We who blog are not always viewed positively among the powers-that-be in the SBC and in the Christian world. We are quick to criticize and difficult to control. I think that some of the criticism is valid – we have not governed ourselves well. I think that some of the criticism comes because powerful people are not used to being criticized, are usually able to squelch it and cannot do so with bloggers.
The Significance of Blogging
Many dismiss blogging and bloggers as insignificant. That is wishful thinking on the part of those who do not like what we do. We may not be as important and representative as we think we are, but there is little doubt that bloggers make a difference. While opinions of him certainly vary, the Wade Burleson saga at the IMB let the genie out of the bottle. Boards of Trustees can no longer act in secret, tell everyone that they prayed about it and believe they are doing God’s will, and expect everyone to go along in silence. I believe that this accountability, while easily abused, is helpful.
Blogging has given a voice to people who otherwise would never have had one. Men like Al Mohler and Ed Stetzer have blogs, but they were luminaries before the blogging phenomenon hit. But blogging has made people like Tim Brister and Trevin Wax into Baptist stars. But what I love about blogging (and yes, there is a selfish component to this) is that it has given a voice to people who otherwise would not have one.
Look at SBC Voices. There is not a single famous name among our contributors. We are an Iowa pastor, a North Dakota pastor, a New Mexico pastor (hardly SBC hotbeds) and other pastors and staff from small to medium churches around the country. Yet, we are currently the fourth highest rated SBC blog on Technorati.com (behind Trevin Wax, Al Mohler and Tim Brister). I have to admit that I don’t completely understand the Technorati authority ratings, but my point is that a blue-collar blog gets to have a voice among the powerful voices of the SBC. That is the beauty of blogging.
The Responsibility of Bloggers
But if that is true, if we have a new-found power, it is incumbent on us to make sure that we do something redemptive and Christ-honoring with that power. In a comment on the post containing Dr. Merritt’s response to the FHTM criticism, Bart Barber spoke of ministerial codes of ethics. I think there is a need for a blogging code of ethics. We need to work on a code of ethics that would govern our criticisms of one another and of public figures.
Of course, because of the democratic and populist nature of blogging, there will never be a universal code. But we can try to develop something that would be a guideline for us, something for us to follow.
Some, usually those stung by blogging critics, have tried to use Matthew 18:15 as the governing verse. I may not publicly criticize another until I have first gone to that person privately and attempted to work out the situation between ourselves. Others have argued that Matthew 18:15 is not applicable in this instance and have noted that both Jesus and Paul publicly confronted religious leaders of their day without any record of private confrontation first.
Concerning Matthew 18:15
Here is the text of Matthew 18:15-17.
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
First, there is a textual problem in this verse that changes the meaning of the verse. Did the words, “against you” appear in the original? Some of the more relied upon ancient texts do not have these words. Commentaries seem split on whether the words were part of the inspired text. If they were, then this passage only applies when I believe that someone has sinned against me. If they did not appear in the autographa, then the verse applies any time I see a brother in sin. Since NT scholars a lot smarter than me disagree, I will not be able to give a decisive answer. Most translations include the words and most of the scholars I read give a hesitant thumbs up to the phrase. But it is a hard call.
What is clear here is that the subject here is sin – when a brother in Christ sins against me (or possibly a more general sin – depending on the reading). This is not about differences of opinion, varied outlooks on topics, or even different agendas. Sin is in question.
Also, it seems clear to me that this is largely an instruction given to aid a local church in maintaining unity. I have a higher view of the universal church than a lot of Baptists do, but it seems clear that the focus of this is the local church. Look at the last step of the process. If after the private conference and after bringing two or three to attempt to bring repentance, the sinner remains in sin, he is to be taken before the church for discipline. That seems to limit this to an in-church matter.
If I felt that Doug Hibbard had sinned against me (trust me, it happens often), how would I apply this verse. I could contact him privately, of course, but then how would I bring two or three with me? How would I “take him before the church.” Unless the church is going to have an ecclesiastical court to resolve these kinds of disputes, it is impossible.
