Donald Miller Line By Lie

Not having done a line by lie for a while, let me explain. The point of a line by lie article is to deconstruct the deconstructors. But instead of deconstructing their literature like they do others, we will actually use logic and Scripture, rather than by simply claiming we can't know what the author meant.

So here is a line by lie post done on an article taken from Donald Miller’s own website.

DM (Donald Miller): I wrapped this book up in a bar on Hawthorne and that night I felt like I was losing it a bit. Essentially, I had begun to wonder if had misunderstood the gospel of Jesus, thinking of it in propositional terms rather than relational dynamics.

ANSWER: Yes, Paul had that problem, too. He thought of the gospel in propositional terms. In fact, you can read the four propositions he called the gospel in I Corinthians 15:1-8. 1. He died for our sins according to the Scriptures (prophetic propositions). 2. He was buried. 3. He was raised from the dead on the third day according to the Scriptures. 4. He was seen by all sorts of folks afterward, including a crowd of 500 at one time. Of course, Paul was not as smart as you. He never figured out just how stupid he was to think propositions were important.

DM: The latter (relational dynamics) seemed too poetic to be true,...

ANSWER: Tell us, Don, since the gospel is to be thought of in terms of relational dynamics, can you tell us what those dynamics are? And remember not to tell us what they are, because that would be propositional. Now, go ahead and tell us. But remember not to tell us. Okay?

DM: ...but the former (a propositional understanding of the gospel) had been killing my soul for years...

ANSWER: You shouldn’t have said that because it was propositional, but I'll answer you anyway. Paul said that we are saved by those four propositions. Perhaps if you obeyed those propositions, instead of disobeying them, you’d feel better. And in Romans 10:9 he told us that we are to confess those propositions or we will not be saved. So, yes, your soul feels like it is dying when faced with those doctrines because it is opposed to God and His truth always convicts.

DM: ...and (the propositional understanding of the gospel) was simply illogical.

ANSWER: Wow! Like I said, it's amazing just how stupid Paul was. And Jesus, too. After all, He asked His disciple to confess Him and His doctrines. You know, those things He proposed as true?

DM: If we hold that Jesus wanted us to "believe" certain ideas or "do" certain things in order to be a Christian, we are holding to heresy.

ANSWER: You mean like believing that Christ was the Son of God and repenting? So, since a Christian is never to be defined by what he believes or does, is it the color or his hair? His weight, height, IQ, good teeth, bad teeth, what? Tell us. Oh, I get it; he has to be relationally dynamic, huh?

DM: In that bar on Hawthorne, I finished the last paragraph and felt a kind of sickness at the thought of whether or not I was telling the truth.

ANSWER: Aw. Don’t worry. Propositions are all tosh, remember? So "truth" is nonsense.

DM: But after further consideration,...

ANSWER: You should have had another beer.

DM: ...and after rewriting the book, I realized the formulaic version of Christianity was irrational, and for that matter, unbiblical.

ANSWER: There you go with another proposition. But I'll answer you anyway. (Mind if I use some propositions?) The Bible is chock full of propositions. Explain to us, Don, how the Bible is unbiblical.

DM: True Christian spirituality mirrors relational dynammics more than the workings of a free-market economy.

ANSWER: Neither of these have anything to do with the message of the gospel. The gospel is about God’s redemptive plan. It is proposed to us in Scripture as true, relationships and all. Which brings up quite a question for you, Don. Why are we to think that Jesus, Isaiah, Moses, Paul, Augustine, Luther, and all our forefathers were idiots to present God’s truth propositionally, but when you present your version of the truth propositionally we are to believe you?

DM: This seemed to open up an entire new world to me, a world where every thought and feeling operates as a kind of living metaphor for the workings of the Godhead.

ANSWER: Human thoughts and feelings are depraved, actually. The Bible says that the heart is desparately sick and more deceiving than anything else, Jer. 17:9. And the Bible says this in II Corinthians 10: “We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,...” Paul was busy bringing his thoughts in line with God, not creating a god and a gospel out of his own thoughts. But then he was awfully propositional, huh?

