I decided to post some of my “dislike” e-mail. I received this strange missive today about my blog and my face:
From: XX@cs.com
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 19:52:01 EDT
Subject: Where do YOU stand?
To:LeShawn,
I read a few blogs, most of which leave me angry with myself for having spent time doing such. I read yours once or twice a week mainly because I think you are fundamentally a nice person. I am writing now because your blog site is now looking more like a scandal rag than a personal opinion page. Blogging is an opportunity for common folk such as myself to rant into cyberspace about issues immediate, long term, abstract, or any of an infinite number of potentials.
However, your site is now less about what YOU think and more about your compiling the blogs/rants of others. Your site is morphing into a cyber news magazine. Something far beyond a personal blogging device. Maybe that is what you want, but I find it a little disappointing in that I think your smile reveals characteristics of someone that is more than just a compilation device.
You looked tired today. Burning the midnight oil chasing the already known?
Jim S.
An e-mail from a fellow blogger who de-linked me from his blogroll:
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 18:36:08 -0400
Subject: Saddened
From: “Matt” matt @XX.com
To:Dear La Shawn,
In preparing my post on the death of the Pope, your blog was one to which I naturally turned, as I know you to be a Christian and had considered your perspective to be of value. It was thus with great sadness that instead I read these petulant words:
“I will say, preliminarily, that if the Pope believed Christ died for his sins, and that we are saved through faith alone in Christ alone by his grace alone, the Pope, like anyone else who believes these things, will be spared from God’s righteous and just punishment.”
It brought back years of fruitless discussions with my fundamentalist in-laws, who were as arrogantly certain of their own righteousness. Rather than rehash any of that, I’ll simply note that my Church was founded by Jesus Christ and yours by some guy in the 19th century I can’t be bothered to look up right now.
I have admired your blog and your skill as a writer. I wish you all the best with that and your other endeavors. However, though you will not care in the slightest as your blog is much larger than mine, I can no longer consider myself a reader and I am removing you from my blogroll, albeit with much sadness.
Sincerely,
Matt
This reader wanted to know why I wasn’t blogging about the Pope:
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:04:46 -0400
From: XX@verizon.net
Subject: What?
To:You have completely ignored one of the most historic events of the era - the death of a Pope. Why?
As an avowed Christian, you have commented on many events of Christian concern, including Terri Schiavo. Why not the Pope?
I would hate to think that you may carry a bias on this issue. For if you do it would seriously, to my mind at least, negate much of what you have written which I previously found to be cogent and coherent.
This Pope was a true Christian in his beliefs and in his teachings. We have lost a truly great and good man!
Chuck S.
Did you catch that? If I didn’t blog about what he wanted me to, I’m suddenly no longer “cogent and coherent.” The same reader responds to the Pope post:
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 07:57:49 -0400
From: XX@verizon.net
Subject: You have lost me.
To: lashawn@lashawnbarber.com“that if the Pope believed Christ died for his sins,” I see a bias here that is not Christian. For those who have a belief that only their concept of God is correct, a heart is closed. I need no further proof than you statement.
Goodbye, I will look elsewhere for a true Christian. I hope that you truly find God.
Chuck S.
As I said, those who offend easily have no problem offending me. If you re-read my post on the Pope, it will be apparent that these people are over-the-top, reading into the post information that isn’t there. And notice how polite these folks are with “Dear La Shawn,” the proceed to shoot me down:
To: lashawn@lashawnbarber.com
From: XX@new-manifesto.com
Subject: Terrible timing
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:38:19 -0400Dear La Shawn,
I can’t tell you how hurt and disturbed I was at your postings on the passing of the Pope. It’s akin to a stranger sitting at the back of the church at Grandma’s funeral whispering to the family that we all know she was unfaithful to Grandpa. Factually based, but bad form. Very bad form.
You note your surprise at how quickly your former compatriots have “severed the relationship.” I think much of this is due to your desire to have it both ways. You bring up the whole centuries-old Catholic vs. Protestant debate, in the midst of a time of great mourning amongst the Catholic faithful, yet you set the terms of the debate such that there really is no debate.
It’s a circular argument: you will not answer email about the unique supremacy of scripture unless my arguments are supported by… scripture!?! That’s like saying, “We are free to debate the color of the sky as long as we both agree that the sky is green.”
You have opened this door at an inappropriate time. Yet, by your statement that, “my comment was mild compared to what needs to be said!” we know there is even more to the story. You’re rude enough to bring up the topic but not respectful enough to tell us what you really think. So it’s time to lay your cards on the table:
Are faithful Catholics assured of salvation?
Or, to be more blunt:
Are faithful Catholics going to Hell?
You opened this door at this particular time. You keep feeding it with hints and comments that there is more to be said. You limit the debate to only those who agree with you. And you wonder why you’re being abandoned?
There is room in the world for this debate, but not like this. If you wish to engage the Catholic community, then engage. But if you wish to simply point us out as heretics, then please get on with it.
Sincerely,
David S.
I get this stuff all day. There’s no end to the “advice” people think they’re qualified to give.
La Shawn,
Compelling compilation. It’s a shame people take things SO SERIOUSLY as to banish your blog from their rolls. I find that highly questionable and totally antithetical to the concept of a free-flowing exchange of ideas.
I know what it’s like to get some hate-email. The religious drama that unfolded on my blog last week left me somewhat furious.
