There May Yet Be Hope
Joe Martino here following up on Nathan’s latest post regarding the ODM poster scandal at the blog that talks about setting the world on fire. I tell you men and women you may actually find hope that the ODM’s are considering what is going on and may actually be realizing the sin in their ways. Ken Silva, a leading fundamentalist and watch blog aficionado who pioneered the ODM “ministry” recently posted these verses in regards to the very graceful and kind response posters created by an anonymous blogger called Grace. Ken quoted Proverbs 14:12 which says:
“There is a way that seems right to a man,
but in the end it leads to death.”
Pastor Silva went on to quote the Apostle Paul in his letter to Timothy,
“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.”
Perhaps the ODM movement is considering the fact that they hurting the beloved bride of Christ. Men and women I ask you to pray for these people right now. May they actually see the words they use to justify their hatred and anger disguised as pious religiosity.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:07 pm
To clarify I did not mean the last paragraph to be humor.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Alright, that’s the third time in like 2 days that Silva has quoted verses after I’ve quoted them. That either means that he’s paying attention to the verses I’ve quotes or…. we think alike (an option as horrific as it is unthinkable).
July 31st, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Also, that comment was menat to be humor.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Joe - your hope is enviably niave. Good wish though.
August 1st, 2007 at 5:24 am
Joe and Nathan,
While I realize that neither this article nor the one immediately below it are specifically intended to be aimed at just one individual, they are moving back into the territory of “naming names”, which I would like us to refrain from doing at this time.
Please continue to hold me accountable to this, as well, as I was in violation of #4 yesterday and Joe called me on it.
I was rapidly moving into and through this territory and had to pull out of it.
As I think about how I would like to word things to focus on ideas rather than individuals, I often visit Brendt’s blog, where he’s generally avoided calling out individuals (with some notable exceptions) and check out some of the way’s he’s avoided these pitfalls…
Keep up the good work guys…
August 1st, 2007 at 7:16 am
Chris,
I attempted very diligently to use ODM as a general term as evidenced by my last paragraph. Sorry, if you feel this is too close to the line. For clarification, do you not want us to name any name when we quote? How do we credit sources then? In other words, I was trying to treat Pastor Silva with “professional distance” but because he was the one who quoted the verses it would have been unsporting if not unethical to not cite him. Right?
August 1st, 2007 at 7:40 am
What is the online punctuation that means “snipe”? There is none so I will invent this:
>***
August 1st, 2007 at 7:53 am
Rick, I don’t understand that statement.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:24 am
Joe,
I can see the distance you were trying to create, but for now (given the criticism of our focusing on Ken and Ingrid, specifically), if we can at least back off to the point of naming the website rather than the author, it begins to put the distance between the idea being evaluated and the individual putting forth that idea…
August 1st, 2007 at 8:24 am
I think Rick’s trying to be a bit humorous and give us a ‘tag’ to identify sniping when it’s being done
August 1st, 2007 at 8:36 am
Ok, fair enough. Help me understand this in the context in which I found it though. He was a commenter on Grace’s site, would you prefer that I simply referred to him as a “commenter name Ken, who has been known to be part of the ODM movement?”
August 1st, 2007 at 8:41 am
One of the reasons I have limited my interaction on this site is because for some time now I have been troubled by the lack of loyalty among the contributors Chris you and your writers should be a team. We are all the players and you are all the coaches. Imagine in MLB baseball games if all of a sudden all the coaches started throwing each other under the bus in front of all the players, how would that affect the team? What would the spectators think that were watching the game?
I am not attacking anyone, this is just my opinion. There should be some amount of loyalty and accountability between you all.
My solution, e-mail each other your concerns and problems and than present yourself as a unified in order to help educate others about the non sense the watch dogs put out there. I personally do not think you guys look all that unified calling each other out in public.
It is just my two cents!:-) In fact, me personally, I get frustrated reading it. I have expressed my concerns many times to Joe and I know it frustrates him as well. We have always been taught loyalty. I don’t see it on this site. Sure we could both pull away but I see a lot of good on this site. You are all good men, there is just no loyalty. Enough said, be blessed today!
August 1st, 2007 at 8:41 am
Yes - or even - “one commenter”. There’s no need to know it was Ken (if people follow the link, it will become apparent), since it is the sentiment/scripture posting which is being addressed, not WHO posted it…
August 1st, 2007 at 9:09 am
Erica,
I’ve struggled a little with which way to handle this. Working for a major US corporation, I am familiar with the benefits and pitfalls of a ‘unified front’ - both inside and outside a company.
