I have a quick observation or two to make about a post that I saw first here. I read the post then followed the link on one of the commentators names, Erik, to here.
What I found ironic is that when I went to Erik’s blog I found that he had provided several links to other blogs that were covering the same topic. Five such blogs in fact are linked. The usual suspects, but also this: The Friendly Atheist.
So, what can we conclude from this? What does this mean? How is it that an atheist is saying the exact same thing as a ‘christian’? Or how is it that a ‘christian’ is saying the same thing as an atheist? Who’s echoing who here?
Seems rather ironic, doesn’t it, that a christian and an atheist are walking down the same judgmental road in mocking and condemning a believer in Christ. Yes, to quote Pastorboy: “I am not surprised that apostatw pr soon to be apostates would react in this way. It is a sign of the times. I wash my hands and shake the dust off my feet.” After all, “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols?” (2 Corinthians 6).
Apparently, a lot.
Also, Erik, you can quote Chucky all you want and it doesn’t mean anything. Silence is not an argument against something. Jesus thought that such ’stunts’ were necessary or at least permissible. In fact, in order to draw all men unto himself, he was hung on the cross. That’s no small ’stunt.’ That may be a bit of a stretch I concede, but, to be sure, Jesus seemed rather willing to do whatever was necessary to draw a crowd and preach even if all those who showed up eventually went back to their ways and never followed him again.
Still, silence is not an argument against something.
PS–Here’s the quote at A Load of Cr–I mean A Little Leaven: “This might be cheesy, but what can I say? I am passionate about the church getting out and being the church, not just within our walls, but outside of them as well. It’s time for the church to get out of the box and let our world know that we serve a great God and have fun doing it.”
So the preacher’s stated goal is to motivate the church to get out and do evangelism. Hmph. Strange that A Load of Cr–I mean A Little Leaven and Erik and the Friendly Atheist would all be opposed to the Church getting out of the walls and being church. Because regardless of what you think about the stunt, that is what the preacher says his goal is: To get the church out of the box and being the church. Strange that there would be opposition to this from Spurgeon to Rosebrough to Erik to Friendly.
Imagine that: Look who’s siding with atheists!
57 Comments(+Add)
Jerry – I’m sure Erik’s intention was to show how unbelievers mock such things. But there is more to a story like this:
A pastor once dressed in a gorilla costume and went throughout the community in a church bus to advertise that “Conga the Friendly Gorilla” would be at church on Sunady and every child would get a hot dog and a drink as well.
The Sunday SChool attendance that Sunday tripled in attendance, and many parents who never came to church brought their children who hounded them to take them. Years later this pastor met a Bible school graduate who was being ordained and he and his wife and child were being sent out as missionaries to Togo in West Africa.
I asked him about his salvation experience and he related that he had been saved at a Baptist church at age 11 because he had only gone to see the “guest gorilla”. His parents remained unsaved but because of some stupid gimmick he was gloriously saved and now serves Christ in Africa.
So before we all get so judgmental of some gimmick let’s pray God will use it.
Did I mention that pastor/gorilla was me?
Rick-
Sweeeeeeeeeeeet. I wish I could see a gorilla at sunday school!
Aaron and Jerry – the opposite view of evangelization through the church is to allow sovereignty to work its magic, and when some sinner happens to walk into your church, let him have one listen and if he does not believe on Christ that is all he gets!
That’s real, Biblical evangelism!
Jerry,
Actually, the Friendly Athiest does not express oppostion, but rather applauds the promotion and says that it would be better than the preacher preaching for three days. I guess I did not read that as agreement with the people/sites in opposition that you noted.
Rick,
Divine Sovereignty and human responsibility are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the Bible teaches both! (But I’m sure you knew that) (insert smiley faced emoticon)
EVD,
That’s not quite the point I’m making, but I see what you are saying. Regardless, both he and Erik are mocking a christian preacher. That is the point.
jerry
Jerry,
I guess I was just reponding to the plain words in your post. You titled your post “Siding with athiests” and ended your post with the same phrase. In between you had the following statements that clearly state that they agree:
“So, what can we conclude from this? What does this mean? How is it that an atheist is saying the exact same thing as a ‘christian’? Or how is it that a ‘christian’ is saying the same thing as an atheist? Who’s echoing who here?”
