Yesterday, Jared Moore submitted a post called, “Do You Desire Revenge or Repentance?’ focusing on a phenomenon I have seen often in blogging. As Jared admitted, there is a biblical place for correction and calls to repentance, but I’ve seen that go way overboard – and often. I’ve observed “discernment bloggers” go postal on those they believe are in sin, leading me to believe that they want the destruction of the other side more than they want true repentance leading to restoration. I realize that this is a personal observation and opinion, but it is one I’ve observed and strongly believe to be true.
I thought Jared’s post hit the nail right on the head, addressing this issue very well.
Evidently, though, there was more to the story than I knew. A blogger, known as “Jim G” had some pretty harsh things to say about Jared’s post, and even Jared himself. Here is some of what he said.
- You are shamefully repeating a tactic I’ve called out on this blog many times…
- This is nothing but cowardice, and you should stop it.
- So, man up, Jared.
- …you should be above such manipulation.
- The accusation was slander…
Why was Jim so upset? What troubled him so much about a post that seemed to me to be biblically based and relatively benign.
That’s when I found out the backstory. Jared had evidently sent a text to several bloggers whom he believed had violated the guidelines he set forth in his post. Three were named, I do not know if there were others. Jim advocated that Jared should “name names” and address specific issues in the post. Jared’s intent was to write a more general principle, but Jim felt that was some sort of dodge.
One of his points is that blogging should always be specific, that general posts such as Jared’s (and many I have written) are not good and not honoring to God.
- So, man up, Jared. Quit hiding behind your vague accusations. You are accusing TWW of sin – at least it is pretty apparent to me.
Evidently, to Jim, writing generally instead of specifically can only be motivated by cowardice. In response to a comment by me, Jim said,
- There is no such thing as a “general problem.” If there is a widespread problem, then there are multiple instances of a specific problem. Jared tweeted out, by his own admission, to a handful of people he thought were doing wrong. I have no problem with that. Then, he posts this article vaguely accusing “discernment bloggers” of sin. “General problems” aren’t committing these sins, if in fact they are being committed. Jared had real people in mind – specific ones, as he admitted – yet would not say who they are.
Jim denies the reality of a general problem and seems to be arguing that we should address specific issues by naming names.
I have heard that dozens of times. Name names. Address specific situations not generalities. I, too, have been accused of cowardice for not often engaging in direct confrontation. More than once, I’ve had the label “passive aggressive” lodged against me. Both accusations may be true from time to time, but I have some other reasons that normally, I address blogging issues in generalizations rather than in specifics.
Here are some thoughts about this process.
1) I used to do a lot of “Battle Blogging.”
I tried it; didn’t like it. I called out this person or that for reasons I thought were valid. Looking back, some of them were good, some were pretty shaky. If you look back in my long mothballed personal blog (This Tent’s Just Right), you will find quite a few of those. I have written a few at sbcIMPACT and and here as well. Every once in a while I see something I think needs to be addressed and do it. But for the most part, I’ve just come to believe that battle blogging is spiritually unproductive. It can make me feel better to “let someone have it” but it does little for the kingdom.
2) I agree that addressing a specific situation in generalities is cowardly.
Two bloggers come to my mind from the wild west days of blogging (no, I’m not going to name them – you can blast me in the comments for that!) who would do this all the time. One actually wrote a series of diatribes against me, but my name was never named. Everyone knew exactly who was in this person’s sights, but names were never mentioned. The blogger was trying to deliver a specific message to me as a generalization. It did seem a little cowardly to me. When I tried to contact the person by email, I was told that the person had no desire to talk to me. Essentially, it was okay to talk about me on blogs (in a non-specific way) but not to talk to me personally.
I remember another blogger who wrote often in opposition to the various causes, campaigns and crusades of Wade Burleson. Almost none of his articles named Wade but it took an IQ of about 78 to realize who was being discussed.
My general impression was that these bloggers were trying to make specific accusations without being held accountable. “Why did you say that about me?” “Excuse me? You were never mentioned!”
I always thought that kind of blogging was silly. If you are making a specific point, don’t couch it in generalities. So, to that extent, I agree with Jim. If you are going to make a specific point about a specific person, then you should be specific about it.
3) There is a difference between engaging people and engaging ideas.
I have been planning to write an article about eschatology in direct response to one my friend Joel Rainey posted. Dealing with theological issues and people’s opinions should obviously be done specifically. Disagreeing with someone’s ideas, opinions, or biblical interpretations is not personal and ought not be considered to be an insult.
4) Public debate is not the place to work out private angst or animosity.
I know many will not agree with me on this, and I will admit that I have most definitely violated this in my blogging career. But very little good comes from engaging in angry public debate. A personal dispute is better solved quietly, by phone or email, rather than out in the world for all to see.