So, I believe that Matthew 18:15 is primarily meant as an “in-house” process of church discipline, and does not necessarily apply beyond that.
However (there’s always one of those, isn’t there?), I believe that this verse reveals something of the heart of God that can guide us in blogging even if Matthew 18:15 does not completely relate. Our attitude should always be one of love – a desire to win a brother more than win an argument, to restore relationships and build unity. I believe that there are some eternal principles that can be drawn from this verse and others.
Galatians 6:1 tells us, “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.”
In 2 Corinthians 2:7, Paul exhorts his readers to forgive the one who had sinned. Discipline and confrontation in were always designed to restore and heal. Christians are not allowed to try to one-up one another, to put others in their place and to seek prominence and power. That in antithetical to the cause of Christ. We are to die to self, humble ourselves, seek reconciliation and be willing to suffer abuse for the cause of Christ and for unity in Christ’s body.
Baptist Blogging and Criticism: A Perspective
Here are some thoughts I have about ethical standards for criticizing another on blogs.
1) There is a difference between criticizing a person and criticizing a person’s ideas.
We all know this, but it is a hard balance to maintain. Generally, the one making the criticism maintains it is not personal while the person being criticized feels that it is. But they are two different things. I often disagreed with the actions and words of Paige Patterson, but some of the personal attacks on him in the early days of blogging just went way over the line.
To me, there are two clear standards of behavior here. When I am disagreeing with ideas put forward by someone, one set of standards applies. When I am criticizing the behavior, character or integrity of someone another set of standards applies.
2) We must, out of respect for our brothers, make a good faith effort to understand and fairly represent the ideas and positions of others.
We are pretty bad at this. Someone makes a comment and then someone else responds and claims, “You said…” There is often very little resemblance between what was said and what the other person heard. I have seen intense arguments in which both parties were essentially saying the same thing.
I think the gist of fair and godly blogging is accurately and fairly representing those with whom you disagree. When we exaggerate or twist the words of others we create division and do not honor our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Back in the days of Baptist Blogging’s “Big Bang” (the IMB controversy and the BI/Big Tent battles that followed), misrepresenting and exaggerating other’s positions was a rampant problem. Instead of dealing with the actual beliefs of the Baptist Identity group, many just labelled them as Landmarkers and dismissed them. Some in the BI movement refused to listen to what the reform group was saying and just labelled them as moderates in sheep’s clothing.
3) Christian blogging is subject to the basic standards of Christian behavior.
Duh.
But we are not journalists. While secular journalistic standards may be a guide for us in some things, our guide is the Word of God.
This seems like something that hardly needs to be said, but it is my observation that such a reminder is far from unnecessary. To me, the theme verse for Christian blogging needs to be Galatians 5:16-24.
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit thekingdomofGod. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
This passage distinguishes the works of the flesh, which ought to be crucified in Christians and not in evidence from the fruit of the Spirit which ought to be abundant. But you tell me which we see more of on blogs. Do we see the works of the flesh: enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, and envy? Or do we see love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and most of all, self-control?
I’ve got an opinion here, but I’ll let you judge that one.
4) The goal of godly blogging is always redemption and restoration.
In Matthew 18:15, in Galatians 6, and in pretty much every page of the NT, it is clear that the desire of God is for believers to walk together in unity. Romans 12:10 encapsulates the goal each of us should have.
Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.
I love that. We should compete to show more honor to one another. That should be our goal. The passage goes on to instruct us (verse 16) to live in harmony with one another. Verse 17 prohibits returning evil for evil. Simple obedience to that verse would revolutionize Baptist blogging, wouldn’t it? Finally, verse 18 tells us to live at peace with everyone, as much as is possible with us.
So, when I blog, my goal must always be to seek unity and restoration, not to seek just to win an argument or to see my side gain strength over “them.”
5) When confronting ideas, no private contact is necessary.
The whole point of blogging is to put ideas out there and have them critiqued. If I am stating a disagreement with something another blogger has published, linking to that person’s ideas is sufficient and no prior contact is necessary.
