Call for a little more honesty

[JonC]

This is a Christian forum. The posts are read by more people than are active on any given thread. The posts and responses should reflect a Christ-like character.

When debating other Christians member should be addressing what is posted, not the Christian making the post. Sometimes people misspeak. Sometimes people infer what was not there. Seek clarification.

We do not need to characterize entire denominations, churches, or “camps” based on our limited experience or on what we have read about these Christians with whom we find (or think we find) disagreement.

I believe that some people are here only to stir up divisiveness. Christians should have nothing to do with these people (Titus 3:10). Do not answer a fool according to their folly.

Discussion can be accomplished in a honest, Christ-like manner. We do not have to act like the world in defending our opinions or positions. We should allow Scripture to govern our conduct with other believers and non-believers.

We all stumble (I have in the past on these boards). But there is absolutely no reason to live where we have fallen. We have to remember that those we engage here were purchased by the blood of Christ and be more careful about our interactions.

 

[rlvaughn]

Jon, I was going to comment on this last night (on the other thread), then thought better of it. Since you decided to start another thread rehashing it, I decided to point out what I think was this unusual exchange in which you responded quoting another member's post, directly wrote about "The member who made this comment..." -- then came back later and said to that member "that was not my response to you..." Seriously? How could anyone not think otherwise?

Here is the problem with this comment and this type of comment:

The member who made this comment...

Not at all - that was not my response to you (it was actually what I said in post # 85 about the types of posts that categorize denominations and people-groups according to their experiences)...

I have enjoyed discussions with you in the past, and expect to in the future, but is this thread really necessary? It was hashed enough in the other thread, and doesn't really need rehashing, does it? Why not move on? (Or maybe discuss it privately with the other member.) I would have sent this to you privately, but your settings seem to not allow it -- at least I couldn't figure out how.

 

[kyredneck]

This is a Christian forum.

So, did you ban The Bib? You deleted his post, for all to see. You gonna ban him? For all to see?

 

[JonC]

Jon, I was going to comment on this last night (on the other thread), then thought better of it. Since you decided to start another thread rehashing it, I decided to point out what I think was this unusual exchange in which you responded quoting another member's post, directly wrote about "The member who made this comment..." -- then came back later and said to that member "that was not my response to you..." Seriously? How could anyone not think otherwise?

I have enjoyed discussions with you in the past, and expect to in the future, but is this thread really necessary? It was hashed enough in the other thread, and doesn't really need rehashing, does it? Why not move on? (Or maybe discuss it privately with the other member.) I would have sent this to you privately, but your settings seem to not allow it -- at least I couldn't figure out how.

I believe the thread necessary. The reason is I was not refering to that menber's post but that type of posting.

On the thread you are speaking of there was a broad statement made about SBC Sunday Services being insubstantial.

BUT we see this type of generalization repeated on various topics. "Reformed churches teach....", "Free-will theologians deny....".

That is why the new thread - because it is not about that one member. Others have done this with their "pet" doctrines. I have as well.

But it is a logical fallacy (by definition) and it is wrong (by overstatement and generalization).

 

[JonC]

So, did you ban The Bib? You deleted his post, for all to see. You gonna ban him? For all to see?

I did not delete his post (he deleted his own post). And I wouldn't ban him for his views (I like reading his posts).

I only wish people would deal with actual topics (I am not a fan of the SBC, BTW) rather than stereotyping churches. This is addressed in Scripture about judging the servant of Another.

When we blanket Christians with condemnation we are not representing Christ but the World (regardless of the "blanket" we use).

 

[kyredneck]

I did not delete his post (he deleted his own post).

Good. I feel better!

 

[JonC]

Good. I feel better!

BTW - I tried your suggestion about cooking pork on a thick steak (the salt thing). It was good.

 

[The Biblicist]

I did not delete his post (he deleted his own post). And I wouldn't ban him for his views (I like reading his posts).

I only wish people would deal with actual topics (I am not a fan of the SBC, BTW) rather than stereotyping churches. This is addressed in Scripture about judging the servant of Another.

When we blanket Christians with condemnation we are not representing Christ but the World (regardless of the "blanket" we use).

I removed my post because I was told that it was against forum rules to publicly rebuke a moderator. I did not know that, and so when informed I responded appropriately as i did not want to openly violate rules.

