I have a more straight-forward thanks to Ingrid. She’s the one who “introduced” me to Mark in the first place.

I’ll be starting Death by Love this weekend.

Brendt,

I have to thank her for primarily introducing me to Rob Bell. I can’t wait until I’m done reading Bishop Willimon so I can rush out and get Velvet Elvis.

I understand fully what you are saying. Sometimes God works in mysterious ways.

jerry

Christian,

I agree. I wish Slice would stop talking about it too.

jerry

Regal
Emissaries
Mocking
Nonorthodox
Apostates
Needing
Trouncing

I continue to believe Ingrid is obsessed with what the gays are doing. Like a hungy man rummaging through your garbage cans, she seems to seek out ever corner of sin with a special interest in homosexuality.

http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/obamanations/homosexuals-plan-unprecedented-partying-at-inaugural/

I love these statements:

“God is allowing this to be unleashed because of America’s rebellion and the wickedness within His own church.”

This just in – America BEGAN in rebellion and has never looked back.

Also:

“For more information, see Peter LaBarbra’s AmericansforTruth.org website. I cannot link to his site here because of the content.”

So she gives and recommends the website, but she cannot link there because of the content. Someone please tell me the moral difference between giving the website address and linking? In reality, it is a self righteous mirage in one’s own mind.

BTW – there a few gays in a bath house in San Francisco right now, let’s investigate. I do not care what sinners are doing, my calling is lifting up Jesus to all sinners. Being obsessed with the sin of others is the height of self righteousness. She loves using unproductive terms like “Sodomite orgy”, instead of “needy sinners”.

If Ingrid is so concerned about the gay party, who doesn’t she organize a Christian group to go to the inauguration and hand out tracts, provide rides for drunken gay party goers so they do not drive drunk, and pray and exhibit the redemptive love of Jesus Christ. I would be willing to be a part of that even at the expense of my health.

A constant stream of condemning placards about the gay community is unchristian and in fact is a form of voyeuristic recreation.

it’s not just that one issue, Rick.

It’s everyone else’s sin, perceived or real, that all the imams have an unredemptive fixation on.

Nary a word about the cure…only the disease.

Yeah, that’s the “doctor” I’d want to see.

Can you imagine if you went to a doctor and all she did was go on and on about the spread of your cancer, the intricacies of how exactly it is growing and destroying your body, the molecular composition of the tumors, but never spoke of the hope that, even in the midst of difficult treatment, you have the opportunity to be healed, to live, to flourish?

Having watched people in the fight against cancer up close, I can say that they didn’t care about the details….they just wanted to be given relief from pain and a cure.

they can dress it up all they want about “it’s loving to tell the truth” etc. etc.

all I see is one word:

heartless.

#12 NC
Just as heartless and fruitless (using your illustration) would be to forcefeed a miracle cure for a disease the patient does not know he or she has.

We need a balance; there are many who are unconvinced of their sin and their need for a Savior. This is in large part because the church has become wimpified and unwilling to address sin in hopes of a wider mercy of God to save unrepentant sinners. (see Universalism, seeker sensitive, Emergent)

At the same time, I agree with Rick. It is fruitless to castigate unrepentant sinners from afar. Just as ineffective, however, is to sit around and do nothing, and not warn them. What Rick offered is the Biblical response: have enough compassion to go to these places and warn them if you are truly concerned.

For this same reason, I am going to Spring Break 09 in Panama city Florida: to warn people about the consequence of sin, and to invite them to have their sins forgiven in Jesus Christ.

PB,

honestly, when you say things about “emergents” not being willing to address sin, I don’t know what you’re talking about.

In my church planting days our church was relationally connected with alot of the “emergent village” folks before there was an “EV”…was basically an emerging church before people started calling them that and there was no failure to name sin as a reality and a problem.

Consistently this is the charge…I don’t see it playing out.

This charge has always fascinated me and many others (Andrew Jones, for example).

I don’t know where the idea comes from…it doesn’t reflect my real life experience within the reality and relationships that make up the emerging church.

I see the naming of sin going on all the time.
And I’m doing it and have always done so.

baffling…

as far as “many being unconvinced of their sin”…

I don’t see that either.

