Defending Ingrid’s Honor
John on July 9, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Earlier this week someone sent me an e-mail alerting me to this site. The site was ostensibly created to collect pictures of various ODM bloggers, the idea being to put a face with the name of some of the web’s most well known watchbloggers.
Within a few hours of setting up the site, the blogger in charge had received pictures from a high school yearbook (or junior high?) which his source claimed were photos of Ingrid Schlueter. Obviously, I don’t know if the photos were real or what proof was offered that they were. In any case, I looked at the photos and they didn’t depict anything objectionable. Just kids on a cheer squad who seemed to be having fun posing for the camera.
Then things got ugly. The same source sent in another yearbook photo which he claimed was Ingrid’s high school boyfriend. The blogger then announced that this individual was known to be a partyer in high school.
Within about 48 hours the blog’s author received a letter from Ingrid’s lawyer demanding that he “cease and desist” and remove the photos. The actual threat involved a “tort of false light” which is different but related to a defamation claim. It suggests that the photos may have been real but that she was unhappy with the spin being put on them. The blogger took everything down by the time specified in the letter and, presumably, that was the end of it. The same day, Ingrid announced a pause in blogging which may or may not be related to this incident.
So how to parse this…
First off, the idea of collecting photos of the watchbloggers doesn’t bother me at all. And if you want a photo of Ingrid, there are some already on the web to choose from. Does posting high school photos cross a line? Well, God knows I wouldn’t want someone posting my high school photos on their blog, especially not if their intent was ridicule. Still, I’m not sure that in itself warrants legal action.
But obviously we’re in different territory when we start posting unverified claims of alleged high school antics. First of all, the person making the claim was anonymous and apparently wanted to stay that way. I don’t care for anonymous sources, especially when they’re making accusations. In general, they’re best ignored (Until I received an e-mail today demanding I write about this situation, that’s what I intended to do). There are many things that can be said about Slice and about Ingrid’s style of attack. One thing that can not be said is that she makes her charges anonymously. She deserves the same consideration from others.
Secondly, going after somone for their behavior in high school seems like the very low road to me. And this is not to suggest I beleive any of these particular accusations. Frankly, I don’t. But let’s face it, we all did things in high school we’d be embarrassed to read about online. It’s just a low blow. Offsides. Foul. Let’s not go there.
I haven’t talked to Scott about this, but I know he’d agree. We certainly disagree with Ingrid on plenty of things, and she has cast aspersions on the two of us in the very recent past. Still, disagreements are one thing but this sort of anonymous muckraking of someone’s distant past is quite another. So I’m siding with Ingrid on this one. And I’d like to think that, were the shoe on the other foot, she’d do the same for me.
Category: Blogs & New Media |
Agreed, John.
Besides, I have SEEN your high school yearbook and the good Lord knows the the damage that could be caused if those were unleashed on the unsuspecting internet.
Total carnage!
Of course, if those pictures DID come out you might be able to bring back the Flock of Seagulls look!
July 9, 2008 @ 5:58 pmI still do things I’m embarrassed about.
July 9, 2008 @ 6:17 pmThat type of personal attack is counter productive and unchristian. I do, though, disagree with the lawyer involvement. If Mrs. Schlueter had posted about that site and asked her friends and those who were at odds with her on issues to speak correction to that blogger I believe there would have been possibly hundreds of internet dwellers come to her defense.
I have some sharp words for some of her posts but from all indications she is a wife, a mother, and has adopted some physically challenged children from other countries. Just recently she took the lead in posting about Ray Comfort and his need to speak correction. Timidity is not one of her weaknesses.
BTW – the Ray Comfort thing, wouldn’t she owe me a lunch for that? :)
July 9, 2008 @ 6:28 pmYeah, agreed. Whoever put that up about I.S., if you’re reading this — SHAME on you. It was disgusting and sooooo unchristian. There is NO place for that kind of stuff — I don’t care who the target is. From what I myself have gone through, I can only imagine how that hurt her. It was a seriously low blow.
R. Abanes
July 9, 2008 @ 6:48 pmLow blow is right, Richard. I’m not quite sure what would go through someone’s mind to think that was appropriate in any context, let alone the context of Christians interacting with Christians. Even if one were to take the extreme view that Ingrid believes that most/all of us who disagree with her (and Ken and the gang) are unregenerate, as Christians who know better it behooves us to behave as Christ would want us to. In fact, in the face of her opposition we should be even MORE, not less, Christ-like.
July 9, 2008 @ 8:17 pmRick,
I tried commenting on your blog, as I was reading through it, but wasn’t able to. I was stuck in a crazy unable-to-create-an-account-and-comment vortex.
So, I thought I would leave my comment for you over here instead.
I noticed you are writing about The Sermon on the Mount. The church I attend just began the same series this past Sunday, and will be teaching on it over the following 7 weeks.
If you are interested in listening to it, here is the link.
http://www.rockharbor.org/resources/messages/index.php?page=current
I have a friend who is in the process of planting a church, and they began the same series two weeks ago as well, and so she is downloading these messages too…
July 10, 2008 @ 1:34 amI suppose its a good thing for Ingrid none of the people she’s slandered have the will or the means to get lawyers of their own.