However, you say "I am not a fan of the SBC, BTW" which you must admit is another generalization as I am sure that is not true in every case, as even I am a fan of some SBC churches where I still have friends that are sound in the faith and do a great job. However, in general the SBC is far too liberal for my doctrinal tastebud and there was a SBC wide trend during the time I was involved that promoted easy believism. Indeed, Dr. Tom Nettles, a staunch Calvinist was professor of church history when I attended and he shortly left the seminary because he disagreed with this pressure type evangelism which he viewed as infective to the whole SBC and made that clear by sphereheading a movement within to return the SBC to what he believed was a more Biblical type of evangelism. I think if you would have asked him, (who received his doctorate from South Western Theological Seminary, and also taught there as well as at Mid-America and Trinity Divinity Theological School) at the time I was in Seminary he would have agree with my analysis with regard to the SBC as a whole, that it had shifted to what he considered a wrong type of evangelism. Would you have charged him as you have charged me?? I don't think so, as unlike me, he could back up his claim, as he made the same claim just a little later upon leaving Mid-America.

I think making general negative remarks about a denomination according to personal perspective and experience is not something that should cause such reaction from moderators. It only demonstrates that its being used to score points. You treat a negative evaluation of a denomination as though it were a personal attack on every member of that denomination which I think is obvious overkill and uncalled for.

If I may convey a little bit of postive criticism it seems you look for opportunities to justify provoking others by such caustic charges. It is one thing to speak negatively about a denomination but quite another thing to personalize it. I made no such personalizations and i said nothing different than Dr. Nettles said at that time, and which motivated him to lead a whole movement within the SBC to counter what he viewed was invasive to the SBC as a whole.

 

[kyredneck]

BTW - I tried your suggestion about cooking pork on a thick steak (the salt thing). It was good.

...an old culinary technique for savory meat....so old that Esau probably knew about it... I use it so often that I've a top secret creation, 'Larry's Rub'; 2 parts salt, 1 part each blk pepper, granulated garlic, granulated onion

 

[The Biblicist]

I understand Dr. Tom Nettles just recently retired from his position as Professor of Church History at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. I remember well our relationship when I was in Seminary at Mid-America. After a student told him that the department head of the publishing department (me) held to a landmark view of church history he sought me out. At that time, the Seminary was housed in a Jewish Rabbinical Temple across from Bellview Baptist Church in Memphis. This temple had been a school to train rabbi's. The offices for the professors was above in a second story that surrounded the lower story dinining area. The professors could walk out of their office and there was a balcony overlooking the eating area. One day I saw Dr. Nettles standing on the balcony looking down at me. The next thing I know he is sitting directly across my table and saying I heard you embrace the Landmark movement and immediately starting questioning me about my views of the origin of the English Particular Baptists and their connections with the church of England. Well, that started a good friendship and he challenged me to study some specific areas. At that time the University of Tennesee contained records of the Bodleian Library. I spent the next six months doing original research by painstakenly calling up countless of Anabaptists writings and then reported my findings back to Dr. Nettles. I think I substantiate my position from original sources. Dr. Nettles made no immediate response but promised to look at the source materials. Unfornately, he shortly left thereafter and we never completed our mutual study which he instigated on that particular day in the lunch room. He left and sphere headed a movement for the reasurrgence of Calvinism within the SBC and as I understand it was fairly successful.

 

[JonC]

I removed my post because I was told that it was against forum rules to publicly rebuke a moderator. I did not know that, and so when informed I responded appropriately as i did not want to openly violate rules.

However, you say "I am not a fan of the SBC, BTW" which you must admit is another generalization as I am sure that is not true in every case, as even I am a fan of some SBC churches where I still have friends that are sound in the faith and do a great job. However, in general the SBC is far too liberal for my doctrinal tastebud and there was a SBC wide trend during the time I was involved that promoted easy believism. Indeed, Dr. Tom Nettles, a staunch Calvinist was professor of church history when I attended and he shortly left the seminary because he disagreed with this pressure type evangelism which he viewed as infective to the whole SBC and made that clear by sphereheading a movement within to return the SBC to what he believed was a more Biblical type of evangelism. I think if you would have asked him, (who received his doctorate from South Western Theological Seminary, and also taught there as well as at Mid-America and Trinity Divinity Theological School) at the time I was in Seminary he would have agree with my analysis with regard to the SBC as a whole, that it had shifted to what he considered a wrong type of evangelism. Would you have charged him as you have charged me?? I don't think so, as unlike me, he could back up his claim, as he made the same claim just a little later upon leaving Mid-America.