DM: As a year has passed since the release of the book, I've seen more and more how, in my own life and in the lives of the Christians around me, we subscribe to false gospels that are troubling our souls.

ANSWER: “False gospels” like the one in Scripture? You know, that propositional one? Of course, if it makes your soul feel bad it can't be true, huh?

DM: ...To understand what the Bible explains...

ANSWER: Explain? You mean propositionally?

DM: To understand what the Bible explains Jesus’ gospel to be, we must look to each other, to the way a father interacts with a child, a bride to a bridegroom, a doctor to a patient.

ANSWER: Doh! (Forehead smack.) And I thought we had to read the Bible.

DM: When we let go of the idea of Jesus as a product and embrace Him as a being, our path to spiritual maturity begins.

ANSWER: Now there’s a good logical argument. If you don’t agree with Don you think Jesus is a product and you’re immature. Thanks for straightenin’ us out there, Bro.

Conclusion: Mr. Miller argues against a propositional understanding of the gospel by using propositions. He argues for his version of the truth, but fails to explain how we are to understand truth, since truth cannot be carried by language (propositions.) And he makes his argument by the use of language. Worst of all, he denies the very gospel that calls us to believe it by saying any requirement of belief is heresy, a proposition any good Christian believes in his view. But he hopes you will continue to buy his books to see exactly what he will propose next. And I'll bet he hopes you believe it.

Can anyone say “snake oil”?

Phil Perkins.

I Was Way Long

Sorry for being away for so long. My wife and I have had a hectic time these past few weeks. We both run businesses and both have lost employees and have had to keep really long hours. However, my promised blog on Brian McLaren and why he thinks it's wrong to be right is coming. Also, I am almost done doing an analysis of Scott Birkhimer's article on Alex Trebec. He is being nice enough to preview my analysis for me. Also upcoming is an article on the effeminate nature of the Emergent and what that means for its followers.

Phil Perkins.

"Paul" Line by Lie

I recently did a line by lie answer to a fellow on his blog. He seems like a likeable guy and I'm not sure if he is as sold on the Emergent as some or if he is just enamored with the fancy language of postmodernism and all the judgmentalism it seems to give permission for on the part of its adherents. Since, I have hope that he will still repent or hope that maybe he is a Christian gone astray, I will leave him anonymous and just use his first name. I will pray for his repentance.

Here is that Line by Lie.

Paul,

I wish you well in your studies. I especially wish you spiritual prosperity and a repentant life in the Lord.

If you are new to the Emergent, then there are some things you may want to consider. I will simply answer some of what you have said. I am going to write this quickly as I am busy. The ride will be rough, but you need to consider some things about the Emergent.

PB: Postmodernism is not a fad. It's not simply the way immature or young people think.

ANSWER: This is true. It is not a fad. It is as old as unbelief. Satan is the first one to articulate the Emergent heresy. “Indeed has God said…” Pilate said, “What is truth.” Paul said, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

PB: It's a new culture;

ANSWER: Hey, you just said it is not a fad. Now you say it is a new culture. Decide. Christians are called to clear thinking. I wrote an article on this at don’tadddontsubtract.blogspot.com, Called “A Theology of Truth…” It was posted in April.

PB: a worldview; a lens through which people (primarily in emerging generations, but also older people as well) think and process imformation.

ANSWER: This is a common Emergent line. It is gobble de gook and scientifically it gets an F in psychology. First of all, I don’t think through a lens. I perceive through a lens, actual or metaphorical. While perception effects thought, the processing of information is not changeable, generation to generation. It is the same for everybody. Information processing is broken into two fields, perceptual psychology and cognitive psychology. These two fields of psychology, along with neurological and behavioral, are the only aspects of psychology that are actually a science. Analytical and talk therapy are not science. They are a scam. But that’s another metanarrative.

