Looks like the ODMs have been busy usurping God’s throne again, this time by deciding who Christ is allowed to be a propitiation for.

Here an anonymous coward puts on his Pope hat and ex communicates Highland Baptist Church for daring to study the work of Brian McLaren.

Here another, or the same anonymous coward uses scare quotes to let us know that all those emergents who don’t vote the proper way aren’t really Christians.

Lately we’ve been hearing so much about how non-ODMs don’t fear God enough, at least we fear Him enough to stay off his throne.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Saturday, March 29th, 2008 at 2:00 pm and is filed under Editor, ODM Responses, ODM Writers. 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   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
March 29th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Gotta disagree with your assessment. Anyone who decides that they’re gonna usurp God seems pretty gutsy to me.

Stupid, but gutsy.

2   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
March 29th, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Also, is the title of this post quoting God? ;-)

3   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
March 29th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

It is odd isn’t it? Whoever it is is afraid of men, but not of God.

4   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 29th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Did I miss something? I did not find where the editor suggested they were not Christians. Maybe I missed it.

5   Evan Hurst    
March 29th, 2008 at 2:57 pm


how ignorant of the issues must the writer of the second post be?

(really really ignorant.)

moron doesn’t care which policies actually would help to accomplish his beliefs, but instead parrots some right-wing rube pundit and thinks he sounds intelligent.

some people are so myopic it’s frightening.

6   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
March 29th, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Did you catch the title? Goodbye Highland Baptist Church? I guess you could read that as the editor is just saying that they are done attending this church in Ky. Of course, it might imply that the anonymous cowardly editor is assigning HBC over to Satan, which given the sizable amount of posts that go that way over at said site I would think it is the latter and not the former.
What I find interesting is the assumption that this church agrees with what is written in the book. For all the information given on the qutoted blurb all you can really assume from the church is that the book will be studied. Once again proof that the ODM’s believe the Holy Spirit is dead.

7   Evan Hurst    
March 29th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

i left a comment on the second El Moron’s blog.

these people are the prime reason Christianity is becoming more and more irrelevant to the general population.

8   Neil    
March 29th, 2008 at 3:14 pm

I think the cowardly accusation a bit over the top, but I agree that they are trying to edit the proverbial book. Technically, in the first post they do not say the church is apostate – they are only inviting apostasy… so the course is set.

The second post, however, is mind-bogglingly arrogant – too often the same folks who so love pre-born life don’t seem to be so in love if the life happens to be a Palestinian living in Gaza… or African living with AIDS.

9   Evan Hurst    
March 29th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

The second post, however, is mind-bogglingly arrogant – too often the same folks who so love pre-born life don’t seem to be so in love if the life happens to be a Palestinian living in Gaza… or African living with AIDS

oh, they don’t care at all.

that’s why we pro-choicers tend to view the political anti-choice movement with such disdain.

1. they deliberately mischaracterize our positions in order to put a veil over peoples’ eyes.

2. they are willfully disinterested in the unbiased research into which policies actually prevent abortions, and choose moral grandstanding instead.

3. their entire movement is based on straw man arguments against people and viewpoints which do not exist, for the most part. it’s right there in that post…the idea that anyone actually is FOR late-term abortions…pure idiocy.

i remember in 2004 many people voting for George Bush JUST because of abortion issues, because “John Kerry supports partial-birth abortions.” notwithstanding the fact that Bush obviously doesn’t even care about the issue, absent from the discussion was that so-called partial-birth abortions account for less than one percent of all abortions, and are ONLY performed in very extreme medical cases. also absent from the discussion was that John Kerry had supported a bill that would have banned all abortions past the point of fetal viability, of course with exceptions for the health of the mother, which would have banned FAR more than the “partial-birth abortion” amendment.

10   Evan Hurst    
March 29th, 2008 at 3:27 pm

bear in mind, i’m talking about the POLITICAL movement.

i’m saying nothing about peoples’ own moral beliefs, where there is far more agreement on both sides than people would ever admit.

11   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
March 29th, 2008 at 3:47 pm

I don’t think that characterizing someone who is unwilling to put their name on publicly posted material as cowardly is out of line.

