Amen!!!

Iggy,
That is an excellent point!!

I look at it this way:

There are three major issues right now for the watchdogs ( I am a watchman for my flock)
-Seeker sensitive Gospel
-Emergent Church
-Prosperity/word faith movement

Now, if there is a church in a town of 1,000 that practices some aspect of the Seeker sensitive gospel, and makes it known via you-tube or whatever, then it is public and we will use that example as something that we need to look out for. Or, in the case of the infamous ‘body worship’ pelvic thrust, a larger church in a larger town. These are used as examples of why we believe the seeker sensitive movement to be dangerous, not to mention the blatant watering down of the scripture.

In the days of the new church, Peter, Paul, John, Jude, and Jesus warned repeatedly of false doctrines, to keep watch out for them. As a pastor, I must be zealous in my own life first to make sure I am proclaiming the truth, and I must warn others who are in my flock. But my responsibility does not stop there as a Christian leader. It extends to warn those who are proclaiming and teaching false doctrines. Anyone who calls themself a Christian can be called out by another based on Scripture (truth) when they are in error. It is then up to the local congregation to deal with it. Unfortunately, there are so many blinded within those congregations, stuck in error! We as believers must reach out.

The scripture is quite clear, however (and this is where I have been guilty) about warning someone once. That is part of why I had to repent in terms of Tim’s loving his community. I disagree with what is going to be done at that concert, but I should have warned Tim once and left it at that. What happens instead, and you all are guilty of this also, is when Ingrid or Ken warns you, and then you shoot back over and over again. I really liked Erica Martino’s reasoned use of scripture in the one instance, I think it was over Tim’s concert- which really spoke to me about my motives helped me to see how damaging this type of site, and ODM’s can be to the body of Christ if not kept in check.

I see where you’re coming from, and agree to a large extent. People should not go off half-cocked on an issue based on lies, slander, innuendo, partial truths, gossip, etc.

Having said that, I also think we have to be careful at the same time about the lengths we’ll go to exclude or disqualify people from the discourse. If people know what they’re talking about and have facts to back it up, I think they have the responsibility and the right to sound off.

It’s along the lines of some people I know who say I should have no opinion on, let alone being in favor of, our being in Iraq becuase I’ve never worn the uniform.

I don’t have to know how to build a clock to tell time or know if a timepiece keeps the correct time.

I don’t have to know how to build a car to know if someone might have a lemon or is getting bent over by a certain mechanic.

If people don’t raise concerns or ask questions from time to time there wouldn’t be much accountability. But I’ve never been a fan of accusations in the form of a question and won’t admit their error if it’s shown to be the case. It’s all in the delivery.

How are you helping your church to grow by pointing out what you believe is a false doctrine in tiny church in a tiny town thousands of miles away from Mn?

I thought I was clear that if someone gave an example of a dangerous teaching on You-Tube, we could use it as an example of error

Looking back, I guess I wasn’t clear. Again, we do live in an age where You-Tube, internet, etc gives us incredible opportunities to spread the good news, but it also has given rise to every wack-job (see Fred Phelps) that has an anti-scriptural agenda. So I will put the question back to you, where does our responsibility, as Christian leaders, end? If the church is not a building, but a body, do we not, as overseers, have a responsibility to the larger body?

I agree Chris L, and since that is true, why is this site here?

It interesting that you say cherry picking, because cherries are fruit, and Jesus said in Matthew 7 ‘by their fruit you shall know them’. You can tell a lot about a church by what they put on the internet for public viewing, pelvic thrusts or not.

Again I pose the question, if the church is the universal body of Christ, and we have access into many more churches now in the internet age, where does a Christian’s responsibility end?

Joe,

How does the internet, television, books, etc. play into the ‘geographical’ church card as it were?

I am struggling through this to, because people and false teachings from all over the world come before me and members of my church on a daily basis.

Again, we do live in an age where You-Tube, internet, etc gives us incredible opportunities to spread the good news, but it also has given rise to every wack-job (see Fred Phelps) that has an anti-scriptural agenda. So I will put the question back to you, where does our responsibility, as Christian leaders, end? If the church is not a building, but a body, do we not, as overseers, have a responsibility to the larger body?

To begin with, I would suggest that calling out someone as a “false teacher”, simply based on disagreements with theological systems (with the classic Calvinist vs. Arminian debate) or eschatologies is uncharitable. I am guilty of this, myself.

