*REVISED* Tickling One’s Own Ears, Part One
Scott on January 14, 2007 at 4:11 pm
SPECIAL NOTE: I have added a small addendum at the end titled “A NOTE OF CLARIFICATION.” Please be sure to read that section as well, as it attempts to clarify my motivation behind writing this 2-part post.
As the issues connected to Christian “watch-dogging” have heated up, I have become more and more fascinated with the whole concept of people feeling as though they have been called upon (by God) to keep watch over the rest of us. Mind you, I’m not speaking of the “pastors as shepherds of their flock” kind of watching, but more along the lines of the “Big Brother is watching you” kind of watching. John’s excellent post about John Macarthur and his upcoming book Truth War gives clear evidence as to just how high up the “watch-dogging” craze goes. When prominent Church leaders begin to advocate a “devil in our midst” philosophy (no pun intended), then the lower ranks may take their lead and begin seeing the devil everywhere as well. Think Salem Witch trials but without the burning at the stake (at least not yet).
To be clear, Christian “watch-dogging” (verb) and Christian “watch-doggies” (noun) are the terms that I use when referring to the process of…and those individuals and groups who engage in…the act of keeping tabs on everyone else in the Body of Christ. (Oddly enough, these “watchdogs” typically reject the notion that someone should be keeping a watch on them. See this excellent post – Who Will Watch the Watchmen).
In essence, “watch-dogging” has become the spiritual equivalent of Christian McCarthyism, but rather than Communists in every corner, they see heretics in every pew. Another way to look at this is to compare the “watch-doggies” to the members of the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, the group that spent years searching for evidence of infiltration by communists, Nazis, fascists and the like within American society. But this new committee of self-appointed watch-doggies and discernment organizations is looking for heresy and apostasy, and they’ll find it even if they have to manufacture it.
According to the proponents of these “discernment” ministries, almost everything that is happening in the American Christian church is bad/negative/apostate in some form or another.
Contemporary music in worship..bad.
Making life in 1st Century Judea more culturally understandable to 21st Century America…bad.
In their minds, these people are the faithful remnant while the vast majority of people involved in the American Church have abandoned Christ. From their perspective, this wholesale apostasy leaves only the few who REALLY know and REALLLY understand how Christianity is REALLY supposed to work, leaving the rest of us out in the cold and in the Dark.
But how do these “watch-doggies” end up where they are at, believing themselves to be among the few faithful while the overwhelming majority of the Church (at least in the States) are traveling down the road to ruin? I would suggest one possibility – They have tickled their own ears.
II Timothy 4:2-4 says:
Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
In true dispensationalist fashion, most of those who engage in “watch-dogging” will interpret this passage as a reference to the condition of the church around the “end times,” prior to Christ’s return. They will point to obvious examples like TBN, Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, et al and combine them with less obvious teachers whom they believe to be in error (Rob Bell, Rick Warren, et al) and mix them all together in order to use them as anecdotal proof that the end times are coming because of these preachers who may (or may not) be teaching sound doctrine.
And I agree…some of these people are examples of the worst of the worst in terms of where the Church can go terribly wrong. A doctrine of prosperity, healing in exchange for money, conversations with Jesus while dressed in pajamas, holy laughter, roaring in the spirit, really bad isogetical teaching related to tithing, blessings, multi-generational curses, etc, etc, etc (not to mention the hair styles of Jan Crouch and Benny Hinn). These are all bad and all horrible…all of the time.
But these watch-doggies ignore the history of the Church. They ignore that there have always been times when people turn away from sound doctrine and chase after ridiculous, sad, pathetic imitations of the True Gospel. They ignore the fact that there have always been teachers and preachers who are off their rocker and about as theologically sound as the Book of Mormon.
These “watch-doggies” ignore that the charge in 2nd Timothy of preaching the Word and being prepared in and out of season is an exhortation to all Christians of all generations, not just the Christians in our generation. They feel as though this charge is more relevant now than it has been previously, thus creating some new sense of urgency. But this just isn’t true. Sharing the Word has always been the goal of the Church. These remnant-leaning “watch-doggies” want to believe that they are restoring something, but they are attempting to restore something that was never actually lost.
“Watch-doggies” (and the discernment ministries who love them) ignore that people have always wanted their ears itched and have always wanted to hear sentiments that echo what they want to believe, regardless of whether or not those beliefs are true. That is human nature. When we are told, “the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine,” this isn’t just referring to a single time in history. People (including Christians) will eventually lean towards things they want to hear because they agree with them. Rarely do people want to listen to people whom they disagree with. Again…human nature.
“Watch-doggies” WANT the negatives to be true about the preachers, teachers and trends within the Church, and they want to be the ones to denounce these negatives. In these negatives, they find the justification for their existence. Unfortunately, they are so intent on finding the witches in our midst that they begin to create the witches themselves by shaping them out of whole cloth, painting them black and putting large, black, pointed hats on their heads.
And how do they manufacture these “imitation witches?” They fall victim to the 2nd Timothy “ear itching” syndrome, the same disease that they claim to be “watch-dogging” against. To suit their own desires, to find the demons and witches in the midst of the Church that they are SURE must be there, they only listen to others who are just as convinced of the wolves in sheep clothing who must be leading the church into apostasy. They then use those others as proof of their own concerns and fears. They begin to isolate scriptural passages that might appear to support some aspect of their Church-focused witch hunt, and then tie these isolated scriptures to their beliefs and writings advocating the need for “watch-doggies” within the Church.
When others from outside of the “watch-dogging” remnant bring up concerns about proof-texting scripture and the use of isogetics (looking at scripture without context and ignoring the greater meaning of a passage as opposed to looking at scripture within its context and overall meaning), the remnant “watch-doggies” begin to hyperventilate as they throw around hot-button words and dire pronouncements and condemnations such as heresy, apostasy, wolves in sheep’s clothing, deceivers, schemers, dwellers in darkness, tools of the devil, spiritually blind, etc. Those who question are relegated to the classification of “on the path to Hell” and their words are never given consideration.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, the “watch-doggies” listen ONLY to those people and organizations whose opinions echo those ideas with witch they already agree. They then continue to spread those ideas and teachings around to others who are of a like mind. “Discernment ministries” sprout up on the web like weeds in June, focusing on recycling the opinions and teachings that confirm what they have already concluded, namely that apostacy is rampant, the American evangelical church is lost, and there are only a precious few out there who are equiped enough spiritually to survive the impending dark ages of the Church.
