When Offense Fails to Materialize

A few weeks ago, I found myself in a brief YouTube comment exchange that could have gone the usual way. Sarcasm was involved. Moral urgency was implied. Lines were being drawn about who should care, how much, and in what tone.

In other words, the conditions for offense were present.

The exchange started under a post by someone else, where a third party expressed strong opinions about how others were responding to the murder of Charlie Kirk. The discussion quickly shifted from the tragedy itself to accusations about loyalty, friendship, and the supposed danger posed by divergent opinions surrounding it.

I replied with sarcasm — not to trivialize the tragedy, but to question the level of alarm being demanded around the surrounding commentary.

That sarcasm was called out as “carrying no weight.”

Fair enough. Sarcasm rarely carries weight when it’s used to question moral scale rather than to signal shared outrage.

What followed, though, was not what usually follows online. There was no escalation, no pile-on, no moral shaming spiral. Instead, after a few back-and-forths, the other commenter realized we were largely in agreement about the point I was actually making. He apologized for misunderstanding me. I acknowledged the limits of nuance in YouTube comments. We wished each other well and moved on.

Only later did I notice something ironic: the person I’d been exchanging comments with had previously posted a sermon titled Overcoming Unforgiveness, Bitterness & Offense. I hadn’t seen it before. I wasn’t responding to it. I didn’t know it existed until after the exchange ended.

The irony isn’t that I somehow lived out a sermon before hearing it. The order matters. What’s interesting is that an unplanned, unscripted interaction — one that included sarcasm and disagreement — ended up testing those themes in real time.

What struck me wasn’t that offense never appeared but that it wasn’t taken, and that made understanding possible.

That’s worth pausing over, because offense is often treated as inevitable. Worse, it’s treated as evidence of seriousness or moral engagement. If you’re not offended, the assumption goes, you must not care enough.

But that logic doesn’t hold.

In this case, disagreement didn’t produce bitterness. Sarcasm didn’t prevent clarity. Refusing to perform outrage didn’t signal indifference. The moment it was clear neither of us needed the other to feel correctly, the conversation relaxed and resolved itself— something that feels more rare then it should.

This runs counter to much of what passes for moral discourse today, especially online. We are trained to believe that love looks like heightened urgency, that faith looks like visible outrage, and that seriousness requires a particular emotional posture. Anyone who refuses that posture is treated as suspect.

I don’t think sarcasm is necessarily virtuous. I also don’t think seriousness is always sincere. What I’m increasingly convinced of is that offense is a poor substitute for discernment — and rarely a faithful expression of care.

Taking offense certainly doesn’t prove one cares about the right things.

---

Part 3 —Racism, Intent, and How Christians Judge Meaning

Introduction

This final post continues the breakdown of my exchange with Anthony Wade of @The ScatteredSheep Podcast (TSSP), focusing on the one issue that remained unresolved between us: whether Charlie Kirk’s words were racist — and how Christians reason their way toward, or away from, that judgment.

In Part 1- In the Aftermath, I explained the framework I bring to questions of speech, motive, and labels  — why definitions matter, why intent matters, and why Christians should be careful with moral accusations.  In Theology, Discernment, and the Clash Over Charlie Kirk (Part 2), I traced how that framework collided with Wade’s discernment methodology during our interaction.

This is where the exchange narrowed to the real point of disagreement:

What counts as evidence of racism, and how do Christians judge meaning without collapsing intent, impact, and accusation into a single moral reflex?

Wade held a settled conviction that Kirk’s speech was racist, hateful, and deceptive.  I was not convinced of that conclusion — though, as I stated clearly in Part 1, I could be wrong and would be open to correction if compelling evidence warranted it.  The spark for this conversation was not simply whether Charlie Kirk said something wrong, but how Christians assign meaning, determine guilt, and communicate moral boundaries in public discourse.

Wade did give a clear definition of martyr, which I appreciated.  Yet when I asked him to define racism, he declined — and that refusal exposed the heart of our disagreement. I was asking for clarity of meaning; he believed the meaning was already obvious.

Without shared definitions, Christians end up arguing not only about conclusions but about the very criteria for reaching them.

