Many of us here know that Walter Martin, aka The Bible Answer Man, is a hero of the ODMs. What bothers me is when the “godly” heroes sin (by the ODM standards), there is no correction. They are willing to correct everyone else except their heroes. Here is a little bit about Martin that the ODMs sweep under the rug:
“At age seventeen he [Martin] eloped with Patricia Alice Toner, with the marriage lasting about four years. Patricia Toner was the daughter of the prominent Long Island oyster entrepreneur Royal Toner.
Martin was married to Elaine Lois Jacobsen from June 1952 to July 1973. He married Darlene Nesland in November 1973 and they remained together until his death in 1989, due to apparent heart failure. Martin has five children from his first marriage and one child from his second.
Martin was ordained as a minister of the Regular Baptists in 1951, but this was revoked in 1953 owing to his remarriage.”
Now by most ODM standards, divorce is a really bad (CRN had this to say about divorce). Remarriage can be even worse (CRN had this to say about remarriage). Martin married three times.
I actually have a great deal of respect for Martin’s teaching on the cults. He was an incredible researcher. I grew up listening to him on the radio. However, according to the ODM standards, if Martin was anybody else (like say, Rick Warren), he’d be crucified. The ODMs repeatedly beat the drum about Rick Warren’s “sins”, holding him to a near impossible standard, yet ignore Martin’s sins (by their own standards). They think Martin is on their team, so he gets a free pass.
I guess as long as you fight the truth war, you can do whatever you want.
109 Comments(+Add)
Sorry Matt – you and your cohorts are stooping to new levels of low on posts like this. Very distasteful (almost on the level of Clintonesque politics). Personally, I’ve never heard this gentleman speak, so not defending him as I don’t know who he is, but that’s beside the point.
I’m sure you’ll defend this post with thinking like, “Well, well, they do it to!!” But that would be terribly poor logic and a tragic shame.
Once again, this site is becoming more and more like the ODM’s they claim are so wrong.
I need more information, stop the reductionism- Walter Martin divorced- all divorce is wrong-so throw away all of his teachings- and all the ODM’s that use his quotes are evil. (dripping with sarcasm)
What were the circumstances of his divorces? Was he converted before he divorced? Then he would be under the law. Otherwise, that, with any other sin, would be under the blood. (oh, sorry, Emergents don’t like that term. It is not very seeker sensitive) It is covered under the sacrifice of Jesus. (Which also, appearantly also converted the earth, the Muslims, Hindus, and those in the Jedi church)
Then, of course, the former Mrs. Martins could have abandoned the marriage, or could have committed adultery, which also would have been covered under Jesus’ standards for divorce and remarriage (oh, yes, that is in the Sermon on the Mount also)
I guess I just need more information. But, if we took the time to gather that information, this story might not be so interesting, and we wouldn’t get to take a pot-shot at Pastor Ken.
And, it is so very interesting that we have to raise the dead to get a pot-shot in. We have to speak ill of a husband, father, and brother who has crossed the boundary of death. Not even sin (Romans 6) or the Law (Romans 7) can attach to someone after death. The penalty has already been paid. Talk about beating the proverbial deceased equine!
But, since we are not the hated ODM’s, we can do this. Our mission statement justifies going after ODM’s because they are so hurtful to the body of Christ. Yep, its okay.
Oh Paul, and John. This post has nothing to do with Walter Martin, it has to do with the double standard at C?N and SOL. John, no caps this time. I’m impressed. You seem to be learning self-control. Good job.
ODM is capitalized. Sorry.
No, that’s not my point. Like I said, I like Martin. The ODMs also like Martin. But you never hear about some of the controversies behind the man. It’s only fair that everyone is held to the same standard.
I’m not picking on Martin. I’m not an investigative reporter. This was a simple Wikipedia search. You can also google about Martin’s divorces/remarriages and will come up with the same info.
You also never hear from the ODMs about Luther’s anti Jewish writings, Luther’s drinking, Spurgeon’s drinking and smoking, Calvin’s sins. These guys aren’t sacred cows.
Uh…Not quite.
This post clearly points out the sin of the ODM’s (hypocrisy) more than it points to Walter Martin.
And I’ll say it before anybody. Why do ODM’s get to be the purveyors of sin (their “pet peeve” sins) with everything from style of worship to how they’re treated at grocery stores but yet they gloss over their own sin and the sins of those they prop up on pedestals? (huge run on)
This is why it’s difficult to hear anything they say; they project this image of self-righteous indignation at others the whole time patting themselves on the back. “Thank God I’m not like the tax collector”
Don’t believe me. Check out any comment section from A little Leaven to Camp on this. Your sure to run across several people beating their chests in self righteous pride.
I think I will begin every comment like this. I like Walter Martin.
I know Christians who have divorced/been divorced. Much of the time, the more conservative types treat them like yesterdays trash.
This isn’t about Martin. He is simply an example of a double standard.
I also gave examples of where CRN criticized someone for getting a divorce and I gave an example of CRN criticizing a denomination of accepting remarriage.
Who is covering up Spurgeon’s smoking or Luther’s drinking?
Does the Bible count these as sins, anyway? I don’t think so.
