Issue: The ‘Emergent Church’ – a rather amorphous entity, by design, has become the favorite ‘they’ to watchblogs like Slice/CRN. A current and recent thread in this larger discussion regards them ECM and homosexuality.

CRN’s Take: One of the current threads of criticism is that the Emergent Church tolerates homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, if practiced in a monogymous relationship. This is portrayed not as an issue with a specific church or churches, but as endemic of the entire movement.

My Take: Engaging in homosexual sex is a sin. Period. I’ve said so before in response to an article on Emergent ‘TheOoze’.

The ECM is not a neat little movement that can be pigeonholed, though, and Slice/CRN tends to take anything sinful or that they don’t like (which are often mistakenly equated to be the same thing) and say that it is part of the ‘emergent church’ – that nebulous ‘they’ out there. (This site has been attacked specifically by Ingrid as ‘emergent’, and has still not issued a correction, when given the facts.) Rob Bell is often lumped in with the ECM by Slice/CRN, though he disavows any association, and his church, Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, MI, doesn’t really fit the mold (it is a megachurch that is focused on practicing Christianity as taught by Jesus within a first-century (as opposed to a post-modern) context.

In reality, the ECM is a response to post-modernism across many denominations, in seeking a way to engage the culture. As you might expect, EC churches started by folks from liberal main-line church with weak theology – surprise – are weak, theologically. EC churches that are led by folks from conservatives with strong theology – once again, surprise – are not weak, theologically. The more liberal EC churches are part of a loose network called ‘Emergent’ or ‘Emergent Village’. The more conservative ones refer to themselves as ‘Emerging’. Scot McKnight does the best job I’ve seen defining the movement than anyone else I’ve read, which you can check out here.

One of the first individuals to identify the movement, and in so doing, became its most visible ‘leader’, is Brian McLaren. I do not agree with his universalist bent of late, and disagree with parts of his theology. However, McLaren is not the ECM, and of the living, breathing Emergents I’ve met, most didn’t know who he is, nor do they ‘tow his line’. A couple years back, McLaren took a stance of not commenting on the morality of homosexuality and asked for a moratorium on the issue, but other leaders in the movement disagreed with him (Mark Driscoll doing so rather strenuously).

The ‘big name’ EC churches (Mars Hill (Seattle), Solomon’s Porch, Vintage Faith, Mosaic) do not, but of the smaller ones, some do and some don’t – once again, it seems, based more on their denominational underpinnings than some new theological drift. Bob Hyatt, a pastor of an ECM church, had this to say on the subject:

I think our stance would be what Stan Grenz called “Welcoming, but not affirming.” If people do not know Jesus, I don’t much care who or what they are sleeping with when they come to our community. I want to welcome them and tell them about Jesus.

When they become a follower of Jesus, however, the story changes somewhat in that there are many things that God wants to change in us, our sexual ethic included. Though our elders have decided to take an individual case-by-case approach with everyone and their situation, our general stance is that same-sex sexual behavior is not compatible with being a Christ follower and needs to be left behind.

And this as well:

By the way, I can name at least one well-known emerging church that has no issue with committed same sex sexual relationships… but I honestly don’t think they are representative.
However, many individuals who identify with the emerging church movement, whose background is the mainline church will share this view…

But I agree- the broad stroke “the ECM” believes this is silly. It’s a nonsensical statement most of the time it’s made, since on other issues and this one in particular, at least half of the “ECM” people you ask will express a different view.

I suppose it’s like saying finding a group of southern baptists who are KJV Only and assuming the Rev Silva must be as well. Or saying that since Mosaic and Saddleback are SBC, that Silva must be down with McManus and Rick Warren.

He snorts, but this is the type of thing he does to the emerging church all the time.

I would agree with Bob’s assessment, as well. That said, though, I – once again – do not consider myself emergent, by any means. What I would really like to see is balance, as I’ve written about before here.

UPDATE: I reworded my initial sentence, based on Bob’s comment below, to more accurately reflect my position, and to be sensitive to where this wording IS important.

