Following on the heels of Tim Challies, Michael ‘iMonk’ Spencer has truly outdone himself with a beautiful metaphor that I wish I could just steal and claim as my own.  Weed eaters.

Spencer writes:

There’s nothing quite as empowering to a middle school boy as to be given a weed-eater of his very own. Armed with the machine, safety glasses and an orientation, they come marching across the campus taking on weeds and untrimmed grass like Sherman’s march to the sea.

If there was ever any tentativeness in these weed-eating workers, it all vanishes when they get their first taste of the power of the weed-eater. With a squeeze of the trigger, the power to eliminate weeds replaces the fear of what might happen in using such a dangerous device. Lazy middle school boys are transformed into the scourge of weeds and untidy lawns everywhere.

As I read the article, I can remember my own days as a freshman at a Christian college, incredulous that there could even be a Young Democrats chapter at a Christian college.  What an oxymoron, right?  And the zeal with which I argued and debated friends and rivals, alike, on the evils of alcohol – because teatotalling is right next to godliness.  And the folks who believed in anything other than literal 6-day, young earth creationism?  Make way, you godless heathens, wolves in sheep’s clothing!

There is, unfortunately, a not so charming side effect of this transformation. In the ensuing attack on weeds and sidewalk scruffiness of all kinds, most of the other flora and fauna of the campus is put at some risk from overenthusiastic weed warriors.

So in addition to a tidy campus and well attended faculty and staff lawns, there are frequent attacks on flower beds, gardens and much loved decorative hedges and bushes. Small fences are no obstacle to a boy convinced that some stray sprig of wayward grass is attempting to survive the Day of the Weed-eater.

Flowers and other decorative plants are at real risk when the power of a gang of boys go out into the neighborhood to do good. They are armed and dangerous. The neighborhood will be improved.

Zealousness is not at issue, which I believe sometimes I (and other writers at CRN.Info) am mistaken to be against.  We are called to have zeal for the Lord and to do His work with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength.  Where that becomes a problem is when we start assuming the place of God, in judging the hearts of others, or the Holy Spirit, in convicting them.  We may effectively ‘whack some weeds’, but who knows how many beneficial plants we damage in the process.

Spencer acknowledges this dark side of ‘zeal’ -

So as I get older, I see many of my zealous brothers and sisters armed with the Bible, heading out into the church to do what they believe is a good work of killing weeds.

The results are predictably predictable.

Be less enthralled with your ability to trim the grass brothers, friends. Be less certain that you are qualified to tell the difference between a weed and a flower that has yet to bloom. Learn to use your power equipment carefully. You can do a lot of damage. All does not depend on you cutting down every unknown and out of place plant. You are not saving us from the arrival of the jungle.

And this is where I often find myself.  Reminded of Jesus’ admonition to serve and to love his bride – even the parts I may not personally like.  In a place of a concerned steward protecting gardens and flower beds from undiscerning, yet possibly well-intentioned youths, armed with their shiny new weed-eaters.

iMonk concludes:

It was the Pharisees that Jesus criticized for their weed-eater mentality. They were obsessed with separation. They were tithing their spices. They were experts in staying on the case until the weeds were revealed.

Jesus wants us to be gardeners, but we do have to deal with weeds. Did any gardener ever say “Let the weeds grow” except for Jesus?

Some of us have set our sights (sites) on being full-time weed eaters and we’re having a very good time. The body of Christ needs a few. But only a few. And be careful, please. Very careful.

And I would wholeheartedly agree.  This is why we support true, professional discernment ministries like Reasons to Believe, Christian Research Institute, and Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.  While we recognize that these ministries may not always agree with one another, nor always we with them, they are managed by Christians who understand that there’s a place for weed eaters, and there’s a place for more careful trimming.

“For all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God…” Paul to the Romans, chapter 3, verse 23

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life…” John the Apostle, chapter the third, 16th verse.

Today, my attention was drawn to this post at a certain ‘that which is not to be named’ blog. It is a serious blog post. It is seriously depressing. And it is seriously stupid.

