Thank you, Bill. I don't get it either. One reason I appreciate the Thinklings is because you guys are balanced.

See, the problem here is that the whole dispute centers on whether the individual in question is "wounded" or causing wounds.

And, De, do your words of disgust and outrage apply equally to the stream of sarcasm and cutting remarks the Boar's Head guys have been publishing against "TRs" for many months? If not, why not?

But if so, I wonder why if a post such as this urging the BHT to be more charitable might have done something to quell this controversy before it boiled over.

Despite the pretense of "rivalry" between this blog and the BHT, you guys are generally perceived as mostly friendly. An earlier post admonishing them might have done a world of good. I fear this one may simply be interpreted as a different kind of "playground triumphalism." Or sour grapes.

you guys are generally perceived as mostly friendly

Heaven forbid!

This is what kills me. As a group, we Thinklings have almost nothing in common with the BHT as a group, apart from the essentials of Christian orthodoxy.
If it doesn't hurt their feelings, it's pretty obvious we're more conservative than they are, on a host of issues and topics.
But, see, we believe in a Church where teetotallers and drinkers can be friends! Where inerrantists and infallibilists can be friends! Where Calvinists and Arminians and all points in between can be friends!

It's amazing, isn't?

That's the standard response: "But they did it first!"

Whether Michael deserves a drubbing or not hardly seems the point. Nobody is really responding to his points. Nobody's, say, taking a post of his and arguing against it "debate-style." They see him talking about weaknesses and regrets and problems, and because he talks about stuff he doesn't like at Egomaniac and Jerk and [Name Deleted], they flay him for that stuff.

Somebody at some point -- either Michael (and the BHT) or the Pyro-groupies -- have to decide they're the mature ones and either actually critique or actually ignore. 'Cause this feud is not "all in good fun." It stops being satire when you know it makes brothers angry and you're just doing it to get a rise out of them.

Msg to BHT/Michael critics: If you're really more mature, really more intelligent, really more "Christian" than those guys, why is this fight -- which is about personality and who did what first and not about doctrine -- so important?

Where is the verse that says open season on somebody so long as they talk about you first?

Props to the Thinklings for this post.

Jared: why is this fight ' which is about personality and who did what first and not about doctrine ' so important?

Where is the verse that says open season on somebody so long as they talk about you first?

It think it's pretty naive to say the whole fight is "about personality and who did what first and not about doctrine." As far as I can recall, I have consistently ignored all the personal and petty stuff that has been posted about me at the BHT. (And there has been quite a lot of it--going back a couple of months before I even started blogging.) That sort of thing has never provoked public criticism from me toward Michael or the Tavern.

What I have criticized at the BHT is the glib and perfunctory attitude that prevails toward truth and biblical authority. (In other words, the same thing I posted bout today--without a single "personal" reference.) That's not a petty, private, or unduly personal matter, and I don't think it's fair to skewer all the iMonk's critics with that kind of blithe dismissal of their substantive concerns.

As far as dancing on someone's "grave" is concerned, I wasn't aware that one side or the other had won the argument or that the other side had given up the ghost. "Dancing" was about as far from my thoughts as possible when I posted what De found offensive.

PS: I don't think the BHT guys' constant bastinado aganist the TRs is merely personal, either. Let's give them credit.

Have you done the "Do Dogs (and cats) Go to Heaven?" thing yet ? I was amazed to see 101 comments over in a myspace blog on this issue. As for the hissy fits and cat fights, there are just way too many, way too ignorant of true humility.

Doug

Phil,

Isn't there ever a time just to let it go?

Your comments regarding Michael's extremely vulnerable confessional post made me sick. The posts by your buddy Turk made me even sicker. What's wrong with you guys?

You're a pastor, an adult. A man of God.

All I ever see you do is defend yourself and snark against others, and wrap it up in "I'm defending truth". You can't just let it go. You can't just ignore the BHT. Why not?

Be a man! Be the one who walks away. How hard is that?

Steve....

I'd like to dialogue a bit by email if you would.

MichaelATinternetmonk.com

Ephesians 4:29
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

Phil, I haven't read your post from today. Sorry about that.

