream about this. Kudos, Julie, you were truly the voice of reason. And your writing is out of this world.

Before you say “that’s a stretch” or “We shouldn’t let it just go like that…”

You don’t know what God’s planned.

Joe C,

Maybe they’ll remember…Hey…the Christians let us use their church to play our music, which we love. Those people are great…I wonder why they’re the way they are….? Maybe I’ll talk to that pastor guy….

That is basically the story how I heard the gospel and received it.

iggy

Joe C,

There could be a me, or an Iggy, or so many others of us in that crowd or in those bands.

And all those who state they dislike us, shudder that God would love such as us! LOL!

Be blessed,
iggy

I just find it funny that Ingrid has not retracted her false statments… though she stated they are not a “Christian” band, she still found a way to slam them and Tim… such grace! LOL!

iggy

What in the world can possibly be wrong with her response, now? Are you guys straining at gnats (that aren’t even there, mind you?)

I thought her response was very gracious and genuine, and might go a long way in making a person consider, rather than your philosophy of preaching through “osmosis”… that’s not necessarily love.

What happens if before you get to build a relationship with them, earning the right to share the good news, they die. I mean, lets say there is a 100 car pileup ( a stretch, I know) and these kids all die without hearing the Gospel? This may sound really dramatic, Tim, but their blood would be on your hands. If a church in my community was sponsoring such an event, I would be there, not to protest, but as a witness to the Gospel.

Ah, the old fire insurance presentation of the Gospel. I hate this with a passion. It’s manipulative. It tries to motivate Christians with guilt, and non-Christians with fear. And Tim’s right, it totally neglects God’s leading. If we are obedient step-by-step as God leads us, don’t you think He’ll guide us into the conversations He wants us to have? I’ve found that a lot Christians spend a lot of time doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

You do? Then why are you afraid to preach the Gospel?

Lets say that your building which houses your church was burning down due to pyrotechnics used by the death metal bands, and the people inside didn’t know it. They didn’t know they were going to burn to death in three minutes. You go in to warn them, as you should, but you can hear that they are having a real good time. You conclude that it would be better not to warn them, because it would not be loving to break up their fun.

That is about as logical as saying ‘I guess I believe in the sovereignty of God more than you’ That may make you feel better, and allow you to drink your Starbucks with a clear conscience, but God’s written revelation of Himself commands us to ‘preach the Gospel in season and out of season’ and that we ought to ‘preach the Gospel to every creature’

I hope that the sovereign mercy of God also extends to you and your disobedience to his call, Pastor. Christians are called to spread the Gospel to every creature- and we are ministers of the Gospel…are we to do any less? I pray that God in His mercy allows those kids to live, but can we really know when they will die? Thinking that you can is the height of irresponsibility and callousness towards God’s call.

Pastorboy,
I’m gonna take that as a no. If there is one person on your list that you haven’t told, then you need to step away from the keyboard and go find them right now. What if there is a meteor that falls out of space tonight (a stretch I know) and it hits a gas line down the street from their house and their entire block is blown to smithereens? Step away from the keyboard man! Step away!

You don’t know a single person who hasn’t heard the gospel? I’m truly impressed.

Joe, sarcasm aside, my only purpose on this earth is to preach the Gospel. Your point is well taken, though it was written, I perceive, a little tongue in cheek. If there is anyone that you know that does not know the Gospel, you better get off your keyboard and go tell them. Real love is when you do that with people you know and love, and when you do it to perfect strangers.

By the way, part of my purpose being on the bloggosphere is evangelism.

Tim

It is not our job to make them “hear it” We are to proclaim the truth in love and gentleness. That is the difference from a street preacher and a street hater like Phelps. They are street preacher is motivated by first of all love for God then love for people! We preach God converts. So you think you have to make them hear? Very exclusive and arrogant!

We will just go in circles for every so lets just leave it at that. I hope and pray you use this event for the glory of God. That Christ will be lifted up there so that He might draw all men unto Himself!

Tim said: “I suppose I trust in the sovereignty of God more than you do.”

I was hoping someone would say that—the fact that is was TIM makes it even better…and somewhat interesting. Amen, brother!

Kyle,
With respect, I don’t really read your comments and your last one to me is a prime example of why.

Tim,
I have not insulted you, so why do you insult me? It is only my responsibility to preach the Word in season and out of season, it is up to the sovereignty of God who receives it!

Keith, you sound like a hyper Calvinist! Welcome! Oh, I am afraid you were being sarcastic. Still, even if none ever would come to Christ, it does not negate our responsibility to tell them since we don’t know who will come.

Tim, to answer your question, I was engaged in a conversation with a buddhist and a hindu just three weeks ago. I allowed them to talk to me about their faith, and they allowed me to talk to them about mine. It was quite educational and interesting! Then, later, I was speaking to the GLBTA at the college, and there was an agnostic, an athiest, two catholics, two lutherans, and a Jew. So, I have engaged in conversations with people from many backgrounds, and as they engage me, I engage them in conversation. I considered what they said, and they knew that I considered what they said, because they allowed me to respond and share my faith with them. I even caught some of it on film.

So, there it is. To summarize, Tim, I never insulted you, I suggested how you might use this event as a launching pad to talk about spiritual things. I never even questioned the event! I assumed the best, that you might use it as an opportunity to share your faith in a more tangible way. Since you have said you don’t intend to do that unless someone might think later how cool you were to let them use the facility and return and say thanks, or if you happen to later build a relationship with them….well….I am saddened by that choice.

Keith,

You know… I think I really like you… in the manly guy way of course… LOL!

Be blessed,
iggy

Tim,
Unless you were eavesdropping on the phone conversation, I don’t know how you would know anything about how it went. The conversation was not hostile in the least. I have three young adult sons this age and my heart was broken for this young man who was clearly confused about religion in general. He couldn’t get over the fact that I thought that Buddhists would go to hell. It was really an outrage to him that I could think that way. I kept pointing him to the fact that my opinion was not what mattered, but God’s opinion in his unchanging Word. I told him that Jesus was the one who said, “narrow is the way, and few there be who find it.” In other words the narrow way was not my invention. I also told him that it was God’s mercy and love for us that he created a plan for sinful mankind fo have eternal life. Tim, this kid was not the enemy, he’s been deceived and captured by the enemy as so many millions have. My beef with all this was that he’s playing in someone’s church. That’s all he knows. It’s bearing false witness for you to say that I didn’t share the gospel in love. At 9:30 I heard last night from another band member who is on tour with the band and he wants to talk with me today about this whole thing. If he is open, I hope to share the same thing with him. I’m frankly glad to have the opportunity to talk with these guys. All of them are seriously confused in their minds about truth, and they have no idea who Jesus is and what He did for lost mankind. These kids need the Lord, plain and simple, and if all they do is use a church building, what then?

Tim said: “…I doubt though that he heard what you communicated.”

For someone who trusts sovereignty so mightily, this is a weak statement. From what Ingrid just described of her interaction, I would say that is exactly what love is. She will not save him, but perhaps God will plant a seed in heart that causes him to consider and turn from his ways.

Now Chris P just be honest, you don’t want to hear anything but you.

Ingrid,

Here is what I feel and agree with concerning almost all you write against people like myself and others.

“To be laughed at is no great hardship to me. I can delight in scoffs and jeers. Caricatures, lampoons, and slanders are my glory. But that you should turn from your own mercy, this is my sorrow. Spit on me, but, oh, repent! Laugh at me, but, oh, believe in my Master! Make my body as the dirt of the streets, but damn not your own souls!” ~ Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Please forsake being god yourself and come to show the grace, mercy and love of our Lord instead of doing the ministry of death, judgment and condemnation… give life not death.

be blessed,
iggy

Joe,
What do you mean by “your word concerns?” If you’re talking about profanity, I wasn’t specifically addressing that, or even thinking about it when I wrote what I did. I was talking about the themes of the songs, the pictures they create in one’s mind.

