The internet is such a strange phenomenon and one we are really only beginning to understand, at least in terms of its impact on society and faith and family and just about everything else. What passes for entertainment on the internet would, at most other times in history, be regarded as shocking or wasteful or disgusting or maybe just plain absurd. Witness the web sites that offer video after video of people cracking bones doing stupid skateboard tricks. You can search YouTube for videos of people breaking bones and spend hours in senseless entertainment, guffawing at the stupidity and wincing at the pain. Or witness the sites that specialize in the macabre, displaying lineups of dead or dismembered bodies or photographic evidence of brutal accidents. Or witness the almost limitless amounts of pornography which is a contemporary form of entertainment for boys and men (and, increasingly, girls and women) of all ages. So much of the entertainment the internet offers is entertainment at its very worst. Evil has become entertainment.
I want to say a word today about watchblogs or discernment blogs or whatever you want to call them. I am referring to blogs that specialize in sharing bad news. They share stories and videos and anecdotes about Christians and churches and supposed Christians and supposed churches. Day after day they offer examples of all that is wrong in the church. They may vary what they offer a little bit, but what is true of them is that they offer a steady diet of negative content related to the church in general or perhaps related to just one person or one ministry. You know of some of these sites, I am sure.
I was thinking about such blogs a few days ago and arrived at a conclusion about them that actually rather surprised me. This is what I realized: these blogs are really little more than entertainment. And once I had these blogs filed in that way in my mind, their popularity and their draw began to make much more sense to me. They are really just a spiritualized form of YouTube or any other site that entertains by sharing what is gross and base and negative and that does so for the sake of entertainment. There is really no value in watching boys do stupid things on skateboards and laughing when they crack their ankle bones in half; there is really no value in watching the worst pastors in America preach to the worst churches in America. Such sites offer evil as entertainment.
Watchblogs offers what I think is a classic case of what Neil Postman referred to as context-free information. He once asked this: “How often does it occur that information provided you on morning radio or television, or in the morning newspaper, causes you to alter your plans for the day, or to take some action you would not otherwise have taken, or provides some action you would not otherwise have taken, or provides insight into some problem you are required to solve?” It is worth thinking about, isn’t it? How often do you see something on the news and actually do something about it? How often is that even the remotest possibility? “Most of our daily news is inert, consisting of information that gives us something to talk about but cannot lead to any meaningful action. This fact is the principle legacy of the telegraph: By generating an abundance of irrelevant information, it dramatically altered what may be called the ‘information-action ratio.’”
That information-action ratio is what is so out-of-whack in the world of the watchblogs. They provide information about churches and Christians—information that may be important to certain people in certain contexts. After all, if I went to a church where the pastor had been involved in an outrageous scandal, I would want to know about it. But if a pastor of a church in Kalamazoo preaches a sermon in which he says something scandalous, it has no effect on my life and, beyond its draw as entertainment, I can think of few good reasons for me to even know about it. Multiply this by hundreds of new stories a week (or even just tens of stories a week) and I end up with a huge amount of negative information that stays in my head and heart, but which has no bearing on my life.
What is the problem with this? Again, Postman answers, “In both oral and typographic cultures, information derives its importance from the possibilities of action.” Telegraphy, television and other forms of electronic media have made the relationship between information and action both abstract and remote. We hear more news than ever which elicits more opinions than ever, but which leave us increasingly impotent, unable to do anything more than offer opinions and bluster about what we might do if we could. And I am left asking, do I really need to read and to know so much of what passes as news today? Do I really need to read and to know about the seedy underbelly of the church, when such things happen thousands of miles away, among people I will never meet and in places I will never be? Such news is plenty entertaining, but it is useless to me. It does nothing to further my faith or to cause me to grow in godliness. In fact, I suspect just the opposite may well be true. I think of Paul’s words near the close of the book of Romans where he says, “I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil” (Romans 16:19b). He wants these Christians to invest their time studying not what is evil, but what is good. When they have confidence in all that is good, the evil will become ever-more apparent.
This is not the first or only time Paul has given this exhortation. In 1 Corinthians 14:20 he wrote “Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature.” And in saying this he echoes the words of Jesus who exhorted His disciples and warned them of the persecution that would come, saying “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16).
We are to focus much more on what is good than what is evil. This is one of the lessons I sought to teach in The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment. “Our efforts in discernment should revolve around knowing the truth so that we might see the evil in contrast to what is true. The reason it is better to focus on what is true is simple: error is constantly changing, shifting and morphing into new forms, always seeking to imitate what is true in new and creative ways. Truth, however, is constant. When we know what is true we will more easily be able to identify what is error.”
Filling our minds, our hearts, our computer screens, our blogs with all that is wrong in the church will do little to conform us into the image of the Savior. It can do little. My encouragement to you, whether you are a regular visitor to one of these sites or whether you simply visit them occasionally, is to examine your heart and to examine your motives. Do you visit such sites because they have information that you truly need to know? Or do you visit as a means of entertainment? Are you delighting in what is good and true and pure and lovely, or are you finding a strange, sick delight in all that is evil and ugly?



Comments (79) »
1. Brian
April 6, 2009
10:18 AM
Tim:
Well, this is an interesting blog. I confess that I have several of these “watchdog” bloggers bookmarked in my browser. After reading your post I am going to examine the value of this decision.
Thank you - this is a courageous post and gives all of us something to mull over.
2. Dave Bissett
April 6, 2009
10:23 AM
TImely words, Tim. Thanks for being blunt.
3. Sam
April 6, 2009
10:35 AM
Tim,
I agree with you on some level. I think there can be somewhat of watching a trainwreck mentality by visiting these sites that show the worst of the church.
However, I think that they can spur people to action. We do not live in a vacuum. You may say, how does what happens in Kalamazoo, USA affect me and my church? If that pastor in such church wields such influence in the church world because of the audience granted to him by the internet then eventually it could come to my church and my pastor. Look at Mark Driscoll and his sex sermons. Ed Young Jr and sex sermons. These are sweeping the nation and popping up in thousands of churches as a growth method.
Then you have subtle false teachings in the church today. Pastors that will lead naive and gullible people by false teachings and man centered philosphies. The more “watchblogs” bring light to the darkness, the less people will possibly be led astray and be awakened to the Truth.
Are the watchblogs overly critical? I would say so. But they do have a place in exposing false teachings and methods
4. Dan H.
April 6, 2009
10:48 AM
Tim,
Perhaps there’s a tendency for Christians to blithely accept an information source as being worthy of their time; if it has even a loose association with the subject of church or religion?
What struck me while reading your post Tim, was that even good intentioned information sources can quickly become what I’ll call Springer-esque; in that the observer/reader might be deriving some dark pleasure in the thought that “I’m glad my church isn’t like that!” This could be a very subtle, even subconscious sin that should be avoided.