There I said it: It is stupid. I’m sorry. I feel badly about writing it, but there is simply no other way to express my outrage and heart-brokenness.

I know that is harsh and mean and if anyone from ‘that side’ bothers to comment on this post they will most certainly point out that I ‘missed the point’ or that I am ‘ignorant of the facts’ or that I am ‘a stupid non-Christian who is so unconcerned about abortion and the plight of the unborn that I ought to be defrocked (even though I was never frocked to begin with) and run out of the church to the tune of tar, feathers, pitchforks, torches and labeled anathema.’ To be sure, ‘they’ will probably point out that Jesus does not approve of what I am about to write in this post because Jesus hates abortion.

There I said it: The post is stupid.

I am willing to run the risk that I might be labeled by others in order to point out the sheer stupidity of the post mentioned above.

Did I mention the post is stupid? It has been a long, long time since I read something so incredibly insensitive at a blog claiming to be a voice for the Kingdom of God. I’m sorry. I’m desperately trying to be objective and compassionate. Can’t. Can’t. Can’t. I have read the post four or five times now trying, searching, scanning for hope and I just cannot find it. The most hope we can expect out of this post is that we might enjoy some ‘hauntingly beautiful hymn-like‘ music. If an expectant single-mother or a suddenly pregnant husband and wife swimming in debt is debating her/their pregnancy right now read that post, she/they would be left despairing and hopeless; feeling nothing but condemnation.

There is nothing about the Gospel. Nothing about the hope of Christ. Nothing about the penal substitutionary atonement death of Jesus. Nothing about forgiveness of sins. Nothing about grace. Nothing about repentance. Nothing about the new heavens and new earth. Nothing about resurrection. For someone who writes so passionately, so wonderfully about the damnable offense that is abortion, I just cannot believe that there is no mention of hope for forgiveness. No mention of reconciliation. No mention of peace in Christ. No reconciliation. No ransom. No redemption. No substitution. Just condemnation. *Shakes head.*

For someone who so frequently castigates preachers and churches and bloggers for not including a (the) message of the Gospel, I cannot believe the best there is to offer in that particular post is that we might get some good music out of it at the end of the day. No mention whatsoever of how people who have had abortions can be forgiven and changed by the work of Christ Jesus. (As if a purely moralized America is equivalent to the Kingdom of God.)

______________________________

I’d like to begin by noting a few things for the careful reader of CRN.info and Analysis. You may not agree entirely, but I’ll bet we are close. What I’d like to do, is offer the invitation here, at CRN.info and Analysis, that was not offered at SOL. I begin, however, elsewhere:

• It is wrong to steal.
• It is wrong to have gay sex.
• It is wrong to lie.
• It is wrong to cheat.
• It is wrong to fornicate.
• It is wrong to commit adultery.
• It is wrong to be racist.
• It is wrong to get drunk.
• It is wrong to be gluttonous.
• It is wrong to murder.
• It is wrong to get an abortion.
• It is wrong to lust.
• It is wrong to lie about the preacher.
• It is wrong to abuse your spouse or children.
• It is wrong to worship idols.
• It is wrong kidnap.
• It is wrong to disobey your parents.
• It is wrong to swindle.
• It is wrong to be greedy.
• It is wrong to rape.

Yes. Yes. I could go on and on and on. I agree with the post at SOL: Abortion is a heinous, despicable, vile, disgusting offense. I don’t know anyone here who disagrees with that assessment. Those things mentioned above are wrong; they are sin, abortion included.

But it is not the unforgivable sin. Never has been. Never will be. In the crazy economy of the kingdom of God, a person could have 490 abortions in one day and repent and God, in his mercy and grace, would forgive that person because of Jesus Christ. I mean, why wouldn’t he since he expects us to do nothing less? I don’t think God expects people to do things that he himself isn’t willing to do. Thus, forgiveness.

Abortion is not an unforgivable sin.

None of the things I mentioned is the or an unforgivable sin.