Consider that:
1. It is acceptable to post an uncredited piece if it represents the view of the entire editorial board ala an editorial in a newspaper.
2. Ken has consistently refused to take responsiblity for the content of the posts by the editor.

Therefore, these are not editorials and do not represent the entire group’s opinion and so are posted anonymously. The only reason I can think of to post anonymously is because they’re too cowardly to put their own name on their work.

12   M.G.    
March 29th, 2008 at 3:53 pm

What about pro-life Democrats? Why can’t I be as rabidly pro-life as the next guy, yet also cognizant of a.) the immense hurdles of overturning Roe v. Wade in light of stare decisis, b.) aware that even if a. were to happen, it would still return abortion back to the states, having a limited effect on abortion and c.) the fact that basic macroeconomic factors have as much an effect on abortion rates as would a. and b. coming to fruition.

What if, also, my being pro-life means I’m, oh, not a big fan of invading other countries?

Just because I’m contemplating a vote for Obama doesn’t mean I’m bound on the next express train for hell.

Why are the ODMs absolutely incapable of nuance? Let’s discuss whether Justice Roberts’s views on judicial modesty would make him hesitant to overturn Roe v. Wade, and not why Obama=Satan.

13   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 29th, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Joe – I do not believe Ken, or Chris R., or Ingrid, or the others can be classified as cowards. I asked Ken once for the reason and now I forget what he said. I think he told me that if you e-mailed CRN they would disclose who posted it. I am not sure why they do it that way.

My conjecture is that it cuts down on comments on their personal blogs or that Ken writes the majority of posts. I used to think it was a big deal, however we can assume all of them agree with whatever post you’re referring to.

14   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
March 29th, 2008 at 4:00 pm

OK, so cowardly is subjective. To me (and evidently Tim) not putting your name on something is cowardly, to others not so much. I can live with that.

15   Neil    
March 29th, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Everything you say is true, I too believe it cowardly, and I’m not trying to censor you – I’m just say’n I would have made the point without addressing the personalities – just me…

I understand you pov – my initial comment above notwithstanding I’m thoroughly “anti-choice” as you say… yes I oppose a woman’s right to kill her baby…


16   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 29th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

M.G. – you make excellent points. You are right on the edge, now take a walk on the wild side (Lou Reed) and jettison voting once and for all! I think Obama seems like a nice and genuine guy. Sure liberal and on the wrong side of moral issues, but still seems much more genuine than the others. Not voting is the final step in spiritual maturity!!

I hate the race card, I hate it immensely.

17   Neil    
March 29th, 2008 at 4:04 pm

I miss Chris R., Pastorboy, Amy… and the dude that was ultra-masculine, or something like that…


18   Neil    
March 29th, 2008 at 4:09 pm

If Pastorboy supplied a little Scriptural evidence/support for his connection between voting pro-life and salvation the rant would be more believable.


19   Evan Hurst    
March 29th, 2008 at 4:09 pm

I understand you pov – my initial comment above notwithstanding I’m thoroughly “anti-choice” as you say… yes I oppose a woman’s right to kill her baby…

exactly. so am i, for the most part…

but it’s about nuance, and as i said, which policies are actually more effective in solving the issue, and all the evidence points to pro-choice policies being more effective at achieving the “pro-life” crowd’s aims than the “pro-life” policies.

and i refuse to use the term without quotation marks for the reasons that have been listed…the same people who are so rabidly “pro-life” switch into ignore mode once the fetus is born into its own personal hell.

it’s the same reason i roll my eyes when people use the term “pro-family.” it’s meaningless.

20   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
March 29th, 2008 at 4:15 pm

I find cowardice to be an action not a personality.

21   Brutus    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Junius_Brutus
March 29th, 2008 at 4:27 pm

people should generally own up to what they say and write.

in a previous life, the people i disliked the most were the unnamed , disaffected, disgruntled church member/choir member/board member/employee

it is cowardly not to own up to your own words and actions. even, if later, your words or actions make you out to be a first rate idiot/moron/or__________.

voting pro-life has nothing to do with “salvation”. very few people are actually pro-life and since we have not have a pro-life presidential candidate in my lifetime (50 plus years) it is a most meaningless standard. when a candidate opposes war, capital punishment, and all other things demeaning to life………..the i might be ready to listen to their pro-life rhetoric. until then………it is political posturing and nothing more.