I think making general negative remarks about a denomination according to personal perspective and experience is not something that should cause such reaction from moderators. It only demonstrates that its being used to score points. You treat a negative evaluation of a denomination as though it were a personal attack on every member of that denomination which I think is obvious overkill and uncalled for.

If I may convey a little bit of postive criticism it seems you look for opportunities to justify provoking others by such caustic charges. It is one thing to speak negatively about a denomination but quite another thing to personalize it. I made no such personalizations and i said nothing different than Dr. Nettles said at that time, and which motivated him to lead a whole movement within the SBC to counter what he viewed was invasive to the SBC as a whole.

My not being a fan of the Convention is not a generalization. It is simply a true statement. I have the same reservations that R.B.C. Howell (its 2nd president) expressed prior to its formation. And I believe its growth and influence has had a negative impact regarding its purpose. That is, of course, a conversation for SBC church members.

If you want to use the post as an illustration we can. You said :

The SBC has been so obsessed with easy believisim evangelism that nothing substantial is taught in the Sunday Services.

The issue is it broad brushes churches that are Southern Baptist based on your limited experience with with an independent seminary that affirms the F&M and a few Southern Baptist churches.

That is one issue I sought to address here. We have to be careful about how we deal with one another. We all have opinions, but we need to be able to chech our prejudices before making generalizations about other Christian denominations.

 

[JonC]

...an old culinary technique for savory meat....so old that Esau probably knew about it... I use it so often that I've a top secret creation, 'Larry's Rub'; 2 parts salt, 1 part each blk pepper, granulated garlic, granulated onion

The first time I used a little too much salt. The second time was perfect. All I use anymore is salt and pepper on steaks. But now that your secret is out I'm gonna smoke some ribs.

 

[The Biblicist]

If you want to use the post as an illustration we can. You said :The issue is it broad brushes churches that are Southern Baptist based on your limited experience with with an independent seminary that affirms the F&M and a few Southern Baptist churches.

It was not a view restricted to me at that time, as I said, Dr. Tom Nettles had the same view at that time and actually started a movement within the SBC for the very purpose to shift the emphasis back to what he considered a more Biblical evangelism. He would have made the very same characterization.

That is one issue I sought to address here. We have to be careful about how we deal with one another. We all have opinions, but we need to be able to chech our prejudices before making generalizations about other Christian denominations.

I think what you are saying is completely ridiculous and actually an excuse to violate the very thing you claiming to oppose. Making general negative statements about a denomination is not the same as personally attacking every church and every member within that denomination. Furthermore, I told you that I still had professors still in the SBC which I admired and so it is obvious I was not attacking every member of the SBC by simply making general negative remarks. Again, I feel you are taking advantage of a situation that is useful to attack others but under the guise of piety. Sorry, but that is what comes across to me by the very way you went about it and the overkill over something that did not need to be interpreted the way you did and there is not much of anything you can say that can change my mind.

I have nothing more to say on this subject and I am dropping it.

PS. I made these observations based on your previous post where you said you would not ban me for these kind of comments, so I take you at your word. Otherwise, I would not have made these comments at all.

 

[rlvaughn]

...I would have sent this to you privately, but your settings seem to not allow it -- at least I couldn't figure out how.

Thanks for the PM. I see my mistake. I was trying to find a way to message to your profile page, rather than "start a conversation."

 

[JonC]

It was not a view restricted to me at that time, as I said, Dr. Tom Nettles had the same view at that time and actually started a movement within the SBC for the very purpose to shift the emphasis back to what he considered a more Biblical evangelism. He would have made the very same characterization.





I think what you are saying is completely ridiculous and actually an excuse to violate the very thing you claiming to oppose. Making general negative statements about a denomination is not the same as personally attacking every church and every member within that denomination. Furthermore, I told you that I still had professors still in the SBC which I admired and so it is obvious I was not attacking every member of the SBC by simply making general negative remarks. Again, I feel you are taking advantage of a situation that is useful to attack others but under the guise of piety. Sorry, but that is what comes across to me by the very way you went about it and the overkill over something that did not need to be interpreted the way you did and there is not much of anything you can say that can change my mind.

I have nothing more to say on this subject and I am dropping it.

