Ingrid complains that Steve Camp’s comment was removed by Tim Challies:

Now if only we could get Tim to treat Steve Camp’s biblical challenges with the same even-handedness he uses with foul-mouthed Mark Driscoll! Here is Sexpert Driscoll on YouTube. **Warning** See also Driscoll’s sex conference video here. He’s decided to travel the country on a Song of Solomon tour where he can talk about all things sexual and justify it because, after all, it’s in the Bible. If you haven’t already, see my post on the Moses Code below. While the Christian pastors in the land fixate on sex, the enemy is oh, so busy.

As if the irony of Ingrid complaining about removed comments wasn’t enough, she calls Camp’s comment a “Biblical challenge” then mocks Driscoll’s claim that he talks about sex because its in the Bible.

We’ve seen this before, and we’ll see it again, the ODMs don’t care what’s actually in the Bible, what they care about is who’s on their team. Which is why Camp’s claims, which are specific to Driscoll and cultural are called “Biblical” while Driscoll’s obvious assertion that sex is taught about in the Bible, so Christians should be proclaiming those truths are characterized as acts of the enemy.

Sheesh.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Thursday, February 28th, 2008 at 7:54 am and is filed under Ingrid, ODM Writers, Steve Camp. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

43 Comments(+Add)

1   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
February 28th, 2008 at 8:33 am

I’ve watched a couple of those Driscoll videos, and I’m still trying to figure out what’s so offensive and vulgar. He wasn’t disrespectful or crude. It just seems like he was honestly answering questions. And this is coming from someone who admittedly isn’t a Driscoll fan.

What do these people who are critical of Driscoll do when there own childen ask them about sex? Do they just automatically tell them to never speak of such filth in their house?

2   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 28th, 2008 at 8:50 am

OK, if you think Driscoll is “raving”, he only audits the class, Ingid wrote the manual. Has Ingrid ever removed or “moderated” a non vulgar comment (from my personal experience)?

I want to expose all of us who run blogs with no comments. If we (like me) used to allow comments and now do not we are hypocritical. If we (like me) don’t allow comments but comment on other blogs we are hypocritical. If we (once-me) have ever removed a comment because we didn’t agree with it and then complain when someone else does it we are hypocritical.

So I stand with little defense and for the record, this blog has never moderated comments and allow all points of view including Ingrid’s. I would not look for a commendation from SOL for that policy. Pot/kettle/Ingrid – Who knew?

3   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 28th, 2008 at 9:01 am

Camp writes:

I have read his two books and virtually listened to everything that he has released on podcast and vodcast the past three years).

What possible reason would anyone have for listening to someone whose ministry you despise? I mean after ten listens (8 more than it takes me) why continuing to torture yourself. I just don’t get it unless you are attempting to keep the fires stoked in your heart about him.

If I listened to and read everything MacLaren has written and said I would by now either be a babbling idiot or a bitter old man. Don’t say it, Joe.

4   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
February 28th, 2008 at 9:25 am

“for the record, this blog [CRN.Info] has never moderated comments and allow all points of view including Ingrid’s.”

This is not true.

5   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 28th, 2008 at 9:25 am

Now if only we could get Tim to treat Steve Camp’s biblical challenges with the same even-handedness he uses with foul-mouthed Mark Driscoll!

Ingrid sounds so Arminian, doesn’t she? I believe God “gets” people to do things not other people. This post modern Calvinism is soooo confusing!

6   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 28th, 2008 at 9:26 am

I want to expose all of us who run blogs with no comments. If we (like me) used to allow comments and now do not we are hypocritical. If we (like me) don’t allow comments but comment on other blogs we are hypocritical. If we (once-me) have ever removed a comment because we didn’t agree with it and then complain when someone else does it we are hypocritical.

I don’t know about the first two hypocritical actions, there are reasons a writer may not want to have comments at all (time spent sorting through them, etc), but if you don’t allow comments, and at one point would delete comments because they disagreed with you, then complaining when another blogger does the same is rank hypocrisy.