I would also suggest that ‘piling on’ in regards to cultural preferences is uncharitable. If a church believes it should not use instruments, that it up to that body of believers to decide. If a church has a dance ministry, it is up to that body of believers to decide. If a church believes it should have multiple services with different styles of worship (music, technology, message style, etc.) it is up to them. In the absence of blatant sin in regards to ‘cultural preferences’, the approach of charity is highly important.

If you feel the need to disagree with, say, a far-away church’s dance ministry in order to protect your own flock (because they want to do something similar and you disagree with them), then handle it with your own flock. If you are concerned for the other church, in particular – call them! What is the need to call it out to every other flock out there?

With criticizing movements within the church, I think some care and charity is needed, as well:

1) Seeker-Sensitive: I will agree that there have been some pretty good examples of shallow SS churches out there. However, I know that a number of these (in my personal experience) have learned from their mistakes, and others which do not fit the distorted stereotype of ‘never talking about sin’, ‘watering down the gospel’, etc. Their chief ’sin’ is in their pragmatism regarding evangelism and spiritual growth post-conversion, but I would argue that most of the ones I am personally familiar with have recognized this and changed accordingly, without ditching some of the ‘external appearances’ (like music style, use of powerpoint, use of other technology, use of cultural icons, a la Paul on Mars Hill, to make biblical points) that so irk traditionalists.

2) The ECM: As a movement, the ECM is so broad that most general criticisms end up slandering wide swaths of believers. With specific ECM churches (and the EmergentVillage-associated ones seem to be more susceptible), liberalism and heresy bubble up with some frequency. With others, like Mars Hill (WA) and Vintage Faith (CA) to point out some larger ones, the difference is primarily in style and the eschewing of a-scriptural tradition, which also irks traditionalists (who tend to reside in, but are not limited to, fundamentalist/reformed churchs). Other churches with some ECM similarities, like Mars Hill (MI), are MUCH different than the traditional/fundamentalist churches in their day-to-day operation and how they seek to follow God’s word. They tend to eschew systematic theologies and a-scriptural tradition, but they remain rooted in the scripture.

In short, criticizing the entire movement is uncharitable, and criticizing specific churches may be appropriate within your own flock – or to the one you believe is at fault – but it starts becoming uncharitable when it involves parsing, proof-texting and uncharitable eisegesis of limited data from those congregations.

3) Word-faith/Prosperity Gospel: At its very basis, the message of the ‘prosperity gospel’ is false, and it probably the most dangerous in our highly-materialistic society. It is a message that is pretty easily refuted, without having to ‘name names’. In the case of refuting public teaching in a charitable, Christ-like manner, I’m not sure I’ve seen a better example than of Mark Driscoll’s evaluation of Joel Osteen’s TV interview.

Joe,
I don’t know, maybe in today’s world an internet blog can be considered a ministry. I can’t speak for Ingrid or Ken, but I am a pastor who has four blogs, each that has a specific ministry import. One of them you might call a watchkitty, but it is mainly invested in keeping my own flock aware of different issues. My other three all have to do with teaching, so we can call that a modern day method of communicating to my congregation.

As far as internet ministries not a part of a church, I can see them as dangerous, because of little accountability from a Pastor or a board. You can bet that I am held accountable at my church here if I post anything erroneous. I see value in AP and SOL, simply because they expose error from a reformed perspective. At the same time, I can honestly say I peruse sites like this one to keep it all in balance. Most importantly, I am in the Word of God and in prayer daily to keep the right perspective.

Chris P,

You prove once again that you can twist anything to mean what you want…

Look at the big picture. If one is worthy of the judgement of wrath on them… then it is God’s place to do so… not yours.

So, let’s look at the context in Romans 12

9. Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.
10. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves.
11. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord.
12. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.
13. Share with God’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.
14. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
15. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.
16. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
17. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.
18. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
19. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.
20. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
21. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Now so many times your “people” claim “heretic” on others with a zeal that surpasses most peoples zeal for God… notice that these are not “good” people that Paul encourages to lie at peace with.

IF I am a heretic as you believe then to you I am an enemy of God and am also evil… (this is what I get from your and others) then it is your job to not repay me with evil, but to leave room for God to judge me.

Your job is to love me and be so kind as to heap hot coals on my head as I cannot break you of your loving of me…

That is the teaching and the context… live with it.

iggy

Iggy,
Good use of scripture!!

It’s not just any small, normal, church though. It’s the ones that put videos on youtube, and advertise on the internet, have nice websites, etc. How would ODM’s know about them to write articles otherwise?

Not saying that putting stuff on the internet is bad. It’s good. But it makes it available to anyone in the world, and therefore open to criticism from people who may not know anyone in the church. I think there’s 2 ways of looking at it.