Source: Verum Serum

Comments: This is an amazingly good article by Scott of Verum Serum on the subject of Christian ‘watch-doggies’ who seek to tickle their own ears whilst seeking to criticize those whose ears they believe are being tickled. Slice/CRN is not mentioned by name, but you can tell it is part of the subject at hand. Looking forward to part II.
Memorable Quotes:

In essence, “watch-dogging” has become the spiritual equivalent of Christian McCarthyism, but rather than Communists in every corner, they see heretics in every pew. Another way to look at this is to compare the “watch-doggies” to the members of the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, the group that spent years searching for evidence of infiltration by communists, Nazis, fascists and the like within American society. But this new committee of self-appointed watch-doggies and discernment organizations is looking for heresy and apostasy, and they’ll find it even if they have to manufacture it.

—

But how do these “watch-doggies” end up where they are at, believing themselves to be among the few faithful while the overwhelming majority of the Church (at least in the States) are traveling down the road to ruin? I would suggest one possibility – They have tickled their own ears.

—

In true dispensationalist fashion, most of those who engage in “watch-dogging” will interpret this passage as a reference to the condition of the church around the “end times,” prior to Christ’s return. They will point to obvious examples like TBN, Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, et al and combine them with less obvious teachers whom they believe to be in error (Rob Bell, Rick Warren, et al) and mix them all together in order to use them as anecdotal proof that the end times are coming because of these preachers who may (or may not) be teaching sound doctrine.

—

But these watch-doggies ignore the history of the Church. They ignore that there have always been times when people turn away from sound doctrine and chase after ridiculous, sad, pathetic imitations of the True Gospel. They ignore the fact that there have always been teachers and preachers who are off their rocker and about as theologically sound as the Book of Mormon.

These “watch-doggies” ignore that the charge in 2nd Timothy of preaching the Word and being prepared in and out of season is an exhortation to all Christians of all generations, not just the Christians in our generation. They seem to feel as though this charge is more relevant now that it has bee previously, thus creating some new sense of urgency. But this just isn’t true. Sharing the Word has always been the goal of the Church. These remnant-leaning “watch-doggies” want to believe that they are restoring something, but they are attempting to restore something that was never actually lost.

—

“Watch-doggies” WANT the negatives to be true about the preachers, teachers and trends within the Church, and they want to be the ones to denounce these negatives. In these negatives, they find the justification for their existence. Unfortunately, they are so intent on finding the witches in our midst that they begin to create the witches themselves by shaping them out of whole cloth, painting them black and putting large, black, pointed hats on their heads.

And how do they manufacture these “imitation witches?” They fall victim to the 2nd Timothy “ear itching” syndrome, the same disease that they claim to be “watch-dogging” against. To suit their own desires, to find the demons and witches in the midst of the Church that they are SURE must be there, they only listen to others who are just as convinced of the wolves in sheep clothing who must be leading the church into apostasy. They then use those others as proof of their own concerns and fears. They begin to isolate scriptural passages that might appear to support some aspect of their Church-focused witch hunt, and then tie these isolated scriptures to their beliefs and writings advocating the need for “watch-doggies” within the Church.

—

When others from outside of the “watch-dogging” remnant bring up concerns about proof-texting scripture and the use of isogetics (looking at scripture without context and ignoring the greater meaning of a passage as opposed to looking at scripture within its context and overall meaning), the remnant “watch-doggies” begin to hyperventilate as they throw around hot-button words and dire pronouncements and condemnations such as heresy, apostasy, wolves in sheep’s clothing, deceivers, schemers, dwellers in darkness, tools of the devil, spiritually blind, etc. Those who question are relegated to the classification of “on the path to Hell” and their words are never given consideration.

—

Yes.

We changed our site Name/URL.  And now we’re similar, but yet different than we used to be.

We are similar in that we’re not hiding our past – not an article has changed or been deleted from our archives.