More dead Christians? Why don’t you guys come up with something a little more current? I think it is because you can’t. For all your unrighteous indignation at the ‘ODM’s’, the only ’sin’ they commit is pointing out apostasy and heresy in the church.
And talk about shoddy research….
You use Wikipedia?
I could write a Wikipedia article based on fallacies and get published there.
PB – I realize the weaknesses of Wikipedia. However, you can google the same information. It is verifiable.
Like I said, I gave two examples of CRN criticizing ministries because of divorce and remarriage. They don’t just point out “apostasy” and “heresy”.
My point is you’re treading along the same tracks as those you so heartily condemn. I sometimes wonder what goes through the mind of a person before he posts a post like this…
What do you hope to accomplish?
Solomon sums up what I’d like to say better than I can: “Every way of man is right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the hearts.”
“These guys aren’t sacred cows.”
Who ever said they were?
This blog along with others, (including a certain sedevacantist/rcc blog) use that rhetoric constantly.
You worship Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, blah, blah blah…
Everyone knows that such drivel is grasping at the wind.
However the aforementioned blogs can make icons of worship out of Bell, Bono, the queen of heaven, various saints etc etc.
All have sinned and fallen short and if you say you have no sin you are a liar. (iggy take note)
I have wondered on this myself… I also loved Walter Martin but see him as the flawed human he was. Yet, it seems that if one is the ODM idol (Luther, Martin, and Calvin) they seem to have their double standard of holiness and righteousness going.
They will tell you (Chris R) that our righteousness only comes from Christ, then hold Rick Warren and Rob Bell and whoever to the fire if they do not carry the yoke that ODM’s demand.
I find this more sad as I see that most ODM’s (some of them divorced themselves) never learned some things Walter taught us… compassion and love will win more over than being right and bashing all who are lost.
Paul C and John, I also see that you missed the point of this post… Ken Silva states he was “mentored” by Walter Martin (he listened to some tapes) yet misses the most important thing when dealing with those of us that he disagrees with… love… I have had more compassion from atheists than from most ODM’s I run into… and that should be a huge warning call to the faithful.
iggy
Neither one of those articles criticized divorce and remarriage. Both articles quoted sources about 1. Two ministers getting divorced with a quote from God’s Word “I hate divorce” and no other comment; and 2. A story from the AOG national meeting, and their opinion on growing ecumenism and compromise, not a comment from CRN here either.
So, I rest my case, shoddy research (which ya’ll accuse ODM’s of) HYPOCRISY
Attacking a dead minister to make a point (you get mad about ODM’s calling out sin of a small living congregation) HYPOCRISY
Straight out lying that the ODM’s attacked this sin in anybody (Quoting Gods word is not attacking) LYING
Matt, you look more like the ODM’s you despise than a concerned emergent. Better go work on that image.
Iggy,
You are so blinded by hate for Ken Silva that you can’t see the hypocrisy and utter mean spiritedness of this post. I am apalled.
And the fact that you can fellowship with athiests better than Christians? It speaks volumes.
Paul C,
You’re being obtuse. ODMs track down and publish past sins in order to humiliate and demean those they disagree with. Are you really suggesting that Matt is trying to humiliate and demean a dead guy?
This is yet another example of ODM team playing. If you’re on their team you won’t be criticized no matter what you do, if you’re not on their team everything you do is criticized.
PB-
I am not attacking Walter Martin. I like Walter Martin. Can you point out research that you’ve done that shows he didn’t divorce and remarry three times?
I’m just reporting facts about Walter Martin. You and I are going to disagree with the intent of CRN’s articles. I read those articles and thought that CRN was telling me that divorce and remarriage was a sin. Did you think CRN was saying otherwise? Why was CRN reporting that information? What was their intent? To point out sin in ministers, or something else?
PB,
I am not blinded by hate… In fact I do not hate Ken so please do not go there… he hates me… as he calls me HIS nemesis and I have never stated anything like that about him… I have prayed only for him to be blessed.
In fact you last statement shows me something about you and what you think of me… and I wonder at your hard heart.
I do not “fellowship” with atheists, I stated that I have had more compassion from atheists than from most ODM’s I run into… so do not twist my words as you often do…
At least I know some unsaved people and am sharing the Gospel with them… so I agree Christ is using me in great ways and I marvel at His works in me and through me…
It seems you would rather attack me than listen to me… in that you proved my point much better than I could have ever.
iggy
As I said Tim, Every way of man is right in his own eyes, but the Lord looks at the motives… Sorry, I’m not an ODM, nor do I know anyone who is personally. I am taking this particular post on its own merit and what I see is very distasteful and unnecessary.
So, if you think stuff like this is fair game, then again, read what Solomon says. I’m sure you’ll find reason enough to justify almost anything.
Just to clear this up, attacking Walter Martin was not my intent. I believe I said that in the article.
Several years ago, the former pastor at my current church had an affair. He later repented and became the pastor again. I’m reporting facts here. Is that wrong to say? Isn’t it the truth?
My intent was to point out that CRN goes after other people’s sins but ignores the same sins of the people whom they consider on their team.
