Tim,I read the post and I am missing the “rude” part. All Driscoll did hear is reply with some sarcasm and logical conclusions to Mclaren’s arguments. Besides, at times it seems that when Christians do not want to confront the actual argument they just pull out the “your not being nice card” this is to much like the politically correct Secular university philosophy classes I sat in for four years whil in college. Read Chesterston, and Lewis and you will see the same type of argumentive style and wit.

Tim,What exactly did you find to be “sophmoric?” Sure Driscoll was quite critical of EC methods of handling settled theological questions but what is wrong with that? Why should Mclaren be granted a pass when his post was in many was just if not more Biblically offensive in that it seeks to bring up for disscussion a matter that was settled long ago.

Tim R-I’m the one who said “sophomoric”, not Tim. What exactly did I find to be “sophomoric?”

…the pain of being a marginalized sexual minority as a male lesbian.

As the pastor of a church of nearly 5000 in one of America’s least churched cities filled with young horny people this really bummed me out.

In conclusion, this is all just gay.

Maybe you’re asking,It’s all true, so what could be wrong with it?There’s nothing wrong with humor, is there?

Sure, it’s true, and humor is often a good way to make a point, but this kind of crass, vulgar trash plainly displays a lack of good manners, to say the least. And don’t give me that “Well, Paul did it” nonsense, because he did not. Paul addressed this kind of expression in Ephesians 5:

3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; 4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.

Davey-I hope that explains what I meant. Are my gloves off to your satsfaction? As I said, you’re completely right about that.

A comment on Ron Gleason’s anti-illegal immigrant post—

This is what all of us have to ask ourselves when it comes to illegal immigration:

A family of illegals, their pathetic excuse for a car broken down outside your home, tentatively knock on your door, looking for help. Dad, pregnant mom, and two other kids stand there frightened.

As a Christian, you note that they are all gaunt-looking, so you feed them. The children are in ratty clothes, so you offer them some clothes. The mother is uncomfortable from the heat outside, so you let her rest in your best recliner. Knowing that the car is all they have, you offer to pay to have it repaired. In short, you do everything that Christ compels you to do out of His own love for these people.

Now the question comes: At what point do you call INS to turn them in? That’s the only natural thing to do considering what Gleason wrote in his post, isn’t it?

The problem with illegal immigration is that it runs afoul of true Christian faith. We can talk about the responsibilities of government and we can talk about taking care of the stranger and refugee in our land like the Bible instructs us to. At some time, those two sides must collide.

So, are you an American/Canadian first and Christian second OR a Christian first and and American/Canadian second?

And again, at what point do you call INS and turn that family in?

DLE,

Are you saying that you can’t both show Christian compassion and believe we should be a nation of laws? Those two things can’t exist together?

Because it really is that simple.

Besides, is there some problem with helping the family and then letting them be on their way. How in the world would you know they were illegal? Do you have to provide food and grill them for answers? Things are much easier in a constructed scenario.

“Although I am unsure exactly what Doug meant by this last statement for safety’s sake I would strongly recommend that all farmers, particularly those surrounding Minneapolis, lock up their sheep at night effective immediately.”

That was the phrase that was removed from Mark Driscoll’s post.