Inside the company, in most cases (with some notable exceptions), a ‘unified front’ has a much larger list of pitfalls than benefits. The biggest pitfall is that ‘behavior modeling’, particularly when it comes to confrontation, goes missing, and people become afraid, intrinsically, of confrontation.
Outside the company, in most cases (with some notable exceptions), a ‘unified front’ is very important.
So, the dilemma becomes - are we writing for ‘inside the company’ or ‘outside the company’? Since our audience is primarily Christian and not non-believers, I think that we would consider them all ‘inside the company’. ODM’s, on the other hand, have a much narrower view of “true Christians”, which creates a siege mentality where a unified front must be shown at all times. I would posit that we don’t want to be like that.
I have toyed with having any/all disagreement handled via email behind the scenes, but I think this flies in the face of transparency and creates an ‘us vs. them’ mentality. When I look at group blogs like the Boar’s Head Tavern (where members frequently disagree with one another) and even TeamPyro - where writers frequently take issue with other writer’s issues/actions in public - I see that this has the benefit of not creating a false-front.
Another way of looking at this would compare the two photoshops for the word “transparency” - the bad one and the good one.
One comment I get frequently is that there is appreciation that we at CRN.info is that we are honest, open and transparent - even when it requires apologizing and repenting of our own errors or holding each other to the standards we desire in ODM’s. Yesterday, Joe was perfectly in line to give me the virtual two-by-four when I was starting to get snippy (snipe-ish?) with Amy. While he could have done it behind the scenes and then allowed me to just apologize or to alter my behavior without comment, the way he handled it was much more transparent and gave him - and this blog - much more credibility, because he was willing to hold us to the standard we’ve stated we desire from ourselves and others.
Were I vehemently in disagreement with content or behavior, I would still most likely handle it behind the scenes before posting anything. However, if I have minor concerns - such as around ‘drift’ - I would rather handle them in public, as an example of consistency, than handle them privately, opening us to charges of hypocrisy.
I agree it is a delicate balance, but I would much rather see us not operate in a siege mentality.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:11 am
Erica,
Personally, I really appreciate the openess. I guess I have a real distaste for group-think. If they collaborated to the point of emailing each other all the time, I think after a while we would just get one distilled view. It’s kind of like on the news shows where they have a Republican or Democrat spokesperson come on - they always just stick to the party talking points. They would accomplish just as much if they put talking robot with prerecorded messages up.
I’ve not seen anything near to anyone being “thrown under the bus yet” either. Mainly just pretty mild correction.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:45 am
Phil,
I am not saying they can’t disagree with each other. I am a huge fan of openness. It seems to me they can not agree on what a good post is or how to communicate properly with their readers. It amuses me that one of them correct a commenter and than another writer thinks they were too harsh and calls them out but a few moments or a few days go by and the one who called the other one out is now being harsh. Maybe they should simply e-mail each other and say “Hey you need to back off so in so you are being a little harsh.†I see it like this it would be like a teacher correcting another teacher in front of their students. If teachers did that it would not appear they were coming across as a unified front to their students! I love hearing all the writers’ opinions. They have great insight! I learn a lot. I find it frustrating when they start “calling each other out.†Essentially they highjack their own posts. For instance on this one, we are totally off subject now because instead of Chris e-mailing Joe that he did not care for the post he did it in the comment section. It is not just Joe it this happens with. I see it between the other writers as well. Now we are once again off topic. Maybe he could have e-mailed Joe and than Joe could have made a correction. Instead everyone is made aware that a “rule was broke†and we are of topic. Imagine what it would look like at CRN if the writers called each other out in their posts. What would you think? I am a hundred percent sure one of the writers on this site would have something to say.
It could be just me. I can accept that. It has been bother me for months now so I thought I should get it off my chest. Like I said I appreciate all of the writers on this site. They don’t seem unified to me. Unity and loyalty is a big deal was I come from. Maybe it is a cultural thing. Thank you for your kindness Phil!:-)
August 1st, 2007 at 9:56 am
Erica,
Well, I guess it would be one thing if I felt they were being unkind in their comment, but I haven’t sensed that. I’ve thought they’ve actually been setting a good example for the most part. I understand where you’re coming from. I know some people who very much dislike any type of public correction because of the potential for abuse.
I would actually be pleasantly surprised to see someone at CRN or SOL offer some real criticism to one of the writers whose work they post. Right now, it seems that they are determined to be unified in spite of any evidence to the contrary. I think a big part of maturity is being able to admit when you’re wrong. That’s what I see here.