Here ends Part One of “Tickling One’s Own Ears.”
Stay tuned for Part Two…An Example In Action of Ear Itching.
***
***
ADDENDUM: A NOTE OF CLARIFICATION
***
***
One of our regular readers made an observation about both parts of this “Itching One’s Own Ears” series. She challenged me, saying that it appeared that I was “knocking” all discernment ministries. I must admit that though that was not my intention, I can see how it could have come across this way. Thank you, Amy, for your critique and your recommendation.
Let me be clear. It was never my intent to broad-brush all discernment ministries. There are discernment ministries out there that focus on all aspects of life and many of these organizations do great work. They focus on a a wide range of topics including: cults and counter-cult facilitation, science and faith, countering the influences of popular culture and society, the role of faith in politics, etc.
Many of these discernment organizations demonstrate keen insight and judgment, using the Bible, logic and reason, research and investigation, etc. These ministries are able to analyze the obscure, the suspicious and the obvious, their perceptions honed by years of study. They demonstrate wisdom in how they apply their knowledge and perceptions to various situations, individuals and organizations. They demonstrate restraint in how they proceed in dealing with matters of style and substance. They are transparent in their operations and in how they arrive at their conclusions.
At the same time, these discernment ministries are open to critique and criticism. They engage in dialogue. They don’t engage in demagoguery aimed at those who voice disagreement or concerns. Their approach is methodical and measured. From my experience, a few of these effective discernment ministries include:
- Ravi Zacharias International Ministries
- The Christian Research Institute
- Walter Martin’s Religious Info Net
As I said, there are MANY discernment ministries out there who discern responsibly and who interact with the Church and the World responsibly. My concern is with the other brand/style of discernment ministries whose approach is far more aggressive and far less reasoned and thought-out, far more knee jerk and far less logical, far more perception-based and far less Biblically-based. These types of discernment ministries have good intentions but in my experience they do far more damage and harm than they do good. In particular, many of those discernment groups who feel called to focus most of their attention internally within the Church place themselves in the position of not only questioning suspect beliefs and/or doctrines but questioning the motivations and the very salvation of others within the Church with whom they disagree.
It is these groups that I had in mind when writing these two posts.
Category: Blogs & New Media, Religion & Faith |
[...] John Sexton says we must watch the “watch-dogs.” [...]
January 14, 2007 @ 4:31 pm[...] Source: Verum Serum [...]
January 14, 2007 @ 5:55 pmGood post. There seem to be a growing number of Christians out for a good heresy hunt, as well as a good number of folks with little tolerance for other points of view. Apparently, some folks don’t feel fully alive until they’re filled with a “righteous indignation” as they see it.
“Watch-doggies” (and the discernment ministries who love them) ignore that people have always wanted their ears itched and have always wanted to hear sentiments that echo what they want to believe, irregardless of whether or not those desires are true.
A combination curse/blessing for me is that I am the son of an English teacher. As such, my parent would gently remind me that “irregardless” is, at best, an improper word, and would proceed to encourage me to utilize the completely proper “regardless”, as a suitable alternative.
Peace,
Marshall
January 14, 2007 @ 6:06 pmSo then you are the watch-doggie of the watch-doggies? lol
Maybe this seems like a surface level view of your post, but aren’t you doing exactly what your trying not to be? A watch doggie? If I am wrong please correct me.
Alan
January 14, 2007 @ 6:57 pmMarshall,
Excellent! Thank you for the notice. The “irregardless” was actually left in there by accident. My earlier draft of that paragraph was filled with an awkward attempt at irony and humor, and the “irregardless” was part of that attempt. Most of the irony and humor were dropped (except for “watch-doggies…and the discernment ministries who love them…”), but the “irregardless” was left by mistake.
I have done the necessary editing.
Thanks again!
Scott
PS-The irony is that I am an English teacher by trade! Typically, though, my focus is less on the standards and mechanics of writing and more on the readability of writing and the interpretation of literature.
January 14, 2007 @ 7:13 pmAlan,
In some respects I guess that I am acting as a “watchdog of the watch-doggies.”
I would say that the primary difference is that while I am drawing attention to what I believe is the error of their approach and the spirit in which they conduct themselves, I am in no way attempting to judge the veracity of their salvation or even the quality of their basic theology.
On the other hand, these “watch-doggies” are occupied almost exclusively with making pronouncements about the theology and salvation of the men whom they attack. They attempt to act as the judges of the men and women who have been brought to Christ under the ministries they are criticizing, while also claiming the right to evaluate the quality of ministry occuring at churches across the nation based on their own personal preferences and self-serving criteria.
Make sense?
Scott
January 14, 2007 @ 7:26 pmI’d say we can definitely criticize the heart behind a lot of this watch-dogging, but I wouldn’t want to discourage dialogue on important issues within the church.
The truth is that there are doctrines out there which need to be questioned and a discussion of these issues should, hopefully, illuminate the truth.
January 14, 2007 @ 7:27 pmBrian,
YES! I completely agree! Dialogue is important, and disagreement (even VIGOROUS disagreement) can be productive and beneficial for individual believers and the larger body of Christ. At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that there are a host of issues where disagreement is just that…disagreement. Not apostacy!
There ARE doctrines out there that need to be questioned, and methodologies out there that should be evaluated very carefully. There are individuals and groups that need to be called to account and taken to task for some of the aberrant views that they promulgate.
The problem is that these “discernment ministries” desire to squelch all dialogue unless it is in agreement with the points that they believe are essential. Disagreement is tantamount to heresy. For lack of a better word, they attempt to legislate their own spiritual preferences when it comes to style and methodology, trying to pass them off as the only ones that God finds acceptable.
My blogging partner John and I, along with guys like Chris over at Fishing the Abyss, are simply trying to keep the dialogue open and flowing while trying to open the eyes of the less-dogmatic “watch-doggies” as to the pencil-thin path they have decided that all must follow in order to serve God.
January 14, 2007 @ 7:48 pmThanks for the thoughtful answer. I think I understand but let me look at in a literal sense. Earlier you mentioned Rob Bell. Could one create a site devoted to engaging the “errors” of his teachings as long as: 1)his salvation was never questioned.
January 14, 2007 @ 9:07 pm2)what he was saying was discussed and there were no personal attacks. i.e. put downs based on speaking style, appearance, and presentation
3)Dialogue was the key motivation
I’m struggling with that you seem(and I know its what I am feeling, not necessary a fact) to be saying that watch-doggies bad but we’re better than them. Do you think you’re better than the watch doggies? Also, do you think its fair to bring in their Eschatological position into this dialogue? I read on your blog you hold a different position than dispensationalism. Could you be maybe trying to find a dispy in every blog? ;)(Note: I am not a dispensationalist) Other Eschatological positions hold to some type of falling away from the faith.
