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]

Being a preacher in a local church has given me insight that, frankly, I would rather not have when it comes to the church. I have met people in the church who are, I’m sad to say (and not that I am perfect mind you) who are among the meanest, most ungracious people I have ever met. That is a sad, sad, sad, thing to say; may God forgive me.

This is not to say, again, that I am perfect nor that I have never invited the wrath of some folks. There are plenty of times when my own weak personality, quick judgmentalism, forked tongue, and short temper have contributed much ammunition to the weapons used by these angry folks. I say with much regret that there are times when, as a preacher, I am as dumb as a sack of potatoes.

Grace is God’s on-going exertion of resurrection energy in the life of a justified individual to perfect in them the image of Christ (Colossians 3:9-10). It’s called sanctification. It is not an easy project by any stretch of the imagination. In some ways, I suspect that it is just as ‘painful’ for God as it is for the child. If God disciplines his children as a Father, and I believe he does, I don’t suppose it is any less hurtful for God, as Father, than it is for me when I discipline my sons. But what I have noticed, all too frequently, is that ministers are not afforded that grace. Congregants are; preachers are not. Preachers are not afforded the reality of being human thus when they are scrutinized they are scrutinized as a little above humans. And when they fail, they fail worse than the satan.

Shouldn’t preachers, I have a special place in my heart for them, be afforded the same courtesy of allowing that God’s isn’t quite finished with them yet?

Thus an entire genre of literature had to be invented in order to help preachers not only survive such massive assaults, but also to prevent them from going bonkers and winding up in the Psych ward of a local hospital. I just finished reading Well Intentioned Dragons which was a mind-boggling look at the stories of some preachers who had to endure such devastating pressure in their ministries. I highly recommend this book. Currently, I am reading The Wounded Minister by Guy Greenfield. I’m only just starting it, but Greenfield’s approach is nothing short of ‘in your face’. He takes a no-holds-barred, no-prisoners approach to writing about the insidious nature of those who have made it their ‘ministry’ to destroy those who serve in some ministry type position in the church or para-church.

I’d like to share a paragraph or three from this book with you. After listing seven characteristics of ‘clergy killers’ Greenfield writes:

Clinically speaking, who are clergy killers? What has made them this way? Several possibilities may exist. They may possess distinct personality disorders (for example, they may be antisocial, borderline paranoid, narcissistic). These conditions will be discussed in more detail later. It is also possible that clergy killers have been victims of abuse, either in the past or the present. Inadequate socialization (the process of becoming human), arrested adolescence, or violent role models may be behind their behavior. Some may have a perverse, voyeuristic, and vindictive taste for the suffering of their victims. Others have learned to throw tantrums to get their selfish way. They have learned how to distract, confuse, lie, and seduce to do harm to the vulnerable.

Clergy killers would or destroy either by direct attacks or by inciting others to inflict the wounds. Sometimes they induce victims to self-destruct by harassing them to the point of frustration and anger. This is the minister who counterattacks angrily from the pulpit. Most congregations will not tolerate for long a minister who expresses angry outbursts during his sermons, however justified he may feel.

Understanding how any person can become a clergy killer is complex and difficult. Most Christians in most churches have never known one, but it takes only one or two in a church to create havoc and bedlam. Because these people live in denial as to their true nature, they would not see themselves in this chapter if they were to read it. Clergy killers have surrounded and insulated themselves with a whole array of defense mechanisms and justifications for their actions. They firmly believe that what they are doing in harming and terminating a minister is the right thing to do. For them, it is the will of God. Nevertheless, they are sick and mean people. (30-31)

In my own experience, I can say that this is exactly the truth. What Greenfield is talking about is the local church (of which I am a big fan). Take these thoughts and extrapolate them just a bit. Imagine that the church also included an online community of several millions of people. Imagine that ‘local church preachers’ also happen to be ‘global church preachers’ because they write books or podcast sermons or pray at inaugurations. Online Clergy killers are no different than local church clergy killers. They may have a bigger audience, perhaps a little more clout, but they are no less sick; no less mean.