And one of my biggest issues is the idea of offending people. Sometimes I aim for that result. I always tell people not to take the things I say so personally. I have opinions, as do my readers. I can respect them, but they should I should never feel the need to placate anyone by acting faux-sincere.
I expect that you’re rather like me. What you see is what you get. Totally unafraid to tell it like it is.
And that’s certainly commendable.
Comment by Mike M. — 04.07.05 @ 9:12 pm
That stuff isn’t “hate” mail. It’s “dislike” mail. I won’t post the nasty stuff.
Comment by La Shawn — 04.07.05 @ 9:15 pm
This just points out what you previously stated in regards to the truth. The truth divides, the truth hurts, however, the turth still has to be said. If these “Christians” can’t handle it, it seems they need to be “born-again”.
Comment by Renee — 04.07.05 @ 9:22 pm
I also noticed no one took you up on your offer of discussion, backed by scripture…typical.
I liked the “my church was founded by Jesus Christ” comment
(Reminds me of little kids when they say “my dad’s car is bigger than your dad’s car”… nothing about dad, all about the car)
Hmmm…
The scriptures do tell us that without Jesus Christ, no one can be saved…
I don’t think it says anywhere that without the church one can’t be saved. Just a thought.
Comment by Renee — 04.07.05 @ 9:26 pm
La Shawn,
I’m not hysterical or “over the top”. I’m not trying to give you advice (and apparently if I were, you would not consider me “qualified”). I’m writing to let you know you are losing a faithful reader.
In my opinion, you postings after the death of the Pope and the related links you provided were inappropriatee. The letter from David S. captured my thoughts very well. There is plenty of time to have those theological discussions and I might have found them engaging but in response to the death of this great man was in poor taste.
I wish you well.
Tom
Comment by Tom — 04.07.05 @ 9:29 pm
Tom, why are you compelled to tell me you’ll longer be reading this blog? Am I suppose to cry? Feel bad? And why, I must know, are you still reading it??? I suspect that most readers who claim to be “former readers” are reading this comment right now! Human nature. Gotta love it.
Comment by La Shawn — 04.07.05 @ 9:35 pm
La Shawn,
A lot of these responses to you brought to mind the below verses:
Matt 8:21-22
21Another disciple said to him, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”
22But Jesus told him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.”
Meaning that spreading the Gospel never stops (and there is never a wrong time).
Comment by Renee — 04.07.05 @ 9:39 pm
Yes La Shawn, I came back to see if you posted my comment. I didn’t realize I would get such a vindictive and childish reply. Post this if you’d like, I won’t be back to see if you do.
Comment by Tom — 04.07.05 @ 10:03 pm
“Every goodbye ain’t gone,” they used to say. Don’t get caught again reading a “vindictive and childish” blogger’s blog. It erodes your credibility. But, again, if I know human nature, you’ll want to have the last word, so I look forward to your next comment or e-mail.
Comment by La Shawn — 04.07.05 @ 10:07 pm
This is a hard topic to keep emotions from boiling over. I have to admit I was put off by your comments, too.
However, after my initial knee-jerk reaction, it boils down to these three things. It’s your blog and you need to continue speaking (well, writing) your mind. Second, if a Catholic needs to hear Catholic dogma or read Catholic “stuff,” then go to the blogs of Amy Welborn, Jimmy Akin, or Mark Shea, or many of the good sites. Finally, regardless of how anybody defines Salvation, Catholic and Protestants each believe THEY’RE right. Boils down to the fact that it’s not up to us. It’s up to Jesus.
I just hope everybody can understand a little where we’re (faithful Catholics) are coming from. Our faith is constantly being misrepresented in the various media. Lately, movies have been really bad in depicting our faith. Add the death of JPII to that, then having to listen to the talking heads spewing their opinions on how JPII failed. Then, throw our emotions on losing the only pontiff a majority of Catholics have ever really known.
Emotions are raw and that’s no excuse to jump down your throat, La Shawn. Like I said before, I believe you to be a voice of reason in a choir of chaos. We may disagree on many things, but we all need to know that we’re siblings in Christ.
Pax Christi,
David
Comment by David — 04.07.05 @ 10:14 pm
Hmm.
I sometimes stop reading a blog here & there for a while because I disagree with the author. (For instance, Glenn’s on a time-out with me because of his lawyerly-but-dumb take on the Schiavo case.)
It seems silly to pick an argument with a blogger who just chooses different topics than you might personally choose.
I don’t see the “vindictive” stuff that Tom refers to or any previous discusion of Tom at all, but then he does sound pretty tightly strung.
Sometimes people are like that.
Comment by Bostonian — 04.07.05 @ 10:22 pm
I can’t believe you’d ‘block’ me for such a small sin. Do you not believe in the first amendment???
Comment by highcotton — 04.07.05 @ 10:29 pm
The reason for all the de-linking and unrest isn’t deep. It’s quite simple actually. You tore down a false god. Anytime you hit people at the place of their idolatry, “offense happens.” And let’s just be honest, to offend these days is easy. But what’s really offending isn’t you, it’s truth, which is one of the most offensive realities on the planet. As you said in your post, what you said was NICE compared to what really needs to be said.
Shake the dust off your feet and tread on. I got the same type of feedback late last year when I made some comments concerning the pope.
And the people who have so much time on their hands that they have felt the need to go out of their way to email you to tell you that they are de-linking you, and no longer reading you are insecure in their own beliefs. Otherwise, they’d just leave quietly as we all do when we disapprove of various situations. And trust, they’ll be back, although silently because pride has reared its ugly head.