This “process information” is a catch phrase in the Emergent. It is silly.

PB: Dan Kimball…

ANSWER: Dan Kimball, it should be noted, is not a believer in any but the most wildly (not biblical) inclusive definition. Jesus said that the mark that a sheep was His is that sheep’s predisposition to obey His voice. Mr. Kimball, on the other hand, scoffs at any one that looks to the Bible for answers. See this article: http://www.theopraxis.net/archives/2006/01/scripture_answe.html

In this article Kimball ridicules Christians following the propositional truths of the Bible thus: “Saying, ‘The Bible has all the answers,’ defines a rather odd relationship between a person and scripture.” So in his view Paul the apostle was a real dunce (odd in Herr Kimball’s rubric) when he wrote things like, “You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” Paul must have been a real stoop to the much more intelligent Kimball when he said, “Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.”

Of course, Paul was not Emergent. He was just an apostle.

PB: Dan Kimball defines postmodernism as "an emerging and developing worldview and culture

ANSWER: I have already corrected this new-and-emerging idea from the Scripture, so let me give a witness from my own life. I am almost 50. Trust me. The idea of churchies (my term for the religiously disobedient) thinking they were smarter than their predecessors because they refused to make up their minds about anything was around when I was a kid. Case in point—Tony Campolo. So you don’t even have to go back to Scripture to find that the eshewal of truth is not knew.

PB: (still quoting Kimball) pursuing what is beyond modernity. It holds there is no single universal worldiew.

ANSWER: This is another common Emergent line. Now there is no single world view? Oh, I see. Before, oh let’s say April of 2001 (pick your own date if you wish) there was only one????Where have you been? Read any history ever in your life? What was World War II about? Were the Nazis fighting the democrats and the Communists because we all agreed, but were bored so we decided to have a fun war? How about the Cold War? Have you ever read the Bible? What does it say about other world views? Does it not command us to avoid them and to contend against them? I would have to assume that there were some to contend against.

PB: (still quoting Kimball) Therefore, truth is not absolut

ANSWER: This reasoning is self-denying. “Truth is not absolute,” is a statement of absolute “truth.” If it is not absolutely true, then some truth IS absolute. If, on the other hand, truth is not absolute, then the statement “Truth is not absolute,” is an absolutely true, meaning that some truth is absolute. Complete nonsense.

I personally cannot think that to a man as articulate as Kimball the nonsense of such a statement has not occurred. He has either decided to suppress the truth in unrighteousness or he has decided to purposely lie to others to sell books and so forth. If, on the other hand, he cannot understand something so simple as the folly of the the-absolute-truth-is-there-is-no-absolute-truth crowd, then he is mentally not up to teaching anyone. I think he is simply lying for the convenience of power and money or so that he himself does not have to obey the truth or both. I do not believe he is stupid.

PB: and many of the qualities embraced by modernism no longer hold the value or influence they once did. It can still be defined as we like; since it is still forming and developing."

ANSWER: Good move. Keeps all his loopholes open.

PB: Thanks a lot, Dan! So we can define it how we want? It's true that postmodernism is hard to define, and I won't seek to create my own definition (yet). For a good, concise explanation on three understandings of postmodernism, see an article entitled "The Three Postmodernisms: A short explanation" by Brian McLaren.

ANSWER: It must be noted that while quoting McLaren for a definition or things concerning the Emergent is legit, he, too, is a heretic. Recently he has denied eternal hell, approved of homosexuality, and denied the substitutionary atonement.

PB: However, I will make a few comments about my understanding, and the way in which the church must (not might, must) respond to postmodernity.

ANSWER: Romans 1:16, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” Was God wrong? Was Paul wrong? I respectfully have to say I don’t think that any of us has a better idea, and my uncle worked at Ford.

PB: Relativism is a reality.

ANSWER: No, it’s a denial of reality.