I can tell you that such activity in the local church has ramifications for the church’s witness and ministry in the community where it is located. I believe it keeps people away from the church. I can testify that in one church I served, a clergy killer went so far as to sit in a local restaurant and talk badly about the church, and the preacher (me), and do his best to persuade people not to worship with us. Now, extrapolate that thought and apply it to the internet and it becomes apparent what the problem is. Far from saving people to the glorious Gospel of Christ, online clergy killers are destroying the church–the body for which Christ Jesus gave up his life.

I believe in my heart that something is going to have to give sooner or later. At some point, online clergy killers are going to have to realize that they are not helping the cause of Christ because they are not promoting peace, not displaying the fruit of the Spirit, not putting their good deeds on display so that people might give praise to the Father in Heaven. Maybe it is time for peace.

Lord, help us. How, O Lord, how can there be peace?

Tags: ADM, church, clergy killers, Guy Greenfield, Marshall Shelley

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.

Just because something was written in 1923 doesn’t mean it is of value, nor does it mean it is right. Just because the title of the book has the words ‘Christianity’ and ‘liberalism’ in the title, doesn’t mean the author, in 1923, was speaking to same issues we are confronted with in 2009. It doesn’t mean the quote is bad or wrong either. Machen was an outstanding scholar and preacher.

That said, here is the thesis of my short post: Machen was addressing a different issue altogether than the one Pastor-Teacher Silva thinks he was addressing; therefore, Silva is, in my opinion, wrong and his case is not substantiated by the quote he provides.

The title of the post is ‘The Emergence Gospel of Good Deeds.’ The post goes on to spout off a quote written by J Gresham Machen. It is sad to me that Machen’s legacy has been tarnished by the opening sentence of Pastor-Teacher Silva’s post:

If you still think that this reimagined and repainted inclusive squishy social gospel of good deeds preached by postliberals like Rob Bell is something new; you’d better think again.

Actuallllly…..the ‘Gospel of Good Deeds’ didn’t arise with Rob Bell (Oh, by the way. I watched my first ever Nooma video the other day; ‘Rain.’ The woman at the book store told me, “I have a friend who bought [a particular Nooma video] and showed it to a unbeliever and ‘won him to the Lord.’” I also showed it to the FCA group I help lead at the middle school. It led us into a time of prayer. Amazing. One of the other adult leaders commented how it moved her because her family had gone through almost the same situation recently and her husband was feeling badly about it.) But I digress. The so-called ‘Gospel of Good Deeds’ didn’t arise from any so-called ‘emergent’ theologian. This is just bad, bad misrepresentation of Bell among others as I’ll show in a minute.

I think it is best summed up by NT Wright when he writes, “What are we waiting for? And what are we going to do about it in the meantime?” (Surprised By Hope, xi) What would they have us do, sit around doing nothing? Are we supposed to eschew good deeds? Are we supposed to sit back in our comfortable faith, clutching the pews, while we wait, staring at the sky? No. The angel confronted the disciples, in Acts 1, and said, ‘Why are standing here staring at the sky? He’ll come back. But you: Get busy!’ (I’m paraphrasing just a bit since Jesus had just told them they would be witnesses and there they stood.) He doesn’t mean for us to be do nothings–and I would say that merely sitting around the ‘ministry office’ collecting receipts is not a ‘good deed’ as Christ defined it. I like how Bell has said it, “Jesus wants to save our church from thinking that the priests are somebody else.” (Jesus Wants to Save Christians, 178) Amen.

Would the good Rev Silva have us to do nothing because someone in 1923 seemed to be saying do nothing? Or was Machen fighting another battle? Bell, as far I understand him, is not saying we should ‘abandon historic doctrines of Christ (which are found only in Scripture; not in the creeds or theologies formulated by the church) in order to promoted a new social agenda’. He is saying, I believe echoing Wright, ‘the fact of the resurrection changed everything and we have no reason to sit around doing nothing. While we wait, he has work for us to do.’ I can hear the angel now, “Why do you sit there, staring at a computer screen, doing nothing, complaining about folks like Bell, Wright and Warren who are out living a resurrection driven life? Oh. I see. You disagree with their methods. You disagree with their different types of thought and life. Oh. OK. You’re justified.” Angelic aside: *Right.*

To be sure, Machen was warring against something entirely different in 1923 than what our esteemed colleague and friend Pastor-Teacher Silva says because folks like Wright, Warren, Bell and others have not denied or thwarted cardinal doctrines of historic Christian faith. No doubt some today have and no one denies it. Those Machen argued against in his book had done so since he was warring against a particular liberal version of modernism that had ransacked the church; Machen was right. As Machen himself wrote, “There is much interlocking of the branches, but the two tendencies, Modernism and supernaturalism, or (otherwise designated) non-doctrinal religion and historic Christianity, spring from different roots.” (see previous link.)