Have you heard the story of the foster parents who lost the right to be a foster parent because every day they encouraged their foster kids to chant about death, corpses, destruction, for hours, and did it in such a way that the kids thought it was great fun? No, you haven’t heard it because I just made it up. But it’s realistic to think that if such a thing happened that the foster parents could lose their right to be foster parents. Yet Christian parents and leaders don’t speak out about this kind of music that many kids are enmeshed in because they don’t want to be seen as legalistic, or because they place it in the “sacred” category of “it’s just music, ” or because they enjoy or have enjoyed it themselves. Our culture accepts these themes as fine entertainment. God doesn’t.

Kids suffer because Christian adults don’t care enough to understand the spiritual world enough to know that these kinds of lyrics can be used by Satan to create immense spiritual and even physical destruction.

Iggy likes ME! He REALLY like me!!! (Sorry, I had to get this one in here; I’ve been out most of the day)

My wife has a post up about this whole thing over at her blog. She has a pile of Scripture verses to make her case. Go here and have fun.

The funny thing is most groups in that genre preach the wrath of God and are heavy into repentance… If anyone should back them is Ken and Ingrid! LOL!

iggy

Even Death Metal, Joe? I just can’t like music I can’t hear words in, notes in, or even distinguish between notes.

But this is coming from a Pianist…and for me it’s all about tone and pitch…so you can figure why I can’t handle that kind of music.

I also can’t stand Indian music. Like, from India. It has notes and everything…but it’s just all the wrong ones, LOL.

Iggy, I think you’re right about that one man haha.

Joe

hello Wayne’s world where even the hamburgers are spiritual,

I for one do see what the big problem is, the point is moot. Allow me to illustrate that conclusion by the use of a hypothetical situation. Let’s say, hypothetically speaking of course, that an anonymous ‘emerging church’ allows an anonymous ‘death-metal’ band to use their facilities/church building and then in fact does preach the new emergent inclusive tolerant gospel of love to them, who upon hearing it decide that, yes, they would like to to seek common ground and to enter into dialogue. Okay fine. What’s the difference. We who would contend that the emerging church preaches another gospel, with another Jesus, and another spirit, would not see any good or loss from the venture either way.

Why can’t there be emerging-death-metal? It’s all of “another spirit’ anyway…..as those of us who oppose the ‘emerging/community’ new gospel would argue.

Once again, this is hypothetical, I do not know if the church in question is emergent-oriented-supportive-friendly,etc, although I would presume that is the case.

so are they?

While music may not be the determining factor about whether something is “Godly” or not, it does reflect culture and the attitude of the culture, the same as any art. Back during the renessance (sp?) most artists (of any form, music included) believed that God is the creator of the world and their art usually reflected that magnificently. Since then, especially in the 20th century there has been a shift away from God and with that, a shift away from credible artwork (displays of blank canvases, grafiti, and odd sculptures seem to considered art . . .) Likewise there has been a shift toward more dissonant (sp?) music; death metal being one of the more extreme “musical” genres.

While the lyrics of a song definately matter, I really think the music of a song reflects the attitude as well. Don’t get me wrong, I love my rock music, but I really have a hard time worshiping to it. That’s why I don’t like Contemporary Christian Music all that much, and why I really do enjoy singing hymns in church.

Has anyone ever read How Now Shall We Live? by Chuck Colson? He talks about a lot of this stuff in there.

merry,
I understand what you’re getting at, but beauty is really in the eye of the beholder sometimes. I’m generally not a fan of metal, but I know some people who really connect with it. Also, some metal is surprisingly technical and is actually influenced quite heavily by classical music, believe it or not (although I wouldn’t include most death metal in that category).

Music has always had changing standards. In Bach’s day, composers purposely avoided the flatted fifth because it was called the “Devil’s note”. Now, it a staple in Western music. Does that mean all that music is demonic? Obviously not. It’s just that what is beautiful is always changing. Personally I think God can work redemptively in ways that seem even shocking to us. We don’t have to like everything, but we don’t necessarily need to condemn everything that we don’t like.

Phil, I agree with your comment. Music is forever changing, and God can use anything He wants to for His glory.

I was just saying music conveys attitudes, not just the lyrics. When people scream it’s usually out of anger or maybe fear. Putting the words, “I love you Jesus!” to a death metal/screamo song just seems like sort of an oxymoron. Maybe it’s just me.

I find it interesting that “obsecity-laced” emails from followers of the band somehow proves Ingrid’s point and further discredits the band.

By that logic, given all the negative stuff that Slice reports on done by those who claim to follow Jesus, He must be a real jerk.

I have Mike Oldfield’s Tubular Bells (theme from the movie The Exorcist) on my MP3 player. Probably not something I should “brag” about.

earn the right to give the gospel if you want people to really hear it

I question the validity of this statement. It is not always the case. Therefore, it is not “true” in the sense that it is always true. Sometimes it is false, in other words. God opens ears and people hear the gospel whether the person sharing it has “earned” anything.

I don’t think I really want to say to myself “I haven’t earned the right to tell them the Gosple yet.” That is the logical way of thinking if the concept of earning rights to share the gospel is completely followed out. It also allows that I have more power than I really do have, that, by my human workings and relating abilities, I might make the gospel more palatable.

It is important to live out the Gospel, yes, but sharing it is not based on an earned-rights system. It is our command to share the Gospel, not our command to respect rights. The concept of rights is more a human concept than a God concept, anyway. What rights do we really have? I blogged on this concept in the past, and so I won’t go into that now.

Secondly, I agree that the “church” is not the building. I am reading the book highlighted on Brant Hansen’s blog (Pagan Christianity, by Frank Viola) and am finding it to have some wonderful things to say on this matter — and excellent book, which I recommend reading. HOWEVER, the world, and the church itself are not at a place yet (if ever) where they currently make that distinction, and I still maintain that, even though the church is not the building, it is seen that way in our culture. For people that are as attuned to working within the culture and identifying ways to use it for the Gospel, it amazes me that this isn’t seen as relevant: the culture doesn’t make the distinction between the body and the building. It really doesn’t.

You agree with me, even though you may not think so. I can say that, because the idea that “if the concert is held in the church, maybe that will make them more interested in the gospel” is relying upon the idea that the building has more meaning than merely a post-and-lintel structure. That by hosting an event there, it becomes somehow conducive to making the church more approachable. A concert in a Civic Auditorium does not make people more interested in the Civic Auditorium. If the church truly were just a building, why would this not also apply?

So, it can’t be both. And if you allow that by hosting a concert in a church building has some significance in building the church, then the building does, indeed, carry meaning.

Again, I agree the building IS NOT the church. But the world, this culture of ours — it does not see that. Tradition still tells the majority of the church and those outside of the church — especially those outside of the church — that the building is significant. By saying “we can do anything we want to in the building because it isn’t the real church” is fine and good in theory, but again: how does the world see this? Is it helping or hurting? Can I both count on the meaning of a building as part of my reasoning for hosting an event while simultaneously say it has no meaning?

How Now Shall We Live? by Chuck Colson

I agree, Merry. This was also an excellent book. I would put it on a recommended reading list any day.

Geo. Brown,

Just watched the Youtube video of Silence The Oppressors by Impending Doom.
Ah…
Mmm…
Er…
Well at least their band name is prophetic!

Interestingly the lyrics is about those Christians who oppress other Christians and about hold the line for Christ in the very face of Hell itself…

To the following Christians listen closely. We bring our light to a new realm, a realm you dare not enter, passing judgment behind stone walls, behind your absence of understanding. We will crush your walls that dictate where our ministry goes, don’t you ever tell me I’m using God as a gimmick. Im not a heretic, I’m not a hypocrite; those insults make me sick from the ones I have fellowship with. We aren’t doing this for our own, but for one name holy and alone. These venues are our church, we are the gospel in the darkness, and this is our exaltation. We are the gospel in the darkness; we bring our light to a new realm, a realm you dare not enter, passing judgment behind stone walls, behind your absence of understanding. Are you listening!!! We’ll crush the walls that dictate where our ministry goes, this is our church, this is our worship, GORSHIP!

It seems that they are truly holding the light in the darkness while some hold the candle to their own brothers and sisters in Christ… these guys seem to be living their convictions as believers right in the face of those who hold to demons… in fact their reputation seems to be just that… and in that they are gaining respect even from that demonic crowd and those “demon” inspired are listening and hear truth of the One Kingdom.