“What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols?” (2 Corinthians 6).
Apparently, a lot.”
“So the preacher’s stated goal is to motivate the church to get out and do evangelism. Hmph. Strange that A Load of Cr–I mean A Little Leaven and Erik and the Friendly Atheist would all be opposed to the Church getting out of the walls and being church. Because regardless of what you think about the stunt, that is what the preacher says his goal is: To get the church out of the box and being the church. Strange that there would be opposition to this from Spurgeon to Rosebrough to Erik to Friendly.
Imagine that: Look who’s siding with atheists!”
Note the wording: “exact same thing”, “same thing”, “echoing”, “apparently a lot [of agreement]“, “would all be opposed”, and “opposition to this from Spurgeon to Rosebrough to Erik to Friendly”. These are more than passing references. Based on the fact that Friendly Athiest actually applauds the promotion as opposed to preaching, I think it rather serves to bolster the argument offered by the other parties you mention.
Even if you intended to make a different point with the post than what is conveyed with the plain language, I fail to see your point. Both you and an athiest would condemn the actions of a child molestor or despot. Does that make you somehow “siding with an athiest”?
To use the logic you’ve presented here, wouldn’t you have to be “siding with an athiest” since the athiest is undoubtedly opposed to Chris R, etc. calling for more preaching and abstention from worldly promotions? (since in the athiest’s own words he is opposed to preaching and is in favor of the promotion)
EVD–I didn’t write a blog post linking to the blog of an Atheist. Erik did. Not me. I read the FA’s post and the comment section. His linking of his blog back the FA’s blog is a sign of agreement at best; approval at worst. He agrees with the FA’s mocking tone.
Or–I suppose you too think it is wrong that a preacher wants to preach to a full room of people than an empty one or that the preacher is encouraging his people to get out and be the church.
Jerry,
What Erik says on his blog is “here is what others are saying around the blogosphere”. That is hardly agreement or approval. Apply the same logic to your self. You wrote a post that linked to Erik’s site. Does that mean that you agree with him or approve of what he wrote?
Isn’t it entirely possible that Erik linked to the FA site to help prove his point by showing that the athiest approved of the promotion because he felt it took the place of preaching? But that would take a charitable reading to reach that conclusion, wouldn’t it. I thought that is what you specialized in here. Rather it’s more fun to accuse this brother in Christ of “siding with athiests”.
And why do you refuse to admit the untruths (whether intended or not) wherein you claim that Erik and the athiest are echoing eachother, saying the exact same thing, etc.?
Do you really want to say that all links can now be presumed and assumed to be a sign of agreement or tacit approval unless specifically stated otherwise?
Jerry,
“Or–I suppose you too think it is wrong that a preacher wants to preach to a full room of people than an empty one or that the preacher is encouraging his people to get out and be the church.”
Is that defense by offense? I never said or insinuated anything of the sort. And, that description is a strawman and gross misrepresentation of what Chris R and Erik are advocating.
I’m responding to the content and actual words of your blog entry. Is that frowned on?
Jerry,
“He agrees with the FA’s mocking tone”
He never states this or insinuates this. In fact, in the post you link to he never makes any statement or commentary about the FA post. Rather, he merely gives it as an example of “what others are saying around the blogosphere”. So, did you make this observation by reading his mind or his heart?
EVD–did you see reply #7 where I said ‘i see your point’?
I wrote what I wrote. If it is mistaken, so be it. I found it ironic that the atheist and erik are doing the same thing: mocking a Christian preacher who is doing something silly. That’s the main point of my post–regardless if they are making separate and unequally related points within their own posts.
they are both mocking a Christian minister of God. Have i made that clear to you yet?
Let me say it again: they are both mocking a minister of Christ who is trying to get his congregation to get out and invite people to church on Easter where he will, in fact, be preaching.
He won’t be in the box on Sunday will he? He’ll be preaching on Sunday and spend the next three days in the box. So FA’s point is lost anyhow.
E,
He is mocking the preacher.
