For the Record—Part 2

It seems that this lack of willingness for open dialogue is not limited to just a few sites.

Over at Slice of Laodicea they published a diatribe against a rap video produced for the 2006 Purpose-Driven Worship Conference. Then another harangue was posted claiming that it was blasphemous.

I posted the following comment:

This amazes me. No, not the video, but everyone's reaction to it.

Does this video push the limits? Certainly. Is it irreverent? Maybe if you think wearing jeans to church is irreverent.

Is the use of the word “Ho” unwise? Probably. Does that make this dangerous? Not unless you find the word “crap” offensive.

I tend to restrict the word “blasphemy” for things that are much more seriously an affront to God. But there is precedence for a broader meaning of the word.

"In the NT, blasphemy takes on the wider Greek meaning, for it includes slandering a human being (Mt 15:19; see also Rom 3:8; 1 Cor 10:30; Eph 4:31; Ti 3:2), as well as God. It even includes mocking angelic or demonic powers, which is just as wrong as mocking any other being (2 Pt 2:10–12, Jude 1:8–10). In other words, slander, derision, and mocking of any kind are totally condemned in the NT" (Tyndale Bible Dictionary).

Sounds like many of the things said about Rick Warren, N. T. Wright, and Brian McLaren might fit into this category.

Ingrid then made a new post entitled, “Pastor Defends Rap Video.” Several misrepresentations were made in the post and the comments. When I attempted to clear these up, my comments were not posted. (Notice a pattern here?)

So here’s the essence of what Ingrid kept me from posting (in two separate posts):

I never defended the video. I simply said that I thought you all were making too big a deal of it. I didn’t send this as an e-mail. I posted it in the other thread as a comment.

Then there followed the customary piling on by all the usual suspects, including Jim from OldTruth who has been following me around trying to impugn my character.

Many of these same people were over at the blog of Michael Lukaszewski, pastor of the Oak Leaf Church questioning his salvation and integrity.

God Bless,

Rod

For the Record

In case anyone in interested, here’s the background of what has been happening over at EmergentNo, a Web site that takes as its mission the responsibility to expose the “error” of the Emerging Church. Carla made this post responding to Brian McLaren’s answer to his critics.

She writes:

As I read the friendly note this morning, it occured [sic] to me that the vast majority of people I have read critiquing Brian McLaren, do so with a passion for truth and a zeal for accuracy & context. Oddly enough, those are two of the things McLaren says folks are not using (truth & accuracy) when they critique his work.

Then she sets out a detailed (eight-part) analysis of his friendly note to his critics. She lists what she considers logical and theological errors in what McLaren has to say.

In reading this analysis, I found it to have its own errors and problems. Yet the first three comments start out like this: “Good post, Carla.” “Excellent critique!” “Right on the money Carla.”

So I set out to do an analysis of the analysis. (It required two posts, because the commenting software has a character limit.)

My experience has been that objectivity and fair treatment are in short supply at this site. And I knew that I was inviting a barrage of personal attacks. I was not disappointed.

(Interestingly enough, I couldn’t get anyone to address the logical fallacies and other problems that I pointed out in Carla’s analysis. Not a single person addressed a single issue that I raised.)

I was told that my comments were “ungracious & uncalled for.” But when I pressed for examples (repeatedly), none were given.

Shortly after I made my first post, a comment was made at Kingdom Come. This person said, “Sorry to be off-topic here, but I just read your response to Carla over at ENo -- thanks for putting the time and energy into responding so articulately. I really enjoyed reading what you had to say.”

The comment thread at EmergentNo continued for more than 100 comments.

In the course of this banter, I engaged a couple of Carla’s supporters in dialogue. One of them eventually said, “Thank you for your posting. I understand what you are saying, even if I dont [sic] agree with you, I do understand. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this. Thank you!”

Another one said, “Thanks for the thoughtful post and excellent questions…. I have noted the careful, deliberative way you have made your remarks here. While you might not agree with me totally, you at least are much more thoughtful and careful then others have been here.”

One person who did not agree with Carla said that I was “thoughtful and kind.”

Carla made another post on the blog with the comments turned off. Without addressing the issue directly, she tried to explain why she didn’t feel the responsibility to respond to every comment.

I responded to that statement with a further comment in the previous thread.

I was continuing my amicable dialogue, now with two of Carla’s supporters (the ones I just quoted above with the positive statements), when I was secretly banned from making any comments. There was no public statement that I was being denied the right to publish my comments. I was simply locked out.

Carla makes it her business to hold other people’s feet to the fire. But when she is challenged, she says, “I’m just a humble, home school mom without any formal training in logic or theology.”

I don’t want to make it my mission in life to point out the errors of other people. But I needed to set the record straight.

God Bless,

Rod