I’m reminded of the parable Jesus told of the Pharisee and the Publican…
In Christ,
Dan…
5. Ed Trefzger
April 6, 2009
10:53 AM
I stopped following three of those watchblogs a while back.
The blogs I had been following were very quick to be outraged and didn’t shy away from name calling and insults. But when countered with similar language, they cried foul and made a stink.
Neither action was Christ-like.
6. Audrey
April 6, 2009
10:55 AM
Excellent reminder for all of us! Thank you! We think on whatever it is that we put into our mind and that reminds me of Phil. 4:8
Phil. 4:8 “Finally brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”
7. alice
April 6, 2009
10:57 AM
Just over the weekend I thought (about some of those sites), “How is this different than some trashy gossip site?” then I came here and read your (much better-worded) post. Thanks for this!
8. Larry
April 6, 2009
11:00 AM
I love Neil Postman’s Entertaining Ourselves to Death, so I was excited to see you quote from him.
Aside from what you’ve already said, I’ve noticed in myself that some of the entertainment I run across on TV or on the ‘net has a physically negative effect on me. What I mean is this: sometimes I’ll be watching something that has caught my curiosity, something “Springer-like” as you put it, and when I’m in the process of watching (or after) I’ll feel tired or worn out in some way. Even dirty, sometimes.
I ran across an episode of “Hell’s Kitchen” the other day and was tired of watching it after two minutes. Jealousy, back-biting, and every other word being bleeped out literally wore me out, only in the two minutes that I happened across it. How do people thrive on this stuff?
Thankfully, I have plenty of options for leisure activities so I choose not to dwell on this kind of entertainment. But really, how do millions of people enjoy this kind of thing when it’s sooo physically, emotionally, and spiritually draining and unhealthy?
9. Tanner
April 6, 2009
11:11 AM
Maybe I just don’t know these watchblogs, but what is the difference between reading them and reading something like Irenaeus Against Heresies, or reading something by John Owen denouncing Socinianism or Arminianism?
10. Tanner
April 6, 2009
11:19 AM
Let me amend my comment, slightly. I know that they were concerned with presenting the truth, and denouncing error, but to do so for the glorification of Christ and the edification of the Church.
From the comments and description, it sounds like these blogs are more about showing that there are *gasp* sinners in the church! So I know that there are some major differences, I would just be curious as to further elaboration along those lines.
I came to this site because I was looking for a view of the Passion by Mel Gibson which wasn’t the fawning presentation I saw in many Christian web sites I was then visiting. How is Tim’s discernment on the subject of the Passion, for instance, different from what these other blogs do? (Without reiginting the discussion of that movie?)
11. Matt Dabbs
April 6, 2009
11:20 AM
It is easy to get online and gripe about things and not think about the 99% of the time things are going well or that we have been blessed by the church or other ministers. That is why I try to post something every so often about how much I love God’s people, the church, etc in order to make sure I am doing far more building up than I am critiquing. Romans 14 teaches us not to judge God’s servants but far too often we do just that and end up not edifying anyone. Thanks for sharing this.
12. Fillip
April 6, 2009
11:24 AM
A very timely blog for me. Definitely some conviction going on. It reminds me of the analogy of bankers studying the real thing to spot the fake.
13. Scott
April 6, 2009
11:31 AM
Thanks for the insightful post. I agree for the most part. We can get caught up in the “gross” factor, even when looking at “churchy” stuff.
However, I would argue that there is some value in this: There are so many who hear about some of the extremes which the seeker-sensitive and some emergent folks are going to, and they simply disbelieve. They think, “Oh, it can’t be that bad.” And often they begin to go down these roads themselves without taking into consideration the real and eventual consequences.
Sites like these are the “proof in the pudding.” They are evidence of the un-biblical road some of these folks will lead us down. Especially when they are putting video faces on what others may think is only rumor about some of the more well known gurus these days.
We can be taken in by the train-wreck mentality, but if it helps another church avoid similar destruction, it may just be worth it.
14. Andrew
April 6, 2009
11:39 AM
You state the problem of information overload far better than I could hope to. A few simple words from Paul echoing our Lord was all it took. Excellent insights, Tim! Thank you!
15. ianmcn
April 6, 2009
11:48 AM
These blogs are the spiritual equivalent of the National Enquirer. They rarely deal with serious theological error, just trash. Even when they do deal with serious error, it has usually been dealt with better and more properly by others (cf. dialogue between Piper and Wright).
16. KD
April 6, 2009
11:51 AM
Perhaps the reason people enjoy hearing the dirt about the church is more than entertainment. It is justification. If I can watch a video or read an article about some preacher’s indiscretions, then it makes me look not so bad. This does have bearing on my life - in a huge way. What do most of us do when we read of the terrible scandals in the church? We shake our heads and wonder what in the world the church is coming to. We get angry. We get sad. And we flirt with the attitude that says “THEY are bad. Sure glad that I am not.” The world loves it when prominent preachers get exposed as pedophiles, or extortioners because it justifies their rejection of the Gospel. Christians love to do it because they are struggling against less egregious sins and to read about the horrendous sins of some preacher or “significant” ministry makes them look not so bad. This isn’t entertainment. It is psychological necessity and a neat little escape from having to deal with sin. It is a wake up call of the importance of “living godly lives among the pagans”.
17. Ben Mordecai
April 6, 2009
12:06 PM
You make some pretty good points here.
This is one reason I like Fighting for the Faith (a watchblog podcast). The host, Chris Rosebrough, does not merely expose the problems, but he uses them as springboards to the gospel.
The Pyromaniacs blog is fairly good at doing this too, but the cheif content at the pyromaniacs website is not watchblogging.
18. Steve
April 6, 2009
12:13 PM
Tim,
Thanks for your insight. I do believe that it is not healthy to be consumed with the evils of another to the point of making it your calling in life to expose them. But I am thankful for some of these groups who expose the evils of mondern day charlatans. Take Todd Bentley for example. I personally have had several people ask me what my thoughts were about him. It was only when I did my research online and found out about the true spirit behind the so called revivals that I then was able to make a judgement. It helped me test the spirit to see if it was of God. Now granted, I am not going to create my own site and go on a crusade, but the fact that someone who is somewhat of a watchdog who is exposing these things can help spare others from being infected by their false doctrine.
Tim, your blog is full of articles regarding false doctrines and the importance of knowing sound scripture. So I do not think you are being totally fair to write off others who are exposing the very false preachers that your articles warn about.
Yet, there is an unhealthy aspect to this when someone is consumed with getting all the dirt for the purpose of mulling over it with others. And on this point I agree with you.