This is the stuff that makes being a Christian blogger fun. Seriously. Enjoy it.
Comment by Ambra Nykol — 04.07.05 @ 10:33 pm
Additionally, I echo the sentiments of Renee. Usually these type of conversations get stuck on the opinions of men and “tradition.” When you offer to discuss things according to scripture, people usually back down. This is telling.
Man-made religion. Gotta love it.
Comment by Ambra Nykol — 04.07.05 @ 10:37 pm
Thank you, Ambra! Great comment, and so true. As I read those long-winded and self-important e-mails, I’m asking myself, “Are these people so vain as to think I care about what they choose to read?” But you hit the nail on the head. I just had to hear it from someone else. Tearing down false gods tends to cause chaos, and I’m just caught up in the whirlwind.
Highcotton - Do you I know you? By the way, the First Amendment prohibits the government from violating your free speech rights. I wholeheartedly believe in the FA, which is why I blog.
Read, and understand: “Congress [not La Shawn] shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”
You have no FA rights on someone else’s blog. I can limit your speech on my own site as much as I want. If you are compelled to give your opinion about me, my writing or anything else, start your own blog.
Comment by La Shawn — 04.07.05 @ 10:38 pm
It is so plain in scripture that our Salvation comes from Jesus Christ. LB asked a question that should be asked of all of us:
Do we believe that Christ is the Son of God, sent to die for our sins, go to hell to pay for those sins, and then rise on the third day to proclaim His victory for us?
People that have been put off by that question need to re-check their ideas on Christianity. And to insult LB by calling her self-righteous is self-righteous itself. It’s a valid question, whether we like it or not. Everyone wants to pretend that we are all going to heaven, but the Word clearly shows otherwise. LB’s not in poor taste, she’s asking a very, very valid question. She’s not judging, for the Word is for all of us to read and understand.
LB’s points about the differences between Protestantism and Catholocism are very valid, and they do not come in poor taste. I’m sure those who wrote the “dislike” mail will find another reason to put off the discussion if LaShawn brought it up again.
This issue caused the death of millions in Europe over the years. Now, we try to do the same, but with a different instrument. To all you LB “haters” out there, try participating in the exchange of ideas and meet LB on her terms, instead of using Krugman like vitriol. Plenty of us exhange ideas every day, and we are as diverse as they come.
Of course, I’m sure I’ll get the LB apologist hatred, but I’m not ashamed. This site stands for an excellent exchange of ideas and commentary. That’s as good as it can get in a free and open society.
LB, my apologies for getting on the soapbox.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 04.07.05 @ 10:38 pm
Dang LaShawn, at least you get the email. I have yet to receive any good hate mail from my blog readers, or those just passing by.
I guess hatemail to a blogger is a sign you’ve “arrived”… much like a small Texas town landing a Dairy Queen restaurant signifies they’re on the map.
Congrats for having trolls. Feel free to send them my way when you’re done.
Comment by Jason Smith — 04.07.05 @ 11:08 pm
LaShawn,
First, I love your blog. Second, I don’t understand what the fuss is about regarding your statement about the Pope. If Catholics didn’t believe that he too was a sinner in need of grace, why then do they pray for him? Doesn’t that action imply that they know he’s as naturally alienated from God as they are? That he too needs to be saved from his sins? What’s the big deal here?
Stacey S.
Comment by Stacey S. — 04.07.05 @ 11:20 pm
Am I your enemy for telling the truth?
La Shawn Barber shares some of the “dislike” mail she received after blogging an unpopular opinion about the pope.
Trackback by The Crusty Curmudgeon — 04.07.05 @ 11:22 pm
Why are people so surprised to see that most of what is written in this website is written BY YOU?? It is called LaShawn Barber’s Corner….other blogging sights are written by those who sponsor them…..people people people….
We GET to comment on what is written, or the issue of the day…..this is not a “the customer is always right” type of site….
God’s blessings to you LaShawn…
Comment by Rose — 04.07.05 @ 11:31 pm
More evidence of why I link to you La Shawn and to Ambra!
Keep up the tough work. You were thoughtful and quite polite. Our talk show host is receiving all kinds of hate because he hit on the subject of Roman Catholicism and the existence of the Papal office too.
Comment by Mark La Roi — 04.07.05 @ 11:31 pm
I have a dream that one day people will live in a world where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, the neighborhood they live in, the label on their clothes, the title of their job, the size of their home or the church they attend….. but by the content of their character alone.
I hope MLK would approve.
Comment by Jim R — 04.07.05 @ 11:33 pm
La Shawn, you know how I feel about you, so I won’t go in to that. When you mentioned “human nature” in response to a comment, I had to chuckle. We humans are a funny lot. We feel compelled to tell people that we won’t be communicating with them any more, as if somehow that is supposed to change things. We spend inordinate amounts of time worrying about what everyone thinks of us, and very little time worrying about what we think of ourselves.
Worst of all, we’ll write nasty letters to someone we disagree with, as if somehow the harsh words will change the other’s mind, rather than a soothing voice and a heart of love.
Yet God grants to all of us, if we accept it, salvation.
Now that is a true miracle.
Since I’m nowhere big enough to get hate or, as you quaintly call it, “dislike” mail, tell me - which is worse - spam or the dislike mail?