22   M.G.    
March 29th, 2008 at 6:47 pm


The difficulty I have with your position is that there is no such thing as political withdrawal. To choice to withdraw is itself political, whether that occurs on the local, national, or international level.

In short, to use an example, Switzerland’s position in WWII is nothing to be proud of.

23   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 29th, 2008 at 6:57 pm

The disconnect in your analogy is that there is nothing with which to comare the church. And that is the core of the point, the body of Christ is not of this world and our calling is redemptive always and political never. Democracy itself was invented by the humanistic and idol worshiping Greeks.

If God thought highly of democracy would he not have governed His church with it? The church business meetings are fashioned after the secular government and not God’s Word and so many times politics is practiced within the church itself.

There is no such thing as “withdrawal” because we should never have entered in the first place so instead of withdrawal it should be called “repentance”.

Yes We Can!!!

24   M.G.    
March 29th, 2008 at 7:08 pm


I’m confused, then. You rail against democracy. What’s the solution? Are you an anarchist? Do you think Christians should move to a place beyond the jurisdiction of any nation? Antarctica? Space?

If we live under a nation’s laws, then the act of non-participation is itself political. What is your statement? What is it that you want?

25   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 29th, 2008 at 7:21 pm

Monarchy, democracy, republic, dictatorship, and all the other governmental systems of the world should elicit no particular preference from God’s church, we are a peculiar people, a royal priesthood, a chosen generation, and a holy nation whose calling is not of this world. I guess the government that most mirrors God’s kingdom is a monarchy, but we have no enduring city, we are earthly nomads whose life is hid with Christ in God.

We can trust in God’s care for us in any and every circumstance, but a good soldier does not get entangled with the affairs of this world. When the church gets infused with the governments of this world it will not be long before the gsopel morphs into an amalgam of psuedo-morality, conservative values, and some kind of Judeo-Christian appendage represented as a grand offspring from the spiritual mongrel called the “founding fathers”.

Like REM, “Oh no, I’ve said too much”. I am almost hated for saying things like that because they misinterpret my words to mean a hatred for America rather than an exhortation to the church to come out from among them and be ye separate.

26   M.G.    
March 29th, 2008 at 7:33 pm


I agree, wholeheartedly, with your points as they refer to the church. The church is a separate sphere, that should speak to political things but never ever embrace them.

On an individual level, however, we are all citizens of some nation or another and we all enjoy the fruits of good government or the poisons of an evil one. Which means we can never withdraw. A “political gnosticism” is as foolish as the real thing. We cannot escape our political communities anymore than we can escape our physical bodies. (Assuming of course you don’t live on Mars).

Another example: 1930s Germany. Legislation is passed saying all Jews must wear a star of David on their coats. Do you speak up, or do you not “get entangled?”

27   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 29th, 2008 at 7:44 pm

You do everything you can to help the Jews (The Hiding Place) and you pray and ask God to help us. Those are very difficult circumstances, MG, and the temptation would be to compromise. I do not question the courage of those evangelicals who spoke out and paid a price, I am just sharing what I believe is Biblical.

Those are times where the Spirit would speak expressly and the church would be praying and seeking God’s face to a much greater degree than we do now.

28   M.G.    
March 30th, 2008 at 12:27 pm


I guess my final point would be that the world, even today, is more like 1930s Germany than it is like your corner of the world. It’s a wonderful gift from your nation that you can declare that you’ll have no part of politics without any consequence. You don’t have to vote, you don’t have to protest, you don’t have to do anything… and the U.S. remains the oldest functioning democracy in the world with a written constitution. (Assuming you don’t count the Massachusetts constitution.)

But most of the world isn’t like that. Most of the world either doesn’t let its citizens withdraw or creates the kind of dilemmas where a failure to act is almost as evil as joining forces with the armies of darkness themselves. I don’t care if it’s China, Burma, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Belarus, North Korea, Russia, Colombia, Venezuela, Sudan, the Ivory Coast, or Iraq. There are many places in this world where I would consider a failure to participate in the political processes (or fight for fairer processes where none exist) would be grave moral error.

