UPDATE: See the first comment from April 5. Richard Abanes quotes a response that he got from Steve Blackwell regarding rudeness. Hats off to you, Mr Blackwell — your statements are the most asinine, convoluted, anti-Biblical, unChrist-like thing that I have ever seen, and make all ideas that “inspired” this post pale greatly in comparison.
This is actually a follow-up to this post. I was originally going to just put it in as an update to that post, but the idea started growing. Run for your lives!
While one silly assertion was enough to show me that Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) [sic] wasn’t worth my time/money, Dan Kimball waded through it and put up some thoughts here. (I guess a book in which you are one of the topics is somewhat required reading.)
If you haven’t read Dan’s post already, wanna know what the overwhelming theme was? Taking criticism graciously, actually listening to it, seeing if there is truth to be found there, and (if so) applying the truth to your life.
OK, now I’m about to use a very dirty four-letter word. I think it’s necessary to the context, but I just wanted to warn you.
One might actually get the impression from Dan’s post that he was being … (here it is, brace yourself) … NICE.
Of all the criticisms that I hear from the anti-emergents and their ilk, the argument that folks that disagree with them are “too nice” is the one that amazes and disturbs me the most. Sometimes the statement is direct; sometimes a bit oblique, but the underlying message is clear.
Case in point: Recently, I was involved in an online conversation in which an anti-emergent said something very ungracious. I called him on it, and his response was a sarcastic assurance that he heard my “heart-rending plea for unity”. Were we in the same room, I would not have been the least bit surprised if he had patted me on the head.
And therein lies the bigger issue. I chose to illustrate this post with a picture of Mr Rogers quite purposefully. For those in my generation and younger, who grew up watching Mr Rogers’ Neighborhood, the man certainly taught us to be nice. But far too many people have relegated niceness to that show’s demographic, as though that attribute was something that we eventually out-grew.
Yes, we hear your “heart-rending plea for unity”. Now run along, and let the grown-ups talk.
Are there times when we should not be “nice”? Certainly. Look at any one of Jesus’ confrontations with the Pharisees for an example. Or the un-KJV-sanitized version of what Paul was referring to when he said “Galatians 5:11-12" target="_blank">cut themselves off“.
Is it possible to sometimes try to be “too nice”? Certainly. I am reminded of Mark Driscoll’s comment when he was examining some people’s unwillingness to give any kind of input on certain topics (even ones that God made clear) by saying that “someone might get hurt”. Driscoll’s response? “Well, now you’ve just hurt God.”
But somewhere along the way, the thinking has become, “when I argue my point, the other person states that I’m ‘not being nice’, therefore (since I have no need to listen to critical input), ‘being nice’ is something that is to be avoided like the plague.”
By this “logic”:
- Since I sometimes disagree with the political moves that the NAACP makes, I should shoot the next black person that I see.
- Since charges of anti-Semitism among Christians are often specious, I should become a skinhead.
- Since some of the stances of NOW are ridiculous, I should beat my wife.
Ridiculous? Certainly. Is it the logical extension of this thinking? Just as certainly.
Want to do the exact opposite as your “enemy”? Well, I have it under good authority that Brian McLaren never goes to church naked.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
51 Comments(+Add)
Brendt…
I think you’re being too nice here…
But Breeeendt didn’t you read about Elijah and the prophets of Baal?
This sort of goes back to the anti “love wins” posts from a few months ago.
It still tickles my funny bone that the phrase “love wins” caused so much controversy.
Um…it does…love always wins…except in tennis.
Shalom
Yeah I wondered what all this hostility to nice was about, I heard a dozen people mentioning books and speakers against Christians being too nice. Which is funny because last I checked most of us tend not to be nice enough!
No reason we can’t speak the truth and be nice about it, no reason we can’t defend our faith, and be nice about it. Last I checked the two verses that power those ideas are followed by “..in love” and “..with gentleness and respect”, sounds like things being nice help with. If you have to be agressive and refuse to be nice to share God’s truth, it means you have no imagination and very little creativity to begin with.
The other slam I’ve heard against emergents that baffle me is that they are too “Christ Centered”. Since when is looking at Christ as our Lord and example a bad thing?!?!?!
“Nice” is the clandestine representative of the underlying and clearer word “compromise”. Some of us are way too sophisticated to fall for your pitiful attempts to set false goals for Christian behavior that bring in abominable heresies within the Trojan Horse of “nice”.