Wow from Rob Bell to the end times, that was an odd logical flowing post :)
Scott will undoubtedly answer for himself, but for myself I would have no problem in principle with a site that questioned Rob Bell’s theology so long as his sincerity (and his salvation) weren’t questioned and so long as the approach was at least primarily based on substance and not on name calling.
I’ve said on at least 5 occasions, many on this blog, that I would personally lay off the Slice crew if they’d stop judging the hearts of people they don’t even know. If they would stick to what someone says or does, that’s fine. They cross a line (with me) when they move into assumptions about someone’s heart. People like Rick Warren have done more than enough for the church to warrant a presumption of good faith.
I also think watchdogs should be able to defend their views. As we’ve seen on this site and others, the Slice crew can’t do that in many cases. When something they’ve written is plainly wrong, they refuse to correct it. And as we saw just last week, they’d rather deep six the entire blog than respond to critics.
As bloggers I think we’re definitely better. For one thing, we attempt to be fair. That means we don’t question anyone’s salvation or sincerity only their actions. Scott and I have pointed out several times during our debates with Slice authors that, regardless of whether they’re right or wrong, they are still fellow believers and we need to treat them appropriately.
We also give those we criticize an opportunity to respond rather than filtering or banning people who disagree with us. We’re even willing to say we were wrong or off base if that’s shown to be the case. I think both Scott and I (and others such as Chris and Amy) have at times apologized for inappropriate statements.
But I think the big difference, and the reason we’re not really watchdogs, is that Slice is only a tiny fraction of what we write about. In December we had 54 posts (about 2 a day). of those exactly 2 were about Slice. That works out to 3.7%. By contrast, 80-90% of Slice/CRI posts are criticisms of other ministries, pastors, etc.
Lastly, it’s true that Scott and I both reject dispensationalism. We’ve been very upfront about that and even offered an introduction to our views on the blog. Personally, I’m surprised how often dispensationalism comes into these debates. Scott is right on target when he says that people like the Slice crew frequently suggest they are part of a remnant being held over for the last days. The “falling away” that they see all around them (which they’re mostly wrong about anyway) has nothing to do with the return of Jesus. It’s just one more way to hype the importance of their contribution.
So if you’re not a dispensationalist and you’re not a preterist, what is your view?
January 14, 2007 @ 11:48 pmJohn..OK sounds reasonable to me. I understand what you are saying.
As far as my view on the end times, I am a baptist, :) Just Kidding! I’ve always wanted to type that on a viewpoint. I never said I wasn’t a preterist. Reading over your resource which I had done before I posted the second time it seems that you guys are full preterists. Is that right? I would catergorize myself as a partial preterist but I haven’t studied the issue enough to discuss it clearly or even teach on the subject. (I’m a sunday school teacher for youth)
January 15, 2007 @ 9:23 amActually, I think that I would classify myself as a partial preterist with the caviat that I am in the process of working through some of the finer aspects of that position. At this point, I think that full peterism carries with it some problems that are very difficult to explain/overcome.
As for John, I think that he also would call himself a partial preterist (though I’m sure he’ll speak to that himself at some point).
Scott
January 15, 2007 @ 11:01 amDitto on that.
January 15, 2007 @ 12:09 pmWhich parts are Preterist, which not? I like the Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24… but somewhere along the line Jesus seems to switch from the destruction of Jerusalem to something more severe… and more future.
Neil S.
January 15, 2007 @ 6:54 pmScott: I usually treat these kinds of sites like I treat a site like Little Geneva – unworthy of using up some of the short time on Earth that I have.
January 15, 2007 @ 10:47 pmWow, How did I make it from
January 16, 2007 @ 7:10 am1982 (outcast)- for doing drama and songs by secular artists in church (a pioneer artist in Willowcreek styles) to 2007 (outcast)-you legalistic Witch? What a journey. Once again I guess I’m in the wrong camp or a strange breed. Yes, we can play U2 in church & hip hop dance but our NEW Christaneese does not help convey the gospel if the important “bits” are not explained. 3- 10 sec. sound bites doesn’t count as sharing the plan of salvation. We have been leaders for 25 years watching the church go down the “let’s drop the offense of the cross” road, a well traveled road in my contemporary circle. How sad that I now receive a label for a)quoting scripture b) discerning c)asking to bring back the nasty words “sin & repentance” because they point to our need for a Savior. Thanks. I do have a pointy black hat in my costume box…think it will look great with my dog tags next service.
Hmm..
I oddly enough have never seen one of these “Watch-Doggies.” But I will tell you what I do see. “Watch-Sluggies”
“Watch-Sluggies” are people who don’t look for sin, and who don’t really care when it drops on their heads and beats them.
These “Watch-Sluggies” believe in “loving” the person back into Christ, even when the person just keeps on blatantly sinning. They must first allow the person to stop, and help the person to stop, from biblical perspective. But if the person refuses to stop, well, they should be able to let him go until he repents and stops.
Instead, they just keep going like nothing has happened, these “Watch-Sluggies.”
I know for a fact that there are many “Watch-Sluggies” in every church I have personally attended. I also know that they do watch for one thing, people who aren’t like them, people who don’t ignore sin in the church. Then they label them something close to “Watch-Doggies.”
I do conceed the point that people described as “Watch-Doggies” do exist in all likelyhood, and what they do as you described them would be wrong.
But I also believe that they are much less widespread, than those labeled “Watch-Doggies” by the “Watch-Sluggies”
January 16, 2007 @ 8:50 am“Watch-doggies” seem to be fond of creating false dichotomies, or false comparisons…maybe it’s just a variation of “Guilt by Association.”
When our church was doing a Q & A with a potential new Preaching Pastor the question was asked – “Do you think your job is to entertain (e.g. – use Power Point, videos, contemporary cultural references) or preach the Gospel of repentance?”
His answer nailed it – The question is a false dichotomy based on a false assumption… using the things listed above does not mean we abandon the cross… this is a nuance some watchers seem to have missed.
January 16, 2007 @ 9:07 amI just want to say that I saw Ken Silva’s website for the first time today and something about it just doesn’t seem right. I’m not pointing to any one thing or attacking Ken; I just know that as I read through some of his posts I had more questions about what he was doing and did not come away feeling edified.