Questioning intent is not a way of excusing speech or dismissing moral responsibility. It is how we determine whether a moral label accurately describes the speaker rather than merely registering disapproval of the words themselves — especially when claims of harm are asserted but never clearly articulated.

---

1. What Wade Believed He Was Identifying

From Wade’s perspective, the matter was straightforward: Charlie Kirk’s statements were racist, the intent was obvious, and Christians have a duty to condemn harmful speech quickly and clearly.

Wade’s core convictions as they emerged in the video and our exchange:

• Racism is a moral category with clear boundaries.

• Kirk’s statements were objectively racist; context cannot alter that.

• Lying about DEI or racial quotas constitutes willful deception.

• Intent does not mitigate harm: impact defines meaning.

• Discernment requires labeling harmful speech without hesitation.

• The Church is in danger because some believers elevate Kirk as a hero.

• “Truth is not malleable” — claims must be judged as fact or lie.

• Christians who hesitate to condemn harmful rhetoric risk enabling it.

How this came across publicly:
Wade communicated from a moral-absolutist stance: when speech causes harm, rebuke must be immediate and un-nuanced.

---

2. What I Was Actually Saying (Even When I Didn’t Spell It Out)

My disagreement wasn’t with the existence of sin, or the reality of harmful speech.
It was with the confidence of the accusation and the criteria being used to justify it.

My position, clarified:

• The conflict centered on the meaning of the word racist.

• “Racist” is a term with expanded, shifting, and sometimes inconsistent usage.

• Intent and context matter in interpretation.

• Overconfident labeling creates new forms of injustice.

• I wasn’t defending CK’s rhetoric — I was questioning the standard of evidence.

• If we don’t know someone’s heart, we should not speak as if we do.

• CK acknowledged these were intrusive, sinful thoughts— that complicates motive attribution.

• Celebrations of his murder, while using the same quotes to justify it, demonstrated a deeper moral distortion than anything in these particular quotes.

• Two extremes distort truth:

  • some deify CK,

  • others demonize him.

How I hope my stance came across publicly:
I was grounding the conversation in interpretive fairness, not political or tribal loyalty.

---

3. Where We Talked Past Each Other

Even when we used the same words — harm, intent, truth, racism — we were not speaking the same conceptual language.

My Intention	How Wade Seemed to Interpret It
“We must scrutinize definitions.”	“You’re minimizing harm.”
“Context helps us interpret meaning.”	“You’re excusing wrongdoing.”
“We should avoid presuming motives.”	“You’re afraid to speak boldly.”
“Both extremes distort truth.”	“You’re equivocating or being political.”

Our reasoning paths didn’t meet because they started from different assumptions about how moral knowledge works.

---

4. The Framework Clash Beneath the Disagreement

The conflict was not personal — it was epistemological.
We were applying two legitimate, but incompatible, approaches to moral discernment.

My Framework	Wade’s Framework
Theology shapes rhetoric.	Rhetoric reveals theology.
Interpretation → judgment.	Judgment → interpretation.
Intent + context = meaning.	Impact = meaning.
Language must be clarified.	Language has fixed moral weight.
Case-by-case discernment.	Corruption is contagious; act quickly.
Epistemic humility.	Moral certainty.

Core tension:

• I was trying to understand what was meant.

• Wade was trying to judge what should be allowed.

Both approaches aim at truth — but they prioritize different safeguards.

Resulting perceptions:

• A fair-minded observer might see my approach as consistent, careful, and humanizing.

• Wade likely saw it as risking confusion or moral compromise.

Both views make internal sense.
They simply address different dangers.

---

5. What This Reveals About How Christians Judge Accusations

The exchange exposed a recurring problem in how Christians handle public controversy:

• Moral urgency accelerates conclusions.

• Interpretive humility slows them.

Neither wants to betray the truth.

But when urgency operates without humility:

• Oversimplification → false accusation.

And when humility operates without urgency:

• Over complication → moral paralysis.

The argument over Charlie Kirk wasn’t just political.
It exposed deeper fault lines in how Christians understand:

• responsibility

• speech ethics

• motives

• sin

• epistemology

• charity

• and the limits of judgment

Put differently:

We often agree on the destination (truth),
but argue about the map.

