Things I Think

You may also like...

166 Responses

  1. Ixtlan says:

    first First!

  2. Pineapple head says:

    3. You nailed it. It will be interesting to see how Christians fare in the future.

    8. I missed the 4th quarter of yesterday’s Hawk game. Church membership class and prayer for a hurting couple in our church. Though I was bummed about missing one of the greatest comebacks in recent history, I was at peace. Had fun coming home and having my son regale me with all that happened as he is a diehard Seahawks fan we watched highlights together.

    9. I usually do fairly well in this area, but recently have caught myself regressing. Sometimes the Internet drags too much out of me. I consider myself back in recovery!

  3. Xenia says:

    True wisdom is figuring out how to balance #5 with #9.

  4. Michael says:

    # 3…Xenia…exactly.

    Piney, I’m going back to limiting my online time again…I get too toxic, too quickly.

  5. Dan from Georgia says:


    #4. I have failed in this area before and have had to publicly apologize on a blog. Has happened more than once.

    #7. So I said to wife yesterday kinda jokingly “well, now we gotta burn our copy of “Heaven is for Real”. Kinda.

    #9. Reminds me of the proverb “when words are many, sin is not absent” (reference anyone?).

    #10. I THINK I know about this scandal, and it has jaded me somewhat towards some progressives.

  6. Neo says:

    First! The kid’s last name is Malarkey! As in “Full of Malarkey”…

  7. Neo says:

    Dang….not even CLOSE to first.

  8. Neo says:

    ….and the less we speak, the more we say. True story.

  9. Michael says:


    “When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent.”
    (Proverbs 10:19 ESV)

    Social media proves the wisdom of the psalmist…

  10. Dan from Georgia says:

    Thanks Michael!

  11. Paige says:

    Living in the Portland, Oregon area, we are already dealing with the ‘in your face’ approval of same gender relationships and ‘marriage’…. Honestly, I am uncomfortable around those who have chosen ‘the lifestyle’, though have worked at being personally more ‘tolerant’ and trying to appreciate the individuals involved, as souls that God loves, all sins being equal. I’m a sinner. We all need salvation and sanctification. I’m trying to see a mission field rather than a mine field.

    Frankly, I know Biblically ‘correct’ married couples that disgust and disturb me more.
    I do have to wonder how churches will adjust to the upcoming, inevitable changes.

    MLK…. I go to a Black church and they didn’t even mention him yesterday. I do find it interesting that none of the hubbub about him seems to mention that he was a Baptist pastor before being a civil rights advocate.

  12. Babylon's Dread says:

    I’m picking Brady Belichick and Boston’s deflated balls.

  13. Dennis says:

    What scandal is going on in the emergent community? I haven’t heard of any news.

  14. Michael says:

    The controversy surrounds a conference being hosted by Rachel Evans and Nadia Bolz-Webber being sponsored by Tony Jones…whose former wife has made allegations against that, if true, not only disqualify him from ministry, but from any influence on anybody, period.

    How any person, let alone a woman, can work with him until all these matters are resolved is beyond me.

    Actually, it isn’t…it’s par for the course far too often.

  15. Steve Wright says:

    The real fight worth fighting culturally isn’t to convince people that we’re right, it’s to fight to have the legal right to be wrong in their eyes…
    Good word. One small ‘correction’ I would prefer…insert “maintain” where you wrote “have”

    That’s what’s going on.

  16. Jim says:

    “3. The real fight worth fighting culturally isn’t to convince people that we’re right, it’s to fight to have the legal right to be wrong in their eyes…”


  17. Steve Wright says:

    Jim and I agree a lot it seems… 🙂

  18. Jim says:

    Agreed, Steve.

  19. Jim says:

    I was agreeing with your 15, but will apply it to your 17 as well.

  20. Joe says:

    I copied this off a post on my facebook and liked it enough to share.

    In our churches today across America we hear a lot of preaching about personal prosperity. But we hear little from the pulpit about the sins that so easily beset us Christians. If we as the church are to make ourselves ready as a spotless bride, ready for the soon coming King. Then let us with open hearts examine ourselves in the light of the Word of God. As we read Revelation 21:8, let us be mindful that the very first sub set people selected to be sent to the lake… of fire & brimstone. Are not the murders, sorcerers or even the idolaters, but the cowardly. A Coward is defined by Webster’s Dictionary as “Afraid in a way that makes you unable to do what is right or expected : lacking courage”. The magnitude of this sin is enormous in light of this scripture. So let us purify ourselves of filthiness of the flesh and spirit in the fear of the Lord. Let us with sober minds and humble hearts, quickly turn to Christ and confess and renounce this sin. And not out of legalism but out of clean conscience, as the blood of Jesus washes you clean and justifies you before the Father. Pick up your cross, and in the labor of love witness and share the gospel once again to every creature. And lo, He will be with you always, even to the end of the age.

    coward adjective
    : afraid in a way that makes you unable to do what is right or expected : lacking courage
    Revelation 21:8
    But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” timid, fearful.

    God Bless

  21. #2 – I don’t see why the Bible must be brought into it. I can make a case from both natural law, which is obviously before the Bible) and biology – you stick things in an inney and not in an outey.

  22. Billy says:

    There is some questions as to whether or not the game football had been slightly deflated for better handling in the wet cold weather.

    We will soon enough know what the refs have decided.

    It did appear as if the ball was velcroable…

    The Hawk game was almost as exciting as the now famous Raiders/ NY Jets “Heidi” game: way back in 1968.

  23. Re MLD’s 21

    I wholeheartedly agree that nature and biology ought to be instructive in regards to the order and design of sexuality, but, boy, does the human mind has an incredible knack for overlooking or avoiding that which seems obvious, whether it be revealed naturally or through the super-natural text of the Word. As has happened time and time again, humanity will either open their hearts and minds to the truth of God’s order, or we will have to learn through the furnace of societal breakdown.