_______________________________

Friends, we have ample evidence in our world of all the things that are wrong with us and all the things we do badly and all the sin we have committed and all the idols we have worshiped and all the judgment we have invited into our lives and all the times we have crucified Christ all over again and again and again…

We have sufficient testimony to all the grievous destruction that our sin has wrought upon this earth.

We have enough people pointing out the sin that plagues the United States of America and Russia and England and Brazil and Antarctica and, well, you get the point.

Jesus did not tell us to go around moralizing did he? (This is not rhetorical.)

I’m not even sure he told us to go around pointing out sin, although, when the Gospel is properly preached I think that sin will necessarily be a part of the discussion. After all, it is terribly difficult to call folks to repentance if some mention of sin has not happened.

Jesus did tell us to go and preach the good news, the Gospel. “…He gave them power and authority to drive out demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the Kingdom of God and to heal the sick…So they set out and went from village to village, proclaiming the Good News and healing people everywhere” (Luke 9:12, 6).

We have good news! We are told to preach good news! Where’s the Good News in the SOL post? A musical legacy? For one who spends a lot of time criticizing the lack of Gospel in churches and pulpits, the post is decidedly barren of any hope and Gospel. Shall we merely criticize and condemn those who have had abortions or shall we offer them the hope of Christ Crucified and Resurrected?

___________________________

Is there any hope for those who were the subject of the SOL post?

I hate to write this post, but the bottom line is that I have decided that I will make it my life’s ambition to teach the grace of God every chance I get. I want to find 100,000 ways to say: God forgives you in and because of Jesus Christ. I hate writing this post because some might conclude that I am not opposed to abortion, but that would be to miss my point. I am very opposed to abortion, but I also realize that people sin and that it was the sick, weak, broken, hurting, desperate sinners, like me, whom Christ came to save, redeem, ransom, and atone for.

Jesus didn’t come to condemn; why do we think he has assigned us that role?

The author of the SOL post did a great job pointing out a great sin, but the problem with the post is simple: She gave us a great picture of a moralized America where everyone plays in an orchestra or knits flags and worships at the throne of conservative politicians. It’s a powerful picture, but it is not necessarily one Christ has drawn. It is a terrible problem, but there was no solution offered. What’s the point of ranting about the problem when there is no solution offered at all?

She didn’t give us a picture of the Kingdom of God. She gave us a picture of her moralized America where there is condemnation for every perpetrator and no hope whatsoever.

The author would have us condemn all who have had abortions and reject them as mere weak Americans who lack courage and are interested only in their bank balance and credit card statements. Christ would welcome them into his kingdom as the very ones he came to save precisely because they are greedy, murderous, and lack the intestinal fortitude to be self-controlled–because they are sinners! Well, of course they are. That’s normally what happens when people do not know or have rejected Christ.

So here I offer what the author of Slice did not offer: Hope. If you have ever had an abortion or over-spent on your credit cards, if you have filed bankruptcy because you have no self-control, if you are a coward, if you are hopeless and think you are running on empty, if you have no where to go and you think you are out of options–there’s hope. There’s grace. There’s forgiveness of your sins. Christ has payed the price for your sins. There’s Good News! Christ has not rejected you. There’s still hope! There’s still a message of peace and forgiveness to you because of Jesus. Christ will take away your guilt. Christ will heal your wounds. Christ will save you from the hopeless, endless cycle of condemnation and death.

You can join us, all us sinners here, all us imperfect, unkempt, undone, depressed, forgiven-by-God sinners here. We welcome you to join in the story that Christ is writing and has written. We welcome you to taste and see that His Grace is Good. We welcome you to be forgiven in the Name of Jesus.

“…and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Jesus Christ.” The same Paul, to the same Romans, chapter 3, verse 24.

“…For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” the same John the Apostle, the same third chapter, the 17th verse.