Make no mistake about it, I will punch directly in the face anyone who comes at me with “nice” thinking that I will buy whatever it is they’re selling. As far as “Christ centered” well, isn’t that obvious that brings with it an entire liberal agenda? We have you number and we refuse to be manipulated by “nice” and “Christ-centered”. In the words of the prophet Pete Townsend, “We’re not gonna take, never have and never will”.
Nice…cram it.
May nice end up in the lake of fire where it belongs along with death and hell. And please, that love thing? Keep it to yourself, it completely misrepresents any kind of orthodox truth and blinds the lost as to their need of a Savior. Love may even outdo nice in the liberal kaleidoscope of deception foisted upon unsuspecting sinners.
I still reject First John as a legitimate part of the canan.
I think Rick has taken to drinking coffee directly from teh pot again.
Although the results are funny and first degree burns of the tongue.
Help, my metabolism has run wild again. I just will never accept the notion that being, acting, and speaking like Jesus dilutes written doctrinal creeds. Jesus’ actions were many times somewhat of an enigma. The woman caught in adultery gets a compassionate exhortation and when Peter makes a well intentioned mistake he gets called “Satan”.
The entier carnal and sinful three ring circus is called the Church at Corinth. They were man loving idolaters (I’m of Cephas, I’m of Paul, they were making the Lord’s Supper a picnic, they were rampant in divorce, they were suing each other, they were commonly committing fornication, they rejected Paul’s apostleship, they were torturing spiritual gifts, some were saying “Jesus is accursed”, and they felt good about a guy living with his mother-in-law in sin.
And with ALL THAT, the guy living with his mother-in-law was the ONLY one Paul said to kick out of the church. Why? Why?? What could possibly be the reason for such liberal behavior toward such an ecclesiastical mess? The answer is found in chapter 13. Love covers a multitude of sins.
I believe we “fundamentalists” come far closer to the correctness of our systematic theology than we do the mirroring of our Savio’s life. And to our detriment, we have made those two things different issues.
I think this disturbs a lot of people. Grace bothers me sometimes, until I realize that I”m part of the rabble that was ushered into the family of God by it. You’ll hear heavy handed condemnation about how we must repent of all individual sins. Oh? If that’s the case I’m not sure that anyone can receive grace (not to mention the work implied in that theology).
We must always remember that Jesus Christ didn’t come to make bad men good, but to make dead men live.
Seems to be Rick and I speak a whole different language.
“Make no mistake about it, I will punch directly in the face anyone who comes at me with “nice†thinking that I will buy whatever it is they’re selling.”
Why does nice have to be tied to a trick or a ploy? Being nice is an act of humanizing the people you are talking to. It’s a gentleness and a respect, it’s a fruit of love. It’s being considerate and paitent. Nice doesn’t automatically equal fake, in fact if it is fake, then it’s not really that nice to begin with.
Also,
“I believe we “fundamentalists†come far closer to the correctness of our systematic theology than we do the mirroring of our Savio’s life”
Any systematic theology worth it’s salt demands a mirroring of our Savior’s life, if you can keep a systematic theology and not mirror the ways of Christ, then it’s an empty or dead systematic theology at best, and flat heresy at worst.
Apologies if you where joking Rick, I really couldn’t tell, I know too many people who believe those things int he every day and having only met you on the interwebs, I don’t really know what you are about.
Kevin – Read my comments again as a satire against people who have a problem with nice, love, and Christ-centeredness. I believe you will appreciate the spirit in which I wrote.
Good, I was hoping for that
I’m a little slow on figuring out motive on the internet
Kevin, your initial (mis-)interpretation of Rick’s comments as being serious don’t say that you are “a little slow”. It just bolsters my point of the state of some portions of Christianity that you would find his comments offensive, but not really surprising.
I recently confronted the rudeness of one so-called “WATCHMAN†(a real true “discernerâ€) named Steve Blackwell over at his blog. His answer, I must confess, even threw me aback. We are all in deep trouble. These people are now equating rudeness, mean-spiritedness, and nastiness with……drum roll please…… godliness! (I especially like the part about my god being effeminate
)
__________BEGIN STEVE BLACKWELL RESPONSE
Mr Abanes ask that I “provide the scripture that details where it is acceptable as a Christian to be rude.â€
Need I teach the famed researcher that God’s ministers were often accused of being rude, with harsh speech, and lacked refinement? Why was John accused of having a devil and Paul of madness? Since the religious men who harassed John and Paul knew Scripture they had only one recourse, and that was to attack the preacher. Their stance on the truth caused them to be labeled as divisive and trouble makers, and rude; they had no respect for the Devil and his ways.