We are different in that we’re taking constructive criticism into account and trying to discuss some of the higher level issues raised by CRN/Slice, allowing all commenters (within the bounds of decency, as defined by our ‘On Commenting’ section).

I will try to update our Pages/FAQ’s as I can, though this weekend looks a bit busy, and if you’ve got requests for specific CRN topics/articles to be covered, send me an email and I’ll get something written up…

Issue: Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton want to improve the ‘Baptist’ image, and Carter has started a Baptist voice initiative to try and improve the Baptist image beyond narrow-minded fundamentalism.  Additionally, Carter has written a book and has taken a public stand that the current issues in Israel/Palestine are all on the heads of the (Jewish) Israelis, prompting the resignation of 15 board members from his organization.

Slice/CRN Take: Both the Baptist initiative and the Carter debacle are signs of Clinton trying to get the church to look the other way on sexual infidelity and as a sign of moral anarchy.

My Take:  I am mostly in agreement with CRN.

• I agree to a point with Slice on the Carter & Clinton’s initiative in the Baptist church.  I am personally in disagreement with denominational organization, and such initiatives by Carter and Clinton would be impossible (along with the drift of the mainline churches into completely unsound doctrine around gay marriage, gender issues, universalism and the like) were it not for these denominational conventions.  That said, I don’t actually see the Baptist church taking a ‘look the other way’ official policy on infidelity.
• Carter’s recent efforts in the Middle-east have been fairly embarrassing all around along with his efforts on most other fronts.  While he IS a man of some integrity, that does not always translate into sound judgement or wise foreign policy.

I’m sure someone will disagree with me…

Issue: Bishop TD Jakes has been invited to speak at the Creative Church Conference (C3) Feb. 22-23, 2007, along with Ed Young Jr., Ed Young Sr. and Mark Driscoll.  Both Youngs are members of the SBC, TD Jakes comes from a Pentecostal background and Driscoll is either emergent (if you ask the TR’s) or is a culturally relevant, but hard-core Calvinist (if you ask the emergents).

Slice/CRN Take: Jakes’ church has a differing view of the Trinity that is heretical.  By sharing the same stage with Jakes, the Youngs are ‘unequally yoked’ and, as a result, the SBC is turning a blind eye to heresy, and, therefore becoming apostate.  “Reverend” Ken Silva has written to Dr. Frank Page (president of the SBC) and Ed Young, Jr. to plea for them to prevent this.  He has also written to Jakes to request clarification of his view of the trinity.

My Take: I see two issues here:

1. Speaking on the same stage with a figure who will speak on a topic (church leadership techniques) that has nothing to with the area of controvery (a definition of Trinity) does not give carte blanche endorsement to everything that individual has to say.  If he says something out of line with scripture, can we not trust the Holy Spirit to grant discernment to the pastors who will be in attendance?  Ken’s increasingly shrill calls will most likely go unanswered – not because the gentlemen he has written are hell-bent on “Satan-inspired ecumenical ‘union’”, but because, as people in such public positions often do, they will see his calls for what they are – Guilt-by-Association (GBA) tactics from a hyper-critical ‘discernment blogger’.
2. I believe Bishop Jakes’ view of the Trinity does differ from the traditional doctrine (which, should be noted, was developed long after the last of the Apostles died).  Before the Church became overwhelmingly Western and Hellenistic, it still accepted that God was both One (Deut 6:4 – the most important command) and Three (Genesis 1:1-3), but it did not try to reconcile this seeming descrepency.  Some tried to insist that He was really One (to try and make Jesus less than God), and others insisted He was Three (Creator, Holy Spirit and Word) AND One.  As I read Jakes’ church’s definition (and it would be nice to see more clarification on WHY his church defines this differently), it still insists on both Three and One, but tries to define how the 3 and the 1 operate together.  I am still failing to see, though, how this makes the God they worship – who they would say is YHWH – different from the God we worship – who we would also say is YHWH.  I am NOT looking for what Ken says interpretively they believe (as I’m sure they would not agree with his straw-man definition as he has currently written it), but what they actually believe.  So, until presented with evidence that Jakes’ church believe in a different God (i.e. Vishnu, Allah, etc.) or a different Jesus (a la Mormonism) or a different gospel (a la JW’s), I am hesitant to not consider him a Christian.