Tags: abortion, forgiveness, Good News, Gospel, grace, hope, Jesus Christ

This can only be brief, but it only needs to be. Here, Slice says: “Shack Author Denies Substitutionary Atonement.” I’m sorry to say, that this is simply not true. What the author denied is the Penal version of Substitionary atonement. The author of The Shack specifically states that he believes in some form of substitution and quotes 2 Corinthians 5:19 in support of it. It is simply not true that the author denied substitution. What he denied is the Reformed Calvinist version of substitution. What he denies is the penal version of the substitution. I think the author of Slice needs to correct the title of her post because Young specifically states that he believes in some form of substitution.

Now, just a couple of finer points. The person conducting the interview with Young states at the end a whole list of people, one who even did one whole sermon on The Shack that included ten whole points (!; talk about avoiding the Gospel!) (and others like Driscoll, Mohler as if anyone outside the SBC cares what Mohler thinks; as if we are not people with minds and can think on our own without these all powerful guardians; as if Driscoll is always right and never wrong and the ADM’s are always for Driscoll), who are ‘opposed’ to the book The Shack. What they didn’t do is include a whole list of people, theologians and preachers alike, who are not opposed to The Shack and there are many. The interview itself was little more than the interviewer trying his damnedest to convince Young that there is a literal hell (even after Young stated that he believed in Hell as literal). Young was gracious, but he was in the lion’s den. The interviewer was just beside himself that Young denied penal substitution is central to the Gospel. When Young tried to point out that there is actually great debate about this right now, the interviewer didn’t seem to care too much.

Young stated unequivocally, “I believe the only hope for any of us is Jesus.” That’s pretty clear to me. However, denial of the penal substitution is not a denial of the Gospel. It is a denial of a particular interpretation of the Gospel. There are many, many, many theologians who deny that penal substitution is the ‘core’ of the Gospel. Consider the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:

¹Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. ²By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

³For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ⁴that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, ⁵and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. ⁶After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. ⁷Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, ⁸and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

⁹For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. ¹⁰But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. ¹¹Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

The author of Slice needs to correct her post to reflect the truth because as it stands, it is simply wrong. Again, a denial of penal substitution is not the same as a denial of the Gospel. It is only in the minds of Reformed Calvinists and The Shack haters that penal substitution is the center of the Gospel. I don’t think you will find it in the Scripture.*

*The author of Slice does have it correct in her post, but not in her title. The title is misleading. The rest stands on it’s own as a criticism of what one considers ‘gospel.’

Tags: Paul Young, Slice of Laodicea, The Shack

This post amused me:

After hearing an interview with Bono recently in which 1/3rd of it was bleeped due to his fondness for the F-word, I’m sure that this album will make a deep and lasting Christ-honoring impression on the world.

As a U2 aficionado (ah, who am I kidding; I love U2!), I think I can confidently say that our dear friend at Slice is far too worried about U2. Actually, I’m rather surprised because recently, our dear sick friend (who needs our prayers for his back and money for his ‘ministry’ by the way), Pastor/Teacher/Prophet/Reformer Ken Silva posted this, which is a collection of music he himself has written.

I listened to the song ‘Eye of a Hurricane’ and I specifically heard Kenne drop the ‘d’ bomb several times in the song. Yet, no sarcastic calls from Slice about the ‘deep and lasting Christ-honoring impression’ that Kenne will leave on the world.  Then Kenne defended his decidedly ’secular’ music this way in a terribly verbose and rambling missive of which I will quote but two sentences:

At the same time apparently there was also some confusion as to the recent posting of some of the many songs I’ve written. I was pretty clear that they were not worship songs, though I have written some of those as well, but were instead geared primarily to a secular audience.

Two thoughts.

1. To the author of Slice, can you please provide a link or some substantiation of your remark that a recent interview with Bono had to be 1/3 deleted because of the ‘f’ word? I’m interested in seeing if you counted correctly.

2. To the author of Slice, and in the interest of fairness, can you please rebuke Pastor/Teacher/Prophet/Songster/Poet/Reformer Kenne for his absolutely appalling use of the word ‘damn’ in the song ‘Eye of the Hurricane’? I am offended and I feel like Kenne might be leading some people down a path towards damnation with his ‘music geared towards a secular audience.’

One more thought.