I also want to apologize for my nicknaming of you and Frank in my first comment. It pretty much undercuts the point I was trying to make. Sorry.
---

This is how the "conversation" appears to me every time I review it:

A: The iMonk is messed up. [sarcastic picture]
B: If you think he's really messed up, do you think ridicule is the best approach?
A: He's always talking about ME!
B: Regardless of whether he deserves a retort, don't you think responding to one of his arguments would be more fruitful?
A: What are you, some kind of pomo, em-church hippie?
B: I'm just talking about the biblical responsibility we have regarding a) enemies, b) brothers who are "messed up," and c) conversation in general.
A: [sarcastic picture of Person B]

At some point, someone has to say, "It's not in good fun anymore."
Obviously somebody on the "TR" side is getting something out of this fight, and it doesn't matter to them if Michael or whoever desires to end it. The fight and one's freedom to snark is more important than peace.
Why isn't that important? It's not in good fun anymore. It's not funny anymore (except to people who don't like the other side). It's obviously beyond poking fun now. So why is it so doggone crucial to maintain this?

De & Jared, thank you. If I knew what an Emergent church was, I guess I'd be concerned over what they are fighting for with the funny pictures and tag-team hunting.

I've helped online forums and "communites" in the past, and still do to an extent. People who have been there for a long time who leave usually have a similar answer to why they've given up - "It's not in good fun anymore." I hope it doesn't come to that for people involved.

Still, my momma always said the best thing to do with a bully is to ignore him. He'll scream louder, for awhile.

Ignorance is bliss... It really is. :)

I have NO idea what you all are talking about specifically, though I get the general principles. And I'm pretty sure I agree with Bill. Oh, I know I do.

You know I just read thinklings, shizuka, out of the bloo, mysterium tremendum, and a few others in our blog roll like marla, aintsobad, jenspeaks, dawnpatrol, blestwithsons etc...

In fact, come to think of it, the only people I read in our blogroll that I don't know personally are women. And I don't remember any contentious intra-blog sniping...And I don't really think I'm missing anything by not reading ANY of what y'all are talking about...

:)

Thanks to those of you I do read. Y'all are great.

Doug wrote:
Have you done the "Do Dogs (and cats) Go to Heaven?" thing yet ? I was amazed to see 101 comments over in a myspace blog on this issue.

We have....but I couldn't find it on a search. It's around here somewhere...

But you know, I'm pretty sure there was no fighting...and not that many comments. :) Maybe it's just because no one reads my posts. :)

In fact, come to think of it, the only people I read in our blogroll that I don't know personally are women. And I don't remember any contentious intra-blog sniping

Yeah well... Maybe I'll start a "My kids are the cutest" catfight just to liven things up!

I think we know that reason doesn't work. You either fight or you don't. See, for these guys, anything and everything falls under the okay umbrella of "criticism." So when you criticize the way they're talking, they just see your "hypocrisy" for criticizing criticism. (I don't know if they think Paul was a hypocrite for criticizing certain types of "criticism," but I've learned that Scripture belongs to the other side, so I can't quote it anymore. Any verses about the tongue, loving enemies, seasoned language, turning the other cheek, love, edification, etc. must be set within a loophole-free framework demonstrating airtight Reformed Baptist doctrine. Otherwise, it's just tolerant gobbledegook.)

I expect comments [and ridicule] from people who don't get what I'm saying.

I'd say your expectation has been exceeded. Not only have you received comments and ridicule, you've got it from people who (willfully?) don't get what you're saying. Bill, you have to be on the right side to have your admonitions considered. Anybody who disagrees with them is a default mishandler of Scripture. Got it?

Maybe they'd get it if you'd foregone the critique and just posted some stupid photoshopped thingy.

Ah, now I know how this started. The pope writes:

This one got started because, as is his pattern, iMonk posted an article that was, well, quite self-revealing. In fact, if you ask me, it was not proper to post it in public. In fact, posting that kind of stuff in public is an open invitation for exactly what happened.

Do you see that? Do you believe what was just written?
This war started with a too revealing post by Michael (which said nothing about his various assailants). Basically, the war started because Michael asked for it!

Post something about your weakness or regrets and you deserve a blogospheric beating.
This clears so much up. (And confirms so much, too.)