PS. I made these observations based on your previous post where you said you would not ban me for these kind of comments, so I take you at your word. Otherwise, I would not have made these comments at all.

I wish you had limited your remarks to the SBC rather than SBC churches. I probably would have shared your concern. But it is good because it brought to mind a larger issue (hence this thread).

Another example (as I said, this was not about you):

The anti-mission group was a legitimat concern. They were Calvinists. It would be wrong to appky their view to Calvinism as a whole (although I have seen it done on the BB).

 

[The Biblicist]

I wish you had limited your remarks to the SBC rather than SBC churches.

Then your wish has been granted as I never mentioned "churches" even one time in that article that you reacted to. The only time I ever mentioned the word "church" was in the singular and that was contextually identified as my own church. However, repeatedly throughout that short post I said "SBC...SBC....SBC....SBC.....SBC.....SBC...SBC...SBC....SBC" a total of nine times. The only other word you could use to possibly infer (and had to be inferred) I was refering to "churches" plural was the word "services" and it was to the many I had observed first hand. So, the term "churches" never occurred even once.

 

[JonC]

Then your wish has been granted as I never mentioned "churches" even one time in that article that you reacted to. The only time I ever mentioned the word "church" was in the singular and that was contextually identified as my own church. However, repeatedly throughout that short post I said "SBC...SBC....SBC....SBC.....SBC.....SBC...SBC...SBC....SBC" a total of nine times. The only other word you could use to possibly infer (and had to be inferred) I was refering to "churches" plural was the word "services" and it was to the many I had observed first hand. So, the term "churches" never occurred even once.

What I reacted to was:

The SBC has been so obsessed with easy believisim evangelism that nothing substantial is taught in the Sunday Services.

I thought you were familiar with the SBC enough to know that the Convention itself did not hold Sunday Services (so I thought you were referring to church services).

I am glad this was not the case but that in fact you were under the impression the SBC itself held Sunday Services. That leaves room for correction.

The Convection itself is not a church. It has no individual members and is not composed of a congregation. The SBC does not hold Sunday Services.

This is an example of what I am talking about - I assumed you knew this and were referring to SBC churches. I should have clarified early on - we need to stop making assumptions and ask (myself included).

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I removed my post because I was told that it was against forum rules to publicly rebuke a moderator. I did not know that, and so when informed I responded appropriately as i did not want to openly violate rules.

It is not against the rules to rebuke a moderator. Moderators cannot and should not feel they can post with impunity. It is not the rebuke that is against the rules; it is the spirit of the rebuke which often crosses the line.

I've been a moderator here in the past for several years. I've given and received rebuke many times.
Proverbs 27:5 Open rebuke is better than secret love. (KJV)

Paul gave us a good example:
Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (KJV)

 

[Reynolds]

What I reacted to was:I thought you were familiar with the SBC enough to know that the Convention itself did not hold Sunday Services (so I thought you were referring to church services).

I am glad this was not the case but that in fact you were under the impression the SBC itself held Sunday Services. That leaves room for correction.

The Convection itself is not a church. It has no individual members and is not composed of a congregation. The SBC does not hold Sunday Services.

This is an example of what I am talking about - I assumed you knew this and were referring to SBC churches. I should have clarified early on - we need to stop making assumptions and ask (myself included).

Do you not think what he said was accurate? SBC as a convention, it's programs, it's training, it's missionaries, all trickle into the local SBC churches. What the convention does, most member churches adopt. Easy believerism is rampant in the SBC and it's churches. I get into it all the time with my pastor about it. Our church treats the "sinners prayer" like an incantation or something.

 

[JonC]

It is not against the rules to rebuke a moderator. Moderators cannot and should not feel they can post with impunity. It is not the rebuke that is against the rules; it is the spirit of the rebuke which often crosses the line.

I've been a moderator here in the past for several years. I've given and received rebuke many times.
Proverbs 27:5 Open rebuke is better than secret love. (KJV)

Paul gave us a good example:
Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (KJV)

I think that this gets muddled with it being against the rules to discuss moderation on the public forum.

@The Biblicist and I have been in heated conversations, as has several with other moderators and administrators. The problem is when an administrator or moderator edits or deletes a post and a member wants to argue the case on the open forum.

As far as rebuking a moderator or administrator in the context of debate - we are members as well and it is fair game. None of the staff joined to be on the staff and none of us are paid. We are first and foremost members of the BaptistBoard.