If Mr Abanes rightly understood the fear of God he would not only be rude himself on occasions, but expect it from his own ministers. Need I remind him that it was the Lord that destroyed all of humanity in the flood; how rude was that? For a hundred and twenty years Noah preached to these people, in no uncertain terms, that they were dead men walking!
Abanes’ god is an effeminate god of universal love and compromise, always begging, and weak. Are we to be cultured gentlemen when dealing with the error coming out of the Church today.
As I said, it is too late for that now. . . . I will not apologize for being rude to Mr Abanes, but I will say that I am in good company with some of whom I do not deserve to share the stage. These that I speak of were uneducated, ignorant, uncultured, unrefined, course, rough, severe, tough, violent, and rude men, who had a real purpose, and it was not their own. There is a time and a season for all things, even rudeness.
Steve Blackwell @ http://indywatchman.wordpress.com
____________
Well, as the king often said in Amadeus, “There it is.â€
[ACCIDENTALLY ALSO POSTED IN THE ACTS THREAD -- oopsy]
Blessed are the meek… right?
Has anyone ever considered that not all of what the Apostles and Prophets did (that was recorded in Scripture) was good? Could God have recorded their poor and sinful behavior…like He does so many other times in Scripture?
Just a thought.
“If Paul jumped off a bridge, I’d do it too… it’s gotta be OK!”
Joe
Maybe we have to consider the overarching themes first…like Jesus’ new command…and His explanation of the Law in Matt.5….or Paul’s treastie on how “love” is the greatest command, the ultimate point of Christian existence…
And filter the rest through those greater Truths.
Joe
My point exactly, Joe. Narratives do not necessarily substantiate behavior. If Jesus had not rebuked Peter we all would have commended him for standing up for Jesus.
There are Puh-lenty of scriptures that describe exactly the kind of humble, gentle, loving spirit we are to have when ministering/witnessing to others. You cannot just point to overturning the table sin the temple and say, “See, Jesus was rude. We can be rude, too!” Absurd.
And, of course, simply noting the terrible things said about Paul or John and then equating their innocence with your innocence is just foolish. It begs the question, “Was it true about them?,” which has nothing to do with the obvious follow up question, “Is it true about you?”
I Peter talks about that whole “be ready to give an answer” thing in ch. 3, I believe. Too bad the “verse marker” obsessed types who use the texts as a list of numbered, “stand alone” aphorisms don’t read the next verse saying that answer must be done in gentleness.
Everyone wants to be Jesus overturning the tables but no one wants to be silent before his shearers. Yea the tables – no the receiving of spit. Yea the tables – no the going the extra mile. Yea the tables – no the foxhole. Yea the tables – no the rejection. Yea the table – no the acquainted with grief. Yea the resurrection – no the cross.
Beautifully said.
It reminds me of all the New Agers who believe in reincarnation and invariably they are reincarnations of Alexander the Great, King Richard, George Washington, or some inventor like Galileo or a scientist like Isaac Newton — or a brave Indian warrior (personally, I like that one).
I have yet to meet a New Ager tell me they are the reincarnation of a prostitute from England during Jack the Ripper’s day, or some poor no-name farmer in Medieval Europe who had no teeth and stunk to high heaven — then died in utter obscurity.
i had a name, you know. i wasn’t just “a prostitute.”
it was Perpetua.
That’s funny, I was Perpetualla.
Richard,
Wow, that blog entry is amazingly eye opening.
You’ve got Carla calling you a wolf, so I suppose that means you’re off to hell, you’ve got the first commenter claiming you’re wrong, its just that she can’t exactly explain why, and hten of course the indy watchman himself explaining why being a bore is Godly.
You’re an apostate!
OK, prove it!
I don’t have to, you prove you’re not!
What?
Are you talkin’ to ME?
I just want an answer to a specific.
Oh, you’re soooo sly.What.
Why am I an apostate?
Your debate skills are so accomplished, but they won’t save you!
Am I talkin’ to the wall?
See, he’s tryin to draw me in.