 

I am certain there will folks who disagree with me, with CRN/Slice, or both.

I don’t have much time, but I my initial reaction to the ‘new’ Slice:

1. Thankfully, there are no comments allowed. That eliminates 50% of the problems right there. I’ll wait for the E-What guys to add the new feed to their site, which allows open commenting.
2. From first blush, it appears to be the same old Slice, just with a less visually appealing format, no archives (yet), and no article attribution (looking for anonymity? – just kidding)
3. Any argument that it had been ‘in the works’ for some time is belied by its domain registration of January 6 – the day after Slice came down.
4. Ken Silva is still on staff (though I wonder if he’s still got a title of some sort to stick on his resume).

As I learned in school, fifty percent is better than zero, so it’s not all bad. That said, though, I think I will keep this site up for now, and start cataloguing articles again soon. If you have articles on the old or new ‘Slice’, let me know. Kinda busy this week, but I’ll get them in…

Meanwhile, here’s a good one from John at Verum Serum, and if you can think of any ideas for a cool new domain name, send them to slicedlaodicea @t earthlink dot net.

UPDATE: Karen has argued that my use of ‘belied’ is too strong (suggesting lying on the part of Ingrid).  I cannot prove that she is lying, and so I would choose ’suspicious’ or something less difinitive, instead.

Source: Monday Morning Insight

Comments: MMI takes note of the reappearance of Slice.  Would not a rose, by any other name…

Memorable Quotes:

I  wonder, if she felt the need for an even more comprehensive site than slice, why did she ‘can’ all the old content?

For some reason… she (and slice) needed a fresh start.  My enquiring mind isn’t the only one wondering, ‘why’.

—

Ingrid now has a message up at: http://sh33p.atspace.us/slice.html (redirected from the Slice address).

Dear Slice Readers: A new website is under development that will incorporate the writing talents of several different contributors on discernment issues facing the church. While the Slice format was popular and useful, we are hoping that the new format will be superior in the way it offers needed information for the body of Christ. When the new website is up, it will have a new domain but the www.sliceoflaodicea.com address will link directly to it. We hope to have the site up and running within two weeks. At the time that the new site is unveiled, there will be new contact information available. A warm thank you to all of you who read and benefited from the links and articles on Slice. However imperfectly the information was presented, our hearts desire here at Slice was to lift up the name of Jesus and to draw people back to the Word of God. Sincerely, Ingrid Schlueter

Let’s pray that the ‘new’ Slice will consider the heartfelt, legitimate criticism and incorporate the heart of Christ in their new site. They have had a number of legitimate issues/stories that should concern us (in the past week, Pat Robertson’s “prophecies”, the crass program of ’soul milestones’, the atheist site asking people to ’sign over their souls’, etc.). These good things tend to get lost in the focus on externals, broad-based attacks on the emergent/emerging church, ridicule of everything that comes from Saddleback, etc.

I am SO glad there was no malfeasance involved in the closing of the old ‘Slice’. I hope that after the new site launches, I never have to say a critical word about it, and that it edifies the body of Christ. I have so many things I’m working on, and I’m sure all other critics of attitudes like Slice’s have better things to work on as well.

Ingrid, if you’re reading this, I honestly hope your future venture is something I could point friends to (churched and unchurched) as an example of Christ in our culture.

Grace and Peace,

Chris Lyons

Or – “Responding to Ingrid’s Response to ‘Anonymous’ Critics Whom She Won’t Respond To”

Phase I – Digging a Hole

Well, if that title isn’t a bit confusing to you, more power to ya. An interesting few days, it has been… For the unaware, a minor blogstorm was set off earlier this week by Mrs. Schlueter of Slice fame, when she posted an article on a parody blog I noticed a few weeks back entitled “Patrick Lane: Be a Man“. Since I became a part of the storm late yesterday, I’ve allowed myself a night to sleep on it, while my wife discussed predestination with a Calvinist, and a day to work before blogging on it.

