Correcting Christian Leaders.

[SavedByGrace3]

I believe in free speach.
I also believe in the ignore button, and encourage the use of it as often as needed.

Not at all. I disagree with a lot I've read on 'watchman' ministries. But I still defend their 'right' to free speech, to criticism of the church. Please read my signature. I'll even defend the right of people to criticise me.




I agree, there is no gift or ministry of criticizing. I also agree that some of these ministries have done damage.

I'm not a fan of 'watchman' ministries either. I'm also not a fan of the mainstream media, the media do plenty of damage to individuals and to organizations, but I don't question the media's right to exist.

Free speech always comes at a price. You have to be willing to put up with the ugly, in order to protect the most precious of all 'rights', the right to speak freely, the right to criticise and disagree.


peace,
Simon

 

[Yitzchak]

I'm not sure I understand your post, particularly the last half.
Simon

Take a Presidential campaign as an example. It is already clear that Canidate A disagrees with Canidate B on several issues. They are both Americans wanting to serve in public office presumably for the good of the Nation. But one is Democrat and one Republican. But then the smear campaigns start. canidate A smoked pot in high school. Canidate B 's ex girlfriend has some things to say. One time someone overheard canidate A say something good about Saddam Huessein. he must be a closet terrorist.
You get the picture.
Heresy Hunters are the smear campaign people. They dig up dirt. Whether it be true , false , or just rumors. It doesn't matter. Things are taken out of context. They accuse their opponents of not being real Christians. No insult is too low.
It is not right.

 

[Simon Peter]

I believe in free speach.
I also believe in the ignore button, and encourage the use of it as often as needed.

Exactly! We have the freedom to ignore anyone we don't want to hear. But to take away their freedom to speak out is a dangerous path indeed.

Take a Presidential campaign as an example. It is already clear that Canidate A disagrees with Canidate B on several issues. They are both Americans wanting to serve in public office presumably for the good of the Nation. But one is Democrat and one Republican. But then the smear campaigns start. canidate A smoked pot in high school. Canidate B 's ex girlfriend has some things to say. One time someone overheard canidate A say something good about Saddam Huessein. he must be a closet terrorist.
You get the picture.
Heresy Hunters are the smear campaign people. They dig up dirt. Whether it be true , false , or just rumors. It doesn't matter. Things are taken out of context. They accuse their opponents of not being real Christians. No insult is too low.
It is not right.

Whether it be true, false, or just rumors, absolutely DOES matter!

I do not think the media have the right to slander (which is when they lie in order to damage someones reputation). But do the media have the right to exist, the right to free speech?

Between free speech and slander is room for a lot of smearing. It may be 'dirty', but it has to be protected. You have a right to know if a potential president was born in the USA, smoked crack, dodged the draft, insulted a whole group of people with bigoted remarks, etc.

Watchmen ministries are similar, and should be held to higher standard, but we must protect their right to exist, their right to free speech, their right to opinion, even when the process and product is 'dirty' and messy.

Of course these ministries do not have a right to slander. But I don't see anyone attempting to protect their right to slander.


peace,
Simon

 

[enoch son]

Isn't the ignore buttom a statement of self? Look here you eye ball the finger don't need you.

 

[pdudgeon]

agreed, Simon.

i think everyone should be open to criticism, provided it is constructive.
the problems start when one feels themselves above criticism, and openly seek to stifle it from those they are in charge of.
that is the surefire way to self destruction, whether of a person or of an institution or organization, for no room is made for growth.

there are some cases when questions or criticism are out of place--for example in battle situations, where the unified actions of a troup are necessary both for their own safety and for the achievement of their mission.

But if one is NOT in a battle/life or death situation, then there should be room made for both questions, clarification, and explainations to be asked for and made.

As Christians we do not work alone, but we work and achieve with the help of God AND our brothers and sisters in Christ. and sometimes part of that help comes in the form of constructive criticism.

 

[probinson]

Exactly! We have the freedom to ignore anyone we don't want to hear. But to take away their freedom to speak out is a dangerous path indeed.

No offense Simon, but I think this is a bit of a strawman.

Is anyone trying to take away anyone else's right to speak out? I know I'm not.

I'm curious though; is a core Christian principle "freedom of speech"? I don't know that I'd agree with that.