Please, just one dispassionate example.
OK, Arbanes, you’re dismissed. I claim victory and am waiting to receive the accolades of my fellow soldiers. Not even a scratch on me either. Sweeeeeeet!!
You want to see the absolute kookiest of all kooky blogs involving me?
There are some “discerners”who are now saying that I am trying to create a synthesis between Mormonism and Christianity! It all started here – with this blog that accused me of going SOFT ON MORMONISM.
To “prove” his point, this guy who started the whole rumor took one sentence from one of my books that he didn’t like and built a whole bizarre scenario around it.
But not only did he lift the sentence out of context, but he ignored the fact that whole book (a rather lengthy one) is actually AGAINST Mormonism and it refutes every major doctrine of the LDS Church? Say whaaaaaaahhh? It’s the kookiest thing I’ve ever seen.
All insane hell broke loose when another anti-Warrenite reposted the article at this blog.
If you can get past all the back and forth arguing about Ken Blanchard, the Mormon stuff starts with my post – richardabanes wrote @ April 1, 2008 at 2:49 am, that begins: “I just ran across the article by John Baker that you have decided to print here at your website. I would ask, since you are so interested in championing truth, that you PLEASE remove that slanderous article by Mr. Baker – IMMEDIATELY. It is a lie from beginning to end.”
By the end of the thread, where I had to bail out our lose my mind, I had been called every name in the book — including at the very end a “New” New Ager, in response to my bold and blatant condemnation of things they seemed to WANT me to believe. It is really, really, really, kooky. Get some popcorn before you read.
Richard – Is it true that Rick has taught Jewish and/or Mormon leaders about his form of church growth?
Why is it that any blog or post that begins with the word “true” as a modifier of a noun ends up being not true, and the exact opposite of a Christ-like attitude?
[b]Mormon[/b] = NO! NO! NO! Rumor. Gossip. It comes from a single line that appeared in a USA Today article. The explanation is as follows:
According to Brian Davis, Manager of Customer Care, Purpose Driven, no Mormons have ever been through any purpose driven pastor training or conferences or classes-according to all records. More importantly, Warren has never said that his programs “welcome†Mormons. His comments relate only to “denominationsâ€. The reference to “Mormons†(and “Jewsâ€) was actually the interpretation made by the USA Today of what Warren meant by “denominationsâ€. (And the was not in quotations as from a direct quote).
I learned this through several emails exchanged with Cathy Lynn Grossman on April 8, 2005 and a telephone conversation with her on April 27, 2005. The USA Today writer told me that she, quite innocently, penned her story for a secular media outlet using Webster’s definitions of “denominationâ€-that is to say, a “religious groupâ€.
It was she who who chose the denominations (or “religious groupsâ€) to list, believing they sounded best in the article. Warren himself did not say, and indeed, he is not quoted as saying, that he views Mormons, Jews, or both as simply other “denominations.â€
Rick Warren’s direct quote about Mormonism and other cults is as follows: “[The Apostle]Paul says that they were zealous but “their zeal is not based on knowledge.†That describes a lot of cults and religions today. A lot of Jehovah’s Witness are zealous without knowledge, and Mormons, [and] Moonies. Paul says they are zealous but they don’t really know the truth.†(Rick Warren “The Truth Is For Everybody,” part 26, n.d.; Rick Warren, “Discovering Life Mission,” CLASS 401)
>>>
>>>
>>>
JEWS: Yes, but with an explanation, as I see things — i.e., having ample documentation to prove that Warren preaches that the only way of salvation is in, and through, Jesus Christ ALONE (John 14:6).
First, I am only aware of three times that RW has spoken at Jewish functions, as follows:
Jan. 2006: Synagogue 3000
June 2006: Sinai Temple’s Friday Night Live
Dec. 2007 – Annual Reform Movement convention
I have not spoken to Rick about these appearances (much like I haven’t spoken to him about the billions of other places he has preached, taught, or done interviews). And, TBH, I am not sure what he was doing there, or what his motivation was for attending these places. There is NO information to go on (I have no full transcripts of what was said).
What we DO know, however, is precisely what he believes regarding salvation — i.e., it is through Jesus Christ alone. See these links:
http://abanes.com/cross_sin_hell.html
http://abanes.com/warrenessentials.html
http://abanes.com/repent.html
http://abanes.com/Warren_Doctrine.html
In apologetics/discernment, you do not throw out what is PLAIN, in favor of what is obscure or UNCLEAR. That would a bad way to do apologetics. (This could develop into a full-blown teaching in itself about HOW to properly discern and do apologetics. Hmmmmm.)
