I was having an email discussion with someone (we’ll call him Oliver for sake of discussion) who often berates a particular well-known pastor (we’ll call him Larry) via blogs and other online tools.

Now Oliver agrees with most of what Larry believes and teaches — he’ll freely admit this off the record.  But trying to get Oliver to say something positive publicly about Larry is like pulling teeth from a hungry grizzly bear after you smack him on the snout a few times and tell him that his mother dresses him funny.

Now I must admit that Oliver is far from being a nutcase.  He doesn’t beat up on everyone with whom he disagrees under the guise of “discernment”.  He doesn’t see a heretic around every corner.  He doesn’t wield Matthew 7:16 like some divine talisman of clairvoyance.  But when it comes to Larry, he starts getting dangerously close to all that stuff.

But like I said, Oliver is not a nutcase.  Much of what he has to say on many other subjects is very helpful. And so I tried to appeal to him logically, explaining that when he talks about Larry, he’s not separating himself nearly well enough from the actual nutcases.  And so when he starts his Pavlovian salivating over Larry, his actual points — some of which I agree with — get drowned in all the slobber.  (OK, I said it more graciously than that, but you get my point.)

The majority of Oliver’s response to me was just more argument about how horrible Larry is.  But one of the few statements that wasn’t of this nature was something to the effect of “You want me to say something positive about Larry before I say something negative about him. I won’t do that.”

Actually, his response was greatly exaggerated — more like “you want me to build a shrine to Larry before I say that I wouldn’t have worn that color tie” — but even without his exaggeration, my point remains the same.

On Sunday mornings, my church started studying the letters from Jesus to the churches in Revelation 2-3.  In good preacher style, my pastor used some alliteration to note that all of the letters contained:

1. a commendation for the church’s good works
2. a condemnation of where the church fell short
3. the promise of a crown
4. a warning of consequences for a lack of repentance over #2

Granted, there are a couple of exceptions (e.g. there was nothing good to say about Laodicea, so there’s no #1 in their letter).  But for the most part, this is the pattern of the letters.

Hmmmm.  So Jesus preceeded His comdemnations with commendations (when the latter were able to be made).

So am I to conclude that becoming more like Jesus is not part of Oliver’s job description?

I love JT and appreciate many of his writings, but his promotion of this quote unwittingly shows why DeYoung and Kluck’s latest book would be better titled “Why We Hate the Critics”.

(or I assume that, at some point, you’ll get to an actual point — in the meantime, I’ll be over here, holding my breath )

There has been a lot of hand-wringing over the President’s speech to school children tomorrow. And there’s been a lot of hand-wringing over the hand-wringing.  Not only are liberals jumping on the case of those conservatives that are concerned about the speech, but many of my fellow conservatives have gotten in on the act — and they’re using some of the same one-size-straitjacket-fits-all mentality.

Case in point:  If I point out the fact that American education is far behind the majority of the world and that maybe students’ time would be better spent on the three R’s, well then, I must be afraid that one speech by the President is going to make socialist drones out of all our children.  And that was from a conservative.

I must say, though, that I think it’s funny hilarious that days before the content of the speech was made public, those who were defending the speech (regardless of which side of the aisle they usually fall on) were speaking as though they knew the exact content, because of what was stated by the administration.  So many people are taking at face-value what is said by a man who tells Rick Warren that he wants to reduce abortions and Planned Parenthood that his first act in office will be to sign FoCA.  P T Barnum was clearly low-balling.

But here’s the kicker.

Even if you factor out those that have figured out a way to blame George W Bush for conspiring with Cain to murder Abel, there are many — on both sides of the aisle this time — who are absolutely certain that those who disagree with Obama wouldn’t disagree with a conservative president if he did the same thing.

With apologies to Colonel Potter:

MULE MUFFINS !!!

(And, no, Brent — in case you read this — this is not about you.  You were gracious enough to ask, not to definitively state.  You asked a fair question. But it’s asinine when someone else tells me what I think.)

The issues surrounding the speech, of course, aren’t the only instance.  It’s just the first time (to my knowledge) that conservatives have played that card on each other.

I’ve got two objections to this silliness.  First, it assumes that five times a day, I roll out my prayer carpet, face Crawford, and pray, closing with “in Rush’s name, Amen”.

More importantly, though, it strikes me as a bit odd that those who name the name of Christ (regardless of their political stance) would play this card.  The entire faith is wrapped around the idea that there is one standard (to which none of us measure up), and there are several warnings in Scripture against men comparing themselves with each other. So, unless I foolishly start compartmentalizing my life, why would I want to abandon a single standard in other aspects too?

And why the [censored] are you telling me that I am?