If you happen to read this could you drop by and defend yourself. I’m not really familiar with your work but some here are and they incessantly contend that you are a heretic. I think it stems from your relationship with Phyllis but I’m not certain why they think she is a heretic either. I’ve heard her speak many times and while she doesn’t say the words I’m used to I believe she is a follower of Christ. Ultimately though; I can’t really be sure about either one of your commitments to Christ. I wish I could be though. Meaning I wish I was God.

On another note; are you related to Henry? I really like his music. However his acting is kinda creepy. I don’t know why? I think it’s because of his voice or maybe his face. Not that he’s ugly; just mean looking. He kinda scares me. Oh well. If you are related could you have him drop by also. I want to ask him what he meant by the this quote:

“If I was gay, there would be no closet. You would never see the closet I came out of. Why? Because I’d have burned it for kindling by the time I was twelve … If I was gay, at this stage of the game — age 37, aging alternative icon — I’d be taking out ads.”

In my eyes he’s obviously gay and this quote appears that he’s not but I found a blog that contends that even though he said he isn’t; he actually is. You see I have this habit of not believing actual words that people say. Unless of course those actual words are from people that I agree with telling me what the people I don’t agree with, are actually saying. I know kinda confusing but I think you could help with that.

A few more things I need you to clear up. On your blog you state:

Without equivocation or hesitation I fully and completely admit that I deny the resurrection of Christ.

What the…? Really? Are you serious? HERET…oh wait. I stopped reading at that line. Sorry about that you also say

This is something that anyone who knows me could tell you, and I am not afraid to say it publicly, no matter what some people may think…

I deny the resurrection of Christ every time I do not serve at the feet of the oppressed, each day that I turn my back on the poor; I deny the resurrection of Christ when I close my ears to the cries of the downtrodden and lend my support to an unjust and corrupt system.

However there are moments when I affirm that resurrection, few and far between as they are. I affirm it when I stand up for those who are forced to live on their knees, when I speak for those who have had their tongues torn out, when I cry for those who have no more tears left to shed.

So what you are saying is that my life, how I live it, can either confirm or deny my belief in Christ. Sounds a little like this:

34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, [1] you did it to me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Oh that Jesus! So darn serious about helping the poor. If I didn’t know better I would say that he was a heretic.

Okay a few more things and then I’ve got to get back to my phylactery waxing.

You point out on your blog that you:

I also lecture in areas of moral theory, philosophical theology, mysticism and Existentialism. However my passion is to render the academic discourse accessible, interesting and useful to faith collectives.

Oh brother…I’m really concerned now.

moral “THEORY”? It’s not a theory Petey. It’s an absolute. Unless of course you are suggesting that people have certain theories about morality then of course you can lecture on that.

“mysticism”? You do know that’s code for heretic right? In these parts we’ve argued about that word forever. You may want to strike that from your blog. It just not worth the trouble of trying to explain it.

“Existentialism”? Again with the “human condition” stuff. Really is it important to understand how God interacts with us and how we should respond? Isn’t it enough to know that “He is God”? Just leave it at that. If people don’t get it, tough nuggies. Seriously!

My biggest concern about you though is that last sentence. “Academic discourse accessible”? Two words, in Latin, so you know it’s really important, SOLA SCRIPTURA buddy! I don’t need no stinking, two bit, liberal spouting, college per fessor, telling me nothin bout my Jesus. Unless of course he agrees with me. Otherwise I ain’t havin none of it. That’s all I need is somebody messing up my perfect, preconceived, theological box. I almost got excommunicated for quoting from “The Shack”. So no more of that “thinking” stuff for me. It’s just not safe to think. What if I come up with the wrong thoughts? What if the Holy Spirit took the day off and that was the exact day I chose to read “A brief history of everything”? The ramifications to my salvation could be catastrophic. No thank you.

Well thanks for your time.


P.S. You don’t need to talk to Henry for me I just Wiki’d him and his last name is actually Garfield. Sorry bout that.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , ,

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 17th, 2009 at 7:16 am and is filed under satire really. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

18 Comments(+Add)

1   Phil Miller
June 17th, 2009 at 7:45 am



2   Rick Frueh
June 17th, 2009 at 8:11 am

And in this discernment genre, words mean anythin or nothing. Additionally we can be sure that Phyllis Tickle (or anyone) IS a follower of Christ, but we can never question it otherwise. We can be sure that on blogs with a “within the church” attack mission we will never see a post about anyone like Borg, Crossan, Spong, Burke, or much less the individuals in question here. There are much more convenient targets to filet.

This post is a textbook study in preconceived attitudes becoming the guiding force in assessing or not assessing legitimate issues. And when a somewhat disingenuous post like this comes forth it also illuminates whose issues are dealt with substantively and whose issues are just a thorn.

I have learned a lot of good things in almost three years here. I am learning some other things recently.

3   Chris
June 17th, 2009 at 8:19 am

I’ll take it under advisement Rick.


