On April 6, popular blogger/author Tim Challies―long-time friend and associate of various Online Discernment Ministries (ODM)―posted a fascinating and insightful article titled Evil As Entertainment. This hard-hitting piece, both timely and necessary, discusses how too many “watchblogs” and discernment websites (i.e., ODMs) have been engaged in nothing less than a a prurient fascination with exposing “evil”―much like tabloid newspapers, sensational/adult websites, and TV shows indulge in exposing the details/photos/videos of lurid Hollywood scandals, heinous crimes, or sexuality (e.g., porn). In the case of ODMs, however, the nature of their stories/videos/photos are the alleged evils of “Christians and churches and supposed Christians and supposed churches.”
Challies rightly observes that these Online Discernment Ministry blogs/websites offer little more than “a steady diet of negative content related to the church in general or perhaps related to just one person or one ministry.” Moreover, Challies concludes that these websites/blogs are basically a kind of “entertainment” for those enamored with negativity:
They are really just a spiritualized form of YouTube or any other site that entertains by sharing what is gross and base and negative and that does so for the sake of entertainment. There is really no value in watching boys do stupid things on skateboards and laughing when they crack their ankle bones in half; there is really no value in watching the worst pastors in America preach to the worst churches in America. Such sites offer evil as entertainment” (Tim Challies).
Challies hits the nail on the head with these comments. The Online Discernment Ministries (ODMs) that now litter cyberspace have become a quick fix for troubled hearts and minds seeking a daily dose of negative, rancid, hate-filled rhetoric that is fed to them under the guise of ministry, spirituality, godly correction, biblical rebukes, and being on fire for God. Challies offers two exquisite scripture and some godly words of advice:
I think of Paul’s words near the close of the book of Romans where he says, “I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil” (Romans 16:19b). He wants these Christians to invest their time studying not what is evil, but what is good. When they have confidence in all that is good, the evil will become ever-more apparent.
This is not the first or only time Paul has given this exhortation. In 1 Corinthians 14:20 he wrote “Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature.” And in saying this he echoes the words of Jesus who exhorted His disciples and warned them of the persecution that would come, saying “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16).
Such advice goes hand-in-hand with my most recent posts about these accusers of the brethren and the division they are causing within the church (see Don’t Believe Everything You Read…On the Internet, as well as ODM Update: Another Apologist Speaks Out, and ODMs: A Cult is Born?). We are in an era of great spiritual deception, and ironically, some of those dispensing the destructive deceptions are the very ones claiming for themselves the “We Are God’s Defenders of the Faith” label.
Most interesting was how Challies was quickly attacked by the ODMs and their supporters, who visited his website/blog and began accusing him of all manner of evil deeds, using their typical brand of hate rhetoric and false accusations.
John Baker, for example, opined: “A Pathetic article that spreads mis-truths and over generalizes. . . . The deeply disturbing part of this ‘article’ is it has absolutely zero Biblical support for its views! . . . You have instead joined the ranks of those who believe their subjective opinions divorced from Biblical Truth are somehow valid!”
Another ODM responder, declared: “richard [abanes] fawning over Tim is a good reason for me to be suspicious. . . . After reading this article I was left with the impression Jeremiah and most of what Elijah said, for example (plus many many other passages) ought to have been better left out of the canon.”
And over at Slice of Laodicea, run by ODM leader, Ingrid Schlueter, we have the following response: “Tim Challies today has decided to criticize those blogs that he believes use bad news as ‘entertainment.’ . . . If Tim Challies is not referring to Slice, Apprising Ministries, Lighthouse Trails, A Little Leaven or Christian Research Network than he owes it to his fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to clarify. . . . This is sloppy, unfair and slanderous to those who are losing readers because of his vague post.”
The ODMs are up in arms. As I have noted elsewhere on the Internet, the mask of deception is now beginning to be pulled off of these fake ministries by various pastors, Christian authors, fellow Christian bloggers, and assorted church leaders who have watched with patient hope/prayer the ODMs waxing worse and worse over the last several years. And now, the time for action has come. The truth is being brought to light―and it is no surprise that the darkness is trying to fight back. Those dwelling in darkness, or at the very least, under a cloud of darkness, always respond most viciously when light is being shined on them.