This is also my first time here. I will read more.
January 16, 2007 @ 9:10 amscott and john,
those of us who are all too familiar with the ‘watch doggies’, particularly slice, compeltely understand this post. what is refreshing to me, is that scott has intelligently ‘sewn them up’. that is to say, its nice to hear an intelligent rebuttle of these ‘watch doggies’ (i’ve called them other things in the past, but i am seriously rethinking how critical i shouldn’t be). thank you for this nice read!
brad
January 16, 2007 @ 9:19 ami forgot to say, i’m looking forward to part 2!
January 16, 2007 @ 9:20 amgood post. i have noticed that DOGS protect space with loyalty and CATS explore new spaces with curiosity. Teachers can become dog-like and Apostles more like cats. Dangers in both, of course
blog on . .
January 16, 2007 @ 10:21 amJohn – on the dispensational/preterist bit of the discussion – Ken posted a link to Rob Bell speaking on Revelation, Ephesus and such at Willowcreek. While I’m sure he didn’t mean the link to be a ‘good’ example, I think you’ll like it.
It is located here.
January 16, 2007 @ 11:09 am[...] Here is an excellent post on the Verum Serum blog that deals with the problem Christianity has with, what the writer calls, watch doggies. [...]
January 16, 2007 @ 12:20 pmJesus disciples approached him once, critisizing the way some others were “preaching” about Jesus. He told them to mind their own business. He said that even if people were speaking his name with wrong motives, at least his name was being spoken. Watch dogs need to spend their energy making disciples. Ironically Jesus said it was by our love for each other that people would know that we were his followers, not by our finger pointing.
My experience is that watchdogs spend alot of time on the porch, instead of being in the street.
Thank you Scott.
January 17, 2007 @ 8:28 amHey, not to go off track, but since you did pull McCarthy’s name in…
If you look at the actual data, especially after the decryption of Russian cables and the report that was released about them in (I think) the 80′s….
There were a huge number of Communist spies working for the American government.
Senator McCarthy, in other words, was actually right.
And he himself, being a Senator, never sat on the HUAC.
Anyway, back to the real discussion….
January 17, 2007 @ 9:04 amKim,
The watch bloggers would say your scriptural logic (that our love for each other is a basis for being known as a follower of Jesus) as applied to them fails on one crucial point.
They do not consider the object of their wrath to be a part of the beloved “each other.” In other words, they oft time make salvific assumptions far beyond just critiquing the ministry.
And once you’ve written someone off as damned by God, well, it’s just way too easy to jump on the wagon with Him.
Neil S.
January 17, 2007 @ 11:50 am“He said that even if people were speaking his name with wrong motives, at least his name was being spoken.”
First off, I do not belive that Jesus addressed motives. However, Paul did. Phillipians 1:15-17 is proof that the proclaiming of the Word takes precedence.
Isaiah 55:
10″For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven
and do not return there but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
11so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.
.
“My experience is that watchdogs spend a lot of time on the porch, instead of being in the street.”
Aren’t we judgmental? You know nothing about what anyone does.
Scott’s post, while long on rhetoric, is short on substance.
My thoughts here:
January 17, 2007 @ 6:30 pmhttp://noidiotsallowed.blogspot.com/2007/01/watchdogs-or-watchmen-ezekiel-33-7so.html
Wow, Chris, just like Ken, your arguments always (or almost always) seem to come out on top when you create straw men from your opponents’ arguments.
January 17, 2007 @ 7:56 pmChris P,
Thanks for your thoughts and I appreciate the sentiments you expressed in your article at No Idiots Allowed. I must agree with Chris L, however, that rather than addressing the primary substance and concerns that I expressed in Pt 1 of “Itching One’s Own Ears,” you chose to focus on some of the minor points and tried to set up some straw men to knock down.
You spent some time demonstrating how much of what I said didn’t apply to you. This I appreciate. However, I was writing in generalizations in order to make a broader point of application, not trying to say that anyone who voices concerns about anyone else is a watch doggie.
I go into more specifics in Pt 2 of “Itching One’s Own Ears.” If you have a moment, read over that post and give me some feedback.
Scott
January 17, 2007 @ 9:11 pmScott,
I would speculate that your thesis is not to say that watch dogging is wrong, or that it should not be done… “may it never be…”
Am I right in saying the objection is the highly objectionable manner in which many watch-bloggers endeavor to enlighten the rest of us? e.g. – condescension, judging salvation, refusal to admit any mistakes, shoddy documentation, ad hominem arguments, misquotes… ad. nauseum…
It seems “they” never really deal with these accusations/issues – course, the reason they don’t is obvious, if you have no answer… try and change the question.
January 18, 2007 @ 5:50 amWow huys,
How many times can we use strawman in a sentence?
Do you go to school for that?
Chris L. All I did was quote verbatim from Scott and others here and on my blog, and then answered them. How is that setting up strawmen? It seems to me that you do a good enough job setting yourselves up. Your response is so typical, that it makes a mockery, of all the plaintive pleas for “conversation.” It’s only conversation when everyone agrees with you.
Scott
Minor points? Like what…the Sccriptures?
I addressed specifics. You did not.
What you said was that discernment bloggers are the same as those who conducted the Salem witch hunts and the McCarthyites.That isn’t even a good comparison.
Remember I am part of a “discernment ministry” so I would have to believe that your critique includes me.
As for Neil’s comments.
I engage in none of the methods that he accuses the discernmant folks of.
Here is what I find to be true;
1. If you use scriptural support to your argument the reponse is, take your pick;
a. You are a pharisee
b. It’s out of context
c That was for then.
d. You didn’t graduate from Hillel’s school for rabbis.
e. This is the post-modern era and it’s impossible to know anything for sure.
2.When one addresses specifics, the response is;
you are using a “straw man” argument.
I think I am going to write a new song “Man of Straw” and deicate to the ecm/liberals or to whomever it applies.
3.The “new thing” uses shovels full of rhetoric and overgeneralization, and then calls specifics, minor points”
You gotta laugh or you would cry.
January 18, 2007 @ 6:35 amLaughing or you’d cry cuts both ways… and thanks for proving my point; once again a short list of accusations/issues was raised (regarding why a certain brand of watch-bogging needs confronted) and the issues are not addressed, instead excuses and justifications are given.
Although I’ll grant you this, it’s good you say you’ve never engaged in such tactics listed, I assume you see the wrongness of them, and how Ken, to be specific, abuses them regularly.