---

6. A Clear, Quiet Ending 

By the end of our exchange, I tried to put into words what I believed Wade was doing in his videos. I said:

“You (in this video) seem to be coming at this from a kind of ‘protect the Church from bad theology’ perspective in your own sort of way.
I am not sure if you think Kirk’s ideas were more of a threat to the Church or to the people he supposedly hated.”

Wade confirmed that understanding, replying:

“This channel is a discernment ministry.
So yes, it is about trying to protect the church per se.

If the church was not actively deifying him, I would probably never have commented on this other than to say no one deserves to be shot for expressing their opinion.”

We did not resolve our disagreement about Charlie Kirk’s motives, intentions, or meaning.
But we did arrive at clarity about our priorities and our respective aims.

That clarity was its own form of peace.

If more Christian disagreements ended with clarity rather than caricature, we might find that unity does not require uniformity of method — only honesty about the good each person is trying to protect.

Part 2 Theology, Discernment, and the Clash Over Charlie Kirk

Dissecting My Interaction with  @TheScatteredSheep Podcast

1. How the Exchange Even Started

My first encounter with Anthony Wade of @TheScatteredSheepPodcast (TSSP)—a very small discernment ministry focused on exposing theological compromise—came about when one of his videos popped up in my YouTube recommendations. (along with everything else about Charlie Kirk).  He drew me in with a sharp critique of Troy Black’s false prophecy.  (I had only first heard of Troy Black two days before and I was annoyed by his 'prophecy claims'.)

At first the exchange between myself, Wade, and the other commenters on his video was very lighthearted and supportive—mostly jokes about the ridiculousness of Troy’s prophetic claims. Wade was friendly and even appreciative at first, even if some of my humor seemed to confuse him a bit.

---

2. Where the Conversation Turned

However, when I tried to point out what I thought Tucker Carlson meant in the memorial speech, a key tension emerged.

• I treated Tucker’s point as a political analogy about silencing speech (a Gamaliel principle).

• Wade treated it as if it were a theological exaltation of Charlie Kirk—directly comparing Charlie’s death to the Crucifixion.

He interpreted Carlson’s analogy (and my reference to Gamaliel in Acts 5:34-38) literally, as if we were comparing Charlie Kirk directly to Jesus or Peter.

In short:

I was exploring an analogy.
He was refuting what he thought was a doctrinal statement.

I saw it as a general premise about killers and motives, with no theological equivalence implied.—someone allegedly disliked what Kirk said and acted violently.  I eventually ventured into a nuanced disagreement about the Kirk assassination motive and how religious vs. political identity should be interpreted, which went beyond the video’s original scope. He wasn’t dismissive, but he didn’t engage deeply with the theological or philosophical layers I tried to raise.

---

3. Early Misalignment Points Between Us

• Humor vs. Literalism: Early on he enjoyed the playful banter, but as the discussion grew weightier, my sarcasm and analogies increasingly met with his literal, earnest interpretations, creating a tonal gap.

• Exploratory vs. Declarative: I raised hypothetical and multi-layered questions; he focused on asserting conclusions from public reports.

• Faith vs. Politics: I questioned the relationship between religious and political motives; he consistently emphasized a political reading of Kirk’s identity and actions.

• Epistemic Modesty vs. Certainty: I highlighted ambiguity and limits of inference; he spoke with confidence about the likely motives based on reporting.

---

4. Why I Watched the Second Video

A few politically charged comments—such as referring to Charlie Kirk’s hate as an established fact—made me curious about where Wade was actually coming from. That ultimately shaped my engagement with the second video I picked from his channel, titled:

“NAR Dominionism Teaching – How Carnal Narratives Exploit Tragedy for Political Ends.”

In the second video, I stayed focused on extreme political framing and logical consistency. I noticed a disconnect between criticizing Kirk for conflating politics and Christianity while relying solely on political examples to illustrate the point that Kirk shouldn’t be deified.

Across both videos, my lens remained the same:

• analyzing how political and religious claims are presented

• questioning extreme readings

• tracking logical coherence

Why? Because in the first video, I already saw Wade:

• interpreting analogies as literal claims

• stating unproven motives as established fact

• jumping to theological conclusions where I saw a simpler explanation

So in the second video, my focus naturally shifted toward examining:

• whether he was again overstating certainty

• whether he was again mixing political framing with theological claims

• whether he was again reacting to rhetoric more intensely than the rhetoric required

This time, I wasn’t evaluating the topic — I was monitoring the pattern.