This is exactly where Machen’s war and Silva’s war are different: The roots are not different in our day. In fact, I might go so far as to say that many, like Bell and Warren, would actually agree with Machen because they too would reject such a liberal modernism as he warred against. (I could be wrong.)

Getting back to that idea of ‘good deeds’ and where its origins are found. Here’s what I remember from Scripture:

“You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5:14-16)

Then I also remembered this:

The sins of some men are obvious, reaching the place of judgment ahead of them; the sins of others trail behind them. 25In the same way, good deeds are obvious, and even those that are not cannot be hidden. (1 Timothy 5:24-25)

And then there’s this:

Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 24And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. 25Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. (Hebrews 10:23-25)

And oh, don’t forget about this doozy:

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life. (1 Timothy 6:17-19)

And finally:

“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matthew 6:1-4)

If good deeds is a part of the so-called ‘emergent’ theology heralded and promoted by preachers such as Rob Bell, then I guess Jesus was emergent and so was Paul because they both seemed to think that good deeds should be a part of our continual practice as we Christians wait.

In conclusion: I don’t think the out of context quote provided by the Rev. Pastor-Teacher Silva today proves his point in any way. The roots may have been different in Machen’s day, but they are not (at least in the case of Bell, Warren, Wright, and many others that ADM’s hate) in our day. Pastor-Teacher Silva needs to go back and regroup. His condemnation is unjust and unfounded. His quote is meaningless to his cause.

*I used Bell as the example here since that is who P-T (Barnum) Silva used in his article.

So what was it like to be in ministry prior to the internet?  Well Graham Cooke had his own ADM’s that followed him around wherever he went.  Little did he know that God was gonna use it to teach him and refine him.

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

All too often in the Christian blogosphere, we’re overwhelmed with the pseudo-pious ramblings of holier-than-thou harpies and armchair quarterbacks that we forget to notice so many examples of the kingdom of God at work, both in big and small ways.

Brant Hansen, of Kamp Krusty fame, posted a link to his facebook page, which I found to be a rather touching example of followers of Christ finding creative ways in which to advance the kingdom.  From the article:

They played the oddest game in high school football history last month down in Grapevine, Texas.

It was Grapevine Faith vs. Gainesville State School and everything about it was upside down. For instance, when Gainesville came out to take the field, the Faith fans made a 40-yard spirit line for them to run through.

Did you hear that? The other team’s fans?

They even made a banner for players to crash through at the end. It said, “Go Tornadoes!” Which is also weird, because Faith is the Lions.

For those of you who aren’t from Texas, or w/o Texan friends & family (I’d make a subtle jab at Texas here, except that Zan lived there for a small bit of her life and still takes the second-largest state in the union way too seriously) – high school football is, in some ways, the end-all be-all of existence.  Which makes this story all the bit more strange.

So what was going on?

Gainesville is a maximum-security prison, 75 miles away from Grapevine, and its high school team plays every game on the road.   The coach from Grapevine arranged to have half of his school’s fans (along with cheerleaders) cheer on the other team.

It was a strange experience for boys who most people cross the street to avoid. “We can tell people are a little afraid of us when we come to the games,” says Gerald, a lineman who will wind up doing more than three years. “You can see it in their eyes. They’re lookin’ at us like we’re criminals. But these people, they were yellin’ for us! By our names!”

[...]

After the game, both teams gathered in the middle of the field to pray and that’s when Isaiah [the Gainesville QB and DCB] surprised everybody by asking to lead. “We had no idea what the kid was going to say,” remembers Coach Hogan. But Isaiah said this: “Lord, I don’t know how this happened, so I don’t know how to say thank You, but I never would’ve known there was so many people in the world that cared about us.”

Go ahead and read the whole article – with a box of tissues (in case you get something in your eye while reading).

You see, it’s little things like this which demonstrate the Kingdom of God – the heart of Christ – something far different than sniping at pastors who preach in cities in which you don’t live, in churches you don’t attend, to people you wouldn’t know from Adam.