If the goal of those who are exposing these things and those who are watching these things is not for the purpose of godliness then their motive is not the right motive. Paul warned and named people in the scriptures that were causing trouble. Yet he did not write to the Corinthian Church and name the names of someone who was causing trouble in the church of Crete. So again I see your point that it really is not going to effect me much about Billy Bob In Backwater preaching that Jesus Drove a Mercedes Benz. But nevertheless, I think these watch groups have their place in helping others steer clear of false teachers.
1 Timothy 1:5-6
But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
19. Larry Geiger
April 6, 2009
12:33 PM
Since we are concerned about other people and their welfare, the devil wants us to be consumed with watching situations over which we have no control and we have no ability to affect.
This is television’s role. We sit and watch all of the awful things our there, and whine and moan “ain’t it awful”, and we don’t help the guy next door, or pick up the trash on our street, or start a ball league for the children in our area or…
20. Fillip
April 6, 2009
12:47 PM
I think KD hit the nail on the head. Excellent point! Luke 18:9-14
21. Rick
April 6, 2009
1:04 PM
Hi Tim,
Thanks for sharing this post. I certainly think some of the watchblog writers coming across this post will feel the heat about their actions, much like the money-changers in the temple felt the heat of Jesus’ whip and Jesus’ words in the book of John.
One of the things I find challenging about the Internet - which you may agree with - is that not only is the Internet used for spilling out so many problem sites like the watchblogs, but it also becomes the forum for bad words exchanged between otherwise well-meaning Christians. As one example, I try to focus my blog writing on distinguishing the church as a Gospel-centered counterculture to the fallen ways of secular culture, and especially as a counterculture to the fallen ways that Christians often unwittingly entangle themselves into during their engagement with secular culture. So I make it a point to include my own Bible study lessons or my work on a layman’s commentary on Romans to support elders and pastors in their guidance of the church, and to get fellow Christians to think rightly about grace relationship with God. But even with all that, very godly well-meaning Christians, even godly ministers, can start to wag their tongues at my blog and call it heretical or the antichrist - and all because they see the Internet as their personal play toy.
Now, I’m generally fine with losing friendships from people, and I’m willing to suffer losses of people’s bad opinions of me for knowing contentment in Christ alone. But this bad use of the Internet and the blogosphere, even by professing godly Christians, really reminds me of a lesson I learned from Proverbs that people use communication outlets and their city surroundings as their idols, and they jealously defend their idols in bitter contentions with their neighbors - idolatry defended by self-righteousness. “A brother offended is more unyielding than a strong city, / and quarreling is like the bars of a castle” (Prov. 18:19). I think communication outlets like the blogosphere and the Internet are good things of God’s natural creation, and we should use these things very joyfully in grace-rooted relationship with the Lord, in singing to the Lord’s glory and in encouraging fellow Christians with good words. But we have to remember from the Lord’s inscribed Word that we are sinners using these outlets, and we have to bridle our tongues against what we want to say on these outlets. And I don’t think many professing Christians, even from godly denominational backgrounds like the Southern Baptist Convention or the Presbyterian Church in America, would even think twice about wagging their tongues with false words and false confrontations on these communication outlets.
22. ScottL
April 6, 2009
1:28 PM
‘[Love] does not rejoice at wrongdoing.’
1 Cor 13:6
23. Sean
April 6, 2009
1:51 PM
There are fewer and fewer blogs (present company excluded - but I’m wacthing you Challies :)) that I feel are worth reading as they present themselves as “news” sites. (Glorified gossip trains.) I am encouraged, though, that I find them less and less entertaining - evidence that I am growing (slowly, but steadily). Often times I leave those sites wondering what the shock is all about: that the church is full of sinful human beings? That the world hates Christ? Don’t we know this stuff that these stories are “evidencing”?
24. Erik
April 6, 2009
2:33 PM
I think Steve on comment 18 made a valid point about Tim’s post:
“Tim, your blog is full of articles regarding false doctrines and the importance of knowing sound scripture. So I do not think you are being totally fair to write off others who are exposing the very false preachers that your articles warn about.”
These “watchdog” blogs are certainly needed in the blogosphere, yet the fine line is in our motive for going to these sites. Is it for research/better equipping on what’s around us or entertainment?
25. Brendt Waters
April 6, 2009
2:45 PM
Tim, your blog is full of articles regarding false doctrines
That’s a highly fallacious statement.
26. Tim Challies
April 6, 2009
3:26 PM
“Tim, your blog is full of articles regarding false doctrines and the importance of knowing sound scripture. So I do not think you are being totally fair to write off others who are exposing the very false preachers that your articles warn about.”
I think if you go way back into the archives you’ll find a few. But in recent months and years I’ve dedicated a lot less time to false doctrines and false teachers.
Now don’t get me wrong. I think there is a time to expose false teachers and false teaching. I wish I had written an article about Todd Bentley back when he was wooing so many people out to his ridiculous revival. A false teacher on a national stage as he was may well need to be exposed. A false teacher like Brian McLaren who reaches so many people needs to be exposed. But I think that kind of thing is a far cry from what watchbloggers are doing. I do not think too many people would read a review of one of these men’s books as entertainment.
27. Matt Dabbs
April 6, 2009
3:34 PM
I wonder how often we call ourselves on the carpet. I think that is also an important component on this. Confession is powerful and when we feel like it is needed we can’t hold it back. I find it refreshing when someone tells on themselves in an unglorified way that is not an attempt to make them seem relevant or hip or to relate with young people…but just genuine sorry over our own shortcomings and frailties. It is way easier to point the finger at someone else but way harder to honestly and openly point it at ourselves.
28. Kristina
April 6, 2009
4:13 PM
I think these watch dog type of sites are an important and useful thing to have around, though it would be nice if they were balanced with something uplifting but let’s face it - the nice posts aren’t the posts that get people reading and commenting most of the time. That being said, I’m glad these sites are out there. I came to faith in a very shallow church, doctrine was not a focus at this church and as I grew in my faith I saw the church drifting further and further away from what I understand to be the truth. Though I couldn’t have articulated it to anyone when asked I just *knew* something was wrong.
These watch dog sites helped me connect with other people who were seeing the same things and helped me better understand WHY these things were a problem for authentic, Biblical faith. Eventually I outgrew the need/ desire to visit these sites as much. As I did my own research and study God helped me to understand what I was seeing and eventually lead me to a church that esteems God’s Word as they should - but the watch dog sites were a great tool at one point in my life to point me straight back at the Word.
