Ingrid recently posted a heated response against my article, accusing me of “attacking” Peter LaBarbera and Americans for Truth. I am wanting to know how she defines “attacking.” I feel that it was hardly an attack, but my thoughts on the issue and an opportunity for discussion. I know that the open conversation about ideas is a foreign concept to the Online Discernment Community, but they must understand that sharing thoughts is not an open attack. Also, never once did I ever mention the name of Peter LaBarbera, and had/have no reason to critique him at all. Contrary to ODM belief, it is possible to disagree with a method or ideology and not attack a person personally.

Ingrid, for the record, I am not taking “pop shots” at those who oppose public pornographic activity. I am not too sure how you could even pull that from what I said. I am not even opposed to people who oppose homosexuality. I am opposed to Christians creating organizations to politically battle sin. I am opposed to people who oppose homosexuals more than homosexuality. I am opposed to rebuking large populations of nonbelievers while keeping them at arms length.

You can read the conversation happening at the original post, but our job is to help change hearts with the Holy Spirit of God. It is not our place to legislate morality for the western world. When we begin to doubt God’s ability to change hearts (or simply do not care to get involved with the messy lives of non-beleivers), we look for other catalysts for change and methods to preserve a convenient Christian culture. The government is a perfect solution, however unbiblical. When we tie a political ideology to the movement of Jesus Christ, we move into a dangerous place.

By the way, my favorite line in Ingrid’s article

“Sitting safely behind his computer, he can afford to be a critic.”

um… Mr. Pot, the Kettle is calling. Also, I am my own person. You don’t have to keep linking be back to my pastor. Unlike some, I do not find my significance in who I learn from.

In high school, my youth group participated in a 30 hour famine.  We raised money by having people pledge an amount for every hour that we went without food.  During the 30 hours, we prayed, learned about children in 3rd world countries that go without food, and had an overnighter at the youth facilities.  We raised over $3,000 to feed teenagers that were starving in Kenya.  It was my first experience with fasting, and literally changed my outlook on spiritual disciplines.  However, I was floored by this article.

The editor at CRN and Bob DeWaay would call this practice “look at me” Christianity.   Can you see the “look at me” attitude in this excerpt they posted from the Christian Post?

Some 500,000 American teens are joining a 30-hour nationwide “famine” to raise money to fight hunger around the world starting at noon Friday.

Teens will fast for 30 hours to get a real taste of hunger that millions of children and families around the world experience each day. Participants aim to raise more than $12 million this year through World Vision’s 30 Hour Famine.

“In 2005 I did my first 30 hour famine. It was an amazing experience…to feel what these kids feel every day and to learn about what they go through to survive is so amazing,” said one participant named Jessie…

If that is “look at me Christianity”, what else should be consider “look at me” Christianity?  Missionaries?  Tithing?  Going to prayer meetings?

What’s the difference between CR?N, the National Enquirer and the New York Times? Only one of these tabloids is based in New York City.

For those of you who aren’t political junkies, the past couple of days have been interesting, watching the New York Times (the “paper of record” for the USA, said with tongue-firmly-in-cheek) take its lessons from ODM’s. Granted, most observant Christians have noticed that the Times, the Enquirer and CR?N have about as much a firm grasp on the truth as Bill Clinton under oath, but it was rather pathetic seeing the Times go ODM yesterday, even by its own (low) standards.

I’m not a big fan of John McCain (though I think he’d be miles better as a leader than any of the existing alternatives left in either race), but yesterday’s story on McCain and a lobbyist (who it turns out was verbally slapped down by a McCain aide for bragging to other lobbyists that she had inside access to his committee, despite evidence to the contrary) was shoddy – almost to the point of mirroring ODM “standards”.

1) It dredged up years-old information, as if it were current events, for the purpose of smearing its target with even older accusations.

2) It presented the information it had in a way most potentially damaging to the subject, in complete absence of any sense of objectivity and likelihood.

3) It purposely omitted facts and information contradictory to its flawed theseis.

However, despite these flaws, the Times showed a whit more integrity than the rock-bottom bar of ODM’ery in that it actually contacted McCain for comment before running its fatally flawed hit-piece.  You know it’s sad when your expectations of a secular corporation with a tradition of corruption are still higher than what you’ve come to expect from “Christian” publications.
HT: Brendt, for making the connection for me…

I’ve been enjoying a band that goes by the name of The Psalters. Normally this wouldn’t be the place to give a listening recommendation, but they offer quite a few downloads for free, and free is good, so if you’re interesting in a weird, but good band that pulls from scripture. Here you go.

I recently stumbled upon a nice trove of information from journalist Richard Abanes, another Christian brother who has found himself both in the sights of and a debunker of the “discernment” within the ODM community.

Richard has a number of good articles, including a long series of articles debunking the bile spewed by the anti-Rick-Warren crowd – including authors at SoL, Lighthouse Trails “Research”, and CR?N and other places.  These include a series called Lighthouse Trails: Walking in Darkness (Part 1, 2, 3 and 4) which is quite illuminating on how these charnel houses operate.  He also deconstructs Johnnie Mac’s criticisms of Warren (John MacArthur: No Grace fo Some), along with Gary Gilley, Roger Oakland and some of the other favorite “quotables” from the ODM crowd.

While I don’t necessarily agree with Abanes on everything, he offers well-thought commentary and much more ‘discernment’ in one article than most ODM’s do in a month, including his well-written books and essays on Mormonism…