Let me use a specific illustration here, thanks to the example from my onblast friend. For many years, there has been a public, acrimonious debate between supporters of Ergun Caner and those who oppose him. A lot of blood has been spilled in the debate. Calls for repentance. Personal insults. Diatribes, screeds, invectives, harangues, and tirades.
After several years of that, are we any closer to unity or reconciliation than we were when this all started? Has any of this produced any genuine repentance from anyone?
I’m still waiting to see two people go after each other publicly and see it result in the edification of the Body of Christ.
5) There are general conditions that should be addressed generally.
This is my thesis and the point at which evidently Jim would disagree. He claimed there is “no such thing as a ‘general problem.'” He is wrong about that. I’ve seen many tendencies that are common to large groups of blog commenters. So, I write articles about generalities instead of dealing with specifics.
When you address general situations by using specific illustrations, your point gets lost in the personal back and forth. It becomes about the person rather than the idea!
Let’s go back to Jared’s post. I didn’t know about the exchanges Jared had with other bloggers by twitter, so I simply read the post as it was written. It was not about whether I liked this person or that person’s style. It was about the principle. Jim focused on a particular person and so the discussion became focused not on the point Jared was making but on his judgment of a blogger he liked and whom he thought Jared was attacking.
Through the years I’ve been involved in blogging, I’ve often been more focused on the process of blogging than some of the disputes themselves. I’m more concerned about the WAY we discuss Calvinism than the discussion itself. For me, it’s about how we interact and how we communicate.
So, I tend to look for tendencies and patterns of behavior rather than call out individuals or address specific situations.
6) You can’t make rules, only guidelines.
Like most things, it is impossible to make absolute rules here – it’s more of an art than a science.
Here i am arguing for the value of writing generalities while responding directly to Jim’s comments. In the midst of the discussion, I’ve mentioned several specific instances but in others I’ve left things general. I have reasons why I made some things specific and others general, and it makes sense to me. You might not understand my logic or conviction. You do the best you can and I’ll do the best I can.
But I do have some guidelines by which I operate. For the most part, I try to avoid personal grievances on public blogs – I just don’t think it is productive. I go private (email, etc) to resolve those.
I prefer to address patterns, trends and common behaviors rather than using my blogging platform to settle personal issues.
That’s how I see it and I feel comfortable trying to put these principles into practice.
“Almost none of his articles named Wade but it took an IQ of about 78 to realize who was being discussed.”
Your passive-aggressive attack on Tarheel in this statement was uncalled for. 😉
Bawahahahaha.
Adam, you’re a baffoon. 😉
I’m just glad that Dave Miller called people out by name in a post that seem to be saying that we should speak in generalities about callout people by name. 😉
Let me try that again…
I’m just glad that Dave Miller called people out by name in a post that seemed to be saying that we should speak in generalities and not callout people by name. 😉
Hi Dave,
I’m fine with most of what you wrote, with the possible exception of intimating I’m being anonymous. I’m not and you know that. I even wrote a guest post on this blog not all that long ago.
Hold Jared to the same standard to which you hold me. I’d defend people I don’t like from thinly-veiled attempts to shame them into silence. I don’t always know it is happening. I just happened to know this time.
Thanks for the interaction.
Jim G.
Jim G., Come on… “shame them into silence.” That’s not an accurate description at all.
I wasn’t sure Jim. I know your name but as I was writing this I wasn’t sure if that was something you revealed publicly.
Though I’m not a fan of anonymity I’m never reveal the name if done with who is writing anonymously.
I have only been involved in reading blogs for little more than a year. In that time I have read some good stuff and I have had a lot of fun. However, in that time I have read a lot of trash. While I agree that there is a great burden on the writer to display a degree of integrity there is also a burden on the reader. When I come to the trash, I consider the source, wonder how a person can be so ignorant, and then move on. Trash is the writers problem not mine and I will not make it mine.
The problem is that blogs etc. have such potential to do good, spread the gospel, inform etc. It is a shame that there are those who cannot take advantage of that in a positive way. However, again reality is reality. I say consider the source, move on , and have a good day. Those who are full of negativism are miserable enough they don’t need me adding to that.
See, DL. Posts like this is why I wanna be like you when I grow up…that was beautiful sir.
Tarheel
Thank you my friend. The only thing is too bad we have to grow up at all. Being a kid was more fun 🙂
Tarheel: You don’t know D.L. like I do. He is full of mischief from start to finish.
Oh Yeah!
1. Writing is more engaging the more specific it is. Even general posts become more helpful if they include specific examples.
2. Discretion truly sometimes is the better part of valor. It is not always cowardly not to name names.
3. It becomes UNIVERSALLY cowardly and sinful if, when confronted, you say, “That wasn’t about YOU,” when really it was.
4. I can’t believe nobody has mentioned Carly Simon yet. She mastered this genre. 🙂
“You’re so vain…you probably think this post is about you?”