Hmmm… I wonder if Ken has ever pointed out a good element or point in the argument of anyone who’s disagreed with his interpretation of the facts?
January 18, 2007 @ 8:24 am[...] Tickling One’s Own Ears, Part One A fantastic exposition of the tactics and motivation behind the paranoid nature of the “witch hunters” and why they think they have been called by God to “keep and eye on the rest of us”. Here’s a great line from the article: “Watch-doggies” WANT the negatives to be true about the preachers, teachers and trends within the Church, and they want to be the ones to denounce these negatives. In these negatives, they find the justification for their existence. Unfortunately, they are so intent on finding the witches in our midst that they begin to create the witches themselves by shaping them out of whole cloth, painting them black and putting large, black, pointed hats on their heads. [...]
January 18, 2007 @ 12:59 pmThis reminded me of a great Dr Seuss story about the Hawtch-Hawtcher Bee-Watcher.
I dug it up and posted it on my blog if you’re interested.
January 18, 2007 @ 10:08 pmI have to agree that Verum Serum appears to be guilty of the same basic charge it makes against the watchdogs that it has determined are harmful. Right now Google is reporting 347 blog entries on Verum Serum that mention Slice. Perhaps not all of those are valid pages to cite, but a quick look at some of the titles on a few of those posts shows an obsession with “watchdogging the watchdog”.
Verum Serum can try to justify that by giving nuanced reasons why their own watchdog behavior is more worthy or more acceptable than the other watchdogs, but in the end – those who think objectively should be able to see through that.
VS should feel free to watch the watchdogs, but they shouldn’t patronize their audience by speaking out against the behavior that they themselves practice. Again, most of us see through that.
January 23, 2007 @ 11:57 amJim,
Sorry to argue with your assertions, but I’ve got to say that you’ve got it wrong on several counts.
On Verum Serum, there have actually been 30 posts that have dealt with Slice/Chrisitan Research Network/Ken Silva in one form or another, not 347. If you notice on your Google link, most of the items listed are either times when Slice was mentioned in the Comments of a post, or they are duplicate listings of the same Slice post.
There are currently 625 posts in the VS archives, which means that Slice/Christian Research Network/Ken Silva has been the topic of just over 4% of the posts.
I don’t think that qualifies as an obsession.
If you actually read over both parts of this “Tickling One’s Own Ears” post, you will know that I don’t discount the need for and benefit of having discernment organizations. Having eyes focused inward and/or outward is essential for protecting the Faith, but the key is balance. Being focused on threats from only the outside of the Church leaves the faith open to attacks from within, while focusing only within leaves the walls unprotected from attacks without.
At its core, your logic is flawed. You appear to be saying that because we at VS have pointed out things that we disagree with coming from the Ken Silvas and Ingrids of the Christian blogosphere, we are just as guilty as they are. You’ve been watching way to many bad TV movies my friend (“We can’t do this, because if we do we’ll be just as guilty as and no better than they are.”)
Again, my point has never been that all watch-dogging is wrong. My point has always been that the brand of watch-dogging that is practiced by Ken, Ingrid, Chris P. and the like is flawed because of the assumptions that they make in the process of watch-dogging, the assumptions being:
1) There is no room for discussion/debate/disagreement about the areas they are concerned about.
2) Their personal preferences dictate orthodoxy and heresy.
3) Their “discernment” allows them to distinguish between who is saved and who isn’t, whose fruit is genuine and whose is counterfeit.
It seems as though your ability to “see” isn’t quite as clear as you think.
January 23, 2007 @ 1:46 pmScott said: “You appear to be saying that because we at VS have pointed out things that we disagree with coming from the Ken Silvas and Ingrids of the Christian blogosphere, we are just as guilty as they are.”
Why do you dig for “what I appear to be saying” rather than reading what I clearly said. You just changed my words. I never said anything about “just as guilty”. What I said was that you are guilty of the same thing that you say they are guilty of. It’s the same category error. I spoke nothing of a matter of degree, as you implied I did.
I conceded that not all 347 were likely to be reflective of your watchdog compaign against Slice, I did (and still do) invite objective readers to review that Google link in my last post, and decide for themselves if this is an obsession on Verum Serum’s part.
You say that many of those posts are commenters mentioning Slice, but clearly that’s because they understand this site to be a place where anti-Slice watch-doggery is encouraged and welcomed. And so your commenters make their own statement about your blog, just as you’ve made the case before that Slice’s commenters make a statement about Slice. And there has been a fair share of name calling towards Slice people on this blog as well. That’s supposed to be an abuse that only happens over there, some say.
Next, I would appeal to the objective reader to look at Verum Serum’s list of token discernment ministries which they “approve”. Note that none of them deal with the sacred cows (so to speak) that Verum Serum likes to defend, Rick Warren being one of them. So is this really a case of some discernment ministries are good and others are bad? Or is it more along party lines – ie: “the ones that don’t knock Verum Serum’s progressive leaders and movements – those are the ‘good’ discernment ministries”.
Re: Your numbered points:
1) There doesn’t have to be a discussion on a news site. Do you go to CNN.com and demand a fair hearing in the form of comments that they should allow you to make on their website?
2) It’s their site. They can speak out against anything they want. You can do the same on your site. Discernment ministries are always open to this charge of “personal preference”. It’s their view of scripture. You have yours.
3) Rarely. I don’t read everything they post there, but I’ve rarely seen them make that call. And when they do – it’s based on clear cases of heresy such as TD Jake’s modalism. We can play your little percentage game, and ask in what percentage of their posts do they judge a leader’s salvation. I’ll bet it comes out to .0001 percent.
Face the facts. You’ve made yourself their personal watchdog, and this whole post knocking them for being a watchdog is therefore a double standard. I’m sure you won’t acknowledge that, but at least some of your readers (above) already have. I’d guess that other people lurking have done so as well.
This whole post of your chips away at your claims to objectivity. Verum Serum has an axe to grind, and that’s what we hear talking – in the Google link above.
January 23, 2007 @ 3:25 pmJim,
You did concede that not all 347 of the items in your Google list were likely to be reflective of my “watchdog campaign,” but at the same time your inclusion of the seemingly large number read like an attempt by you to “poison the well” before a reader had the time to check the link out for themselves. I simply did what you invited me to do and looked over the links and compared them to our internal statistics. I then told you what the numbers actually are. Sorry if you don’t like the actual breakdown of percentages, but you’re the one who accused me of having an obsession with Slice/Christian Research Network. As I said before, 4% of the posts on VS doesn’t really qualify as an obsession.