Again, I understand your perspective, and I think women are naturally protective of their husbands to a big extent. That’s certainly a good thing!
God bless.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:00 am
From a one time contributor, I find some respectful disagreement among the writers refreshing. Too long we have hidden our differences and surely our weaknesses, isn’t open rebuke better than hidden despite (Proverbs)? Do any of us believe Joe is without sin? Chris L? Me? Of course not, and a loving correction is Christian.
The world can see that we receive from each other in a spirit of love. It is Chris L’s site so he is responsible, so we give him the leadership. I honestly have benefited by seeing real Christians, with real disagreements, dialogue without name calling, insults, and malice. If we cannot disagree, even strongly, without retreating to the flesh, then we only have as RG Lee once said “a shallow stream of piety that runs a fresher course on Sabbath days”. What good does it do to name call during the week only to act loving in a building on Sunday? I believe we are a greater reflection of our Master when his children can receive from each other in an atmosphere of love.
I realize that it is out of practice, but let this and other sites be a practice field to crucify the flesh and show confrontational love. Wow, there’s a challenge which I have yet to master!
August 1st, 2007 at 10:07 am
QFT
That’s my biggest problems with the ODMs, there’s no love, only malice in their posts. I have huge theological disagreements with both the people I’ve defended on this site, and the people I disagree with in ODM. The difference between the two is the way they go about it.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:57 pm
I agree with Phil that “I would actually be pleasantly surprised to see someone at CRN or SOL offer some real criticism to one of the writers whose work they post.”
I would much prefer seeing confrontation handled openly, unless handling it openly is going to hurt someone. Actually I sometimes wonder if there isn’t more disagreement among you than would appear - not about attitude issues but about issues being discussed. I wonder if there is a hesitancy to disagree with each other on certain issues, sort of a brotherhood of “let’s keep protecting this person/issue being discussed against all criticism” instead of taking an honest look at the issues.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Amy,
You’ve captured a little of what I’m after, as well, in trying to be open when I disagree. I have posted disagreements with some conclusions we’ve had, or pointed out overreactions on my own part and other writers here. I don’t see this as ‘disloyalty’ - I see it as truth and transparency.
As an example, My wife and I do not hide most of our disagreements from our kids, as my parents did with me, because we want them to learn how to lovingly confront each other in disagreement (which in a household with 4 kids is not always a common occurrence - the ‘loving’ part). The same way, I strive to be honest when I disagree here because I am trying to model the same behavior I would hope to see from ODM’s.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Oh - which is not to say that I always succeed in ‘disagreeing in love’. I have miles to go there…
August 1st, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Chris and Phil,
I am naturally protective of my husband and I will have no problem admitting that. I have a very different life perspective on this topic than you guys do. It is not just my husband I see it happen to it is others as well. If it was just Joe I would never have brought it up because I know I can be very protective of him.. Chris you mentioned a corporation, I was a general manager of a Christian based company. I had zero tolerance for this stuff. In fact, I fired a girl because she was always being condescending, talking poorly, or causing problems in front of our are clients. It looked bad. I was providing them a service. They were not paying to see my staff argue among each other. Joe and I try not to fight in front of our children. My children see how are fights works out without us having to involve them in ever disagreement we have. There are some things kids do not need to know. We teach them how to communicate without them having to know all of our issues and problems with each other. I paint a picture of him every time I talk about him. I want that painting to be beautiful to my children. You all paint a picture every time you talk about each other. What kind of picture are you painting to others? I am a huge fan on being transparent. I love openness and honesty. You all bicker and quarrel for everyone to see. I wonder sometimes if you even know what you want this blog to be about. Enough said, I just wanted to voice my concerns. I don’t need to keep hammering it home. Have a great night!
August 1st, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Chris,
Just a word of caution regarding open confrontation (if it’s not completely “loving” which can often be the case with disagreements) in front of your children - kids often take such confrontation very seriously and can’t or won’t necessarily express the anxieties/fears that it gives them.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:29 pm
I vote transparency.