29. Meagan
April 6, 2009
4:24 PM
Thank you for writing this! I was reading some articles on PFO.org the other day and I just got into a mood where I was googling Beth Moore, T.D. Jakes, and Joyce Meyer just to hear all the dirt and criticisms about them - and more and more it just seemed like trash talking to me. Some of the criticisms I felt were valid, but sometimes I felt like they were just nitpicking needlessly. (Example, calling Beth Moore obnoxious… what does that matter?) I feel that as Christians, we need to choose and evaluate all texts against the authority of the Bible. I will continue to research books and things I’ve read for more insights, but I think it’s important not to get too caught up into it.
30. louis
April 6, 2009
6:33 PM
Tim,
Good post. I agree completely. However, I do think that “watchdog” sites are necessary. Imagine if the news never reported any crimes. I think that this would certainly affect your day to day behavior. (I imagine that you lock your doors. Why?) There used to be a day when everyone kept their doors unlocked. What changed that? Perhaps it was because people were watching the news and knew that the world was changing.
I think that when your motive is to gossip, slander, or be entertained by sinfulness, then you are clearly not honoring the Lord. However, if your motives are good, then being aware of what is happening in the world of Christianity is important. (Even if the pastor is from Kalamazoo)
It’s true that many people read the watchblogs with wrong motives and are actually in sin. But don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. We could also talk about the sin of spending too much time on blogs, and suggest that people should not blog at all because many people are sinfully wasting their time reading blogs all day instead of being productive.
The key is to glance over the watchblogs so that you are aware of what is happening the the world of Christianity, but then spend most of your time in the word of God, or reading works that help you to understand the word of the Lord better.
Don’t throw the baby out!
31. Christina
April 6, 2009
6:34 PM
Hi Tim,
Thank you for your post. Having read it earlier in the day and only now getting a chance to respond, I’ve had plenty of time to think it over. Here are my thoughts:
1. There is a natural downward pull that appeals to all human beings - including believers to sin. The potential for unholiness - gossip, malice, evil thoughts, etc, that these kinds of things can produce is great. I think you are correct when you warn us to be on guard.
2. The reality is that the Church is full of false teachers who promulgate false doctrines and are leading many astray. Many of these false teachers have no accountability as they literally lead thousands down the path to eternal destruction. All the meanwhile the sheep sing their hymns and carry their Bible’s to church each Sunday. The cry of my heart as of late is that God WOULD raise up holy men bold enough to call out a falsehood when they see it & call these false teachers to account. They will not be popular because many of these ministries are household names in the evangelical word. But, my prayer even now is that God take many of us in our studies through the “John the Baptist School of Diplomacy”. Too much is at stake!
32. johnMark
April 6, 2009
7:23 PM
Tim,
How timely. This is something I’ve been thinking about lately. I wonder if *some* of the good apologetics blogs get type cast as watchbloggers because of the perceived tone.
Very good items to think on.
Thanks brother,
Mark
33. Daisy
April 6, 2009
7:56 PM
I agree with one exception. I do appreciate the blogs and posts that exam books and prolific preachers in light of Scripture. It saves me time. For example, I appreciated your review of Shack. It saved me from wasting money. Some might accuse you of being a “watchdog” in regards to that particular book, (LOL, I don’t thing so, but I sure have friends who do).
My husband and I would have never realized Rob Bell’s videos, being shown in our Sunday School class ,were emergent theology without a watchdog blog. We felt uncomfortable with the videos and knew we didn’t agree with them but didn’t realize it had a name and an entire ideology.
I wholeheartedly agree that much of what are considered “watchdog” type blogs are not making a positive impact on the church. So as with most things, such posts should be done prayerfully and with Christian love and grace.
34. Todd
April 6, 2009
8:16 PM
Great Article, you are precisely right, and I needed the confirmation to vouch my sanity.
35. Abby
April 6, 2009
11:01 PM
I agree with the post, even though it is kind of the ultimate in watch-dog posting. It’s watch-dogging the watch-doggers.
Blowing the whistle on watch-doggers is ironic. It’s also biblical and a little clever. So are *some* of the watch-dog blogs.
36. Jason H
April 6, 2009
11:32 PM
Tim, thanks for this… I have to admit that I am one of those people who have fallen into the habitual monitoring of such blogs… watching ever so closely to see (and become irritated by) the antics of the so-called church in America.
But a similar thought to this post did occur to me a few weeks ago that sometimes I allow those blogs to anger me then I stumble into my sins of arrogance and pride that I am so prone too to begin with.
I have resolved as of late that if any of these posts should cross my desk and I take the time to check them out that I will not close off the window without taking adequate time to privately contact that pastor/ church via email (as a last resort) and primarily by phone.
With the intentions of approaching them in love and sharing with them the Gospel. Trying to reason with them to see the power, sufficiency, and necessity of the Word of God. I, of course, quote Paul quite often and also refer back to events in the History of Biblical Christianity such as Calvin’s Geneva, Puritan America, etc…
Encouraging and admonishing them to trust God and trust the power of His Word and stop relying on the secular culture. A wise mentor of mine once told me, as I prepared for ministry, what you attract them with is what you must keep them with.
I wish I could say that my phone calls and emails were always well received, they aren’t. I wish I could say that it was making a change in those pastors/ churches. It might, but I will likely never know if it does or not.
I simply feel the conviction that watching, and being frustrated, and doing nothing about it makes me a hypocrite and an apathetic disciple.
Thanks for this post. It did help me iron our my thoughts and organize the convictions on this that I felt a few weeks back.
Praying for you brother.
j
37. Betsy Markman
April 7, 2009
12:55 AM
Wow, some very convicting thoughts here. If I am not doing anything constructive with the information I’m taking in, then should I be reading it in the first place?
I’m going to bookmark this article and refer back to it. There is much that I need to pray over.
Thanks you for this.
38. The Aspiring Theologian
April 7, 2009
1:09 AM
I’ve read these sites in the past, but I’ve always felt they were preaching to the choir. Blogs have to try to be entertaining, though, to garner readers - with thousands of Reformed Christian blogs online, which are you to choose? I have only about ten that I read, and I only check them about once a week (except for Doug Wilson’s blog, which I check regularly). Blogs as entertainment can be addictive in many ways, something I learned the hard way. Its shaped my thinking recently in how I should be writing on my own blog. What are we writing for? Good question…
Aspiring Theologian
The Knight of the Living God
39. Rhetorical Christian
April 7, 2009
3:26 AM
I think it would be helpful to define the term “watchblog.” For me, that term conjures us several distinct kinds of websites.
The ones that I find the most disturbing are those that don’t expose one or a handful of obscure false teachers, but who wield Scripture against every well-known Christian teacher, speaker, pastor, author of the last century, from C.S. Lewis and Billy Graham and John MacArthur and John Piper, and so on…deeming them all heretics.
Some watchblogs focus on one area where there has been spiritual abuse. I find these the most helpful when researching a particular topic. Sometimes the ex (insert legalistic or otherwise cultlike movement) who authors the blog may come across as bitter or sarcastic, but most of the time they are there as a resource, both for discernment and for healing.