The mark of any true defenders of the faith, however, will always be that they behave in a manner consistent with the fruit of the Holy Spirit: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” (Galatians 5:22).
Interestingly, even a cursory look at these ODMs watchblogs and websites will show an absence of virtually all such characteristics that would be indicative of someone being led by the Spirit of Truth. So I thank God for Tim Challies―another man of God willing to speak out against the poison being injected into Christ’s body by these so-called Online Discernment Ministries (ODMs).
Pray for all of us in the church as the dark deeds of these ODMs continue to be exposed by servants of the Lord willing to stand for truth. Above all, pray for the ODMs―pray that God will humble them, open their eyes, heal their hearts, and direct them toward a path on which they can truly be used by God for his glory and honor.
peace in him,
Richard Abanes
(related articles: Great Damage: The Gift of Discernment Used in the Flesh by Pastor James MacDonald).
Chris Rosebrough said
I think Steve Camp and Phil Johnson offer a more balanced perspective on the ODM matter.
http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2009/04/blogging-watchblogging-meta-and.html
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/04/turning-blind-eye-to-evil-is-evil-too.html
Jim W said
Why don’t you call out your pals on C?RN.info, Richard? They are the foulest of the foul, and you know it. Your game is old and tired. Start demonstrating the verses you quoted above: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” (Galatians 5:22).
I haven’t seen any of that from you.
John said
Richard,
You are puzzling. You write books pointing out the false teachings of cults and you ignore the false teachings before your own nose. When your buddy Rick Warren goes on Larry King and basically says he has nothing against homosexuality in his spineless way of flip flopping you should take him to task that the word of God speaks clearly that homosexuality is wrong and that a preacher of God’s Word must stand for God’s truth. Yet you will defend this man tooth and nail. I heard Warren’s words. No one needs to interpret them for me. Yet instead of pointing out the false teachings in evangelical Churches you perfer to turn your pen (or keyboard) against those who are defending exactly what God’s unchanging Word says. You need to take a long and hard look at what you really believe.
Andrew said
You know, not knowing you or any of the other people you mention like Ms. Schleuter, I have to ask, Why are you any different? I don’t know you from Adam, Mr. Abanes, but in the last few days I’ve read several blogs on both sides of this issue, and I keep coming back to the same question: why does Richard Abanes, whoever he is, think he’s any different than the people he’s attacking? In fact, my outside observation is that you’re an incredibly spiteful individual. Hey, maybe I’m wrong and maybe it’s foolish to judge a person’s character through the internet, but if the things you’ve been writing are any indication of your character, my observation can’t be far off. You exhibit NONE of the characteristics of the apostles, much less Christ, when dealing with error – whether it comes from inside or outside the church. I’m amazed at the petty and often malicious manner in which you have responded to people in comments. The only reason I’m even writing this comment is that I’ve seen your name pop up in so manny comments on so many blogs, and nearly every time you responded with a snide, insulting, or rude reply.
I find it mildly amusing and ironic, though extremely sad, that you can say this: “Interestingly, even a cursory look at these ODMs watchblogs and websites will show an absence of virtually all such characteristics that would be indicative of someone being led by the Spirit of Truth.” Why my bemusement? Well, because on this, my first cursory look at your watchblog, I see a stunning absence of those same characteristics. How you can hypocritcally attack other people – something about the pot and the kettle? – and then sign your post with “peace” is beyond ridiculous. I see no interest in peace coming from you.
Like I said, I have no idea who you are. I have no axe to grind. I’ve heard you on Issues, Etc. once before, but other than that I’ve seen nothing to commend you. And after reading this blog, I see nothing further to commend you. These ODM sites may be completely wrong and worthy of rebuke, but I’d sooner listen to them and decide for myself (Acts 17:11; 1 Thess. 5:21) who’s right and who’s wrong than listen to you eviscerate them – your brothers and sisters! With friends like you, who needs enemies?
richardabanes said
John: When your buddy Rick Warren goes on Larry King and basically says he has nothing against homosexuality in his spineless way of flip flopping you should take him to task that the word of God speaks clearly that homosexuality is wrong and that a preacher of God’s Word must stand for God’s truth.
