CARM alert - grace in action
Oct 3rd, 2007 by Cheryl
I got an email from Matt Slick today. In addition to saying that I misrepresented him (he said I was claiming that he believes I am unsaved! I know he calls me a heretic, but I didn’t hear him say that I was an unsaved heretic) 
Matt stated:
you ARE in error…and your helping the church adopt your error.
and…i have no intention of having you back on the radio.
He also offered to debate me on Paltalk which I would consider if I knew if there was a fair way to have such a debate without Matt turning the debate into an attack session or having him control the mike. At this point I don’t think it would be possible, but I am open if I could figure out what I am doing.
The reason for this post is to call attention to a very gracious response to Matt that I found a link to on Wade Burleson’s blog. It is from a fellow Christian who has a blog called Voyage Blog and his name is David McLaughlin. Today he wrote a post called Carm Watch Update. David’s original post on the second debate between Matt and myself is here. I want to call attention to this blog and these two posts because of David’s gracious response. Even while pointing out error and wrong attitudes, David manages to keep a gracious attitude and I think he should be commended for the spirit that he showed. I also greatly appreciate him defending his sister in Christ!
October 4th, 2007 at 5:55 am
Thanks for the link, I posted a compliment there.
October 4th, 2007 at 6:08 am
On the paltalk debate, have a mutually agreed upon moderator.
October 4th, 2007 at 6:13 am
Regarding the debate format, I do not believe this is the best way to discuss the women in ministry issue, as I think teaching is the best method, but it is A method to discuss it, if one is willing to conform to the requirements of such a format.
There are some truths that are simple and some that are not as simple to explain. To claim that everything taught in the Bible is simple is a mistake, IMO, altho some make that claim.
October 4th, 2007 at 7:02 am
Don,
Thanks for all your wisdom. I will keep the Paltalk debate under consideration only if that appears to be the wise decision through the help that I get from others. It would not be a good thing to do if Matt controls everything. Once I am prepared and we would have a mutually agreed upon moderator, something tells me that Matt would rescind. He already has rescinded twice on what he said he would do (allow my DVD to be promoted on his radio show and allow me to come back if I jump through his hoops) so I would expect that his word to debate me on Paltalk is about as good as his word on the other two things.
October 4th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Thanks for the nice words Cheryl. I hear they are saying I violated CARM rules with my post because I personally attacked Matt. Oh well.
In preparation for the debate, I would suggest you re-listen to both radio programs and go thru all the forum discussions and see which questions Matt feels you have not answered. These will be the ones he will hit you with for sure.
You are well prepared on everything else. I’ll try to remember to listen and pray for you.
October 4th, 2007 at 7:32 am
I went onto David’s bog site and noticed that he is getting ready to go into radio himself. From a link on his blog I found his radio blog where David has started the road to produce his own radio shows on bible teaching http://voyageradio.blogspot.com/
David is planning to teach the bible via free podcast first and then from there take his broadcasts (that he is professionally producing) to the air waves. This will be accomplished as donations come in that will allow him to buy air time and go on the radio. The equipment is costly and he is looking for the Lord’s help in getting the rest of the funds together to make his dream of radio a reality.
David’s attitude is gracious and kind and he is not like a lot of other radio show hosts who pride themselves in using cheap tricks to get a following by stirring up controversy. Honestly when Matt Slick has said that he prides himself in being obnoxious, I hear my self asking “What is that all about?” It just doesn’t seem to be the way that Jesus would do things. Jesus was never obnoxious. Strong, yes, but obnoxious - never!
So here we have David needing funds to do things the godly way. On the other side we have Matt fully funded (to this point at least) doing things on air the way an ego-filled secular radio host would do it. I am not trying to belittle Matt. He is the one who pats himself on the back for being the best looking, the smartest and the most obnoxious apologist since God created sliced bread. (Okay the last part about sliced bread I added myself to Matt’s claims. The rest of the comments I have heard from Matt throughout months of on and off listening to his radio show. I think I will be mostly “off” now since the obnoxious part has really gotten to me).