If anything we worked with communities and groups that were acutely aware that they were pretty screwed up, that they continue to screw up and have screwed themselves…

always talking about regret and wondering why they always seem to do the wrong thing.

I think that’s a great entrance into conversations.

The supposed rejection of “sin” as a problem may occasionally be found in the mouth of some, but I think many of the caricatures of the culture from some pulpits have little to do with where many people live anymore…

I’ll admit, my current grad school setting would be characterized as “liberal” and in 2 years I haven’t heard people shrink back from naming sin.

In fact, my ethics professor just devoted a significant portion of her recent lecture to the problem of moral relativism.

I think what people need to admit is that the move to say “you don’t take sin seriously” is a rhetorical strategy to neutralize your opponent.

It’s dishonest.

Just because somebody doesn’t believe being gay is wrong doesn’t mean they’ve written off the idea of “sin” etc. etc.

they just disagree with you on that point. To then go to this “big picture” abstraction about sin is a classic strategy to marginalize a voice instead of really grappling with the complexities of ethical/theological reasoning with others.

Just because somebody doesn’t believe being gay is wrong doesn’t mean they’ve written off the idea of “sin” etc. etc.

No, but they have written off that God’s Word is valid today in our context and culture.

And by allowing them to serve as leadership it is a tacit approval of their chosen lifestyle.

That goes for all sin, which it is why it is very important to screen leadership VERY carefully.

but if you’re a greedy, gossipy, angry, self-righteous ass you’re pre-eminently qualified for the board.

Maybe in some churches, but in none that I have been involved in…except one…and that fellow, for being greedy, gossipy, and frankly an ass was asked to leave.

I think you are building a strawman, here. Remember, there are a lot of tares among the wheat, nathan.

Does anyone get to be healed in this church? Does anyone get to experience restoration and the flourishing of the life of JEsus in them, using their gifts and participating in the life of the church.
Some people didn’t care…all they saw was a problem to be rejected, not a person who was growing and becoming like Christ through deep pain and facing the fallout of their sin.
This is the stance I take in dealing with things “in the midst”…standards on sin are great, but the murky complexities of how it plays out as we actively care for those in the middle of the mess only looks simple to self-righteous pricks or the downright lazy.

i would hope so, and that is unfortunately not true in enough churches. we do hold on to sin, when we are really called to the ministry of reconciliation and restoration.

There needs to be a time period, an observation period to return to ministry, I think. But during that time, we should be making every effort to restore those folks and build them up so they will not stumble again.

Churches are full of broken people that have admitted they are broken. Unfortunately, there are also those who are broken, but think that they are completely fixed by their good deeds. These modern-day pharisees wreck the mission and the purpose of the church.

I think just as insidious, NC, would be to not be willing to take the risk to confront sin so that people can be restored- no confession, no repentance, then nobody can get restored! What do you think?

I think just as insidious, NC, would be to not be willing to take the risk to confront sin so that people can be restored- no confession

I agree…I just don’t think this isn’t happening or being out right rejected on the scale people claim

Or -

I decide that God’s calling for me is to spread gossip and dissention set up a ‘discernment’ ministry and maliciously attack bring pastors I disagree with to repentence.

I take scripture very seriously – I just don’t come to the same conclusions on this point…

What kind of churches are these?

I will not name them specifically, but they are emergent village types, yes.

of course, village should not be spelled with an extra “i”.

Actually, my dig at you Chris, was unnecessarily inflammatory.

I could have invited you to a different mode in a better way.

I apologize.

BTW… I see the fruit of this balance in so many ODM’s

They speak the truth and use lies to do it.

They claim they love others, yet slander others in their love.

They claim grace, yet in actuality teach works righteousness.

iggy

You are using this out of context of the conversation.

There needs to be a balance in confronting sin with the offer of grace. Most people caught in sin are very satisfied with their position. It is not until they understand that their sin will bring judgement and that their sin has offended God will they be ready for the cure.

The balance in the presentation is all important; if people are not aware of sin, and how God views it, they cannot (or will not) repent. So we must be willing to present both sin and judgement with mercy and grace. And we cannot sit in an ivory tower and share our opinions about others without being willing to actively engage the people who need the message.