7   Jeff    
February 28th, 2008 at 9:38 am

As a healthy male, married for 20 years to my first wife and in no way a prude, I have to say – after watching the Driscoll video on CRN, I feel dirty. How ridiculous. It was a complete appeal to the Flesh.

Sincerely,

Jeff

8   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 28th, 2008 at 9:50 am

Jeff – I haven’t listened to it and I also feel dirty.

9   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
February 28th, 2008 at 9:56 am

…and I also feel dirty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 28th, 2008 at 10:00 am

Phil – is that you in drag? I hope you’re kidding!

11   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
February 28th, 2008 at 10:04 am

Rick,
Well, I was just being stupid. You’d need to have seen some of the Orbit gum commercials for that picture to make sense. Their slogan is “For A Good Clean Feeling, No Matter What “.

12   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 28th, 2008 at 10:06 am

You are so funny, Phil. Thanks, I love humor, it keeps me from being a serial murderer!

13   Brian    
February 28th, 2008 at 10:58 am

So what did he say that went against the Bible?

14   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 28th, 2008 at 11:05 am

I have to say – after watching the Driscoll video on CRN, I feel dirty. How ridiculous. It was a complete appeal to the Flesh.

So what did he say that went against the Bible?

Its not Driscoll’s theology of sex that needs adjusting, its the ODM’s theology of the kingdom that needs adjusted, in a bad way.

15   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
February 28th, 2008 at 11:07 am

So what did he say that went against the Bible?

Didn’t you get the memo? We’re only supposed to talk about the parts of the Bible that don’t make us uncomfortable. Sheesh, get with the program…

16   Brian    
February 28th, 2008 at 11:14 am

Ok, so any of the people who feel dirty about this want answer this 4 me?

17   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
February 28th, 2008 at 12:45 pm

The people with weaker faith stumble over the ‘rough around the edges’ parts of the Bible. And then take their weakness and force it on others.

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezk. 23:20

Lord, you need to stop making such appeals to my flesh in your Word….

Not really.

JOe

18   RayJr    
February 28th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

In the same way OJ has convinced himself that he’s innocent and Barry Bonds has convinced himself that he’s never taken steroids, Ingrid has convinced herself that she’s not a hypocrite.

19   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 28th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Tim,

Its not Driscoll’s theology of sex that needs adjusting, its the ODM’s theology of the kingdom that needs adjusted, in a bad way.

Amen! John MacArthur stated that the Kingdom of God is “Only spiritual now” and “will come later”… yet Jesus states;

Acts 1: 6. So when they met together, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7. He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

Which was fulfilled in Chapter 2 as Peter states;

36. “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Since Jesus is bot Lord and Christ (King), then the Kingdom came down and was restored… not in it’s fullness… but in Spirit and in Power…
It is not just a “Spiritual” Kingdom now, as I am a part of it and a New Creation… and I am physical as well as all creation is… so the Kingdom is both and it is here and it is now (just as Brian McLaren states it is as well as N. T. Wright and many others)

The ODM’s are a minute minority that believes many things that the majority of Christians do not and never had and that is not taught in the scripture but was handed down by men as traditions… such as the teaching of cessationism that people like Frank Turk of Team Pyro pushes.

iggy

20   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 28th, 2008 at 1:05 pm

In the same way OJ has convinced himself that he’s innocent and Barry Bonds has convinced himself that he’s never taken steroids, Ingrid has convinced herself that she’s not a hypocrite.

OUCH!

iggy

21   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 28th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

I might add to all this that often the ODM’s accuse others of only listening to teachers that “tickle your ears”… and in the case of all this sex talk I know that is the direction Ingrid is going…

Yet, to censor the word of God and listen to only what we want to… making “song of songs” a dirty sex book as Ingrid implies by her statement;

See also Driscoll’s sex conference video here. He’s decided to travel the country on a Song of Solomon tour where he can talk about all things sexual and justify it because, after all, it’s in the Bible.