Here is what their write up is:

The juxtaposition of guttural bellowing and slaughterhouse wailing isn’t the only thing that catapults Impending Doom above the rest of the death metal bands. The fact that Impending Doom refuse to toe the line with their spiritual convictions in a genre long known for it’s demonic inclinations is paramount to the band’s impending notability…and your impending doom.

In that of course now I understand why Ken and Ingrid would be against all that… they seem to hate those who desire for the Kingdom of God to advance against the kingdom of darkness… in fact they are very much into the wrath of God if one does not turn… so again, of all people, Ken and Ingrid should be praising them and singing their songs in their worship services! LOL!

iggy

tom,
i laughed at you suggesting or implying that our church is emergent or emergent-friendly. it is the opposite direction of emergent, but I guess since people don’t like that we are letting bands use the building… it’s emergent.

I also reject your idea that our culture sees a building as a church. I’ll agree that maybe your culture does but in my experience the majority of people do not. Granted that has been an East Coast experience and a little eastern mid-west thing so it may not be the same as yours.

This has nothing to do with Mid-West/Coast culture, my particular “culture.” That was likely true in the Red Hot Bash discussion, but not here. I don’t think, if you ask the man on the street, to define church, that they are going to say “body of believers.” They are going to reference it in terms of a place where religious people go, i.e. it is a place. Again, I agree this isn’t accurate. The body is the church, not the place they happen to be.

The phrase “in my experience” is an interesting one. I have used it, and its subjectivity was pointed out to me. The problem with “in my experience” is that, perhaps, we are only experiencing/exposing ourselves to a certain vein of existence, whether on purpose or subconciously. In your experience, you say, the majority of people do not associate the word “church” with a building? Really. The majority of people you’ve come across in all your experience understand that the body is the church and not the building? I would say your experience has been limited to either people of similarity or apathy. You might say that back to me; however, I am not, in this case, really basing it on my experience but on the simple fact that, for example Viola had to write his book because people do not see the body/building issue. I am willing to go out on a limb and say that people will still use the phrase “go to church” (either negatively or positively) which means they still see it as a place. “I don’t like going to church.” “I don’t go to church.” “I go to church.”

You know what? Great. Tim opened up his buidling to some kids and a band. Fine.

But the previous post on the matter, in which someone asked if an abortion clinic could be there was answered with a vehment “straw man!” and “no!” And now, we are asked about witches. To all of that, I say: if the building is neutral, and happens to be free and open on the night of need, what’s the problem?

“I think abortion is wrong.”

“I do not want to promote witchcraft.”

Great.

But…there again is the idea that, in some cases, the building is not neutral and reflects upon the body that meets in it. Granted, those two are rather extreme examples and end up being flashpoints or all-or-nothing examples, but they flesh out the general issue: if we draw the line at some things, while not at others, we are still giving importance to the place in which these events are held. Even if we claim that we do not hold some events as a reflection of the body and nothing to do with the building itself, it still remains that we are assuming that what happens with the building owned and used by the body is a reflection upon the body.

Your argument seems flawed to me because it is based on the assumption that these kids are putting an emphasis on this building as a “church” building as opposed to it just being a building.

Frankly, this is one of the few times I feel as if my argument is the least flawed as I’ve ever written it here on CRN.info. I’m completely dispassionate and coming at this fully detached.

So the kids do not see the building as more than just a building. The title of this post is “loving our community.” Is the community just these kids? What about those old fuddy duddies whoe are not Christians who are just not as hip and attuned to the apathetic view of all things in life as these youth are? You can’t use the weaker brother argument for these non-Christians. You might cop out and say “they aren’t the focus God has given our ministry.” That’s likely another discussion. I’m going to have to assume that by “community”, the word is referencing a specific generation or age group, or a group of like-minded people who see the situation “correctly.”

I’m not sure if that’s a good definition of community. What part of “go into all the world” fits that? Do we have the option of waiting for our right to witness as well as picking and choosing our particular neighborhood of the world?

Again, it is likely discussion for another time.

Do you really believe that these kids see the building as neutral? If so, is it because they have a complete sense of the true nature of the Christian church, or because they are apathetic about Christianity in general? It is easy to see a building as meaning nothing if the religion that meets there is viewed as neutered and nothing as well. In that case, I’d be interested to meet this majority of people who see the building as neutral, and ask why. I’d like to know what has made them see the truth about the body –seriously, what opened the eyes of so many! — or if, in fact, t case is more that of the complete lie that nothing matters, including the building. This could, in fact, raise an interesting post: why do people latch themselves onto the building, and why do others see no meaning in anything? Do these same youth see the body of believers, the church, with the same neutral view? Will hosting their concert change this? Or will it say “Hey, this body let us meet in their building. I’m going to join the body.” I know that is the hope, and I hope with you.

Though I find your “I reject your ideas” a bit strongly put, you are welcome to reject my ideas, as well as my questions. I hope, though, after reading these posts and comments, that you would actually do well to consider my thoughts instead of a wholesale rejection.

The thing I think the church needs to start asking itself is why does the “world” still associate the word church with a building. What are we doing to give that impression?

These are excellent points, and goals. I wish the institution/building aspect could be removed and this discussion a moot point. However, we aren’t there. And I don’t know that hosting a music group that some are going to really have a problem with is the best way to make this distinction disapear.

The obvious way to make it disappear?

Sell the buildings. Break the church into house churches. Remove any and all things of geographic relevance that says “God is mostly here.” Get rid of the church hierarchy, the paid positions…that would be the most drastic way. You can’t remove relevance of place as long as you still have a geographic place, as well as a place of position (i.e. pastors, or anyone “raised up” and more important than the people in the pews, etc.).

Are we going to continue to be worried about the reputation of the institution, or are we ready to step out of the box we’ve put ourselves in?

Is this rhetorical, or framed in light of the specific issue of Tim’s church and the concert?

If it is rhetorical, it is a fine question. It really is. I am dying to leap out of the box, but I don’t want to leap into another. If it is dealing specifically, I wonder if stepping out of the box, in light of the band and the surrounding issues, is actually a congruent idea or not. The fact that the building is getting used in a non-traditional way does not change the fact that it is still used as a meeting place for the church. The only way to slough off the place-as-church connection is to remove the place. It isn’t enough to use it differently during the off-hours, for then it becomes the usual place, plus concert hall, or plus theater, or plus daycare. Is a religious-based community center really stepping out of a box? Or just into a bigger one? It is still a place of association, after all.

Feel free to wholly reject my ideas, though I’d wish you’d consider them, and that they are kindly meant.

Julie,

Just sayin’.. Owosso is like the least ‘hip’ place on the planet.. I would say about 80% of our ministry is to those 60 years and older. We rent our building to say to people in the community, we are here, we are not just the “old people church.” (which is where people in the community ask me if I go.)

Mental note to self: “Don’t disagree with Julie” Dang Julie, I wasn’t rejecting all of your arguments, just that one. I certainly want’ rejecting your questions. I want to answer this one question then I gotta go to church:

Do you really believe that these kids see the building as neutral? If so, is it because they have a complete sense of the true nature of the Christian church, or because they are apathetic about Christianity in general?

I do really believe they see a building as neutral and I’m not dumb of course it’s not because they understand what church really is. They don’t care. That was the point I was trying to make. They don’t care what a church is. To them it’s probably high on the list of most irrelevant things to their life.
As for your whole little, “Don’t say it’s Julies Culture thing.” RELAX I’ve seen people in the Mid-West and Rural NY (which thinks it’s the Mid-West) get upset over people yelling at a basketball referee. What will non-Christians think was/is their argument. You can’t make noise during a basketball game etc. I’ve never been to ND and if God is gracious to me, I never will be. I was just saying that maybe in your culture there would be more non-church people who cared. I don’t know b/c I’m not in it. At best, in my opinion which I hope I can still hold to even if it disagrees with you, I think the argument you are making is a cultural one.

As for the abortion clinic and withcraft thing, those are two things that are inherently evil. In one activity we’re killing people–does that really seem equal to these kids playing a concert? To me, that’s just a dumb argument.