  24. David says:

    #10 – Why is any suprised? It’s the same reason feminists rally around Bill Clinton and Hollywood types prop up Roman Polanski for decades. The sloganeering was done to shame sexist pigs, they were made to shame THOSE people (whom it’s obvious are, among other evil things, sexist pigs).

  25. David says:

    (ugh proofread.. Why is anyONE…The sloganeering WASN’T done to shame sexist pigs)

  26. Personally I think the conference is invalid just with the presence of Rachel Evans – the “look at me” girl.

  27. Alex says:

    Bet against Russell Wilson and the Seahawks at your own risk.

    Tony Jones sounds like an a-hole, RHE the Aphrodite liberal champion needs to lead by example and show how you handle serious allegations against a co-pastor, but I don’t expect her to act any differently than any other fallible human…Loyalty Dynamic: Allies and Enemies…I think I hit the nail squarely on the head on a past CC Abuse article. It’s human nature….it’s how we tick.

    MLK had a righteous cause. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the professional Race-baiters…not so much.

    Like I’ve said for many years….Christians are apathetic in general and will continue to lose their Bill of Rights…as long as they are willing to give them up. Other Groups fight, scratch and claw and make the noise of 10 Trillion when they are 10 thousand. It is largely the fault of Christians for their eroding Power both politically and socially.

    Yes, the World has largely improved over time…we live in the best time in human history in general…life for humans has never been better…kind of a wrench in the “The end is near!” mantra…though the Global Warming Cult agrees with the End Times Cult…which is quite entertaining and ironic.

  28. Alex says:

    President Obama is coming to Boise, Idaho. Woohoo!

    Fellow Idahoans and Rednecks…President Obama is coming to speak in Boise this coming Wednesday. Please keep your sanity and DO NOT even think about assassinating this President…here are the Top 10 Reasons why it’s a bad idea:

    10. It’s illegal and you’ll go to prison for life and may get the death penalty and political disagreement isn’t worth taking a life.

    9. We don’t need another national Holiday.

    8. If race is your motive, remember that Obama is half white…his mom is white and if you have ever seen him dance, shoot hoops, ride a bike, golf or throw a baseball…he is clearly white…and probably gay.

    7. Black people and Liberals in the US will blame white conservatives for all that ills blacks and minorities for another 100 years.

    6. George Soros will spend another $33 Million to send “protesters” to burn down Boise….and probably execute a few cops.

    5. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will come to Boise.

    4. Wall Street and the Top 2% will lose its best friend.

    3. Liberal Anti-War Protesters will start protesting the Wars again…and the New York times will run the ongoing military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan every single day.

    2. John “Cry Baby” Boehner will be 2nd in line for the Presidency.

    1. Drunk Uncle Joe Biden will be President.

  29. Jim says:

    Well, hard to see what’s wrong with resuming protests against our now endless wars, but your point is well taken regarding the hypocritical death of the anti war movement.

  30. Ixtlan says:



  31. neo says:

    Don’t blame me….I voted for Dukakis!

  32. brian says:

    I have been a coward at times in my life. My reluctant to deal with my anger and bitterness issues, which have manifested here at times being one example. I dont much like that part of myself.

  33. Rachel Held has gone around the past few years making a good living battling non existing topics. Here was her topic with Tony Jones affair.

    “Nadia Bolz Weber and Rachel Held Evans have announced an all-female lineup at their new conference ‘Why Christian?’ this September. Held in Minneapolis, the conference will seek to explore why we continue to follow Jesus in the wake of corruption, hypocrisy and televangelists.”

    Now why does someone’s already existing faith depend on being free of “corruption, hypocrisy and televangelists.”? It doesn’t, but she will give an hour talk and make you think it does. Rachel Held needs to go sit back on her housetop.

  34. I had to do some googling to see who Tony Jones is, what his wife had to say and why he is disqualified from the ministry (per Michael)

    I can answer the last question first – he is disqualified from ministry because he left his wife and 3 kids and married a dude.

    The one article I read said that the issue with the ex wife came up in the comments of the Naked Pastor blog – tough to find with over 1,000 comments. I think this is one of them … she seems like a piece of work. Here she is addressing Doug Pagitt (another apostate emergent figure)

    “Julie McMahon
    September 15, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    ^bullshit! You live 1 block from me. My son mows your lawn. You’ve never said a word and repeatedly shut me down for years when the truth was in your face complete with a psych eval and sex emails. Shut the f$&k up you fraud. Go home. You had your 15 minutes of fame. Put a fork in it . Emergent is beyond done. Let me refresh your memory in a phone call you made to me while I was still married to your BFF although my kids report now dads no longer friends w/ Doug and they’ve had a falling out…of course there was…you used each other up! Next! Onto the next person the narcissist can suck the marrow out of and then discard. “Julie, this is Doug. You and Tony’s marriage is just words on a piece of paper. You may be the legal wife but Tony has a spiritual wife now.” Now THAT my friends is “bat shit crazy!” Yes, that Mike Morrell, not me who in fact does not have the serious clinical diagnosis but rather your idols you look so highly up to. Choke and die before an I’m sorry comes out. They can’t! Their egos and pathology will not allow it. I think it’s fascinating your wife refers to you as “the Duke” Freud would have a field day! Cut the bull shit you coward…you tried to have me hospitalized to cover up an affair and rationalize a divorce! And when they would not admit me (in fact the seasoned intake nurse said prophetically, “honey, what you need is a good lawyer!” because there is nothing wrong with me, you said, “I’ll find a mental hospital to admit you.” All while sitting on the knowledge of Courtney Perry. Cut the crap Doug. It’s over. O-V-E-R. Come clean. Apologize here and now.”