FA is mocking the preacher.
That is agreement.
jerry
Jerry,
Can you point to where in Erik’s post he mocks the preacher? What I saw was him providing a sermon quote that spoke to the issue of “providing amusement for the unconverted”. Which words on the post would you identify as mocking?
“So FA’s point is lost anyhow.” That’s immaterial.
“I wrote what I wrote. If it is mistaken, so be it.”
That sounds sorta like PB’s non-apology apology (one of the many). You sound fairly cavalier for someone that just made unfounded accusations against a brother in Christ. Of course if “the other team” had done that this post would be crawling with the regulars decrying the action and calling for an apology.
So, the lesson I learned here is that ad hominem, strawman, hyperbole, and the like are acceptable here (despite how you purport to be different) as long as it is aimed at the right target.
I will say from the start that I agree with Chris that this is a stunt, or maybe something Houdini would do, or that other guy who lives in boxes for days.
Chris has this quote on A.L.L.:
“This might be cheesy, but what can I say? I am passionate about the church getting out and being the church, not just within our walls, but outside of them as well. It’s time for the church to get out of the box and let our world know that we serve a great God and have fun doing it. ”
I agree that the church should get out and be the church, but I personally don’t know how sitting in a box for 3 or 4 days falls within that category.
I agree we need to get out of the box and think about how we can best reach people with the Gospel, but I don’t think getting inside a box is the best way to go about reaching people, maybe a publicity stunt, but when they get there, what kind of message are they going to get? The best I can think of is that we are all slaves to sin, trapped within it’s 6 walls? How am I doing?
I agree we need to let our world know that we serve a great God and have fun doing it, I absolutely agree, but I do not see how sitting in a box for 3 or 4 days falls within that category. Is he going to have potty breaks? Food? Is he going to sleep up there I mean, it might be a good break for him, a good retreat with the Bible… who knows? he’s probably a busy man
But does “To the people who wanted to see a man in a box on a pole I became a man in a box on a pole” fit into the category of “all things to all men”?
I don’t know, maybe it came up in their demographic survey… maybe people are attracted to those big events, and stunts like that, but I feel like these things are a bait-and-switch, we’ll get you in with this but then we’ll give you something else.
Why can’t we just invite someone to church without a reason, without a gimmick to get them in but simply because we love and care about them?
No, the lesson here is don’t agree with an atheist which is what both posts I referenced do. This seems to be the point that is not getting into your responses.
Lesson learned. There will be a test.
I’m not sure I’d want to be a part of this kind of local church. But, seriously, why the bother. What’s the fuss. If ya don;t like it, don’t go there. But why trash what is not sin? Some ADM’s have too much time on their hands.
Firstly, these types of stunts are utter lunacy and for Jerry to try and link this junk with what Christ did is a stretch requiring significant amounts of imagination.
Got a good chuckle out of that.
Has it occurred to some that not everyone who wears the pastor-hat is actually a man that has been called by God to this office? I’m not saying that this man is or isn’t, but if you take the route that every ‘ordained man’ is a man called by God, then you set yourself for a mighty fall.
I know, so unlike the commenters on this blog who can spent hours and days on end dissecting a single post or comment or putting together a sorry post like this one.
BTW, I love the utter mocking that PB took on a previous post about preaching to ‘Christians’ on the beach in Florida. But when it comes to idiocy at this level, we use big words like ’sovereignty’ to cover it over. Priceless.
Hi Paul,
I never said he was preaching only to Christians on the beach. I said, I thought what he was doing on the beach was wrong. Christians or Non-Christians, they have the right to not have to hear him. Something he makes nearly impossible with a speaker system.
Joe, your whole argument was a thin veneer that came out later in the comment thread (read it again if you have time). Your dislike for PB shines through on several occasions, but of course, that’ll be denied and couched, so forget it.
If you preach the gospel publicly you are going to get a bunch of people that are not going to want to hear it. So what? Did that stop the apostles? (Oh yes, Chris L reminded us they only preached in the Agora in specific stalls set up for people looking for new religion or in the Halls of Philosophers). It’s a wonder they got stoned in every city and ultimately killed for what they did taking such a ’safe’ route.