RA: Which Larry King show are you watching??? Because what you’ve just stated is absolutely false. It’s a lie. Nowhere in that video does Warren say anything remotely similar to “has nothing against homosexuality.” That’s ludicrous.
On the Larry King show you reference, Warren stated: “I actually believe that marriage is — [it] really should be defined — that that definition should be, say between a man and a woman.”
He also stated on Larry King: “I am not an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage ACTIVIST. I never have been, never will be.”
ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST, ACTIVIST.
An activist is someone who ACTIVELY pursues a certain issue with the hope of making some kind of social/political change. This is the most basic understanding of activism, as wikipedia even states:
To be an activist for a SPECIFIC issue is something all fo us Christians are probably called to and it is usually intertwined with a specific leading or calling from God.
For example, some people are activists for missionary work. Others are called to stand against abortion in the pro-life movement. Others are activists in the area of feeding the poor, being advocates for abused children, or working with gang members, or drug abuses. Still others are called to be Christians activists in the area of gay issues (e.g., Joe Dallas comes to mind).
We each have our own callings. Warren, although he believes Gay Marriage is wrong and unbiblical, is NOT called to be an activist in that specific area. And who among is is called to be true activists in ALL areas. That would be impossible. Warren’s focus is elsewhere.
As a pastor he advised his church to support Prop 8 and t oppose Gay Marriage, telling them that marriages should remain defined as one man and one woman. That was in his role as a pastor. His role as an activist involves evangelism and social help for those less fortunate than us.
Stop lying.
______________
John: I heard Warren’s words.
RA: You heard them, but you weren’t listening. As a result, you heard what you WANTED to hear, not what he actually said.
______________
John: No one needs to interpret them for me.
RA: Apparently, someone does.
_____________
John: You need to take a long and hard look at what you really believe
RA: I know exactly what I believe. Here are some passages that highlight my beliefs with regard to these issues:
“You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.”
Exodus 20:15
“Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness.”
Exodus 23:1
“A perverse man stirs up dissension and a gossip separates close friends.”
Proverbs 16:28
“An angry man stirs up dissension.”
Proverbs 29:22
“A truthful witness gives honest testimony, but a false witness tells lies.”
Proverbs 12:17
“A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who pours out lies will perish.”
Proverbs 19:9
“Like a club or a sword or a sharp arrow is the man who gives false testimony against his neighbor.”
Proverbs 25:18
“Whoever slanders his neighbor in secret, him will I put to silence …”
Psalms 101:5
“He who conceals his hatred has lying lips, and whoever spreads slander is a fool.”
Proverbs 10:18
“Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.”
Ephesians 4:31
“Remind the people to … slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.”
Titus 3: 1-2
“The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire and is itself set on fire by hell.”
James 3:6
“Therefore rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy and slander of every kind.”
1 Peter 2:1
Richard Abanes
richardabanes said
A: Why are you any different?
RA: Well, one difference is that when i level criticisms/corrections at someone, it’s based on fact and documentation — not half-truths, misiniformation, partial stories, and out-of-context quotes. That’s one difference.
________
A: … why does Richard Abanes, whoever he is, think he’s any different than the people he’s attacking?
RA: See above. Another difference is that I am not unnecessarily dividing the Body of Christ. I am pointing out those who are doing that very thing, which is something they’re doing in direct opposition to the Bible, and also in blatant disobedience to the following passages, given the way they use false accusations against the brethren (i.e., slander):
“You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.”
Exodus 20:15
“Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness.”
Exodus 23:1
“A perverse man stirs up dissension and a gossip separates close friends.”
Proverbs 16:28
“An angry man stirs up dissension.”
Proverbs 29:22
“A truthful witness gives honest testimony, but a false witness tells lies.”