6) When confronting a person, it honors God to make private contact in advance.
I know some bloggers will say this is unnecessary. I think they are wrong. WhileMatthew 18:15may not be a controlling authority here, it does seem to indicate a general principle. If I am going to criticize a brother or sister in Christ online and in public, I honor Christ by making an attempt at contact prior to publishing my criticism.
How does it honor Christ for me to publicly publish personal criticisms of a fellow Christian without first attempting to reach a private reconciliation? I know many will not agree, but I think the general New Testament witness would support at least an effort at private confrontation before going public.
Someone needs to explain to me the biblical purposes and spiritual fruit served by the publishing of personal criticism without a prior attempt at private conference.
7) Confrontation is appropriate only within the context of relationship
Why does Matthew 18:15 tell us to confront those who sin the local church? Because we are part of one another. We are united in Christ as one and so we have a responsibility to one another. Within relationship, confrontation is appropriate.
If there is no relationship, it is less likely that the confrontation is appropriate.
8.) Confrontation is appropriate within the context of shared ministry.
I have never met Kevin Ezell, but he is the head of an organization in which I have an investment. My church is part of the SBC and gives to convention causes. We are invested in the SBC and therefore, when a leader of the SBC, one who makes the decisions about the organization of which I am a part, makes decisions I think are right, it is appropriate to confront.
9) If someone is advocating sin or heresy, he should be confronted.
I have neither a shared ministry nor a relationship with Joel Osteen. But he is publishing and publicly advocating what I believe approaches a false gospel and leading people astray. Obviously, in such a situation, a public figure ought to be confronted
10) When neither relationship nor shared ministry exists, confrontation may not be appropriate.
Here’s my problem with the James Merritt controversy. He is the pastor of a church of which I am not a part. His advocacy of FHTM in his church troubles me. It really does. But is it any of my business? He is not advocating a false gospel. He is not a friend of mine (I’ve never met him). He is not in any position of influence I know of in the SBC now, though he was a few years back.
So, is it any of my business? He was not going on tour with FHTM nor was he trying to use the SBC mechanism to advance his financial kingdom. I agree with Bart Barber’s comment that this is a violation of ministerial ethics. But is it any business of mine?
I do not believe that it is. In fact, I think that by publicly confronting him on this, I would be in danger of being a busybody or a gossip. I have no relationship or shared responsibility with him. It is a matter for Cross Pointe church to deal with.
Okay, I have to go to a wedding. Now, its your turn to tell me how wrong I am…
It makes me nervous. I have to leave for a wedding and didn’t give this article proper editing. If there is a mistake, I will attempt to correct it later.
Be excellent to each other, and party on, dudes.
By the way, I am deeply disturbed that no one in this august assembly caught the “Bill and Ted” reference.
Dave,
When I read the FBC Jax Watchdog site, as I sometimes do, I am reminded of how difficult it is to say that something like this is none of my business. People like Tom Rich and a lot of the people who follow him draw conclusions about the entire genre of SBC pastors based upon the behavior of high-profile pastors. There are more people like that without a blog than there are people like that with a blog.
Ask not for whom the bell tolls, my friend.
Bart, as always you make sense, which sometimes I say reluctantly. But I still maintain there’s a difference between issues that are my business and those that are not. God has not ordained me as the officer of corrections for other churches and pastors.
Dave,
As I often do, I went straight to my disagreement without first saying that I agree with much of what you have written here. I write as someone who carries with himself some blogging regrets, and I wish that I had drafted a blogging code of ethics before I had ever begun the enterprise.
Also, I agree that God has not ordained me either as “the officer of corrections for other churches and pastors.” That’s a good point. But look at it this way.
When Muslims bomb a hotel somewhere, people often point to the people at the mosque down the street and ask, “Where are the voices of the so-called non-extremist Muslims decrying what has happened here?” Some of the voices saying that sort of thing are inflammatory and bigoted, and yet it does my heart good when I hear a Muslim cleric denounce Al Qaeda or do something similar to that. It does not undo the errors of Islam, but it helps me to know that that particular mosque has set itself apart from such madness.