No, some of the people on the beach claimed to be Christians themselves.
When the apostles in the book of Acts were run out of town, stoned, etc. it was at the hands of the Jews, not the Roman pagans. The Jews considered their message blasphemous. The Romans were generally pretty tolerant of different religions. It wasn’t until later on that persecution came at the hands of the Romans.
I also don’t think being made fun of or shouted at for getting in people’s faces is the same as being threatened to be killed on blasphemy charges.
I guess what’s amazing to me is how far some people will go to defend this type of behavior. Are we seriously commanded to go an annoy people? Is that spreading the Gospel?
There is some element of offense to the Gospel, that’s for sure. But it seems the people who were primarily offended by it in the Gospels and in Paul’s travels were the religious establishment and to some extent the civil powers that be. It doesn’t seem that it as offensive to the average pagan.
Ummm….”not liking” PB doesn’t mean Joe’s critique is wrong or tainted.
If you preach the Gospel that’s awesome.
If you’re rude and disruptive about it, then you can’t whine “persecution” or “hard heartedness” when people react poorly.
Why? Because the issue isn’t your message. It’s your method. He could get up and start reading the phone book and people would be annoyed.
sheesh. what’s so hard about that to understand?
I mean, I know it’s been a hard week for the God-Squad Magisterium and all, but they can handle it…
given how measures are being measured back and all…
Phil, you’re missing my point I think. On the one side, we berate PB for his actions while at the same time we defend the idiocy of someone doing something way off base under the auspices of ’sovereignty’. Don’t you see this clearly?
All it does is reveal a certain level of transparency. I think Eric did an excellent job of uncovering this: you guys are just as biased and ODM-like as those you have set yourself against. (Oops, I forgot, “Paul, this has been covered in multiple posts. Here’s the link to “How We’re Different.”")
I wouldn’t be out at the beach doing this sort of thing, but I wouldn’t condemn it either. To highlight your point, some of the people at the beach used this defense, “I’m born again!” “I’m a Christian!” “I grew up in a Christian home!” It was offensive to them because – in their eyes – they are already on good footing. Kind of like the Jews who got upset at Christ and the apostles upsetting the apple-cart.
How do you know why it was offensive to them? I’ve seen these “turn or burn” (mainly just “burn”) preachers on campus quite often, and they irritated me as well. It wasn’t because I was convicted, but simply because they were jerks and were misrepresenting Christ and the Gospel.
The Gospel (or what these people think is the Gospel) is simply a shield for these people to hide behind. They assume that since they are preaching the Gospel, they’re idiotic behavior is justified. It’s nothing new.
Paul,
Personally, I think the pastor-on-a-pole thing is a bit silly. But at the same time, the primary “audience” is his congregation – the community in which he is a member. That is more than a tad different than flying 1500 miles away to shout at anonymous passers-by…
Sorry for the off-topic post previously. I actually kind of lost track of what thread I was replying to.
I’d say as far the original post goes – I think Jerry’s point is spot-on despite what Erik said earlier. It’s pretty clear that the atheist he linked to hates the pastor just as much as the other blogs. At least the atheist has a good excuse.
Paul C.,
With all due respect, because you are normally so evenhanded in your gracious replies, you missed my point.
I said ‘it was a stretch’, and it was. I conceded that before I wrote it.
My greater point, which seems to be lost on you and EVD is that the Friendly Atheist mocked a Christian minister and so did ALL and ‘Erik’. I fully realize that The FA and ALL mocked him from different points of view and had separate agendas for doing so, but that doesn’t change the fact that they both mocked him in their own way.
And, to be sure, I never said that it was a good idea for the preacher in question to do what he was doing. All I said is that it is ironic that certain ADM’s have the same opinion of a Christian minister as an atheist.
There was also a second part to my post: ‘Erik’ made an argument from silence by quoting Chucky and thus made no argument of substance at all.
But I guess you and EVD only read the parts of the post that you wanted, right?
jerry
Joe, your whole argument was a thin veneer that came out later in the comment thread (read it again if you have time). Your dislike for PB shines through on several occasions, but of course, that’ll be denied and couched, so forget it.