>*
August 1st, 2007 at 10:31 pm
My clever comment totally died. There’s only .5% of it showing. And I can’t remember what I just wrote…
Something about a snipe being a bird, and the symbol >*
August 1st, 2007 at 10:32 pm
(It happened again. Am I being punished?) Sob.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:47 pm
I’m all for transparency and in the spirit of that, I do have to say I find being “called out” for something I didn’t do a bit consternating. To me, that’s not an issue of loyalty vs. transparency (for which I’d vote for loyalty) but it’s almost an ODM issue. In “chastising” Nathan and myself Chris ,in effect, set himself up as the ODM of this blog. One of the things that we often criticize in ODM’s is that they don’t take to task what was done, they take to task what could have been done–which is exactly what happened here. I have passion, sometimes that passion gets me in trouble, I understand that, but when I didn’t break the rules… It would be like a football umpire stopping the game to warn a guy that he could be guilty of tripping if he tripped.
To me, it’s not that big of a deal because I could have chosen to not write here when Chris set up his new structure. I knew what I was getting into and I’ll live with those parameters. For my personal life, I believe loyalty trumps everything but honor(part of loyalty is doing this in public because that is what Chris asked)…but that’s for another day.
Peace
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:13 am
Joe,
Your comments are taken to heart - I do not want to play an ODM role (at least not in the way described), and I think that yesterday’s comment could have been taken off-line (since it was more of a style/drift issue that an actual content one). My apologies for that.
Amy,
Your comments are taken to heart, as well, which is why I noted that only some of our disagreements occur in front of the kids - primarily ones which we know will be resolved within the time-frame of the conversation. Additionally, we make it no secret how much we love each other, as well (for the reasons you’ve noted and just because we do). It is all about behavior modeling and not creating future false expectations (like when the first real ‘fight’ happens when they get married, which, in itself, creates false expectations if you never saw your parents work through disagreement).
_____
Per the comments from the non-contributors, I think it is helpful for us to keep disagreements in content at the forefront, and per Joe and Erica’s, I see that behind the scenes discussion is probably better for ‘drift’ issues. I agree that loyalty trumps many things, but I think that if we allow loyalty to trump truth in belief, we miss an opportunity to model the correct behavior in ‘disagreeing in love’, which is our primary criticism of ODM’s…
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:14 am
Amy,
That is an excellent point! Chris after reading your e-mail and your comments here I would say we probably agree on the whole arguing in front of children. We are saying the samethings but in different ways!
Chris,
I do see some of your points and I will ponder on them as well. Thanks for listening!
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:36 am
Re: arguing in front of children. There’s an excellent “Adventures in Odyssey” story that I’ve heard a million times (my kids have the tape) that shows a kid’s imaginings about his parents getting a divorce, because he’s heard them fight. I think the story is pretty realistic in these days because probably all kids have friends whose parents are divorced. I’ll try to come up with the name of that story if anyone wants to listen to it online.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:50 am
Dude, I LOVE Adventures in Odyssey!
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:07 am
We have all of the AIO CD’s.
I know the episode you’re talking about, amy. I probably overstated what we do - we rarely ‘argue’ in front of or apart from the kids. What we do would fall more in line with discussing differences of opinion, such as whether or not we can afford something or what the best way is to coordinate the calendars of six people in our household.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:37 am
Chris,
We do that! It is important for kids to understand how thier parents work through life! The “real” fights we save for when they are not around! I understand what you were saying!
Amy,
Joe love adventure in Odyssey! He listens to it in the car while he is driving if a story is on!
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:42 am
So does that mean I can start tossing in things like referencing SoL/AM/C?N/Novacom?
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Listen you guys, does your “don’t argue in front of the kids” dialogue place me as a child. I am greatly offended since I am not one of your kids. Go ahead and argue in front of me, I can take it!
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Sorry for the metaphor, Henry - I think what I was trying to get at was that a ‘unified front’ is needed when dealing with ‘them’ in an ‘us vs. them’ situation, but that modeling behavior is needed in an ‘inside-the-walls’ situation. If we agree with C?N that this is a war between ‘us’ and ‘them’, then a unified front would be needed. I contend, though, that we are all Christians, so this should be treated as ‘inside-the-walls’, even if some of us inside the walls might believe they are the only ones who are ‘true Christians’.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:38 pm
The reason that we have a discussion about how to resolve differences is that so little loving forbearance is shown today that our discourse is sometimes shameful. For instance, can I say “I have some problems with Brother Bell and his approach, can I share them with you?”
Instead we get “That new aged, neo-liberal, pantheistic, emergent elf Bell is an heretic. Don’t talk, just listen to me”.
I believe the greatest measuement of a Christ follower is not how he treats his friends, it’s how he treats his enemies. See “The Cross” for reference.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Ah, yes, indeed. Your wit is as sharp as ever, Rick…