What was simply amazing about Ingrid’s article was the combination chutzpah and obtuseness that went into it, and the feeding frenzy that ensued. To wit:

• The basic premise of the article was that Patrick Lane, who started the blog, was somehow hiding behind a woman’s nome-de-plumme out of some desire to be anonymous. And so, to ‘out’ him, Ingrid was performing a service. What made this funny was that Patrick’s pseudonym, Christen Guilder, is an anagram of Ingrid Schlueter, which he spelled out back on December 22. To anyone paying attention, it was obviously parody, and the anagram was pretty hard to miss (as the same was done with Ken Silva’s name and others). So, Ingrid’s basic premise was shot before the gate opened.
• Ingrid then attempted to make this parody part of her assault on the favorite Slice boogeyman, the Emergent Church. She wrote
  

  If I as a woman am willing to take flak for what I believe, surely a man should be able to handle it. That’s the problem with the new emerging church version of masculinity. To write in a filthy manner about a Christian woman is considered truly masculine. Yet this individual is such a coward he won’t even use his own name, but rather assumes the bogus name of a woman.

  And this

  I want to thank Patrick for once again underscoring the moral squalor and essential effeminacy of a movement that is in rebellion to the Word of God.

  And this

  I noticed that the site included emergent big guy Dan Kimball on his blogroll. I wonder if Dan Kimball would approve of the vulgarity if it was his wife being written about in this manner and not me? That’s some emerging conversation, boys.

  (Just to note, I in no way condone much of the crudity on the parody site, as I noted in my previous article…) Why is this interesting, though? Patrick Lane has no ties to any emergent church, and he claims no affiliation to one, which he documented on his reply to Ingrid. It was pure assumption on Ingrid’s part. Should we expect that she will correct this? Should we expect that the Cubs will win the 2007 World Series?

• The commentator-sharks of the ‘amen chorus’ climbed aboard, one of them posting Patrick’s personal contact information, including address and phone number, sparking a bit of outrage. This doesn’t really bother me all that much, as the information was readily available via WHOIS (the same way that one can get information on Slice writers, etc.). What made it interesting was Ingrid’s later hypocrisy in complaining about our posting Ken’s church phone number (public record – Google it) and his place of business (which he has written about on occasion). The commenters also jumped on the ‘bash-the-ECM’ bandwagon, and added all sorts of sillyness of their own. As part of the commentary over at E-What?, Coop wisely noted:
  

  From the comments [at Slice]

  In my eyes, Ingrid, you are more of a man than most Christian men.

  And that is meant to be a compliment of some sort; sn’t it just becoming ever so difficult to differentiate between Slice of Laodicea and its parody? Where is the Pastoral Advisor to SoL when you need him most or when you most need him?

So, as a result of the furor over her post, she pulled it off the main Slice page, but, as of this writing, it still exists and is searchable. This is nothing new for Ingrid “Don’t Push Me Steve” Schlueter, who may pull items off the main page, but won’t actually retract them, and will allow them to float out there in the Google-able internet. What makes this somewhat humorous is that the article she won’t completely remove or print a retraction of makes he look more foolish than her object of ridicule.

Phase II: The Non-Retraction

In the next phase of the storm, Ingrid posted an article called “A Few Thoughts“, Ingrid tried to backpedal and save face, making clear that she is not printing a retraction, but not making it clear why she pulled her first article. In it, she compounds her previous error and then adds a few lengths of rope with which to hang herself later.

Her first point in writing was thus described by her:

Patrick’s vulgarities written about me demonstrated with great clarity just how sick many in the emerging church movement really are.