PB: However, it is not that postmoderns think there is no truth! ANSWER: Right, they have simply lied to themselves and others. That is the dishonesty. Whenever they face a truth that is bothersome, they will do xies by saying, “There is not absolute truth,” as if it was an absolute truth. This is intensely dishonest.

PB: They are simply tired to the way Christians (and others?) militantly preach our views without any regard for other beliefs, and the lack of listening ears that Christians have to others. It's a reaction to our modern approach that Christianity is the only true religion

ANSWER: Christianity is the only true religion. Do you deny this? If so, you are not a Christian in the biblical sense of one that has left even father and mother, brother and sister to follow Him. Repent.

PB: and that there is no reason to even hear what others have to say.

ANSWER: There is no reason to listen to heresy, other than politeness or to study the heresy to warn others of it and its proponents. Jude said, “Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.” John said, “…guard yourselves from idols.” Paul said, “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision.”

Of course, none of those fellows were Emergent. They were just apostles.

PB: Postmoderns are still seeking the truth;

ANSWER: Then why do they deny its very existence? Decide on a line and stick with it.

PB: their reaction to modernism has just been extreme enough to send them to the other end of the spectrum.

ANSWER: First, modernism is not the same as Christianity and modernism did not introduce the idea of absolute truth. God did that way back when He said, “There will be light.” Guess what? There was real light, not relative light. Absolutely.Of course, God was not Emergent. He was just God.

Second, they decide their reaction, no one else. James said, “But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.” We are not allowed to blame others for our own sin.

Third, if you are surprised by the hatred of the world, then you are ignorant of the Scripture. Paul said, “Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” That’s a promise you don’t hear quoted too often.

Fourth, if you are looking (as many churchies are) to avoid persecution, you are an embarrassment to Christ. He said, “"For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." Notice, that He mentions shame of His teachings as a reason for His shame of you.Of course, Jesus was not Emergent. He was just…………God.

PB: Postmodernity is not something that people will simply grow out of. It is a worldview; it is their culture, something that has been ingrained in them from birth. Furthermore, we cannot (and are not called to) "convert" them to modern ways of thinking.

ANSWER: Now, Paul, I agree with all that, except the idea that converting them to Christianity is converting them to something modern. Jude said, “I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” That is a connection to 2000 years ago and further. Nothing modern about that.

PB: We need to speak the truth to them,

ANSWER: I agree. That would be the Gospel. Absolutely.

PB: but in ways that they understand.

ANSWER: All the ones I know speak English. The ones that repent do so because they understand and obey. The ones that get angry do so because they understand and hate God for His demands.

PB: Mark Oestreicher describes in The Emerging Church four phases he went through in his thinking about postmodernism:1. We've got to do something to fight this postmodern thinking in young people.

ANSWER: No, we don’t. We are commissioned to give them the Gospel. We cannot convert them. We are called to gospelize them and God will do the converting of His chosen and the hardening of those He is preparing for destruction. Paul said, “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy…So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires…What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?...And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.”

That’s not Emergent. That’s Romans.

PB: (Still quoting MO) 2. Wait a second; postmodernism isn't all that bad, but it's still a generational thing.

ANSWER: The denial of truth is evil. And it is generational in that it has happened in every generation.

PB: (still quoting MO) 3. Wait another second; there seem to be sixty-year-olds who are more postmodern in their thinking than some thirty-year-olds. Maybe it's not a generational thing.

ANSWER: Exactly! The denial of absolute truth started in my life the first time I smacked my brother right in sight of my dad and then lied to him, hoping that my denial of truth would have to be agreed with by someone that knew better. Unfortunately, he was not Emergent and he was not kinder to my hinder.

PB: (still quoting MO) 4. Hey! This whole postmodern thing -- it's me.

ANSWER: Then repent and obey the truth.

PB: (still quoting MO) We have to accept that people are postmodern. It's not something that we can change, nor is it something that we can ignore. May we accept that people think this way, and seek to reach them, just as we do on mission fields all over the world.

