Southwide Crosses The Sword

Preach it, brother! Heh, heh......
This from a.........
Independent, Fundamental, Doctrines of Sovereign Grace, Missionary, Pre-Mill/Pre-Trib, NIV/NASB preaching , Calvinist, Predestined by the free will of God's foreknowledge and election, and a sinner saved *only* by the Grace of God through Jesus Christ...... BAPTIST!

 

Dr. Sheldon Smith is preaching at the Sword of the Lord Ladies Jubilee at my church in a couple of days.

I'm sorry you have a problem with Dr. Smith. Have you taken it up with him? Because talking about someone behind their backs is gossip. And being a tale-bearer is specifically addressed as a "don't" in the Bible. Prov. 18:8

 

It would have been "Christian" of Dr. Smith to do the same to the good men he SLAMMED in the Sword of the Lord. Under both himself and Curtis Hutson, this paper has had a history of slamming first, then asking later. I know many personally that they have done it to. Do you believe they've gone to these men before they printed articles slamming them? I think not. How do I know? I live right here in the heart of "Sword of the Lord" country.

Soutwide having these speakers is no more wrong than it was for the Independent Fundamental Baptists to have their "quick prayerism" speakers at their conferences.

AJL

 

WisdomSeeker said:

Because talking about someone behind their backs is gossip. And being a tale-bearer is specifically addressed as a "don't" in the Bible. Prov. 18:8

Making public statements in a public forum, in which you publicly disagree with public statements made by a public figure in a public forum, can by no stretch be called either "talking about someone behind their backs," "gossip," or "talebearing."

What is the difference between publicly disagreeing with Shelton Smith's article in the Sword, and publicly disagreeing with the editorials in, say, the New York Times, or publicly disagreeing with a speech made by the President? Do I have to personally contact George Bush and take up every disagreement with him in person before I write a letter to the editor?

Smith is a public figure by virtue of being the editor of a widely-read newspaper, and his statements are therefore subject to public scrutiny and criticism. Calling it "gossip," in my experience, is typically an Orwellian redefinition of the term by someone who believes free speech ought to be limited to those who agree with himself and the "gossippee."

[ September 25, 2002, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Are you sure about that?

 

I have admonished you as a fellow believer using the Bible to remind you of what God says about the matter of gossip. God's word is the authority on God's word. I tried to do it in love and respect. If you felt that I had malicious intent, I appologize. I assure you that I did not.

I still think that if you have a problem with something someone says, you should take it up with them. No matter who they are. And if you can't or won't do this...you should leave those things unsaid. What you chose to do is up to you.

As far as your request that I e-mail you privately, I don't think it would be proper for a woman to do this. I have my testimony to think about. And personal private conversations with another man when I'm married, could put my faithfulness to my husband in doubt. Out of respect for him and our family, I will not do this. Whether you agree or not is immaterial on this point.

Ransom, the issue of "Free Speach" as far as I recall is not a Biblically based issue. As far as your comment about "Orwellian" I'm afraid you have given me credit for using another source other than the Bible for my comments. Which I did not.

You know the Golden Rule of treating others how you would have them treat you? If I had posted something that went against what God says in the Bible, I would hope to be admonished to not do this. I think the thing that made you angry is that you didn't understand that I see believers in Christ as being on the same side. I was trying to help you to do what is right in the sight of the Lord, as I would hope you would help me. I was not attacking you.

 

PreachtheWord said:

Are you sure about that?

Just giving the benefit of the doubt.

You're probably right that the Sword doesn't have the readership it used to, especially under Rice's ownership, but I am under the impression it is still influential at least in the IFB ghetto?

Either way, though, big or small the principle is the same - Smith is a public figure and by definition it is not "gossip" to take public issue with his public statements.

 

WisdomSeeker said:

Ransom, the issue of "Free Speach" as far as I recall is not a Biblically based issue.

For that matter, neither is the freedom of the press or the exchange of ideas in the public square. So maybe we should get down to first principles - since you have rebuked the "gossipers" on this forum, have you also rebuked Shelton Smith for publishing his "gossip" in the Sword of the Lord? Not here. Let's have some consistency.

As far as your comment about "Orwellian" I'm afraid you have given me credit for using another source other than the Bible for my comments.

False. I did not say you had read Orwell, I said your redefinition of the word "gossip" was Orwellian. You don't have to have read 1984 to recognize that redefining words to suit a particular ideological purpose (such as stifling debate about published claims) is a Bad Thing.

If I had posted something that went against what God says in the Bible, I would hope to be admonished to not do this.

It is simply your assertion that publicly criticizing published statements is "gossip." You have not shown that this is so Biblically.

To swaimj, you said:

As far as your request that I e-mail you privately, I don't think it would be proper for a woman to do this.

So in addition, you are also guilty of "special pleading" - excusing yourself from behaviour you demand in others.

[ September 25, 2002, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Ransom,

Okay, Okay, my definition of gossip is to speak of another person to someone other than the person you are speaking about.

I can not nor will I comment on what anyone has said that Sheldon Smith has said. I didn't hear him say these words, nor did I read them. Therefor to comment on them is heresay, gossip. I am being consistant.

As for my personal conviction on private messaging, whether you agree with my reasons or not has no bearing on them. And your statement is blatently false. Never did I say that someone should private message someone else.

I have tried to be respectful in my posts. I have appologized when someone misunderstood my intent in making them. But, I would appreciate it if you would show me the same consideration. Thank You.

 

Please feel free to be critical of anything I should say on the baptist board. Nothing I have seen so far has been untoward or malicious, even when I wouldn't bend on social drinking....or dunkin' donuts.
This is all part of the learning process. Hey, the other day I learned that Spurgeon puffed his fine cigars almost to the end, and the report I had was wrong. Sometimes we must admit honest mistakes and incorrect information. It costs nothing to be a friend, but everything to lose a friend, in my "humble" opinion. Crow isn't so bad, they say....so long as it is well done.
Cheers in the Lord, folks,As Paul admonished the Gentiles at Ephesus: "for he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility....." (speaking of the barrier between Jewish and Gentile believers).

In Him,

Jim

PS,,,also one post closer to getting me mug up!

 

Congratulations on being one post closer to getting your mug up.

 

WisdomSeeker said:

Okay, Okay, my definition of gossip is to speak of another person to someone other than the person you are speaking about.

This definition is so broad it is meaningless. Any work of nonfiction other than personal letters would qualify as "gossip."

But why should I or anyone else be held to your personal standard of what constitutes "gossip," in any case?

I can not nor will I comment on what anyone has said that Sheldon Smith has said. I didn't hear him say these words, nor did I read them.

I did read them, on the other hand, and so supposedly I am not guilty of "gossip" if I say Smith was off-base in his criticism of Southwide.

And your statement is blatently false. Never did I say that someone should private message someone else.

Exactly! Having admonished swaimj for not contacting Smith privately, you made an excuse about the propriety of a woman PMing a man when you were invited to hold yourself to the same standard. That is the very definition of special pleading. The means is irrelevant.

But, I would appreciate it if you would show me the same consideration. Thank You.

I didn't realize it was disrespectful to disagree with certain people here.

 

I never said privately. You made a mistake.

Guess it depends on with what spirit you do it. I'll be praying for you.

[ September 25, 2002, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: WisdomSeeker ]