    Posted for the sake of humor only – I am sure they all deserve each other. 🙂

  35. Here is the Naked Pastor blog – have fun – I only got through about 200 of the 1,000 plus comments.

    Spoiler alert – many commenter consider the emergents to be a cult.

  36. Xenia says:

    Seriously, these people and their sins shouldn’t even be a topic of conversation. Many of them do not appear to be Christians at all and those who are Christians are so apostate that it would take a year of prayer and repentance at a remote monastery in Siberia to get them back on track again. We should not concern ourselves with their antics, they are not the church, they are possibly not even Christians.

    It’s like a circus.

  37. Xenia says:

    But here’s a an appropriate quote for these folks:

    “The fool does not renounce an error unless it goes out of fashion.” – Nicolás Gómez Dávila

  38. Babylon's Dread says:

    Rachel Evans has found her tribe … let her pow wow in peace… let her have what she wants.

  39. Ivan Solero says:

    Thank you for “things I think”. In particular I agree with # 4 and #9. Some of your readers/posters have taken to your blog and stripped intellectual dialogue in trying to create their own brand here. In doing so, creating such a small closed off world.

    Instead of sharing deep perspectives here (I believe it’s your goal), it somehow gets time warped to “Twelve Angry Men”. Instead of talking I pray some of those would just do…

    It gets boring and dumps down important theological topics.

  40. Babylon's Dread says:

    The skill of typing comments while congratulating yourself with full back pats is impressive.

  41. Got all five fingers between the shoulder blades on that one. Impressive indeed!

  42. Alex says:

    X said, “Many of them do not appear to be Christians at all…”

    How does one “appear Christian”?

    Can you give me a list? I want to “appear” Christian.

  43. Alex, your list at 29 was hilarious. Might be problematic if the wrong people see it, but that is up to Michael to worry about. #8 in particular was funny. Half white and probably gay…that’s good.

    Do you really want to appear Christian? I say that as a friend, who has no problem with how you present yourself, but the majority of the time it hasn’t seemed that you were concerned with appearing Christian.Honest.

  44. Alex says:

    Josh, my question to X was rhetorical. I don’t think “appearing” Christian is any sort of real quantifiable metric…at least it isn’t when I raise the issue of asking folks how you can be sure you’re a “real Christian”…and then I point out that all Christian Groups basically define it as agreement to their particular interpretations of “must haves” in terms of “correct” Doctrine…and then a list of Morality that forgives all sins except homosexuality.

  45. Alex says:

    Josh, you are correct, I am not the least bit concerned about “appearing Christian”…I shed that bondage years ago…and have found much peace.

    …still a Christian…I just don’t require others to validate it and tell me I am so. I play to an audience of One 😉

  46. I’m tracking with Xenia’s thought process, I think. To look at these people and worry about what is going on with them…at some point you have to say these people don’t share my core beliefs, they don’t share the same morals…maybe we aren’t family afterall?

  47. Xenia says:

    I went over and read a little on Emergent Village (not articles about the current situation, but their regular fare) and it was all gibberish. I don’t look at an individual and say “You are not a Christian” but I can look at a movement and observe that its teachings are apostate.

    And no, Alex, I am not going to go ’round and ’round with you on what appears to be Christian and what appears to be anti-Christ.

    But I am happy to see you back among us because believe it or not, I kinda missed you.

  48. Michael says:

    I think this story is important for all the same reasons I’ve thought similar stories were important in the past.
    What is being alleged here is the same abuse and the same pattern of abuse toward women that I’ve seen on the conservative side of the church.
    It’s almost like there’s a script somewhere for pastors who want to dump their wives to follow.
    Behind the scenes here we are working with two women who have been and are being subjected to the same garbage.
    What we see too often isn’t the process that led to the mess, but the explosion of frustration and pain at the end of a process and judge the victims by their cries.
    I won’t do that…

  49. Erunner says:

    Josh, True story……. many moons ago I went for a job interview. I sat in the reception area with a few others who were there for an interview as well.

    The saddest thing took place that day. A man was called back for his interview before me which in and of itself is inconsequential. What made it so sad is the man got up with his resume and a trophy for that interview.

    Think he got the job? Have a great day!! 🙂

  50. filbertz says:

    the demise of the emergent movement was from a lack of places to go…exploration into alternatives often leads to wilderness. What those outside the emergent movement fail to understand is many of their initial points and objections were valid. Evangelicalism needs reform and revival; all is not well in River City. Since most evangelicals have their heads in the sand, they’ll miss it entirely and proceed, (bad) business as usual. That means evangelicals have no place to gloat over the missteps taken by well-meaning, often mistaken brothers and sister of faith.

  51. Bob says:


    “Evangelicalism needs reform and revival; all is not well in River City. ”

    This is a rather broad brush statement and when I read this kind of stuff I have to ask this; “What needs to be reformed and revived?”

    The failure of the emergent idea is they lead to chaos and disorder, while knowing God always leads to order and contentment. A man filled with questions and does not find answers is just a lost man.

    My feelings on all organized denominations is they become more about the denomination and joining a cult or schism idea than they do coming to know and love God.

  52. Alex says:

    X, I’ve got no beef with you and never will 🙂 You’re a good person who is sincere and convinced by your Belief System. I am sure that many are apostate in your opinion and that many aren’t right in their beliefs and practices in your eyes. That’s not a slight on you, it’s just the reality of most who are in a particular religious/philosophical sect that they adhere to after being convinced it is the proper path or proper ideology.

    I would have no problem living in a world of X’s vs. a world of say Muslims or even very aggressive libertine heathens.