At some point, my local proclamation of the gospel in my local congregation—that which is my business and that for which I have been ordained by God and by a church—is strengthened by statements I make and actions I undertake distancing myself from abusive practices by other pastors and other churches.
To say, “I disagree with what James Merritt did and our church stands for something different than that,” is necessarily something that would be a bitter pill for Dr. Merritt to hear, and yet I might be saying something like that not in order to police his church but in order to differentiate mine from his and thereby to strengthen our ministry.
Also, to raise the subject of 1 Corinthians 11:19, sometimes division is necessary in order to make clear what is approved (and what is not) to those who are being discipled. If a prominent pastor begins to sell multi-level-marketing through his church and nobody says anything about it, what are younger pastors to conclude but that we consider such behavior to be acceptable? We don’t have to beat a dead horse and we don’t have to kick a man when he’s down, but I think that it is an important part of discipleship when a large number of people consider a practice and collectively say, “I think that’s wrong.” Young pastors-in-training learn something from that, I think.
Perhaps the most important blogging code of ethics that I have been trying to observe in my life is to check the condition of my heart before I post. There are people in the blogging world with whom I have crossed swords and with whom the tensions got pretty high. I try as hard as I can never to blog about them or to interact with things that they say. I just don’t trust myself to do so. They reveal flaws in my character that I no longer wish to put on display for the rest of the world.
I think I would agree with what you say with one condition. In the situations you are describing, we are called to stand against public actions. If something is being publicly promoted becomes news, if it is in the public domain, then comment becomes necessary as you said.
But it is a completely different thing if I am the one putting the information into the public domain.
If a celebrity pastor gets caught in a moral downfall, I might rightly comment on the tragedy and reflect on what can be learned from it. But should I be the one who publishes the event and makes everyone aware of it?
I am distinguishing between commenting on something that is public and making that public.
And I would still make an effort to contact the Christian brother or sister I was criticizing – if character or integrity issues were at stake – before I made a public criticism. That is a conviction I have come to through reflection.
I know that not everyone shares that conviction.
Dave,
I agree with that. In fact, after a bad experience, I decided to leave the “breaking news” world entirely to the journalists.
Of course, to discuss the specific case of Tim Rogers and James Merritt, is something on YouTube and Vimeo in a half-dozen places as promotional pieces really private? It seems to me that Tim took the public behavior of James Merritt and was simply the first to say that he disagreed with it.
Tim’s doing so made it controversial, and many people who hadn’t paid attention before started doing so when it became controversial, so maybe you and I hadn’t paid attention before to what was going on in full public view, but as egotistical as I am, I don’t make my own attention span the definition of public and private.
Making an ethical code does have its conundrums. (conundri?)
Dave,
I know that you are at a wedding and may not be able to respond for a while, but let me be somewhat contrary in interacting with your post. I truly appreciate the spirit within which you have written and within which you blog and serve as editor at Voices. That being said (and you knew that was coming 🙂 ), your title belies the direction that you will go with the OP. Perhaps it could be more accurate to talk about criticizing public leaders who are Christian instead of “criticizing Christian leaders.”
Of course, leaders and those in positions of authority — Christian or otherwise — generally do not take criticism (public or private) very well. It’s amazing how thin-skinned many in public positions (including ministry) can be. That’s why the non-mainstream media, both in the secular world (Fox News) and in the religious world (blogs) are despised. Putting into place any set of guidelines will not solve the problem and, in fact, will only serve to benefit those who in power who do not want to be criticized in the first place.
As to your 10 Guidelines, the only one that is needed is 3) Christian blogging is subject to the basic standards of Christian behavior. Of course, who get’s to determine what are those basic standards? Herein lies the problem. You have in effect, by fleshing out the other 9 guidelines, already begun to interpret what you believe are the basic standards of Christian behavior in blogging. (I’m not sure if that was your intent, but you have at least made a good faith effort at setting the parameters).