So, yes, withdraw, if you like. I consider it an act of indulgence, given to you courtesy of a stable democracy.

29   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 30th, 2008 at 1:46 pm

MG – I still reject the word “withdraw” in that we should neve have gotten involved. Involvement in politics always dilutes our trust in God and our faith in prayer and being a witness. It means joining with unbelievers and cults, and the only reason we see it as we do is because even in Christian schools we’ve been taught hyper-patriotism and political involvement.

I refer your attention again to China. God doesn’t need politics to use his church. But I resepct your perspectives, MG.

30   M.G.    
March 30th, 2008 at 2:58 pm

My use of withdraw I think is valid on an individual level but not, as you point out, in terms of the Church’s involvement with modern day political movements.

The reason is that from the second we are born, we enjoy the benefits of government. It is a blessing to live in a nation of laws, not of men. We take our roads, our education, the cleanliness of our food and water, our internal safety, and our freedom from invasion abroad for granted. We don’t stop to think that these things are not necessarily enjoyed by those around the world.

And so, to say to the political process “no thanks” is to make a choice to withdraw. And really, it should be consistent. If you think that entanglement with the government is without merit, turn your social security card in, your passort too, stop driving on public roads and visiting public parks. And if someone attacks your home, don’t call the police.

It all strikes me as a bit selfish to refuse to participate in the process that creates these goods, yet enjoy them nonetheless.

You are right that God uses the church to accomplish things wholly separate from politics. I just think that polotics is more like medicine. Something where you work with unbelievers to accomplish some good.

Christians can be doctors, right?

31   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 30th, 2008 at 3:12 pm

MG – Christians should be grateful to God for all those things, but remember, when the Scriptures were written there was no such thing as democracy. We are to honor the king, participation was never available.

Context, brother. Democracy is a Greek form of government where man thinks he rules himself. And the main thrust of any capaign is – you guessed it – the economy. Hedonism is so rampant inAmerica that the war is second. Men and women are dying (for a lost cause) and yet mortgage rates are #1.

You see, our priority is serving Christ and politics is a major distraction. Please do not receive my perspective as demeaning of yours, I just believe the church needs an awakening as to the abject uselessness of politics.

32   M.G.    
March 30th, 2008 at 3:41 pm


I suspect we agree more than we disagree. Nothing has been more damaging to evangelicalism than its identification with the Republican party. God is so much bigger than a political platform. Mark Noll has written some terrific things on this topic.

But, that being said, there is a difference between calling the Church to once again be a prophetic voice, speaking truth to power, and recognizing that an individual’s contribution to self-governance (or an individual’s fight against tyranny)can be a good thing. History is replete with those who have done evil, like Hitler, those who have good, like Wilberforce, and those who have who have been too ignorant or too cowardly to speak up when evil men do evil things.

There are opportunities everywhere to do some small good in public matters. And I think it’s pretty inconsistent to be treated by non-Christian doctors, type on a computer designed by non-Christian engineers, and have your taxes done by a non-Christian accountant, only then to turn around and speak of Christians who seek to do good on the public stage as getting entangled

You point out the flaws of democracy. That, to me, just means there is work for decent people to do. That’s not utopianism; like doctors who never will cure death, public servants who will never cure the human condition.

In the end, I’m grateful for good public servants. Like Jonas Salk, they do small things to make our world a better place!

Just think if our government got serious about Darfur… We could be saving lives right now.

33   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 30th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Your Darfur observation reveals the subjective selfishness of the American government. Do you believe if Canadians were dying like that the government would have reacted the same way? Why not? Because the government says openly they do everything which is in “the best interest of America”. That is not what the church should be joining with.

The tens of thousands that died in Durfur, Angola, Zimbabwe, and many others show both the sinfullness of nationalism, class elitism, and latent racism. None of these should be within the body of Jesus Christ.

34   M.G.    
March 30th, 2008 at 4:08 pm

You point out the vices of our government. I agree. To me, though, that means we contest, dissent, and engage, but never “join.”