I assume you extend charity to your egalitarian or complementarian brothers and sisters who have come to a reasoned conclusion with the texts of Scriptures.

I do – as I believe that particular issue has a number of (sometimes competing) cultural issues at work, and that you can arrive at a few places on the spectrum of belief via solid scholarship. As you know, I do have a position on the issue of complementarianism/egalitarianism I will vigorously defend (and defend quite testily when someone tries to elevate it as a ‘denial of equal rights’ or some such nonsense). At the same time, I don’t see churches with a more egalitarian position as anathema.

You know there’s a world of difference between people “feeling” something and the work of trained scholars who have struggled deeply with the theological, contextual, linguistic issues that present in a text.

It’s kind of like my senior pastor is fond of saying – “Sincerity has become a cardinal virtue. And while sincerity is a good thing, it is quite possible – and all too common – to be sincerely wrong.”

To this date, I know of no serious biblical scholarship (with one aspect of such scholarship being a lack of foregone conclusion – eisegesis – headed into the fray) that de-classifies homosexual practice as sin. In fact, I’d say that the scholarship in support of egalitarianism (which I tend to disagree with) is light years ahead pro-homosexual practice “scholarship”. In fact, one of the most scholarly works I’m familiar with on the question of egalitarianism (the one Bell referenced in MHBC’s decision to allow female elders) comes to the opposite conclusion on homosexual practice, seeing it as a cross-cultural prohibition. The closest-to-scholarly paper I’ve read in support of homosexual practice not being a sin noted up front that you must consider Paul to be mistaken in his teaching and the OT Law to have no bearing whatsoever in guiding sexual morality in order to support his conclusion.

So, to make that particular issue one of Rodney King theology just doesn’t fly…

Lying is wrong, but we don’t freak out when people lie to save another’s life. OR kill if they even perceive a threat to their life.

And I can point you to the biblical justification for each, along with the section of oral law Jesus supported (with the Parable of the Good Samaritan) exactly those choices. The only sins you were prohibited from committing in defense of an innocent life were idolatry and sexual immorality. Thus, lying to prevent the taking of innocent life (like Rahab with the Hebrew spies) or killing in self-defense (or defense of another innocent life) were not counted as sins.

The balance in the presentation is all important; if people are not aware of sin, and how God views it, they cannot (or will not) repent. So we must be willing to present both sin and judgement with mercy and grace. And we cannot sit in an ivory tower and share our opinions about others without being willing to actively engage the people who need the message.

I fully agree…

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about, from Kamp Krusty…

PB,

Again… not one verse stated “balance”… and it is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict someone… not our job.

In fact, when we confront sin… we are not to use the Law… but gentleness…

Also, to stay in fear… does not negate wrath… it is Love that negates wrath… so to lead someone to fear does not bring them to perfection in Christ… it may make them aware of God…

But still I was lost as could be and very aware of God… and so many other people are to…

Again, you turn to the Law to balance Grace? They are not equal at all and there is no balance. Wrath is not the balance of grace… justice is… to use the Law as balance then God needed to just be just and we are all lost. Grace is not the balance of wrath…

Think of this… how balanced is this.

Romans 5: 18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

Yet even more, your understanding of the Law is rather lacking as sin was here well before the Law… It is not the Law that reveals our sin… it adds to our sin.

Romans 5: 19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. 20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The Law was not purposed to convict us but to add more judgment to us…. Again, you are also relying on the Law to do the job of the Holy Spirit.

Your view of the rich young ruler is also missing that it was not that the man was to go through the moral law… but to give up all (wow such balance) to follow Jesus.

Even your last statement shows that you are missing the point… there is no balance… if it is impossible for us, but possible for God. If there was a true balance then we could do the impossible ourselves… by doing works to balance out the sin and wipe away death.

So, you have proven my point. Sadly you misunderstand the laws purpose and the power and working of the Holy Spirit… in fact you make the Law do His job.

iggy

Chris L,

thanks for your response.

I wonder if you’ve read any work that deals with the philological issues–especially with respect to NT texts?

I don’t see those as eisegetical so much as a real reasoned basis on which to argue a different understanding of those prohibitions.