The bible is not about MY COMFORT, but about my salvation… It seems that too many times I see the ODM’s being stretched out of their comfort zones by God.. and they are repulsed at the idea of growing…

…he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. …

Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up.
Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop–a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. He who has ears, let him hear.”

“The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever.”

Even Song of Songs…

iggy

22   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 28th, 2008 at 3:24 pm

So I stand with little defense and for the record, this blog has never moderated comments and allow all points of view including Ingrid’s.

Actually, we do ‘moderate’ (hold comments for manual approval from first-time and abusive commenters) on occasion (<1% of the comments), but we have not deleted any non-vulgar comments that were held in moderation…

23   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 28th, 2008 at 4:00 pm

It depends on what you mean by moderate. If you mean we publish every non-spammy comment, then no we don’t moderate.

ON the other hand, for commenters that are routinely vacuous and abusive we do delay their publication for several hours, and even days.

24   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
February 28th, 2008 at 4:10 pm

A Couple of thoughts and a question. First, the question. Is the Mars Hill where Driscoll preaches related to the Mars Hill where Rob Bell preaches?

Now the comments. I watched the Driscoll video. Aside from the fact that it was sort of, uh, embarassing he nailed it (no pun intended). He said, “I wouldn’t say you are a virgin, but I would say you are a sinner.” Wow! Bam! Case closed! His language is salty for a pulpit, but: Ask and Answer. He calls it what it is: Don’t use cheap definitions to skate away from sin. Sin is sin. I don’t think that sort of thing would work in my congregation where the ladies where head coverings and the men churn their own butter, but in Seattle…Frankly, I thought he handled the question well even if I never would have invited the question in that setting (if the setting was a Sunday morning, for example).

Second, I’m looking at a book published by Crossway Publishing: The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World. You know who contributed to this book? Piper. Carson. Wells. Baucham. Keller. And Driscoll. If Driscoll is so riske what in the world is he doing hanging around with folk like Piper and Carson and Wells. I have read Wells’ books and he is no theological slouch. The dude is hardcore.

So why is Driscoll being criticized when he hangs around some of the most theologically conservative minds in the market today? Or is it another Mark Driscoll from Mars Hill in Seattle that is being criticized by the author of Slice? Or am I way off base here? I didn’t think anyone could get more conservative than Carson and Keller and Wells and Piper and yet even these guys are open game for the author of Slice?

Wow, we are in more trouble than I thought.

jerry

25   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
February 28th, 2008 at 4:20 pm

I think I meant ‘risque’. Sorry about that.

jerry

26   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 28th, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Is the Mars Hill where Driscoll preaches related to the Mars Hill where Rob Bell preaches?

Nope – two different churches with no affiliation, other than people sometimes lumping them into the “emerging church”, when both eschew the label.

27   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
February 28th, 2008 at 4:32 pm

It doesn’t really matter. I just thought maybe it was one of those ’satellite’ church ideas or ’same church different campuses’ idea. I’ve always heard and thought Driscoll was fairly conservative. I never thought of him as emerging. That’s just me though. I prefer to think of people as Christian if they happen to love Jesus. I guess for some people, loving Jesus and the people Jesus loves is not enough. I know, that’s too easy, too naive, too simple.

jerry

ps–in case I haven’t told you folks lately, i love you.

28   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 28th, 2008 at 4:44 pm

Rick,

i totally get what you are saying. I had totally open comments, until some very abusive people began posting very hateful comments. I then stopped comments for a time and was accused of not letting others comment anything negative… either way I was a hypocrite.

Yet, no one will say that about Ken or Ingrid or others… as if you are “in” then you are never wrong. But then who wants to be “in” that crowd?

iggy

29   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
February 28th, 2008 at 7:12 pm

I’ve always heard and thought Driscoll was fairly conservative. I never thought of him as emerging.

