[Perhaps it would be only fair for those who critize Ingrid for being so public in her comments without a personal meeting to practice what they preach. Please contact Ingrid with your complaints before you comment in any public forum. I’m sure God doesn’t only read the posts in a blog but the comments also.]

I too have contacted Ingrid personally and even carried on a bit of a conversation with her. She made it very clear in no uncertain terms in her notes to me that she has no interest in dialogue. She has made up her mind on this issue and will not discuss even the possibility that she could be wrong, and continues to present what seem to me to be mis-quotes and quotes out of context from the people that she criticizes. And since the re-launch of Slice, she has made it abundantly clear that she wants no dialogue by simply not allowing any in the form of comments. So it doesn’t surprise me that much that she is unwilling to engage in public dialogue with Rick Warren.

Ingrid, if you’re reading this (and I would be shocked if you weren’t), please reconsider possibly appearing at this event.

What a ridiculous conversation going on here! I’m sure it has been said before but Rick Warren is only accountable to God and only has to answer to God. He certainly doesn’t answer to any of us nor does he answer to Ingrid.

RW is not the kind of person who would be condescending towards Ingrid nor anyone else for that matter. He has only benn acting like a Christian gentleman, as he should, and hasn’t been using virtiriolic, attacking language like our dear friend, Ingrid.

For Ingrid to say that she doesn’t need to visit RW’s church is like saying “Though I have never been to the Grand Canyon, I know what is like because I have seen the video”. If anyone has ever seen the Grand Canyone in person, there is no video that could ever begin to describe the personal experience of a visit.

Likewise, for someone to say they know what Saddleback is like because of internet video, etc. is ridiculous.

BTW-I will top Bishop Dave: invite me, RW, and I will not only clean the bathrooms, I will take out the trash:-)

I’m late to this predictable discussion. Just a few comments to add, for what they’re worth:

KC says: [Warren is only accountable to God and only has to answer to God. He certainly doesn’t answer to any of us nor does he answer to Ingrid.]

I understand your point, but it’s not exactly accurate.  RW, as the pastor of a local church and an incorporated 501c3, answers biblically and legally to a board of directors/elders.  This is a good system, established by God (in regard to the church) and generally very effective accountability.  CS – if a bunch of outsiders came to you, telling you that you are a heretic, tool in Satan’s hand, leading people to hell, then I think you would bring the accusations to your elders and ask them to give honest, careful and biblical input.  You would submit to their leadership because you know that these people, not the outside critics, are the ones God assembled to protect the church and His ministry. 

Even though RW doesn’t answer to Ingrid or her type, I feel he really took a high road by extending an invitation to someone who has been dedicated to bringing him down.  Asking her to wait until after the conference to comment is simply a request that she resist commenting on sound bites or small elements of a conference taken out of context - - - then she can comment away. 

Wendi

“Pastor Mark Beeson of Granger Community Church will also be there to speak on the subject of worship. I cannot listen to a “pastor” who claims personal responsibility for the sex-sermon-campaigns by churches across the nation.”

Rut roh.

Ingrid just insulted Todd’s Golden Calf.

“Beason did help the church be more biblically open to sex and sexuality. “

Where is that in the “Great Commission?”

Please define what “more biblically open to sex and sexuality” means.

Peter,

Meet the woman face to face, sit down over a cup of java and air your concerns, that is what I consider personal contact.  I think that was standard before this internet thing started.  “Personal” letters are only personal if you at least know the person and have established a relationship. 

JOB

Peter,

“Impossible for me to do that”

With God all things are possible, but he won’t make you do somthing you don’t want to do.

Ricky, it really doesn’t matter how I define it for you since I actually only see you chime in here when you want to condemn something.  But for fairness sake I’ll play once.  It is found in the Great Commission in the Make disciples and teach them all I commanded. 

You see Ricky we live in a world that teaches people that if you are not married it is okay to have sex.  It teaches that it is okay to look at porn.  It teaches that it is okay to be of the same sex and engage in sexuality.  The bible and even Jesus said that is not what God wants and they even called it sin.  The churches response to sexuality has been for a long tome to simply say no or to cast shame or to heap guilt without hope.  The church historically has not done well at times in dealing with human sexuality. 

Mark Beason helped people see what the bible says today.  He did not have naked ladies on the stage, he did not have immorality paraded as normal, He creatively and openly taught what the bible says about sexuality.  This is in the Teach them all I have commanded portion of the great commission. 

To be more biblically open to sexuality is to follow God’s word in the instructions aout sexuality.  That would be heterosexual, monogamous, healthy sexuality.  It is in the bible; hence the word “biblically.”

Leonard,

Why does Ingrid have to “go speak to” Mark Driscoll but it’s ok to drop an email to Ingrid?  BTW look back at the comments you will read “face to face” said more then once. Anyway thanks to you and Peter for sharing, in a public forum, your private attempts to contact Ingrid.  And thanks Leonard for your understanding of the practicality of Pau’ls letters.  In that light those discernment blogs look alot more practical now.

JOB,
You are kind of all over the map her.  I did not say she needed to go speak to Driscoll face to face.  I do however think she passed an opportunity to do so stating she does not need to.  She could have spoken to any of these guys face to face but passed by it on the basis of already having tried them and found them guilty. 

There is a huge difference in publicly blasting everyone you disagree with on a blog and writing a letter.  My notes ti Ingrid were honest attempts at creating dialog.  Her ignoring those notes… well that is on her and I cannot speak to that other that her silence and blogging structure indicate she does not want dialog.

Discernment blogs are very often not that at all, they are criticism blogs and they are aimed at policing Christians under the guise of discernment.  They often lack any journalistic integrity, turn the authors into martyrs, and create mistrust and division.  They come across as angry and arrogant and condemn not only specific leaders but they also treat with contempt many those who simply disagree with their “discernment/criticism”

and that is the opportunity she passed up.  she was invited to do just that.

I understand the accountability to the local body of believers that RW pastors.

But, let me get this straight: RW is accountable to Ingrid and to me?

Hah! I don’t think so!

JOB,

To answer your last post, she passed up the opportunity when she PUBLICLY refused the invitation that was just given to engage in direct dialogue. (Did you miss that somehow? It was the original point of this post.)

Ingrid publicly criticizes and condemns Christian teachers on a daily basis at Slice of Laodicea, using rhetoric such as [...if he were in charge, Purpose-Driven objectors would be locked up]

and [That would be the reformation where doctrine no longer matters, where those who worship the goddess Sophia or Isis, practice Buddhism or have Hindu inclinations on the side can link arms with Southern Baptists like Rick Warren because after all, they both believe there’s a “Jesus”]. These statements (even taken in context) paint a picture of RW’s beliefs that are incorrect, and yet she purports to report on her blog “news and comment on the contemporary church.”

What I’ve done (and what others have done) in these posts is to question these public self-appointed guardians of sound doctrine’s conclusions and methods. I have refrained from hyperbole and misquoting, and have been very careful to paint my opinion as my opinion, in order to hopefully more correctly give a balanced picture of somebody I admire very much and openly identify with to those who might read these pages.

If you can’t see the difference between those two things, I can’t help you.