At this point, the disagreement was no longer about Charlie Kirk at all — it was about how discernment itself should function.

---

⭐ 5.  Key Takeaways from the Exchange with Wade @TheScatteredSheep Podcast

1. Wade's method seemingly undercuts his own Standards for Christians and the Church
Observation:
When someone claims to be doing theological correction, or "Discernment ministry," but uses political material as their primary evidence, they inevitably muddle the message. The form contradicts the content. If Wade wants that to be persuasive, grounding critiques in theological/scriptural argument rather than primarily political examples would be more consistent with that framing.

Why it stood out to me:
This was my first exposure to Wade.  His channel (TSSP) surfaced via algorithm because he was responding to the controversies around Charlie Kirk’s murder. That context amplified the inconsistency: he was reacting to cultural/political events, but critiquing CK for allowing the same kind of entanglement.

Why it matters:
Wade strongly critiques Christians who allow their politics to shape their religion rather than letting theology shape their politics. So in this specific instance, when he critiques CK by using the same politically charged quotes commonly used by CK’s political opponents, his argument becomes less distinct, less theological, and less consistent with his own standards.

Effect:
By using politically charged examples to demonstrate CK’s failings, Wade blurs his own theological framing. His point might still be valid, but the rhetorical method makes his theological critique less clear — and that’s where my “quiet” insight came through.

Lesson:
If a channel presents itself as a discernment ministry, critiques of Christian figures land more consistently and persuasively when they’re grounded in Biblical/theological reasoning rather than political evidence.

Result of the Exchange:

✅ I believe my point did come through subtly in my original exchange with Wade.
✅ I hinted at it without accusing him.
✅ He did not reject my final framing, but stated why he spoke about Charlie Kirk in the first place: "The Church is actively deifying CK."

---

2. Wade interprets divergence as off-topic and collapses disagreement into NAR influence
Observation:
In the video itself Wade talks about his talk with a friend and claims he had been corrupted by NAR influence without knowing it. During the exchange with me, Wade steered the conversation back to his intended focus — protecting the Church from theological error. He often treated any attempts to nuance or question his framing as a digression. Points I raised about context, political framing, or extremes in reactions to CK were often interpreted as evidence of NAR (New Apostolic Reformation) influence rather than addressed directly.

Lesson:
A speaker who frames deviations as “off-topic” and collapses nuanced disagreements into a broad category like NAR influence can subtly control the conversation and limit scrutiny of their own logic. Recognizing this dynamic allows a respondent to maintain clarity in their reasoning without being pulled into the imposed framing.

---

3. Using politically loaded examples guarantees political interpretation — even if the speaker insists otherwise
Observation:
Throughout the exchange, Wade relied on politically charged examples to illustrate CK’s failings, such as CK’s statements about DEI initiatives, racial quotas, and pilots. These examples naturally provoke strong emotional reactions from observers, making it difficult to isolate the theological critique from the political outrage.

If Wade truly wanted a message about the church, he could have stuck with:

• Biblical examples — such as warning against idolatry, misplacing loyalty, or valuing reputation over character.

• Historical Christian distortions — pointing to past cases where political entanglement led the Church astray.

• Pastoral warnings — discussing how leaders should model discernment rather than focus on cultural battles.

• Intra-church patterns of hero-worship — highlighting where church figures were elevated for political rather than theological reasons.

Type of discussion that highlighted the disconnect:
I was trying to discuss CK’s comments in context, emphasizing intention, societal reaction, and moral nuance. Wade repeatedly pivoted back to examples of political controversies, effectively interpreting my questions about context and nuance as deviations or evidence of corruption.

Lesson:
Using politically charged material as primary evidence for theological correction will inevitably trigger defensive reactions. A clearer distinction between theological critique and political commentary would help maintain focus on the stated mission.

---

4. Wade inadvertently reproduced the dynamic he condemns
Observation:
He implied CK’s followers “deify” him when they defend him or nuance his comments. But:

• Wade used highly charged political material → which predictably provoked defensive reactions → which he then would likely interpret as “deification.”