Emerging doesn’t always mean liberal.

Just like…

Fundamentalist doesn’t always mean hyper-calvinist

30   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
February 28th, 2008 at 8:16 pm

I mispoke not intending the juxtaposition that inadvertently, and by coincidence, appeared. But, to be sure, I wasn’t suggesting that ‘emerging’ means liberal. Just as I never thought of Driscoll as ‘emerging’ I never thought of him as ‘liberal’ either. And I never thought of ‘emerging’ as ‘liberal’ and I never thought ‘fundamentalist’ meant ‘hyper-calvinist.’

I should just stay away until I learn the terms. I think perhaps I have run my course here, worn out my welcome.

But in your inclusion of the word ‘always’ are you suggesting it is true ’sometimes’?

Sorry if I was misunderstood.

31   Christian P    http://www.churchvoices.com
February 28th, 2008 at 8:35 pm

Jerry,

You spoke just fine. I understood what you meant. Unless you were joking, your have not worn out your welcome. As noted earlier by some of the other commenters, commenting here is open. Which means you will get serious as well as humorous, and even idiotic responses. Take it all with a grain of salt. If you were joking, you are waaay to subtle for me.

32   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 28th, 2008 at 8:46 pm

Jerry – Let me help you. Since there is no definition of emergent it is difficult to pin down with a label. I do not consider Driscoll a heretic, but he is liberal in his speech and his ecclesiaistical methodology. So I will step forward, in the face of many waiting in the wings to “reject and denounce” me, and say that Mark Driscoll is liberal.

The word is subjective and everyone gets to use it as they see fit. I love the internet, it’s so…personal.

33   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
February 28th, 2008 at 8:47 pm

Jerry,

My comment was more about those that make the two synonymous. I understood what you meant. Perhaps I was the one who need to clarify.

Personally I enjoy your insightful comments so no need to feel that you overstayed your welcome. Actually I think it’s impossible to overstay your welcome on this blog. HI Ken, Ingrid, Chris P., clearly, Jazzact, and occasionally me.

34   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
February 28th, 2008 at 8:48 pm

Rick on the other hand…maybe has overstayed. LOL

Love ya Rick.

35   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 28th, 2008 at 8:55 pm

Chris – you’re making fun of a sick man!

Who would pick up the fundamentalist moniker here if I left? Who will give you guys orthodox perspectives? And who will feed you guys during the tribulation when all of you have taken the mark?

Yep, me. I carry a heavy burden here.

====))))

That is my new sign for hilarity!! Feel free to use it.

36   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 29th, 2008 at 2:25 am

Rick,

Since there is no definition of emergent it is difficult to pin down with a label.

How about this…

Jesus and the Bible are our Creed and statement of faith.

Is that good enough? Do we need some man made creed or label to be our identity… I am a child of the Living God… a New Creation… that is what and who I am. Is that not enough?

I would be afraid to add more as that would then be saying God’s word is not enough and Jesus’ work was not finished.

Why do you need man’s testimony about us when we already have Gods?

iggy

37   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 29th, 2008 at 7:06 am

Iggy – many cults would use your sentence. You have an enviably niave view of Christianity that seems to ignore the many warnings in the New Testament concerning deception.

Emergent/emerging – A new way of practicing and defining Christianity. Some focus on including the acts of compassion without changing the gospel message while many seem preoccupied with altering many important and established doctrinal teachings.

Iggy – It is true that we can go overboard in our doctrinal vigilance, even suggesting that anyone who doesn’t agree with me on any point is a heretic. But it is also true that if we accept people’s good intentions, and accept anyone’s new and improved teaching about our faith without comparing Scripture with Scripture, we can end up with some dangerous and blatently false teachings that are being consumed by the sheep.