ANSWER: Yes, and no. Yes, they are in sin. That’s the truth and I accept it. No, we are not to leave them in sin. We are to evangelize them.

PB: (still quoting MO) 3. While we must accept postmoderns for who they are,

ANSWER: No, we are to accept no one for who they are. God does not do so. That would be to leave them unconverted, in their sin, and on the way to hell. If we love them we will call them to repent. We will not sooth them in their unbelief. Proverbs says, “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.” Kiss them on the way to hell, in love, of course.

PB: (still quoting MO) we still have one important thing in common. All people, no matter when they live(d) or what their culture they are from. Whether we are modern or postmodern (or post-postmodern?), our basic needs and desires are the same. We all want to love and be loved; we all desire to be accepted, trusted, and loved by a group of people; we all want purpose in our lives; and we all want spiritual fulfillment, a connection with God, and to fill the void inside of us that only God can fill.

ANSWER: In biblical terms that means we are all self-centered. What MO has described is selfishness. Love me. Assure me. Connect me to God without repentance. Christ said, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.”

PB: (still quoting MO) This is our hope for the church -- that postmoderns, like all others in human history, are seeking the truth, the truth that Christians have to offer. We have exactly what postmoderns are looking for (even though we rarely act like it!),

ANSWER: This continues the unbiblical view of human nature rife in the modern church. Namely, that man is looking for the truth. That is a lie. Paul said we already know and are trying to deny it, Romans One. Christ said, “No man is able to come to Me unless the Father Who sent Me take him.”

Of course, Jesus was not Emergent. He was just the Way, the Truth, and the Life. …..oh wait. I just remembered. There is not absolute truth. How stupid of me. My bad.

PB: (still quotiong MO) we just need to translate this truth into languages that they understand.

ANSWER: Wycliffe, and New Tribe Missions. I have given to both of them. Great organizations they are. Living in MT, all the Native
languages need someone to translate into some languages out here. If you come here to translate after seminary, I will help you raise funds. There is Crow, Cheyenne, and others.

PB: I'd love to hear your definitions of postmodernism, because clearly I (nor anyone?) has it down yet.

ANSWER: Actually Paul had it down just great. He called it “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.” But then he wasn’t Emergent. He was…well you know.

Hoping you repent in the love and TRUTH of Christ, Who is absolutely the only way to God,Phil.

John O'Keefe Line by Lie

John O’Keefe Line by Lie.
I had a recent e-spat with a national Emergent leader named John O’Keefe. He writes for theooze.com and is a mover and a shaker in the Emergent Obfuscation. Mr. O is typical Emergent and calls his blog Ginkworld Inside the Mind of Punk Monkey. Yeah, and he’s actually a full grown man in his forties. One has to wonder if the drinking of bong water is somehow involved in all of this.

He recently sent an email to the administration of my school. He was REALLY UPSET with GREAT CONCERN AND PAIN. (Yikes! This must be really bad.) I was to be severely bad-boyed because I was so mean. It turns out that a fellow in Billings was running around lying and I, being the intolerant bigot that I am, asked him to stop it–oh, the HUMANITY!!!! (He had sent away for "this card that said I was a reverend.") Undoubtedly, with credentials like that the man is NEVER TO BE QUESTIONED–EVER!

Weeell... I did. Go to wordofmouthminintries.blogspot.com to see that e-spat.

Anyway, Mr. O, being the man he is, tattled on me. He told the school that I was a REALLY BIG MEANY and that I should be DRAWN AND QUARTERED as soon as was convenient, certainly by the next morning. Naturally, this caused some angst at the school until they found out the truth. Now a lot of folks at the school are getting informed as to the Emergent Heresy. So John meant it for evil but God meant it for good.

So I sent Mr. O an email asking him to clear this up a bit. Again, in true manly fashion, he declined to deal with me directly. Instead, he waited a few weeks and blog-whined about myself and a message board that evidently asked for straight forward, biblical answers, something that will cause any Emergent type to develop a permanent facial tick.