Correct!
3) There is a difference between engaging people and engaging ideas.
To me, this is where this issue gets cloudy. I have 100% confidence that you will be able to correct Joel’s faulty theology on the End Times without insulting him or you two guys becoming adversarial. Joel’s latest blog dealing with Dr. Gordon Fee’s thoughts on Galatians and egalitarian issues is a perfect example of engaging an idea and not a person. http://joelrainey.blogspot.com/2014/10/theology-thursday-complementarian.html
However, the majority of “discernment blogs” that I am familiar with, in my opinion, are nothing more than smoke screens to attack or discredit those who disagree with their positions.
What may be a good guideline for blogging may not be a good guideline for preaching. I remember once years ago when a church member made a small power play. I can’t even remember the details now. I worked a few thoughts on this matter into a sermon I was preaching. A very wise deacon came by my office Monday morning and said, “Bro. Dean everyone in this church is following your leadership. Evidently someone has challenged you over the last couple of weeks on an issue. You got somethings off your chest yesterday morning. I am happy for you. As my pastor I ask that next time you speak to the one person who needs to be spoken to and not the other 200 who have no idea what is going on.” Others may disagree but this has been my rule in the pastorate ever since.
Dean, that is some good advice.
Deacons can be very, very wise – can’t they?
I know that at my church we pastors are tremendously blessed to have a bunch of wise ones.
I agree that bloggers should be careful, but it seems to me that without bloggers, a whole lot of especially egregious things surrounding Mahaney, and Driscoll, to name two, would not have come to light, and the people hurt by these two situations (if not these two men specifically) would be in a far worse place.
…and of course there’s the caner misdeeds that were exposed by bloggers as well.
I agree Bill. These two men and others needed to be written about when no one else would. The survivors in both this needed the sounding board and someone to be a voice when they could not be due to the horrific(and I do not use that word lightly) wounds that are now healing due to these discernment blogs.
Bloggers must be careful not to trade one sin for another. Every time we bear false witness against someone, we create another victim. The good the wartburg watch has done does not justify the bad that it’s done. A lack of Christian love is never justified. In other words, the wartburg watch does not get a “pass” for slander just because it has done some good. Let’s commend the good and rebuke the bad. With the wartburg watch, I’m not wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I’m also not wanting to praise the baby and the bath water.
…then you need to identify the sins of Wartburg rather than presume them. It looks like you are predisposed against them because they have a focus on “calvinistas”…same for Lumpkins.
William, where have I even mentioned Calvinism? My comments have nothing to do with Calvinism. I even referenced negatively the pulpitandpen article. You know the pulpitandpen is a Calvinist ministry, right? I think it’s your presuppositions that are informing your opinion, not what I’ve actually written.
So, I’ll ask you the same thing I asked Jim G. Did the Wartburg Watch prove its “opinions” in this article? http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/09/29/how-mark-driscoll-shamefully-used-a-female-missionary
Opinions don’t have to be proven, by definition. If we stop writing and publishing opinions, this blog shuts down today.
Bill, then by your definition, you can say anything about anybody, as long as you say, “It’s my opinion.” Yet, slander is bearing false witness. If I say, “It’s my opinion that so-and-so abused his children,” and he didn’t, that’s slander. We share our opinions for the purpose of persuading our hearers. If our opinion creates a false impression of someone, we’re guilty of slander. Christ will hold us accountable for every idle word (Matt. 12:36).
I don’t think that was what he was saying, jared.
And what has TWW said that is false?
Bill Mac, follow the link to the article I gave to William. Did TWW prove their “opinions”?
Jared: You did not address me, but I would answer an emphatic yes, they did prove it. I just finished reading the article in question from beginning to end. They received a letter from the missionary woman directly. I would say that was pretty good proof of what they were writing.
I read the article, the letter and see nothing they did not prove.
So, if I write Dave Miller a letter stating that so and so is a so and so and did such and such…and then he writes a scathing blog about that person based solely on my letter with no other verification he’s “proven it”?
Tarheel: It happened to the very person who wrote the letter. Yeah, I would think they would know what they are talking about. That would be proof enough for me.
If I came to you as a member of your church and told you I as a wife was being abused, or if a child came to you and said they were being abused by someone either sexually or verbally or physically, I would hope that you would take that as truth. I would.
That is the whole point of the discernment blogs, not putting people through more grief and abuse than they have already been through, but actually taking them at their word. I need nothing else and neither should you.
Here is another good the discernment blogs are doing. Shedding light where most in the church refuse to shed it. This was written due to another letter being written to the author. Yes, I believe the person.
http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2014/10/05/christian-domestic-discipline-wife-spanking-a-personal-story-and-a-closer-look-at-patterns-connected-with-this-abusive-practice/
Except for the times when someone’s life has been ruined by false accusations made for whatever reasons, I would agree with you. I am not saying that such is the norm, but it does happen. Thus we use the word “discernment.” Unfortunately, there are those times when discernment arrives at truth and the truth is ignored.