Comment by antimedia — 04.07.05 @ 11:46 pm
La Shawn,
I’m fairly new to your site, but what I see and read is quite impressive. Others seem to agree, as you’ve amassed quite the following. Blogs like stars, sparkle, shine, and fade… never being seen. But, yours is one of many in the constellations.
“When you’re the one attached to your feet, don’t let anyone else tell you where to step.” -Bos
Second star to the right, and straight on till morning.
Comment by Mr.Atos — 04.08.05 @ 12:08 am
Coerced religion is like a shotgun wedding. Hardly something anyone can be proud of.
Comment by Walter E. Wallis — 04.08.05 @ 12:10 am
>>”It’s a circular argument: you will not answer email about the unique supremacy of scripture unless my arguments are supported by… scripture!?! That’s like saying, “We are free to debate the color of the sky as long as we both agree that the sky is green.— -David S.
Um, no it isn’t. The correct analogy for discussing scripture by quoting it is, “We are free to debate the color of the sky as long as we both agree to *look at the sky.*” It’s a pretty basic concept. I mean, if we would debate, say, Mad Magazine #34, doesn’t it make sense for each of us to use a copy of it to reference specific panels? That’s far more reliable than simply going “my word vs. yours.”
LaShawn, I don’t envy your task one bit. Try to take a breather once in awhile so you can keep on keeping on because it doesn’t get any clearer or blunter than this: “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” John 14:6
Comment by FL Mom — 04.08.05 @ 12:23 am
Dear LaShawn,
Thank you for your boldness. We need more Christians with that type of boldness now more than ever.
“[I]f the Pope believed Christ died for his sins, and that we are saved through faith alone in Christ alone by his grace alone, the Pope, like anyone else who believes these things, will be spared from God’s righteous and just punishment.” My question is, where’s the controversy in that statement? A quick look at what scripture says supports your statement. John calls the Pharisees and Sadducees a “brood of vipers”, and informs them that salvation does not come through their bloodline (Matthew 3:7-9, NASB). Christ reproofs the Pharisees and scribes for invalidating God’s Word by holding to their man made traditions (Mark 7:8). Earlier in the chapter He called them hypocrites who honored God with their lips, but not their hearts. Paul goes on to tell us, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9, NKJV). These are just three scripture references of many. I can only come to this conclusion: I don’t care if the Pope eliminated poverty around the world, found a cure for AIDS, and brought peace and prosperity for all…if he did not believe that “Christ died for his sins, and that we are saved through faith alone in Christ alone by his grace aloneâ€, he will not be spared the white throne judgment. It is not by works that we are saved, but by faith. The works come as a result of our faith in Christ and what He did for us on the cross. If anyone is offended or disturbed by that statement (or your statement), they must take it up with God; after all, it’s His Word, not mine (or yours). Anyone who believes that salvation comes through holding to the traditions of their religion, or through their good deeds, or anything other than faith in Christ, is gravely misinformed. I can only suggest that they seek the truth from God’s Word, not from their religion. Luther is a great example of someone who went to God’s Word to seek the truth.
You are absolutely right to ask for arguments to be supported by scripture; anything less is man made unsubstantiated rhetoric.
Samuel
Comment by Samuel — 04.08.05 @ 1:29 am
Pitiful. Juvenile, pseudo-righteous tripe gushing from the mind of a self-important child who erroneously believes I actually need his meandering opinion. - Admin
Comment by Red Tory — 04.08.05 @ 5:02 am
I’m with David on this.
I understand the sensitivity, but having grown up in the South, I don’t get too het up about non-Catholics not knowing Catholic theology and accepting whatever anti-Catholic assumptions had been handed down from time immemorial (examples: had to explain that the Church hadn’t sold indulgences for centuries to my high school classmates; the surprise of relatives and friends at my Dad’s memorial Mass that Catholics actually read from the Bible during Mass! In English, even!; and then the relatives who think we’re not taught Christ is the savior… um, huh? Yeah, that’s why we’ve got pictures of him on the cross in all our churches. And have recognized him as God, part of the Trinity…) I tend to ascribe it to ignorance as opposed to ill-will, and if I’m in the mood, I’ll correct the mistaken assumption.
In any case, the Church teaches that salvation comes through Christ alone, that salvation is an undeserved gift from God, and it is through Grace that we believe in him. There are real differences in Catholic and Protestant theology - such as Purgatory (which I’m too tired to get into now. A good start from a Protestant point-of-view would be to read C.S. Lewis on the idea of Purgatory) and the Real Presence - so let us not ignore those. But there are also commonalities. Look to the Apostle’s Creed. Sometimes it does well to see where we are not divided.
Comment by meep — 04.08.05 @ 5:46 am
La Shawn,
It’s your blog. You can do with it what you want. If you want to direct attention, then do it. If you want to share an opinion, then do it.
What bothers me is when someone tells me, or another blogger, what to put on my own site.
Its LSB Corner for reason, so you can post, link, opinionate (I hope that is a word) or do whatever you want
Comment by Mustang 23 — 04.08.05 @ 5:55 am
What’s with all the snarkiness about people backing down when Scripture is invoked? Catholics have Scriptural defenses for our teachings. Scripturecatholic.com is a useful site for quick links, and Dave Armstrong has written tons of stuff on the subject, if in depth is more what you like.
Sure, this could get into a chapter and verse firing on both sides, but I doubt it would do much good. Both sides have their dogmas, which are going to determine how we read the text and interpret key passages.