One doesn’t have to look very hard to see the double standard ar CRN and SOL. Just look at how many time Paula White’s divorce is mentioned on those sites. Of course when she got divorced it’s because she has bad theology (by the way, I’m not saying she doesn’t). The ODM tend to overlook the sins of those that agree with them.
Matt, I also want to be clear that your “intent” was not misunderstood on my part. The point I would ask you to consider is that you are on a slippery slope when you put a post up like this. I wish you could pause to see this, rather than defend yourself on this one.
Posting something like this, then putting in an aside that “I actually like him” is not very noble at all. If you had any respect for this person, I would find it hard to believe you would dredge the bottom of the barrel like you’ve done.
I’m not attacking you personally here, but am only cautioning that this is in severely poor taste. Take it as you will.
Phil – that may be so, but as the self-appointed crusaders of all things that are right and correct, I would ask you to take your own advice.
I have seen, countless times, on this blog where you guys charge headlong into defending something that is reprehensible simply because they are on “your side” (yes, I know, here come the defenses). That is a simple state of fact.
We are all biased to some degree.
Paul,
I’m pretty sure that every writer for this site respects Walter Martin, and none of us believe that his three marriages detract from the truth in his teaching.
This article is not about Dr. Martin – he is simply an example of a godly man who, because of ODM’s love for him, as well, gets a pass on “discernment” of his sin being a result of his beliefs, thus nullifying his teaching.
On the old Slice (1.0), there were a number of folks castigated because of divorces early in their lives as “evidence” that their teaching was corrupt. That is part of the implication of the Bynum piece on CR?N.
As for using Wikipedia as a source, there are a number of checks and balances which make it more reliable than most internet sources – and you can look at page histories and the like in determining areas of dispute…
Is Luther’s opinion of the Jews ok to write about? Is Spurgeon’s drinking and smoking ok to write about? Is it ok to write about the Puritans marching through Ireland and killing Catholics?
Is any of that in poor taste? Do you consider divorce a private sin that we shouldn’t talk about, even though it’s a fact?
Paul,
I would like you to show us an example of defending something that is “reprehensible”, as you put it.
The fact is I will defend those that are being attacked, even if the person being attacked is clearly wrong. Where in Scripture are Christians directed to attack sinners? Whatever happened to “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”?
Of course you’ll come back and accuse us of “attacking” poor ol’ Ken Silva or Ingrid, but I do not think pointing out the weakness of an argument as attacking. We are not trying to “defeat” or “beat down” the ODMs. We are merely trying to protect others from their fallacious attacks.
Thinking about it, the only “Clintonesque” feature of this topic is the castigation of your ideological opponents for sins while turning a blind eye (or at least a compassionate one) for “your team”.
Matt didn’t dredge anything up, and I don’t see anything condemning of Dr. Martin in the OP or any suggestion that we should treat him or his memory poorly.
Perhaps it is your own conscience that condemns you, as you see Matt’s acknowledgement of Dr. Martin’s sin as trying to tear him down, when what his real point was that such family tragedies cause by sin should not be held as “proof” against the truth of their teachings/beliefs. (or, in simpler terms, that you should read the book of one’s life as a charitable reader, rather than with a hypercritical (or hypocritical) eye…)
How is this dredging up anything at all about WM? It’s historical fact. Matt didn’t go dredge up anything. That statement doesn’t make sense.
“he hates me”
No, he doesn’t.
I am not a Luther or Spurgeon fan. Neither do I turn a blind eye to the Puritans who might not have been all that pure. God knows. I am simply stating a point of fact: once you start down a road like this post, you become (or have already become) worse than the people you are “attacking” (and yes, you are attacking – maybe not Martin, but others).
Chris L – to me, respect for someone (and again, I’ve never heard of the man before this post) would run a little deeper in my view. If there’s hypocrisy, never fear, God will sort it out.
Here’s one last thought that I hope might resonate with you (as it did with me). This weekend I was reading John…
In it, the Pharisees were trying to destroy Christ at every turn. In John 8, the Jews brought Abraham into the picture, claiming to be his offspring.
The Lord pointed out that if they were truly Abraham’s children they would believe in Him AND do the works of Abraham. Instead, He called them children of the devil (no I’m not calling you or anyone else a child of the devil).
The point is, theyb were wholeheartedly convinced that if Abraham appeared on the scene, he would have sided with them against Christ. But instead, Christ knew that Abraham rejoiced to see His day.
Here we are, 2000 yrs later… we all make claims similar to this (I see it here and elsewhere). Just as the Jews had an Abraham of their own imagination, we now have a Jesus of our own imagination to a large degree (unless He has genuinely touched our hearts). We think we’re doing His work, but are we really?
Is it “attacking” to ask for folks to use the same measuring stick for those they love as well as those they dispise?
I think not.
I don’t see that Matt is saying “if Walter Martin was alive, he’d agree with us.”
Rather, he’s saying “why can’t we treat everyone the same way – those we agree with and those we disagree with – rather than living with a spirit of Schadenfreude (rejoicing in the failure of others)?”
The truth is, that this is as much an ODM blog- they just choose to turn a blind eye to the apostasy and heresy of their ‘team’ therefore they attack those who discern apostasy and heresy.