1. I suspect that U2’s influence in and around the world and the church will, despite Bono’s ‘fondness for the ‘f’ word’, will be judged by the fruit it produces. At least Bono understands grace. And has a recording deal.

Do you people really have nothing better to do with your time? Why don’t you buy a U2 CD and listen to it? You will learn more about grace in one U2 song (say, Daddy’s Gonna Pay for Your Crashed Car or Grace) than you will in 10 pages of Slice or Apprising posts.

The utter hypocrisy of the Slice post (and a similar post at Apprising) sickens me.

An observation from the mailbag (along w/ my own thoughts):

One ADM writes:

I have observed a strange thing. Churches will spend time and money on the most shockingly moronic videos of their pastors engaging in things like shaking their fannies into the camera (a memorable church-produced “Christmas” video) and worse. The videos are posted on YouTube, available to the entire world. Some of them are up for more than a year. Then, when I post a link to this infamy on Slice to demonstrate the shambolic state of evangelicalism, there is a sudden embarrassed rush to hide the videos as “private”, or to remove the videos altogether. One church just kept editing out the comments from Slice readers who pointed out the disgraceful behavior of a so-called “pastor.” Why is this? Are these people suddenly overcome by something called shame?

Observations:

1) She overlooked another possibility. No one wants to deal with her or her readers. Its easier to pull a video down than to talk to the unpleasant Slice of Laodicea hordes. That’s something to be really proud of.

2) She also overlooked that many Christians have an ability apparently missing from her gene pool – the ability to laugh at themselves.

3) Shame is an unhealthy byproduct of guilt, both of which are derived from sin. The last time I checked, producing sub-par-quality art (or high-quality silliness) was not enumerated in a list of biblical sins. Rather, acting peaceably w/ brothers & sisters IS something desired, and thus, the churches who pull down/privatize videos and erase anti-Christian vitriol (from other Christians) are following Christ’s example far more than the harpies and vultures who’ve ascended from the Sludge of Laodicea to stab them in the back…

And more bitter slicing:

it is difficult to imagine that Christianity used to produce some of the finest minds in the world. The brilliance of men like John Owen and Jonathan Edwards who submitted their minds to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, continues to shine down through the centuries. Harvard and Yale were at one time Christian institutions, dedicated to the Gospel and developing minds to the glory of God.

Fast forward to 2009 and the rotting corpse of Western Christianity. This buffoonery is what now fills churches today—the entire idiotic scene inspired by a children’s cartoon of singing and dancing vegetables. Infantalism rules, literacy is dead, and God-given intellects are dead, suffocated under years of video game playing, movie and television watching. Hard to believe that Christians used to produce books like “Bondage of the Will”, and translations of the Scriptures from the original languages. Today, pastors and church laity are reading “graphic novel” (comic book) versions of the Bible because they struggle to grasp anything beyond a one syllable word.

Observations:

1) Where to even begin? Apparently historical criticism was not taught in the Milwaukee schools years ago, as the writer cannot seem to discern cultural shifts from theological shifts to save her life. Moaning that the digital age doesn’t meet the success criteria of the print age – and that this is, somehow, a theological issue is more pathetic and sad than frustrating. The shift from modernist print means of communication to post-modernist visual means is a cultural one, that no amount of “spiritual maturity” (neither the author’s definition, nor the actual definition) will “cure”. Which begs the question – must one convert to modernism before one can legitimately accept Jesus? Apparently, one shrill voice believes so…

2) Buffoonery is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I find much of Christian Talk Radio to fit the bill of “buffoonery” and irrelevancy than a YouTube video parodying VeggieTales – the key difference being that the folks in the video are purposely acting a certain way to reach a certain audience, whereas many in CTR are buffoons without purpose or method to their madness.

3) We’ve covered Manga and Graphic Novels before, but perhaps it should once again be underscored how silly and stupid the screeching about this form of art/communication is. Graphic novels have become an effective means of storytelling in modern culture. Much like translating the scriptures from a hodge-podge of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin documents into English, translating the scriptures from words into pictures is not going to be a perfect translation – however – it takes the most important story we have to tell and puts it into a format that can best be understood by a certain audience of people. So again, must we convert the “illiterate” pagan from visual media to written media before they can be converted to Jesus?