July 10, 2008 @ 2:42 amI have had many people say falshood against me. I just rejoice that they did not get the truth!! :lol”
Let it go and give it to God. We American Christians protect our reputations which, by the way, we should not have anyway. Jesus made Himself of no reputation. I happen to know that Scott conducts séances at his home, but I choose not to post about it. :cool:
July 10, 2008 @ 6:29 amFunny you should mention that, Rick. Elvis, Tupac and I were speaking last night and you came up in the conversation. They wanted me to tell you that you need to give it up. Marilyn Monroe is NOT interested in you so you should stop trying to contact her.
Sorry, man! You tried. Now let her go!
July 10, 2008 @ 7:40 amHey, if anyone hears from James Dean, he owes me ten bucks.
July 10, 2008 @ 7:45 amJohn – well said. Salamir – do you often find yourself writing with the eraser end of the pencil? Talk about missing the point.
July 10, 2008 @ 7:46 amScott – my lawyer will be calling! :evil:
July 10, 2008 @ 7:47 amJohn, I just got a message from James Dean. He says that if you want your money, you’re gonna have to come get it…but watch that first step. It’s a doozy.
July 10, 2008 @ 7:58 amI know you posted this last week, and I read it when you posted it. But I did not post a comment.
As I saw it again this morning, I knew I had to respond. I have 5 little sisters ranging in age from 30 to 16. I love my sisters. I would literally take a bullet for any of them without thinking. And if someone posted something derogatory about them on the internet, I would jump to their defense and defend their honor.
That is what you did here. Your sister was defamed. You jumped into the public arena and defended her honor. That’s what family is for.
Ingrid, I am grateful to be your brother. May our Father wrap you in His warm embrace today and whisper love poems into your ear.
July 14, 2008 @ 6:55 amI’m sorry I’m but I think this entire thing stinks from Ingrid’s side. She got a lawyer after someone! When her colleague was threatened with a law suit for his tabloid like title’s and hit pieces all sorts of things were put in a row. She didn’t like the spin about her boyfriend? Come on. This is silly. Ingrid has built her entire ministry around slandering and abusing other people that she doesn’t know. I have first hand accounts about her “honesty” with radio guests. She has called sex a burden. She’s not a nice person, people. Period. She has said that Mars Hill Seattle isn’t part of God’s true church because of a New Year’s bash, she has scratched out numerous other names from the book of life because they failed to meet her stringent standards. As for her being my sister, I will quote one of her favorite verses…
July 18, 2008 @ 9:07 pm“By their fruit you shall know them.”
Joe – other than those things you mentioned, we enjoy her newsletter. :)
July 19, 2008 @ 10:20 amNot to bring up this dead horse but today I got an email from Ingrid claiming this comment was slanderous. I have saved screen shots of everything I quoted here minus the issue of how she treats her guests and the honesty she presents to them.
August 7, 2008 @ 2:28 pmI readily concede that Ingrid doesn’t agree with my assessment and in fact we talked about her comment that sex was a burden and she informed me that I missed the context of what she was saying, and she was in fact pointing out the burden of sexual responsibility. She has since amended her post to more accurately reflect her feelings.
She did say that Mars Hill Seattle was not the true church of Christ and I have the screen shot to prove it.
Joe,
What can I say other than “I believe you.” My problem with Ingrid and Ken has always been their willingness to condemn anyone who doesn’t do it exactly as they feel it should be done. Specifically, if you’re not in line with A.W. Tozer or John MacArthur you’re suspect.
In this case, Ingrid will discuss the fact that you’ve “slandered” her by misunderstanding her meaning. Then she’ll revise and extend her own remarks so she’s no longer open to criticism. How many times has she given that kind of grace to anyone? Ken is the master of taking a single quote and spinning it into a whole justification of someone’s heresy. Has he ever looked for a generous interpretation, of the kind Ingrid expects from her critics? Not that I’ve seen.
Bottom line: I sided with Ingrid on this. I sided with Ken on the shutting down of his site. For me this is about what’s right, not about choosing sides. It would be nice if they could show as much independent judgment with regard to Rob Bell or Rick Warren (or, hey, even me). Maybe some day. I’m not holding my breath though.
August 7, 2008 @ 3:15 pmI find the “slander card” on internet posts and comments to be quite tedious. Who cares what people say about you and if you are offended address it to the person without the linguistic theatrics of “slander and libel”.
When do we get to exemplify Christ and just take it? Joe has said some things about me and I of him that are not edifying and most likely wrong, but we always move on. When does foriveness and forgetfulness come into play within a church that claims to believe both of them, AND, have been recipients of both forgiveness and forgetfulness as well?
Great peace have they that love thy law and nothing will offend them! :)
August 7, 2008 @ 3:38 pmYou know John, it would be interesting to hear Ken say that iPower actually shut his site down as opposed to he thought they might so he took it down and reopened it elsewhere. But that’s another day.
August 7, 2008 @ 3:47 pm