There are some who would think it far worse to be considered unfashionable than to be thought unchristian. To be unchristian would be but such a common accusation that they might submit to it; but to be unfashionable would be horrible indeed! Young men in London get to be affected by this.
If the young men in the house are going to such-and-such an entertainment—they all read a certain class of books—if they are dissipated and skeptical, then the temptation is to chime in with them, and only the man who is strong, and hath the word of God abiding in him, will overcome the wicked one by doing the right alone. “Faithful among the faithless found.”
–Charles Spurgeon
HT: Pyromaniacs
This couldn’t fit the ODMs any better. They’re told constantly the way they conduct themselves is unChristian, and they tolerate that quite well, in fact they revel in their harshness and half-truths knowing their slander and unChristian tone will bring them accolades from other ODMs and their hanger-ons, as well as link love and google hits.
27 Comments(+Add)
Is there really such a thing as a “unChristian tone” or “unChristian conduct?” How does one define harshness? Since it appears that some of the posters/commenters here use the words “f***” or “s***” in their everyday vocabularies, I was just wondering…
I think you missed Spurgeon’s original point.
REB said…
Iggy says
***Since I see you are really nothing more than an ataginistic name caller, I will not continue with you in conversation.***
Good! Your confusion is most tiresome.
March 3, 2008 5:46 PM
That was about as unchristian as one could be toward another…
iggy
Keith,
Do you really see that as a legit response? Don’t say naughty words and you’re not unChristian?
If I missed Spurgeon’s point, then he was a much shallower man than I took him for.
Tim: You stated-”They’re told constantly the way they conduct themselves is unChristian, and they tolerate that quite well…” My point was/still is that some posters here have been told that their conduct (both tone and vocabulary) are “unChristian” and yet they seem to “revel in their harshness…”
Spurgeon’s point in stating “To be unchristian would be but such a common accusation that they might submit to it; but to be unfashionable would be horrible indeed!” is very simple: some people are more worried about whether they are seen as ‘cool’ rather than ‘Christian.’” You’re making it too hard in your quest to find yet another thing to rag on.
That was exactly my point. The ODMs would rather act in an unChristian way in order to gain attention than act in a Christian way and lose their readers and google-juice.
Tim- out of pure curiosity, i’d love to know if taunting the watchdogs by posting a picture of two dogs mating is, in your opinion, christian or unchristian behavior?
is calling all watchdogs liars christian or unchristian behavior?
is calling ingrid a b**ch christian or unchristian behavior?
why is it that you define unchristian behavior in such a way that it always absolves you of your unchristian behavior?
oh, snap!
It depends on whether or not they’re lying, I suppose…
Seriously, though, I’ve not seen these things on this site. If they exist, though, I’m not sure how two wrongs make a right…
Simon Johnson: Actually, that’s EXACTLY what I was getting at myself. The old “Tim calling the kettle black…” or “b**ch” or “f***tard.” Tim will know where I got that quote.
You asked Tim: “why is it that you define unchristian behavior in such a way that it always absolves you of your unchristian behavior?” Because it’s in the website mission statement??? (Just guessing)
You are dead on re: this one. I can’t wait for Tim’s Christian response to the dog picture.
—
Chris L: “I’m not sure how two wrongs make a right…” Here’s how it works: If I see or hear you do something that I’m guilty of doing myself, I can announce your sin/mistake to the world and I am absolved, i.e. you’re worse than me, especially if I am doing the same thing in “private.” However, if you announce my mistake first, then you are a “b**th” or “f**tard.” Pretty simple logic really.
Simon,
Is the “you did it too” defense ever justified? You come on here to defend them and the best you can do is “well this person did these things”. Can you mount a defense for their behavior? Can you claim their behavior is actually Christian?
Why I’m absolutely shocked anyone saw that. After all, it was posted on my twitter account which is by definition “a service for friends, family, and co–workers to communicate”. Are you, or the watchdoggies friends, family or co-workers? Had you and other watchdoggies not cyberstalked and instead acted in a Christian manner they’d never see what I decided to post to my friends, family and co-workers.
Also, that message wasn’t to watchdoggies. I was asked by a friend why I wasn’t posting much on there anymore. So I answered him.
I never called any watchdog anything. I did however, muse to my friends, family and co-workers that all watchdoggies are liars. And I also revised that later. Of course in the world of watchdoggies there’s no such thing as forgiveness or grace. Which is why this is still brought even though it was posted on twitter, and I later withdrew the statement.
Oh, but for the record, while I can’t prove that all watchdoggies are liars, many of the prominent ones are.
Again, if you hadn’t been reading communiques that weren’t meant for you by stalking my wife this wouldn’t be an issue. And again, she admitted it was a mistake to use that strong of language.
And again I ask, is there any forgiveness or grace among watchdoggies. And again the answer comes back no.
Lets see, out of the examples you’ve brought up 66% of them were incidents for which there as admission of wrong doing. So, I’m not really sure how this is a point at all. ON the other hand I’ve never seen a watchdoggie admit they were wrong. When they’re caught they just pull down the post without comment. When I email Ken with a sermon from 4 days before that shows he’s wrong I get back a smug response that essentially says I lie to my congregation. When they’re confronted by anyone instead of wrestling with ideas they (and apparently you) play Richard Nixon and try to dig up dirt.
Heck, check out Jim’s hit piece on me which kicks off with my sin against someone else who I apologized to and asked for forgiveness from in an incident that occured almost two years ago. How is this Christian behavior?
Keith,
Now, with all that haveing been so stated, what about someone like me who does not use that language and is still abused as stated by this post?