If we’ll be exchanging free ideas on this topic, I’m willing to engage in it any time.
Since you ceremoniously deleted me from your Very Important Blogroll, I suppose you won’t mind if I deleted your link from the comment? I didn’t think so. I’m sure you wouldn’t want readers of LBC polluting your blog. Glad to help out. By the way, when things calm down around here, I plan to blog about the “teachings” of Dave Armstrong. - Admin
Comment by Justice — 04.08.05 @ 6:33 am
One example that comes to mind as to why La Shawn pointed out the path to salvation can be seen in the example below (not the only example that can be given). This comment has been made by many who profess Christ, at one time or another(including the Pope):
“All paths lead to God”. This was made to a group of other religious leaders in an attempt to show tolerance and “peace”. The fact is, not only has the Pope made this comment, but so has Billy Graham, Robert Schuller, our current President and many others who all profess Christ.
The fact is, it is totally against what Christ taught and nothing he said even comes close.
I am pretty conffident that had this been the passing of someone else, La shawn would make the same comment because it has nothing to do with being an attack on a Catholic, or any other Chrisitan denomination).
As Stacy stated above, it shows that WE ARE ALL sinners, even the best of us will sin, even those we consider to be “clergy” will sin. Only one on earth was perfect bu He gave us a way to be saved from our sins because without Him we would never meet the standard.
Comment by Renee — 04.08.05 @ 6:59 am
A very mature response, I must say.
Then I hope you won’t waste anymore of your time hanging out on an immature blog. - Admin
Comment by Red Tory — 04.08.05 @ 7:50 am
As a Catholic myself, I don’t see why so many Catholics are getting up in arms over one post after all the rest have made so much sense. The Pope has always been just a man to us, never anything more. For someone to suggest that he could be a sinner is not out of line. In centuries past Popes have committed all sorts of sins against both God and man. La Shawn I just want to say that I for one won’t be leaving your blog anytime soon.
Comment by DavidM — 04.08.05 @ 8:11 am
This is ridiculous. LaShawn is chastised because she did not blog more about the Pope.
I wonder how many catholics are really here, anyway, no it doesn’t matter but just curious, the Pope is a man like any other man and did his job.
Does any one remember going to mass and not being able to understand one word, becasue all Masses were in latin ?
Or does anyone remember being told by the Nuns that if you were NOT catholic you would not go to heaven. Try telling that to a 7 year old when his mother is a Protestant.
Some people have a problem with confession, i.e., talking to an intermediary instead of talking directly to G-D.
This attitude of the Pope being the holiest man on earth is a bit much even for some of us catholics.
The big story seems to be who will replace and alot of Liberal Catholics want a very liberal Pope to hopefully change some of the more strict guidelines of the church, I hope they get the most conservative Pope they can find.
Now if they do get a liberal pope and he makes the changes some of the catholics want what does this do to the infallibility of the Pope ?
There are other religions out there besides the catholics so much for the catholics moving forward from their previous arrogant position of the past.
Comment by Mark — 04.08.05 @ 8:38 am
First Amendment rights on a privately held and run blog…bah.
The only person with free speech here (and as it should be) is LaShawn. She’s gracious enough to allow us to speak out, but she certainly has the right to maintain HER site the way she wishes to.
And as for “morphing into a cyber news magazine”, uhm. Blogs are to talk about what the AUTHOR wants to talk about. Not what you THINK the Author should be talking about. If she chooses to discuss something in the National Enquirer (not saying you have, just an example), then it’s her right. And personally, the only childish reponses I see here are from those people who are chastising LaShawn for not talking about what they want her to talk about.
LaShawn, sorry, but I feel I have to say this:
Don’t like the blog? Leave. Don’t come back. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Dan
Comment by Dan — 04.08.05 @ 8:50 am
“Matt”, who wrote to you the second “dislike-mail”, got it wrong. His church was founded by Constantine. Christ did not found any specific corporate church.
I must disagree with Renee a couple posts up. All paths DO lead to God. It’s at Judgement that the fork in the road will occur.
My grandfather was a great man of God. He sired a large family that holds Christ as its core. He died two years ago, and as much as I love him, he deserves God’s wrath. As does the Pope. As do I. As do we all. It is the belief that Christ is the Salvation from that wrath which spares us from it. Scripture is clear on this. I just don’t understand the reaction to LeShawn’s comments. When I took communion at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London three years ago, part of the responsive reading was “Blessed is Christ who is our Redeemer, who has saved us from death.” It seems clear to me that the Pope believed this as well…
Comment by Garrett — 04.08.05 @ 8:57 am
I think the last individual whose email you posted was very logical, articulate and made a valid point…
Comment by hirez — 04.08.05 @ 9:09 am
“My church was founded by Jesus Christ….” Actually Jesus Crist instituted the Church Undivided as His Body on earth. Your “guy”, the bishop of Rome, divided that church by unilaterally changing the Nicene Creed and introducing the anathematic dogma of the immaculate conception, indulgences, pergatory, and the supremacy of the theology of the bishop of Rome among other obvious herecies. I see no reason for you to be smug. If some “guy”, the pope, can create a schism in The Church how can you possibly say that your church was founded by Jesus Christ?
Comment by Sven Svenson — 04.08.05 @ 9:23 am
I bet you didn’t think when they told you the Gospel was offensive that it would be offensive to “Christians”…….