• Wade’s critique of CK depends on imputing CK’s intent while dismissing how people might read CK’s intent.

  • “He says these things because his politics inform his faith.”

  • “He knew he was lying when he said that.”

  • “He was either racist or pandering to his audience who are largely racists.”

• Wade rejects the idea that his own highly political framing might shape how people interpret his motives.

Lesson:
If you create the conditions that produce the behavior you condemn, that’s not insight — that’s circular logic. If intent matters for moral evaluation, it matters for everyone, not just the person being criticized.

Result of the Exchange:
I believe my responses indirectly highlighted that asymmetry.

---

5. A more consistent form of critique was available to him — and he didn’t take it
Observation:
Had Wade framed the issue Biblically:

• Idolatry

• Misplaced loyalty

• Prophetic correction

• Discernment

• Speech ethics

• Shepherding responsibilities

…then his point would have been stronger, more consistent, and unassailable on the grounds I pointed out.

Lesson:
If your stated aim is theological correction, choose theological tools — not political ones. This aligns tightly with my sense of “he could have said this better and without triggering political interpretations.”

---

6. My approach highlighted the asymmetry without escalating
Observation:
Where Wade foregrounded political examples and imposed broad interpretive categories (e.g., NAR influence) to frame CK’s actions, I focused on context, nuance, and intent — applying interpretive generosity, avoiding absolutes, and keeping the discussion grounded in logic rather than loaded rhetoric.

Lesson:
A careful, context-aware approach can reveal asymmetries in someone else’s critique, highlighting where methodology undercuts stated principles, without escalating conflict. Choosing interpretive clarity over rhetorical provocation allows the underlying argument — or its inconsistencies — to surface naturally.

Effect:
This method ensured that even subtle observations about framing, intent, and double standards landed without triggering defensiveness, allowing the conversation to end with mutual acknowledgment rather than escalation.

---

7. MY message conveyed all of this — quietly, without sounding combative
Observation:
My actual replies had a tone of:

• “I understand your stated purpose…”

• “…but I’m not sure your method achieved it.”

• “Because the examples you chose came from a different rhetorical world.”

Result of the Exchange:
I did communicate the hypocrisy/contradiction — but in a way that allowed Wade to remain non-defensive. That’s why he responded well in the end.

---

⭐ 6. Navigating the Underlying Discernment Issue

When one person approaches an issue through an impact-first moral framework and the other approaches it through an interpretation-first framework (intent + context + linguistic precision) — discussions risk semantic drift and unproductive conflict. Understanding why this drift happens matters: different frameworks answer different epistemic questions: One asks, “What harm did this cause?” The other asks, “What did the speaker mean, and how can we know?” Without recognizing that difference, even good-faith discussions can slide into confusion.

Strategically, framing subtle critiques through context, intent, and interpretive generosity allows a respondent to reveal inconsistencies and methodological asymmetries without provoking defensiveness. In contrast, relying on overtly political or emotionally charged examples will predictably trigger resistance and obscure the core argument.

---

This entire exchange raised an unavoidable question: if Wade was so confident that Charlie Kirk’s statements were racist or pandering to racists, do we actually have enough evidence to make that claim? That question deserves its own treatment. The next post addresses it directly.

---

Postscript / Addendum

After publishing this post, I came across a theological critique of Charlie Kirk that I had not seen at the time of my exchange with Anthony Wade.  It illustrates the kind of approach I was gesturing toward above—one rooted primarily in biblical and theological categories rather than political.  While Wade raised overlapping concerns—including associations and influences—this video offers an example of a critique in which Charlie Kirk’s theological claims and associations are more clearly foregrounded, rather than being interwoven with and at times overshadowed by politically charged arguments about racism or hate.

In my exchange with Wade — and throughout these posts — I was explicit about what I did and did not know. I did not claim familiarity with Charlie Kirk’s specific theological positions, church affiliations, or doctrinal commitments.  My critique therefore centered on method: the way politically charged material was used to support what was presented as a theological concern. 

This link is offered for those wanting further theological evaluation.

[Charlie Kirk & TPUSA are Deceiving Millions-Real Talk with Jordan Riley]

Is Islam Really Such a Threat?

Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington by Paul Sperry
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

I appreciate the investigative journaling on the topic of the real threat by Islamic ideologies. However, it was extremely tedious for me to read. I started the book in January and did not finish this one until basically July. I think I read seven other books and parts of two others in-between starting and finishing this one. I was never very excited to read it, it was more like a duty to finish because I started it.
I do not believe the rhetoric regarding Islam being merely a religion of peace exploited by a small minority of extremists. I do not believe, we as secular Americans, have an adequate grasp on what Islam actually is. I believe it is important to look deeper. Of course we do not want to believe the threat is widespread, in fact many entirely dismiss the threat coming out of the Islamic world. I personally would love to be a peace-loving hippie saying with all the ardor I could muster, "why can't we all just get along?" The best part of the book was the afterword, regarding the "death-loving jihadists and their supporters and facilitators" being the "perfect enemy, for the following ten reasons":

NO.1 Patience
No.2 Language Barrier
No.3 It is a family enterprise in addition to a Muslim enterprise
No.4 Different Calendar
No.5 Aliases (including differences because of the language barrier)
No.6 Freedom of Religion (our own being exploited)
No.7 Typically Muslims are not easy to bribe
No.8 Tax-Exempt Terrorism (Our own Tax laws exploited)
No.9 Saudi Protection
No.10 The "Racism" and "Bigotry" Defense*


*(try using this as a Christian in Saudi Arabia see how well that goes over)

On the other hand, as a person leaning toward civil libertarian views, it is very difficult for me to accept some of the proposed solutions offered, also in the afterword:

No.1 Not in my backyard
No.2 Enforce the Oath of Allegiance
No.3 Profile Muslim Travelers
No.4 Audit Muslim Charities and Mosques
No.5 Break off official ties with CAIR
No.6 Expose the Saudi Embassy
No.7 Deny security clearance to Muslim activists
No.8 Offer scholarships in Arabic
No.9 Fight Muslim Activism in Public Schools
No.10 Step up Counterterrorism Training at Quantico

At issue for me is our freedom to verbally express our ideas and express our religion without fear of the government. If we start limiting this for one group in the name of "safety and security" it is not difficult to change the definitions and apply it to another group. Soon enough I could be the target. This is demonstrable in history which is why we have this "freedom" in the first place. Also peace loving hippies have wound up on the terrorist watch-lists in America as well. Obviously there is no easy solution!
View all my reviews

I was thinking free speech and free exercise of religion could be an expression of "loving our enemies". Or just in general about not allowing our ignorance to be our downfall but rather our loving choices. What do you think? On a personal level, what should we do when we feel we are being exploited because of our goodwill?

HE was Speaking to ME about My Ways

YADAH247 3 weeks ago
My opinion;the title of the video is intended for shock value which would entice some to listen. A common tactic employed on YouTube. It doesn't really do the testimonial justice nor really get to the "heart" of the message. I think the ensuing doctrinal debate in these comments also misses the point. Also I can't help but feel the sensationalism, the music, etc. on cue at the end [1:35:40] is exactly the kind of thing he talks about when he speaks of human effort and human ways. -1:22:50-1:28:15
Journal Entry 3-13-2012
I wish to reckon things as the Lord would reckon. Not be tied to the evil reckonings that oppose the Lord. I want to not show what I know about secondary things but clearly and boldly stand on solid ground of primary things. Not despise being thought simple, not despise being thought naïve as the world reckons naivety. Not self righteous; not despise words or definitions or fear being defined or falsely judged. But being true, having integrity and a pure conscience before God and man. Consumed of the Lord and sure of where I stand in relation to Him that matters. Being confident in who he wants me to be and sure of how he sees me. Quick to repent and not destroyed by fears or insecurities.

Someone helped ME

   When I look at myself lately, I remember this scene from the movie The Basketball Diaries and I imagine this is what I look like.  (on the inside at least)  In the scene, Jim Carroll (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) is experiencing opiate withdrawal.  There are chills, cramps, and all sorts of snot and tears.  It is rather despicable.  He is "helped" through the process by his friend Reggie (played by Ernie Hudson.)  Reggie basically sits by his side and prevents him from leaving to die in his old habit. It raises two questions in me; "Where does one find a friend like Reggie?" Secondly, "How does one become a person like Reggie?"