It is the hypocrisy of the one sided conversation that drives me nuts.
And the fact that you have to go over to the ‘other side’ to attack those who are dead. You cannot point out by scripture any heresy or apostasy of the ODM’s, so you just yell slander and dig up the bones of Walter Martin (who, you have not yet proven, that his divorce was even a sin yet), Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon….etc.
I for one am looking forward to lighting up a heavenly stogie with Spurgeon and Drinking a heavenly brew with Luther at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. And no, that is not a statement of my eschatology.
Chris L – “…rather than living with a spirit of Schadenfreude (rejoicing in the failure of others)?â€
In that we agree. Simply my 2 cents (referencing my above comments).
I wasn’t claiming Matt would say that Martin would side with him/you. I am saying that many times we think we are doing the right thing when it is so far off-base that we actually become the enemy of right.
Jesus said it best: “The time will come that those who kill you will actually be thinking they are doing God service.” That’s what can happen when we get so vested in defending a position rather than looking for the truth.
I see Matt’s point (as I said above), but it could have been made in other ways or simply left alone. I am simply commenting on the fact that I have witnessed (as have others) that this blog has become somewhat more antagonistic (though more subtle and politically-correct) than the blogs you war against. Amazing…
That is exactly what I mean.
I’m asking the reader to take a careful look at the selective methods CRN uses. I’m not sure how I could make that more clear. Paul, how would you have written the post to point out the hypocrisy of CRN?
Oh, for cryin’ out loud…
Please show us where we have attacked individuals.
Paul and John,
So from what I see hear what you are stating. ( this is meant in clarifying and not putting words in your mouth)
It is fine for the ODM’s to attack someone for “sin” and sin while doing so… or if they have been divorced to condemn others for the same sin. I also hear you saying that to point out that someone is telling others to live “holy” and are not living that way themselves or criticizing others they see are not as “holy” as they are themselves then it is ok to judge and condemn others. I also hear you saying that it is wrong to defend yourself and others as then you “hate” the ODM’s and are no better than them if you do defend yourself and others.
I am also hearing from you that though our righteousness is from Christ and so is our Holiness… it is ok for the ODM’s to attack others for being less holy and righteous than they are themselves…
I hear you are defending these actions and condoning them…
This is what I hear you saying… am I hearing you right?
iggy
By writing this post about the hypocrisy of CRN, you are setting up a straw man and practicing reductionism. And you are beating up on someone dead. Why not take on Mike Ratliff, Ken Silva, and Ingrid head on rather than exhuming the coffin of Martin?
Has anyone looked into the circumstances of the divorces? No, that would require research, which you say the ODM’s don’t do.
Iggy,
I am obviously wasting my time here.
Matt – when it comes to hypocrisy (possibly one of the worst sins, because you become blinded into thinking you are in the right) I would proceed very, very cautiously, lest I be found guilty of the same thing and not know it (read Romans 2). I often find myself guilty of many of the things I would condemn. That cautions me a little to examine myself more closely (and even then, I’m sure I overlook things).
Truth is, I wouldn’t write a post about the hypocrisy of the ODMs. If I did though, I hope I would try to examine myself first and see if I’m also guilty of the same thing. That’s my issue here: this site does the EXACT same thing (defending your favorites, castigating your nemeses). Yes, you try to be clever, making full use of parables, allegories and metaphors, but it is the same thing.
We are to use judgment, but Jesus speaks of righteous judgment. Not immature stone-throwing and “They do it too!” reasoning. So the truth can be discussed, and should be, but the motives must always be assessed.
WIKIPEDIA: A couple of weeks ago, some joker listed the Patriots beating the Packers 56-0 in this year’s Super Bowl (it is fixed now). As a source, Wikipedia is a great jumping off point, usually correct, but always needs to be verified as was done in the post above through a quick google search.
DIVORCE: There are many ministries that deny any leader, pastor, or elder role to anyone who has ever been divorced for any reason. The SBC mission arm known as the International Mission Board is one. Divorce for any reason, disqualifies you from serving in leadership or long-term missions.
By SBC do you mean, Slowing Becoming Catholic?
Seriously, I’d appreciate your prayers. We’re taking my daughter to the Dr.’s She woke up vomiting everywhere and has been getting progressively sicker. All three of my kids have been sick and my wife has bronchitis so it’s not a lot of fun, right now. I’d appreciate it.
Is divorce a sin or not? And if you can understand, Walter is not being judged… it is that the ODM’s seem to not get that their own “sin” and even if that is pointed out, they turn a blind eye to it…
So I guess we are both wasting our time as you cannot see that if someone judges others and do it themselves…. or seem to brush their own “idols” sins under the rig… it is fine…
So you think that condoning sin is ok as long as it is on your own team? I don’t… I have spoken to those who I know that I see have done thing that I see as inappropriate… yet I do not ever see that or have see (or received) apologies from ODM’s who twist and pervert what I state and what others state let alone gentleness and humility in their rebukes.
iggy
Paul C-
I sat on this article for a while. It wasn’t written on a whim. I even had others read it and critique it and I made changes. As for me as a writer here, I’m a Calvinist who has several issues with both Warren and Bell. Everyone who reads here knows this. I don’t think I put anyone on a pedestal and I’m more then willing to question any of the sacred cows you percieve that we have here. You can see this when someone brought up Rob Bell’s thought that “Jesus believes in you”. Martino and I had a little bit of a discussion about it.