If you or Tony want to set those as guidelines for anyone who contributes or comments at Voices, I would steadfastly defend your right to do so. Whether I or anyone else wants to be bound by those guidelines is a different story. Likewise, I am free and Jared is free and others are free to determine what rules and principles will guide us in our own personal blogs. Again, basic standards of Christian behavior should apply to all of us, but I am not going to impose on Jared or anyone else what I believe are those standards. If that were the case, then every time someone writes a blog post that a public figure doesn’t like, the Matthew 18:15 defense will be trotted out. (And, I hope he doesn’t mind, but I use Jared as example of someone who contributes for Voices and has his own, well-written and, sometimes provocative, blog).
In the end, I think that the marketplace of ideas should be as open and free as possible, and that includes Christian blogs. If you don’t think that someone is blogging using what you think are “basic standards of Christian behavior,” then don’t read, link to, or comment on their blog. No one is forcing you to read anyone’s blog!
However, if you think that someone is using those “basic standards,” then by all means, interact with the blog if you so choose. In the end, people will speak loud and clear as to what they think about someone’s “blogging ethics” by either reading or not reading. But, just remember, when the “blue-collar” and non-MSM bloggers have guidelines imposed, the only ones who will be happy are those who are in power — happy that there is one less critic to hold their feet to the fire! Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Responding by phone. I think that ultimately each of us has to decide. I’m not planning to try to impose rules, just to advance ideas for consideration.
Here’s a portion of my opinion:
1.) We need to remember that every verse and principle of Scripture that applies to spoken words applies to typed words as well. If you wouldn’t or shouldn’t say it, don’t type it.
2.) We need to keep truth upfront. It’s not all of Philippians 4:8 of the things we should think on, but it’s first in that list. And truth needs to be understood in light of “The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” It’s far too easy to take a slice of truth and beat someone to death with it.
I have had this happen to me, not in blog, but in personal interaction. A pastor search committee at one point called not only my references but previous ministry employers. That, on its own, is actually good. What did happen that was bad? The pastor listed all of the bad about me he could think of: I was the youth guy, we had a small youth group, one girl got pregnant, 2 families with youth left the church, I was woefully immature, and so on….
Everything he said was true. Except that it was: 1. 10 years prior; 2. The girl that got pregnant? I didn’t do it, in fact that happened because not only she but her parents directly decided to do the opposite of what was a good idea (letting an 18-year-old girl spend the night at her boyfriend’s apartment? really? alone?) 3. the church was in the middle of split he caused. So, what was said was true: but it wasn’t the whole truth.
It’s very easy to let “It’s true” run rampant. Now, if the building is on fire, right now, then that’s all that really matters. Is the church pushing heresy? Are innocent people at real risk? (Note: people that aren’t going to deep-check a pyramid scheme, I’m not sure that’s the same as innocent. Be skeptical, folks, of anything that promises lots of reward with no effort.) Then pull the fire alarm handle and start screaming.
Otherwise, find out first if what you’re saying about an individual’s character or personal behavior is actually true. One of my deacons here told me about him and a previous pastor going into a local liquor store. Why? Because the carpet salesman told them the liquor store had the same carpet the church was interested in. They were checking the quality, the wear/tear on it. The town gossip could have simply reported that Bro. So and So and Bro. Deacon were in the liquor store. It would have been true. But it would not have been the whole truth.
Instead, it would have been a partial truth that led to a false conclusion. We need to be very careful if our partial truth will lead to a false conclusion (by reasonable people. not conspiracy nuts.). If it will, find the whole truth.
Since FBCJaxWatchDog came up earlier, I think that illustrates a big conundrum on this: our churches are supposed to allow internal correction, but the question rises: what do you do when those mechanisms breakdown? When “Take it to the church” is thwarted by the people who you have found issue with? On the one hand, Baptist tradition has often been to go away quietly and join another church. On the other hand, is that right? Or should one “take it to the church” even though others are going to hear and get involved? Neither of those options is going to build into redemption, or at least neither really ever have.