I know of a church that was torn completely apart by false accusations of rape. The pastor, upon hearing the accusations from the “victim,” went to the police. Once the police got involved, the accusations were found to be false. But none of the conclusions saved that church fellowship from being irreparably damaged in the process. The pastor did the right thing, but what a mess the false witness created. No matter what he did in this situation, he was going to be hanged by public opinion. The man against whom the false accusation was hurled fared no better. His name and reputation were permanently sullied.
Truth sometimes has a way of getting lost in the shuffle of rumor and gossip.
Debbie, the conclusions drawn by TWW about Driscoll, Grudem, & MacDonald in this article are unfounded. For example, this whole paragraph is unfounded: “This video leads me to think of Driscoll as a man who uses women to achieve his selfish goals. He is then is willing to spit them out when they deviate in the slightest from his self centered ministry. In my opinion, his wife Grace has been used in a similar fashion. Also, James MacDonald and Wayne Grudem don’t come out looking so good in these events either. That is no a surprise because their secondary theology and their mutually beneficial friendships matter far more than a “non-celebrity,” uppity, female missionary.”
1. I watched the video, and there isn’t anything negative in the video. The video proves nothing other than the fact that these men went to Haiti and worked with the missionaries there. The way that this missionary “deviated from Driscoll’s self-centered ministry” was that she was egalitarian. I don’t understand how being a confessional complementarian is self-centered. That’s why they stopped supporting this missionary. The doctrinal statement of Acts 29 wouldn’t allow it.
2. Furthermore, TWW writes, “It is the opinion of TWW that Mark Driscoll shamefully used Yvonne Trimble to get his face on another video. He looks *compassionate* yet never breaks a sweat. He spent a few hours using Yvonne’s hospitality, along with her ability to draw a crowd, made his video and got the heck out of there.” Driscoll leaving early or leaving at the peak of the event doesn’t prove that he “used” this missionary “to get his face on another video” as TWW claims. We don’t know why he left when he did. Also, there’s evidence to the contrary. He later flew the missionaries to Orlando. She was going to be over Acts 29 in Haiti. That sounds like he had good intentions for her, not bad.
3. This statement is also unfounded, “In my estimation, her startling experience sums up the problem with Driscoll and radical complementarians who, in this instance, prove that secondary theology trumps love (and even the care for the poor.)” So, complementarians must support egalitarian missionaries or they don’t “love” or “care for the poor”? For the sake of love and caring for the poor, I hope TWW supports complementarian missionaries then…
Finally, this article contains several logical fallacies: 1) sweeping generalization. 2) hasty generalization. 3) to-the-man. 4) false cause. 5) appeal to pity. True discernment doesn’t need logical fallacies, speculation, or slander to prove its points. This article by TWW is unfounded; and there are many more articles and conclusions drawn by TWW that are unfounded. These practices are common for TWW. But, instead of trading abuse for slander, TWW should seek not to sin as they protect the innocent. Because every time they slander someone, they create another victim.
Oh Jared, don’t get me started on where I think you are wrong in your comment. But I think you are wrong.
Put the video with the article, which is the purpose and I come to a conclusion similar to Wartburg’s. And we do know that Driscoll has thrown people under the bus. Even his wife.
My question wasn’t “what haven’t they proven”, it was “What have they said that is false”?
Debbie,
In your world there’s no need for a court of law or proving an accusation – only that the accusation is made?
If a trustworthy person were to come to me in private and make the accusations you allege- sure id assume they’re telling the truth but until it’s actually proven – I’m not blabbing it except on a need to know basis…(police, a small and necessary circle of church leadership, etc..). I’m certainly not going to blog it!
Debbie, you just made a to-the-man logical fallacy. You said, “Put the video with the article, which is the purpose and I come to a conclusion similar to Wartburg’s. And we do know that Driscoll has thrown people under the bus. Even his wife.” Saying that Driscoll has done something before doesn’t prove he’s doing it all the time. The evidence TWW presented doesn’t prove their argument.
Let’s add this in:
There is a remarkable difference in a blog opinion and a court of law verdict. This is something for which we ought to be grateful.
The standard is not the same, and the results are not the same. Whatever opinion, or opinion masquerading as fact, or facts are offered on blogs rely on other people to build an action response to. They also rely on other people examining the credibility of the source before it really has an effect in the wider sphere.
Consider, since Wartburg has been brought up here, Wartburg and Dr. Mohler. Despite repeatedly connecting Dr. Mohler to CJ Mahaney in their blogging, do many Southern Baptists (or other conservative evangelicals) kick back against Dr. Mohler from their blogging? Not that I have seen, though more and more are seeing through the nonsense that Mahaney was pushing. Same with the connections from Driscoll to other leaders.
