Friends,

This is just in: Christians Must not laugh.

James was right after all: “Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom.” (James 4:9) Must be why Luther rejected James as canonical.

Thanks to the ADM culture for reminding us of this sobering truth.

(See also: Post)

Said the ‘editor’:

Yeah, this scenario is side-splittingly hilarious: God creates mankind who rebels against the most loving Being there could ever be. They become so deluded they actually think their Creator is their enemy. In an act of grace and mercy, which is beyond words God comes into His Own creation as one of them.

Because of His perfect justice these rebels could not dwell with Him. So to show these helpless creatures that deserve nothing but to be destroyed how much He loved them, knowing they would never understand or even want Him, God – in the Person of His Son – allowed them to brutally torture and kill Him.

Yeah, that’s the funniest thing we’ve ever heard.

Actually, if you think about it, it is hilarious–in an ironic and disturbing sort of way. What sort of a god is so silly that he would rather die than to allow his creation to? There is something terrifically absurd about it, isn’t there? I mean, honestly, absurd!

16“To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:
17” ‘We played the flute for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge
and you did not mourn.’ 18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.” ‘ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.”

Seriously. Now Christian comedy is off limits. Before long, it will be against the Bible to breathe the air that God made.

Joy, which was the small publicity of the pagan, is the gigantic secret of the Christian. And as I close this chaotic volume I open again the strange small book from which all Christianity came; and I am again haunted by a kind of confirmation. The tremendous figure which fills the Gospels towers in this respect, as in every other, above all the thinkers who ever thought themselves tall. His pathos was natural, almost casual. The Stoics, ancient and modern, were proud of concealing their tears. He never concealed His tears; He showed them plainly on His open face at any daily sight, such as the far sight of His native city. Yet He concealed something. Solemn supermen and imperial diplomatists are proud of restraining their anger. He never restrained His anger. He flung furniture down the front steps of the Temple, and asked men how they expected to escape the damnation of Hell. Yet He restrained something. I say it with reverence; there was in that shattering personality a thread that must be called shyness. There was something that He hid from all men when He went up a mountain to pray. There was something that He covered constantly by abrupt silence or impetuous isolation. There was some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth; and I have sometimes fancied that it was His mirth. (GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy)

Amen.

jerry

PS–feel free to contribute jokes to this thread, you know, the sort of stuff that might make our pouty faces of concrete crack, crumble, and reveal.

Quite often, commenters here ask the question why we even care about what the various Armchair Mafia sites write, or why we spend time debunking their attacks.  It’s a valid question.  It’s something I ask myself, and honestly, sometimes I think it’s probably better to just let a fool go off into his or her folly.  But then I see something they write, and it’s so much in error, I feel that it needs a response.

Take for example, this rant.  Now at the start of the post, we are told,

The Right Reverend Nick Baines, Bishop of Croyden, has said that Beatles songs are as likely to explain Christianity as the Bible which he calls, “banal.” Rock songs, he says, are more effective at explaining Christianity.

That’s a pretty serious charge.  I would be concerned if a minister actually called the BIble “banal”.  So I follow the link to the original article, and what do I find?  I see that the Right Reverend Baines actually said nothing of the sort.  What he actually said is the following:

“The Bible is an amazing collection of books that we’ve allowed to become banal. For many people it is a closed book and asking them to read it is a lost cause, which is a tragedy.”

That is a very different statement than calling the Bible “banal”.  The Right Reverend Baines is simply stating that the Church has not done a good job at communicating the truths of Scripture to modern generations, and it’s tragic.  The truth is that many people see the Bible as little more than an obsolete book, and to them it has become “devoid of freshness or originality; hackneyed“.  So perhaps a secular songwriter, playwright, or poet will happen to ask questions that are really on people’s minds.  And perhaps we as Christians can take those questions and point to the narrative of Scripture that gives answers or comfort for those questions.

Actually, isn’t a primary job of a minister to listen to the questions people are asking?  Isn’t a true shepherd responsive to the calls of the sheep?  Perhaps the reason so many people have little use for the Church is that what was meant to be a vital and engaging relationship has turned into a one-way conversation.  Throughout the Gospels, Jesus never looked down upon someone with a genuine question.  He took time to respond to those whom society shunned.  He didn’t let religion dictate what the right questions were.