It was philological arguments that clinched by move to egalitarianism.

My actual point is that we are on shaky ground when we make automatically make broad sweeping claims about the inner disposition of people–”people don’t take sin seriously” or “have rejected the authority of scripture”–in response to what we believe to be mistakes or incorrect conclusions.

THAT is what I’m really getting at. Again, I clearly haven’t done a good job of making the point.

I still think some of you here need to really take stock of the fact that you have some kind of need to cast things in just that light right out of the gate.

For the record, i would guess that we probably agree about the presenting issue…but that’s not really the issue to me, nor is it the lightening rod/litmus test that it has clearly become for some.

peace

Rick…

The ministry of seeking, finding, and exposing the sin of others is headed by the senior pastor called Satan.

Ouch… agree with it but ouch! If it be done by anyone other than the Holy Spirit that is.

iggy

Ingrid is never better than when she’s going on about sex. Even ridiculing the Christiannymphos website. I visited the site. It was pleasantly interesting. Married people enjoying sex. But I guess in Ingridland, you’re not supposed to enjoy it too much. Ingrid is preggers (there’s an image I’d rather not have burned in to my brain), but i’m sure the procedure was executed in a clinical and efficient manor. None of that wacky nympho stuff for her. And certainly, with a minimum of fanny shaking. On the other hand, maybe she’s really a middle-aged tigress after all. Ingrid the dominatrix…whipping her man in to submission. Yeow!

Actually I reported the claim that a listener to her show stated she said she had “morning sickness”…

Now… did she actually lie to me in her claim she was not preggers!

iggy

Actually, I’m wondering…

What’s the big deal about this pregnant vs. not pregnant thing?

Who cares if she is or not?

How does it matter?

That’s what I’m trying to get at…

I just don’t get why it matters…and on the other side, why did ADM’s apparently get offended by it?

What’s the big deal?

I also reported that Richard Abanes was Preggers and he did not deny or confirm it. He just laughed.

iggy

Iggy,

None of that as anything to do with the OP. The statements that were made are a swipe at Ingrid. Regardless of Kenn saying it or you confirming it does little to engender “profitable speech”.

We at this site are different because we hold each other accountable, call each other to a higher standard, and apologize when we are wrong. In that I feel we are more consistent than others.

Sorry if you disagree but we do try.

I am pretty sure we should move on and avoid that subject in the future.

nc – there is no argument. We have stedfastly attempted not to remark about people personally. (weight, hair, personal problems, etc.) In that light, no one here actually believes Mrs. Schleuter is pregnant and any remarks about that issue are inflamatory and inappropriate. This is not the first such discussion but let us make it the last.

Case closed.

There is history to the subject, let us leave it at that.

Back to the subject:

“God is allowing this to be unleashed because of America’s rebellion and the wickedness within His own church.”

If that is true, and if we can say that with complete authority, then why would we criticize it? In Hebrews it tells us that who God loves He corrects, but where in the New Testament does it say that God will use gay orgies etc. to correct His people?

And Paul (Hebrews) tells us that chastening always seems grievous and we should endure it. How many backsliders feel convicted about gay behavior and make a chastening connection? They don’t even care about their own behavior much less what will go on in a hotel in Washington.

The whole supposition is absurd and Biblically unsound.

If you are interested, Mark Driscoll has a blog entry up dated Jan 15 where he says:

“This week we also saw our web traffic explode with more visits and downloads than ever. That was likely due, in part, to a lot of media attention. People have asked me how I feel about it, and to be honest I have not even looked at a host of recent media coverage; I figured that since “Driscoll” is the Greek word the New Testament uses for “piñata,” it is more of the same old, same old.”

Apparently Dateline and Nightline called as well and may do some TV interviews.