I appreciate the watchblogs that convey an attitude of concern rather than scorn; that are genuinely wanting to uphold Biblical integrity, practice fairness/objectivity, and keep people from stumbling.
Recently I was talking to a woman in my church who was very eager to share about all she had been learning in her personal Bible study. Terminology and ideas she talked excitedly about set off alarm bells, but I couldn’t quite figure out what she was really saying. Eventually she mentioned she was reading the books and listening to the tapes of a particular Bible teacher. I asked her his name and she said “oh, no one’s ever heard of him.” As soon as she said that, I was up for the challenge, so I memorized the name (using a mnemonic device), googled it, and found not only his website, but more about him on some watchblogs.
The trouble was that the websites with the most information were of course the ones that were “exposing” everyone and everything that didn’t fit into their narrow interpretation of “true Christianity.” Thankfully, though, there was enough accurate information there for me to discern the errors in this teacher’s theology. The only trouble with that is that I don’t like to link to such websites.
40. Kenneth Ross
April 7, 2009
4:42 AM
In God’s grace, I’ve been kept from discovering these so-called ‘watchdog’ blogs. I find spiritual encouragement from a whole range of preaching and commentating blogs, but none that major on highlighting another preacher’s shortcomings.
Sure, there have been times where I have had to ‘clue up’ on a particular individual, who may be coming to our area. In that case, a quick ‘google’ can usually give you the info you need to make a wise assessment.
Whatever is good, whatever is noble… think on these things.
41. Kim in On
April 7, 2009
6:27 AM
Lots of food for thought.
Also liked the reference to Postman. Since reading a couple of books of his, I have wondered more than once what commentary he would have had to offer about blogs, twitter Facebook, and the internet in general.
42. Antithesis
April 7, 2009
7:32 AM
Come over to my blog and see the Evangelical Pope-cum-Watchman in action. :)
43. Jeff
April 7, 2009
8:47 AM
Tim,
I do agree somewhat with your article, but mostly do believe we need to know about these false doctrines, teachers and websites that are blatantly trying to destroy true biblical Christianity. Just because it is not in my hometown or down the street from me doesn’t mean that it does not affect me. Anything that happens to hurt the family of God does affect me, you and any other true believer. Be that Todd Bentley’s farce in Florida or Young’s “The Shack” - it is all part of the downturn of what society believes to be Christianity.
These things need to be known by Christians so we can be in prayer specifically for them. We can’t let things come in unaware in our smaller communities that are already happening in larger cities. These “watchblogs” are the watchmen of our day as in Isaiah 62:6 I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night: ye that make mention of the LORD, keep not silence,
44. Frank Turk
April 7, 2009
9:24 AM
Insert verbal equivalent of nodding head here.
45. Frank Turk
April 7, 2009
9:51 AM
Definition of a watchblog:
Any blog-like website which has the primary objective of “exposing” the church life errors of people in the English-speaking, North American church; sees “apologetics” as primarily the prosecution of guilty heretics and not as turning a brother away from sin; rarely turns its attention to exhorting the exceeeding beauty and sufficiency of Christ.
Among their most devastating weapons are surprise, fear. ruthless efficiency; sometimes their brilliant red uniforms, but never a fanatical devotion to the Pope.
46. Chris Rosebrough
April 7, 2009
10:23 AM
Tim,
You make some good points here. However, of all the ‘watchblogs’ that I am aware of, few if any, don’t also engage in teaching and correcting of the errors they are bringing to light.
Even the Museum of Idolatry, which I run, constantly links to good resources that correct the errors being exposed in the exhibits that we post.
I also want to point out that, we live in a day of significant paradigm shifts in the church. Because of the internet and the successful networking of the leaders spearheading these changes, what happens to a church in Pigs Breath Nebraska in all reality can and probably will have an impact on churches in your town. For example, last January a small unknown church in Ybor City Florida decided to have a 30 Day Sex Challenge. They sent out a press release announcing their challenge because they learned to send out press releases from Seeker-Driven Conferences that the pastor had attended. That story became a national story and now there are literally hundreds of churches across the country who are following suit.
The question that I continually try to explore is how these Seeker-Driven methods directly impact the message being preached in the pulpit. These methodological changes have run through the church like wild fire and I for one don’t think that these methods are neutral in regard to their impact on the gospel and faithfulness to the message that we’ve being given to preach, teach, proclaim and pass to the next generation.
Contrary to your claim that this type of information doesn’t lead to action, I receive hundreds of emails per week from people who’ve taken action from the information and teaching provided through the information that I publish via blogs, twitters, and internet radio.
47. Frank Turk
April 7, 2009
10:40 AM
BTW, I was watching TV last night, and the Discovery channel was running part of its warehouse of historically-inaccurate, exegetically-challenged refutations of the Christian faith and the Bible.
It would be nice to see the Watchblogs deal with that stuff — even if they reposted their previous refutations every year — to show that they’re concerned about things which the average Christian can use rather than, well, what they do do.
48. Phil Johnson
April 7, 2009
10:52 AM
I’m paying .99 for this?
Seriously, though, Tim: You’re reaching for a point that is valid, but only if properly and carefully qualified. There are indeed some bad watchblogs out there, whose only purpose seems to be voyeurism and recreational sarcasm. They aren’t wrong because they shine the light of truth on evil things that are better left in the dark. They’re wrong because in a backhanded way they seem to glory in the evil—as you say—as a form of entertainment.
It’s just like journalism per se: There are some sleazy tabloids out there. They don’t invalidate legitmate investigative journalism. Still, whenever a Robert Tilton gets exposed by 20/20, he’ll squeal that he is a victim of yellow journalism.
Certain evils (not all the evils in the world, but certainly the ones that undermine the purity of the church) DO need to be exposed and refuted, and sometimes rebuked harshly.
I was actually fine with your blogpost, because I figured all those careful qualifications were a given in your mind (what with you having written the book on discernment and everything). But my confidence was shattered by comment #26, in which you almost seem to imply that you are ashamed of things you yourself have written in the past. And I’m troubled trying to imagine what things those might be. Because I have always pointed to you as an example of excellent balance. And if you’re planning to devote “a lot less time to [critiquing] false doctrines and false teachers,” that will be to the detriment of your blog’s quality and usefulness, and it will greatly diminish the value of what I am paying .99 a month to get on my Kindle every day.
You’re one of the few reasonable, biblically-minded voices of discernment out there with the courage to say what no one else seems to want to say but a lot of us benefit from hearing. That’s your spiritual gift. Don’t hide your light under a bushel just because it happens to cast its rays from time to time on things that are evil.