So perhaps instead of insisting we have the answers for all the questions that nobody is asking, maybe we should take a moment to listen.  We might be surprised what we hear.

There have been a number of posts on Slice about what I am calling the Wiccan Flight. The Christian Post claims that Harry Potter, Charmed and Sabrina the teenage Witch might somehow be responsible for this phenomenon. But, it is highly unlikely that someone watched Buffy and decided to become a wiccan priest. Just as it is unlikely for someone to start fighting crime after watching Batman. Changes like that are rooted in deeper places.

I found this quote quite telling “s our culture becomes more and more isolated and busy (and as real relationships are replaced by texting, IM, etc.), young people are starving for real relationships and true community, as well as for a powerful experience of faith.” Hmmm. Community, experiential faith, relationship based. Sounds alot like another growing movement that the ODMs equally hate.

When will these guys realize that people are done with programs, tradition for tradition sake, dry church services, music that is worshiped more than worshiped to, irrelevant teachings, politics over who can lead sunday school and what color the walls should be painted, and a once spiritual movement that looks more like a well oiled corporation (board room and all).

The World Has Changed.

People are looking for community, authentic faith, an encounter with the living God and a revolution that is going to change their soul. Unfortunately people are finding that the wiccan faith is much closer to that than First Baptist down the road. I hate to say it, but McLaren might have written more truth than not when he said everything must change. The question is, is Christianity willing to in order to reach my generation?

This was posted on Slice today

Imagine asking a pastor for advice and Bible verses on dealing with a specific problem. He isn’t your pastor, but it’s someone you respect, and you ask for advice. Within a short period of time, the pastor decides that the news is so juicy, it just has to be told publicly. That’s what happened to Sarah Palin when she returned a September 6 phone call from Rick Warren and asked him for Bible verses on dealing with pressures she is facing. (He stated it as though she had called him out of the blue for advice.) Rick Warren’s apparently insatiable need to hang with the movers and shakers and to puff his ego was bigger than his respect for Mrs. Palin’s privacy.

Uh… I am pretty sure that Warren knows when it is appropriate and unappropriated to share information with the public. This is hardly a case of a pastor breaching the clergy confidentiality agreement. Growing up in a pastor’s home, information was often leaked to us via overheard phone conversations, impromptu counseling sessions in the living room and poorly placed mail. We learned very quickly what was appropriate to share and what had to be kept confidential. Telling the press that someone called for Bible verses is hardly a problem. And, since the Palin campaign said nothing about the incident, one would assume this would be fine.

Once again — ODMs trying catch Warren in any snare possible. I found it funny that this was under the section of “purpose driven madness” on the Slice Site.

First Off, An Apology from the Blog Manager:

Last night, I was a bit grumpy, and wrote an article for my personal blog, accidentally posting it to .Info. In the course of messing around with it, I accidentally deleted Jerry’s post just before it. I’ve recovered this particular post (”Yes, yes, yes…Oh, no”), but not the comments attached to it.

Below is Jerry’s original post, along with an update from Jerry (to save having to recreate where he and a few commenters had arrived).

Again, my apologies for the error…

The Original Post:

Friends,

I haven’t posted on anything from SOL for a while–fact is, I haven’t even visited it SOL much recently. I stopped in for a moment this evening to see what was happening and I was thrilled to see this post: The Centrality of the Cross.

My goodness, the author of Slice was rolling along beautifully. I mean it. It was a wonderful post with wonderful words and a wonderful reminder of the atoning work of Christ. Then, in the midst of the great piece about the Cross, and while I was reflecting on the work of Christ, I came across this:

At a time when emerging authors and leaders like Brian McLaren attack the all atoning work of Jesus Christ on that cross, how important that we remember that without it, we could not be saved.

I found myself saying: Yes! Yes! Yes! Oh…no! Ruined. Ruined because she just could not stop herself from from sneaking in an attack. I just wanted to say that I appreciated the post, the hymn, the brief history lesson, and the author’s reflections on her worship experience today. But in my opinion, the entire post was ruined because she just had to throw someone else’s name into the post.