Comment by CharlyG — 04.08.05 @ 9:32 am
There are those in the world who evangelize others to join their “church”, saying that you have to be a member of their church in order to get to Heaven. To that I always respond, “So it takes not only the cross of Jesus Christ, but your church to get to Heaven? Sorry, you just said that the cross of Jesus Christ was not enough to get me there. I’ll pass.”
Comment by Terry Dillard — 04.08.05 @ 9:38 am
La Shawn Under Fire
La Shawn is taking some heat for her comment after the Pope’s passing:
I will say, preliminarily, that if the Pope believed Christ died for his sins, and that we are saved through faith alone in Christ alone by his grace alone, the Pope, like anyon…
Trackback by ThreeBadFingers — 04.08.05 @ 9:54 am
What would Jesus have thought about Pope John?
I look at the effect he had on God’s children here on earth, as evidenced by the outpouring of appreciation and respect by young and old alike from all ‘interpretations’ of the Bible.
If God is love, he has spoken through his children.
Comment by Jim R — 04.08.05 @ 10:05 am
As a theologically liberal Christian who was born Jewish I’ve always believed that Catholics are Christians too.
Yes-while there are differences-marian worship, purgatory etc-the Catholic Chuch DOES accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
That is the ONLY thing that matters.
Shalom,
Barb
Comment by annoying litttle twerp — 04.08.05 @ 10:26 am
The Pope redux
LaShawn Barber is taking a regular pounding from her readers just now for intimating that the Pope isn’t going to spend eternity with the Good Guys. I don’t have an opinion regarding the disposition of the Pope’s soul, except that I think it would…
Trackback by Civil Commotion — 04.08.05 @ 11:36 am
In any case, the Church teaches that salvation comes through Christ alone, that salvation is an undeserved gift from God, and it is through Grace that we believe in him.
Meep If this is what your hanging your hat on, I’ll look forward to seeing you in His kingdom. That is as long as the Pope doesn’t really have the keys to the kingdom; since The Council of Trent,which has never been rescinded, cursed me to hell for believing that your sentance is enough. It’s OK. I have His promise that having come to Him, He will not cast me out.
Comment by Mike O — 04.08.05 @ 12:48 pm
I don’t mean to sound crass, rude, immature or anything of that nature and I know I’m going to be flamed, but in response to a few comments of a church made by men, please consider the following:
• Lutheran, founded by Martin Luther in 1517.
• Church of England, founded by King Henry VIII in 1534
• Presbyterian, founded by John Knox in 1560.
• Methodist, launched by John and Charles Wesley in 1744.
• Baptist, John Smyth, launched it Amsterdam in 1605.
• Pentecostal, began in Topeka, KS (1901) and Los Angeles (1906)
• Judiasm, Abraham, 1731 BC
• Catholicism, Jesus, 33 AD
Depending upon various sources, there are approximately 28,000 to 33,000 different Christian denominations in the world. One Catholic Church. Tell me, how did that happen if the Holy Spirit was involved?
Also, if you researched what the Catholics call the Early Church Fathers, you will find the same dogma taught by the Vatican today, e.g. women ordination, contraception, the Sacraments, and abortion. Abortion is interesting because prior to 1919, most every Christian denomination outlawed it. Now look to see how many denominations accept it. Societal pressures (Planned Parenthood) altered dogma of most of the main denominations, except Catholicism and a few others.
The Nicene Creed, btw, is a variation on the Apostle’s Creed. The Council of Nicea was formed and the result was the phrase, “Begotten not Made” that needed clarification.
Finally, could somebody explain to me why you believe that Scripture is THE sole authority? Nowhere does the Bible express that. Please, show me.
~dm
Comment by David — 04.08.05 @ 12:54 pm
La Shawn taking heat over remarks about Pope
Some people have gotten upset at La Shawn Barber over her post about the death of the Pope. They are so upset and so offended that they are writing her emails to let her know that they are delinking her blog. First, the differences between Catholic and…
Trackback by Uncle Sam's Cabin — 04.08.05 @ 1:55 pm
La Shawn, I’m curious, what do you have to say in response to the dislikemail from “Jim S.”? He makes some valid points.
Comment by Ambra Nykol — 04.08.05 @ 2:06 pm
Actually, Catholic teaching is that salvation comes through faith in Christ and requires baptism.
The whole Catechism is at vatican.va for anyone who is curious.
Comment by Frank J. — 04.08.05 @ 2:24 pm
While Jim might have some valid points, I receive dozens of e-mails from “helpful” readers saying just the opposite. I posted Jim’s letter because it was the most recent of its kind, and I receive dozens of e-mails exactly like his. My response to him was something along the lines of this comment. My conclusion: No matter what I do, somebody will complain. I write what I write to please myself. If it benefits others, I’m glad. If not…
Comment by La Shawn — 04.08.05 @ 2:24 pm
Hello again LaShawn,
I just wanted to comment on this thread:
1. What is the big deal with your comment? I wasn’t offended. I am not a Roman Catholic but I am a Maronite (Eastern Rite). I have read your “comment in question” several times but don’t see the “offensiveness”
2.
Comment by W.NM. — 04.08.05 @ 2:50 pm
You have a public blog, you have a comments section, you have an email listed for the public to respond to…. I don’t see the problem with “the “advice†people think they’re qualified to give.”, frankly.
Just as I don’t see the problem with you addressing or not addressing any subject you choose.
