(or Ingrid never ran over my puppy)
OK, people, time for a level-set.
It would appear that the (irrelevant and inaccurate) references to this site in the meta of Tim Challies’ post the other day have garnered us some new readers. To them I say “Welcome”. This post is actually in response to “pre-Challies” readers of this blog who seem to have missed something. Before you new folks make the honest mistake of ascribing to the same misconception, maybe we ought to clear it up (again).
Many of the veteran detractors of this site routinely state that the purpose of this blog is to spew hatred against a select few.
The Greek word for such a viewpoint is “skubala“. A (very) rough English translation would be “baloney”.
Some time ago, Chris Lyons (with input from other contributors here) wrote Our Mission, detailing what this blog is all about. Chris outlines six guidelines for this blog, only one of which deals with the addressing of points in which we disagree with those that write the various watchblogs out there. In fact, Chris calls this “the lowliest” of these six tasks.
Even if we throw several bones to the skubala-merchants and ignore the existence of the other five tasks, their viewpoint is still inaccurate. Which brings me to the point of the title of this post.
I don’t hate Ken or Ingrid or Chris R or PB. Regardless of the mutuality of the sentiment, I consider them all Christian siblings of mine.
Now, admittedly, I do hate theological error — very much so — especially when it is presented at the expense of others. And this is what I write against. This is why I am here. The fact that it often happens to be presented by one or more of the afore-mentioned people (that I allegedly hate) is either purely coincidental or cited as an example. While I sometimes cross the line, I do my best to remember that my anger is not directed at them, but at the error that they are presenting and the damage that it can do to others.
Sidenote: I do find it rather telling that one of the most vocal (and oft-repeated) accusations against Tim Challies’ post was that he didn’t “name names”. The fact that he didn’t screams that his “beef” was with a concept, not a person. Such writing demands that the reader not simply write Tim off as a “hater”, but actually determine if the points he made are applicable to themselves. (Or at least gripe about the fact that he didn’t “name names”.)
As Chris noted about himself recently, I used to wield a weed-eater indiscriminately, too. But God worked on my heart, both directly and through others, to see my sin. My purpose here is to try to be the “others” for someone else. Not as someone who has arrived, but as someone that’s been to a few “places” that you’re better off avoiding.
For you new(er) folks here, please be warned — the veteran dissenters on this site will state unequivocally that I am lying and what I have written here is not the true nature of what’s in my heart. They will most likely misappropriate the first half of Matthew 7:16 as proof-text of their ability to read my heart. These are people who apparently ignore passages such as 1 Samuel 16:7. By tacitly stating that they are God (by the measure of this latter verse), they are committing nothing short of blasphemy. I would ask that you think for yourselves, rather than take the word of a blasphemer.
Maybe even use a little discernment.