  53. Alex says:

    The current handling of the Tony Jones scandal in Emergent-land just goes to prove my thesis (which is the thesis of many others, I’m not claiming exclusivity…so Mark Driscoll, feel free to use it 😉 ) that no one Ideology or Group or Philosophy can claim they are above acting just like the rest of humanity.

  54. Nonnie says:

    From what I have seen about the Tony Jones, Rachel Evans and Nadia conference is no different from the The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven, and Driscoll messes….when books and conferences = MONEY, are on the line, then money talks and is the power…not the Holy Spirit and truth.

  55. Alex says:

    Lesson is this: Power, Fame, Money corrupt…always and forever and eventually.

    I have faith in the humanness of humanity 🙂

  56. The emergents are no more Christian than my bowling league. Therefore, there is no scandal. If a guy on my bowling league left his wife, no one would call it a scandal … so why here?

    But those who think that Tony Jones and these other guys are Christians running Christian organization, probably also think Bill O’Reilly wrote a cutting edge theological bio on Jesus.

  57. Ixtlan says:

    Jones also teaches a DMin program in Christian Spirituality at Fuller. What ever happened to Christian standards?

  58. Alex says:

    MLD, I’m sure from your perspective your last comments mean something…but not in this Universe LOL.

  59. Alex – no one even knows Tony Jones – I had to Google him. I thought he was the Tall Kiwi guy.

  60. Nonnie says:

    Ixtlan’s 58…wow, that is disappointing.

  61. This is so nutty – I was telling jean offline that of the 3 Nadia Bolz-Webber is the only sane one. How is that for nutty? 🙂

  62. It’s Fuller, folks. No surprise there.

    I used to read Tony Jones fairly regularly 8-10 years ago. While he had some good ideas and some bad ideas, he was super confrontational, but then very sensitive when anyone replied. It was that more than his beliefs that turned me off. I have casually observed his descent over the years. The “spiritual wife” episode was sickening.

  63. I think Nadia truly believes in Jesus.

  64. Alex says:

    MLD, you’ve never heard of Tony Jones? What planet are you on? 🙂

  65. @ Josh’s 63

    I’ve noticed over the years that those who begin to delve into some new, strange, unbiblical or legalistic way of teaching are often very sharp, blunt and caustic, while at the same time extremely sensitive to critique or challenge. Their own ideas become so important that they struggle seeing the forest for all the trees they’ve planted.

  66. That looks very familiar, PH. Good observation.

    Alex, I’m not sure that is the right Tony Jones. The one in the video is much smarter 🙂

  67. London says:

    Just because you had to goigle him doesn’t mean “no one knows” Tony Jones. It just means you didn’t know Tony Jones.

  68. London says:


  69. London says:

    And Xenia,
    NP is like a giant circus and not everyone is Christian on there. That’s pretty much the design of the place.
    I knew about NP, and posted on there, YEARS ago, when David was still pastoring a Vineyard church.
    It’s always been a place that’s way looser and more expressive than most places you’re probably used to being. (Not a judgement at all, just a guess at places you’d be comfortable hanging out. That’s not going to be NP)

    I stopped even reading there in the last year or so because it seemed to go from exploring different takes on views, including church, to being almost exclusive anti-church and anti-Christian.
    That attitude Got to be boring after a while.

  70. Q says:

    Michael #10,

    You used emergent to describe a group, in prior posts you have said no one can define the word, is used by ODM’s to insult, etc., and I assume you believe words have meanings, so now that you have used it to describe people, what does it mean?

  71. Q – those folks self describe as emergent. Have you not heard of the Emergent Village. So I would assume although you cannot describe or define all emergents, you can at least take those people at their word when they call themselves emergent.

    I know you meant it as a personal jab to Michael, but hey this is not rocket science

  72. London,
    I am sure if I asked any group to tell me 5 things about Tony Jones without Googling that very, very few could – even here at the PP where wisdom and knowledge abound..

  73. Michael says:


    MLD spoke well.
    This group self identifies as “emergent”…so you’ll have to ask them what it means.

  74. Q says:

    MLD – That they call themselves emergent is a good point, but surely it would include a broader meaning than that.

    Maybe Michael could answer for himself.

  75. Michael says:


    I did.
    I self identify as a Calvinist, so I’m ok being called one.
    I don’t identify myself as emergent, so that label offends me.

  76. Babylon's Dread says:

    I self identify as … me

    I AM Dread

  77. Q says:

    “I am sure if I asked any group to tell me 5 things about Tony Jones without Googling that very, very few could – even here at the PP where wisdom and knowledge abound..”

    “certain people crept in unaware” comes to mind.

  78. Q says:

    “I don’t identify myself as emergent, so that label offends me.

    So emergent has a definition. You are just offended by being labeled one, but it has a definition to you.

    What is it?

  79. Michael says:


    Ask someone who identifies as emergent.
    I would be offended by any label that didn’t fit who I was and what I believed.

    It’s used as a pejorative by some to imply “liberal” theology as they would define both “liberal” and “theology”.

    I’m not liberal theologically.

  80. Q says:

    Okay, now we are getting somewhere. You are for governmental social justice, so are the emergent’s so it is not so cut and dry.

    You saying you are theologically conservative seems inaccurate if you put forced justice above voluntary compassion. Think of Obama care.

  81. Q says:


    You also have been against ODM ministries, that is also like the emergent’s.

    I guess I could start a list of similarities.

    Then there is the Leonard sweet endorsements…

    Not so cut and dry.

  82. Michael says:

    I am against the ODM ministries, and I’m quite loud about it.
    I did indeed endorse a book of Leonard sweets and would do it again today.

    I have no clue as to the similarities between ODM’s and emergents, but I care even less.

  83. Michael says:


    I just saw your # 81.

    That is almost funny.

    Because I share “some” political convictions with some unknown “emergent’, thus I am emergent.