49. Daniel Chew
April 7, 2009
11:24 AM
Tim,
are you criticizing the “watchdogs”, or the people who love to read such stuff? If the former, how do you exonerate yourself from the charge of Mt. 7:1?
Also, in your opinion, do you think du Moulin, the opponent of Moses Amyraut, is a “watchdog”? Afer all, he tirelessly worked to indict good old Moses Amyraut of heresy!
50. SolaMom
April 7, 2009
11:24 AM
Tim:
“But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good.” 2 Thess 3:13.
Yes, there are an excess of lurid “watchblogs” out there. All the more reason for mature men with disciplined minds and sound doctrine to speak the Truth…the whole Truth.
Please, Timothy, do not lay down your sword. Remember what Paul said to Timothy…”Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you.” - 2 Timothy 1:14.
51. John Baker
April 7, 2009
11:58 AM
A Pathetic article that speads mis-truths and over generalizes.
One that is wholly subjective based on a person’s own views of what is entertainment and what is not!
The deeply disturbing part of this “article” is it has absolutely zero Biblical support for its views!
Just because in your mind you have made a decision that Watchblogs are “entertainment” does not make it so!
Watchblogs distribute vital information and are doing an unthankful and vital task that the “church” today has completely abandoned.
Mr. Challes your standing as a one who only disseminates Biblical Truth has just been seriously compromised.
You have instead joined the ranks of those who believe their subjective opinions divorced from Biblical Truth are somehow valid!
In other words you have just joined the emergent movement based on subjective “Truthiness”
52. donsands
April 7, 2009
12:00 PM
“Do I really need to read and to know about the seedy underbelly of the church?” -Tim
I would say we should be aware of the many winds of false doctrine blowing subtly through the Body of Christ. We needto become mature, and not children, and so these “winds of doctrines, by the sleight of men, and cunning cleverness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, these wolves in sheeps clothing as Jesus tells us, and Paul tells us in Romans 16:17 to “mark them who cause divisions and offences contrary to doctrine which we have learned; and avoid them.”
Like a Brian McLaren.
“We are to focus much more on what is good than what is evil. ” -Tim
And a big Amen to this. Perhaps focusing on the truth, for the majority of us in the Body would be a full time effort, and keeping our eyes and ears open for false teachers and teachings as we throw ourselves into the whole counsel of the Lord in His precious Word, and into His Church: Worshipping Christ, and being blessed, praying in faith to our Lord, and so going out to serve the Body of Christ, and shine in a dark world and age of lost sinners.
53. Rick Frueh
April 7, 2009
12:21 PM
Some discernment blogs use measured and careful analysis that informs, corrects, and edifies believers. Others use hyperbole, sensationalism, and redundant examples of the extremes in evangelicalism that draw the car wreck watchers.
I prefer the former.
54. Paula
April 7, 2009
12:59 PM
Phil Johson hits the nail on the head, and John Baker says essentially the same thing as Phil, only more concisely, and harsher.
And here come the CRN.info guys smelling blood in the water… what’d I tell ya…
55. John
April 7, 2009
1:01 PM
Tim,
Our Church is currently in search of a new pastor and because of a lack of discernment, our old Pastor allowed a lot of false teaching to seep into our Church that the leadership team and new Pastor will have to deal with. The discernment sites have raised my awareness to the false teaching of men like Brian McClairn and Rob Bell so they serve great purpose as we go to interview potential new pastors on thier beliefs and thier preaching mentors. Just thought you might want to think about that a little.
56. Chris
April 7, 2009
1:01 PM
Tim -
While I {think} I understand your point, I’d imagine just about anything can be abused to some extent. The ‘watchblogs’ as we’re calling them most certainly do serve a purpose. The stuff going on in evangelicalism today is indeed affecting just about everyone as this stuff creeps into our own churches regardless of where we’re at. More often than not, those ushering the garbage in have no ill-intent and are simply unaware of what they’re promoting. The question is, who are we relying on to spot it and take care of it?
God willing, of course, I want to keep this nonsense from slithering into my family, Bible studies and church as much as I possibly can and in order to do so, I need to be able to see it coming from a mile away.
57. rabanes
April 7, 2009
1:12 PM
AMEN!!!!!!
Thank you, Tim.
Thank you for this insightful, thoughtful, and biblically-based commentary on the sad state of what is happening on the Internet. You might be interested in “DON’T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ ON THE INTERNET” ( see http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/abanes/11600278/ ).
The above article includes links to pieces similar to yours, reasonable observations, and godly opinions on this issue that are now being made by doctrinally-sound and thoughtful onlookers.
There is NOTHING wrong with discernment/apologetics. There is EVERYTHING wrong with lies, slander, false information, hate rhetoric, and fear-mongering. And this is exactly what we are seeing from SOME of these so-called “discernment” websites and “apologetic” blogs. In reality, these wells of poison have nothing to do with either apologetics or discernment.
peace in him,
Richard Abanes
58. J.R Spencer
April 7, 2009
1:15 PM
“But if a pastor of a church in Kalamazoo preaches a sermon in which he says something scandalous, it has no effect on my life and, beyond its draw as entertainment, I can think of few good reasons for me to even know about it. Multiply this by hundreds of new stories a week (or even just tens of stories a week) and I end up with a huge amount of negative information that stays in my head and heart, but which has no bearing on my life.”
1. I agree with Rhetorical Christian that you need to define the term “watchblog”. Making a general statement such as this impugns any blog, regardless if they are attacking everyone in sight or are genuinely trying to provide examples of what is wrong with the post-modern church today (which is imperative in this current climate for many to understand what a church should and should not do, based on the Word of God).
2. As you say :”Our efforts in discernment should revolve around knowing the truth so that we might see the evil in contrast to what is true.” Unfortunately, many Christians today lack the proper discernment to know how to contrast evil and truth. I agree that a focus on the positives (i.e scripture) would help them do this, unfortunately the present state of the church is not in any way conducive for this to occur. I see many of the truthful blogs such as slice of laodicea, apprising ministries, etc as those that are sounding the alarm as a last ditch effort to warn fellow Christians that the enemy is not at our doorstep but IN OUR HOMES. I think you owe it to your readers to clarify exactly which websites you mean.
3. Unfortunately, the world is full of negatives. While it is our duty to focus on God and his Kingdom, which I am sure you would agree is a positive,The FACT remains that that the world has invaded our churches and we very well may be in the time of the great falling away. If no one speaks up and just tells everyone to “focus on the positives” they do a disservice to the surviving remnant. Perhaps you have heard the saying “do not be so heavenly minded that you are no earthly good.” I think that applies here. This is not our home, but while we live here we have to deal with the truth head on. The discernment blogs help us to do this.
59. David Sheldon
April 7, 2009
1:25 PM
Therefore, I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God. Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.