My intent wasn’t a “ha ha, I caught you post!” It was asking CRN to apply the same standards equally. That’s all.
Joe, Prayers being offered now.
I do believe healing is in the atonement
Joe,
I will be praying also…
iggy
Because, in a number of ways, it “dredges up” much less to use someone who has died decades ago than to do so with a living person. Matt very well could have used Ingrid as an example (she’s been divorced) but that truly would have been seen as a personal attack, rather than to use someone that both “sides” of the debate consider to be a hreo, of sorts.
In choosing Walter Martin, Matt could also have taken it in the direction of Ken Silva – who claimed steadfastly that he “studied at the feet of Dr. Walter Martin”, until it was pointed out that the timeframe in which Ken studied at Martin’s feet, Dr. Martin had already been dead two years. Yet, we’ve got Ken trumpeting the sin of lying when Rick Warren suggests telling children that an ex-pastoral staff member has resigned when it was likely a forced resignation. But again, choosing a living person you disagree with is not nearly as neutral as choosing someone everyone in the conversation agrees with (at some level) and suggesting that the way of treating that person’s sin should be modeled with a living person’s sin…
Joe – we will pray for you…
Matt, with respect, what you wrote may be true, but it comes across as gossip. Exactly what good is there to be gained from putting that out there like that yet again in an effort to criticize some ODM?
Not every truth needs to be spoken.
I like Martin too. He did much to get people out of the cults and his audio is still doing the same to this day. But he was still only a man.
Walter Martin isn’t here to defend himself, nor is he here to stop people from putting him up on so high a pedastal.
While I understand what you’re saying, you have to realize is there is another, albeit unintended, message coming across: Since the ODMs aren’t going to criticize/scandalize Walter Martin, I will.
Sandman,
I guess you miss the point… no one is ragging on WM for being human and with flaws… (why don’t you guys get that?)
It seems that you miss that all people have flaws and if an ODM can give grace to WM then why not others?
Instead they attack and make ugly against others… and then in most cases give not intent on reconciliation but further jsutify why that other person is STILL wrong even when shown they are not.
This is a dangerous double standard… and this site is warning the ODM’s of that… not attacking WM at all.
iggy
Sandman,
I can see what you’re saying about unintended consequences, and I would hope that the article did NOT come across that way (since Dr. Martin’s divorces were brought up before in discussions on double-standards and divorce on other blogs). Granted, juggling new readers/voices in a conversation and ones who have not been in the conversation is always tricky.
You make some valid points that should be considered…
Iggy,
You’re letting your passions get the better of you. Do you know what my position is on WM?
You guess wrongly; I didn’t miss the point. Did you not see the part of my comment where I state that I understand what Matt is saying, but was offering an admonition that what he intended to say also carried another message that may not have been intended?
Did you not read where I said WM was only a man? Where in my comment do you read me saying he was something other than that? That I said I liked him? Why are you so quick to disregard the text of my comment to lump me in with the generic “you guys don’t get it.”
Yes, I’m well aware that certain ODMs hold up some people, living and dead, as sacred cows while calling down curses on others. Know what? It happens here as well on this site, so I guess it’s a matter of whose cow is getting butchered today. But since when does somebody else’s bad behavior justify my own? Or yours? That is the issue I have. For the record, WM is not a sacred cow to me. I’ve heard him defend himself on, or refuse to discuss, the matter of his marriages. I don’t see it as all that life-changing that it was brought up here, but if you don’t have to go there, don’t.
sandman,
can you give an example… you don’t even need cut and paste… just an example of this.
My point is that you are so focused on
Not every truth needs to be spoken.
It seems that if one here speaks that the ODM’s are entrenched in a double standard and we point out “Luther cussed†as they attack M. Driscoll… or state that divorce is wrong (which it does not matter who is at fault… ) yet have gone through divorce themselves… that if one side can have this “free pass†while we are all held by their standard and by yours. I am also stating ALL OF US ARE FLAWED… so I do not get why you are so upset at me when I state the ODM’s do nto see that… I never stated you don’t see WM was flawed….I stated the ODM’s have a lack of Grace… not you…
As far as the “you guys don’t get†I am glad that you do… yet it seems you don’t to a degree… as you still are saying that ODM’s get the free pass and this site does not.
joe,
praying, still, but i’ve been praying and you guys are still sick!! Though I’m believing James 5…
praying for your whole fam right now.
I don’t think we need to point out anyone’s sins — especially if they were done a long time ago, and it was something that was part of their personal lives. Everyone sins. Pointing out everyone elses’ sins is rude, judgemental, and just not necessary.
If a teacher or leader is teaching something unbiblical or dangerous, it’s good to point that out for the good of others. It’s possible to do this without insullting the individual or pointing out sins in their lives (”They’ve been divorced and remarried!! Adulterer!!”) Pointing out the sins of people who are the ones bashing the individual is just not necessary either. (”They’ve been divorced and remarried as well! Hypocrites!!”)