    That…is lunacy.

  84. Q says:

    “I have no clue as to the similarities between ODM’s and emergents”

    That is not even close to what I said, your comment is “lunacy” in that it is a type of bullying. We could come back to your tactics later.

    I’ll attempt again –

    The emergent’s are against ODM’s (not unknown but across the board) as are you. So that is a similarity, you, (Michael Newnham) share with emergent’s.

    As is forced social justice (again across the emergent board), as you (Michael Newnham) support.

    I am not saying you believing what emergent’s do is wrong, you are just being hypocritical. We could discuss the right or wrong biblically after we determine ‘the Michael Newnham’ has emergent propensities topic.

    There’s two similarities, maybe a list could be made.

    You have copy rights on what you post correct? Is it okay if I force you to share in royalties…???

  85. Michael says:

    I speak English, so do some emergents… there is a similarity.
    I am a mammal…so are emergents…there is another similarity.
    I breathe air…there is another one.

    I guess you’ve got me pegged.

  86. Q says:


    You admit you are an emergent, so should I start a list similarities?

  87. Michael says:


    If you want to believe that a confessing Calvinist is “emergent’ than let that thought warm you.

    Every self identifying “emergent” I’ve ever read loathes Calvinism, but we won’t let that get in the way of your thesis.

  88. Ixtlan says:



    Being opposed to ODMs (you’d be surprised how many are) and furthering the cause of social justice (look up justice and righteousness in a concordance) does not make one either emergent, nor does it necessarily mean someone has emergent propensities. Oh, and BTW, as I’m sure you know, it’s the ODM that don’t like the emergent, but then again, they’re not alone in that POV.

    If you feel like you are being bullied, the simple solution is to not interact here.

  89. Q says:

    “If you feel like you are being bullied, the simple solution is to not interact here.”

    Bullying at it’s finest.

    Just go away, very Driscoll of you.

  90. Michael says:


    Perhaps you should define for us what you believe “emergent” means.

    I doubt that the “emergent” community would claim me, but again this probably won’t shake your confidence in your assertion.

    Now, if you want to claim that my understanding of biblical justice and righteousness leads me to what some consider “liberal” political positions, I have no problem affirming that.

    Conflating a theological camp with certain beliefs about biblical values expressed in government is quite a stretch however.

  91. Q says:


    Is there a difference between the worlds social justice (corporately, forced by manipulation, taxation…from the so called church and government) and biblical (individual and by compassion)?

  92. Michael says:


    The link between justice and righteousness is actually a steel cable…but Q would not like to know that.

  93. Ixtlan says:

    No, Driscoll would kick your @ss, throw you under the bus, and then drive back and forth, running over you several times in the process.

    It’s blog. If you don’t like how you are treated, you’re not forced to be here. If it does work for you, if you feel you are being bullied, then why on earth would you stay? Unless your purpose here is only to instigate a fight? Who is the real passive-‘aggressive here? My bet is that its you.

  94. Michael says:


    Your thesis is flawed from the beginning.

    In both the Old and The New Testaments there is a strong place for corporate giving by the people of God.

    You are welcome to embrace 21st century conservative American Republican values, just don’t try to baptize them.

  95. Michael says:

    “if you feel you are being bullied, then why on earth would you stay? Unless your purpose here is only to instigate a fight? ”


  96. Q says:

    “liberal” political positions, I have no problem affirming that.”

    Jackie was correct, that is what emergent believe and it is in line with Abraham Kuyper (Calvinist).

  97. Q says:

    “No, Driscoll would kick your @ss, throw you under the bus”

    Maybe on a blog, in person is dubious at best, very best. I play with guys that there is no doubt and they would question that.

  98. Michael says:


    Kuyper was a theological arch conservative who blasted modernism and would have blasted post modernism harder.

    Emergents write against conservative theology in general and Calvinism in particular.

    You have no clue what you’re talking about.

  99. Q says:


    Kuyper as a politician thought the government should be used to redeem (social justice) society (the world, cosmos) as do some reformed (new Calvinists), Catholics and um oh the emergent’s.

    I should start a list. Are you going to discredit what I say like the Driscoll bus attempted. (that is another topic we can come back to).

    The ” You have no clue what you’re talking about” is very Semiramis of you, it is bullying in a moon not sun kind of way.

  100. Michael says:


    I have no clue what your point is and I care even less.

    The hallmark of emergent theology is a post modern view of Scripture and doctrine that I completely reject.

    Yes, I am ecumenical, yes, I care about the poor and the immigrant.

    I believe those are biblical principles.

    Our view of the role of government in achieving social justice is undoubtedly different.


  101. Q says:


    That is what emergent’s believe (and New Calvinists and Catholics). Just saying.

    You are kind of an anomaly, I guess I could make a list of how you are a calvinist but not really (2 lists), and a conservative but not really, an ODM but not really….

    “I have no clue what your point is and I care even less.”

    You might when I come for my royalties.

  102. Michael says:


    There are no royalties from this site and my book is free last time I checked.
    I spent a lot of time trying to reason with you this evening to no avail.
    I won’t bother next time.

  103. Steve Wright says:

    In both the Old and The New Testaments there is a strong place for corporate giving by the people of God.

    You are welcome to embrace 21st century conservative American Republican values, just don’t try to baptize them.
    I’m not going to get involved in this beyond a simple comment that I think it is quite a reach to compare IRS tax law at the threat of confiscation of assets, bank freezes, fines and/or imprisonment…to the Bible’s teachings on corporate giving, especially the New Testament instruction

    I thought last week we were mocking the idea of a Biblical world view anyway…

  104. Linda Pappas says:

    Enough, already!!