Why is it ok for them to be unchristian to me?
iggy
Keith,
All you’re doing is playing the “you did it too” defense. Would you accept that from your children?
Tim: I’m obviously supposed to accept it from you…
…if you hadn’t been reading communiques that weren’t meant for you… So if no one had seen it, it’s OK? That’s your defense? If you talk that way to your “friends, family, and co–workers (fellow pastors?),” and they’ve got no problem with it…man!
===
Iggy: I’m not defending anyone being “unChristian” to another. Just pointing out what appears to be an obvious, self-induced blindness on the part of the author of this post. To specifically answer your question: It isn’t.
How did I defend any of those actions with “they do it too”? Out of the three incidents brought up two were admitted wrong doing and the other was a case of misjudging what I was trying to communicate.
Since the people for whom that communication was intended didn’t have a problem with it I suppose that’s exactly right.
Had the watchdoggies not been stalking me and reading a communication not meant for them that was a response to a question they didn’t see Simon wouldn’t have come in here claiming I was taunting anyone.
Tim: As long as you believe it’s true…
You make me laugh. I’m off to the Shepherds’ Conference this week. Keep up the good work.
Keith,
Newsflash, you’ve pointed out that Tim isn’t perfect. Great. He’ll admit as much. Done. End of story. Can we move on? Please? Or do you want more?
Because I’m really confused as to why you keep repeating these stories. What’s the point? It doesn’t seem to be enhancing the dialogue and doesn’t seem to *really* be connected to the topic at hand.
Time, I’m sure, has acted in an unChristian manner from time to time. But dredging up dirt to snipe and pick at someone else is pretty pathetic. And, dare I say, thoroughly unchristian.
I think we all need a little more shame around here. Keith, there is a time and place for calling people out, and I think you completely missed it.
MG: Are you and I reading the SAME POST?!
“enhancing the dialogue…” I think that criteria was lost a long time ago.
Keith,
My point: If you think that the dialogue is off-track, then get it on track. If you think everyone here is in a state of perdition, beyond your reach, go away forever. If you think you can add something to the conversation, add something.
But don’t take a conceptually oriented post and turn it around into an online lynching of Tim to demonstrate he’s a hypocrite. To do so is counterproductive, mean-spirited, and immature. End of story.
If you truly believe that the criterion of fair debate is gone, then you need to leave.
How can some not see that Tim is being stalked by these people? Why is it ok to bring up stuff that he has already apologized for? Where is the indignation over Ingrid being divorced and remarried?
I’d be interested in Keith’s point if he would, at the very least, level the same cool eye of discernment on the ODM’s.
If some of you who critique what the writers do here actually demonstrated some fairness instead of “gotcha! you did it too!” then maybe your concerns for tone would actually merit some consideration.
Otherwise, you just come across like hacks who only want to soften the real outright sin of the ODM’s.
hmmm….choices, choices….
the occasional and confessed name calling or line crossing ridicule of people
OR
the constant “call” of a non-god to a ministry of non-stop lying, anger, fear and repression with never a pause for confession about content AND tone.
hmmmm?
I’ll take the humans who sin on occasion with respect to TONE only and who confess it when confronted.
Ideally, I’d like not to have to choose. But what would you rather have?
Someone who is wrong on every front almost all the time?
OR
Someone who is occasionally wrong on one part and open about it?
Gimme a break.
No.
Really.
Give.
Me.
An.
Ever.
Lovin’.
Break.
the issue is not whether tim reed is perfect or human. the issue is his complete lack of credibility because of his sophomoric and boorish behavior.
oh and he completely missed the point on this spurgeon quote. he missed it by a wide margin.
Tim said: “I never called any watchdog anything. I did however, muse to my friends, family and co-workers that all watchdoggies are liars.” I’m trying real hard to see the difference.
—
MG: you said- “..there is a time and place for calling people out…” I thought that’s what THIS place was all about!
“If you think everyone here is in a state of perdition, beyond your reach, go away forever. ” Whoa there, big-fella! That’s starting to sound a little “unChristian.” Are you saying I’m not welcome?
“Because I’m really confused as to why you keep repeating these stories.” Like we haven’t heard the same thing about Ken, Ingrid and Steve Camp around HERE, over and over and over and over and over….
“real outright sin of the ODM’s” I wasn’t aware that there were levels.
“If you truly believe that the criterion of fair debate is gone, then you need to leave. ” What? And then have you accuse me of running away…
“But don’t take a conceptually oriented post and turn it around into an online lynching of [ODM's]…” Cool! It works both ways.
—
Brian: “Stalked?!” Googled maybe, but not stalked.
—
SERIOUS MOMENT___Now…re: the ODM’s. I’ll be the first to admit–including myself–that there have been times that comments or assumptions have been made that were WAY out of line. That’s what makes blogs like mine, this one, and others a very scary thing. Too much time gets spent on finding fault–that’s really the purpose here, isn’t it?. Count the number of edifying/educational posts versus “Ken and Ingrid are idiots” posts and the ratio is pretty sad.
You people seem to be pretty smart. You appear to be quite genuine in your love for the lost, hurting people around you. Spend more time on that…the other stuff–if it’s not from God–will go away on it’s own. (Some guy much wiser than anyone around here said that.)
I tried that particular line of reasoning long ago on Slice 1.1…
It was pointed out that the “guy much wiser” than you who said it was Gamaliel, and he was a Jew, not a Christian, so it didn’t apply… (missing the complete irony of that particular argument).
Hey, I tried.
Keith,
Thanks for your words and honesty.
Yeah – none of the ODM’s are based in London… Other than that, though, he was spot on…