Yes, we reap what we sow with Darfur. And if good people remain silent, don’t vote for candidates that care about such issues, don’t write to their newspapers, don’t give money to relief organizations, and don’t even try to fight against the powers that be…that just means that the blood will be on all our hands.

35   Pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
March 30th, 2008 at 5:15 pm


As to calling me anonomys, my name is on my post and on my blog. ‘E’ is the gutless one.
Also, I did not say that Obama is not a Christian because he does not vote pro life. It is that I cannot believe a Christian would vote for Obama because of his stands on abortion and stem-cell research, not to mention his racist pastor whom he obviously agrees with.

That being said, I did point out that his belief on who is going to heaven is the clear reason for many Emergents supporting Obama, creating what I call a link in the beliefs of Obama and Oprah, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Brian McLaren, and other universalists. BTW, I would make that same link to Bush, who has said repeadedly that Muslims and Christians serve the same God.

You all missed the point of the rant, and that is okay. I still think ‘E’ is gutless and hypocritical, he as much as left an anonomys post. I never have, I stand by what I write, even if you believe it is stupid, ignorant, whatever.

36   M.G.    
March 30th, 2008 at 5:57 pm


The thought that emergents would support Obama because theological beliefs is pretty nonsensical. What do his theological beliefs have to do with his fitness as president? Have you seen one writer mention his theology? And if pressed, wouldn’t Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and virtually any other major candidate say the same, politically correct line?

It seems more likely that some Christians are getting away from the pro-greed, pro-military violence, pro-racism Republican party. How Christians came to identify the cause of Christ with such things is beyond me.

37   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 30th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

“It seems more likely that some Christians are getting away from the pro-greed, pro-military violence, pro-racism Republican party.”

And they are going to the pro-greed, pro-military violence, pro-racism Democratic party. I’m decalring it an official tie!


“How Christians came to identify the cause of Christ with such things is beyond me.” Amen MG.

38   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
March 30th, 2008 at 6:16 pm

And they are going to the pro-greed, pro-military violence, pro-racism Democratic party. I’m decalring it an official tie!

Rick sums up how I feel.

39   Evan Hurst    
March 30th, 2008 at 9:48 pm

As to calling me anonomys, my name is on my post and on my blog. ‘E’ is the gutless one.

hahahaha, that was your blog?

it comes up as E because my e-mails come up as E Hurst.

here i am, bein’ all gutless again!

40   Evan Hurst    
March 30th, 2008 at 9:52 pm



hey, dude. read about the issues, learn about what the candidates actually represent, and spend a week studying which methods and policies ACTUALLY reduce the number of abortions, rather than parroting some right-wing pundit who doesn’t understand the issues either.

then come back and say something that makes sense.


for the record, that’s what i, first initial E, last name Hurst, said on the blog.

i actually even said in a comment above that i had posted…

and i didn’t “not” leave an e-mail address…it just directed me automatically through blogger/gmail, and said i was logged in.


i stand by what i said, too.

btw, i’ve studied Obama’s record on the Library of Congress website.

et tu?

didn’t t’ink t’o.

41   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
March 31st, 2008 at 7:53 am

An observation. Politics I view most of it as entertainment I think, first and foremost, that’s how it should be viewed. Don’t misunderstand me, I DO vote.

I see it here as I see it everywhere, one speaks up and thinks if only YOU would read what I read and watch what I watched, YOU would understand. Missing the point that maybe I have indeed viewed the same things that you have and have come away way with a different point of view. Funny how that works…….

42   Brutus    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Junius_Brutus
March 31st, 2008 at 10:06 am


you are so right.

we assume differences of opinion are because of a lack of information or out of ignorance.

granted, we are all shaped in certain ways by our environment and experience so we may naturally lean certain ways. (ie. growing up in a poor, welfare family gives me a different perspective than someone who didn’t, so my upbringing colors how i look at the world)

one of the great dishonors to a person is to assume they are ignorant, stupid, ill-informed, naive, brainwashed, retarded, moronic, etc (all the words we use to describe those who hold views opposing ours)

43   Neil    
March 31st, 2008 at 6:12 pm

And that is the core of the point, the body of Christ is not of this world and our calling is redemptive always and political never. – Rick

Pursuing God’s will “…on earth as it is in heaven…” can have some pretty political overtones.