As ALWAYS, readers are welcomed and challenged to investigate anything that is said on this site. We don’t filter comments or slant the discussion. Posts and comments are put up in real time and the discussions flow without manipulation from either John or myself. We simply become part of the discussion.
You said that many of the comments that are mentioned in your 347 item Google list are “commenters mentioning Slice, but clearly that’s because they understand this site to be a place where anti-Slice watch-doggery is encouraged and welcomed.”
I am assuming that you are fairly new to our site, because if you had been reading VS for awhile, or if you had bothered to read over several of the posts and the accompanying comments, you would see that a very large percentage of those who made comments are actually Slice supporters who came over to become part of the discussion and to defend Ken and/or Ingrid.
Again, this is true because we don’t filter comments the way the Slice crowd did/does. Ken Silva himself has engaged us on many of the topics, as have some of the other Slice contributors including Chris P., Henry F., and others.
What “token list” of discernment ministries are you referring to? Are you talking about the short list that I put up in my “Itching One’s Own Ears” posts, or our blogroll or what? If you are talking about the list that I included in my posts, it was not meant to be comprehensive. These are just a few of the ministries with which I am most familiar and/or with which I have worked over the years. And contrary to your statement, several of these discernment ministries HAVE dealt with issues connected to Rick Warren, the emergent church, seeker-sensitivity, etc. I believe of the 5 ministries I mentioned, only Reasons to Believe hasn’t dealt with those issues, primarily because Hugh Ross and his people are focused on the intersection of faith and science which is a different area entirely than where groups like Apprising Ministries and Slice/Christian Information Network try to make their mark.
My point in mentioning those organizations in particular was that they handle their “calling” responsibly and are highly respected both inside and outside the church. They speak to the issues that God places on their hearts and minds, but they do so, as Walter Martin used to say, “with gentleness and respect.” There are many, many others who do the same thing. My list was just a few examples off the top of my head to contrast with the vicious, illogical, isogetical, pharisaical pronouncements that come from Ken, Ingrid, Chris P. and the gang.
About my three points, you seemed to have misunderstood them entirely. Let me explain them for you:
1) There is no room for discussion/debate/disagreement about the areas they are concerned about. I am saying that in the minds of these “hyper-discernment ministries,” it is their way or the highway. They don’t believe there is room for disagreement or debate when it comes to the issues upon which they are making pronouncements. Disagreement, in their eyes, is tantamount to heresy and/or apostacy and/or selling out the gospel.
2) Their personal preferences dictate orthodoxy and heresy. I am saying that in the pieces generated on Slice in particular and on occasion on Apprising, there is a tendency to attempt to allign their preferences in sermon style, program style, worship style, church location, building amenities, etc with what is acceptable to God. They go beyond the “it was better in the good old days” mentality and take it way over the top into the “it was more pleasing to God in the good old days” mentality. You’re right when you say that it is their site and they can say what they want. However, when they begin to make pronouncements from the mountaintop about what is right and godly and what isn’t and when their only support is their own personal preferences, that is when they cross the line and need to be called to accountability.
3) Their “discernment” allows them to distinguish between who is saved and who isn’t, whose fruit is genuine and whose is counterfeit. You say they do this rarely. Man, you really must not have been around very long! Ken and Ingrid make a habit of making salvic judgments on Rob Bell, Rick Warren, attenders of their churches, myself, John (my blogging partner), Chris L. over at Fishing the Abyss, etc. You say that in the case of the Slice crowd, you “bet it comes out to .0001 percent.” I would caution you from making that bet, my friend. It is a bet that would lose.
And even if you were right that is was only .0001 percent, does that make it right? Do they (or you) have the right to judge the very status of T.D. Jake’s soul? Yes, he is a modalist. Yes, I disagree with his position. However, does his modalistic view of the Trinity necessarily equate to a lack of understanding of the person of Christ and the saving atonement of His sacrifice? Is a “proper” understanding of the Trinity necessary for salvation? If you think so, explain why.
The Trinity is a difficult doctrine for anyone to deal with. It deals with the person(s) of God and their relationship with each other. How does that change T.D. Jake’s salvation as long as he has a proper understanding of the basic gospel message (ie…sinfulness of man and our separation from God, the need for a savior, the promised messiah, the virgin birth of Christ, the sinless life of Christ, the atoning death of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, Jesus standing in our stead as the propitiation for our sins, etc). If T.D. Jakes has THAT understanding, then even if his view of the Trinity is wrong (which I think it is) does that necessitate the judgment that he is in fact unsaved?
If that is the case, what about those Christians who lived during the first couple hundred years of the Christian faith who lived their lives and lived out their faiths without the benefit of a full understanding of the meaning of the Trinity? The Trinity was a theological concept that was ironed out over time, not immediately known and accessible to the masses.
As far as having an axe to grind, I do object to these types of organizations that place themselves at the level of final arbiter of Truth for the rest of us. It never seems to enter their minds (or yours) that they might be wrong on their grand pronouncements and judgments. It never seems to enter their minds (or yours) that though the way is narrow, it doesn’t mean that the way is only as wide as their own footprints.
Ken, Ingrid and the gang have been equated with pharisees at a variety of sites on the internet.
There is a reason for that.
January 23, 2007 @ 4:58 pmI need only point out one thing to make the point that I came here to make. From Scott’s words above:
“…when [Slice] began to make pronouncements from the mountaintop about what is right and godly and what isn’t and when their only support is their own personal preferences, that is when they cross the line and need to be called to accountability.”
Hence YOU HAVE DECLARED YOURSELF TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR “CALLING THEM TO ACCOUNTABILITY”.
That’s watchdoggery at it’s finest folks.
Now for you to condemn anyone else for being a watchdog, you must have either a double standard, or you must be blind to your own actions. If being a watchdog is wrong, you are in fact guilty of Matthew 7 judging, in that you judge someone else on something that YOU YOURSELF DO: “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.”
I’m content in allowing the readers to review that Google link above and determine for themselves whether what I am pointing out about Verum Serum is true or not. I would encourage readers to look past the “spin”, and I would also point out that Scott’s refusal to condemn modalism in his comment above, a heresy going back centuries, is an example of a red flag that speaks loudly of why Verum Serum has such an axe to grind. Those who hold to age-old biblical doctrines and reject new challenges to them, are the bad guys here apparently, and pharisees as well. They need to be “exposed”, and dog gone it – Verum Serum is going to do it.