Nope. You are right. I don’t like John. I find him to be a hindrance to the gospel and not a help. I believe he is at best a poor representation of Christ and is often much worse than that. When I read the NT, the only people I see that look like him and “his team” are the bad guys. But that post has to do with the whole taking a speaker system, setting it up and just calling an entire people group sinners, even when they say, “No, I am a Christian. I asked Jesus into my heart.”
I believe that John, Ingrid and Ken and their crew are doing active damage to the body of Christ. I believe for them it about little more than methods and getting readers. Getting stoned for preaching the gospel is different than getting stoned for being a jerk.
As Phil has rightly pointed out, the Romans didn’t give one iota about Jesus or the Apostles until they became a “christian nation.”
My piece was a fair piece that hit at the heart of bullhorn guys. I’m ok with that. I didn’t lie about PB. I didn’t attack him. I simply asked a question. What if it was your vacation he was preaching at.
And I am sick to the point of vomiting over the whole, “Well at least he’s proclaiming the Bible, and you’re not.” I have a barn full of that stuff. How do you or anyone else know who I have or have not shared the gospel with? The truth is that you do not, so stop making assumptions.
John does not reflect Christ, period.
This whole “you’re biased” critique is irrelevant.
Nobody here claimed not to have biases…there isn’t a single person on the planet who can escape bias in some form or degree.
What’s your point? Nobody here complains about bias. People complain here about lying, mischaracterization, slander…ummm…that’s all sin.
So, yeah…we’re biased. Against sin. why aren’t you?
thanks for your honesty – seriously (wasn’t expecting that).
Aren’t well all?
Did I use this as a defense? Maybe you’re confusing me with someone else. I also said that I wouldn’t take the route he took either, I just wouldn’t condemn it…
Examine yourselves guys – look what you’re becoming…
34:
Also the critique about “PB’s doing it, but you’re not” assumes that PB’s approach is somehow the method par excellence of evangelism.
Furthermore, this isn’t a competition. Do I think the Gospel should be spread widely? Yep. Of course.
But I won’t cheapen it by approaching it like I can place a comparative value on the eternal souls of people in terms of “quantity”.
Please.
Examine ourselves?
I don’t have a “ministry” of self-glorification.
Yeah…it’s just so wrong to not lay down for God-Squad.
Baffling, Paul C.
Simply baffling.
This critique has been answered over and over…why do you persist in bringing it up? You’re simply wrong.
It’s pointless.
Find a new tactic…seriously. It’s just old.
Maybe I did, although I did offer that as more of a general response. None the less, sorry about lumping you in there. This thread has jumped back and forth between here and where it is actually written a few times (Sorry Jerry).
I am and do.
It is an interesting contrast, now that I think of it. PB stands on a beach several, many, hundreds of miles from his home with a bullhorn or PA and preaches the “gospel” and everyone is AOK with that.
A preacher in Texas tells his own congregation to ‘get out of the box’ and bring people worship so he can preach the Gospel, in his own community, and he will sit in a plastic box and that is bad.
PB video tapes his ‘work’ and plasters it all over the internet and that’s OK.
The Texas preacher does the same with his ’stunt’ and that’s bad.
PB wants to ‘reach people for Christ’ and that’s good.
The Texas preacher wants to reach people for Christ and motivate his congregation to action and that’s bad.
A Christian minister is mocked by an atheist and a christian blogger links to it on his christian blog and that AOK.
We point it out and that is bad.
Hmm. I guess I don’t get it.
Jerry,
You don’t. You’re probably unregenerate.
#39–Joe, no worries. I think the two posts actually blend together well since they both point out the inconsistencies of the ADM crowd.
#41–
Jerry,
You still haven’t answered my question about where in Erik’s blog post he mocks the preacher.
You keep stating that Erik agreed with the athiest, which is patently false.
I read all of your post and I responded to your plain words, which you seem to be unwilling to hold yourself accountable to. Your intellectual dishonesty in this post and comment thread is breathtaking.
Is it lonely at the bottom of that big hole that you’ve dug for yourself?