4   nc    
June 17th, 2009 at 9:41 am

c’mon you guys…

5   Joe C    
June 17th, 2009 at 10:15 am

You did a good job demonstrating via satire where Christians tend to fall short concerning opinions of others. I think it all boils down to not giving someone the benefit of the doubt and not completing honest research. If you’re going to send someone to hell (and you never should), but if you were going to, at least do good research first. Pff…like that ever happens. Good post.


6   Jerry
June 17th, 2009 at 10:19 am

I agree with Joe. Good post.

Joe, are you related to Joe from Joe’s Crab Shack?

7   Pastorboy
June 17th, 2009 at 10:43 am

This post disgusts me, because it is a (not so) veiled shot at Rick and a continued demonstration of a lack of concern over doctrine on this site and in the modern church.

8   chris    
June 17th, 2009 at 10:54 am

This post disgusts me, because it is a (not so) veiled shot at Rick and a continued demonstration of a lack of concern over doctrine on this site and in the modern church.

Actually I was showing concern. Notice I asked Peter questions that are pertinent to Rick’s queries. Sure I did that it in a satirical fashion but none the less the questions were asked. Additionally I made a point about how silly some of the “issues” with Peter are. Thus the satire.

Sorry you are disgusted. I’m amazed at what it takes for you to be disgusted. Or rather what doesn’t disgust you.

9   Joe C    
June 17th, 2009 at 11:07 am


I am not related to Joe from Joe’s Crab Shack. However my 18 month old son IS wearing a Joe’s Crab Shack shirt…how odd lol.

10   Brett S    
June 17th, 2009 at 11:52 am


I enjoyed the post. I don’t see what’s “disgusting” about it, (or why Rick is offended) but I appreciated the humor. Anyone that can tie Henry Rollins into a theology discussion deserves some credit. :)

Call me a nerd, but I enjoy discussing theology. I can read blogs or talk about God till the cows come home and usually learn something. One reason I enjoy the discussion here is the wide variety of DOCTRINAL discussions. I don’t mind having doctrinal discussions with people that disagree with me, and in fact prefer it to “preaching to the choir”.

Disclaimer: I firmly believe in absolute truth! And defining right and wrong.

Pastorboy (and maybe even Rick) seem to have the attitude that the purpose of Christian doctrine is to DIVIDE Christians. Jesus is not doctrine; doctrine is the Church’s way of defining truth. I’m not opposed to fighting out who has the right doctrine, but the purpose should not be that the loser must take his ball and go home. I always like to leave room for the real possibility that when a man has an opposing idea from me (while we can’t both be right); we may well both be wrong. I believe Christ has all the answers, and I don’t understand them all.

11   Rick Frueh
June 17th, 2009 at 12:01 pm

The existance of absolute truth becomes irrelevant when it cannot be known, especially on the redemptive level.

12   Rick Frueh
June 17th, 2009 at 12:03 pm

From Rollins’ new book:

“I remember driving around Belfast with Pete, sitting in the front seat
listening to him tell these parables that he’d written—thinking,
’Everybody needs to hear these.’ And now you can.”
—Rob Bell, author of Jesus Wants to Save Christians

13   Brett S    
June 17th, 2009 at 12:12 pm

a lack of concern over doctrine on this site and in the modern church – Patorboy

If modern church = thousands of suberban white people running around my town, that go to church sometimes (especially on Xmas and Easter); but are mostly just concerned with themselves and live like there is no God. I AGREE there is a major lack of concern over Christian doctrine among these people.

But lack of concern over doctrine on “this site”? Do you ever read what anybody else writes about on this site?

14   Julie
June 22nd, 2009 at 5:57 pm

Never heard of Rollins or Tickle, and too lazy to Google.

Where does that leave my immortal soul?

Oh. Right.

15   Chris L
June 22nd, 2009 at 6:19 pm

Never heard of Rollins or Tickle, and too lazy to Google.

I hadn’t either…

Apparently he’s a druid with fifty billion followers, coming to North America to steal all of the souls in the Northern Hemisphere.

Oh, wait, no – wrong Google search

Rollins is a speaker at an upcoming Pastor’s Conference organized by Rob Bell. He’s speaking on 1) Performance Art; 2) writing parables.

And he prefers Christus Victor as an atonement explanation rather than Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

Thus, he must die.

…or something like that…

16   Julie
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:06 am

I’ve never liked performance art. As an art major, it was for the people who couldn’t draw.

I can’t stand musicals, either, a kind of performance art. Quit wasting my time singing about it, and just say it.

So I vote “no” for Mr. Rollins.

17   Rick Frueh
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:28 am

“And he prefers Christus Victor as an atonement explanation rather than Penal Substitutionary Atonement.”

I have not seen that articulated at all. Is there a reference?

18   Nathanael
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:26 am

I’ve never liked performance art. As an art major, it was for the people who couldn’t draw.

And making cupcakes is for the people who can’t make real cakes.


Couldn’t resist.