    Here’s a definition of the Emergent church (Wikipedia), that is far better than this back and forth, waiting for the dust to settle between Michael and Q:

    “The emerging church is a Christian movement of the late 20th and early 21st centuries that crosses a number of theological boundaries: participants are described as Protestant, post-Protestant, evangelical,[1] post-evangelical, liberal, post-liberal, conservative, post-conservative, anabaptist, adventist,[2] reformed, charismatic, neocharismatic, and post-charismatic. Emerging churches can be found throughout the globe, predominantly in North America, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Africa. Some attend local independent churches or house churches[3][4][5] while others worship in traditional Christian denominations.

    Proponents believe the movement transcends such “modernist” labels of “conservative” and “liberal,” calling the movement a “conversation” to emphasize its developing and decentralized nature, its vast range of standpoints, and its commitment to dialogue. Participants seek to live their faith in what they believe to be a “postmodern” society. What those involved in the conversation mostly agree on is their disillusionment with the organized and institutional church and their support for the deconstruction of modern Christian worship, modern evangelism, and the nature of modern Christian community.”

    For me, it means that there is a push to have anyone who profess Christ as their Savior, regardless of their teachings to become a type of one world church which means ecumenical in purpose, but not necessarily in the Faith. To me, it smacks of a one world church system that “tolerates” heretical teachings in the name of love and social justice.

    It reminds of that song sung by notable musical vocalist: “WE are the world.”

    I can understand why the emergent wouldn’t like the ODMs.

  105. Michael says:


    I don’t recall making that comparison.

  106. Q says:

    Michael, next book.

  107. Q says:


    I don’t recall making that comparison.


    Me neither.

  108. Michael says:


    Trust me…you won’t like the next book.
    I’ll pay my taxes if it sells…and some of that tax money will be spent on things I don’t want it spent on.
    I’ll pay them anyway.

  109. Q says:


    Trust me…you won’t like the next book.
    I’ll pay my taxes if it sells…and some of that tax money will be spent on things I don’t want it spent on.
    I’ll pay them anyway.


    I’ve done that for years.

    They will want more.

  110. Q says:

    I don’t want to like the book, just the royalties.

  111. passing through says:


  112. Michael says:


    Political discussions on this blog lead to nothing but strife and great ill will.
    My political positions are a distinct minority here and that’s ok with me.
    I’m really not interested in debating them.
    It is my blog and as I want to write on something I will…and in a free country you’re free to start a blog and do the same.
    I’m also free to not allow endless strife …and I will end it if need be.

  113. Q says:

    passing through=vagrant

  114. Q says:


    You have used, it’s a blog not a church excuse to excuse bad behavior many times in manifold ways, but you are required by scripture (that is the conservative Michael) to be holy in every situation.

    “free country” seems when convenient.

    I am free to come after royalties unless it is ungodly. Agreed?

  115. Michael says:


    There’s no bad behavior here.
    We disagree theologically and politically.
    This is supposed to cause me some concern, but it doesn’t.
    This is not a church.
    It is a blog.
    It’s my blog.
    I can post my views as I see fit and I can allow interaction…as I see fit.
    I’ve allowed you to go on for some time.
    I’m done now.
    We will not agree and we will end up in more strife.
    The discussion , whatever it was about, is over.

  116. Q says:

    “I can post my views as I see fit and I can allow interaction…as I see fit”

    Said by most abusive church leaders.

    Will you talk to me on the phone?

  117. Michael says:


    What in God’s name do we have to talk about?
    Are you nuts?
    Do you really think I am beholden to have endless strife with someone simply because they want to argue?
    What would be the point?
    I’m not a Republican, never will be.
    I am a Calvinist, always will be.
    What’s to discuss?
    What do you think I owe you?

    This is not a church…read slowly if you must.
    What gives you the right to impose on my private life and time?

  118. Pineapple head says:

    One thing I like about the PP (among others) is that I never feel the need to step in or stick up for Michael. He moderates his blog better than the vast majority of other bloggers.

  119. Michael says:


    Thanks…we try, but there are limits to what I can handle.
    I think I’ve reached todays limit…

  120. Q says:

    “What gives you the right to impose on my private life and time?”

    Because I asked.

    Five or ten minutes is a lot, but I put it out there Pastor Michael because I think we could agree on most of the fundamentals and could be friendly.

    “What gives you the right to impose on my private life and time?”

    I already am, why not make it more personal?

  121. Pineapple head says:

    Well that’s what I like. You actually are quite gracious and give us a wide berth. But you know when to clamp it down. I.m sure I got close with myRichard Sherman comments last year.

  122. Michael says:


    You post using a moniker with a fake email address.
    At this point it would be neither wise nor responsible to my family to engage this any more.
    This is getting downright weird.

  123. Pineapple head says:

    At most blogs Q’s line of commenting would have created a feeding frenzy.

  124. london says:

    awwwww dang it!
    delete that would ya…

  125. Q says:

    No It’s not.

    What are you afraid of?

  126. Q says:

    It is a phone conversation. Steve Wright would.

  127. Michael says:


    Got it…

  128. Q says:

    Sorry to bring Steve in but I believe he would talk to me on the phone, probably tomorrow.

  129. Michael says:


    If you want to communicate with me offline my email address is

    I have no reason to trust you with any personal information.

  130. london says:

    Thanks. It was funny. Too bad it didn’t work. LOL

  131. Linda Pappas says:

    I would encourage the two of you to find a way to speak privately to one another where each of you can hear one another and do not have an audience. Shalom, in Jesus.

  132. Q says:

    Linda Pappas,

    Thanks, I emailed him.


  133. Linda Pappas says:

    Is very much a part of the Emergent church:

  134. Linda Pappas says:

    Better stated: Ecumenical, Ecumenicalism, or Ecumenism “can” be vary much a part of what values and strategies are employed in the Emergent church movement.