Proverbs 12:17
“A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who pours out lies will perish.”
Proverbs 19:9
“Like a club or a sword or a sharp arrow is the man who gives false testimony against his neighbor.”
Proverbs 25:18
“Whoever slanders his neighbor in secret, him will I put to silence …”
Psalms 101:5
“He who conceals his hatred has lying lips, and whoever spreads slander is a fool.”
Proverbs 10:18
“Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.”
Ephesians 4:31
“Remind the people to … slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.”
Titus 3: 1-2
“The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire and is itself set on fire by hell.”
James 3:6
“Therefore rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy and slander of every kind.”
1 Peter 2:1
___________
A: In fact, my outside observation is that you’re an incredibly spiteful individual.
RA: Hmm, you’re not very good at observant.
But seriously, do you have something I’ve said that you can quote that is “spiteful.” My understanding of spiteful is: “showing malicious ill will and a desire to hurt.”
In reality, my words of caution and my calls for care is to stop the hurting that is already going on by various ODMs.
___________
A: my observation can’t be far off.
RA: Actually, you’re about as faar off as anyone can get…..
___________
A: petty and often malicious manner in which you have responded to people in comments.
RA: A few quotes woud be helpful…..
___________
A: and nearly every time you responded with a snide, insulting, or rude reply.
RA: …. quotes?
___________
A: and then sign your post with “peace” is beyond ridiculous. I see no interest in peace coming from you.
RA: Oh, I see, you’re a follower of Ingrid Schlueter. That makes sense now. Interesting coincidence that just today she’d write in an attack piece against me: “He signs his emails with the word ‘peace’ . . . They slither from site to site, planting doubts and slander in the comment sections, always, of course, in the name of ‘peace.’”
___________
A: Like I said, I have no idea who you are. I have no axe to grind.
RA: Uh huh.
___________
A: but I’d sooner listen to them and decide for myself (Acts 17:11; 1 Thess. 5:21)
RA: Excellent. Please do so. As for my speaking out against them, have you no words of condemnation for them as they speak out against pastors, teachers, authors, church leaders, and other “brothers and sisters!”?
RAbanes
Tam said
America’s “apostacy driven” churches are EVERYWHERE! They helped elect our President. The nation is collapsing….the only one you can truly trust is CHRIST JESUS and HIS LIVING WORD.
Andrew said
A: I have no interest in back-and-forth with you.
RA: Cool.
_________
A: I’m happy that you have rehearsed all of the appropriate Bible verses to respond to your critics.
RA: Rehearsed? This is interesting. If I don’t use Bible verses, then I am accused of being unscriptural. If I do use scripture, its just rehearsed. Kind of a difficult place to put me in, don’t you think?
_________
A: I voiced my legitimate concerns, as your brother in Christ and with no interest in being on either side of this quarrel, and instead of “Thanks for the concern, Andrew, let me explain why I feel I’m in the right”…..
RA: Well, if someone takes a certain perspective, and they feel that they are right, which is why they’ve taken that perspective to begin with, doesn’t it sort of make sense that they might want to explain why they’ve taken such a perspective. That’s what I identify as a discussion.
____________
A: …. the best you could do in response was “You’re not very good at observant”
RA: Did you not see my smiley face after that remark? And then, did you not see my “But seriously…” Such would indicate I was just sort of being rather light-hearted about it all. I guess you’re not in the mood. Sorry. My bad.
____________
A: …. and “Oh, I see, you’re a follower of Ingrid Schlueter. That makes sense now.” You really would make the perfect witness in court…I step up and make my points, and then you come along and prove them for me. Thanks, I guess.
RA: I think you had many things already proved to your satisfaction long before you cam to this blog.
____________
A: I only respond to two points and I’m done with your blog.
RA: Fair enough. Happy Easter.
___________
A: Calling me a “friend of Ingrid Schlueter” because I used the same word, or made the same observation, that she did, is exactly what I meant when I said you were petty.