My point? The ladies at Wartburg sounded an alarm bell, and others have followed (some very slowly) to see what the problem is. For now, it appears that the wider view has agreed with some conclusions and disagreed with others–producing a process, however lopsided or oddly shaped it may be, that continues to help prevent a lapse into closed-system ecclesiology where fame and fortune do not keep one above examination. But at the same time, the blogverse does not have unmitigated power, either, because there is a consistent question: is this source credible?
And unlike many questionable one-off quotes or even sermons/speeches of days past, there’s always a record on the Internet. If a blog shows that the writers consistently do nothing but lob false accusations or personal attacks, then it fades in credibility. It may stay there, but people quit looking.
Would I rather have a world where every thing asserted as fact is definitely true?
Sure.
But given the sinful nature of mankind, distributing power is a good thing.
Doug,
“There is a remarkable difference in a blog opinion and a court of law verdict. This is something for which we ought to be grateful.
The standard is not the same, and the results are not the same. Whatever opinion, or opinion masquerading as fact, or facts are offered on blogs rely on other people to build an action response to. They also rely on other people examining the credibility of the source before it really has an effect in the wider sphere.”
Agreed. My comment about the court of law was in response to Debbie’s assertion to me that “someone’s word is enough for me and it ought to be enough for you.”
I responded with the logical end to her argument…lets dispense with the unnecessary frivolousness of proof and integrity and say whatever we want about whomever we want…so long as there an accuser that is enough.
I cannot go there. Accusation is not proof and it should never conveyed as such by those purporting to do a service to the body of Christ.
Another example…there are often those who refer (with good reason) to FOX news as Faux News and MSNBC as Obama mouthpieces because they report from a bias and base their reporting on their presuppositions…many of which are erroneous or at least not the *whole story/truth* yet they are reported as such.
This is not integrity in journalism. In fact in many cases it is a stretch to call their practices journalism at all…
Should “discernment” blogs get away with posting and reporting as fact any opinion that comes thier way simply because it furthers thier story line?
Whether the underlining story line is “true” or not….can they just post an article that furthers a narrative and hide behind “its just opinion”? If a man commits adultry and it is proven….is it OK to just “jump on” and say publicly “I think its possible that he slept with so and so too, but that is just my opinion!”
Would we tolerate our church members spreading slanderous “opinion” about the elders/deacons/pastors/members of the church?
Jared, since you called Wartburg out, specifically and by name, then you need to Identify the “bad” that Wartburg has done. Providing a link doesn’t do this, though it may put you in a position of having slandered Wartburg.
Wartburg and. Lumpkins are prominent critics of Calvinism and some prominent Calvinists. You single them out. Calling such a coincidence might strain credibility.
You’ve been found out here, my friend. Better line those ducks up next time.
William, you’re the one who has been “found out” my friend. You’re poisoning the well (logical fallacy). Nice try. I already told you that I singled out a staunchly Calvinist blog as well; yet, you ignore this reality. Instead of interacting with what I’ve said, you’re attempting to poison my credibility by interjecting that I only singled out TWW and Lumpkins because they go after Calvinists. Yet, the real reason I singled these blogs out is because they are some of the least discerning “discernment” blogs in evangelicalism. In the future, please interact with what I’ve written instead of trying to poison the well by interjecting information that has nothing to do with what I’ve written.
Jared, I love you bro, but you do well enough without my help undermining your cred. You were called on your post when your tweets were disclosed. Since then, you have fumbled around trying to salvage things.
Since you blatantly add to what I wrote (you’re smart, see if you can find it), save your lectures for The classroom.
Yet, the real reason I singled these blogs out is because they are some of the least discerning “discernment” blogs in evangelicalism.
Do you have proof of this or is this just your “opinion” Jared?
Don’t these blogs have an integrity responsibility to check and double check accusations before posting them and not just assume, accept and report accusations that fit thier motif as accurate?
(This goes for discernment bogs no matter thier stripe, no?)
William, so you move from a poisoning the well logical fallacy to a to-the-man logical fallacy? Please interact with the actual content of what I’ve written.
Debbie, do I have proof that TWW and Lumpkins are some of the least discerning “discernment” blogs in evangelicalism? I thought this was common knowledge. Five logical fallacies in a single article should help argue my case for TWW.
Folks, I asked nicely earlier that this blog NOT become a place where we discuss other blogs and their failings. Now, I’m going to insist.
No more discussions of TWW or Mr. Lumpkins or other blogs you perhaps don’t like.
No more.
I hate all “pro” New York Yankee blogs.
Oooppss….sorry. 😉
If I had a dollar for everything someone told me that was “truth” I would be a rich man.The major role of discernment is to be able to discern if one is telling truth or if he is just a bull heeded know it all. My personal experience is that i have known more bull headed know it alls than those with discernment gifts.
