Posts Tagged 'Ingrid'

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

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , ,

Friends,

It appears that Mrs Schlueter is on vacation (again!). I have only a short thought on her post announcing that she is on vacation: I agree with what she said!!!

Much has happened/is happening, and we just need to remember that truth divides. We aren’t going to be loved for speaking biblical truth. In fact, Christ told us we would be hated. So when people mock at you, sneer and throw your past in your face, ridicule and stir up discord, realize that it’s all been done to God’s people before. We’re just the latest in the long train of believers down through history to face this stuff. As we serve the Lord, God is doing things in our own hearts and lives, as well. That should give us hope that He who began a good work in us will be faithful to complete it. Have a wonderful rest of the week.

The only real problem is that I don’t think any of us ever expected that such mocking, sneering, ridiculing, discord, and hatred would come from inside the church now did we? But, to answer your question, yes, Mrs Schlueter, we are the latest in the long train of believers down through history to face this stuff.

Soli Deo Gloria!

PS–I pray for Mr & Mrs Schlueter’s safety and that they have a great vacation!

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , ,

Friends–A brief update to this post and all those I have made here at CRN.info. I realized last evening that I have been spelling Ingrid’s last name incorrectly. I assure you this was inadvertent and I am sorry that it happened. Her last name, to be sure, is spelled Schlueter. I have, in all my posts and replies, reversed the e and u. I apologize for this mistake.–jerry

Friends,

Good news for all you struggling preachers who are fast approaching this Sunday’s sermon deadline: Slice of Laodicea now offers sermon outlines! That’s right. This week’s feature sermon is from…The Teletubbies. But seriously, Ingrid–who has herself preached many sermons directly from God’s word and never once used an I-L-L-U-S-T-R-A-T-I-O-N–is actually criticizing those who would dare to use movies as illustrations in sermons or to make a larger point about living or Scripture. Certainly, if the Apostle Paul were living today and dared to quote from pagan poets he would be on Ingrid’s list of heretics who deserve to burn in the fires of IHOP.

Yet on May 18, 2008, (I think it is fair to cite this because White Horse Inn that day was recorded before a ‘live studio audience’; may as well have been church!) Michael Horton began an episode of the White Horse Inn with an I-L-L-U-S-T-R-A-T-I-O-N from the Tom Cruise movie Risky Business and do you know what we heard from Ingrid? Just like when Chris Rosebroughused a filthy joke from Bill Cosby to I-L-L-U-S-T-R-A-T-E a point at one of his blogs and we heard zip from Ingrid. Is it fair, here at CRN.info, to call a spade a spade and point out that Ingrid is simply hypocritical and only applies her standards to those she wants to apply them too which is more often than not those she simply doesn’t like? I hope that is not too mean or anything. Where is the fairness, Mrs Schleuter?

I suspect that Mrs Schleuter has never read from the prophert Ezekiel. That was one crazy preacher! Have you ever noticed how the Lord commanded Ezekiel to get his point across? He had to play with blocks of clay (4), shave his head (5), eat a scroll (3), preach to mountains (6), pack his belongings and dig through a wall (12), and preach to a valley of dead bones (37) among other things. How about the prophet Hosea? He had to marry a prostitute to get the Lord’s point across! As much as I am a fan of sound expository preaching, those who do not do it should not tell those who do the best way to get it done. I will give anyone $10.00 if they can demonstrate from Scripture where the Lord prohibits the use of films in preaching (and it must be specific, such as ‘thou shall not…’).

Quodlibet…Mrs Schleuter has also revamped her blog SOL. Said the affable one:

Laodicea isn’t pretty but there’s no reason that this website has to be dark as well….Everything is here on the new Slice, no big changes except for the look.

No real surprise, now is there? Isn’t it ironic that Mrs Schleuter’s two new designs, one for Slice and the other for her Slicecast both feature fruit?

jerry

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , ,

Ingrid’s got the book of life. And while she doesn’t reveal who’s in it, she does reveal who’s out:

The term evangelical now can mean anything from a homosexual and his lover at an Evangelicals Concerned support group in New York City, Jim Wallis waving around Karl Marx’s Das Kapital , Shirley Dobson and her Reform Jewish universalist Rabbi, Greg Boyd and his hand-wringing semi-God, Brian McLaren and his hell-free, atonement-free, New Age Shift crusade, Rick Warren and his Purpose Driven madness, Rob Bell and his “human-product” Bible, Mark Driscoll and his toilet mouth pastorate, Doug Pagitt and his Desperate Housewives theology, and so forth and so on.

So to recap the following groups are just plain Jesus hatin’, hell bound miscreants:
Democratic/politically liberal Christians in the vein of Jim Wallis
Traditional, baby boomer Christians in the vein of Focus on the Family (Sorry dad)
Younger evangelicals in the vein of Greg Boyd.
Emerging/Emergents in the vein of Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt.
Younger Reformed Christians in the vein of Mark Driscoll
1st Century wannabe Christians in the vein of Rob Bell.

Which pretty much just leaves Ingrid and her blogroll. Well maybe, after all she finished the sentence of condemnation with “and so on and so forth”. It kind of reminds me of the old joke:

A man arrives at the gates of heaven. St. Peter asks, “Denomination?” The man says, “emerging.” St. Peter looks down his list, and says, “Go to room 24, but be very quiet as you pass room 8.”

Another man arrives at the gates of heaven. “Denomination?” “Non-denominational.” “Go to room 18, but be very quiet as you pass room 8.”The man says, “I can understand there being different rooms for different religions, but why must I be quiet when I pass room 8?” St. Peter tells him, “Well, the ODMs are in room 8, and they think they’re the only ones here.”

Sometimes I wonder if Jesus could get into heaven if Ingrid was the gatekeeper.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: ,