RA: That’s not petty…..THAT is observant. If I was mistaken, then that is an incredible coincidence. And since I have no reason to think you’re lying, then fine. I agree that you have no idea who Ingrid is, and it was a coincidence. My bad. Sorry. Retracted. There’s no reason for animosity or anger.
___________
A: I have no clue who she is, I did not read her post, and I’m certainly not her friend. You completely prove my point and undermine your own when you jump to conclusions like that.
RA: See above. And that is ALL it takes to undermine my points? Interesting criteria.
___________
A: I appreciate you doing that, really, but why couldn’t you take me at my word?
RA: I just did.
___________
A: Why did you assume I wasn’t being honest when I said I don’t know those people?
RA: You’d be surprise how many liars I run across on a daily basis. That’s why. How do you think a soldier in Vietnam would respond to an innocent villager, if that villager was the 100th villager he met that day, and the other 99 had a grenade behind their back?
___________
A: Somehow you think I’m a secret ODM-disciple here to cause trouble. I’m confused – how is that different than what you just called “false accusations against the brethren (i.e., slander)”?
RA: How is that different? Because you just told me I was wrong. And I’ve believed you, and I’ve responded with, “My bad. Sorry. Retracted.” THAT is the difference. I’ve never declared that people — including me and ODMs — need to be perfect. Just honest.
___________
A: I’m done here, the last word is all yours.
RA: Thank you. Taken. You’re more than welcome to return.
R. Abanes
Julie said
Quote: Challies rightly observes that these Online Discernment Ministry blogs/websites offer little more than “a steady diet of negative content related to the church in general or perhaps related to just one person or one ministry.”
Question: What kind of steady diet do you offer, Mr. Abanes?
richardabanes said
Julie: Question: What kind of steady diet do you offer, Mr. Abanes?
RA: Hopefully a much more healthy and nutrition one:
We ALL Suffer: But Why?
Eckhart Tolle, Oprah, and Truth
Theology Without Apology: Greg Laurie – Week #2
THERE IS A GOD – Inspiration For Today
GREG LAURIE : New Bible Study in the OC
The Real Housewives of….Worldliness
Be Thankful Today…For Today!
Just a few examples…..
peace in him,
RAbanes
Julie said
That’s a fine list. I’ve seen your books in the bookstores as well.
But what about the things you haven’t included on the list? You know…comments you leave on blog posts, and stuff like that. I’ve seen those, too, and they’re a little different than the books. Perhaps there’s some serious junk food out there with your name on it.
It’s a bit tricky to use a quote like “a steady diet of negative content” as a condemnation for others and not yourself when you’ve been as active on blogs and web sites as you have been.
I know I have lots of junk food out there. I’d feel pretty silly thinking Challies’ remarks didn’t also hit home even if his intention was that they were aimed elsewhere.
The best writing that I find myself saying “that is so true!” to is usually so true because I recognize the condemnation in myself. Maybe you should ask yourself how it is you know so certainly that Challies was onto something.
richardabanes said
J: But what about the things you haven’t included on the list? You know…comments you leave on blog posts, and stuff like that.
RA: Some are good, some are bad, some are in the middle. Posting as a human being is different than posting with a pointed purpose of misrepresenting others and molding people into heretics/apostates that can then be mercilessly attacked, which in turn results in dividing the Body of Christ. That is something I have not done to my knowledge.
___________
J: I’ve seen those, too, and they’re a little different than the books. Perhaps there’s some serious junk food out there with your name on it.
RA: Oh, I’d agree with that. LoL!!! I never said I wasn’t human, Julie. Ask my wife about how human I am.
___________
J: It’s a bit tricky to use a quote like “a steady diet of negative content” as a condemnation for others and not yourself when you’ve been as active on blogs and web sites as you have been.
RA: The operative word here is “steady” — and that was a quote from Tim Challies, not me. Moreover, Challies is referring to “negative” material that is, well, to put it mildly, REALLY NEGATIVE — as I noted above:
That’s not all what you’ll find at my blog.
_____________
J: I know I have lots of junk food out there. I’d feel pretty silly thinking Challies’ remarks didn’t also hit home even if his intention was that they were aimed elsewhere.