Acts 20:26-31 NASB
Tim - I think the better thought is: “How much more time should I spend on the blogs of legitimate ministries to help me even come close to what I would have had to “endure” if “Pastor” Paul was my Pastor?” Night and Day! For three years! How can this possibly even come close to 15 minutes a day on a blog to help me understand what is going on in the visible church? Wow - I was alert for a whole 15 minutes today!?
Do modern day pastors do what Paul did here? I can only think of a few. I am really kind of sorry I had to read your post today and am quite confident you will probably re-evaluate your thoughts. Either that or I just didn’t quite understand.
It is true - our ORDER should be -
1. Proclaim 2. Defend 3. Contend
But if very few bother to Defend or Contend - it leaves it in the hands of others to do all of that FOR them since they choose only to believe the gospel and not to SUFFER for the gospel! And that is the real question: In my very heart, before a Holy God and His Holy Word, have I decided that on the day of judgment it will actually be legitimate to have chosen to believe the gospel without suffering for HIS HOLY NAME?
I know you agree with me!!!
Maybe when we read some of these legitimate blogs we should remember Jesus words. “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.” Matthew 5:11
That requires any one of us who actually name the name of Jesus to “suffer with Him outside the gate.”
PS - I loved reading your “Discipline of Spiritual Discernment” book! It is absolutely amazing and I would recommend it to anyone.
60. AnonymousJane
April 7, 2009
1:42 PM
I hate to admit it, but I have enjoyed many an entertaining chuckle over a few watchblogs. It does seem the more I study scripture, pray, and just generally grow in my faith, the less entertained I am by the dishonest exaggeration and hatefulness on these blogs. I take that as a mark of my growth in Jesus.
One of the biggest problems I found with these sites, making them basically useless for discernment, is that they are all so extremist and radical in their views. They attack ministries made up of normal people teaching and working with normal people because these “watch dogs” are on the fringe. I realize we are to live apart from the world and that we will be persecuted in His name, but it takes more than cultish extremism and alienation to be a good Christian. Being a radical on the fringe of society doesn’t make you one of the saved. Not to mention that it is almost impossible to minister to your community from this position.
61. john
April 7, 2009
1:56 PM
this article fails on two points:
1. It has no Biblical support
2. Its based on an in valid argument.
Anyone who claims to stand on Biblical Truth, to teach and preach Biblical Truth cannot disseminate opinions that are not based on Biblical truth but actually on relativistic subjective personal opinion and then be taken seriously as a source of Biblical Truth.
Secondly Mr. Challes makes an invalid argument in his article:
you cannot say that because you believe in your own opinion that because Discernment “Watch blogs” post negative stories about the current state of Christianity, and because there is in the secular world what is known as negative tabloid Journalism that turns negative stories into entertainment and profits from them , then therefore Discernment “Watch Blogs” are no different than secular negative tabloid journalism!
Do you see what makes this argument invalid?
1. No Discernment “Watch Blog” that I know of profits from posting negative stories.
2. No Discernment “Watch Blog” that I know of posts negative stories for the purpose of entertainment!
3. I will use an example of an invalid argument to show why Mr Challes argument is invalid:
1. Mr. A is a Baseball player. Mr. A cheats
2. Mr. B, C, and D are Baseball players.
3. Therefore all baseball players are cheats!
The above argument uses the same logic as Mr Challes. And it is invalid because there is no foundation from the two premises (1 & 2) to make the conclusion in No. 3
Mr. Challes it is sad that you have undermined your own beliefs in Absolute Truth and Standing on the Truth of God’s word and instead let fly with relativistic and subjective personal opinions.
62. john
April 7, 2009
1:58 PM
this article fails on two points:
1. It has no Biblical support
2. Its based on an in valid argument.
Anyone who claims to stand on Biblical Truth, to teach and preach Biblical Truth cannot disseminate opinions that are not based on Biblical truth but actually on relativistic subjective personal opinion and then be taken seriously as a source of Biblical Truth.
Secondly Mr. Challes makes an invalid argument in his article:
you cannot say that because you believe in your own opinion that because Discernment “Watch blogs” post negative stories about the current state of Christianity, and because there is in the secular world what is known as negative tabloid Journalism that turns negative stories into entertainment and profits from them , then therefore Discernment “Watch Blogs” are no different than secular negative tabloid journalism!
Do you see what makes this argument invalid?
1. No Discernment “Watch Blog” that I know of profits from posting negative stories.
2. No Discernment “Watch Blog” that I know of posts negative stories for the purpose of entertainment!
3. I will use an example of an invalid argument to show why Mr Challes argument is invalid:
1. Mr. A is a Baseball player. Mr. A cheats
2. Mr.’s B, C, and D are Baseball players too.
3. Therefore all baseball players are cheats!
The above argument uses the same logic as Mr Challes. And it is invalid because there is no foundation from the two premises (1 & 2) to make the conclusion in No. 3
Mr. Challes it is sad that you have undermined your own beliefs in Absolute Truth and Standing on the Truth of God’s word and instead let fly with relativistic and subjective personal opinions.
63. Jensen
April 7, 2009
2:25 PM
Tim,
I agree that the propensity to dwell on the negative content is there, but I don’t know of many brethren who are dwelling there simply for the voyeuristic appeal of which you write.
One step further: I believe that most of the sites you are referring to include the educational aspect you admire and value personally.
Please explain: What place do Apologetics have on the internet? Should we not strive to test false teachings against the light of Scripture?
Chris
www.redpen.org
64. donsands
April 7, 2009
2:26 PM
“There is NOTHING wrong with discernment/apologetics. There is EVERYTHING wrong with lies, slander, false information, hate rhetoric, and fear-mongering. And this is exactly what we are seeing from SOME of these so-called “discernment” websites and “apologetic” blogs. In reality, these wells of poison have nothing to do with either apologetics or discernment.”
Is there anyway you could name these websites? Or would that be the pot calling the kettle black? I think if you know where there is poison, then you let us know. that’s my opinion. Perhpas not here on Tim’s, but on your own would be fine. Thanks.
All for the Cross.
65. wes w
April 7, 2009
2:27 PM
Tim,
I’m saddened by your article. I agree with those who have pointed out that the baby need not be thrown out with the bathwater on this issue. I’ve had great benefit from daily reading your site and will continue to recommend it, but I fear that your broad brush treatment of this subject will be used to further the “watered-down, wishy-washy, doctrine-doesn’t-matter, why can’t we all get along, deeds-not-creeds” silliness that dominates so much of today’s evangelical thinking. We do need a reformation, in this day - and while it certainly ought be Biblical in its methodology, a return to Biblical certainty and clarity is certainly desperately needed. It is this reminder and encouragement to prayer that at least some of these sites provide.