We went shopping today for our daughter’s first school year. After spending some hours in the shops and malls I was in foul mood. All that spending of money and crowds is just not for me. (I sure hope heaven is spacious, and the new earth bigger that this one… ) Walking passed the magazine stand my eye caught the one thing I hate more than the malls – the People magazine. It is full of celebrities’ worst moments. All gossip from cover to cover. People like to read it to feel better about themselves. While reading about famous people whose thin veneer of pretend to be ok came off people feel better about their own mess. As long as Britney and Kate’s mess is bigger than mine I’m ok. The problem is it still doesn’t solve any of those messes. CRN, Apprising, Slice, Extreme Theology, DefCon is just Christian versions of People magazine. As long as the celebrities of Christianity are shown to be sinners our sin doesn’t seem such a problem. In fact, the more the writer can be seen more pious in comparison the better. I decided to stop reading the ADM’s so I guess I’ll stop commenting about what they write as well… Let’s see how long this resolve lasts. (I have been known not to stick to decisions, sigh)

For the record…I like Driscoll.

I like them too:

They’re wonderful examples of how not to be.

“I like Driscoll”.
“I like Paul Washer”.

Have you ever heard of schizophrenia?

I’m with John on this one.

“I like Driscoll”.
“I like Paul Washer”.

I like Rick.

“I like Rick.”

Strong delusion.

Here is a comment from Ingrid about praying for Obama’s failure:

“Joseph Farah, I, and millions of other believers are praying for the failure of Barack Obama in his attempts to widen access to child-killing in abortion clinics, grant full legitimacy to homosexual relationships through civil unions, and establish a socialist economic system in this country.”

Please not two glaring items in this sentence, one stated and one missing. The one stated is Ingrid includes a “socialist economic system” in the same category as abortion and homosexuality. Could there be anything less Biblical and more western?

Secondly she includes no call for prayer for Barak Obama redemption, or even protection for his family. According to her he is just a baby killer, not a needy sinner for whom Jesus died.

Do you remember when Jesus elevated the sin of adultry by teaching that our thoughts about other women are still adultery? Let us talk about baby killing. Abortion is murder and should be outlawed, but lest we feel smug about our pro-life stance let us elevate that sin in this:

There are children all over the world who are starving to death, many of them in countries where they can be reached. So what excuse do we have when we throw out good food, eat more than we should, and spend outrageous amounts of money for all sorts of things with nary a care of dying children – and these children are already born.

So before we cast the stones at sinners, lift up the unpleasant mirror to our own lives.

82…to drive it home…

let’s remember too that Jesus said to hate someone is to commit murder.

So…if you hate pro-choice people in your heart, you’re guilty of the same thing.

I would add, if you’re unloving toward people who are pro-choice, you can say that you’re not “hating” them, but it’s still the same thing.

hmmmm…something to think about.

First off, I probably stepped over the line, and for that I apologize. Iggy, what in the world are you talking about regarding stalking Ingrid and wanting to marry her. Aside from that being a real creepy statement, and borderline illegal, I’ve never met the woman. Not to beat this subject into the ground, but she rcently wrote about her pregnancy on her blog, not SOL, and how she shared the news with Janet Folger, and how they both thought it was a wonderful gift from God. (which it surely is). Why would I make this stuff up. There’s no need to. My only point was that Ingrid somehow manages to find something offensive in almost everything, and her over the top scorched earth rhetoric gets in the way of any point she tries to make.

Again, I’m sorry I crossed the line. I sort of figured it was inappropriate, yet I hit the submit button anyway.

My bad. It won’t happen again.

are you people serious?

take this crap to email.

please.

iggy,
I’m definately not the stalker guy, and of course, your apology is accepted. We’re cool.

Musical crimes? Ingrid is the gift that keeps on giving! She cannot even have a reasonable conversation about music in church without coming from a position of absolute self righteousness.

http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/circus-church/on-musical-crimes-in-church/

When a woman corrects the entire body of Christ and teaches pervasive Biblical standards of music to all churches she is an elder. She recalls all these sordid details of having to endure some special music torture, like we all have at times, but somehow you always get the feeling that Ingrid takes it personally. How dare that church allow that in her presence!

And of course not a scrap of Scripture except “play skilfully” as proof that every aspect of her view is divinely inspired. I love the fact she links to her “favorite” Christian news outlet, “Christianity Today”.

Thank you, Ingrid, you continue to unintentially provide comic relief for some of us shut ins, and your blog prose which used to present a problem now has become such a caricature of hubristic goofiness that it now offers more chuckles than Leno’s monologue. Please don’t change, I have come to believe we need people like you to provide comic perspective.