C’mon Chris L, can’t bring yourself to publicly criticize one of your own when he engages in the very things you proclaim to hate and work against? I’d expect that Erik would appreciate seeing you “Seeking Justice, Mercy and Faithfulness Amidst Persecution From Within” on his behalf. The double standard here is sad to observe. The silence is deafening, as they say.
There is a guy in our town who was Roman Catholic and got saved. He became so “bold” that he went back to a Catholic mass and stood up and proclaimed them all evil and called them to repent.
I see some benefit from John’s ministry, but I also see the Daytona Beach Spring Break backdrop as sensationalism. You cannot do public preaching and because you do it you can claim carte blanche for tone, message, advertising, or some self serving presentations.
I have done it and many times you feel a sense of pride and spiritual boldness as well as justification that is both critical of people who do not do it and critical of beach goers. I find the filming of the sinners as self serving and not redemptive.
EVD,
I’ll take that as a compliment. If you haven’t figured it out yet, then I can’t help you, but I’ll try one more time.
Read the comment thread at ALL and you will see plainly where ‘Erik’ mocks the preacher from TX. He also provides a link to ALL and the FA–as if they have an equal say on what the preacher is doing. Why are you having such a hard time seeing this?
Let me try this again in English: Erik mocked a Christian minister (in the comment thread at ALL and by linking back to it at his own blog and by linking to other blogs that do the same). The FA mocked a Christian minister too.
I grant their agendas are somewhat different, but their methods are the same. Mock. Mock. Mock. No substance. Just mockery.
I’m struggling here, Paul – I’ve gone back to all the links (which I didn’t click on when I first read this article, I will admit), and I’m not sure what your point is, EVD.
So, I will try to go through your question line-by-line to see if I’m tracking with you:
Now, first off, as someone who frequently uses oblique criticism rather than direct criticism, when I look at Erik’s post, I do, indeed, see oblique criticism. I don’t think this can be denied.
Mock? Directly – I don’t see much of anything. Indirectly – we have the sanctimonious quoting of Chuck Haddock Sturgeon (Ol’ Surf-n-Turf, as I like to think of him – j/k, just trying to demonstrate what one form of ‘mockage’ might look like…) and the inclusion of other critical links (which DO mock), at least one of which hold to a ‘theology’ that would elicit cries of GBA were the shoe on the other foot. So, I would reasonably conclude that Erik is holding the preacher to some level of derision beyond mere ‘correction’.
Did I miss something in this answer?
“Agree”? Arguable either way. Cite as supporting evidence for his position? Yes, definitely.
Now, is Erik agreeing w/ the atheist’s theology? No. Is he agreeing with the atheist’s assessment of the pastor’s activity? That does seem reasonably implicit in the way it is linked with the other links (like the anti-Christian “A Little Leaven”, etc.).
I’m not sure what your argument is here. Jerry sums it up pretty well in #40…
By way of clarification, rather than trying to get into debate, this statement is not true. Think of Ephesus or Philippi for starters.
Jerry,
Have it as you like it. I have understood all along the point that you were trying to make. If you fail to realize your own false statements, misrepresentations, and logical leaps, that is up to you. Your “try this again in English” comment is condescending and misses the point. It is you that has been unwilling to hold yourself accountable to your own words written in English.
Chris L,
Don’t look now, your extreme bias is showing. You not only overlook Jerry’s purposeful mistatements (some would call them lies), but you also ignore his logical fallacies. You extend a level of grace to him that he is clearly unwilling to extend to others. But of course its very understandable, as he’s on your team. I have read a good number of things that you have written, so I refuse to believe that you are too dense to see the many problems with this post and its subsequent defense. Your willingness to overlook them speaks loudly about the true puropse of this watchblog.
Actually, Paul was not run out of town in Ephesus, and it was not his preaching that got him in trouble.
It was an idol-seller whose business was being impacted who got upset, and the ‘clerk/mayor’ of Ephesus said of the Christians:
I agree, though, that the Philippi expulsion was caused by Gentiles – again for a profit motive, not a religious one.