Mark Driscoll.

Well, that should be enough fire up this thread. Look, I think the problem is that Mark Driscoll’s church is called Mars Hill. That’s probably it. GBA. (Sex.)

What amuses me about this and this and this is the word ‘demand’ in the first link. Here’s the quote:

Because Driscoll is causing harm, I and Cathy Mickels and Deborah Dombrowski and any other women who would like to join us, are speaking out. I am demanding a response from men like Dr. Erwin Lutzer who has refused to come out against this and who will be speaking with Driscoll at an upcoming conference. You can reach Dr. Lutzer through his assistant named Lori at Moody Church. The number is [removed] or [removed]. Here is a list of speakers who will be further legitimizing instead of rebuking Mr. Driscoll. [My edits & emphasis]

Ladies, ladies, ladies. You ‘demand‘ a response? Seriously. On what grounds? (Hint, you don’t have to go to the ‘conference’.) At what point has Dr Erwin Lutzer suggested that he is accountable to you? Demand?

I’m sorry, I’m choking on the word ‘demand.’ My goodness these ADM’s like to demand. Here’s a demand of my own: I demand that Ken Silva post his picture online for everyone to see and unless he does I will continue to believe he is a fictional character. Demand! Bwwaaahhahahahaha! Demand. (Sex!)

I’m also amused by this quote:

Mark Driscoll should be shunned by decent people everywhere. There are Mormons and certainly Muslims who have more of a sense of decency and propriety in sexual matters than he does. There is a filthiness about this man that evokes a strong desire for a disinfecting bath after watching him. This is not the spirit of Christ. It is the spirit of the age.

So now, as it was pointed out by someone wiser than I: “Anyone else find it hilarious that she looks to Mormons and Muslims to show us the proper way to go, and then says that its the “spirit of the age”.” (Sex) “Shunned”? What are we now, pilgrims? Are we living in Jamestown? Demand! I demand you ladies out there start wearing really long and thick dresses again; and stay quiet at church. (Sex.)

Yes, I do. Demand? (Sex)

**ALERT** With all due respect to the sexually uninformed: If you don’t like Mark Driscoll, and you don’t like the words he uses, here is a very simple exercise for you: Turn it off. Don’t click the link. Close your ears. Turn the channel. I mean, it’s not that difficult. Seriously. It is not that difficult. No one is forcing you to pay attention to Mark Driscoll. (Sex) **END ALERT**

And, concerning the last link, the letter from ‘Derek’, I have a question: Derek, if you think Driscoll is embarrassing the name of Christ because he talks about sex, do you think the author of SOL is doing any better for the name of Christ by continually tearing apart pastors over whom she has absolutely no authority whatsoever? Seriously, ‘Derek’, from the ‘Braidwood Bible Chapel’, can you show me where in the Bible it says that the author of Slice has a right to say what she is saying about pastors whose churches she does not belong to? Can you show me where she has a theological or moral obligation to make demands of anyone?? Did you read the rest of Ephesians 4-5 where it says we are to be kind to one another and forgiving, and compassionate? And what about that crazy part where it says we are to ‘get rid of all bitterness, rage, and anger, and brawling, and slander, and every form of malice.’ Do the Bibles at Braidwood Bible Chapel have those verses too? (Sex.)

Oooh, oooh, ‘Derek’, don’t forget that one that says this: “…walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant sacrifice to God.” Yes, brother ‘Derek’, those verses are in there too. Do you think that the author of Slice needs another letter from you today? (Sex.)

Time to grow up kids.

PS, I happen also to think that Driscoll’s sex sermons are pathetic and embarrassing. But I do the manly thing: I don’t listen to them.

Sex. Sex. Sex. Sex. Sex. Sex. (Just want to make sure we get picked up by a whole mess of porn sites.)

Here’s a link to a series of 5 sermons hosted by Driscoll at Mars Hill featuring Dr DA Carson. I wonder if perhaps the author of Slice should demand Dr Carson no longer speak at Mars Hill in Seattle? Maybe we should start suspecting Dr Carson too…

***Just having a little fun.****

(sort of: see: He said: Love One Another)

cf., Luke 23:22-24

Tags: demands, Humor, Mark Driscoll, preachers, Sex