Keep on giving.

Watch for my new series entitled,

“Blog Crimes”

otherwise know as

“Uncovered Women in the Blog World!”

Scandalous!

“Ingrid is just a musical snob”

No Scotty, she’s a musical detective. Remember, crimes!

Detective, prosecutor, judge, and jury, all in one!

Just to show that at CRN.info we are not an Amen Chorus (all the time)… and to show that we can find agreement with ADM’s when they get it right…

I am in general agreement with Ingrid’s “On Musical crimes in the Church.” – in the sense that she calls for a higher standard. I suppose we would disagree on what is appropriate music, since she tends to be stuck in a very shallow and small world when it comes to “what God likes.”

But that aside, I would agree that churches should treat music as they do everything else, and only allow those with talent/gifting to lead.

I will grant you that Phil.

When our worship leader came seven years ago he started making people audition for the choir and other positions… it created a bit of tension, but he was good at finding other ministry slots for those who could not sing.

Besides being biased because of her husband being an accomplished musician, here are some quotes that reveal her point about being careful in music has self righteous companions.

“Churches are now reported to be full of “life” if the state-of-the-art sound systems can make attendees actually “feel” the music, like you would in a club.”

“Conservative churches of the Baptist variety have long featured something called “special music.” This is a practice that deserves a long, penetrating look.”

“Those who want to make up for their absence of gifting with volume or karaoke need to take a seat and end the musical malpractice in the church.”

As I said in my first comment, Ingrid is incapable of having a reasonable discussion about anything. Most churches screen their singers by now.

BYW – on the reverse side of the same coin, shouldn’t churches makes sure accomplished and talented musicians are walking with Christ in love and grace, and are dedicated believers that have a heart for worship, a heart for people, and an outward revelation of a heart for Jesus before they are allowed to play at the church?

She concentartes on the accomplished talent part and ignores the heart for Christ part. Give me a mdiocre keyboard player with a fire for Christ over a concert pianist who is prideful and judgmental.

And the gift keeps on giving! In this masterpiece Elder Ingrid excoriates the “left behing” crowd that remind her of Eyore from Winnie the Poo, as opposed to her camp which are “the muscular and potent Christianity that helped Christians rescue infants from the walls of Rome where they had been left to die”. Is that the same as blogging or marching?

But I find this paragraph to be a literary exposé on judgment, lies, hubris, and an open parade of self righteousness that invites the reader to understand that she is the divine example of the things she lists and has the spiritual credentials to rain down dismissive evaluations on everyone.

“The other caller represented the mewling pietism that passively allowed the deaths of 6 million Jews in Germany and 50 million dead children in America. These are the people who have Hal Lindsey and Jack and Rexella Van Impe DVD’s stacked high in their homes. They view the Left Behind series as seminal work on the subject of Bible prophecy. These are not the ones you would have run to if you were a Jew back in Germany, trying to escape the Nazis. These are not people that would intervene with offers of help for your mother at an abortion clinic where you were about to be cut to pieces. They would be at home, checking out the latest flip chart prophecy guru on Christian TV.”

http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/end-times/chuck-baldwin-christians-use-prophecy-to-excuse-laziness/

Just for Ingrid’s limited information most of the life clinics in our area are sacrificially run and funded by the ignorant “Left Behind” crowd, and many premillanialists helped the Jews in Germany. I find that one paragraph to be a concise looking glass into the entire attitude and vaunted hubris of her entire ministry. And all her friends are to be held accountable who sit idly by and let anything and everything pass without a hint of correction.

So there we have it, only those who believe in amillenialism or the like care about people, and the entire bunch of premillenial troglodytes are inhuman monsters who could care less about abortion or the annihilation of Jews. That sirs is a boldface lie and Ingrid should apologize to all of us who have protested, adopted discarded babies, supported Jewish people, and continue to care passionately about those issues.

The problem is that we care about the issues of humility, grace, and love as well.

So she equates blogging and marching with early Christian martyrdom. You want front lines? Go to Darfur or Pakistan or Nigeria. Until then, you are a fictional sitcom.