A core Christian principle is, however, Love. One attribute of Love is that it doesn't insist on its own way. Another is that it is not rude or unmannerly. Another is that it is kind. Another is that it is longsuffering. Another is that it keeps no record of wrongs.

Whether it be true, false, or just rumors, absolutely DOES matter!

Not really. Just accuse someone of something horrible, and they're damaged for life. Whether proven innocent or not, the damage is done.

Watchmen ministries are similar, and should be held to higher standard, but we must protect their right to exist, their right to free speech, their right to opinion, even when the process and product is 'dirty' and messy.

Of course these ministries do not have a right to slander. But I don't see anyone attempting to protect their right to slander.

Well, you do seem to be contradicting yourself here. You say that their right to free speech, "even when the process and product is 'dirty' and messy", must be protected. But then you say "I don't see anyone attempting to protect their right to slander." So I'm a bit confused. If you're not talking about slander, what do you mean when you say you need to protect their "dirty" and "messy" free speech? And further, why should we as Christians, called to Love one another, protect any "dirty" and "messy" speech?

 

[enoch son]

So that makes the ignore buttom OK? How does that line up with long suffering and love? Confussing.

 

[WOFFER]

What is a buttom?

 

[Simon Peter]

No offense Simon, but I think this is a bit of a strawman.

Is anyone trying to take away anyone else's right to speak out? I know I'm not.

That's good to hear. So the general consenus then is that "Heresy Hunter Ministries" have a right to speak out?

I'm curious though; is a core Christian principle "freedom of speech"? I don't know that I'd agree with that.

Well I've not claimed it is a "core Christian principle"; but I believe that Christianity - and cultures - benefit from freedom of speech. There's plenty of historic evidence that Christianity has been influential in bringing free speech to nations.

But the core issue is, do you think Christians (Christian ministries) have the right to criticise ministries, teachings, leaders, and doctrines that they disagree with? (I think we've already established that this should be done politely/respectfully, without slander)

Not really. Just accuse someone of something horrible, and they're damaged for life. Whether proven innocent or not, the damage is done.

This is why it absolutely matters if something said is true, false, or just rumors! If someone calls Bentley an adulterer and it's a lie, that's slander and the damage to him is serious and unconscionable. If it's true, he will also be hurt, but hey you reap what you sow...

Well, you do seem to be contradicting yourself here. You say that their right to free speech, "even when the process and product is 'dirty' and messy", must be protected. But then you say "I don't see anyone attempting to protect their right to slander." So I'm a bit confused. If you're not talking about slander, what do you mean when you say you need to protect their "dirty" and "messy" free speech? And further, why should we as Christians, called to Love one another, protect any "dirty" and "messy" speech?

The answer is in the part that you failed to quote:

Between free speech and slander is room for a lot of smearing. It may be 'dirty', but it has to be protected. You have a right to know if a potential president was born in the USA, smoked crack, dodged the draft, insulted a whole group of people with bigoted remarks, etc.

The problem with free speech, is how much free speech is too much. Most people sensibly draw the line at slander and lies.

In other words, protected free speech means you will have to put up with hearing criticism, objections, and accusations that you disagree with.
That's what is messy and dirty ('dirty' as in 'dirty politics').

Many Christians here at CF, can't handle this byproduct of free speech. Perhaps they imagine this utopian Christian church where we all get along. One day...but not on this side of Heaven.


peace,
Simon

 

[probinson]

What is a buttom?

A combination of a butt and a bottom?

 

[probinson]

That's good to hear. So the general consenus then is that "Heresy Hunter Ministries" have a right to speak out?

Sure. They have a "right", but I don't think that makes it right.

The answer is in the part that you failed to quote:

Between free speech and slander is room for a lot of smearing. It may be 'dirty', but it has to be protected. You have a right to know if a potential president was born in the USA, smoked crack, dodged the draft, insulted a whole group of people with bigoted remarks, etc.

So "smearing" is OK? What exactly is "smearing", in your view?

In other words, protected free speech means you will have to put up with hearing criticism, objections, and accusations that you disagree with.
That's what is messy and dirty ('dirty' as in 'dirty politics').

Ah. So free speech means that you can say whatever you want, as long as it's *just* this side of true?

I'm amazed that you're actually defending "dirty politics" in Christianity.

Many Christians here at CF, can't handle this byproduct of free speech. Perhaps they imagine this utopian Christian church where we all get along. One day...but not on this side of Heaven.