Trolls, when they are bona-fide trolls are a problem in public discussions, but the emails you posted seem to be expressions of some of your readers feelings.
I hope you smooth your feathers and continue on. Sometimes online the only protest someone feels they have is to stop reading or take you off the blogroll-but lots of times they don’t mean it/ sorta like those who announce they are not blogging anymore, and then two days later they blog again;)
Comment by ilona — 04.08.05 @ 2:58 pm
Hello ma’am (LaShawn),
I was typing a response and my screen got dumped, hopefully this won’t be a second post. I do not understand the dilemna. Why is everyone so upset by what you said?
1. I am not a Roman Catholic but I am a Maronite (Eastern Rite) and I was not offended by your “comment in question”, you made a remark based on how you feel (or believe)about something . . . so what? this is your blog. If someone doesn’t like it they can start their own blog and refer back to here, but they don’t need to attack you on your blog.
2. I did not see a reason for an apology from you like the fella from the dislike mail mentioned. Why in the heck did he say that? should you have waited until the 4th of July or Labor Day? this is as good a time as any I guess to mention this. I may be wrong, but your comment sounded to me like you were stating your opinion in a very “guarded” manner, indicative of calm reason and consideration in a www of trolls waiting to strike. You laid the groundwork for a discussion and if people wanted to comment they needed to follow your rules (again, this is your blog).
think we (people of faith in general) have alot more in common than we have disparities. I do not enter into “scholarly religious” discussions, it doesn’t appeal to me, kinda like Renee said above about the “my dad drives a bigger car” discussion, all sides can be guilty.
But Ma’am, for what it is worth, I think you are doing fine and don’t see a problem. I think its good to discuss anything you want. if someone has an issue, they can always e-mail you (providing they are civil) and enter a discussion so as not to waste your web space.
I’m not going anywhere, I’ll be back and I hope that those who left angrily return after cooling off (except for the trolls). BTW, I checked out Ambra Nykolls site, she rocks!
Hats off to Renne, twerp and Garrett. And of course to you Ms. Barber (Ms sounds much more professional than miss, IMHO) hats off and a bow to the queen. Long live the queen!
W.NM.
PS: can we e-mail you if we have a question and don’t want to seem like a total dufus on the web? remember, I am still new to this WWW stuff.
Comment by W.NM. — 04.08.05 @ 3:24 pm
Dear LaShawn,
Not that it matters a whit, but I agree with David’s comment posted on 04/07/05 @10:14. The death of JPII has affected me more emotionally than I thought it would. And I, too, am tired of seeing the theology of my religion and my faith misrepresented, especially by talking heads who should have done their homework. Thank you for your discretion in this matter. I appreciate it.
I will keep reading your blog because I find your articles informative and your comments well reasoned. That fact that I disagree with some of your opinions and beliefs is fine–if we agreed on everything 100% of the time, then one of us is redundant!
Best regards.
Comment by Denise — 04.08.05 @ 3:29 pm
Sorry,
I got dumped from my computer, and tried to resend. Hopefully it comes through. if not I’ll redo.
W.NM.
Comment by W.NM. — 04.08.05 @ 3:43 pm
LaShawn,
You are spot on with your statement “[I]f the Pope believed Christ died for his sins, and that we are saved through faith alone in Christ alone by his grace alone, the Pope, like anyone else who believes these things, will be spared from God’s righteous and just punishment.â€
The problem is salvation is so simple people think they have to work for it. Can’t be done. Nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away our sins.
I’m not a Reformed Baptist, but I am Baptist and I have always been taught it will not be just Baptists in heaven and we will even have (gasp) Catholics there. If they follow the path to redemption.
God bless, and don’t let the angry ones get to you.
Comment by Jeanette — 04.08.05 @ 3:59 pm
Some people don’t realize until moments like this that their “brand” of Christianity doesn’t completely mesh with yours, and they’re hurt by that realization. They thought that you were a fellow traveller in heart, soul and spirit.
And quiet as it’s kept, overall, you are. You are no less a Christian simply because you don’t subscribe to their “brand” of what they think Christianity is supposed to be.
But it’s not your place to do that. Your relationship with our Lord and Savior is personal. Their relationship is also personal. It is not your place to change yours to fit theirs.
If they can’t handle that, tough.
Comment by mhking — 04.08.05 @ 4:50 pm
Amen, Rambling Brother, Amen
Comment by W.NM. — 04.08.05 @ 5:07 pm
La Shawn,
I still enjoy reading your blog. I think most of these folks will end up reading your blog again. If they were attracted to your posts once before, they will be attracted again…just wait and see.
I get similar “input” on my blog. Some of it taken in stride, others just kindly disregarded. Either way it makes me stronger…as I suspect it makes you stronger as well.
Also, if no one is criticizing you, then you probably aren’t doing something right.
Thanks for blazing the trail! I am glad you are blogging again after your short break.
AFV
Comment by Lifeachiever — 04.08.05 @ 5:29 pm
What a better world it would be if as many would “stand up” as vehemently for our Lord and Saviour as they do for men they honor. Unfortunately, honoring men sometimes becomes “worship” which is to be reserved exclusively for God and His Son.
Comment by Dave in AZ — 04.08.05 @ 5:40 pm
Amen Dave in AZ, Amen
Comment by Renee — 04.08.05 @ 6:00 pm
Honestly, what surprises me is that people were surprised by what you said, LaShawn.