As previously pointed out, Patrick is not at all affiliated with any emergent church (some posts on other sites seem to indicate that he is a liberal main-line attender), but that really doesn’t matter to Slice. Where there’s hay to be made, you know… I will wholeheartedly agree that there were crude things on that site, things that were just as offensive as many of things posted on Slice. Yet – not emergent. She noted before that Dan Kimball was on Patrick’s blogroll, seeming to indicate this as her ‘evidence’ of emergent-ness. At best, she’s making a guilt-by-association here. If you are going to hold people accountable for what people who link to their blogs write… (I won’t even get started here…)

Her next point to Patrick was this:

The illusion of anonymity on the web causes people to behave in ways that they otherwise wouldn’t. But that anonymity is, after all, just an illusion. I wanted Patrick to know that he can’t hide for long behind a bogus name while writing moral filth about someone else, all the while claiming to be a Christian.

Once again, she still missed the point of the anagram, and the fact that Patrick hadn’t really gone to any lenghts to make himself ‘anonymous’. I also include this quote for a reason I will get to here in a bit… She next notes that

That’s all we’ll be saying here at Slice about Patrick’s site or the other similar sites that have been created. I simply won’t read them.

This too, will become somewhat humorously contradicted about 24 hours later. She finishes off her article with one of the kindest things I think she’s ever written about the ECM (despite her target having nothing to do with the ECM).

Let’s stay single-minded and let God handle things. After all, these people are not the enemy. They have sadly been captured by him.

It is very difficult reading this without succumbing to the desire to go into depth about how Ingrid and Slice are all about not letting God handle things, and how these people are the enemy and not merely deceived brothers. But I won’t. In the comments section, Nathan slipped one by that I somehow doubt would have made it past the filter if the person approving it were a bit sharper:

Also, I do think it is good to ignore the extreme fringe of critics who only attack on a personal level and ignore substantial discussion about the real issues. I think that goes both ways. =)

Indeed, Nathan. Indeed. I see what you did there…

Phase III: Responding To Sites She Doesn’t Read

From Ingrid’s article, one would surmise that this is the last we’ll hear from her on the topic. One might also surmise that the moon is made of green cheese. About 24 hours later, Ingrid posted an article called “Anonymous Critics Can’t Be Taken Seriously” – an article about this blog, Sliced, and how we’re somehow trying to maintain anonymity. This was based upon a cut and paste error on a post from a few days back, which I’ve now corrected.

Dispite this cut and paste error, the author’s name (me or John, right now) is on all original posts on this site (in the interest of fairness, I had to update the author field on one other article), and I’ve made my involvement no secret since day one, posting links on several sites, including an entire post about it on my own blog. My name (Chris Lyons), location (Zionsville, Indiana), church, myspace page, and other information are all easily obtained from my blog. No attempts at anonymity here, or on John Draper’s part, either.

So what did Ingrid have to say?

I was made aware this afternoon that yet another emergent website has ripped off the name of Slice of Laodicea for purposes of criticism and attack of this blog and its contributors. What was interesting to me was once again, the refusal of anybody to sign their actual name to their attacks!

Let’s see what her batting record is here:

• Emergent? Nope. I’m a lifelong member of the independent Christian churches in the Restoration Movement of the early 1800’s. John is a member at Saddleback. While our blogroll has some emerging church links, the bulk of our content comes from non-EC sites like Verum Serum, Fishing the Abyss and Lone Prairie Art Works
• Purpose of criticism and attack? Critisicm, yes, but not so much attack as to hold up a mirror to Slice in hopes of them seeing their true ‘witness’ and to help educate those Slice or its minions try to strongarm (for a full explanation, read our ‘about‘ page).
• Refusal to sign our names? Nope.

That’s 1 out of 3, Ingrid, and a tenuous 1 at that. Next, she wrote -

They did, however, see fit to list Rev. Ken Silva’s home phone number, town where he lives and place of employment under their FAQ’s about our contributors.