Keep grinding away at your axe, hopefully you will loose more readers as more and more of them begin to see the clear abandonment of objectivity.
January 23, 2007 @ 6:26 pmJim,
This is pathetic. It really is. We’ve been accused of “blindness” so many times now I can only assume you think we’re deaf as well.
As for you Google link, your research skills are as good as your discernment skills. Yes, Google comes up with 339 hits for the word slice on VS. If you look at them though, there are about 30 posts over 6-8 months and all the rest are references to other mentions of the word in the same 30 posts.
Actually, there are some references to slice which have nothing to do with Slice of Laodicea and a whole lot of pages that link to nothing. For instance, check page 7 of the search you provided. If you click on the links you’ll find that only one of the ten items on that page links to a post about Slice. The other nine have nothing to do with Slice. Now go to page 8 of the search. Again, only one item on that page links to a post about Slice and what is actually being listed is the RSS feed of one of the same posts that have already been counted. I could go on for another 10-12 pages but as you say the intelligent reader can do this him or herself and quickly discover that your point is ridiculous.
The bottom line is we have not written that much about Slice. Therefore there’s nothing hypocritical about what Scott or I wrote. Slice/CRI has devoted their entire ministry effort into bashing other Christians. They literally see it as their calling. We’ve written a few dozen posts and a few dozen comments over six months time. It’s not even 10% of what we write here. It’s certainly not our full time job or our calling. I think I’ve written as many posts about Scandinavia as I have about Slice in the last six months (but feel free to Google it).
As far as calling people to accountability, every believer has that right. We’re a nation of priests. We all have the right to call one another to account. There’s a difference between calling to account and calling someone a tool of Satan or a spiritual pedophile. Clearly the Slice authors haven’t discerned that difference.
So please keep dodging the point and making false accusations based on phantom evidence. It’s clearly what Slice and its supporters do best.
January 23, 2007 @ 8:13 pmJim,
I’m guessing that you are the one who has an axe to grind. I wasn’t sure if you were just a new visitor to VS or if you were a Slice/Christian Research Network/Apprising Ministries supporter. I guess you have answered that question both in what you have said AND in how you have said it.
You say that I have declared myself to be responsible for “calling them (the Ken-Ingrid gang) to accountability.” I don’t say that I alone am responsible. I say that we are ALL responsible for calling brothers and sisters to accountability.
Again, you seem to want to paint my position as being against discernment groups. I don’t know if you just aren’t getting it or if you are deliberately ignoring that point. I am NOT against people using discernment. I am not against accountability. I am against IRRESPONSIBLE and/or UNSUBSTANTIATED claims of discernment. I am against people who want to claim the title of “Thus sayeth the Lord” for everything that they say when they can’t support or substantiate that claim in any way, or worse, their statements are proven to be without merit or out-and-out false (which has happened on several occasions, especially with “Reverend” Ken).
If I may, let me remind you of a few passages that I am sure you are familiar with:
I John 4:1 – Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God
I Thessalonians 5:21 – Test everything.
Galatians 1:8-9 – But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
These verses make it obvious that we are to use the judgment and discernment with which we have been equipped by God. We use the Bible and the discernment given to us by the Holy Spirit, combined with the logic and reason with which God equipped us, combined with the wisdom gained through experience and the history of the Church in order to weigh and evaluate what people claim comes from God.
Hyper-discernment “ministries” like those run by Ken, Ingrid and the like don’t want to be held accountable. They want everyone to accept what they say without researching it, without investigating it, without testing it against what the Bible ACTUALLY says in the CONTEXT with which it was intended.
What I have tried to do and what my blogging partner John has tried to do is to “test” what is said over at Slice/Christian Research Network/Apprising Ministries using all of the tools with which the Lord has equipped us. In doing so, it becomes obvious that much of what they say isn’t worth the space it takes up on the internet.
One last thing. You said, “I would also point out that Scott’s refusal to condemn modalism in his comment above, a heresy going back centuries, is an example of a red flag that speaks loudly of why Verum Serum has such an axe to grind.” Perhaps you need to pay closer attention. I did NOT refuse to condemn modalism. In fact, I specifically stated that I disagree with the position that Jakes holds in relation to the Trinity. What I said was that neither Ken, nor Ingrid nor you are in a place of judgment to make a pronouncement as to the validity of Jakes’ salvation based on his position on the Trinity.
There is a Big difference, though perhaps not big enough for you to understand and/or appreciate.
As I explained to Chris P. last week in a comment related to this post, if you were to look at my own personal belief statement in relation to the historic Christian faith (age-old biblical doctrines), you would probably find me at least as conservative as you are in most respects. I believe in absolute Truth and reject anything that smacks of relativism.
What I have a problem with are those people who feel like it is their place to decide what is ESSENTIAL for salvation, because typically their list of essentials is also a list of those things that they personally hold to. There is no room for debate or discussion or points of disagreement. For them it is all or nothing, or as I said before, it’s their way or the highway.
One last time for the record (just in case Ken Silva comes across this and decides to misquote it within the body of one of his “missives”) – I “reject” modalism. Though I believe that the Trinity is a difficult concept to deal with, I believe that the Trinitarian view most closely resembles the “right” and/or most “accurate” understanding of the concept.
That being said, I don’t believe that a wrong understanding of the doctrinal/theological concept of the Trinity automatically invalidates a person’s salvation. If a right/proper understanding of the Trinity was THAT essential for salvation, it would have been taught explicitly by Christ within the gospels and it would have been taught much more clearly within the writings of the apostles.
Fortunately, that is God’s call, not mine nor yours nor Ken’s nor Ingrid’s.
By the way, Jim, is there any chance that you are Ken Silva using a proxy? I ask because some of the verbiage that you have been using has a distinct ring to it, a ring that echoes the “Reverend” Ken quite closely.
Just curious.
January 23, 2007 @ 8:40 pmBoy, you guys love to dodge and spin. Let me make this more simple. Just compare these two statements by Scott:
Statement #1 at the top of the article:
“I have become more and more fascinated with the whole concept of people feeling as though they have been called upon (by God) to keep watch over the rest of us.”
Statement #2, a few comments above:
“…when [Slice] began to make pronouncements from the mountaintop about what is right and godly and what isn’t and when their only support is their own personal preferences, that is when they cross the line and need to be called to accountability.”