To sum it all up, it just seems that the shrewish nattering from Laodicea is primarily an elitist, snobbish, country-club view of Christianity – far more in danger of missing Christ in this world and the next – that the targets of its poison-tounged diatribes.

But all hope is not lost.

Even Saul, on his walk to Damascus, was converted from a slanderer and persecutor of Christians and Christ to a living testament to the ability of the Messiah to change hearts and minds…

Recently a friend of mine  who doesn’t blog shared these thoughts with me: I felt it was worthy of some discussion here.

Joe,

Ken Silva posts this little tidbit:

You miss my point: We [Ken and Ingrid Schleuter] are led by the Lord to write what we write. In that sense we are together.

Wow. This just leads to so many issues. Such as…

Emotionalism
We’ve seen both Ken and Ingrid condemn modern worship practices, writers, and speakers as worthless due to their emotional nature. They’ve gone so far as to state that emotions are manipulated in order to over ride what the Word of God says. I happen to agree with them. In this case emotionalism has trumped the word of God as these two believe they are “lead by the Lord” to write what they write. Pretending that statements like “we are lead by the Lord to write…” is anything but emotion is delusion.

Two popes walk into western europe…
At one point in time two popes existed. They ended up disagreeing and ex communicating each other.

So what happens when Ken and Ingrid disagree with each other? Is God leading in two different directions? Which brings us to another issue that’s problematic to say the least. Ken is an SBC pastor (what? you hadn’t heard?) and Ingrid identifies as Lutheran.

This presents some difficulties, because if God is “leading” them to write, why hasn’t he lead one or the other of them into truth? The differences between Lutherans and Southern Baptists are so profound that they can’t even worship together. Just to list a few: infant baptism, the real presence, baptismal regeneration, liturgical worship, and the function of clergy.

Do they really expect us to believe that God is far more concerned with wearing flip flops in church, and showing film clips before sermons than he is on these issues which the Scriptures specifically address? Apparently what really concerns God isn’t in the Bible.

What about when they’re wrong?
Both Ken and Ingrid have published writings that are factually wrong. What happened? Was God just out on this one? Did He drop the ball on these posts? Or is it far more reasonable to assume that Ken and Ingrid aren’t being lead by God to write anything?

This doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of how God is leading them into writing in a way that is unBiblical. We’ve pointed out in multiple instances where their tone is so far from what we are commanded to be. So is God leading them in a way that is contrary to the scriptures? Or should we just assume there’s no truth to the claim that God is leading them to do anything?

As noted above, this is just another example of emotionalism overriding the Word of God.

~Dave

Now, my friend believes that God does call us, but he also believes (as I do) that calling will lead to fruit that looks like fruit of the Spirit.

We know God loves, gets angry, even expresses jealousy… these are all anthropomorphic emotions attributed to our God and Father. But this post over at Slice of Laodicea makes me wonder – does our Father also experience embarrassment? If he does, it’s this kind of behavior in his name that must elicit that emotion.

Whatever our thoughts may be toward Ted Haggard… whatever one may think about his opinions expressed in the media or elsewhere. The rant by Ingrid Schlueter is beyond bad, it’s beyond wrong, it’s beyond an embarrassment to the Gospel she tries to defend – in short; this rant is no service to God. It is an embarrassment. Ingrid’s self-righteous rage is embarrassing in its nastiness, its unChristlike tenor, as well as her mixing of theology and politics.

When Ingrid opens a rant with “Ted Haggard is now speaking out against the “Christian Right”. (That’s gay code language for Bible-believing Christians.)” she immediately tips her hand, a hand that shows her lack of biblical discernment. The “Christian Right” is not tantamount to “Bible-believing Christians.” There is no doubt the Christian Right is made up of Bible-believing Christians, but to speak against, disagree with, and even distance oneself from a political organization is not to distance oneself from the Bible. Ingrid has done this before when she elevated an economic principle to that of biblical status.