It’s this huge cycle of judgementalism that just makes Christians look like fools. I don’t care if something is ironic; sometimes pointing out all things ironic just isn’t necessary. Some things just don’t have to be said. I know I’ve said that phrase about 3 times now. Just not necessary.
If someone already said something like this, sorry. I’m responding to the original article.
Iggy, you’re doing weird stuff with the blockquote function.
Merry,
The thing is this that this hardly qualifies as gossip. If you type Walter Martin’s name in Google, the Wiki link is third thing that pops up. His divorce is pretty much public knowledge to anyone who knows anything about the man.
Matt’s point was not to play “gotcha” with the ODMs. He’s just asking why they seem to be able to extend grace to some but not others.
Well stated, Phil. I know that wasn’t Matt’s intent. I get frustrated by those tactics, though and believe we’re just playing “their” game (those who do that) when we go there.
“Ken Silva – who claimed steadfastly that he ’studied at the feet of Dr. Walter Martin’, until it was pointed out that the timeframe in which Ken studied at Martin’s feet, Dr. Martin had already been dead two years.”
I would beg to differ with “steadfastly.”
First, no one would have known anything about how I feel Dr. Martin’s materials were beneficial to me had I not willingly divulged it.
All I have ever said was, I was very influenced in my early studies by Dr. Martin. I have always added, though I never met the man, and that it was primarily through his cassette ministry.
My studies began in 1987; Martin was still alive, and I have never said that his materials were the only ones I have used. Wouldn’t want any of you to get accused of lying now.
Iggy,
Let me say up front that I’m not upset. I was a bit bothered that you were using the general “you” when addressing or referring to myself and certain others in the same breath as having the same pattern of behavior.
This wasn’t clear to me in your earlier comment; now it is. Let grace abound. We cool on that?
On the matter of sacred cows being gored and calling down curses… Figure of speech on my part to make a point, but you can follow any thread long enough where Warren, Driscoll (who also is in a good interview with Matt Slick on the CARM site), Pagitt, McLaren or McManus is mentioned and you’ll soon see JohnnyMac, Calvin, Luther, Martin, Friel, Comfort, etc., pulled out in response. It happened on this thread, and on another active thread dealing with WOTM.
I’ve noticed (here and on other blogs) that instead of resolving the issue du jour, someone will instead just look for the most painful, nastiest thorn they can find to stick in someone else’s side.
As I said earlier, WM is dead. I doubt he’s all that concerned with what we’re saying about him. But if he were alive, I do wonder what he’d say about others making him part of the believer’s hall of fame.
Phil, I don’t care if Walter Martin’s sins are public knowledge. I know this isn’t gossip. I wasn’t even specifically referring to anyone in my comments, although I can think of quite a few examples. My point was that Christians spend too much time worrying about other people’s sins. I think we sometimes have unrealistic expectations of people (”If they’re going to be the leader of a church of 10,000 they’d better not sin ever or obviously they’re not a Christian!!”)
I get tired of seeing articles about how ironic it is that this person is judging that person. I think any clearly-thinking observer can figure it out, and we don’t have to point it out every time it happens. Lets just pray for our fellow Christians and let God work in their lives.
I know this article wasn’t bashing anyone. Just some food for thought.
merry,
Yeah, finding hypocrisy in the Christian blogosphere is like finding drunk fans at a Penn State game.
Yeah, but Matt, do you like Walter Martin?
That is what we’re doing here in the comments, is missing the point, right?
merry said: I get tired of seeing articles about how ironic it is that this person is judging that person.
Then, for you, the shoe obviously doesn’t fit for this type of article.
I think any clearly-thinking observer can figure it out
Quite true. But if you think those are in the majority, then you’ve never read the “amen corners” of the ODMs that allow commenting.
and we don’t have to point it out every time it happens.
You’re right. Frankly, I don’t think our writing staff is big enough to point it out every time.
Lets just pray for our fellow Christians and let God work in their lives.
And if/when God wants to use us to help someone think clearly, what then? One ODM-meister got in a rut for a while of saying something like “let me help lift the post-modern fog from your eyes”. As condescending as it came across (often given the surrounding words), with a little tweaking, it may be accurate for some people do be doing some fog-lifting to help others.
While I am not equating hyper-fundamentalism to being spiritually dead, think of it this way. When we become saved, is not part of the motivation behind evangelism to help rescue others who are now in the dire straits that we were in? God rescued me from the hyper-fundies. If He wants to use me in His desire to rescue others, who am I to say ‘no’?
I might be getting in trouble here, but Walter Martin would have been on the wrong side of the “truth War”
1. He was more RCC friendly than the ODM’s are. In fact Jill Martin states that she sees that some in the RCC are saved… Which is what I remember how WM basically put it though he did take a stand on much that was taught.