Granted this discernment is unpleasant and can be abused (ya think?), but God calls some to refute teachings that stray because the lack of discernment is an abuse s well. In the end, and this is incredibly serious, we all will give an account before God concerning our teachings, our lifestyle, our compassion, our prayer life, our witness, our family, and how we were a servant of Christ.

38   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 29th, 2008 at 7:42 am

So, by this you are saying that the Bible and Jesus are not enough?

cuz that is what I am hearing…

I am not meaning to put words in your mouth… but with all the words that you just stated, that is the bottom line.

Now as far as the “cults”… I disagree… they will add other things like the book of Mormon or re-translate it as in the case of the Watchtower society or follow a man who claims some sort of “new” revelation in the case or David Koresh.

Brian is not reveal anything “new” there are many Christians that held his views before his books came out… and there is much more differences in the case that he is not saying he is the “only” one that has the understanding… in fact he tips his hat to many many different people.

So, once again we disagree… but I see your point and see that instead of stand on the truth of the bible, you stand beside it with man’s testimony to back it.

I am not meaning to be harsh, but if we believe in the bible and in Jesus, why do you insist we need man’s testimony added to it?

iggy

39   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 29th, 2008 at 7:47 am

Everything about the Bible is interpreted through “man’s testimony”. Ken says he has “the Bible and Jesus” so why does he need your testimony. That view is a simplistic panarama that combines many incongruous views of Scripture.

Actually, it is an cop out that refuses accountability.

BTW – Please don’t disagree with me, Iggy, because I have Jesus and the Bible and that is enough. (see, that is my point)

40   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 29th, 2008 at 8:26 am

No Rick, Ken says he has the bible, Jesus and the great Reformers…
He also seems to allude he has some “special” pastor/teacher anointing or calling to share all his great bible/Jesus/reformed/misinformed/anti-historical views.

Again, he adds to the testimony of God, Jesus the Holy Spirit and the bible. I would usually go straight to the bible for my points in talking to people.

As far as;

Everything about the Bible is interpreted through “man’s testimony”.

That is the issue I am addressing with you now, it is backwards. Man’s testimony should be interpreted through the bible’s testismony.

iggy

41   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 29th, 2008 at 8:34 am

Iggy – You are being obtuse. How can the Bible’s testimony ever be separated from man’s. Much of the Bible is a narrative from the mouth of a man, and the entire Bible was written by men. The Bible has no vocal chords hence the gift of teaching as well as the Holy Spirit. Ken would say the reformers were following the Bible and Jesus.

If you are suggesting that no specific doctrinal issues are germaine, and that a blanket “I have the Bible and Jesus” covers it all, then you are left with little else as it pertains to discussing truth. Your disdain for Ken etc. seems to blind you to honest and thoughtful disagreements, even strong diagreements, among people who say they rely solely on Jesus and the Bible (that’s pretty much everybody except the Catholics).

You claim the Bible’s “testimony” as authoritative and yet men interpret the Bible’s testimony” differently. I am an old man, I get confused.

42   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 29th, 2008 at 8:43 am

Tim – you continue to be “spelling challenged”. Housese? Is that emergent code?

43   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 29th, 2008 at 10:06 am

Rick,

Perhaps you miss what Paul states in Romans 10:17

“and the message is heard through the word of Christ.”

It is not by our preaching, but by the word of Christ we are saved.

Jesus stated: “As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.” (John 12: 47-48)
]
So we are saved by the words of Christ not man or men. You are missing what I am stating in saying “men wrote the bible” I do not disagree. I am stating that the bible does not depend on us for its validation nor did Jesus need the validation of men… John 5:39 -43

You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. “I do not accept praise from men, but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.

Now if i am being obtuse, so was Jesus as i am just quoting what He stated and what the bible teaches… and for some reason you argue with me? = )

For what reason i do not know… btw this is what I meant earlier as to the difference between myself and Ken. Ken would go into “I am the pastor/teacher and God’s gift to you” I appeal directly to what the bible states.

iggy