Just in case John happens to accidently push the delete when he gets a load of my answer here is how I answered him line by lie:

To Zac and John,
This is really addressed to John, but Zac may enjoy reading this as he has been smeared by John, too. My name is Phil Perkins, I am the second guy, the prof, in John’s story. I am really just a welder, but that is another story. I live in Billings, MT and I recently gave a talk on three contemporary sources of apostasy to my church. One of them was the Emergent. I was asked if any Emergent churches were in Billings. Didn’t know...so I Googled. That is how I found Carlos Shelton–"the planter" in the story.

I’ll start by simply answering some of your questions. This may seem harsh, but there is a point to be made if you’re open.

JO: at what point does a conversation breakdown?

ANSWER: Evidently, when you are faced with the truth and run.

JO: does it happen when the first insult is voiced?

ANSWER: No, I just asked you to explain yourself when you insulted me...behind my back....to the school.

JO: does it happen when one person twists what the other person says to meet a personal agenda?

ANSWER: No, I put up with that, too.

JO: does it happen when one side simply refuses to even hear what the other has to say?

ANSWER: Now John, you know we can hear each other just fine. Heck, I even heard the stuff you did not want me to hear, the fibs you told my school.

JO: does it happen when one person calls into question the honor of the other?

ANSWER: Your honor would not be called into question if you had been honest. I gave you that chance when I asked if you had read the conversations about which you complained. If you hadn’t and had just trusted someone, then you could have simply acknowledged a mistake. We all make mistakes. It would be no big deal. That would be that.

JO: at what point can we say, "this conversation is over" because we know it is going no place?

ANSWER: Oh, it was going someplace, alright. You just didn’t like getting caught and neither did Carlos.

JO: which leads us to the idea that if you leave the conversation and the other person is still talking [or insulting] does that mean the conversation is still happening?

ANSWER: Now there you go again, John. You know I have not bothered you at all since you refused to answer my email.

JO: if one person leaves a conversation, does that make the other person "the winner?"

ANSWER: Usually.

JO: does there have to be a winner in a conversation?

ANSWER: That’s the way it usually ends up if you have been busted fibbing about all sorts of stuff. You go away embarrassed. I did when I was a kid...lots of times. Not fun, huh?

JO: at what point does a conversation become a monolog?

ANSWER: When you run and start fibbing on your blog where you hope no one will answer you.

JO: i ask this, because this week i had two such experiences.

ANSWER: I suspect you ask this because in both instances you met up with real believers and they challenged you with logic and Scripture. In my case, not only did your gossiping to my school administration not work, but I will now have the chance to address the entire faculty and speak to them about the Emergent heresy. You will be case in point when it comes to the dishonesty that permeates the leadership of the whole movement. We will work hard to warn our students about you and others like you.

JO: i received an email a few weeks ago from a friend letting me know that there was a college professor attacking a church planter in his area.

ANSWER: The "attack" was simply three things. First, the "planter" claimed to be ordained. He is not. Instead, he has (in his own words, now) "this card that said I was a Reverend." Cute, huh? The card is from a mail order diploma mill called UCMI. It is a joke. Ucmi.com is their website. Check it out. He is not ordained by any church or denomination as far as I know. If I am wrong, this is your chance to correct me and I will apologize forthwith. Carlos indicated he was not ordained outside of the UCMI card. The second, thing I asked about was the apparent contradictions between his doctrinal statement and his endorsement of Emergent and Brian McLaren. His doctrinal statement was conservative (with a definite twist or two) and it left no room for the disregard of Scripture McLaren and the entire Emergent embraces. The third question was a sincere one. He did a blog that first seemed to object to sodomy, then seemed to excuse it. I was not sure of his position and asked. He got mad and it took quite a few exchanges before he made a clear statement. And his final position was orthodox. I see by your approval of David Sherwood you DO excuse sexual perversion. Nice.

