Interesting commentary

Haven't read all of it yet, but Im having a hard time getting past the dripping sarcasm and bitterness that seems to be pouring from the first few paragraphs.........


Calling the SoTL a "gossip rag"?



"Leadership in fundamentalism was largely friendless. The “friends” that pastors sought our were the other pastors in their league. They were actually encouraged to keep a pastoral distance between them and the people, not to make too close friendships lest they be tempted not to properly lead, or (and this is more benign) other people in the congregation be made jealous by the close ties the pastor has with certain members. This kind of leadership is effective for the CEO model, but it is ultimately ineffective for lasting impact on souls."

Interesting that he finds this to be such a problem. In my experience this is a real danger that pastors face. Ive seen churches filled with lots of hurt feelings because the pastor is seemingly closer to some members than he is to others. There's a balance to be struck, a pastor ought to be open and friendly with every member, but he does have to keep some distance in view, or he will hurt some of the other members of his church. Ive seen it happen to others, and had it happen to me.

 

I wouldn't go as far as calling it a Gossip rag, but I did cancel my subscription about 4 yrs ago... He has taken what once was a great publication and ruined it. But that is my Opinion.. When they start cutting down other preachers, and when it turned KJVO.. my money stopped going to support it.

But the other points the poster made are interesting.
Having a blog, and having a church that is very computer literate, I have caught myself holding myself more accountable to what I write.

Also, the members of our church are googling terms, and things that they are learning from me. So I find myself double checking my facts more now than ever.

 

don't get me wrong, I think it's a great thing to be accountable for what is taught.

I do think that blogging originally was used very much for those who had a gripe they wanted to air to the world. I mean, the majority of blogs Ive read about fundamentalists have been "sour grapes" type stuff. So I can see why some major fundamentalist preachers would warn their people about not just believing everything they read on the internet. Ya know?

But surely we need to not be afraid of being held accountable for what we teach others.....

 

Name one excellent point!

Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

Mexdeaf, I don't know what excellent points you are referring to but I challenge you to name one. Bob Bixby is simply using Shelton Smith's editorial to vent his spleen and bias. Notice that Bixby does not attack Smith's specific points--he just ridicules Smith and the Fundies. Smith did not say anything about blogging that is not already generally known and accepted by most of us who blog. Blogging is subject to abuse by its nature and it is too often abuse. Smith's critique is right on target. He is not making a blanket condemnation of blogging. Sheldon Smith is just calling for a higher standard of ethics in blogging. Who can criticize that?

On the other hand, Bixby attacks Smith and other Fundies who differ with Bob Bixby. Overall, Bob is ranting from his strong Calvinistic bias against a more strongly evangelical dominated approach, known as "soul-winning". Bixby, who is supposedly an intellectual blogger, fails to accurately and fairly portray his opponent and he fails to take issue with points in the editorial. In other words, Bob uses Smith's editorial is as a springboard and excuse for ranting against Smith and SOTL.

Overall, it is a disappointing performance by someone with intellectual pretensions. Where is the content? What are the specific issues that Mr. Bixby finds so contemptible? There's no substance here. It is simply an ungentlemanly display of bad manners and prejudice lacking content and substance. Only the choir will amen this.

After Bixby's scuurilious attack on Sheldon Smith and the Fundies, I was pretty much turned off by his own pontifical insights. I didn't think much of them. It was pretty typical of the pabulum spit out by the wannabe intellectuals of the Neo-fundamentalist movement. Please tell me what was brilliant or illuminating.

The whole article is colored by the attack in the opening. How does this edify? How does it minister grace to the readers? You be the judge!

 

Do you disapprove?

Then, I take it that you disapprove of Bixby's "cutting down" Sheldon Smith. Right?