Anyway, back on topic: ideas should always be open to discussion and criticism. Those who want to step up and lead should realize that people are going to read their books, their looks, and their lives….and are going to ask questions. Those questions need to be answered. That’s part of the burden of leading or being highly visible: people are looking at more. Either handle it or back away.
And us bloggers: our code of ethics should be Biblical principles. Dave’s seem pretty decent, but it’s like the issue raised a few weeks ago by Tim Challies about the sheer number of critics of Rob Bell that showed up. There seemed to be a hinting that only certain bloggers should make criticisms. I think that’s a bad idea, and I think a hard, fast set of rules beyond the Bible are risky. That leaves the door open to a “you’re not following the rules” response instead of addressing if there’s a real problem.
Better to think of them as more a guideline, really—‘arrgh!
I would add another:
Say what you mean. Some in the blogosphere are masters of saying things without saying them. By that I mean they are careful wordsmiths, able to call someone a liar in such a way so that when challenged they can quite factually (although perhaps not truthfully) deny saying what everyone knows they meant.
I fully agree with that. Let’s make our agenda plain and clear.
Bill Mac,
I actually think what you have said above is what Satan was doing with his first question to Eve.
I used to think that he was questioning the word of God, but I now think he was being much more crafty than that.
He framed his question in such a way as to make God out to be One who was holding Adam & Eve back from eating any of the trees in the garden…when the truth was that God told Adam they were “free” to eat from any, but one.
However, if someone would have called Satan out on what he was doing, he could have just said this:
“I never said that was what God actually said, I was just asking a question…just a question…”
It was not just a question, but an attempt to undermine the goodness of God in the eyes of Eve.
I think this was an example of what Genesis is getting at when it refers to his “craftiness”.
Oh, wow. Interesting thought.
Benji,
Good thought. We see “I’m just asking questions” all the time. It is a major cop out. If you really have a question, go to the person involved, and ask your question.
It makes my spleen hurt to say this, but as far as plain speaking with no hidden wordsmithing, bloggers should be more like Joe. Just without, you know, all the rest of the Joe-ish stuff.
Thanks Dave Miller.
I agree that leadership never likes criticism and especially public criticism. Blogging and public accountability are here to stay. I believe that organzation should no longer expect secrecy about anything and that rather than supressing conversation they should join in that conversation.
It’s important to remember that cynicism, doubt and suspicion are the spirits of the age. It’s important for bloggers not to give into this worldly way of thinking.
In your code of conduct there are some behaviors that ought to be off limits just as they are in face to face world. One is that we should not practice guilt by association or other slanderous practices. We should not gossip. Rhetoric is often a cheap trick and a cheap shot. We should not attack people but discuss ideas and decisons. Blogging is a wonderful venue for conversations about ideas that need to be discussed and explored. It’s also an easy world in which to substitue character assaination for thought and discourse.
It’s important to engage with what people say, to characterize their positons charitably and disagree if that’s appropriate.
Hiding the identity may be wise on line but it also allows for a level of unkindness that is not Christ honoring.
Excellent post. Your 10 guidelines for Christian Bloggers seem to be practical, relevant, and an ethical guide for Christians. Some bloggers seem to be all negative and and have no accountability. I even accused one of being a “rumor monger” spreading “gossip”. That is why is was good to see a respectable pastor write…,
“So, is it any of my business? He was not going on tour with FHTM nor was he trying to use the SBC mechanism to advance his financial kingdom. I agree with Bart Barber’s comment that this is a violation of ministerial ethics. But is it any business of mine?
I do not believe that it is. In fact, I think that by publicly confronting him on this, I would be in danger of being a busybody or a gossip. I have no relationship or shared responsibility with him. It is a matter for Cross Pointe church to deal with.”
Dr. Merritt’s words were not against anything in the bible, and he confirmed what many of us said, that he is not involved with FHTM anymore. A couple of bloggers (Peter Lumpkins, and another) basically tried to call us liars for reporting that fact. Is that accepted behavior for someone who claims to be a man of God and a pastor?
Some bloggers are very legalistic and are more “Pharisee Like” than “Christ Like”.
It was refreshing to read your comments.