JO: the only reason the professor was picking on the person [this was the only reason brought to my attention and the professor only mentioned it in five questions he had emailed me] was because the professor did not like the planter ordination, and he had concerns on how the planter "received his education."

ANSWER: I said nothing about his education. That quote is dishonest and you would know it if you read the blogs. I don’t care if he is ordained or not. It is the dishonesty. According to Paul a man that is double tongued is unfit for service.

JO: which was interesting to me because the professor teaches at a small baptist college - baptists have historically ordain people who believe God is calling to ministry, and seldom, if ever, has an education requirement been attached to the ordination.

ANSWER: Yeah, we Baptists are a real piece of work, huh? However, in your email sent to the school administration in which you were tattling profusely on the big meany in Billings you said this:
"I am the Lead Pastor with a growing, engaged and Christ-centered Emerging Community of faith, and we are connected with the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention)..." Wellllll, you’re a wacko Baptist, too? Hmmm. Then you said, "...I have to be honest..." I’ll hold my breath.

JO: \this person [and it was not the planter, but a concerned member of the community who knew me and knew I would be a peaceful neutral party] asked if i would "play the middle guy"

ANSWER: Oh, so THAT’S why you gossiped to the school. You were REALLY being nice to me. Gee whiz, I just can’t believe I missed that one.

JO: and see if i could address the issue of ordination between the professor and the planter.

ANSWER: No, John. It’s not the paper. It’s the dishonesty.

JO: needless to say, my emails to the professor have fallen upon deaf ears...

ANSWER: You told the school that you weren’t able to email me. Pick a fib and stick to it, John.
I will publish your email soon on zitsemerge.blogspot.com. so everyone can read it.

JO: the professor, for what ever reason he has, has taken to want a fight with me.

ANSWER: That is not the truth and you know it. I simply sent you the email and you have not answered. And that has been weeks.

JO: i am uncomfortable with any conversation based on anger and hurtfilled speech between members of God’s kingdom.

ANSWER: Ahhh. Pot calling Kettle...come in please.

Now here is a transcript of the email I sent you:

John,
This is Phil Perkins. I will be glad to publicly dialogue with you and/or Carlos Shelton any time and any forum, perhaps at our school. All you had to do was ask the school for my email address. However, you now have this one. Please feel free any time. And give it to Mr. Shelton as well.
At any rate here are five questions:
1. Did you read all that was written between Mr. Shelton and myself?
2. Did you check out Mr. Shelton's credentials?
3. Do you approve of the practices of UCMI, such as calling the 120 hours of tapes an M. Div.? (That is where Mr. Shelton got "this card that said I was a Reverend.") Put another way, do you approve of a man like Mr. Shelton getting a card from a mail order company and calling it "ordination?"
4. Do you approve of Mr. Shelton telling the entire church it "can burn in its false assumption of humility and self-delusional self-righteousness?"
5. Do you approve of Mr. Shelton and friends calling me vulgar and derogatory names? I especially want to know if me being called after a profane part of one's anatomy caused "concern" and "pain." Show me the email you wrote about that, please.
Sincerely,
Phil.

Now explain to me and your readers just how you thought this was out of line, especially in light of the fibs you told about me to the school and the names and vitriol spued by Carlos when he was busted publicly. Go to zitsemerge.blogspot.com for further documentation if you think that I have fibbed about Carlos, or go to wordomouthministeries.blogspot.com if it is still there.

I have called you to account, but remember that Jesus REALLY shed REAL blood. He did so as the REAL Son of God because we are REALLY sinful, headed for a REAL hell for eternity. The Lamb was REALLY raised the third day. (The Middle Matzah was found.) I do not know if you will ever be willing, but please repent and be saved. This is the message never heard in the Emergent and denied by you, John, in your blog of late March, 2006 and in your lifestyle.

In eternal view of Christ’s blood and loving forgiveness,
Phil Perkins.