I have never been addicted to heroin but there are plenty of aspects of “self” that have not gone to the cross easily.  Every time I begin the process that is necessary to be liberated I am quite certain this is what I look like.  And who can bear it?  The common American style “church” from what I’ve seen, doesn’t seem to be structured in such a way to endure such madness.  I haven’t much relied on the Spirit but I have relied on the flesh that I am suppose to mortify.  (Romans 8:13)  This mortifying process Paul talks about (Colossians 3:5-25), “putting off the old man” and putting on the “new man” isn’t necessarily pretty.  There are certain things that are required of us to see to it that we stick through until we come out clean.  We need to go through genuine repentance and be in true community.  There is a certain “forbearance” necessary that won’t let each other get by on a “little taste” but yet will stick by when it gets really rough and downright nasty.

This brings me to my next point.  I am currently reading the book The Game Plan: The Men's 30-Day Strategy for Attaining Sexual Integrity.  It is not a bad book so far. (I am only on day 15)  On day nine it talks about setting up an “accountability structure”.  Obviously the principle is clear from Scripture and he makes the case well enough using the sports analogy.  However, the sample conversation ones partner should have if one fails to stay “sober” during the week, kind of pisses me off.  That part makes it seem as if I would be getting someone to hold my hand like I am a little girl. (no offense to little girls)  It sounds anything but “pushing” and “challenging”.  I have watched a lot of MMA and there is one thing I find when it comes to their training, those guys do not take it easy on each other in training.  I am sure it is true in any sports training.  The idea is to make it as painful and grueling as possible in training to be prepared for anything in the real fight, game, or whatever the case may be.  People that train well, find the actual event easy in comparison.  So if I am going to take it easy on myself and allow myself this sin or that one, the last thing I need is some mamsy pamsy dude that will also take it easy on me.  What happened to all that “pushing” and “getting in your face”, and “yelling” that he talked about earlier in the chapter, using the analogy of working out?  Confession should never become painless.  What good does it do if it is?  “The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”  It is painful because our brothers in the faith are going to require something of us; something that we obviously didn’t require of ourselves if we find ourselves needing to repent of a known sin again.  They are going to hold our face up to the mirror and demand we actually take a look even when we would rather refuse.  The opponents of your faith are not going to take it easy on you when they discover what a hypocrite you actually are.  If we want to live in the Spirit there is a mortification process our “body” must undergo.  The reason I submit myself to such a process is as the Apostle Paul says,

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.  Romans 8:18 (KJV)

The Game Plan by Joe Dallas
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

It is not a bad book.

(view spoiler)[On day nine it talks about setting up an “accountability structure”. Obviously the principle is clear from Scripture and he makes the case well enough using the sports analogy. However, the sample conversation ones partner should have if one fails to stay “sober” during the week, kind of pisses me off. That part makes it seem as if I would be getting someone to hold my hand like I am a little girl. (no offense to little girls) It sounds anything but “pushing” and “challenging”. What happened to all that “pushing” and “getting in your face”, and “yelling” that he talked about earlier in the chapter, using the analogy of working out? Confession should never become painless. What good does it do if it is? (hide spoiler)]

View all my reviews

“Hey Don’t You Know You Offended Those Guys?” (and the Syrophenician Woman)

Being Right Doesn't Always Mean You're Right — Cry of the Indigo Bunting: Finding God in the Everyday :
This sermon was preached on Sunday, September 9th, 2012 at St. Paul's Episcopal Church, DeKalb, Illinois.  The text was Mark 7:24-37 . ..

I read this sermon, about a week before Christmas, on Jesus encountering this Syrophenician Woman, as recorded in Mark's Gospel.  Although, Mark does focus on Jesus’ humanity, highlighting him as the ultimate servant, I am not convinced the conclusion drawn in this sermon is the reason Mark included this story.  By “conclusion” I mean the “big idea” of the passage, not the application of that idea.  Is it true that the “big idea” in this passage is that Jesus was wrong by what he said to the Syrophenician woman, regarding his primary mission?

But Jesus said unto her, "Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs." Mark 7:27 (KJV)

According to this article Jesus, the Syrophoenician Woman, and Little Dogs, one reason Jesus' comment is not as unkind as it first seems is because the words in Greek indicate a “little pet dog” which would have been cared for, as opposed to a mangy uncared for dog. 