One last thought Julie, (Mental note to self–next time get it all out in one shot) how far do you feel we should take this idea of basing policy on what those outside the church think? I’ll give you two real life examples. I have relatives that think no church should ever talk about matters of the heart as sin, whether it is homosexuality or heterosexual promiscuity. That is those people’s business and any person who says otherwise is a bigot. That’s their view, I reject but they hold to it and will not attend.
Second example: I had a conversation with people this week who felt that Mars’ music was too conservative. Too many hymns, etc.
The issue is not what the outside might think, we’d drive ourselves crazy trying to that down, the question is “what is right?” I get that there will be churches that will say this is wrong. But for them to say it is anything beyond cultural for them seems beyond belief to me. Scripture goes on and on about how the church isn’t some doggone building, but we defend the building like it is. Now, if someone comes to the conclusion that this band and their music is ontologically evil then they shouldn’t let them play, I believe that person is wrong and further I believe that person is doing a great disservice to the church and the community. Furthermore, I believe that person is sinning. I recognize that those are my thoughts and do not represent everyone’s regardless of region. I found Phil Miller’s question to be refreshing. Why does the community look at the church as a building? What have we done to reinforce that? I always tell churches where I have been pastor, let the kids run–even in the “sanctuary.” God’s OK with it. Man, now that starts a firestorm. This isn’t about our rights, this is about how do we best show people the love of God? Jesus did it by eating and hanging out with them. By being counted as a friend by prostitutes and tax collectors. It seems to me when we say “Well, what will unchurched people  think?” we’re really more concerned about our reputation–which is not the same as our testimony. It seems to me that we’re really concerned that some might think we’re a friend to sinners.

To me, that’s just a dumb argument.

I did note earlier that those two extreme examples would be easily written off. However, the inherent evil in those two activities seem to suggest that something that isn’t seen as “inherently” evil is definitely open game. To which I would say yet again: everything is permissible, but not necessarily beneficial.

Though I did state that I would have made a different choice than Tim, I believe I stated (in the other related post’s comments) that I didn’t necessarily think it was wrong in and off itself. It was never my argument to state that this music was evil and wrong. What I have attempted to say is that I question if it will really help, if it will really further the gospel, if it will really portray the building as neutral instead of the it being the church — all of these things. How does this activity help instead of possibly hinder?

Scripture goes on and on about how the church isn’t some doggone building, but we defend the building like it is.

I am not sure if you’re merely stating this in general, or if you are responding as if I’ve indicated that I do not agree with the sentiment. I have stated repeatedly that I do agree the church isn’t the building, but have been basing my commentary on the fact that this is far from a universal understanding of the church, and has been as such for centuries. It will not be sloughed off quickly.

I just don’t get why the fundamentalists/ODMs are so concerned about how the world views the church. To say that sounds semi pelegian.

I led a coffee house at my church several months ago. Anyone, Christian or otherwise, was allowed to perform. The only request was that the lyrics be clean.

I would be surprised if anyone would really give me the ODM tag, yet I would not so lightly say “I don’t care what the world thinks.” Of course we do not live for the world. But, in being a light to the world, our actions and choices help or hinder. It would be very easy to say “I’m going to do whatever because I don’t care what the world thinks.”

I actually do care what the world thinks. I care that they see me living a life in Christ’s example. I care that my actions and the things I promote or support are a clear reflection of Christ and that I don’t muddy the water with something that might, in anyway, confuse them (this, I have not achieved, admittedly). I care that I’m genuine and not trying to cater to any lowest common denominator. So, in all of these ways that I live my life as a sacrifice for Christ, it could be said that because I care very much about what happens to the world in terms of salvation, I care what they think. I care that what I do causes them to think about who Christ is.

To earlier state that we have to earn the right to share the gospel indicates that Tim and others also care what the world thinks. If they did not, they would be the bullhorn guy. Because the bullhorn guy doesn’t care what the world thinks, truly.

I am glad that you had such a successful event, Matt. It is a fine example. It is, however, irrelevant. For every example of something that worked and seems to prove your case, there is an opposing one. In that sense, our examples and experiences are subjective and are why we base our Christian lives on the Bible and on the Spirit. I don’t base it on a successful venue that another Christian managed to pull off. It won’t always work.

As for your whole little, “Don’t say it’s Julies Culture thing.” RELAX [...] I was just saying that maybe in your culture there would be more non-church people who cared. I don’t know b/c I’m not in it. At best, in my opinion which I hope I can still hold to even if it disagrees with you, I think the argument you are making is a cultural one.

A final note regarding the cultural issue: I am fully relaxed and not sure why I’ve given the appearance that I was anything but.

In regards to culture, perhaps. But it is a very, very, very wide and all-encompassing cultural issue, then. In my travels to Europe, Australia, Latin America, and around the United States, I can’t recall a time when the church wasn’t thought of as a building. This is a Western cultural issue. Something as broad and all-encompassing as a Western cultural issue needs to be accounted for, because it is far more cumbersome than some regional cultural issue. A Western cultural issue like this is ingrained in the mindsets of people who aren’t even remotely interested in church; most have been brought up with the church/building view. Like I said — and this would fall under the “in my experience” category: I’ve never seen an instance in which the church building didn’t hold some sort of weight in the equation.

What this tells me is that even if I am putting forth a “cultural” argument, it is a foundational one here in the West, and cannot be so easily ignored as one from, say, the coast or the Midwest or the South. In the concept of there being biblical, cultural, and personal considerations, this is cultural with a capital “C.” It is, as I said, foundational.

“In my experience” one of the first things a poor community wants a missions group to address is their need for a church building. This is deeply grooved in our minds, and by “our”, I mean more than just the United States, more than just North Dakota, etc. Whether that is good or not in no way denies the foundational element that the concept still has. You can’t pretend it isn’t there, especially if you want to go about changing it. You have to account for it in your change equation.

A while back someone stated that Tim’s view that one need earn the right to be heard was way off… not a direct quote, but i am to lazy today to go through all of this to find the exact words… so sorry if I am off a bit.

To me, I see Tim’s point, though I may not agree with his phrasing… small detail…

Way back, when Steve Camp was a rocker for Jesus and not a Calvinist apologist for Johnny Mac, he wrote a song that stated simply, “Don’t’ tell them Jesus loves them, unless your ready to love them too.” I even sang that song in church with tears streaming down my face.

Now, I think that is the essence that many of us see is missing from Ingrid’s “words” (which it seems to me she reedited her original post… can anyone verify that? I thought she stated something about them being of Satan or something when I first read it and it seem different not…. though not noted as “updated”)

Is Ingrid right on some of the things she states? I hope we all agree that he Gospel is more than a T-shirt and an addition to our life, but that Jesus must become our very Life… (Note: yes I just stated I agree with Ingrid).

Yet, the issue is are we coming across loving in our outreach… not wishy washy, but genuine loving which may include stating to a drunk, “you are a drunk” and not call them “homeless” which is an insult to truly needy homeless people. Do I still love the “drunk”? Yes. Do I still speak the truth? Yes… Can I state one is on the path to eternal second death? Yes. Do I need to state they are “Satanic”… I think that is not even necessarily biblical… as I see “Satanic” as completely corrupted and irredeemable. These kids need Jesus, yet, they also need love… without love, they will not hear. Without Kindness of God, they will not repent.

Be blessed,
iggy

Joe C,

Everything is spiritual. Eating a hamburger even. Don’t seperate ‘wordly’ from ’spiritual’. Everything you do anywhere you do it, is spiritual, because we’re spiritual beings in fleshy bodies, inexorably tied toether.

How does your comment apply to what I said?

Take the words to “I Am Malice,” for example. If you call those words “spiritual” what sort of “spiritual” are you talking about?

Joe Martino,
Are you going to answer my comment starting with, “What do you mean by “your word concerns?”

Sense you made quite an attempt to belittle my reading ability I think the least you can do is explain to this poor dumb person what you meant by your comment.

amy,

do you really not see a difference in a ’secular’ band’s lyrics and tim’s gaming comment (sinful.) He is a christian and he sinned. the bands in question are secular, so they act secular.