By the way, their limited influence is certainly “balanced” by the mainstream Christian media coverage of (and, in some cases, support for) the Olsteens, Bells, McLarens, Warrens, etc. out there. I’m encouraged by the marketplace of ideas… and, by the way, I wonder what Paul’s response to some of the “watchdog-targets” would be? I suspect it might be similar to the tone of Galatians 1:6-8.
66. Rick Frueh
April 7, 2009
2:30 PM
1. Blogger A is a discerner. He addresses doctrinal concerns with clarity and a level of respect.
2. Bloggers A, B, and C are discerners.
3. All discernment bloggers address doctrinal concerns with clarity and a level of respect.
Nope.
67. M.G.
April 7, 2009
2:40 PM
As long as we are discussing arguments… I hope we can all agree that
1. I am right
2. You are wrong; therefore
3. You are a relativist
is not a valid form of argumentation. I’m honestly surprised that some of the responses of those who are defending the “watch-blogs” would take such a line.
If you are accusing Mr. Challies of being a relativist, the only thing you will accomplish is to confirm his point, and undermine your own credibility.
There is something very amiss about the patterns of thinking prevalent amongst those who sympathize with several online discernment ministries. Very amiss.
68. Paula
April 7, 2009
2:53 PM
richard fawning over Tim is a good reason for me to be suspicious. Richard tells us not to believe everything you read on the internet. Again, another useless truism that is weilded in an effort to discredit those who expose a person’s false teaching and bad behavior. After reading this article I was left with the impression Jeremiah and most of what Elijah said, for example (plus many many other passages) ought to have been better left out of the canon.
All in all this thread has been a total waste of time, with the exception of Phil Johnson’s posts and others like his, and Ingrid Schlueter’s if it ever gets approved.
I can hear the partying over at CRN.info from here.
69. Rick Frueh
April 7, 2009
3:02 PM
“I can hear the partying over at CRN.info from here.”
I want to make it clear I will not drink the fermented wine over there. :lol”
70. Frank Turk
April 7, 2009
3:19 PM
Just to keep things moving forward here, more blogs should engages Richard Abanes if only for the entertainment value. One of the highlights of the blog year is when someone engages Abanes and he calls his lawyer to prosecute their ISP because he’s so concerned with Biblical truth.
[/pot stirring]
71. john
April 7, 2009
3:33 PM
M.G. Said:
is not a valid form of argumentation. I’m honestly surprised that some of the responses of those who are defending the “watch-blogs” would take such a line.
If you are accusing Mr. Challies of being a relativist, the only thing you will accomplish is to confirm his point, and undermine your own credibility.
I say:
Talk about falsely depicting what I said.
So I will clarify again:
I never said I am right and Mr. Challes is wrong. I stated a philisophical Truth. you may want to look into it, Its taught in College level Philosophy Logic 101.
Again Mr. Challes makes an invalid argument according to entry level logic!
Secondly his article Is based on personal opinion devoid of any Biblical support. thats not saying I am right and he is wrong, it is just stating a fact! And when someone does that they are actually confirming the ideology of relativistic subjective truth because they are saying their subjective opinion is a valid truth.
Now if Mr. Challes wants to play to the Blogosphere belief that personal opnion is king! then hey I guess he has proven that point but no other!
72. Rick Frueh
April 7, 2009
3:40 PM
Frank - Richard was absolutely unscriptural and wrong for doing what he did in reporting Ken for something which he charcacterized as false. If we cannot discuss, even strongly and sometimes carelessly, what message do we send the spectating world?
That entire back and forth was unfortunate to say the least.
73. Peter
April 7, 2009
3:49 PM
Tim,
My question is not about watchblogging but on blogging or the use of internet as a time related subject. I am recently married and have found that time can be sapped up faster on the internet doing good things, bad things, or nothing faster than any TV show or other various forms of entertainment. For instance I have read very nearly all of the comments before to see if some one has commented on this similiar topic. I still missed quite a few, but looking back I now see that I have sunk a half hour into this where I merely came to your sight primarily to suit my new desktop with one of the nice pictures you commonly have posted here.
All that to say, my question is where and when do you draw the line on how much we watch on the interenet at all? How necessary is the interenet at all? Yes there is content that can be viewed that will leave us more in awe of God, and e-mail is a great tool and information can be gathered faster and more efficiently, but I can go months without viewing anything on the internet and find my life FILLED with those things but instead of reading or watching them I EXPERIENCE them.
It is quite a thing to read and gather information or sit and watch silly videos or sites that pick out silly videos for you to watch or WHATEVER. It is quite another to shake the confines of your chair off our collective tushes and go outside for a time.
Life is out there and it beckons without the soft enchanting glow of our computer screens. The computer can be a dangerous pixeled jail cell and chain us to our seats.
Do you have any idea how we can judge or balance our time on the internet? On blog sites? Or on this particular subject is it in fact all relative?
getting off now, may check back soon. Maybe
cheers
74. Frank Turk
April 7, 2009
3:50 PM
John Baker:
It’s people like you which need something better than a dicernment blog’s-eye view of the world of the church.
May Challies be your guiding light.
75. Frank Turk
April 7, 2009
3:52 PM
Rick:
Obviously, Challies’ blog comments do not accept the [/sarcasm] tag. I’ll remember that in future posts.
76. Frank Turk
April 7, 2009
3:53 PM
“discernment” being the correct spell there. Sorry ‘bout that.
77. Frank Turk
April 7, 2009
3:57 PM
I give up. This thread has me so perplexed I can’t even type.
Happy Easter All! Thanks be to our Lord and Savior that you are able to protect us from CHALLIES! WOO!
78. john
April 7, 2009
3:59 PM
Frank Turk said:
It’s people like you which need something better than a dicernment blog’s-eye view of the world of the church.
I say:
Well again someone other than Mr. Challes proves the point of the growing and overwhelming influence of relativistic subjective Truth on “Christians” of our time.
Mr. Turk makes a statement of which he has zero factual proof for making. Hence he proves my point as well.
Personal opinions devoid of Biblical support have no place at all in the language of those who say they stand on Biblical Truth!
All that is being put forward by those who are defending Mr. Challes is his right to express a personal opinion that is not Biblically supported. Now tell me again how that does not prove he has succumbed to the idea of subjective truth?
I find it supremely ironic that Mr. Challes is slamming discernment “Watch Blogs” for what he says is succumbing to the secular “evil for Entertainment” genre and then he himself succumbs to the secular blogosphere “subjective personal opinion is Truth” genre!
79. Tim Challies
April 7, 2009
4:08 PM
This is the first time I’ve been able to visit this topic today. And I think this is as good a time as any to close it down. I think it has reached the point of no return.
If I have time tonight I’ll try to post a final comment.