(I’d sooner try to convince a Muslim that Muhamed was nobody special than convince LaShawn that the Pope was the Vicar of Christ)
Personally, I was disappointed in the timing, but the content is what I expected.
As a Catholic I’ve butted heads with born agains, fundamentalists and much of the rest of the protestant spectrum over the years… I’ve learned that 90% of the time, it’s just not worth it. Religion is not something people easily open their minds about, esp when the discussion centers around who will and will not be in God’s good graces.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 04.08.05 @ 7:27 pm
Blogmother La Shawn: Now I know why your e-mailbox wouldn’t accept my letter of encouragement. Your mailbox was full of letters of discouragement. I wish that you had an alternate address for people whom you trust.
Comment by Dodo David — 04.08.05 @ 8:34 pm
“My conclusion: No matter what I do, somebody will complain. I write what I write to please myself. If it benefits others, I’m glad. If not…”
Here here. Nuff said.
Comment by Ambra Nykol — 04.08.05 @ 9:45 pm
Or rather, “Hear hear!” Both apply in this instance.
Comment by Ambra Nykol — 04.08.05 @ 9:46 pm
I LOVE your blog. I am new to the “blog world” but I hope to have mine up and running before too long. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and your integrity. You speak the truth (in love) and are unfazed by the venom you receive for clinging to the truth of the gospel. You have a fan in TX!
Comment by Phil H. — 04.08.05 @ 11:24 pm
People want to be told what they want to hear–especially in the religious realm.
Comment by mj — 04.09.05 @ 1:48 am
I must admit I don’t read your blog religiously (no pun intended :-)), but I just read that you are “reformed”(and baptist) I assume. How cool is that! Keep up the good fight, my friend!
Justin
Comment by Justin Crandall — 04.09.05 @ 2:01 am
Said Ambra:
When you offer to discuss things according to scripture, people usually back down.
Ain’t *that* the truth?
Comment by Juliette — 04.09.05 @ 2:07 am
Let’s see - you said that if the Pope believed what he professed to believe, then he was Saved. This is a problem, why?
By the way, if Mark, who mentioned Papal infallibility reads this comment, I was watching something a couple of days ago on the Pope and the history of the Vatican and previous Popes, and a Catholic historian explained that “infallibility” for the Pope is not a Mantle that he wears all the time, but is reserved for specific pronouncements from the Church. He also said that it has actually only been invoked ONCE since it was enacted in the 19th Century. He did not mention what this one instance was, unfortunately.
Comment by WayneB — 04.09.05 @ 2:40 am
I admire your courage La Shawn and you are entitled to write honestly. I just started my own blog and was getting some commenters and people linking to me who do not realize where I stand. So I posted a controversial (and gross) picture about how I really feel about terrorists. I was delinked and traffic slowed considerably but I got the message across loud and clear. Just remember that love (God) is the only thing tough enough to outlast(sin) stupidity.
Comment by Alnot — 04.09.05 @ 6:16 am
“Just remember that love (God) is the only thing tough enough to outlast(sin) stupidity.”
Wow, Alnot. This one is a keeper.
Comment by Jim R — 04.09.05 @ 11:13 am
WayneB
The pope’s infallibility is only in play when he’s speaking doctrinely. JPII, for example, isn’t expressing his opinions in all of his written encyclicals, he’s espousing church doctrine, so, in theory, those encyclical are free from error regarding Catholic teaching.
I believe what Mark was referring to was the church finally recognizing and expressing the Immaculate Conception as dogma ~ I think that statement happened around 1850 or so.
Pax Christi,
Dave
Comment by David — 04.09.05 @ 11:14 am
Well, I have been reading your blog for quite a while. However, my inquest into faith was started by statements similiar to some of those expressed in the post and in the comments in the thread. This led me down on the path, and I ultimately found my way to Holy Orthodoxy, where we live the Bible during every liturgy, pray without ceasing, and celebrate the Resurrrection of the Lord Jesus Christ on Pascha, and we continue to celebrate it for the next forty days until Pentecost. We honor the saints who had a role in establishing the form of the Holy Bible as it stands nowdays.
Comment by Lola — 04.10.05 @ 10:23 pm
have you noticed the naysayers all seem to be hung up on emotions. This is liberal theology masked as whet “feels” good, or right! See, you can’;t argue with someone’s emotions. That’s waht makes it so palatable. And it’s relativistic, in keeping with today’s “feel good” politics!
Comment by CharlyG — 04.11.05 @ 3:48 pm
About the “Lutheran–founded by Martin Luther” comment: I grew up in the Lutheran church, attended Lutheran grade school and college, and the first thing any Lutheran will tell you is if Martin Luther knew his beliefs (biblical by the way) were called “Lutheran” he’d be rolling in his grave. Luther merely pointed out what the “Catholic” (in this case, Catholic, not Roman Catholic) church was getting wrong. Luther simply interpreted the Bible plainly. He would not have wanted a denomination named after him.
Noelle
Comment by Noelle — 04.11.05 @ 6:57 pm
A Negative Consequence of Fame
La Shawn provides some emails that range from irritating to just plain dumb. I haven’t reached that stage of bloggy
Trackback by Isaac Schrödinger — 04.12.05 @ 9:33 am
I admire your boldness, La Shawn. You speak the truth. And to offset the guy who un-blogrolled you, I added you to my blogroll. No need to thank me for the extra two hits per month you’ll get.
Comment by Kim — 04.13.05 @ 4:42 pm