But this is just Ingrid assuming the Gospel includes membership in a particular political party. She becomes a true embarrassment in the manner in which she berates a fallen brother in Christ… disagree with him if you like… but such hatred for another member of the Body of Christ is unconscionable. It’s an old cliché, and a politically incorrect analogy, but in Ingrid’s case it’s fitting- the Christian Army is the only army that shoots its own wounded… nice shot Ingrid.

It is not my intent to defend Haggard, nor his opinions as expressed in the Christian Post. That said, to publicly address a brother in Christ by telling him to “find a nice dark corner where you can explore your “complex sexuality” and your deviancy…” – calling him “a sociopath who must have attention, adulation and constant ego-stoking” – these are not the methods of Christ… I’d got so far as to say they grieve the Father.

I do agree with Ingrid Schlueter on one point. “The sooner this kind of faux Christianity ends, the better for the cause of Truth” – so Ingrid, for the cause of truth and more so for the sake of the Kingdom… please stop.

[HT: Rick Frueh]

Mark Driscoll recently praised Rick Warren regarding his invocation at President Obama’s inauguration.  As part of his writing about that, Driscoll stated that Warren was following the commands of 1 Timothy 2:1-3.  Seeing as how Driscoll and Warren together (in any form) represented a 2-fer for the ADMs, this couldn’t go unnoted.  After a paragraph of gross exaggeration and dead-horse-beating about Driscoll, Ingrid whipped out this gem:

To use Scriptural precedent for publicly praying God’s blessing on a leader who is an enemy of God is an abomination.

This is quite possibly one of the most brilliant things ever written.  Because of the opening phrase, Ingrid has (allegedly) silenced any critics of this sentence.  If you use “Scriptural precedent” to show how ludicrous this idea is, then it’s “an abomination”.  And if you don’t use “Scriptural precedent”, then you open yourself to criticism for not abiding by sola scriptura.

At least she was consistent by not using any Scripture herself to back up this statement.

Well, I’m not ready to be silent.  So get ready for more abomination, because I’m going to reference that nasty Bible thing.

In Luke 6:28, Jesus commanded us to

bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you.

Now I have to wonder.  Ya think any “enemy of God” has ever cursed a Christian?  I’m thinking there’s a pretty good chance. (I’m also thinking that Tolstoy wrote a few words in his lifetime.)  So, according to Jesus, we’re supposed to bless that person.  But according to Ingrid, we’re not supposed to ask God to bless that person.  So, in short, we’re supposed to act one way, and God another way.  Even shorter, we’re not supposed to be like God.

“Enemy of God” is an interesting phrase.  It’s even very Biblical (at least when applied correctly).  Romans 5 and Colossians 1 both tell us that all people are enemies of God before salvation.  Every Christian was blessed with the faith to accept Christ.  Every Christian was blessed by the fact that Christ died before anyone reading this was born.

Let’s go broader:  Ya think there were any non-Christians (and therefore, enemies of God) on board Flight 1549 (the flight that ditched in the Hudson River)?  I’m thinking there’s a pretty good chance. (I’m also thinking that it may, occasionally, get a bit brisk in Antartica.)  God certainly blessed those people by sparing their lives.

But according to Ingrid, God’s not supposed to bless His enemies.  What an absolute screw-up this God character is.  My only comfort is that, most likely in her mind, I don’t follow Him anyway.

OK, I openly admit that I have not been a huge fan of Rick Warren.  A few years ago, I participated in a 40 Days of Purpose Bible Study, and at many times, I was underwhelmed.  It wasn’t that I thought that things were outright wrong as much I just thought it was very surface-level stuff.  That being said, one thing that does stick out in m memory is Warren’s assertion on the very first page of The Purpose Driven Life that “life isn’t about you”.  Apparently, that assertion flies over some people’s heads.