So, we have some very plain/bold statements from Warren on salvation, and many teachings from him in many places that make his views of salvation crystal clear (the most recent teachings being this last week at Saddleback, see mp3 clips link I have already given).
So, whatever he is doing with Jews is somehow going to have to fit into that paradigm of his — unless his paradigm has changed in a few weeks. His paradigm, however, has not changed.
Now, as for my theories. Rick does everything for a reason. And if I were to make a guess, I would guess that he is somehow seeing it as a back door to Christian evangelism. A seriously subtle BACK DOOR since one of the most hostile communities to Christianity is Judaism. He might feel that if people can at least come from an atheistic world view into a theistic world view, then the next step is the Christian world view. (There are a LOT of Jewish atheists out there who would be far more inclined to going back to synagogue, than going to a Christian church).
Warren MIGHT be thinking that if he can get them to a synagogue, then maybe he can eventually get them into a church (or some Christian who they meet can get them into a church).
Just my musings. But I think my thoughts are based on knowing Rick and how Rick does things. His over-arching reason for just about EVERYTHING is evangelism — which was something he inherited form his #1 mentor, his father, Jimmy Warren.
Personally, would I have taken such an approach without some official, clear, explanation, or some measure of qualifiers? No. But I am not Rick Warren.
People have nothing better to do but to feel important to Jesus by ‘defending Him’ for Him…
which basically means acting nothing like Jesus Christ and doing the opposite of Ephesians 4:29.
As long as you can get a chuckle out of it I suppose, Richard. I suppose you’ve tried reasoning with these people already…what else can you do now but chuckle?
Joe
Richard,
have you seen this guy?
Now these guys have got some serious issues!
LOL!
iggy
Putting the “I” in I told you so!
Thank you, Richard, for taking time to explain. To be honest I was somewhere in the middle of believing the reports. I have been deflated by some interviews and panel discussions I have seen, but that is not for discussion here because I can’t seem to unbutton my “nice” jacket.
Rick
Poor poor Mr Abanes, He is just treated so mean!
Give me a break will you!
Mr Abanes is the last person in the world who should be pointing the finger about being rude!
If he cant shut someone up, he becomes an attack Dog, thn you really see mean and rude!
Whats wrong Mr Abanes? You cant get any traction on the Discernment web sites so you come to the one place where you might get some sympathy with your fellow Hypocrites.
the CRN info guys like you will never get it, you cant point fingers at others when you become an attack dog yourself!
At least the Dscernment Web Sites are doing what they do for a valid reason i.e. Defending God’s Word, You (Mr. Abanes) and the CRN info guys are defending what? Umm lets see, for the CRN info guys so they can be luke warm i.e. not really stand for anything in particular, and for you Mr Abanes, so you can mangle and pervert the Truth!
Mean and Rude, Sorry I just have to shake my head at that!
And Mr Abanes as far as your book, it is what it is, a soft pass on Mormonism meant to try and get Evangelicals and Mormons to “group hug” and then sit down and “dialogue” after all in YOUR words false religions do have some “truth” to them.
john,
I will even say you have not one clue as to true biblical discernment. Caught a biblical clue and leave it to truly Spirit filled believers.
I. Todyaso
Weeeee – you guys will not believe how Brendt was just answered about rudeness over at this guy’s blog who says we are to be rude to people in the name of Jesus. Very, very illuminating. WOW!
Case and point my friend is that this astroid you wrote about that hit is 3123 BC would have to have returned and hit the earth again around 1898 B.C. to be the one that hit Sodom and Gomorrah… any real biblical student would have seen that a mile away…
Go study yourself approved… then say you have real discernment.
Because,
I. Todyaso
Iggy’s gonna have to work reaaaal hard to parody that.
Dear John,
I assume this is John Baker, the spreader of “true discernment” who is continuing to claim that i am seeking to form a synthesis between Mormonism and Christian in the face of:
1. My book “Inside Today’s Mormonism,” which you misrepresent UTTERLY, since it is a book AGAINST all of Mormonism and is a refutation of every major LDS doctrine;
2. My own condemnations on various blogs of Mormonism as a false religion, and my testimony to you that I am NOT seeking any kind of synthesis with Mormonism.