No Amy, I’m not. You and I have never seemed to be able to make productive conversation before. I think you’re wrong, you think Tim’s wrong, and therefore I’m wrong. I think you’re an offense to the gospel, you think I’m an offense to the gospel. That’s what happened when you and I have discussed in the past, why do it again in the present or the future. I’m sure you’re a most excellent reader. Quite frankly, this argument has wore itself out in my mind. Tim did right by these kids, if you or anyone else doesn’t like what he did, don’t go to his church.
On the off chance you’re still reading this, and you’re not the Amy that used to post here I apologize as most of this won’t make sense to you.

Chris P,

Many followed Him around for a meal,
but only a few stayed after the Word was given.

John 6:
66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the WORDS of eternal life, 69and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

(please I don’t want to hear about the political situation of 1st century Judea.)

Well, I suppose if you want to proof-text John 6, then you DO want to ignore the context…

Mandy and All,
One of the reasons why I keep asking what the principle behind calling Tim’s comment sin is, is because I would really like to know what some of you think the principle is. Because I can think of all kinds of arguments that I’ve heard on this site that would justify his comment. Somebody should have said “words aren’t ontologically evil” and “Tim had no right calling his own words vulgar in the first place.” Somebody should have said, “It was just a game, lighten up” and “Tim didn’t actually break a commandment. Let’s don’t set up hedges.” If I could pick out ONE top inconsistency of 2007 for this site it would be that people who write here seemed to agree that Tim’s comment was sin.

The most basic underlying principle that I can come up with that would classify Tim’s comment as sin is that it takes something that is beautiful that God has given us to enjoy within marriage and perverts it into something ugly, a distortion that would please Satan, not God. But I have seen that same principle when applied in various other ways by “ODM’s” or people who write disagreements in the comment sections here would be prone to being described as “legalism.”

For example, Ingrid was mocked on this site for criticizing a Christian’s (pastor’s promotion I believe) of High School Musical. The article here was “If You’re Ignorant and You Don’t Know It, Clap your hands.” I understand the writer’s (Chris L’s) point that the “bad” character’s character was not being promoted, but rather was portrayed as negative. So in that regards the “moral tone” of the show in question could be viewed as good in that particular aspect.

I also think that no matter what the moral tone of the story of the video, Ingrid would have been appalled by it, as I was by the short clip . I couldn’t see how this was something that Christians could recommend watching. Immodest clothing, seductive dancing, pelvis-to-pelvis grinding. And yet when I asked Chris about this he said that he watched it with his son because the kids at school were watching it. Which is more harmful to a man or boy, to watch this type of perversion, or to read Tim’s comment? Which excites the imagination more? Why condemn Tim’s comment as sin and yet “endorse” a girl’s putting herself on display for millions of guys?

This type of dancing takes something that is beautiful that God has given us to enjoy within marriage and perverts it into something ugly, a distortion that would please Satan, not God. It doesn’t look ugly unless one looks at it with spiritual eyes. It looks fun and beautiful.

If there is an agreement with the principle that distorting sex is wrong, why pick on Tim’s comment alone? Why not have some consistency? Why not admit that some of the things/ideas that Ingrid is bringing up are issues that are actually close to God’s heart. Why not admit that even though our society throws sex at us like a Santa throwing candy at a parade we are commanded by God to flee immorality, not sit there in front of the video and wait for the lust to creep in.

I think that if one believes that doing something that perverts God’s design for sex is in fact SIN, then there would be a lot less room for comments about “legalism,” a lot less criticism of people who want to try to wake people up to seeing that our culture should not be the controller of how we look at things.

Going further, if one could admit that there was an underlying principle that Tim’s comment was sin, aren’t there other underlying principles that apply to actions? With this music in Tim’s church issue, are there no principles that apply? So many principles apply. Avoid every appearance of evil. God is holy. Hate violence. Realize that Satan is a roaring lion, take heed and put on your armor, don’t invite him to sit and roar in front of your fireplace. Don’t invite him to roar to the true church, the believers who will be gathered to hear the bands play because you have made a space for them.

I don’t know when this concert is, and of course it’s up to you whether or not you’re going to carry on with it. The greatest principle that applies to this is God’s love, which is not a love that comes at the expense of truth. Pick out some of their or other heavy metal music and show them the truth about how the words they are singing are Satan’s lies. Tell them you can’t be responsible for letting people here these things with your “approval.” Tell them about the only wonderful types of death, Jesus’ death for their sin, our deaths to ourselves. Ask their forgiveness for not letting them use your building and invite them for pizza or something.

Iggy,
Please read my comment again.

I WAS NOT saying that anyone justified this sin. That is clear from my earlier comment.I was saying that no one justified Tim’s sin and asking HOW, based on the the fact that viewing similar sins as sin is usually seen as legalism , folks here so easily came to the conclusion that Tim’s comment was sin. I have been wanting to know if you all actually sometimes use biblical principles to make decisions and don’t consider such use legalism. And how you determine, according to those principles, what can rightly be called sin versus what is certainly to-be-tossed aside legalistic judgement.

Amy,

We are done, I have really, really tried with you and you seem to be stuck in this accusation that we are outside biblical teachings in our definitions of legalism…

So, what is legalism to you? What is your definition it? What is the whole book of Galatians about?

Once you have given your definition, then lets talk things…

Until then, I will no longer take you serious but only as one who seems bent on not wanting to understand anything but only wanting to twist others words and use them against them….

iggy

I have been wanting to know if you all actually sometimes use biblical principles to make decisions and don’t consider such use legalism. And how you determine, according to those principles, what can rightly be called sin versus what is certainly to-be-tossed aside legalistic judgement.

Amy,

Legalism occurs when we create absolute rules (often for the purpose of pleasing God, mind you) where none exist in God’s word. What Tim said could easily fall under “coarse joking”, which is how it was so easily seen as sin. Classifying a genre of music as “sinful” or “satanic” is a way in which we make our own preferences or convictions into absolutes – which is legalism.

See this article for more definition on this.

Chris,
I won’t be seeing your article.

For the record, I believe in Demonic Spirits, but I also believe that every time they are involved there are obvious easy signs to testify to it.

Did you got my email earlier?

FOUL! Mandy just violated one of the ODM’s cardinal rules. She said “cool.”

Chris,
I just came downstairs to apologize for my abrupt remark. I meant just what I said, but didn’t mean to sound so abrupt. I’ve read your article already. My understanding of how you use “legalism, ” especially evaluated by your interactions with people you disagree with on this site, is that it includes others legitimate application of biblical principle with which you don’t agree.

I know several people who have had quite a lot of experience with demonic activity, missionaries overseas, who are not from “there’s a demon behind every bush” who would strongly resent being labeled gnostic, if that’s what you’re implying.

I don’t think that many in America recognize demonic presence when it’s there as something evil, because they have been deceived into thinking that evil is good, or evil is neutral. Also, for the record, it’s much more important to rely on the Word of God than whether or not one “feels” a demonic presence, for discernment purposes.

Too often with certain commenters, it comes down to an “odd feeling in my toe” (so to speak) as proof, and “demonic spirits” is a pretty easy source of gnosis

Hmmm.

Does this, then, negate much of what I said in this post?

I’ve had that odd feeling, moments where I know something is amiss and I’m not sure why. Not sure of anything except that something is not right. I would hate to come to a point in life where, if everything didn’t fit into logical explanations or “rational or reasoned thinking as in revelation and or intuitive knowledge” that it wasn’t to be considered…

Julie,

I think it’s a bit different – suggesting there is something beyond our experience is different than making an absolute prohibition/allowance based on supernatural experience. The former is allowing that God made the world larger than our individual experience. The latter basically suggests that God’s word is incomplete in terms of guidance on how we should live, and that completion comes through gnosis (special knowledge).

While I tend to be a soft cessationalist, I have seen evidence of miraculous spiritual intervention – particularly in places which are prohibitive to the spread of the gospel. Even in that regard, and in all textual evidence in scripture, I do not see NT evidence for the Holy Spirit revealing new absolute prohibitions or allowances to be added to Scripture – rather, the HS seems to act situationally.