  135. Michael says:

    I’m not interested in inter-faith ecumenicism.
    I do believe that all who trust in the Lord for salvation are saved regardless of what tribe they land in.

  136. Q says:

    “I do believe that all who trust in the Lord for salvation are saved regardless of what tribe they land in.”

    Conservative Michael list.


    Not sharing royalties also conservative Michael list.


  137. Q says:


    By tribe what do you mean, that may not make the conservative Michael list.

    Tribe= ?

  138. Linda Pappas says:

    very, not vary.

    Although varying constructs are employed within the emergent church narrative, which narrative is very much a postmodernism term.

    In grad school, did a huge paper on postmodernism and age of enlightenment, as an assignment as it psychology was also jumping on the wagon in its developing “new” approaches to its views towards mental health and treatment modalities.

    As mentioned in another comment that I have previously posted (but I think was lost due to Michael have to do some fixes to stop or to decrease the hacking) their is a huge difference between holistic and wholistic methodologies/philosophies being used in the psychological field.

  139. Q says:

    It’s my blog.
    I can post my views as I see fit and I can allow interaction…as I see fit.

    Just like Jesus.

  140. Q says:

    Abraham did no such thing.

  141. Q says:

    I have knocked out more teeth than a hockey player, never on purpose, but have never kicked any one out of my house, or been afraid/unwilling to meet with someone.

    How about you Michael? emails say different.

  142. Q says:

    The last recent person I knocked a tooth ( I have knocked four at a time, it is just true) out or was a professional basketball player (not a Christian), he required a post and crown on his top teeth, and a skin graft on his bottom lip. And he would not ban me from his ‘house’ nor I him, I can provide pictures of him , we are not best friends but we are cool, he is …’extremely’ healthy an seriously tattooed.

    But Michael will ban me.

  143. Linda Pappas says:

    I think olive branches might help here.

  144. Michael says:


    You’re banned and any further issues will lead to me going to the authorities.

  145. Linda Pappas says:

    Michael, I don’t think he was making any threats towards you. He was just saying that he is surprised that you would be so willing to ban here because he dares to ask questions that may not sit well with you, but are important for him to understand or to at least clarify your position of certain things.

  146. Linda Pappas says:

    here, is “him.”

  147. Linda Pappas says:

    I still think extending an olive branch or two or even three on both sides is more what is in order than what has taken place thus far.

  148. Michael says:


    No one has any confusion about my position on anything.
    Ask a direct question and I’ll answer directly.
    He refused to either disclose who he is or the reason he wanted to meet/call me.
    I’ll be damned if I’m going to provide anonymous, antagonistic people access to my personal life.
    You of all people should understand that.
    I wasted an entire evening trying to figure out what this person wanted and end up with veiled threats.
    I won’t tolerate that and I will do whatever I feel necessary to protect myself and those I’m responsible for.
    If anyone doesn’t like the blog or my views on anything they can simply stop reading the blog.
    I’m not sure why that is such a difficult concept for some to get a grip on.

  149. Linda Pappas says:

    Q has been commenting on this blog for as long as I have been here. As for veiled threats, I don’t see this as you do, Michael. I don’t’ see him as being any more antagonistic than any other person who comments on this blog, towards your or someone else. Actually, I see him as maybe being an irritant to you, but far less antagonistic than those who intentionally distracts to derail and entire thread or to bullies another to silence and negate them, while ignoring the issue.

    Is it possible for the two you to speak over the phone by you calling him while blocking your number? I think Q being kicked so many times is being more care but yet tenacious in asking you to clarify some things that leads him to believe that you are Emergent which causes him great concerns towards you and the body of Christ, as well as for those trying to figure it all out. I would guess other may be wondering this as well and by you not engaging yourself with Q or engaging him in the matter that you have, it only leaves more questions in their minds, not knowing what to think except to know this topic is off limits to bring up. That’s all.

    Yes, I would not let an anonymous individuals into my “personal” life either. But I didn’t hear him say he wanted to be in your personal life, only that he thought it would be better to speak with one another offline since things were not going so well online. As for his being anonymous, he may have a good reason for being so—as long as he is not trying to infringe upon you personal affairs, talking to you by phone does not mean that this is what he is doing or wants to do. Sounds like to me he just wants to have a civil discussion with you.

    Just my 2 cents worth, Michael. FWIW 🙂

  150. Linda Pappas says:

    “Q being kicked so many times is being more “careful, but yet, tenacious . . . “

  151. ? says:


    I agree that it may be unclear what ecumenical means.

    Is it OK to call out to dead people (saints) to help us?
    Are there any Saints that are assigned to us?
    Isn’t that against the Bible?

    If a person believes Jesus died and rose again, is what makes them a Christian, and that means that if they believe something that contradicts the Word of God, it is OK? If we are friends with this person are we afraid to offend them by calling it out, or making a joke that we need a saint too? Linda, I’m surprised you have not posted anything about this, Could it be because we are afraid of losing friendships? Maybe we will be cast out?

    I have tried to rephrase this so my question does not sound arrogant and pompous but this is the best I can do.

    Maybe Q is just trying to get a better understanding. That’s just my take.
    I have read many of his posts.

    I agree with Linda’s 136 because there is a definite overlap in both “E” camps.

    I’m just a bystander, so excuse me for speaking out if anyone thinks I am out of line for doing so. Maybe more clarification is needed.

  152. Bob says:

    The whole idea of dead (OK they are alive in heaven) saints being able to hear, observe, and act on behalf of those still on good old Terra Firma is just plain pagan.