It is what I call the “high tech martyrdom”. It consists of keyboard callouses, higher electric bills due to air conditioning, online posting snafus, unkind retorts, closed comments criticisms, and being metaphorically burned at the stake for standing practically alone for God’s eternal truth.

She is a living treatise on how to be a doctrinal complimentarian while living out an egalitarian lifestyle.

“These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.”

Oh, and Tim LaHaye was one of the founding directors of the Moral Majority. Lazy liberal, compromiser!

The true landscape of redemption must be soiled with the blood of wounded sinners and the Savior Himself.

http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2009/02/soiled-landscape-of-redemption-i-n-this.html

Is it possible for people to be so unskilled that despite their heart the offering is distracting?

I think so.

However…I do find it interesting when a church is big, has professional quality musicians playing, leading worship, etc. etc. then that is just a group of shallow entertainment obsessed man lovers.

but when Ingrid’s approved folk play “skillfully” in their obscure and resentment filled ghettos then it’s ok to ask for excellence.

thus spake the oracle of the High Priestess…

The bible states true worship is “in spirit and in truth” and that we are “living sacrifices” rendering all we do unto God.

There is a sad idea that the building is a house of worship, and that a worship service is about singing… and to me that is a shallow view of worship.

To say those worshiping who can’t sing should not, is really unbiblical. There are many who “sing” and cannot carry a tune. Most realize this. Some are gifted more than others and though they are up front leading, it in no way means their worship in song is a better offering to God than those who cannot sing offering.

Now what really gets me is Ingrid will talk about secular events with her husband. At these events often the classically trained musicians are not even believers and could be gay, or other false religions, or simply atheists. Ingrid raves on about their skill and contrasts these people with believers and calls the ones at the secular event “worship”. How can that be? Yes, some in the group may be believers and could be worshiping…. but… really it is a straw man that holds no water.

Now, I have been to churches with professional musicians in front… sometimes they are hired guns and may not even believe… yet the worship was not about them, it was about God…. and sometimes people jus dug the band.

Again, sometimes digging the band is wrong, yet again, we are to exhort one another. In these churches I have seen people come to know Jesus who were hired guns…

So again… to me there is no set rules… only that we as believers have a contrite and humble spirit and seek to bring glory to Jesus in all we do whether that is playing basketball, singing, careers we do, in how we treat out families, and how we treat others… these are the important things… not whether the leader of a worship band fits our preference and style of music and whether we think they can sing or not.

iggy

(i hope post #117 isn’t too far from the thread!)

When I’ve led worship, I’ve always clarified that while God is already among us, we show love and honor to God by “inviting” God to reveal The Presence in our midst and our hearts and minds.

I think that it is critical for lead worshippers to paint the picture of what we are doing with clarity so that we aren’t just caught up in simply wanting to shake our booty (if it’s a jammin tune), but so that we shake our booty as unto the Lord, mindful of the God who made us and is worthy of our honor and the specific content of the song itself.

The thing is, are we as Christians not already in God’s presence by the simple fact of Jesus’ death and resurrection? We can approach the throne of grace with confidence, there is no veil, we don’t need any more help. So what happens when we leave church, do we leave God’s presence? How can I get a sense of God’s presence without the worship band/leader taking me there?

Wilson, you had me jumping out of my chair shouting amen like in my Pentecostal days. I studied two years at Hillsong and really loved it. The people there really have hearts for worshipping God and that includes much more than music. What Delirious taught is not what Hillsong would teach about this which is much more in line how you described it, although the idea of “God showing up” would sometimes be uttered…

I agree with Phil that we over analyse what should just be done.

Honestly, does anyone think God cares about the quality of the performance over the heart of the performer?

No. But I think this is a false dichotomy that even Ingrid didn’t bring up. In reading her blog I did not get the impression that ability trumped heart – a generous reading would assume all things are equal as far as heart is concerned – and that being the case her point was to use those with the best abilities…

…just like we do with teachers in our classrooms, and pastors in our pulpits.

Rick,

The fact that she does not mention it is why I assumed it was not an issue – that a generous reading would assume a proper heart and that the issue at hand is one of ability and/or talent.