RA: I don’t think Challies was speaking at all about me or blogs/websites like mine. Why don’t you ask him……
__________
J: Maybe you should ask yourself how it is you know so certainly that Challies was onto something.
RA: Because I’ve been saying for years what Challies has just now stated, only using different terms and accenting different aspects of the ODM watchblogs (see my articles and the links therein….
RAbanes
Julie said
“Why don’t you ask him?”
I don’t ask him because I’m not the one who cared enough to write a blog post about his blog post.
But here’s a bit of a kicker: what does it mean when a blogger links and then builds on the post of another blogger (in this case, Challies’ post) based on a personal assumption or interpretation of the writing (which is something we all do with what we read…poetry, for example, we attach our own meaning to), and then, when asked by a commenter that it might be possible there is another meaning (possibly a contradictory or broader scope, even), is told to go ask the original blogger.
Shouldn’t that have been the job of the person writing the secondary blog post? If the secondary blog post begets questions in a reader, telling them to go ask the original source is a rather poor show of things; that should have already been done and clarified before the secondary post was written. Who knows. You may have an even stronger post if you had talked to Challies.
So, what about this: why don’t you go ask Challies about what he meant, and the scope of it, and if anything you or others have written could be included in his admonishment? I’m not saying they are or aren’t. I’m just asking you, the writer that created the question in the mind of the reader, to go do some more research.
I will check back to see what he has to say.
Remember, now. I’m some random person in a bookstore thinking about buying one of your books. Give me information, and not just more questions. I can come up with questions on my own. Don’t throw out a lazy “go ask him” if you are the one doing the writing with an assumption of authority on understanding the primary source.
richardabanes said
J: “Why don’t you ask him?” I don’t ask him because I’m not the one who cared enough to write a blog post about his blog post.
RA: Julie, I don’t know what answer you’re looking for. Challies wrote an article. And numerous blogs/websites are printing all kinds of articles that are favorable, unfavorable, and half-half. I posted my thoughts-observations, and someone else will post theirs. So, that’s really about as far as it goes. Again, I’m just not sure what you’re after.
___________
J: But here’s a bit of a kicker: what does it mean when a blogger links and then builds on the post of another blogger (in this case, Challies’ post) based on a personal assumption or interpretation of the writing (which is something we all do with what we read…poetry, for example, we attach our own meaning to), and then, when asked by a commenter that it might be possible there is another meaning (possibly a contradictory or broader scope, even), is told to go ask the original blogger.
RA: It means that anything’s possible, but I can’t read Challies’ mind. So, go ask him. That’s all it means.
If you think he might mean something else, or have some as-yet-unmentioned purpose or scope to that article, then you should write yet another review of it and share with others what you might think.
___________
J: Shouldn’t that have been the job of the person writing the secondary blog post?
RA: If I were writing a book, I’d go interview Challies. I’m not writing a book. I’m giving casual, informal observations on a blog of another blogger’s post.
___________
J: If the secondary blog post begets questions in a reader, telling them to go ask the original source is a rather poor show of things; that should have already been done and clarified before the secondary post was written.
RA: Okay. Go talk to him. Then write an article. I’ll look forward to reading it. Where is your blog/web? And fyi, I don’t think anyone contacted Challies before writing their own observations — that’s, well, not really done. Do you see how many articles, reviews, responses, replies, observations, rejoinders, critiques, assessments, etc. are written on the Internet everyday? are you seriously saying none of them should be written unless all those people previously call whomever might have posted something else on the Internet that they are looking at? Julie…….seriously.
___________
J: …. why don’t you go ask Challies about what he meant, and the scope of it, and if anything you or others have written could be included in his admonishment?
RA: Why? Challies doesn’t need anything of mine to be included in “his admonishment.” He’s just fine.
________
J: I’m not saying they are or aren’t. I’m just asking you, the writer that created the question in the mind of the reader, to go do some more research.
RA: For what I discuss and for what he discussed and the generalities left open on both sides — there’s really not much need for anything else. But again, I encourage you to forge ahead with your own work and articles. Go for it. Make sure you drop me a link.