So, the long and short – what we discussed in the Area 51 thread is different than what is being discussed here…

Julie,

thanks, but my conversation was with Amy…

Sorry if it offended you and you feel I am out of place…

I just do not agree with you on this… no offense.

iggy

Julie,

In my past and present conversations with Amy, all I get from her is that she cares little to actually try to understand and move the conversation from what she is missing… it just goes on and on… I am tired of that… To keep referring to “Tim’s sin” and then accuse many of us as condoning it by taking our words out of context… Tim was not just stating a sentence and used a swear word, his words, even in the context of a game were hurtful and meant to do harm… If Amy cannot see the difference as people try and try to help her, I see her condescend on others as it she is here to help us. The very point that many come here to state that Tim sinned and then purposely neglect to mention he did everything to make it right, shows that there is a very basic lack of understanding of Grace and mercy, let alone forgiveness from people like Amy. I do not see that I am being unkind, in fact I see that I was and am being very kind in hopes she may pray and reconsider that she may not be here to teach, but to learn.

Now, really I am not even sure what you are concerned about with me and really at this point, I am not willing to nor wanting to take the effort to go deeper with you on this. If that is to you meaning something other than I do not care to fight with you or Amy or whoever, please realize I just do not care to debate or argue about someone else’s inability to understand some basic things of our faith, as often I just chalk it to being spiritually blind and I then just pray that their eyes be opened by God.

be blessed,
iggy

Last word.

I don’t think it is really your place — or anyone’s, for that matter — to describe and/or speak for another commenter (in this case, Amy) to any reader (in this case, Joe and Mandy). They can read for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

Personally I was a bit thrown off by this comment as it would seem I am not even meant to comment on it!?!?!?! LOL!

So, again I was rather confused and cannot see then any point of being here at all… though i am wondering if that was what Julie was implying. I think otherwise as I would rather give Julie the benefit of the doubt as to that being what she meant as she then is going against her own advise… so.. there I stand… very confused by Julie as to what she means by her correction of me.

If I am wrong then I am wrong… but all I am on this one is confused… but then what’s new with some who comment here… just not usually with Julie who is rather clear in her comments…

Be blessed,
iggy

Chris L,

Amy is not left out of the conversation other than she seems to not want to get out of her rut of going on and on about “sin” and trying to use others words to trap them into being hypocritical.

In addressing Joe and Mandy, I am doing just that, sharing my voice with them in frustration over Amy’s lack of ability to step beyond her own view…

In fact, we are now doing this again and I am not condescending to Amy, as she seems to be most the time with about every comment, she makes to others and me.

I have tried to be as loving and yet firm as I can be with her. If Julie (and you disagree though I am not sure if you 2 cents is interpreting Julie or agreement)

I am just tired of going over the same thing with the same person and never make any movement forward… or even backward. It wastes my time and others.

I think that is the truth of this and I think others feel that same way.

By addressing Joe and Mandy I think it is more that I am done with Amy and addressing the others with closure… I for one am not planning to read Amy’s comments any more.

iggy

MG,
You must be referring to this clip:

http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=2715 which was referenced under “If You’re Ignorant . . . ”

I did not see that one before.

I had previously brought up high school musical because of an article Nathan wrote based on Ingrid’s High School Musical article. Look at my first comment under that article:

http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/08/01/counter-culutre/

The video I discussed there is the one that I was referring to here, and the one I was referring to under “If you’re ignorant,” that I intended to ask Chris about. I didn’t realize another clip had been put up by Chris. Sorry for the confusion.

I don’t know how to access the Old Slice or I might have tried to put a link to the original one.

Anyway, you’re right that the clip under “if you’re ignorant” doesn’t future pelvis to pelvis grinding.

That’s the only thing good thing I can say about it.

blockquote>To compare two kids doing a little salsa dancing to statements about copulation with someone’s mother is, with all due respect, utter and complete drivel.

If I had seen the clip you referenced instead of the one I originally saw I would have asked the same questions I asked about the other clip. If Tim’s statement is sin, why not performing/watching this kind of dancing?

But then I happen to think that most guys who are watching girls dance like this, including lifting up their little skirts from the front aren’t thinking about two kids (”innocently,” implied) doing a little salsa dancing.

But then maybe the men in my family and the men and boys in my church who wouldn’t watch this need to learn to control their minds and place this kind of temptation in front of them, instead of “fleeing” and looking the other way. And maybe they need to venture even further into something a bit more risque so that no one dare accuse them of legalism.

Sorry for the extra time my not being able to reference the original clip caused you.

But then I happen to think that most guys who are watching girls dance like this, including lifting up their little skirts from the front aren’t thinking about two kids (”innocently,” implied) doing a little salsa dancing.

And my friends wondered why I missed her!!! The Holy Spirit is now commenting on our BLOG boys and girls.

Well, I guess Ingrid can feel secure in knowing she made an impact.

It just amazes me that she could read that response and then think she did the right thing in writing about this. Plus, it cracks me up that she complains about them having her #. I didn’t see it there which doesn’t mean it wasn’t there but didn’t she do that to Patrick Lane?

Amy-

I watched the video twice. While I can understand that some Christians will have a problem with that kind of dancing, I failed to see where she lifted her dress. She shook her dress, but didn’t lift it.

Hey Joe,

The Holy Spirit is now commenting on our BLOG boys and girls.

Why is my quote “the Holy Spirit” and Chris’s quote NOT the Holy Spirit:

I hate to tell you, amy, but there was nothing “suggestive” in either video.

(Chris)

MG,
Maybe the guys I know, have known, are just totally different from the rest of you, in terms of what turns them on.

The only way I would think such dancing could be excused as a “children’s movie” is if I thought that the jr high, high school kids ( and especially boys) were absolutely clueless about sex. That somehow they had not yet gone through puberty.

What I think is that if this ISN’T a turn on in some way for most guys going through puberty, as well as adult men, is that many of them have seen much worse, or better, depending on how you look at it.

Ingrid says she gave them the gospel in love, they see her now as an enemy, and someone so ridiculous she shouldn’t even be listened to

.

First of all, why do you accept their judgement of “ridiculous?” You know if someone in a nursing home started shouting/groaning/moaning some of their songs, jerking around, he/she would probably be drugged.

As far as I can tell Ingrid has done far more to give them the gospel in love than anyone else involved in this situation. Sometimes non-Christians see Christians as jerks because they are acting like jerks. Sometimes Christians react to anyone sharing the gospel as an enemy, because they hate the truth. It was true in scripture, it’s true now.

You don’t really know if the Holy Spirit began working in someone’s life. And if He didn’t, that’s God’s business, not Ingrid’s fault. No one can come to the Father unless the Holy Spirit, not Ingrid, draws them. But she has been obedient in sharing the message and seems to have a sense of compassion towards them.

Is the group Yellow Sign coming to your church? It’s a bit confusing because I see some talk of “band” when there are actually two listed. Do you not have a problem with having the group Yellow Sign play at your church? If not, why don’t you don’t have a problem with having a group that starts off their video with “Welcome to Hell?”

Will “I Am Malice” be sung at your church?

A few of the words:

Blood is on my hands
This inevitable construct
Of my own making . . .

Beautiful as she lies still…
. . .

For I am malice
Her screams mean everything
It’s not just her sorrow
Her very bones begin to sing…

Precious Cadaver
Rips out the dead in me
Each piece I take from her
Makes me more human
. . .

As I tear her apart I feel complete
I can tell that she feels the same
By the way her cold, dead eyes
Lock into mine

She is at peace
And for the first time
So am I

We will remember this day
It’s Fate (less)

The whole song can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ockpAWMbz6c

Is there something that resembles the mind of Christ in this song, that I’m missing? How could it possibly be “neutral?” Was Mandy including this band and this song when she said, “Amy, I don’t think what the band is doing is necessarily sinful.”

You don’t really know if the Holy Spirit began working in someone’s life.

That’s the thing, neither do you.

Joe,

What I got out of the “cut and paste” above was that these kids got hurt, so in turn are striking out in their own way. Are they right or wrong? What does that even matter? The point now is that one adult has insulted them and one made a promise… should Tim at this point pull out and be looked at as another judgmental adult?