3. My articles against Mormonism at my website that is readily accessible to anyone; and
4. My reputation as a staunch critic of Mormonism not only among Mormons, but among dedicated Mormon ministries, including Sandra Tanner’s Utah Lighthouse and Bill McKeever’s Mormonism Research Ministries.
You, my dear friend, John I think, if possible, need to apologize to me and retract your false statements about me and my book “Inside Today’s Mormonism.”
———
J: He is just treated so mean! Give me a break will you!
RA: How I am treated is far less important than how you are acting. I know that as a Christian i will be persecuted for speaking the truth to others — but I am more concerned about your willingness to look truth in the face and spit at it, than I am about my own feelings. And you do it under the guise of defending the faith. Not cool. And not biblical.
——–
J: Mr Abanes is the last person in the world who should be pointing the finger about being rude!
RA: If you can show me a “rude” comment, I will certainly look at it. And try to see where you’re coming from, but it seems that you equate “rude” with me simply saying you are wrong, and you are lying, based on the facts. Please do produce some rude comments, as I said, and I will take a look at them.
———–
J: If he cant shut someone up, he becomes an attack Dog, thn you really see mean and rude!
RA: First, I have NO desire to shut anyone up. What I want is for people to actually start talking to each other, rather than attacking and lying about each other. There is a difference. By all means – talk as much as you like. I applaud that — thank God for the Internet and freedom of speech. Just tell the truth.
——————
J: You cant get any traction on the Discernment web sites so you come to the one place where you might get some sympathy with your fellow Hypocrites.
RA: Hmm. And you don’t consider that right there to be rude? Interesting.
——————
J: Defending God’s Word,
RA: These so-called discernment sites are defending nothing except their own agendas to pick out targets and attack – despite truth, despite facts, despite biblical instructions on discernment and correcting errors of others. There is a lot of repentance that needs to take place, and you would be a good individual to start the ball rolling, IMHO. Since we have clear proof — i.e., the contents of by book — that you have not only lied, but slandered a brother in the Lord.
———————-
J: And Mr Abanes as far as your book, it is what it is, a soft pass on Mormonism meant to try and get Evangelicals and Mormons to “group hug†and then sit down and “dialogue†after all in YOUR words false religions do have some “truth†to them.
RA: ROFL ROFL ROFL — You haven’t even read it!! ROFL. It is one of the THE most thorough, up-to-date refutations of Mormonism in print — go ahead call some ministries to Mormons in UTAH, or wherever, go ahead — call em John. Try Ex-Mormons for Jesus. Try anybody. That book soft on Mormonism?? Hardy har har.
i’m going to share a short personal story, recent in origin.
since you haven’t had the benefit (and i do mean benefit) of dialoguing with me over the last couple of months, i’ll briefly bring you up to speed: i’m a 27-yr-old gay man, who until recently was very harsh in my view of the church, due to past scars inflicted. as to my spiritual beliefs, they’re complex, but i’m not “confused.” the real problem has been that some of my harsh view of the church extended to Christians in general. however, i stumbled upon this place, because Peter LaBarbera, that beacon of bigotry, was all mad and stompy about something Nathan had posted. i ended up sticking around.
i haven’t had a decent conversation with my mother, where we actually “communicated,” in almost ten years, since i came out. the relationship has been one of mutual destruction, honestly, though our motives weren’t bad. we just couldn’t hear each other.
i picked up the phone about six hours ago, out of nowhere, and called her. we hadn’t spoken in a month and a half, though we live in the same city. we hung up thirty minutes ago. we actually spoke to each other as human beings, we shared, we listened…actually listened…to each other. we cried. we still disagree about things, but that’s okay.
maybe God led me here, to this “heretical” place to start teaching ME how to have more grace toward people, and to stop assuming the worst when i hear the word “Christian.” maybe God led me here to see that conversation, deep or shallow, is possible with people with whom i disagree about (some) things. maybe God led me here to remind me that we are ALL children of God, and that “us vs. them” isn’t a valid paradigm, unless we all just want to hurt each other.
at the end of the conversation, we talked about how we had both been abused by the church where we went, how they had shunned not only me, but HER, because i’m gay. instead of reaching out with loving open arms, reaching out with Christ, to our entire family, they shunned us. they were too concerned with “discernment,” with perfect Reformed Doctrine, with keeping up appearances, basically, and tending to the needs of those they considered “elect.” it was eye-opening.
so if the people who post here are Hypocrites, i pray God i never meet a “discerning Christian.”