The pope also says something about glorifying God through controlling the tongue.
Good grief, the irony is so thick it's suffocating. Between that and the other dudes talking about "sets of behavior" and BHT "hostility," the pot is not just calling, it's SCREAMING TO THE WORLD about the blackness of the kettle.

Hmm. For some reason my comment didn't post. I'll try it again if I can remember everything. Hope this works.

I find it insulting to label my attitude toward truth and biblical authority "glib" and "perfunctory". I can assure you that my attitude toward truth and biblical authority is anything but the two adjectives you have used, Mr. Johnson. You may not like where my pursuit of truth has lead me. I am fine with that. Let me be confessional for a moment: I agonize over these two concepts daily. I want to know truth as best as I can so that I can preach with authority and passion the life-giving truth found in the Bible. I have committed my whole life to this. I don't find it easy nor do I find the truth to be simple. If it were simple, I would expect us to be in unfractured communion with one another with no denominational boundaries. I don't mind disagreement about my understanding of truth. In fact, I expect people to challenge me when they think I'm erring. To challenge my understanding is one thing, to call my attitude "glib" and "perfunctory" is a lie.

I want to say right here and now that I am sorry for the comments I have made toward you and others that were inappropriate. I know that my thoughts and comments have not reflected the love nor the humility of Christ, so I repent and ask forgiveness of you all.

The more I read about this argument, the more I think that it stems largely from a group of people who have taken it upon themselves to humiliate and effectively destroy a fellow believer because they simply don't like what he says or how he says it. Their words are meant to intimidate and silence, and they are meant to hurt.

When being right becomes more important than being kind to your enemies (shoot, some of these guys can't even manage that with those they claim to call "brother"), expecting and hoping for nothing in return and considering nothing as lost and despairing of no one, then a lot is lost.

But love your enemies and be kind and do good and lend, expecting and hoping for nothing in return but considering nothing as lost and despairing of no one; and then your recompense (your reward) will be great (rich, strong, intense, and abundant), and you will be sons of the Most High, for He is kind and charitable and good to the ungrateful and the selfish and wicked.

I fall short on this - a lot. Blogs seem to bring out the most intolerant parts of people - a lot of people.

I want to publically thank "de." We don't know each other, and have only traded perfunctory comments in the past when I have attempted to evangelize this blog, but I want to salute you....and invite you to have free front row seating at the next Van Til show, where Jared will be the guest and Van Til will be asking a few questions about the Jared's claim to be a "Nexus."

Thanks, VT!

I hadn't expected to stand in solidarnosk with the booze heads, but I am looking forward to the show! Can I get backstage passes?

Sadly, this is why I read very little of the God-blogosphere anymore - I can't take the sniping and back-biting and gossip. What's so incredibly sad is that Christians are the worst on these issues and it's why those who don't believe won't believe - hypocrisy is the #1 reason why people are resistant to the Christian faith.

Thanks, Bill.

De - thanks so much.

I'm sure this has been said, but it bears repeating: It'd be so nice if we as Christians could instead of looking at others and saying, "Lord, thank You that I'm not like [insert whoever's name or affiliation you want - i.e. Michael Spencer, emergent churches, the Truly Reformed, Catholics, Lutherans, Rich who comments on the Thinklings website, etc.], because my paricular sacred cow theology is so much more Biblical and correct than everyone else's" we could all just conclude "Have mercy upon me, a sinner" and knowing that, treat others better than ourselves.

Also, De, I love the policy at your personal website: "Be Kind." How simple and perfect, and how great it would be if that was the policy for the God Blogsphere.

But obviously I'm wrong, because if we did that, it'd be awfully difficult to ferret out the heretics, burn the witches, and show a brother his sin - all of which are so much more important than loving our neighbors.

Who the heck are our neighbors anyway?

Boy, you can say that again. I'm glad we're not like the people who say ungracious and unedifying things!

Point taken. Touche'

Shrode,

Hey, we have some nice, kind, and uncontentious lovers of the gospel at Common Grounds Online. We even have women writers. :) In fact, Catherine Claire (of Prison Fellowship in DC) has written a lovely post today titled, "Correct Thou My Vision". I think you'd find it appealling.

Also, De, I love the policy at your personal website: "Be Kind."

Thanks Rich. It's a goal for me, but not something I always (or even often) attain to.

I agree with Jen in comment #23. Says it all.