Less than 24 hours after someone did the exact same thing to Patrick Lane (read Phase I above) in comments moderated by Slice, Ingrid has the gall to complain about this. Wow. The hypocrisy is staggering. As I noted above, Patrick’s name and information was easily available via WHOIS, and Ken’s contact information (the phone # belongs to his church) via a single Google search on his church , so posting it isn’t rocket science or nefarious. The chutzpah it takes to do it one day and complain about it the next, though, is pure Slice.

Next, Ingrid complained about the letter we wrote to Dr. Frank Page (for which we received a nice reply), saying:

Not only did they place this information on the web but also posted a letter they wrote, slandering Pastor Ken Silva and his research to Dr. Frank Page, President of the Southern Baptist Convention. (Psst. Bright minds don’t usually provide their own evidence of slander on the world wide web.)

Pssst, Ingrid. Bright minds usually understand that slander is false information, and providing links to articles written by numerous folks about Mr. Silva’s well-documented foibles hardly constitutes slander. Also, to call what Ken included in his letter ‘research’ is an insult to high school seniors writing papers for English Lit.

All of this is par for the course when dealing with emergents who for some reason have found this blog to be a threat to them.

Once again – not emergent. But, if you might as well beat your dead horse since it isn’t going anywhere all that fast. In order to make this statement correct, a few changes would be in order:

All of this is par for the course when dealing with emergents Christians who, for some reason, have found this blog broad-brush slander of entire groups of Christians, and individuals within those groups, to be a threat to them God-honoring unity (not just for appearances’ sake) in the body of Christ.

There, with those changes, the statement would now be more correct. What else did she have to say?

We publicly outed the author of one such site who chose to hide behind a bogus name, a woman’s no less. There appears to be a real shortage of character among these men.

*Sigh* Why let such messy things like facts get in the way of your arguments? No hiding here. No hiding with Patrick. Missing the point of Patrick’s anagram still. Also, you keep making the point that he was using a woman’s name. As a severe traditionalist/fundamentalist, Ingrid, I wonder how you justify/rationalize the authority you try to project upon men of God? Does it come from the same book which allows Mr. Silva to demand respect as a ‘pastor’ while he shows zero respect for other pastors?

And then there’s this little rant against the non-existent emergents who were writing about Ingrid’s site:

The second irony in these blogs is that their very purpose is to judge, attack and criticize a blog that they claim judges, attacks and criticizes others. I want to publicly thank these emergents for exposing the myth of judgment vs. no judgment. There will always be judgment of beliefs. The question is always, by what standard do you judge? Unlike the emerging church defenders, we have an objective standard. It’s called the Word of God. These men have no such standard. They have their own preferences, their imaginations, their own opinions borrowed from their favorite emerging authors.

Ingrid, our standard is the Bible. Our standard is not systematic theology, but the Gospel of faith in Jesus and the faith of Jesus. As such, nothing riles us more than self-proclaimed religious authorities who seek to slam the door in the faces of those who seek God- modern-day Pharisees and Sadducees who judge by external appearances, and who do not practice what they preach. We seek to defend our brothers in the church who are being mischaracterized and slandered by folks like Ken Silva. We seek to defend our brothers who are set upon by self-righteous folks who castigate them for externals – such silly things as what building they worship in, what music they worship God with, what clothes they wear (maintaining modesty), whether they invite Christian comedians to their churches on a weeknight, and other trivialities you commonly mock. We seek to defend Christian brothers bullied by gossip-mongering busybodies who play guilt-by-association every time a new conference is announced. We desire justice, mercy and faithfulness in the midst of persecution from within the church, and a desire for shalom that you and your site have no real interest in.

We also seek, as did Jesus, to hold up a mirror to the Pharisees of our day, not to judge or attack, but in hopes they will repent.

At this point, Ingrid goes off on a huge tangent, bringing in Brian McLaren (who I am on record a number of places as being in disagreement with in terms of hell and in universalism), and calling down curses upon the emergent church. Despite her attempts to smear our brothers in Christ who consider themselves to be emerging/emergent, we are not them, and I am fairly certain this has been made clear enough here and elsewhere. Ingrid, will you repent of your attacks on them through us? Will you admit your error in supposing we desired anonymity? Will you admit your error in assuming we were emergent? I hope so, but I fear you will not.