Compare those two statements, made by the same person (Scott) on this same page, and suddenly this third statement by John shows itself for what it really is: “Therefore there’s nothing hypocritical about what Scott or I wrote.”
January 23, 2007 @ 9:19 pmJim,
So is that an admission that your Google challenge was completely spurious and without merit.
I thought so.
January 24, 2007 @ 1:00 am“Jim,”
Your uniquely myopic perspective has even more successfully persuaded me that you are either Ken Silva in disguise or are at least a relation to “Reverend” Ken. Maybe we should start calling you Ken, Jr.
You are like an overly aggressive dog that chases after something and gets its teeth into it, only to find that what he caught isn’t what he thought he was chasing. Rather than just letting go, the dog just keeps chewing and gnawing in the misguided hope that if he holds onto his prize long enough, it will transform into what he hoped it was originally. But it never does.
You might disagree with what Verum Serum has said, which is fine. Our faith allows for dissent and disagreement in many matters. However, rather than actually trying to attack us on the merits of what we have said over the last year, you have chosen to try and play a game of numbers and semantics (a game you play quite poorly, which is one of the reasons you bear such a strong resemblance to Ken Silva).
But just to be sure it is clear, let me walk you through our exchanges. John and I have responded to every point you have made, but each time we do you try to focus on some minor point of order (another aspect of Ken Silva’s style of flaccid argumentation) as though the minor point of disagreement that you have voiced is enough to discount and destroy everything that we have been trying to say over the last several months.
In case you missed it…
You tried to bring up your version of damning evidence in the form of your Google search with 347 references to Slice on our site. You tried to play both sides of that coin by conceding that though some of the references listed by Google may not be accurate, the really high number shows how I/we are obsessed with attacking Slice. You invite those who are able to “think objectively” (your words) to check out the Google link. (Interestingly enough, like Ken before you, you seem to believe that thinking objectively means to agree with you/your opinion, not to actually exercise independent skills of evaluation).
John and I DID look over your Google challenge and we point out how inaccurate the number is and how you seemed to want to use it just because the 347 sounds so impressive. In the end, I believe that those who are able to “think objectively” will see that we have written 30 posts over the last year or so that actually deal with Slice and the gang. For each of these posts we have entertained discussions that have engaged people on BOTH sides of the issues (a claim that the Slice crew could never make since that group doesn’t allow for dissent and discussion). Less than 5% of our posts have dealt with Ingrid, Ken, et al. If that is an obsession as you claim, it is an obsession of mickey-mouse proportions.
Next you tried to create a straw man (perhaps I should use the alternate label of straw dog since people of the watch-doggie/Slice persuasion use this method so often). You claim that I speak out against watchdogging, but this is not the case nor has it ever been. I simply object to the particular brand of watchdogging practiced by Slice/Christian Research Network/Apprising Ministries. I object for the reasons I have stated previously:
-Their use of flawed logic
-Their poor use of analytical skills
-Their poor use of Biblical hermeneutics
-Their use of rabid demagoguery
-Their belief that THEIR preferences equate to God’s preferences
-Their belief that they are qualified/equipped to judge the validity of the salvation of others
-Their belief that they are qualified/equipped to judge the worth of the fruit of other ministries including the salvations/baptisms that occur
People who defend the Slice Patrol complain about what we are saying, but rather than evaluating what we say using some sort of objective and/or provable criteria, they (and you it seems) demagogue and practice well-honed skills of myopic pseudo-analysis. They/you can’t deal with the specific charges of which these groups are amply guilty, so instead they/you name call and “major in the minors.”
And then as part of the crusade against anyone who dares to voice disagreement, you try and throw up a bogus charge against me of being soft on something like modalism. You out-and-out misrepresent the truth and claim that I had refused to condemn it when it was obvious that wasn’t the case at all. Yet you don’t acknowledge your misrepresentation. You simply pretend that it didn’t happen (yet another characteristic of the Ken Silva School of Discernment).
As I said previously, Jim, more and more you bear a striking resemblance to the “Reverend” Ken Silva. You may not actually BE Ken (though I seriously do have my suspicions), if he knows you he must certainly be proud of you and how you model his method of dealing with people.
January 24, 2007 @ 9:52 amOK, let’s…
Statement #1 is an introductory statement on the motivation and/or attending circumstances which cause said poster to undertake a blog on this topic – in this case watchdog sites dedicated to keeping watch over others.
Statement #2 is an illustrative statement further exploring the improper methods employed by a specific site – that is the former Slice.
Your attempt to argue that this is “watchdoggery at it’s finest” – or that they are somehow guilty of the same thing fails on several fronts:
1) it assumes that what is being argued against is watch-dogging, which is not the case.
2) it ignores the fact that post #2 specifies those who should be held accountable are those using dishonest methods and faulty logic.
So, for your argument to be valid, those here must be guilty of employing the same immature tactics as Ken et. al. – and since they don’t your argument fails and the statements remain complementary, not contradictory.
Or, taking another of your challenges, when we
we see that John’s statement is correct, there is no hypocrisy about anything either man wrote.
January 24, 2007 @ 12:56 pmI kind of liked your description of a dog chasing it’s tail. My mastiff puppy has been doing that feverishly each night for about fifteen minutes before falling asleep. It seems to give him some measure of comfort.
Maybe there is a parallel there…
January 24, 2007 @ 9:37 pmCan you guys help me out? Isn’t there a blog that simply syndicates what Slice posts and then opens the comment section up to everyone without censorship? I seem to remember it being referred to on this blog…but I can’t seem to find it in a google search.
January 25, 2007 @ 10:31 amMatt,
Yeah, I think there is one, but I can’t remember either.
Chris L, do you know what it’s called?
January 25, 2007 @ 11:00 pmhttp://www.emergentno.com – EmergentWHAT? It has not added the CRN feed yet, tho…
At http://christianresearchnetwork.info/ I am not adding a feed, but I am running commentary on issues raised by CRN (basically bundling themes, rather than single articles). I posted one on music last night, to which Ingrid replied to correct the hyperbole I’d used in describing CRN’s stance on the subject…
January 26, 2007 @ 5:48 amMatt,
Emergent What? used to do that here:
http://www.emergentno.com/
I’m not sure if they still do now that there is the new site CRN. I pray this helps. :-)
January 26, 2007 @ 6:03 am[...] while back, the guys at VerumSerum.com (one of my favorite blogs) decided to walk the plank and publicly announce their disagreement with the so-called “discernment” ministry blogs out there. Obviously, the [...]
February 15, 2007 @ 3:32 am