I have know several people who have the last and final word of most everything. I have little use for their “truth”
I guess I generally need a few specific details–if only to make sure I understand the topic.
When someone makes a blanket statement, I have trouble sorting out what they are discussing without a few details.
This is my thesis and the point at which evidently Jim would disagree. He claimed there is “no such thing as a ‘general problem.’” He is wrong about that.
I think you are both right, just looking at the different sides of the same coin. There have to be actual specific problems in order for there to be a general problem. But sometimes we can address the general problem without naming someone who specifically has the problem. For example, one might preach on a biblical text and teach that adultery is a sin even if he doesn’t specifically know or specifically mention someone who is engaging in that sin. On the other hand, it is not wrong to “name names” and specifically address someone in sin (or heresy). We can find that done in the Bible (e.g. I Tim. 1: 18-20; II Tim. 2:15-18, 4:10, 14-15; III John 9). On the other other hand, some seem to engage certain people and/or certain ministries simply for the purpose of controversy and not for the purpose of helping. Once a bulldog gets a bite on, it can be hard to get him to let go (with my apologies to the bulldogs).
My take would be that if you are dealing with a specific person’s specific behavior, then you should say so–and name the name.
If their behavior inspired a thought, and then you blog the thought, then you should express the thoughts without reference to individuals. The vague “you know who you are” type of blogging, and tweeting, is unnecessary.
For example: “I read a blog post about anger the other day, and it gave terrible responses to anger. Here are better ones than the idiot that wrote the other post had.”
Nope. Either: “There’s been differing opinions about anger raised, and here are mine.” or “Idiot XXX (fill in the name) said this about anger, and he’s wrong.”
Other example: “Some small church pastor idiot thinks X about the CP.” Nope: “Idiot Doug thinks X about the CP.” Or go with “these are my thoughts, compared with these thoughts.”
The passive-aggressive, you-know-who-you-are-but-I-ain’t-tellin’ stuff is for grade school.
So is, in extension, the assertion-as-question method.
For example, rather saying “Doug has shown his true liberal nature by rooting for the Braves” there is the “Has Doug shown his true liberal nature by rooting for the Braves?” while the surrounding post leaves the reader knowing the only acceptable answer is “yes.”
Then when I cut back that the Yankees are just as out-of-work right now as the Braves, Dave can respond and say “It was just a question!” and act offended, while all the while impugning my character.
One thing I have come to dislike about blogging is those times when we just will not say what we mean, because we know it would be wrong to do so. If I came straight out and expressed my opinion about certain SBC leaders, it would sound sinful and mean. Because it is. So instead of doing so, I’ll passive-aggressively criticize or question-assert them, while retaining deniability? That’s bovine by-product, and we all know it.
To hijack Dave’s thread a touch longer, it’s why I’ve come away from blogging on SBC issues too much. I can’t separate my personal angst from what the facts sustain, so I end up finding myself doing that. It’s unhelpful and uncharitable, and until my heart’s more right about it, I’m trying to keep my mouth shut. Because I want to name names, but to what end? Going back to Jared’s post, for repentance or revenge?
In my years in ministry, I’ve realized how easy it is to give unintentional offense. Most of the anger-blogging I have done (and want to still do) is likely related to unintentional offense more caused by my psyche than by the individual, so revenge is the only thing I will get. There was no sin for which to require repentance. Certainly no pattern of it.
Anyway, there’s my two cents. Name names when it’s appropriate, but if you are wanting to talk principles then talk principles, and leave out hinting at names at all. Don’t obscure your point by having your readers guessing at who you are really talking about.
And don’t mask your assertions as questions, either. Go with “I think Doug has shown his true liberal colors by rooting for the Braves” and then own your opinion.
Go Braves. Woo Pig Sooie, and just this once, there were good Yankees in another era, and Derek Jeter deserved to play with them.
Great post, Dave. This is why you’re the zen master of Baptist blogging.
Hey Dave, whatchu got against folks with an IQ of 78? I worked hard for those last nine points!
Bravo.
If I’m not mistaken, in NC, an IQ of 78 qualifies you for Mensa, doesn’t it?
::Insert comment about Baptist tendency to inflate statistics.::
::insert pointed but clearly jovial insult::
What’s telling to me is that when people agree with the conclusions of the discernment blogs, they don’t see the logical fallacies, slander, etc. they use. Yet, I guarantee you if someone wrote an article about you or your family in the local newspaper or you overheard someone talking about you or your family in your local church using the same tactics these discernment blogs use, you’d cry foul. And, if one can use logical fallacies to prove his or her point, I can literally say anything about anyone; In a world where logical fallacies are permitted, there’s no such thing as bearing false witness (slander, deception) anymore.
I agree Jared. I would add the following…
The phrase – “that is my opinion” has often become an acceptable defense for slander of others….