Now, she starts to wind down:

My call to the emerging church fans who create attacks blog is this–stop the hypocrisy! You say we have no love for others and you sign your communiques with “Grace and Peace”.

OK. I signed my letter to Dr. Page ‘Grace and Peace’, and I meant it. I desire everyone would receive God’s grace, and that His peace would come. While we fight within, this will not come about, which is why we only exist as long as your unwarranted attacks do – to hold the mirror and hope for repentence. You do often come up with good stories (like with the whole ‘funds for souls’ deal, Pat Robertson’s silly predictions, the scary athiest site and others). However, in areas where grace can be extended and discussion may occur, or in areas where actual sinful behavior may be pursued via Matthew 18 and Galatians 6, that they may be – without all of the sanctimonious recrimination and accuasation – restored to the flock, this does not occur at your site, and it makes a mockery of Christ. The sins of the Pharisees Jesus railed against were exclusionary and legalistic, and in this, we try to be like Him.

She finishes with this:

So, anonymous critics, I’m sorry I cannot listen to your concerns when you refuse to even sign your name to the attacks you write. Anonymous critics cannot be taken seriously. You know who I am. I give my name each time I write. I stand by what I have said and I urge you to show the same strength of conviction. It’s time for you to come out of the bushes and quit yourselves like men, as the Bible says. If you can’t bring yourselves to do that, it’s time to take a look at the heart issues that prevent you from standing behind your beliefs.

We are not anonymous, and I offer my apology for seeming so – it was never my desire (as I’ve mapped out above). My name is attached to this post and the others I’ve written at this site and my own. Will you apologize for your misunderstanding in this matter?

Phase IV: An Odd Coda

There’s a bit of a post-storm flurry, where this website has come up: Goatees and Funky Glasses. It is a site that either Ingrid or her son put together a long while back (in internet time) mocking and parodying the Emergent Church. The blog owner does not identify himself/herself, but uses the blog handle Kyrie66, which was Ingrid’s handle on the original Slice. Eventually, it came out that she blogged about it on Slice back when it was created, and she wrote:

The site is pure satire. I’ve decided to keep adding posts regarding various aspects of emergent nonsense. Satire is highly instructive as it shows the foolishness of what you’re skewering!

So, at least at that time, Ingrid claimed to be posting to it. I wonder how this is any different than what she was accusing Patrick of: Anonymity? Check. Parody/Satire? Check. Crude mischaracterization? Check. Possible gender-bending pseudonym? Check.

Hypocrisy? Check.

Source: beChurch

Comments: John Griffin writes to Slice in regards to their open letter to ‘anonymous’ bloggers (who aren’t anonymous).  He takes probably a better approach than we have, hoping to engage them in face-to-face discussion.  I don’t know how fruitful it will be, but it is a well-thought-out, well-written article that succinctly boils down the essence of Slice.

Memorable Quotes:

I mentioned that the site is not really a blog. Let me explain: there are two kinds of blogs – those that just post news, and those that allow comments. Either one of those methods are fine. But Slice does not function like that.

They allow comments, but those comments are HEAVILY moderated (read censored). The comments that Ingrid and the other contributors tend to post are either a) supporting their positions or b) rude or easy-to-shoot-down arguments from those they disagree with.

Posts that disagree with them and cite specific reasons, scripture and are respectful and designed to bring peace are simply ignored.

The thing that’s made me most upset is that sometimes, they’ll allow you to post something that 10 people jump on – accusing and ridiculing the post. Then, if you try to respond with clarification or humility, they simply don’t post it. They “spin” posts to continue the vitriolic exchanges and don’t even allow you to defend yourself.

If you complain about it, they ban you. If you try to get around the ban, they ban your whole IP range. They’ve made a lot of people very angry using these tecniques – and then they claim to be “persecuted” for their actions – when their unfair, un-Christian approach to things is often at the root.

—