If only she had left well enough alone. Yes, the cross is a beautiful thing. Yes, the cross should be preached. Yes, we should sing hymns, and Psalms and spiritual songs to our God. Yes, (sometimes) we should observe the so-called church calendar. But if that cross was for the author of Slice, it was also for others–even, and perhaps especially, those with whom she disagrees.

I’m sorry and sad that the post ended the way it did. I’m sad that an otherwise wonder word of encouragement ended so abysmally because she just couldn’t resist playing the role of the accuser. Sad. Really. Really. Sad.

jerry

Jerry’s Update:

Friends,

How shall i say this? Well, one of the difficult lessons one must learn in life is that it is unwise to become too comfortable in any environment. i learned that lesson again last night after i made this post and was called out by Joe Martino and a commenter named Nick. After several back and forths between the three of us, i updated this post and asked for the forgiveness of those with whom i had sparred (Joe & Nick), the other writers of CRN.info, and Mrs Schlueter.

Somehow, purely by accident (as Chris L will explain), the post was deleted from CRN.info. It was, to be sure, a pure accident and i assure you that it was not i who deleted it, that there was no subterfuge involved; i regret that it was lost. i’m just arrogant enough that i wanted people to read my update and apologies. All of those have been lost, but we have managed to recover the original post and it is reposted here with this update.

The point of contention is that i gave the appearance of being contradictory and inconsistent due to my posts and comments concerning Julie N’s posts at Loneprairie. i was judged as being unfairly critical of the author of Slice while being overly warm towards Julie’s posts without the same critical eye. In short, i was judged as hypocritical. i don’t deny that judgment and i apologize again to the readers and writers of CRN.info for that serious error and lack of judgment on my part. i offer no excuses. it was plainly and simply a poor choice on my part–especially after so much contention on other threads here last week.

i would be happy if you would disregard this post entirely (except for this update) and not even bother to read or comment (even if i know that is not going to happen). i retract my judgment of SOL’s post and the author’s intentions and stand humbly corrected by my peers. i ask for forgiveness of anyone that i have offended. i am thankful for the encouragement of the other writers here, but i have also decided to take a little time off from CRN.info to re-evaluate my reason for writing here and to think and pray about what the Lord wishes me to do with my time. i love writing and blogging has proved a helpful medium to that end, but i need to be certain that i am in the Lord’s will too.

thank You for your time and patience. i am still learning and growing and seeking. i offer again my apologies to the editors of CRN.info and the readers for my poor behavior in the thread of the OP (before it was deleted). i apologize to Joe M for accusing him of ‘bashing’ me. i apologize to Chris L for creating so much work for him. i apologize to Ingrid Schueter for my unfair reading and commenting on her post. i apologize to you, the readers, for letting you down and if i come back and write again, i promise i’ll do better.

may all of you be blessed in the Lord.

jerry

Friends,

Rather than merely update my previous post on Julie Neidlinger’s essay, I’d like to offer here just a couple of comments concerning something that really bothered me in the comments and replies. It was this: Some felt it necessary to compare Julie’s essay, that is, the content of the essay, to Ingrid Schleuter’s writing or commentary on such same subjects. I’m writing this as a perfect apology for everything that Julie wrote even though, to be sure, I have great sympathy for much of what she said. I am writing, however, to dispel this notion that her work, in this essay, is comparable to Ingrid’s. I have re-read the essay again and I have a least seven reasons why I think Julie’s essay differed and, as such, why it appealed to me. (PS–this post is not about Ingrid per se. It is about the comments that I read from several who said that Julie’s essay was like Ingrid’s in tone and content. Please don’t make this an ‘I hate Ingrid rant’ because that is not what it is. Also, I am not ‘on Julie’s side.’ I am on my own side, partially, defending why I found Julie’s article appealing in the first place.–jerry)

First, Julie actually visited (or had a long standing friendship) with the church she mentions in the first line of her essay. Julie was not sitting back, looking in from a distance, scrutinizing the efforts of the church in an attempt to blister them for being heretics. She didn’t go surfing the web ‘looking for a baby Jesus under the trash’ (Bono). Julie went and worshiped with those people (more than once?); Ingrid does not. That is a huge, huge difference in my book.