“The North Carolina Tarheels are the best basketball in ACC history” is an opinion it requires no evidence it is simply a reflection of ones bias….Someone could come right along behind me and say…”Obviously it is the Devils of Duke that are the best.” Evidence could be shown to complete both arguments…but no one is hurt by either assessment.
“So and so uses women for his own selfish ambitions” is not a statement of opinion…its character assessment and carries with it a stronger burden of proof for believers….or it should!
I wonder if God approves of this redefinition of words and meanings some seem to be embracing?
Tarheel: I think you had better read the article again. Your assessment is just your opinion, yet that is OK? There is proof in that piece and other pieces they have written. It is making necessary changes as there is a lot of garbage in our denomination that needs to be taken out. It is. That is a good thing. Unfortunately for all the garbage taken out, there is more garbage. We shouldn’t even need discernment blogs to point it out. We as Christians should be doing it ourselves, but that is not happening.
It is not my opinion (it is a matter of fact) to say that the article is not proving anything other than the author of the letter, and the the author of the blog does not like MD.
Debbie…How is attacking MD “taking out the garbage in our denomination?” He is not Southern Baptist…never has been.
But as you well know Tarheel, MD is listened to and has been at many SB functions. Come on. And I’m not going to do the old tiring argument of it’s opinion, it’s fact. That’s getting into distraction and silliness.
Been at SBC functions?
Which ones? I cannot for the life of me think of one. Maybe there has been one or two though? Care to share your data on that?
Tarheel, perhaps a couple of definitions will help you in your discussions:
1) Fact: when you agree with me;
2) Opinion: when you don’t.
Been at SBC functions?
Which ones? I cannot for the life of me think of one. Maybe there has been one or two though? Care to share your data on that?
Tarheel: You can’t be serious. And you dare argue that discernment blogs don’t deal with facts, and yet you are arguing going around the facts that you already know as it is common knowledge? Please. No, I am not going to the trouble of providing you with data you already know. You would just deny it too. Good grief.
I hope not everyone’s logic is like this, although it might explain the sinful state we are in now and why it’s been going on for so long.
I’m serious I’ve never seen more Driscoll at a Southern Baptist convention function.
Perhaps I missed it it seems that your tactic is to assert things and then when challenged on them you just recoil into a “how dare you ask me that” or “I’m not going to defend that”….
if that’s what you want to be then I bid you a good night.
That’s the way I wish to be. Good night Tarheel. 🙂
Jack,
That’s the way some view it for sure. 😉
The only one I could find was Driscoll speaking at SBTS in 2007.
You guys kill me. Really. He spoke at SEBTS in 2012. Danny Akin was on the same platform with Driscoll more than a few times.
Lifeway just stopped selling his books recently. The Village church which is a part of Acts 29 who recently dropped Driscoll, was an SBC church. I swear these facts are not difficult to find, if you want to search for the truth.
I really didn’t want to do the search work, the work that Tarheel and you guys could have done. But once again……got sucked into it.
BTW if you recall, Driscoll’s books were on sale at the Lifeway display at the convention until they were pulled from Lifeway stores this past April. Many SB have listened to Mark Driscoll and gone to his conferences. I would call that SBC associated. Same with Mahaney.
I also believe that MD spoke at the SBC Convention in 2009, invited by Ed Stetzer.
My mistake on Driscoll speaking at the Convention, that was the year the motions were made concerning him.
Jack: I would disagree with your definition. Facts are truth but can be fallible. Opinion can come from facts if one is honest, if not, it can become lying in order to get a desired result.
When there is as much wrongdoing aka blatant sin as there has been for the past several years, I agree with the last post in there should be repentance, but if that repentance doesn’t come, it’s not wrong to seek removal of said individual or individuals from leadership. They are not leading, they are using that platform for abusing. Using the name of God for that abuse. That is blatant blasphemy of God. Discernment blogs shouldn’t be quiet about it and I believe should seek their destruction if that will get them out of ministry and to stop abusing individuals. To do anything else is contributing to the problem, creating more victims. That is not Christianity and it is not what the Bible at all teaches we should do.
That’s just craziness to continue to keep them in the leadership role and saying you are waiting for repentance while they keep doing the lying, sexual abuse or verbal abuse of women.
Remember the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. We as a Convention have been insane for a very long time. The discernement blogs call us out on it with facts we can’t refute other than to say they are not facts. That too is insanity.
Debbie
I wish that were true. My personal problem is that I am too old and have grown much too cynical to believe everything I read….even so called facts. My other problem is that I do not put that much stock in the “convention”. So what if we “clean house”. The real work is done at the church level. We would be far ahead if we stopped putting so much time and energy in the convention and more time and energy in the local church. It is the church that is the bride of Christ not the convention.