___________
J: I will check back to see what he has to say.
RA: Cool. Maybe you can incorporate that in your own article somewhere.
__________
J: Remember, now. I’m some random person in a bookstore thinking about buying one of your books. Give me information, and not just more questions.
RA: I suggest you skim through whatever book you might be interested in and check the documentation there on the subject you are researching and base your decision for that book on that book — or reviews of that book. A casual, informal blog review of some article by Tim Challies has nothing to do with book on the History of Mormonism or my book on Eckhart Tolle.
___________
J: Don’t throw out a lazy “go ask him” if you are the one doing the writing with an assumption of authority on understanding the primary source.
RA: Go ask him…..
If you want to see my uses of primary sources in published, serious in-depth studies of various issues, please do refer to any of my books. This is a different kind of forum. More of an opinion forum. Challies wrote an opinion piece. I wrote an opinion piece. It goes no deeper than that, TBH.
I welcome you to write your own opinion piece….complete with whatever level of research you feel is appropriate.
RAbanes
JMorales said
Hey, you guys, don’t you see this guy (RA) loves this? He FEEDS off controversy! That’s why he supports controversial figures! He absolutely THRIVES on it! Don’t give in! Do pray for his salvation though!
richardabanes said
Ah yes, another Abanes isn’t saved accusation. Sigh. Not really based on much of anything except: “I don’t like you.” That’s nowhere in the Bible.
Happy Easter.
RAbanes
kathisharpe said
I finally got around to reading the Larry King interview.
John – you’ve GOT to be kidding. May I point out that your words very well prove what Richard’s been talking about the last few posts.
If God’s Word is unchanging then why aren’t you taking Him seriously?
richardabanes said
OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM SADDLEBACK CHURCH……….
____________BEGIN
I’m providing this to you in an effort to clarify statements made by Pastor Rick Warren during his April 6th appearance on CNN “Larry King Live.”
Several comments he made during that interview have caused confusion which I would like to clarify on his behalf as media representative for Saddleback Church.
Throughout his pastoral ministry spanning nearly 30 years, Dr. Warren has remained committed to the biblical definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, for life — a position held by most fellow Evangelical pastors. He has further stressed that for 5,000 years, EVERY culture and EVERY religion has maintained this worldview.
When Dr. Warren told Larry King that he never campaigned for California’s Proposition 8, he was referring to not participating in the official two-year organized advocacy effort specific to the ballot initiative in that state, based on his focus and leadership on other compassion issues. Because he’s a pastor, not an activist, in response to inquiries from church members, he issued an email and video message to his congregation days before the election confirming where he and Saddleback Church stood on this issue.
During the King interview, Dr. Warren also referenced a letter of apology that he sent to gay leaders whom he knew personally. However, that mea culpa was not with respect to his statements or position on Proposition 8 nor the biblical worldview on marriage. Rather, he apologized for his comments in an earlier Beliefnet interview expressing his concern about expanding or redefining the definition of marriage beyond a husband-wife relationship, during which he unintentionally and regrettably gave the impression that consensual adult same sex relationships were equivalent to incest or pedophilia.
—
Kristin U. Cole
larry ross communications
kathisharpe said
Maybe we should have a contest, Richard – since the HH’s have been trying to convince me for a few years that I’m not saved too – let’s have a “Prove to me I’m not saved, using only Scripture” contest.
What do you think?
richardabanes said
…..sounds good to me.
On a side note, I wish you a most blessed, glorious, miracle-filled, and life-changing Resurrection Day.
peace IN HIM,
RAbanes
Coram Deo said
It looks like Tim Challies decided give a Judas kiss to the ODM’s during Passion Week.
How ironic.
richardabanes said
Actually, he took a stand for truth. And for that I applaud him — as do many others.
Julie said
“I welcome you to write your own opinion piece….complete with whatever level of research you feel is appropriate.