Second, Julie did not condemn to hell those she disagreed with, call them apostate, consider them unorthodox, write exposes about the preacher’s heretical teaching, or anything of that sort. She said, quite specifically, “I don’t blame the church; it is my own inability to fit that literally forced me to leave. I don’t really doubt their sincerity, and that many people…etc.” I might take exception to the line ‘I’ve even found, in the past, a few sermons to be interesting,’ but that’s not Julie; that’s me. (That is, as a preacher, I would be highly offended if someone referred to my sermons as merely ‘interesting.’ ) Uh, do I need to actually state what Ingrid (and others like her, do?)

Third, Julie did not act as if her angst was necessarily theological. It may have had theological underpinnings; or not. But Julie was rather clear through the article that her angst had more to do with her own preferences than anything else, maybe even a little home-sickness. This could have bee gleaned by most from the first three paragraphs alone, but it is also scattered throughout. Ingrid, on the other hand, frequently offers up complaints that are decidedly NOT theological, but disguised as such when really they are nothing more than her preferences. Again, huge difference.

Fourth, Julie did not blame the pastor/preacher. “I don’t know that the minister was wrong, though I think he was in some things he said. I am sure parents appreciate the ability to leave…etc…but it annoyed me” (my emphasis.) I appreciated, as a minister, that Julie had the nerve to not place all the burden squarely on the back of the preacher. With Ingrid, that is not nearly ever the case. And maybe there is some justification to Ingrid doing so sometimes, but not always. At some point the congregation full of people needs to assume some of that weight.

Fifth, Julie is not opposed to all things modern. “I’m not going to be one of those starched-collar Christians who, based on personal preference, say that this is a sign we’re going to hell in a handbasket and that all things are wrong unless they are done as they were done with the Puritans.” Isn’t this a huge, major-league, huge difference between Julie and Ingrid? Ingrid is opposed on the grounds of being opposed. Julie is opposed on the grounds that so much of it seems contrived.

Sixth, Ingrid would never, I mean never, quote Kurt Cobain to make a point. Julie would, and did. For that alone Julie get’s bonus points.

Seventh, Julie provided a solution to her problem with the church: She left. This is not what Ingrid (or other AMD types) would do. First, they wouldn’t go to begin with, and, second, they would continue to rail against the church forever and a day thus perhaps robbing some of hope, others of joy, still others of purpose, and perhaps ruining a pastor’s reputation along the way. Julie was feeling angsty so she left. OK. Maybe she was a bit sensitive. OK. Maybe she was being a girl. OK. Who cares? She had a complaint. She voiced it. Some agree and some do not. Julie’s essay was not in any way, shape or form like something Ingrid (or others like her) would publish. Ingrid (and others like her) rarely, if ever, offers solutions to what she sees as (sometimes) valid criticisms. She just criticizes.

From what I can tell, Julie had maybe three complaints and, I happen to think they are valid. In no particular order, 1) fakery/phoniness/lame-trying-to-fit-in-ness/faux trendiness/sameness/faux-coolness from pastors. I agree–it’s like everyone is trying their hardest to look in like Mark Driscoll or Rob Bell physically the way so many pastors are trying to ‘look like’ Rick Warren theologically. Perhaps what Julie wants is for someone to, I don’t know, be themselves? Did you notice how many times the word ‘fake’ or a synonym for ‘fake’ was used?

2) Imaturity among Christian men. Fellas, and ladies, I gotta be honest with you: She’s got a point. One of the best things I did in life was to go to Bible college already married and live with my wife. Talk about having to grow up fast! It was like four more years of high school with all the gossipy who’s dating who and who’s hating who and blah, blah, let’s stay up until four AM playing games and drinking Jolt Cola. I don’t think this is about Julie’s ‘dating-angst’ as some seem to think, but rather about what has been fostered among our men in the church by not encouraging and demanding that they grow up in their faith.

3) Manipulative and trite sermons. This is at the feet of the pastor and I agree. Much of what passes itself off as preaching in today’s church cannot possibly provide hope, courage, or strength to people like ‘Julie’ or people like ‘me.’ It sounds trite and manipulative. It sounds like the preacher doesn’t trust that the congregation can handle a) hearing, b) learning about, c) applying deep theological concepts. So we have to dumb it down. This is her point, I think, about ‘children’s’ church; we are not raising children to be children, but adults. Why dumb it down, for children or adults? I happen to agree with her whole-heartedly. Give the people something eat.