P.S. Mr. Silva finally admits it! He loves us! LOL.

The fundamental problem is that the internet distorts communication. Every person and every ministry on this earth is, at root, multi-faceted. There are strengths and weaknesses, moments of clarity amidst the most egregious of blindspots.

This is the human condition. We are all sinners in need of grace.

The problem with basing one’s discernment on an internet presence is that it distorts perceptions. You don’t *really* see the person, church, or ministry. You see a snapshot, far from your home and normal interpersonal relationships. The distance exaggerates whatever thing bothers you about the ministry, obscures whatever good you may applaud, and makes it permissible, in your eyes at least, to say things you wouldn’t dare utter in real life.

I personally agree with so many criticisms leveled by CRN and Slice. I think the seeker-sensitive model is silly, that Christians embrace too much of what is destructive in this age, and that we are far from the heart of God.

I guess, then, that I part ways with the manner of attack. Post after post, day after day, they beat a drum with a singular message: We know the way, and we are better, wiser, and holier than everyone else. What the Church needs is to be more like us.

I guess it’s just that when I think about the failures of the Church, I think of my failures too. I’m too eager to please non-Christian friends, I look too much like the world, and there are many days that I feel distant from God.

In the end, I suppose there’s a lot of wisdom to Chesterton’s retort when he was asked about what was wrong with the world: He said, “I am.”

If only, somehow, we could see that attitude more often with the ODMs.

I don’t have any problem with people critiquing what other churches are doing particularly from a biblical perspective – though I have not thought it through completely. I would assume that watchdogs would say that they are defending the greater cause – the Kingdom.

In a sense I’m giggy with it – just like I would someone posting on the “dangers” and/or inadequacies of Olsteen – for example.

So yes, I would say that there is a time and place for commenting on what’s happening at another church. With the caveats that; a) the more public the “sin” the more public the “rebuke”, b) hunting for examples is a rather negative way to go about it, and c) MG’s law of charitable reading – which is often at odds with “b) as an approach.

Neil

As far as what grounds people have to a long range hack and slash on other members of the body…None. There are better ways of confronting people than putting it all out on blast. That is an instance of when telling the truth can be wrong.

I sympathize with Tim. He’s close to the situation and in his shoes, I’d be taking personally at this point. He’s suffered the slings and arrows of some people whose intentions could be seen as less than loving.

In terms of what I use when I encounter things going on in a church far far away? (Keep in mind Tim and I are practically next door to each other, Joe M is on the other side of town.)

I think of 1 Thess 5:21. Test all things.

Be Berean. Check the Scriptures daily

Test the spirits. See if they are from God.

But even then, I may have reason to address the problem with one in authority, I see no reason to air it all in the public. I become somewhat responsible for what happens as well.

I’d expand, but I have to leave for church now, and I have a Bible study after that.

Later, all.

My opinion posted above left the door open for people to comment on Tim’s situation… that said, discussion the pro’s and con’s of an event is what I had in mind – not the slash and burn condemnation.

Is that too much having and eating the cake?

Neil

I have not issue with disagreement… but if there is no respect for the other that seems to cross the line of “loving one another” or “being a good neighbor.”

If one then becomes unloving in their discussion we lose sight of the truth and our calling.

God is Love and so we are also to imitate His Love… in that I do not mean as some critique some wishy washy mamsy pamsy love or the pseudo love of “tolerance” which still sees the other as not equal, but to see all men as equal, as sinners in need of a saviour.

What I see is this lack of true humility coming from the OMD’s it is as if they forgot that they are but sinners in the hands of an angry God (to use their own language) that is now saved by grace… they come across as some sort of elitist who was chosen above all others by their own merit…

This does not help the cause of Christ.

iggy

E.G. said,
“Frankly, it would be great if Christian authors of various sites of any stripe would focus more on what they saw as positive and Kingdom building things (be they spoken or written word, videos, songs, or what-have-you) rather than continually throwing grenades at each other…

…and in the process, injuring so many bystanders with the shrapnel.”

AMEN, BROTHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry. I must be calm. *hyperventilates*

Keith,

I’m experimenting with the PW-protected thing with a conversation on what improvements we can make in content and tone, looking for input from the writers. I’m unfamiliar with Wordpress, so it’s also just trying to work with its functionality.

Sorry to make you feel ‘left out’, I just had a few confidential areas I’ve been praying about and wanted to use a blog format with the other writers as an alternative to email….

FACIST PIG!!!!!!!!!!!

=)~

Aye comrade…God save the motherland.

you are in our backyard!

Thank you, E.G., for your prayers…