I would expect that her definition of a dedicated Christian is overly ethnocentric… I was just addresses what I saw as a false dichotomy.

Trust me when I say, “defending” Ingrid is unfamiliar as well as uncomfortable territory…

No doubt.

Gordo,

If I had to guess, and of course I am, I’d go so far as to say God even enjoys the changing styles and fashions – the new ways people see fit to worship him and reflect his image…

BTW – there is absolutely no way to discern whose worship pleases God and whose heart is pure before Him. It is possible that some rapper worshiper is more acceptable to God than some cello player, only – ONLY – God knows.

Yep, I have read about it before and the one you limked to. And these are the same people who rail that others take Scripture out of context?

Pot + black = Kettle + black

If you are sure God delights in your worship, then DO IT! The publican/pharisee principle applies to worship.

“I thank God I do not worship like other men, uh, especially that loud music, light show derelict that only thinks he’s worshiping Christ. You cannot please God with your worship without a book on “how to worship” that is ODM approved. That is the only “how to” book God likes.”

Signed,

The Worship Warrior

#122 Hey Eugene,

I recently attended a Casting Crowns concert. During the concert, the words were shown up on the screen so the crowd could join in. at several points throughout the night, lead singer Mark Hall told the stories about how the songs came about (one of the stories was quite sad), there was even a brief sermonette on Psalm 1 as an intro to one of their songs called Slow Fade (great song). At one point towards the end of the concert, he was sitting on the front of the stage at this church, the rest of the band was off the stage, and he challenged people along the lines of “this concert is just a concert. Bands will come and go, concerts will come and go, this concert does not go home with you, your church service does not go home with you, your pastor doesn’t go home with you and live with you. God’s mission is so much bigger than a concert.” They’re one group who have things in perspective.

I think one difficulty that can be faced, Eugene, is whether some worship experiences are the results of the musical prowess or actual connection with God. Sometimes it’s difficult to tell, and I’m not going to say what is and what isn’t. I have personally felt some kind of high after listening to some of my favourite secular musicians play / sing. Is that wrong? Similarly, the Casting Crowns concert I just mentioned had fantastic music and lyrics and even some teaching so we left feeling encouraged and boosted, so is that okay? (this is more rhetorical)

The thing is, if our definition of worship is based on our subjective experience, then not only do we have a very self centered view of ‘worship’, but if the music is bad and distracting we can think that we didn’t really worship. you know, if it’s dependent on the type/quality of the music. So if the musicians are “bad”, or not up to our standard of perfection or style = bad worship, spoilt mood, atmosphere destroyed, and you end up with people saying “i didn’t enjoy the worship today” “i couldn’t really worship today” (sounds a little self-centered doesn’t it?) what does that mean? I didn’t meet God, or have a worship experience? rather than rejoicing in Christ.

The emphasis of the Colossians passage seems to be on the word of Christ dwelling among you richly as you sing. Musicians serve the congregation by playing in such as a way so as to help them sing. We play well, so it’s not distracting to those engaged with the lyrical content and serve humbly not seeking our own glory, for the same reason. So as a church when you come together, or a musician in a band, you come together for encouragement and joy and celebration in Christ not for your own worship experience. So this also means finding Christ-centered doctrinally-sound songs.

It sounds from Ingrid’s experience that the singer was presenting the song in a distracting non-helpful way which did not assist Ingrid’s reflection. Maybe a bit more practice was needed but I don’t think we can call a bad performance a musical crime, so much as some of the content (or lack of) in these modern songs.

so i think there are two things here:
1. thinking that music = worship, when it’s much bigger than that, and
2. poor music = poor worship vs poor music = just plain distracting.

in #140 I wrote “The thing is, if our definition of worship”, should read “The thing is, if our definition of good worship”

Blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada….

Just worship the Savior from the hearts, the externals usually take care of themselves.

Gene – I LOVE Hillsong worship music!! (their prosperity teaching not so much)

Is this Christianity? Is this what Jesus says to sinners?

http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/abominations/ted-ted-go-away/

Looking forward to it, Neil. What we all agree with here is that grace doesn’t condone sin, it reveals Christ.

This is the thread that can never die.

It’s a Thread Zombie.