OK. I think that’s about all I want to say. Please remember, this is my impression of her post. I’m not trying to psycho-analyze Julie. I’m interacting with her post and defending the post against those insidious ‘this sounds like Ingrid and so why do you like it and not Ingrid’s?’ complaints that I saw in the comment thread of my OP on the subject. It is amazing that most of this, again, could have been discerned from reading the first three paragraphs of Julie’s post. Have a grand day everyone.

jerry

Tags: apologia, Ingrid, Julie

Friends,

The author of Slice is on the prowl again…searching for someone to devour…and she found her victim. A church was donated $3 millions by someone who won the lottery. The author of Slice is unhappy that the church is praising God because this happened commenting: “See? Gambling does pay off!” The author of Slice did not tell her readers this part:

Crabbe said that only he and his wife, Jennifer, know the identity of the donor, whose only stipulation was anonymity. The donor bought the $10 ticket in Middle Island on July 19 and told Crabbe the same day. The congregation’s 12-member leadership board spent the next week deciding what to do.

Eventually, they decided, “we’re giving that whole first year away,” said Melissa Joles, of the church planning team.

The bulk of the first-year money, $102,225 after taxes, would go to Love’, a New Haven-based charity that looks to end child sex trafficking. The Lighthouse Mission in Patchogue, which feeds the poor, and Prodigal House in Port Jefferson Station, a halfway home for boys, will also get donations. After that, the church has promised to tithe at least 20 percent of the earnings and use the rest for a bigger meeting place.

Isn’t it strange that the author of Slice would complain about this? Those heretics!! I am simply floored at the half-truth reporting by SOL. To the author of Slice: When are you going to get it? When will you stop telling half-truths? When will you stop criticizing everything you see just because you can? I am almost persuaded that the author of Slice posted this in jest. One can only hope.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Tags: money, offerings, Slice of Laodicea

Friends,

I read a brief post at Slice this morning and it actually got me to thinking about the Gospel, the nature of the Gospel, the people the Gospel produces, and the sort of work that the Gospel inspires us to do. I was actually thinking about it as I read Gary Haugen’s new book Just Courage. He asks a very though provoking question: “For what purpose have we been rescued and redeemed?” (28) Some of our friends might say something like, “We are saved for the glory of God.” Well, no one doubts that. But why? Haugen’s answer is that if our redemption and transfer into God’s Kingdom is simply a matter of ‘receiving the salvation of the life hereafter’ (11) then we are merely living a ‘Groundhog Day’ sort of life. (29)

Haugen believes (and I concur) that Jesus has called us to more. ‘God calls us to make the transition from being those who have been rescued from the world, to those through whom God is literally rescuing the world’ (31). I find it terribly difficult, bordering on impossible, to argue with such thinking.

So, the author of Slice writes, after quoting a short bit from Al Mohler:

Now we see the emerging church embracing the same social gospel that killed the protestant churches. What a lot of young people see as whole new ideas and concepts are really just the same old lies repackaged for a new generation. Only the biblical Gospel will ever have any impact on the world around us.

But the problem here is that I don’t see the ‘emerging church’ embracing the same social gospel at all. I could be wrong, and to be sure, I think there is a lot wrong with the ‘emerging church,’ (and I’m not about to start worshiping in a coffee shop or a brewery) but the way I have seen it is this: the emerging church is actually, well, rebelling against the mainline denominations who have abandoned Jesus’ radical call to discipleship. Have I read them wrongly? I see a call backwards to the Christianity that Ellul says ‘can neither win millions of Christians nor bring revenues and earthly profits’ (Subversion, 154); the Christianity that the mainline denominations have, actually, rejected. There is a radical nature to Biblical Christian faith, Haugen agrees too, that mainlines have rejected.