    Additionally Jewish tradition, the root of the Christian faith, would never have a person praying to a dead patriarch or “saint.” They do affirm the possibility of guardian angels and the ability of some live saints (men and women) do have an extraordinary ability to be heard by God and therefore use this to pray for others needs. They do not affirm praying to any angel, person or thing in the heavens other than God. It is God alone who hears and answers prays.

    “But it is otherwise with God. God says, “When a man is in trouble, do not cry out to the angel Michael or to the angel Gabriel but to Me and I will answer immediately” (TJ, Ber. 9:1, 13a). ” R. Judah

    Now consider Jesus’ story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, could either man act on behalf of the living? No. Of course the point of this teaching isn’t to define life off the earth, but it gives us a hint as to Jesus and First Century thinking.

    Now will God use others to answer prayers? That is another subject.

  153. Michael says:


    Most of the church for most of it’s history has offered prayers to and for departed saints.
    It’s not a biblically based practice, but one with a long and deep tradition among the faithful.
    It’s not part of my faith tradition but I enjoy discussing with other believers how they express their faith.

    If you’re worried that you will get some “emergent” on you by reading conversations with other believers in other traditions, then by all means stop reading here because I will continue to have them.

  154. Michael says:


    If Q had a question I offered him the ability to ask it in email more than once.
    He refused, only a phone conversation would do.
    That’s weird.
    That’s reminiscent of cyber stalking and won’t be tolerated.
    I don’t know that anyone has “kicked”, Q he has been antagonistic from day one and he’s been banned before.
    This is permanent.

    If someone has questions about my personal doctrine they are free to ask and I will answer.
    No one is free to trample personal boundaries.

  155. Michael says:

    While I’m at it…

    No one forces anyone to take mouse in hand and click to this site.
    If you don’t like it or find it offensive, click to a happy place for you.

  156. London says:

    Anyone that knows anything about emergent (is that even still a thing?) and knows Michael, knows he isn’t emergent.

  157. Erunner says:

    Michael’s blog. Michael’s rules. Pretty simple concept.

  158. Erunner says:

    #8…… At this point I think everyone is picking Seattle. Sad situation for the NFL.

  159. Michael says:


    In this group of people “emergent” is anyone who does anything different from you.
    They ignore both history and scholarship and live in their little sectarian caves.
    That’s their right and their business.
    It’s not however, anyones blog but mine and I will continue to explore and engage with other traditions in the kingdom of God.
    Those that enjoy such are free to do so with me, those who don’t can go elsewhere.

  160. Linda Pappas says:

    ? Exhortation, well taken—-Thank you!!

    Here’s my take on those who have gone before us:

    Galations chapter 3:19

    Jesus tell us to pray directly to the Father, in his name.

    Scripture tells us those who are asleep in the Lord will rise first when he returns to gather those who are in Him.

    Scripture tells us that we are not to make long repetitive prayers. Nor are we worship any other person, except God alone, nor are we to make an image of anything to pray to, nor are we to bow down even to angels nor bring an railing accusation against Satan.

    Scripture tells us there are guardian angels. Gabriel and Michael being chief among them. One is the guardian angel of Israel (Jews).

    Scripture tells we are provide intercessory prayers on the behalf of others, particularly for those who are of the faith. We are to pray without ceasing for all things.

    Scripture tells us that there is great cloud of witness about us – but does not say they are conscious in their present state—I take this to be metaphorical in that we can see historically the cost of others who have been martyred for the sake of the cross and in this it bears witness how we are to walk in obedient to His word and contending for the faith as well. It also serves to encourage and remind us that we are not alone and there is a great cost and a cross to be carried as a Christian. It has very much to do with how we choose to live –to the spirit or to the flesh.

    Scripture tells us that we will be given a new body that is incorruptible.

    At least this is what Scripture tells us—-my authority is the Bible – not traditions

  161. Michael says:


    If that works for you, then bless your heart.
    There are others in the Body of Christ who consider the traditions of the early church an important component of their faith.

    I don’t hold to that, but I can respect and love them as family anyway.

    All Protestants claim the Bible as their authority…and have about 10,000 different ways they parse out that authority.

  162. Bob Sweat says:

    I agree with “E” of BuenO Park. Seattle is a sad situation for the NFL. When I lived in Oregon back in the 70’s and 80’s I was a Seahawk fan. Jim Zorn and Steve Largent were class acts! Too bad some of the Seahawk players have turned into bush league, crouch grabbing, big mouthed egotists. I like Russell Wilson, and they are a great team, but the actions of some make it impossible for me want them to win.

  163. Linda Pappas says:

    I don’t claim to be Protestant or Orthodox or Catholic. I am definitely not liberal, neither do I have any allegiance to the middle or the right, as it is, for it is based upon theological arguments, rooted in philosophical constructs within a patriarchal framework that has brought much harm upon the church, particularly of the female gender.

    I claim to be a follower of Christ as written in Scripture.

    Not a follower of some theologian, Pastor, Celebrity Figure, Pope, or Long or fancy clothes. I believe this to be according to Scripture as well.

    As Peter, Paul, and several others declared in Scripture: It is better that I obey God rather than man.

    Woe unto the person who would persecute me for having done so. He is my shield, my buckler, my all in all. Jesus, my Savior and yes, my Lord and my God and nothing stands between He and I. I am in Him and He is in me, as one in the Father, together with all those who also are in Him—the true holy catholic or universal Church. Not some organized religion or church denomination, but individuals who are born again, as written in scripture, ever so simply written in scripture.

    Michael, appreciate what you are saying in your choice to be more tolerate and providing a platform for everyone to share their particular bent on the faith and practice.

  164. Erunner says:

    Bob, I went to high school with Jim Zorn.

    What I was referring to was deflate gate and the new mess New England has found themselves in. Seems they have been caught cheating again.

    Me.. I root for the Los Angeles ….. oops….. I don’t have a team! Have a great day Bob.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.