RAbanes”
I’m not terribly interested in the idea because frankly, this is a topic I’m actually thinking is worth the effort; however, if I ever get around to it, I’ll be sure to do it up right and I’ll also save you a little effort: my web host is http://www.readyhosting.com. I’m not up on their hosting and cancellation policies, but I’ve been with them a long time and I hope that counts for something.
I think a post on “strange bed fellows” could be fun, and the ridiculousness of collecting other Christians who I now agree with in some sort of stupid keeping of a score, i.e. “Challies used to be one of them but now he’s seen the truth and come over to my side so there. Mark another notch and let’s keep going.”
One group applauds, one group boos, then it switches around. So much is accomplished!
“Do you love me, Peter?”
“Yes Lord.”
“Then slaughter my sheep.”
Yeah.
And no, I’m not what you’d consider an ODM. I’m sort of a general grump who’s pretty annoyed with the whole lot of you and how it seems the sword of truth has been turned into the pocket knife of pettiness in which to make small cuts in each other.
“Have them use scripture to prove to me I’m saved/not saved! Wouldn’t that be fun and a good use of the living word?!”
Seriously? That’s even an acceptable joke?
Please fisk this response; you do it so well.
kathisharpe said
Hi Julie!
I’ve followed your blog for some time – very well done. You’ve written several pieces that made me cry because they were very touching.
Since I’m the one that suggested it, I’ll respond
Although I said it in a joking, sarcastic manner, I was also quite serious (and duly note that none of the heresy hunters have jumped on this open opportunity to witness to a couple of people who are, in their opinion, going to hell)
If Richard and I are, in all truth, unsaved, someone had better tell us and demonstrate this to us from the Word of God before it’s too late. I say that in all seriousness because I believe I’m saved, and I know Richard believes that he is saved – but if we’re wrong, we deserve to know and be given the opportunity to correct this before we stand before God in judgment.
Surely someone must “love thy neighbor” enough to show us, if this is what they really and truly believe?
And so, the challenge, in all seriousness: If someone can show me, from the Word of God and in context, that either a) I am unsaved, or b) I am in sin, I will gladly and publicly repent before God and man.
I issued this challenge a few years ago; my only taker desperately tried to prove to me from the Bible that it’s impossible to have a vision of Jesus, therefore the vision I had prior to being saved was false, ergo I’d trusted in a false Jesus. I never heard from him again after I pointed out a few passages in Acts…
::shrugs::
richardabanes said
Julie,
You stated: “….. the ridiculousness of collecting other Christians who I now agree with in some sort of stupid keeping of a score, i.e. ‘Challies used to be one of them but now he’s seen the truth and come over to my side so there. Mark another notch and let’s keep going.’”
I’m really not sure why you posted this remark or took this tone. It certainly has nothing to do with anything I said to you. I was merely saying that if you felt my research was lacking, or you felt I had failed to fully outline/address aspects of Challies post, then it would be a great thing for you, as a blogger, to make your own observations from which we could all benefit.
You also noted: “One group applauds, one group boos, then it switches around. So much is accomplished!”
I really think that we have several different issues going on here. First, I only used the word applaud to indicate my agreement with him — not to show some kind of sides being drawn. Second, I’ve met Tim, we’ve had lunch together, I like him, we don’t agree on everything, but we’re brothers who respect each other. Third, this is not a sport over which people are booing or applauding like it were some football game. This is a deadly SERIOUS matter of truth vs. lies, unity vs. division, ministry vs. malice, and godly corrections vs. slanderous attacks.
As for my casual interaction with Kathi, I agree with everything she said on this matter. I would only add that we’re close enough friends to jointly share a chuckle over what is so painful that we just have to smile once in a while about it — or our hearts will break. Did you ever hear the expression: “It was so awful you just had to laugh.”
Our light exchange was essentially a way to alleviate stress and tension, much the same way soldiers sometimes joke about almost being killed and laugh about how close a bullet came to them (or about how close a shell exploded around them). It’s so awful that….well….you just have to look back and chuckle. Also think of how people often go through something horrifically embarrassing, then afterward, they can laugh about it. That’s all, Julie.
RA