I think the author of Slice has misread Dr Mohler’s point: the mainline denominations failed not because they ‘embraced a social gospel,’ but for other reasons. Dr Mohler wrote in the bit quoted: “These denominations once fueled the great missionary movement that carried the Gospel to the ends of the earth.” Well, let me ask: What could be more of a social gospel than going into a culture and preaching the gospel that doesn’t just ‘impact’ a society, but, in fact, totally subverts it and turns it upside down? No. I would say that mainline denominations failed because they embraced a theologically inept position whereby and wherein they rejected the Scripture’s authority among other things. (He also wrote: “The primary injury caused by mainline Protestant decline is not social but spiritual.”)

Well, I’m not terribly interested in dissecting Dr Mohler’s essay or the bit that the author of Slice quoted and applied. I’m interested in the application of Dr Mohler’s quote by the author of Slice: It is just dead wrong. What killed ‘protestantism’ was not an embracing of a ’social gospel’ but a rejection of the authority of Scripture (among other liberal tendencies). This is exactly what Mohler wrote: “Committed to a radical doctrinal relativism, these denominations have served as poster children for virtually every theological fad and liberal proposal imaginable.” In the bit quoted, I don’t see anything about a ’social gospel’ but I see a lot about biblical relativism. He’s talking about doctrine, not practice. It was their doctrine that corrupted their practice not the other way around.

I do agree with the last statement by the author of Slice: “Only the biblical Gospel will ever have any impact on the world around us.” But here’s the thing: It’s not about ‘having an impact.’ I don’t disagree that only the ‘biblical Gospel’ will do something, but I do disagree that it will merely ‘have an impact,’ that is, I disagree with what that gospel will do. The Gospel is not about ‘impact.’ We’re not talking about mere impact; we’re talking about a world ‘blown up.’ The Biblical Gospel preached and lived will turn worlds upside down–not merely have an impact. I can’t imagine a more socially subversive thing. Wouldn’t social aspects of our nation change, necessarily, as this Biblical Gospel is preached and lived?

I think the disagreement here is, when it gets down to brass tacks, with methods. But doesn’t every single person called to preach have to be faithful to the methods God called them to? So Isaiah is different from Jeremiah. Ezekiel is different from Daniel. Paul is different from Peter. John is different from Peter. I am miles apart from, say, Rob Bell, but closer to Bell than, say, Mark Driscoll. But that’s OK; we don’t have to be the same. Some are called to the mega-church most are not. Some are called to coffee shops most are not. Some are Notre Dame fans and those with sense are not. But that’s OK. It is OK to be different and have different methods. What matters, Paul said, is that Jesus is preached: “But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this, I rejoice.” Shouldn’t we be rejoicing that God has called some to preach the Gospel in ways, and to a people, that others of us are not particularly called to?

But isn’t this the point? I’m not disagreeing to disagree. What I am saying is that if the Biblical Gospel is merely about mental assent and happily ever after in heaven, then of what good is it? Isn’t God most glorified when we are most satisfied in him? (Piper) And if that is true, then wouldn’t he be more glorified if more people were more satisfied in him? And should there be any limits to the methods we use to help people be satisfied in God? Isn’t the whole of the disagreement here about the methods used by different people and not necessarily with the content of their preaching?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe many people said similar things about Martin Luther too.

Tags: Christian Living, orthodoxy, preaching

At what point should Guilt by Association warrant a fair reading? At what point should I stand up and take notice? At what point can I merely dismiss it as a witch hunt? Or at what point should I ignore the see-I-told-you-so attitude of someone with an ax to grind?

There is a subtle, nuanced difference between helpful research and self justification. Helpful research is factual with substantial proof. Self justification looks for anything and everything that would bolster your case, no matter how many logical fallacies you have to commit to get there. While it is a small difference that often goes to motivation it is an important distinction that should be made by anyone claiming expertise in an area.

Ingrid wrote a very touching piece on adoption, sharing some of her own personal experience on the subject. It really had a beautiful message for her readers.

BUT THEN…

Pastor-Teacher Ken Silva decided to tack this headline onto it and use it for his own agenda. Talk about taking something meant for good and using it for selfish gain.

A side of the so-called “ODMs” that hunters of heresy hunters, say like a Richard Abanes, might wish you wouldn’t see.

That’s all I have to say. You be the judge on motives, intentions and whether or not this sounds like pastoral behavior to you.