2. WM considered SDA as orthodox.
3. The big difference between Wm and the current ODM’s is that WM had a category called “aberrant” which meant that they held to the core of the faith, yet had an aberrant teaching such as “tongues” or “baptism regeneration”…
The point is that WM showed more grace that what is out there today. In fact, out side of Bible Answer Man, (which has it own issues) and maybe Carm.org, I really don’t know where one might go for “good” discernment ministry…
WM left a great legacy, and I fear that some that use his name are tarnishing it more than honoring him and what God did in and through him.
iggy
Iggy,
Jill Martin also made that claim about Catholics when she took over Slice for a few days. The post came down a few days later. Ingrid did not like it.
Matt B,
Not sure what the point is here.
I don’t see any of the ODM’s accusing Rick Warren of keeping concubines or McLaren of having a homosexual lover or Joel Osteen roasting small children over a Texas BBQ.
In case you haven’t looked, we are ALL sinful. So I guess I’m not shocked to hear that Walter Martin was guilty of sinning.
The issue is not whether Walter Martin was a sinner or whether Rick Warren, McLaren and Osteen are sinners (of course they are). The issue is whether or not they correctly handle and teach the word of God.
There are several doctrines that Walter Martin held that I would vigorously debate and disagree with if he were alive today. Neither myself or the other ODM’s believe that Walter Martin spoke ex cathedra.
But I can tell you that Walter Martin had a profound influence on me. Therefore, I thank God for his ministry, sins and all.
sandman,
My head gets dizzy with some around here… I apologize if I took womething you stated or lumped you in with whoever…
iggy
Chris R,
WM was a man-loving semi pelagian as defined by AP and CRN…
In fact here is a quote from someone who KNEW WM and was actually mentored by him (as opposed to listened to some tapes)
Just wanted to let you know…
iggy
Iggy,
Don’t sweat it. I apologize if I came across a bit testy or bent out of shape; that really wasn’t the intent. Sometimes the thoughts don’t match words and then it’s just a matter of assuming crash position and brace for impact.
(Hmmph… whole lot of grace abounding here.)
S
Brendt,
“Then, for you, the shoe obviously doesn’t fit for this type of article.”
Wow, okay, sorry I commented. I was under the impression I had the right to express my own opinions– and that’s exactly what I was doing. I guess I’m only supposed to comment on the articles that I agree with– kind of like those “Amen Corners” on ODM sites you mentioned.
Oh wait, I just pointed out an irony. Guess that makes me a hypocrite for even mentioning it. I only wanted people to think about what I said . . .
Iggy,
I already knew that about WM. If he were alive I would be taking him to task on his Cal-Minian position.
But, I appreciate you looking out for me by trying to keep me in the loop.
Yes, that is listed in Kingdom of the Cults, and SDAs love to use that. But before he died, he admitted on the John Ankerberg Show that he had been had, and that the SDA church can’t help but have the term cult applied to them as long as they continue to elevate E.G. White and her writings as being equal to the Bible, and her doctrines as they apply to salvation (that was a paraphrase).
If it doesn’t matter if Martin got a divorced, then why does CRN report on other ministers sin?
merry,
I appreciate your comments, whether they agree with me or not…
Sandman,
What do you want for nothing? RRRRRRRubber biscuit?”
LOL!
iggy
Chris R,
I would not expect anything less from you… = (
iggy
(1 Corinthians 15:10)
Okay, make me go off and do research now…
I don’t think that the ODM’s have much of a problem with anyone’s sin. I think that they have a problem with Warren’s heretical teaching. If Martin were heretical I’m sure that they ODM’s would have been all over Him too. (I don’t know Martin nor have I ever listened to him so I don’t know exactly what he taught)
They like Spurgeon and Luther because of what they taught, not necessarily the types of sin that were in, or not in, their lives.
The issue has been and always will be “are they hurting the kingdom of God, or are they helping?”
Luther, Spurgeon, Et. al……..helped.
Warren, Osteen………………..hurt
See, it’s not about sin, its about the kingdom.
that’s why some sins get a “free pass” Even though I don’t give ANY sin a “free pass” and nor do I believe that any ODM’s would give sin a FP either. But they simply share the good teaching and not their sin.
After all, Paul was the Chief of sinners right? So was Peter! Come to think of it, everyone except Christ is a horrible sinner. Does that mean that Paul was wrong when he pointed out false teachers? (just as the ODM’s do)
Chris L, thanks very much.
I didn’t mean to come across sounding so defensive in my last comment. Not a big deal.
Inquisitor,
You make a great point. Let’s take this logic and run it out and see what happens.
Since we don’t want to give sin a ‘free pass’ here are some things to consider.
King David was an adulterer and murderer. So we should probably rip the Psalms out of our Bibles.
Peter denied our Lord three times. So we should probably get rid of 1st and 2nd Peter.
Paul murdered Christians so all of his epistles should go.
Matthew was a tax collector. His gospel should go.
John wanted one of “THE” select places of honor in the Kingdom. His gospel has to go too.
Jude, Jesus’ brother, actually thought Jesus was a nut case. His Epistle should go.
Noah got drunk. His story in Genesis should go.
Moses was a murderer. The entire pentateuch should go.
Judah slept with his daughter-in-law while she was pretending to be a prostitute. So we should never mention that Jesus was from the tribe of Judah.
Seriously, we’ve got to stop excusing these sins.
