From here:
With in the Southern Baptist Convention, I agreed with the Conservative Resurgence and am glad that the “Battle for the Bible” has been won, but too many people want to keep on fighting and “bombing the rumble.” If you believe in the Bible and the core doctrines of our faith and you want to be a part of fulfilling the Great Commission – I can work with you.
But why do we feel the need to add the caveat any statement of support for another’s ministry? Because we fear the guilt by association that so often comes with forays into the Christian blogosphere minefield. If we say one good thing about someone else (and we are deem worthy of a takedown), many of the watchdog “ministries” or individuals spring into action and play six degrees of separation from heresy. The person we commended has said something good about another ministry which once published a book which had a book jacket quote from this person who once knew this other pastor who said they enjoyed a message by [insert heretic here].
Part of the reason why this site exists is because the watchdoggies have had an effect, and not in a good way. Just one of many ways is that they’ve made communication more difficult both in terms of how we write, and how we perceive what others write.






2 Comments(+Add)
I think the author’s example of guilt by association is overstated. Most of us would more likely use the book endorsement or the pulpit filling model. There surely are many self righteous heretic hounds who now even raise money from their blogs to continue their dragon slaying, but there are some of us who have very legitimate issues who would never stretch the association guilt line too far.
I love the part where he said he supported the SBC battle for the Bible, but I believe that is not the only place where that battle rages. BTW – the gauy is a good writer.
One more thought, some who adhere to a strict “guilt by association” rule have already burned me in effigy. Third degree burns!