This is not a byproduct of "free speech". It is a byproduct of people lacking Love as thoroughly defined for us in 1 Corinthians 13.

 

[disciple-ofjesus]

seems to me there is a Scripture, some where in the Bible, that says they will KNOW you are my disciples by their LOVE....so, yes, we should be getting along and stop acting like the world. No wonder they don't see a difference in Christians and themselves. Just sayin'...

 

[Simon Peter]

Sure. They have a "right", but I don't think that makes it right.

Well it may be right if they're right.

So "smearing" is OK? What exactly is "smearing", in your view?

I think smearing is often 'in the eye of the beholder'. If someone is critical of a pastor and his teachings, many would claim it's a 'smear campaign'.

Ah. So free speech means that you can say whatever you want, as long as it's *just* this side of true?

That's not what I've said. I said: free speech means you will have to put up with hearing criticism, objections, and accusations that you disagree with.
That's what is messy and dirty ('dirty' as in 'dirty politics').

I'm amazed that you're actually defending "dirty politics" in Christianity.

I'm actually defending the right to free speech in the church, not "dirty politics". But I think you know that already. Perhaps your comment was just an attempted smear?

This is not a byproduct of "free speech". It is a byproduct of people lacking Love as thoroughly defined for us in 1 Corinthians 13.

Yet ironically, I don't see this "love" modelled by those who want to silence critics...


peace,
Simon

 

[probinson]

'm actually defending the right to free speech in the church, not "dirty politics". But I think you know that already. Perhaps your comment was just an attempted smear?

You've said that "dirty politics" is a necessary "byproduct" of "free speech". I strongly disagree, and I am further disheartened that you see "dirty politics" as a necessary byproduct of free speech in the church.

 

[Dash Riprock]

You've said that "dirty politics" is a necessary "byproduct" of "free speech". I strongly disagree, and I am further disheartened that you see "dirty politics" as a necessary byproduct of free speech in the church.

What I have noticed about you,beside the fact that you wont seem to give a clear answer,if the Mr bentley movement is of a similar movement or thought as yours is this..

You seem to be a defensive witness for leaders only,of the same genre.

What about having compassion on those who were deeply wounded by "leaders"?

I posted ample clear scripture,to which you only gave a semantical reply.

What about the verses that call "leaders" wolves,false prophets and false teachers?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Exactly! We have the freedom to ignore anyone we don't want to hear. But to take away their freedom to speak out is a dangerous path indeed.

Who said anything about taking away anyones right to speak?

"Red Herring"

A red herring is an argument, given in response to another argument, which does not address the original issue. It is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.

 

[Simon Peter]

You've said that "dirty politics" is a necessary "byproduct" of "free speech". I strongly disagree, and I am further disheartened that you see "dirty politics" as a necessary byproduct of free speech in the church.

Pete, I have previously defined "dirty politics" as (and I quote):

you will have to put up with hearing criticism, objections, and accusations that you disagree with.


Therefore, your assertion could be more fairly stated:


You've said that "having to put up with hearing criticism, objections, and accusations that you disagree with" is a necessary "byproduct" of "free speech". I strongly disagree, and I am further disheartened that you see "having to put up with hearing criticism, objections, and accusations that you disagree with" as a necessary byproduct of free speech in the church.


Does this help you see just how ludicrous your strong disagreement is?



peace,
Simon

 

[SavedByGrace3]

seems to me there is a Scripture, some where in the Bible, that says they will KNOW you are my disciples by their LOVE....so, yes, we should be getting along and stop acting like the world. No wonder they don't see a difference in Christians and themselves. Just sayin'...

It is hard to get along with people who are throwing rocks at you, and when you tell them to stop, they insist that you are judging them...

How do you deal with people like that????

 

[disciple-ofjesus]

It is hard to get along with people who are throwing rocks at you, and when you tell them to stop, they insist that you are judging them...

How do you deal with people like that????

Throw the rocks back!..................................
























just kidding....honestly, I don't know. Pray? Love them anyway? Duck?

 

[pdudgeon]

It is hard to get along with people who are throwing rocks at you, and when you tell them to stop, they insist that you are judging them...

How do you deal with people like that????

point out to them that while they are seeking to harm you by voluntarily lobbing their real estate in your direction, they are actually decreasing their net worth and increasing yours.

then take the stones home, build yourself a nice fire pit, and have a weeny roast. the new fire pit will increase the value of your property.