A three year old mixed breed Border Collie.

A feral street dog photographed on the main road of the city of Gianyar, Bali, Indonesia.

That may well be, or this may be a bit of a cop-out (I don’t speak Greek), but either way I am not so quick to presume Jesus was wrong.  I have thought about this for weeks.  Neither Mark nor Matthew, who also recorded this encounter (Matthew 15:27), indicate that Jesus was wrong.  Interesting enough, just prior to this story in Matthew’s account, Jesus quotes Isaiah, calling the Pharisees hypocrites, “honoring God with their lips but their hearts are from him.”  It is “what comes out of a man which defiles him.”  Jesus’ disciples come up to Jesus and basically say, “Hey don’t you know you offended those guys?”  It was of no concern to Jesus (outwardly).  “What God has not planted will be rooted up.” (Matthew 15:12-14)    Furthermore, Matthew not only indicates that the disciples were present during this encounter with the Syrophoenician woman, he also further highlights that Jesus told them the primary purpose for his proverbial statement. (15:24)  As this "little dogs" article points out, Jesus was consistent about being sent to the “lost sheep of Israel” first.  (“Lost sheep” could be construed as less then flattering as well)

Nevertheless, it seems to be a fallacy to assume because a statement is “not nice” it is not “Christ-like”.  This presupposes that being “Christ-like” is equivalent to being nice according to ones own understanding.  Of course love is “patient and kind” (1 Corinthians 13:4-6) but it doesn’t necessarily “make nice” according to the way those that don’t have the mind of Christ “make nice”.  For it “rejoices not in iniquity but rejoices in the truth".  And the truth hurts sometimes.  Those of us that don’t have the mind of Christ on a matter, would rather compromise the truth in order to “make nice”.  Christ Jesus never did this.

Even John the baptist called the people that came out to be baptised by him a “brood of Vipers”. (e.g. Luke 3:7)  John of course was highly praised by Jesus (Matthew 11:9-12)

There are many examples where Christ seemed impatient and his comments could be construed as unkind.  Examples such as calling very religious men “whitewashed tombs”. (e.g. Matthew 23:27-28)  Or saying to his good friend Peter, “Get behind me Satan”. (e.g. Mark 8:33)  Peter surely didn’t mean to talk for Satan, perhaps he thought he was showing concern for Jesus’ well being.  Notwithstanding, it was Satan who told Jesus he could have the world without going to the cross.(Matthew 4:8-9)

When one takes the story of how Jesus responded to offending the Pharisees and the story of how he supposedly offended the Syrophoenician woman, coupled together it highlights the contrasting ways God is approached or blessings ascertained.  Just as in the parable (Luke 18:9-13), the religious way says, “we are not like these other men, we wash our hands and bowels before we eat”, and the sinner that admits their low condition and simply asks for mercy, “let me have a crumb that falls off the table”.  “For everyone that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”

How do you suppose Jesus would have responded if instead of saying, “truth Lord”, she took offense at his saying?

"Offend ME with Your Love" (one has to start somewhere)

I heard these words come out of my mouth the other day, “Offend ME with Your Love”.  I thought it was somewhat catchy and therefore indicated it would be the title to my next book.  “You have to start somewhere”, I was told, “I guess you started with a title.”  And now I have started a blog.  In the course of things, we will come to find out what exactly is meant by such a phrase.  I suppose I have in mind the “offense” which is the Cross, and generally speaking how the ways of the Lord are not the ways of this world; and the LORD’s ways are not my ways.  So “political correctness” aside I would not mind discussing and challenging some of the common sensibilities of my society in this day and age.

I was joking with some people that one of my “NEW YEARS RESOLUTIONS” was to be mad at everyone for no reason.  Of course that would make me doltish.  “What would that accomplish?”  Really though, I do intend to be mindful of things that offend me.  Not so I can focus that attention on the offender,  hopefully with the mind of Christ and the Spirit of the Lord, I can allow myself to ascertain “what is at the heart of the matter” and allow the redemptive, sanctification work of the cross to have it’s way in me. 

For a more practical sounding approach to seeing offense as a "problem of the self" and a list of ways to help to choose not to be offended, check out "How to Choose to Not Be Offended"