Now, some miss that these bands are anti drug and alcohol… and they promote that lifestyle. These are not drugged out whackos.

God works all things together for good for those that love Him… even if the devil meant it for good…

I see that even if this is a huge mistake, God will find a way to bring Glory to Himself out of it. Can we have faith in God in all this instead of argue about the band’s sin or Tim’s sin or if Tim is right or whatever.

Give grace to Tim to grow out of this, as I am sure he will learn and has already learned much. I hope those casting stones are also praying for God to be glorified…. but leave it in God’s hands.

iggy

Oh Iggy, I blame Ingrid 100% for that stuff

Joe,

i am not arguing that this all started with Ingrid’s slander and inability ot give grace to Tim… in fact, I see that as Satan stiring the pot.

Now, saying that i will not fault Ingrid for how she has dealt with the kids… I see she is living out her convictions and at least is sharing what she believes to be shared.

My issue is that she has not given anyone grace in all this… and seems only to give condemnation for all she preached as far as I understand was the law that brings death and not the Cross and resurreciton.

I am not going to even discuss if Tim is right or wrong, only that God can even make good use out of all of this… even Ingrid’s slander against Tim.

iggy

ah, his complaint changes once again.

I’ll do it for you, hold on

At this point in the story, Ingrid is the only one doing the loving that Christ has called all of us to do..She has shared the Gospel with them!

I could walk up to a guy on the street and spit in his face while sharing the gospel (which is basically what she has done), meeting the letter (but not the spirit) of Jesus’ command, as well…

Chris, besides the fact this last statement is eisogesis

Actually, it is not. Nowhere do we have record that Jesus required the sinners and tax collectors to change their ways before spending time with them.

If Tim were at least eating with them, and sharing the Good News with them,

And we know he will not because…? If I read him correctly, he did not make it a precondition.

Where does the scripture tell us that giving anything BUT the Gospel is evangelism?

Is serving part of evangelism, or must it be compartmentalized as something apart from evangelism – doing “unto the least of these…”?

Where do the instructions found in scripture say ” Lend them a building, build a relationship, and then you have won the right….now go share your faith with them… I’ll clue you in…NOWHERE

Where do the instructions found in scripture say “be a sanctimonious jerk and condemn the world for being the world while giving a perfunctory, impersonal account of the gospel-as-fire-insurance?” NOWHERE, but that’s Ingrid’s basic modus operandi here, and the general street-preaching mantra.

The command from Jesus is to “make disciples”, and in our culture of cynicism, are we really living up to the spirit of the gospel if we do not deliver it in a way that will be listened to and not just heard? The process of “making a disciple” requires relationship…

where did tim say he wasn’t going to share the gospel? where did he say they were saved? where did we say we weren’t going to eat with them?

i think you’re reading into one statement of tim’s (you have to earn the right to share the gospel) a little too much, for an event that hasn’t even happened yet – who knows what will occur that night.

I don’t think Ingrid helped the matter any – at least by making everything so public. even if some of her words were true, I think she put the bands on the defensive (I know I’m always receptive when someone calls me satanic.)

As far as Amy, I read her and understand what she states and wants and try to answer, yet never once is she satisfied with an answer… I see it as her inability to learn that holds her from gaining understanding beyond the legalities that hold her in bondage. She has fell for the satanic trap of thinking she knows “good and evil” and can discern between the two herself… without the aid of God to let her know what is truly good and what is truly evil.

[...]

Amy is hung up on the “don’t eat” part and is missing…

In answer to my alleged confusion and being out of line with Iggy, my point was this: Addressing a comment to Mandy and Joe describing Amy to them is completely ridiculous. They can read whatever Amy says as well as the next reader. Since Iggy has no better knowledge of Amy’s intentions than any other reader, it is beyond presumptuous to begin describinger her (or any other reader) to other readers who are of the same qualification to make their own conclusion.

Now, in regards to my having interrupted some kind of quasi-private conversation Iggy was having with Amy — there are no private conversations on a public blog. Therefore, there was no interruption. I joined in on the conversation as any and all else do when taking part in the comments section.

And yes, I do think it is out of line to take the approach of condescendingly describing another person you are not really that familiar with to other people who are equally not familiar with him or her. We can read it all for ourselves. We need no Clif’s Notes version of who commenters are.

So, I reiterate: I don’t think it is really your place — or anyone’s, for that matter — to describe and/or speak for another commenter.

So, again I was rather confused and cannot see then any point of being here at all… though i am wondering if that was what Julie was implying. I think otherwise as I would rather give Julie the benefit of the doubt as to that being what she meant as she then is going against her own advise

I think the point has been clearly made. You are free to disagree with it, as will likely be the prolonged case, but I don’t doubt the clarity of it and hope to not see it shrugged off as “I am confused” or “she is confused.”

I am not confused. I am not going against my own advice. If I were to go against my own advice — perhaps admonishment is a better word — you would catch me saying something like “Now, Jim and George, as far as Iggy, I read him and understand what he states and wants and try to answer, yet never once is he satisfied with an answer… I see it as his inability to learn that holds him from gaining understanding beyond the legalities that hold him in bondage. He has fallen for the satanic trap of thinking he knows “good and evil” and can discern between the two himself… without the aid of God to let him know what is truly good and what is truly evil.”

Would you like to see someone summing you up in the comments section and speaking for what you believe or are trying to say when you can do it yourself if you so choose? Would you? Again: we can read what Amy (and any other commenter) chooses to write and come to our own conclusion on what they do or do not believe, and what, if any, issues they might have. We do not need other commenters doing it for us. And it was wrong for you to do so, Iggy. I doubt anyone here — Joe, Erica, Chris L. — anyone — would like to have someone come along, say, Chris P. for example, and sum up what he sees as our problems on the very blog where we are capable of speaking for ourselves if we so choose? How would that go down? Would anyone be confused as to thinking that was a wrong thing to do?

I stand by my original statement, whether I get a chorus of “I’m with you, Julie, I agre with you” comments or not. No one speaks for me but me, and the same should apply across the board.

Julie,

You may be right… and you may be wrong,

Right now I choose to not argue with you.

Blessings,
iggy

but really pastorboy is posting such idiocy its hard to pull myself away.

Thats not a poke? Thats not slander? Based on whose standards?

First, before we go giving Ingrid mad props for sharing the gospel keep in mind the only reason any of this happened was because she publicly made them her enemy

And so Jesus was making the Pharisees his friends by calling them whitewashed seplechures? How about a brood of vipers?

You’ve slandered me, and usurped authority that isn’t yours.

Show me where I have slandered you, and I will repent of that. Slander is stating something untrue. I am only responding to what you have written. I do have the authority, by your definition of church, to call you and any other person who calls themselves christian on the carpet when I see fruits that are not in keeping with repentance.

I do repent, because apparently you feel like it is my motive to hurt you, and that is not even close to the case. I repent that my words were lazily crafted in such a way that they brought uneeded offense and that they were not seasoned with salt.

or unwise to use our building in this way is like consulting a garbage man for leukemia treatments.

I never stated it was wrong to use your building in any way. I stated that if you have a room full of unrepentant sinners, take the opportunity of having them in your building by explaining to them their need to repent and trust the Savior. After all, by your own logic, Ingrid has lost the right, and by your kind allowing them to use the building, you have won the right.

while evangelism will always be a primary goal of the church, and should be a part of much of what we do there’s still about a jillion verses that command love for enemies, love for neighbors, and love for, well, everyone

Love should be the motive for evangelism, and does not negate the need to evangelize even when you are showing love. You are showing love for your community by allowing them to use the building. Take the opportunity as you show that love by sharing the good news with them.

Show me where I have slandered you, and I will repent of that. Slander is stating something untrue.