DL: The churches being the bride of Christ is true, but I have no say in local churches. I do have a say in the Convention. I keep hearing the Convention doesn’t matter, yet it’s the Convention that sets the tone for the SBC churches, save for a few. Guest speakers from the Convention are invited to churches to speak. Our SBC colleges have speakers that go to various churches around the country. The Convention does matter.
The fact that Lifeway dropped MD’s books and Acts 29 let MD go ought to be a clue that the discernment blogs have hit on the truth on this subject. MD has taken a 6 month sabbatical from the pulpit. So these blogs have uncovered a lot of truth. Truth we wouldn’t have known if they had not. Same with Mahaney.
Debbie
SBC wide I think you will fine more people saying they have more say in their church than they do in the convention. 5.000 out of 14 million even go to the convention to express opinion. The convention does not to set the tone for the local church. If you remember the CR the church directed the convention and entities. You give too much credit to the blogs. The entire CR the greatest shift since the reformation was done without blogs. MD is a small speck on Christian history and environment. While a lot of people are involved in blogs as you are most people do not pay much attention to them. Most churches do not have a college speaker, convention speaker except for the Assoc. Missionary. Yu are looking at the convention through your interested yet limited eyes. Please, Please do not take this as a negative comment. I like most of what you say and why you stand for. I am just saying that there is a big SBC society that you are ignoring that view things through much different eye than you.
Debbie, I am not sure you understand the local church. The SBC has no power whatsoever to “set the tone” for local churches.
That simply is false. Though I believe you really believe it is true.
I actually pastor a local church. I can tell you that the Convention does not even come up in conversations unless we are taking an offering for Annie or Lottie.
Also, you seem to misunderstand Baptist polity. Unless you are a messenger at a convened convention, you have no say. If you are a trustee between meetings, you have some say.
If you are just a disgruntled person who hates the convention, you only have opinions. We all have opinions. Opinions matter but they do not carry much weight at the national level.
Now, when you break our convention down to states, and even further to associations, then our opinions have much greater force to do good.
Some people treat the national convention like the “Boogey Man.” He is some kind of shadowy figure lurking under our beds.
Dear Debbie: If you only knew how powerless the convention really is, you would devote yourself to prayer in behalf of all Southern Baptists with a greater realism, a better understanding, and a more fervent intercession for a visitation and a Third Great Awakening. The Convention is only messengers from the local churches, and the ministers who preach during the Convention and in the Pastors Conference sound good and inspiring and uplifting, but the truth is that the depravity of even the best of people, regardless of theology, will move them to do things that are destructive and harmful to the cause of Christ. You might want to read John Calvin’s little work on Scandals in the Church. I suppose you might find it on the internet. In any case, I know of Sovereign Grace believers who have done harm to the cause of Christ by their conduct and actions. Even so, I know of others who have reflected honor and glory to their Lord, and some of these have not been Sovereign Grace believers. The Convention is but a means to sponsor and support large numbers of missionaries along with institutions to maintain such a force, and it has succeeded for nearly 170 years. Even our Lord’s circle there was a Judas who betrayed him, the disciples He left at the edge of the garden, and the three who went to sleep while He prayed even though He asked them to watch with Him. Shortcomings must needs be recognized, but they must not be allowed to prevent us from moving ahead. God’s will be done, and His blessed name be glorified.
OK..so we have ONE verifiable time that Driscoll spoke at an SBC event….SEBTS in 2007. (Was there a discernment blog on his trail at that time?)
Debbie,
“The fact that Lifeway dropped MD’s books and Acts 29 let MD go ought to be a clue that the discernment blogs have hit on the truth on this subject. MD has taken a 6 month sabbatical from the pulpit. So these blogs have uncovered a lot of truth. Truth we wouldn’t have known if they had not. Same with Mahaney.”
OK…I see that. I was never on the “train” of either of these men. I have books by neither on my shelves or on my ipad. CJM was always my least favorite on the T4G stage…
BTW, could not put my finger on the reasons for not liking them….call it discernment if you will (and I did not need a blog to bring there either, BTW)…that aside though.
Intellectual honesty compels us to admit though that both of these men have publicly articulated repentance, and made visible and clear efforts toward demonstrating that repentance… Only time will tell the genuineness of said repentant demonstrations. Since, their local churches and denominations are taking care of this issue and neither of these men are Southern Baptists and even more particularly pastors in my local church, I am content to say that it is very little my business.
I guess if I “liked” these guys (for lack of a better term at the moment) I might feel somewhat betrayed by the revelations that have come out…granted, some by “discernment blogs” (despite tactics I personally deplore and find generally dishonorable (that is my opinion so, I do not have to prove anything it is OK to say, right?)) and some just by the nature of Christs’ caution about things in secret and rooftops. Truly, I feel little sense of personal betrayal though (other than the general annoyance I feel anytime a pastor does stupid stuff like this that makes us all look bad).