Evan,
I can see that as I know God lead me through the desert of legalism in the past to to find His Grace.
BUT, please do not take that to mean God wants you there forever.
I do care, I never mean to state anything that is hurtful towards you. I just know God has what is best for us.
So, learn… then return to teach others the compassion you learned in your sufferings.
Be blessed,
iggy
well, i wasn’t directing that at you, Iggy…
b/c you’re not a hypocrite.
I share cuz i care… = )
haha
“You, my dear friend, John I think, if possible, need to apologize to me and retract your false statements about me and my book “Inside Today’s Mormonism.â€
In the words of Adlai Stevenson, “I’m prepared to wait until hell freezes over!” (United Nations 1962)
John and men like him have some important perspectives which need to be heard and understood, the church always needs correction and especially in the age of information. But the aggressiveness and uncomfortable ambiance with which they dialogue usually renders any productive exchange as impossible.
Grace and truth, strength and humility, these are the challenges in our day. Many of us feel someone like Rick Warren exhibits grace while needing to receive more truth to guard against compromise. But when packaged in an invective laced rant that seems more for the consumption of the like minded than an honest appeal, then it all breaks down because RickWarren will not hear and those on the other end use both his deafness and their verbiage to fortify their already grandiose self view as truth warriors.
Amidst the sadness of the utter echo chamber, it is sometimes comical. But someone like Rick Warren has such power to influence millions, so his associations can never be considered casual, he must do some critical and unpleasant research. We Arminians must temper our expansive outreach with some real discernment lest we draw converts to our well organized plan and not a new birth experience in the Lord Jesus. It is a sobering and daunting task of eternal importance.
Richard,
I really agree with Ricks comments. And with yours. These people do have their own agenda and even when faced with clear concise statements, still find a way to make reconciliation null and void. In fact that is the issue, they not interested in the biblical mandate to reconcile, only to unite under their own brand of whatever reformed theology they think they agree with… which is hysterical as none of the reformers really even agreed with each other and fought between themselves… so as they fight against one tradition, cling to with their very lives their own.
Man made as much as the ones they attacked…
Really, outside of taking the high road or taking the low road and suing them all for deformation, I see that there is a time that one must leave room for God’s wrath… yep that very wrath they speak of is heaping up against them… they fulfill Romans 2 to a tee… and consider God’s kindness something to despise…
I see that they need our prayers and our pity more than our ears…
iggy
IGGY: … people do have their own agenda and even when faced with clear concise statements, still find a way to make reconciliation null and void.
RA: Oh, yeah, understood. But I always try to go as far as possible, in hope, in belief, in trust, pushing pushing pushing, saying everything 10 different ways, believing that at some point the truth will break through. And I think it kind of amazes me what I see. To show someone the absolute color white, and they say it’s black. To say the word “cat” and they claim I said “dog.” It’s actually somewhat fascinating how the human mind and darkened soul can work together to be utterly, totally, and intractably blind to even the most simple things. God must be love (1 John 4;8) to want to have anything to do with us.
Usually when you say cat they will say you said “kitty” which is contextualization. Some experts at arguing can sometimes only elicit frustration so I choose my exchanges carefully, everywhere.
Richard,
Sometimes though you are just casting pearls before swine…
That is why I sort of gave up with some and went to satire…
= )
The only good thing I have found with people like John and that other guy is that they push me a bit to really look at myself and who and what it is they are at odds against. Most the time it is so petty it is not even worth bothering about, other times one can only conclude they have missed the truth or exchanged it with their own version and have been given delusion in its place. To that they can only see what they will and no matter how much we try they can’t see it any other way. Pride is sin… bit as spiritual as can be, God resists the proud and give grace to the humble… so that is why we must approach them with humility knowing we also have our own “things” like them…
As far as dog and kitty… some have never really seen a dog… only the dog of their own vain imagination… so without knowing Truth, being Jesus, one can call anything true. If one has not experienced God’s love, then they cannot love.
Anyway, my prayers are with you…
iggy
You know, there is that prophet in the Old Testament who lied to the young prophet to get him to turn back when God told him to go strait. God ended up killing the young prophet, maybe we can start lying to people?