I want to talk about two things around the blogosphere I've noticed lately. First up is from Jollyblogger's blog today. Here is part of what he writes,
Our response to the gospel is always that of repentance and faith, not action. We do not "do" something to apply the gospel, the gospel "does" something to us. Thus I have been very cautious in offering "to-do" lists from texts.......In other words, telling people what to do and not do has little or no value in getting them to do or not do what they should or shouldn't do. This doesn't mean there aren't things we should and shouldn't do, but do's and don'ts won't get it done.
So how do we resolve this conundrum? T. David Gordon in his book Why Johnny Can't Preach offers some "practical" thoughts:
I know that there are those who are terribly afraid that such Christ-centered preaching will lead to licentiousness; but I categoricaly deny it. I've witnessed with my own eyes the difference between believers who suffer through moralistic preaching and those who experience Christological preaching. The former are never as strong or vibrant in their Christian discipleship as the latter. In theory, we all say we believe, for instance, that good works are the "inevitable" fruit of saving faith. I not only say this; I believe it.
I think this is really great and is along the lines of something I've brought up lately - legalism isn't just a "don't doism," but can also be a "do-doism." I thought this description of do-doism went farther than I did by pointing out that there is no power there. I recommend the entire blog post to you to read.
On a very different note, there is a hullaboo about a recent Tim Challies blogpost. He writes against blogs that criticise ministries and ministry leaders/pastors as "entertainment" for their readers. The interesting thing about all of this, if I am recalling correctly, is Tim used to do this very same thing. That is actually where I first heard about emergent and what they were doing. But I've noticed recently that he's stopped the critiques. I think that's sad because his critiques were always "gentlemany," never nasty or mean-spirited. They also educated the reader about some apostasies in the evangelical wing of the church. And, that is the purpose of the "watchdoggy" sites, is it not? To educate people?
In this same vein, Frank Turk at the Pyromaniacs blog writes that we don't need the watchdoggies since elders in churches should be warning people about wrong teaching. Well, yes, but frankly, that is a very naive view since elders are NOT warning us since most of them don't know anything about Open View, Emergent, Third Wave Charismatic, etc., etc., etc.
Then to my amazement, Eric at the What We Have Here blog (which I love) says this concerning the Challies post,
I couldn't agree more - discernment belongs to Elders in the local church - not to these armchair 'discernment watchbloggers' who routinely report on what's going wrong with the church for the sake of hit counts and pious back patting.
Well, again, if the elders were doing this fine. But most are not. And he thinks bloggers are doing this for hits? The thing that really amazes me is that Eric is warning us on his blog of apostasies many times. I don't get it. Is it because he gets to do this becaus he's a pastor and the rest of us aren't? I am truly baffled. One thing that these people aren't doing is defining well what they are talking about. So, I will define specifically what I am talking about.
I believe we need the best of the watchdoggy sites - the ones that aren't sarcastic and nasty - to educate us as individuals since the majority of our churches sure aren't doing the job. So I would have to take the opposite side to Tim, Frank and Eric. I will continue to bring you information ABOUT what apostasies believe however, instead of nitpicking every little "thing" they might do. That, IMO, is the way for a watchdoggy site to go. When I first started this blog I began to see how sarcastic I was. I knew I had to drop that fast and I believe for the most part I have. A good site of this genre can really educate people and so I don't think they should all stop doing this. I'm not going to stop, but I am going to try to bring forth what should go in each apostasy's place instead of just concentrating on how awful the apostasy is. That is the challenge God brought to me last year.
Work Came Down at Christmas…
20 hours ago
3 comments:
There is a huge difference between Biblical teaching, and what those who wish to stifle the truth call, "criticizing."
Spotlighting error is not the same as saying, "You're ugly and your mama dresses you funny." (Humor intended)
Please continue in your efforts to bring us right teaching.
The problems I have with the pajamahadeen watchbloggers:
They seem to be a rather inbred group. Half the posts' on each one's blog consist of either quotes from another watchblogger, or sometimes nothing more than a headline with a link to the full article on another watch blog. Lots of redundancy, little original analysis and critique.
They overplay the guilt-by-association card. I could do the same thing. You link to Challies, TeamPyro links to Challies, therefore you must be a cessationist like the Pyromaniacs.
They're long on emotion and short on reasoned analysis. They'll say that so-and-so promotes such-and-such, and such-and-such is just veiled Eastern mysticism. But where's the link to the analytical dissertation that demonstrates this claim? I'm to omuch of a Berean to just take the watch-bloggers' word for it.
Many of them don't allow comments or debate. They put their claims out there, and act as if their claims have the weight of Scripture, end of discussion.
I agree with you, that every member of the church should practice discernment, not just elders. The church must all be sensitive to the Holy Spirit, who gives us discernment.
I am a lay person, and I've done my share of lay preaching. I feel like it is fine to challenge unsound doctrines without a theology degree, as long as we have done our research (a theology degree is just that--an indicator that this person has studied and done his/her research). Lay preachers draw criticism and don't build up our brothers and sisters in Christ if we merely speak our opinions without finding Scripture to back them or shape them first. All preachers (lay and ordained) should submit every word and deed to the authority of Scripture before teaching anything.
I personally don't like calling individual ministers out by name, because this can be dismissed by their followers as "just being ugly." I prefer to just discuss and debunk unsound doctrines and their origins, because this would equip people with knowledge. They would be able to use it as a tool and reject unsound doctrine from every pulpit--not just the preachers I have spoken directly to them about.
There will always be false prophets and evil men sprouting up on every corner, and we cannot keep up with it all. Still, the true Word of God will never change. Those who have been equipped will never fall prey to such men, because the Bible and the Holy Spirit always reveal the truth.
Post a Comment