Seems the watchdoggies out there are feeling the heat from CT’s recent article labeling them “attack dogs”. So it looks like its time for the justifications to come out.

The first lesson that CT editors need to learn is that when complaining about unkind Christian bloggers, it probably isn’t a good idea to call them names. Attack dogs, eh?

And then a bit further on…

I have seen this irony again and again over the years. Those who don’t agree with a conservative, Bible believing Christian expressing his or her views in public can launch into a bitter tirade about the utter intolerance, the sanctimony, the nastiness and the pure venom they claim is being shown by the conservative, while they can use every insulting and degrading turn of phrase they can muster to sneeringly deride these “fundamentalists”, these “holier-than-thou pharisees” and so forth and so on.

What is it with the popularity of this defense? I mean, I understand when children use it, but sometime before adulthood there should be some recognition that “they did it too” is not a defense. If an action is wrong, then its wrong, no matter how many people do it. Essentially what the watchdoggies are saying is that their standard of conduct doesn’t come from God, it comes from humans (something we saw before here).

Also on display here is the continued and complete inability by the watchdoggies to understand anyone other than people who are exactly like them.

It’s terrible, just terrible, that Slice, how they are always posting articles about Church Viagra Conferences and Elvis impersonators and Saddleback Sunday morning carnivals and clowns in the pulpit. Somebody has to speak up for these people!

The watchdoggies seem to legitimately believe that the only reason that exist is to defend particular practices. They have absolutely no clue that it has very little to do with the particular stances taken and everything to do with how they do it, and their incredible ability to decide who is in the kingdom of God and who isn’t.

So what do these champions of moral rectitude do? They create special websites specifically for taking personal potshots at people like me, Pastor Ken Silva, etc. One Christian blogger even took a photo of me and photo-shopped horns on my head to complete a charming picture. There isn’t a day that goes by that the attack sites don’t feature stuff like this.

Gee it’d sure be nice if there was an actual link to the where this happened at. Of course, even that wouldn’t help, because the vast majority of the criticism aimed at them has been reasoned and well mannered. Dan Kimball,, and the other more high profile sites have been fair, reasonable, and, for the most part gentle. But Ingrid couldn’t acknowledge that, instead she posts that most of their critics are out there photoshopping horns on her. Its just one more example of the out and out slander the watchdoggies are willing to resort to.

But that’s OK, you see, because they’re right, and we’re wrong.

Now there’s something we can agree on.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 28th, 2007 at 2:55 pm and is filed under Ingrid, ODM Writers, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

8 Comments(+Add)

1   Rick Frueh
August 28th, 2007 at 3:44 pm

The irony is palpable. When I have spoken to some of the people about just maybe examining some of their tone and name calling I was immediately cast off as a traitor. Never a “maybe you have a point, we’ll pray about it”. That is one of the things that made me pray about the whole situation, their unwillingness to ever admit the possibility that they are wrong about anything.

I have made many mistakes in discourse and if the news got a hold of it I would be embarassed and convicted. Even if you are on the right side of an issue (or think you are) does that absolve you of some intraspection concerning your speech, motives, and treatment of others?

The ivory tower remains entrenched and surrounded by a moat of self righteousness that not only protects it from the encroachment of doctrinal impurity, but inadvertently the personal ministry of the Holy Spirit in conforming us to the image of Christ.

2   iggy
August 28th, 2007 at 3:45 pm

I have never seen one picture of Ken Silva… I am sort of curious as to what he looks like…


3   JohnD    
August 28th, 2007 at 11:10 pm

Here’s the part that is really funny. The CT article DID NOT DO what they do.

Did they bother to read the last line in the article:

“Christians should set an example. By all means criticize fellow Christians if necessary, but do so with grace.”

CT did it with grace. The whole tone of the article was civil. Not once was anybody even called apostate!

Come on, please!!! Get over yourself.

4   kp    
August 28th, 2007 at 11:23 pm

The sad thing is, I agree with a lot of the worst examples of “church gone wrong” that Sl_ce sites…

But their tone and purpose isn’t one of redemption and forward movement, it’s one of condemnation and self-piety.

Wouldn’t be great to see an ODM that pointed out what’s wrong, then pursued the best for those they criticised?

Whenever I’ve had to confront issues in others’ lives, I’ve always avoided the “What’s wrong with you?” mentality and went for the “In Christ you can do so much better…” approach.

I certainly wouldn’t “Why can’t you be more like us?” Which is all we get from the odm crowd…

5   chris
August 29th, 2007 at 6:12 am

With my daughters I often hear “She started it”.

I wonder if the ODM crowd has that somewhere in their faulty attempt at justification?

6   chris
August 29th, 2007 at 6:17 am

BTW am I the only one who noticed that the name “Slice of Laodicea” may be an open jab at Saddleback. I think this because Saddlebacks newsletter is called “slice” and the Church of Laodicea in Rev. 3 is not exactly what God is pleased with.

Because I’m new to the ODM sites this may be open knowledge that I just missed.

7   JohnD    
August 29th, 2007 at 8:43 am

Check out the latest post on this subject over at Slice (A P.S. to Yesterday’s “Attack Dog” Post). It confirms my observation (above) that these folks cannot resist name calling what and who they disagree with. Here are a few of the latest examples of their vitriol:
-Tony Campolo is the “heretic emeritus”
-Campolo and Jim Wallis are also “left wing shills”
-The CT editors are a “craven group of consensus seekers”
-CT is “fornicating with the Latter Day Saints, Roman Catholics and other apostate groups”

So much for the “gentleness, modesty, and wisdom” that Aiken called for at the end of his article.

8   Sandman    
August 29th, 2007 at 10:23 pm

And yet it seems they never once take into account the possibility there may be credibility in the criticisms levelled at them. Perhaps it’s time for them to stop examining everybody else long enough to examine themselves.

I say this a lot in my dealings with people: It’s all in the delivery. Do it in a nice way, and you can dismantle someone and still have them asking for more.

Do it the way she does it, and she demonstrates she has no love. And her way of doing what she does only panders to the already converted, but mostly causes people to dig their heels in.