You wrote:

If Tim were at least eating with them, and sharing the Good News with them, I wouldn’t even have commented here except to say WAY TO GO BROTHA..but he said he is not. (emphasis mine)

Mandy (Tim’s wife) wrote:

where did tim say he wasn’t going to share the gospel? where did he say they were saved? where did we say we weren’t going to eat with them?

and again:

who said he’s not going to share the gospel???? once again, I ask it…

looks like slander to me…

Again, second instance in which Tim says, in not so many words, I am not going to evangelize (proclaim verbally the evangel- Good News)

No, that’s NOT what he said – he said

You can believe whatever you want, but you’re not going to be effective until you start earning the right to tell someone the gospel by being in their lives. Unfortunately that’s a hard truth that many Christians don’t want to face.

All you have done is create a straw man and slandered Tim. “earning the right” does not equate to “not going to witness”. What it DOES equate to is the question: Am I just looking for the lazy way out by cold-calling the gospel which will assuage my conscience that I met the letter of the law (in which case, I don’t need to take the time to get to know them – OR – do I want them to LISTEN TO and not just hear me when I share the message with them?

Mandy, you rock. Although I am a little disappointed that you didn’t put Owosso Mi so that they when they start trying to intimidate you which is all this whole dust-up is about, it will be easier for them.
Speaking of beloved Owosso. I’d love to hit the corner restaraunt again, but I don’t have the gas. You jokers should come to G-rap. I have to be honest, I’ve never heard anyone besides K. Silva call it that.
Peace. (Seriously, you guys need to come out here. Bring the tribe, we’ll get a babysitter)

While I understand the aversion to South Bend, it would be nice some Saturday to find somewhere near the Indiana-Michigan border at which to pow-wow…

Pastor Boy,
Jesus Christ was love! He showed love an everything He did that is why He died for us! He loved us. Ingrid was not showing these kids love she represented to them a God that is not the God of the bible! The way she handled the situation and continues to handle the situation is not love! The way she chose to tell them about Christ was ugly! Read their myspace page it is very telling about how the gospel was presented to them by Ingrid!
This is love Pastor Boy. Is this what Ingrid did?
“Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”
I would say Tim did this. Why?
He died to himself
He allowed a band to use a building that is not his any ways it is God’s. Nothing on this earth is ours. If Jesus could let a prostitute wash His feet than surely he would let a band play in a building!
He showed them he loved them for who they are and where they are at in life with no strings attached!(That is how God loves us)
We don’t deserve Gods love. We are dead in sin but alive in Christ Jesus!
This is what Ingrid showed these boys:
She would go to any extremes to bring down Tim Reed.(I would not exactly call that brotherly love!)
She resorted to name calling
She publicly attacked them on her blog when the situation does not concern her
She showed no love, no grace, no mercy! If you don’t believe me go read her blog!
Now, you decide who best represented Jesus Christ to this band?

Erica,
I am still saying that by all means let the band use the space! I have never said otherwise.

I have acknowledged repeatedly that Tim and his church are showing love by allowing them to use the building.

But that love will not win anybody’s soul. If they die after that love is displayed, they still go to Hell. They need the evangel- the good news- proclaimed.

Tim has a platform to do this by his loving acts. I challenge him to do so.

Tim, I repent. Since you are saying this is your intent to proclaim the Gospel, I misinterpreted what you said, and therefore I mischaracterized it on this board. Tim was right, I was wrong. Now go proclaim the Gospel because that is what you said you would do, and I said you wouldn’t do.

Joe, Thanks for praying for me. I need it.

Tim, I repent. Since you are saying this is your intent to proclaim the Gospel, I misinterpreted what you said, and therefore I mischaracterized it on this board. Tim was right, I was wrong. Now go proclaim the Gospel because that is what you said you would do, and I said you wouldn’t do.

Tim, what more do you need? I will be happy to do whatever (rip my shirt, ashes…)

Oh, so you want me to repent of asking you (and everyone else) to evangelize?

Sorry, I won’t do that. Its not sin. If it is offensive to you, you are wrongly offended and misjudging my motives. I want to see people saved.

Skip me, speak to Jesus. He is the one who gave you, and everyone else the Great Commission (MT 28:18-20, MK 16:15) It is Jesus you are angry at. How dare He tell us to go into the world and preach the Gospel.

Okay, Joe. For you.

He did, indeed, marry up. Ha! Pastorboy, I promise I’ll send you a transcript of every conversation, okay? Maybe then we’ll be okay…

Yeah! Finally! now lets go get that Rick Warren basher!

(j/k)

iggy

amy,

Oh Man…. i accidently read your comment….

and smiled…

iggy

I guess amy’s just not content to let a dead topic stay dead… I guess I didn’t know she attended your church. Surely she does – otherwise it’s none of her darn business.

If she’s not a member, I say just ignore her as a divisive troublemaker and gossipmonger.

Amy,

I don’t think it’s sinful.

I thought this was over.

Why can’t you let it go?

I don’t get hysterical.

The bands today told us “just so you know, we aren’t satanic.”

It made me sad.

We told them to ignore Ingrid. We were nice to them.

Imagine that.

I thought this thread was over.
I promised Joe.

Amy,
While you condemn Tim you are in fact ignoring one of the the greatest passages in scripture
I Peter 4:8 Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.
How this church conducts themselves is between them and God. Tim is showing them love. It is irrelevant whether or not he gave them the six steps to heaven or told them they would burn in Hell. Sharing Christs love is it! End of story. One day they will see and realize they are missing something and remember Tim Reed and the love and grace he showed them. Maybe than they will meet Jesus.
Tell me one person that came to Jesus because he walked up to them and told them to repent or they Sons of Satan?.(Like Indgrid did!) All of them had a need and that is how they met Jesus. These boys, when convicted by the Holy Spirit will come to Jesus when they see the need. Tim is not the Holy Spirit and he can expedite the process even though you and Pastor Boy feel He should!
I am just not sure what you are looking for from Tim. None of us our the Holy Spirit, He is still very much alive in believers hearts. He still works.
I think what Tim did was great! These band members live like people outside of Christ. Tim did what he was suppose to do. Show them love. Who listens to the music and what parents let their kids listen to it is between them and God. If you are worried about your kids being polluted by the world than don’t take them anywhere. I think comments our irrelevant.

I think, after reading this post repeatedly, and watching the responses of all “sides” (my own included), that I need to discontinue writing on this blog. I see the same things I saw on other sites, and it displeases and disheartens me to be caught up in it.

Thanks for having me as long as you did. All the best to each of you.

Erica,
No fair taking shots at me, because I am done!

Julie,
I am sad to hear you are leaving, because you were the voice of reason on this stream!

Amy, May God bless you

Tim,

You and your church are in my prayers, and I am thankful that perhaps God has led you to these kids (or them to you) in such a time as this.

Blessings,

Chris

Tim,
Just to clarify, my concern about this topic (heavy metal) has nothing to do with you personally. And my questions regarding the decision that your comment was a sin versus not seeing the words of these songs as sins has more to do with trying to understand how you all on this site make decisions about right and wrong than it does with how you personally make decisions about right and wrong.

My concern about heavy metal and how it affects kids has to do with my worldview that God loves other kids in the world just as much as He does my own; it is my concern when Christian leaders seem to either promote it or think it is harmless, even if they are people with whom my own kids don’t come in contact . You do not stand alone among those in Christian leadership positions in thinking that this music is sinless, harmless. I see the whole discussion as not just applying to your situation, but to many similar situations.

As far as my IP address, I am aware that you know the area that I live in and that there is no way that I could make it to your church each Sunday. I know that you and anyone who writes on this site know that. But to have a “personal connection” doesn’t mean that one oneself has to attend someone’s church. I realized something about you a few months ago that gave me enough sense of a “personal connection” that suddenly the person who I once said “I can’t believe you are a pastor” to simply because of the rude way you treated me in discussion here became more than just a name out there. When your comment on the gaming site and the way you handled discussing it came out a month or two later, I lost several hours of sleep on several nights wondering what/if anything my personal responsibility was in the matter. Enough said. And rest in peace, I have decided that at this point I probably don’t have a personal responsibility in the matter.

It would have made life easier for us all if you had simply not written the article about the church being just a building. Because the issue was never really about whether the church was a building or not. The issue is apparently that you don[’t see anything wrong with this music. If I had understood that from the beginning this discussion could have been somewhat simplified.

You are welcome