Chris R,
Who is doing this? I do not see us doing this… nor the people I listen to and read… though you and yours seem to disagree with that…
But I do see continual sin coming from those who point at others and bear false witness…
So, will you take a stand against those as we are and cry out against his sin?
iggy
“his” should be “this” as I think I need a new keyboard…
iggy
merry, i didn’t think brendt was saying you shouldn’t comment; however, i would’ve been defensive too! i like your comments.
and inq, even if i don’t think this should’ve been posted per se.. the ODMs seem to almost enjoy pointing out other people’s sins!
Hannah Montana anyone?
merry: Wow, okay, sorry I commented.
I must have a really messed-up understanding of what “if the shoe fits” means.
All I was getting at was that the point of the article was not applicable to you. I was acknowledging that you are a “clearly-thinking observer”. I was largely praising you, not bashing you; but also cautioning that the idea that you expressed (like 99% of the ideas that anyone expresses) can be taken too far.
To be honest, you’re one of my favorite commenters, because even when you raise points that disagree with the author, you don’t do so in an ungracious manner.
Iggy,
I think you and I are talking past each other. It’s like we are out of sync or something.
What can we do to fix that?
Repent… and sin no more… = )
iggy
Brendt,
Sorry. I didn’t understand the meaning of your comment. Thanks for clarifying. I feel better now.
While the article may not apply to me specifically, it does apply to people I know personally. The church I go to has had a lot of diversity– from hyper-calvinists to “emergent-types” (whatever that is!). Imagine people who write and comment on this blog, and people from the ODM blogs all going to the same church. (I know– almost unthinkable!) That’s what my church has been like, albeit slightly less exaggerated. There have been times when things were not pretty. Finger-pointing, gossiping, complaining, the works. The church has split several times, and through that I’ve been taught to get along with everyone and not try to “pick sides”. Sometimes it doesn’t work. I guess that’s why this blog and the ODM blogs interest me so much– I’ve been there.
I don’t have a problem with calling a sin a sin. I think the whole point of Matt’s post is a call or challenge to do it with some higher level of integrity, consistency and equity.
Matt B, I for one think this is an excellent article that points out the fact that many ODM’s have sacred cows. Perhaps this is true of all of us, but if it is, that does not diminish your point. Rather, it enhances it beyond measure. Excellent post.
In the future, before we post, we should be more thorough in anticipating how detractors will take an article… maybe then we can add a disclaimer – even if it is pointing out the obvious.
Neil
Neil,
Like that will work… LOL! They will argue that the disclaimer was not written well enough.
iggy
Iggy,
Is that all? Sheeesh I thought you were going to ask me to do something hard
You’re kidding around, right?
LOL!
Chris R,
I guess I could have said, “Repent and be baptized…”
iggy
Iggy,
LOL!!!!
I’ve already been dipped. But I can’t discuss that too loudly. There are some who want my head on a platter over what I believe the scriptures teach regarding baptism.
I will grant you one indulgence on that… = )
iggy
Chris R-
You are right about Scripture being honest about sin. I actually really like that. It doesn’t whitewash anyone.
It is a reminder to me that my faith remains not in Donald Miller, Calvin, King David but in Christ. I do disagree with the idea that so and so’s teaching is what’s important. That could lead to some twisted form of cheap grace. Who cares if the pastor is sleeping with the secretary? At least he’s a 5 point Calvinist and preaches in a expository method.
Matt,
There is only one verse in scripture that I disagree with. It is the verse where Paul calls himself the chief of sinners. I must deeply protest. When I look into the mirror of God’s law I am reduced to a smoldering nub and I realize that I AM the chief of sinners.
If Jesus is just my buddy or just my example and not my savior and substitute then I don’t have a prayer. There is no way that I can make up for the evil, pain and suffering that I’ve committed and brought to this planet. I have committed some terrible sins in my time and sadly even after becoming a Christian the ‘progress’ that I’ve made in holiness just isn’t anything to be proud of.
If my salvation depended even a small part upon me and my holiness and my righteousness then I might as well party it up now because I’ve got hell to pay later and I mean that literally.
I recommend this for a disclaimer:
Phil,
The funny thing is Brian McLaren puts disclaimers in all his books and it does not matter…
iggy
Yeah, mostly… On the one hand bringing up the fact that WM was married three times can look like you are “attacking him”… on the other hand, it’s pretty obvious that the point was to just imagine what others would do with this if it were Warren.
Neil
Everyone has sin. But not everyone has heretical teaching. Again, the issue is teaching, not sin. We can’t take out the books of the Bible because they were written by sinners. If that were the case, we would ALL have to shut up.
However, some people should shut up. In fact, I think that Paul even said that they should just go all the way and chop “it” off.
What was Paul doing? He was being an SDM a (Snailmail Discernment Minister)
He was pointing out False teachers, and not giving them a “free pass” to teach heresy.
Same as the ODM’s. But let’s face it, you’d start a group that was anti- Paul because of his “attacking” other “brothers” in Christ.
So, why am I even here wasting my time? I don’t know!
I like how inquisitor starts his post by assuming the ODMs are conforming to scripture.
I must have missed the bit about slander and half-truths being given the thumbs up by the apostles.