When I see an article like this, complaining about the video here, it honestly saddens me.  When I read this statement:

Can you imagine calling on this individual at 3am when your loved one is dying or seriously ill? Can you imagine Mr. T-shirt holding the hand of an elderly saint as she passes into eternity?

a few things come to mind.  First, I wonder how often it is really necessary to call someone at 3am.  I’m not saying it should never happen, but this makes it sound like a reoccurring event.  Secondly, I wouldn’t really care what someone was wearing when they came to visit me.  But, hey, that’s just me…

Now there’s nothing about either of those things that’s inherently bad, but in a large church is it really realistic to expect the lead pastor to perform these functions?  To me, the thing that’s amazing is that these aren’t just expected, but they’re demanded.  It’s the attitude that says the pastor is there is serve me, and I expect him to meet all of my expectations.  It’s ironic that the piece is referring to Perry Noble as a “hireling”, because, in reality, the kind of pastor Ingrid is describing seems more like a hireling – a person hired by the church members to meet their needs.

Now, I don’t deny that a big part of being a pastor involves caring for people and being involved in their lives.  But I will also say that as a church body, we are to minister to one another’s needs and there are many things that can be done by the average church member to help the pastor.  Have the critics volunteered their time to visit the sick and help other members?  Have they spent time and energy to be a blessing to their pastor?  If not, then they really have no room to complain.  Coming from a pastor’s family, perhaps I am more sensitive to these complaints, because I know that there are some people who will take and take but never give anything.  And these people most of the time simply need to grow up.  I think these are the type people the author of Hebrews had in mind when he wrote:

We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness.

So perhaps, the fact that Warren’s book starts with the basic premise, “it’s not about me” is a good thing.  It seems that some of us need reminded of that fact.

Well, I have recently become a big fan of Mark Driscoll because he preached a sermon from 1 Timothy that was timely and helped me a lot, but today I became a bigger fan of Ingrid Schlueter. Thanks to Ingrid, I now have a couple of very important links to VERY important web pages. (Sex.) Since I don’t read Mr Driscoll’s sex stuff, I would have never known about these links if not for you! Thanks! (Sex.)

On the other hand, I have to sort of chastise Mark Driscoll today. You see, I have steadfastly avoided his ’sex’ talk (sex) because, in my humble opinion, I don’t think there is a place for it in the pulpit. I know, I know. That runs against the grain of many people in my generation, but sex in the pulpit is to me like sex in the oval office: There should be more respect. That’s my opinion and I’m not trying to foist it upon anyone else. (Sex.) Like I said, the best person to ask about sex within a marriage is your spouse. As a preacher, I won’t talk about it; as a parishioner, I don’t want to hear it. But that’s me and it doesn’t have to be anyone else. I don’t preach in Seattle. (Sex.)

That said, Driscoll really let me down today with this post: Spiritual Disciplines: Chastity. Man, Mark, are you nuts? Here’s what Driscoll wrote:

Chastity is the fasting from all sexual activity for the purpose of holiness. The best example of chastity in all of Scripture is Jesus Christ, who never married and never committed any sin, including sexual sin (Hebrews 4:15). As an unmarried man, Jesus is the perfect example of appropriate male-female loving friendships that do not violate propriety or holiness in any way. The Scriptures command God’s people in numerous different verses to remain chaste in both their actions and appearances [...]

I was starting lose confidence in Driscoll, now he goes and writes something like this. I’m wondering if there will be any blog posts from certain bloggers today praising Driscoll for this post? No one even uses the word ‘chas…’…what was it again?…chas…’ oh, nevermind. (Sex.)

Attention Mark Driscoll: Boring! (Sex.)

I’ll let ‘the remnant’ have the last word:

God help you, Mr. Driscoll, and God help the so called Christian leaders who support him in it. You’re no longer going to do it in a corner, because the remnant is blowing the whistle. [My emphasis.]

Mr Driscoll, be afraid. Be very afraid. (Sex) It appears that now, God help you, you have been handed over to the satan. (Sex.)

I’m done.  I’m going home. All this talk about sex is making me anxious. 

Tags: Mark Driscoll, Sex, Slice of Laodicea