Still, the primary grief caused to Paul and others came from the religious Jews in Asia Minor, not the gentiles. Which was Phil’s point…
Well, in Ephesus, the local craftsmen got mad at Paul and started a riot because they were afraid they were going to lose money. Paul didn’t directly confront these people looking for confrontation. Actually, Paul received a warning from one of the local officials looking out for him.
In Philippi, Paul and Silas were thrown into prison after the encounter with the demon-possessed girl. They were actually thrown into prison because the owner of the slave girl was upset by the prospect of losing money (notice a theme here?). After Paul and Silas were miraculously freed from the prison, the officials were quite worried because they didn’t realize Paul was a Roman citizen.
In any case, these incidents weren’t because Paul was trying to be provocative. It was because of a series of events that came as a result of people following Jesus. It also came because both these cities had large Jewish populations, and there had been some tensions between the Jews and Romans for a long time.
EVD,
What Jerry is pointing out is that Erik appears to be falling into the old trap of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, not that ADM’s are atheists (though one might be able to argue that, functionally, they have no belief in the Holy Spirit, at the very least).
I don’t see this so much as a “Guilt-by-Association” swipe being taken by Jerry (which is what I suspect you are suggesting), but rather I see this as Jerry pointing out the pragmatism being exhibited in citing an atheist’s ridiculing of this pastor as something ‘good’, particularly when there would be all sorts of cries of GBA if the shoe were on the other foot…
51: Well said.
Jerry,
I’d like to apologize publicly for my harsh opinions about Pastor Ben Dailey’s idea of reaching the unconverted. I really feel like I crossed the line.
Humbly in Christ,
- Erik
Here is my public apology:
http://kowalker.com/2009/04/08/my-public-apology-to-ben-dailey/
Thank you, Erik.
Thanks Erik… that is very refreshing!
Blessings!
iggy
I can’t tell you how amazing is the grace of God! To see that kind of response from Erik is truly a work of God’s Holy Spirit.
Here’s another link.
It is a blessing to see such healing taking place. May all of us be so willing as Erik to be forgiving of others. May we learn as much about grace as Erik has.
God be praised!!!
The new heart hears music unplayed and sees glory unrevealed. Illuminated by faith alone the lone believer must succumb to its calling, wholly dependent upon the unseen promise of a life to come. Tethered to and yet free from here, the Christ traveler continues safe on this resurrected journey of faith. His missteps are woven into this journey by the wisdom of His Guide Who knows his plight and plans his way.
The victory hides in utter defeat, and the glory is covered in blood. Suffering is a step and persecution is a crown. Do not despair you pilgrims, the Lord of the Harvest will bring in His sheaves and reward His laborers far greater than they deserve. The King of All knows no slumber and has no weakness, and worry is foreign to Him. The end is the beginning, and the road to the City of God is paved with the branches of humility and love.
Trust not in the ways and words of men, but incline your ears to hear the steps of blind soldiers that carry out the divine will but who know not Who they slay. Who can separate us from this crimson covered act of love? If God Himself gives this kind of gift, what indeed will He withhold from those who receive it? This holy massacre reveals a love whose strength is without limits and whose length is without measure.
The grace that pours from these veins can and does cover the vilest among us, and this bloody shepherd knows who are His and answers not to the inspections of men. Walk through the door of faith once more, reacquaint yourself with His redemption, and you will find the room of grace without walls. Rejoice in His blood and revel in His sufferings for He has won. We have not won, He alone has risen victorious and we are made sharers in a victory that was not ours and a suffering that we had indeed caused.
Does it seem like a fairy tale to you? Oh, but it is! The story we tell today is a pitiful narrative told by sinful lips and finite minds. One day this fairy tale will vanish in the glory that cannot be described, and the reality will eclipse the fable. And on that day, in His glorious presence, we all will consider ourselves grateful fools as we see the ignorance of our best preaching, our best teaching, and our best understandings.
So do not despair, we play today in a sandbox of our own making, but one day we will be covered in the skin of glory which is Christ Himself, and we will be like Him. But until that day, let us keep looking forward together, to thirst and to hunger for that day, no, to thirst and to hunger for Him alone. He has made us one, with all our faults and misguided certainties; He has made us one…in Him, by the fellowship of His sufferings and the power of His resurrection.