I think I would rather hear the bible and a defense of the faith from someone like David. Is there anybody out there who believes in gentleness and respect who would either be willing to help David out with the needed funds or else help him find some financial backing so he can finish the task that he has started? I think this is a good, godly project.
October 4th, 2007 at 7:46 am
David,
Oh, puhleese! This reminds me of the story of a man who loves to throw stones. Problem is that he lives in a completely glass house! (And as one of my friends likes to say, we all have access to windex so we can see what he is doing in there!) We can see through these tactics for what they are. I haven’t been on Matt’s discussion board since yesterday afternoon because I just don’t have the time right now. But when I was on last I noticed that Matt does not answer questions. His mode of operation is to throw a stone and then when someone responds, he is very quick to claim that he has been hit. On Matt’s blog the claim is that on our radio discussion/debate, I initiated a personal attack on Matt right from the beginning and it was I who was condescending! Again, I think this is a cheap trick and someone who lives in a glass house (radio, internet) shouldn’t be doing this because it does not bring honor to Jesus. I think the actual recording of what went on speaks for itself and your words on Matt’s blog speak for themselves too. These tricks may fool some for a period of time but eventually we will all be able to see clearly.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Yeah, that’s typical. Some people think every disagreement is a personal attack.
If a Christian wants equal free speech in any given discussion of religions and philosophies, we are accused of “ramming your religion down our throats”. If you criticize government they call you unpatriotic. And if you prove that the Bible does not condemn women for preaching the truth to men, you are accused of the very faults your accusers commit and declared a heretic.
And these same accusers have the gall to condemn the Inquisition. (not that there was anything good about it, but that they have a double standard) Yes, Matt is the last person with any right to throw the personal attack stone. From what I’ve seen, he simply wants to have his cake and eat it too.
I learned not to waste time on such people; you can only beat a dead horse for so long. Most people only want to throw stones instead of actually considering that they might be wrong. No matter what the topic, it is extremely rare to see people actually deal with issues, logic, and documented evidence. And if we have this problem with people who speak the same language at the same time in history and the same culture, why in heaven’s name does anyone think the Bible should be read without considering all the layers of context?
It takes a mature adult to be unafraid of criticism or of having their beliefs challenged and examined. But any fool can spout off with impunity.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Amen Don ! Here in Southern Cal. we have several radio Bible teachers who are quite fond of spouting the maxim: “God says what He means and means what He says…” Well yeah, and what Christian is going to disagree with that statement? But what they’re really saying is that God is saying what they’re saying. I also get very nervous when I hear guys tell me what the “the plain truth of scripture” is. Aside from the essentials contained in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds, the Bible in many cases does not have a plain meaning.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I think the primary meaning of Scripture is how the original readers would have understood it. That is what I seek to do my best to recover in my studies.
October 4th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2007/10/egalitarian-evangelical-heretics-and.html
October 4th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Pastor D,
Great article! That was the best soap box rant that I have read in a long time and I think we should all read the article from the link posted above. Good, good stuff!
October 4th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Dusman,
I liked it.
October 4th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
I’m glad to help and encourage this sister in any way possible. It’s the absolute least I can do given the blessing she’s been to me.
October 4th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
technomom wrote: Some people think every disagreement is a personal attack.
Over on http://www.thatmom.wordpress.com, under the Visionary Daughters thread, this same topic just came up. (The latest “thatmom podcast” should post late tonight or tomorrow.) In June, I introduced the problems of patriarchy on a few internet forums and found that most people accused me of gossip and of personal criticism rather than doctrinal or praxy problems among the leadership in the so-called “Biblical Patriarchy” movement. Because I pointed out that a significant portion of these doctrines were not Biblical, I was accused of calling several ministers and para-church organization leaders “bad men.” I received several emails stating that I was attacking “godly men” but was offered no explanation of the ungodly aspects of their (mingled with Godly) doctrine or their ungodly behaviours. The most robust argument that I was given by one gentlemen was that one of these men “treated us marvelously.” I spoke to Don Veinot of Midwest Christian Outreach a few weeks ago who states that people accuse him of being “mean.” He agrees that this might be true, but asks if he’s also “wrong.”
In the age of the law of the politically correct, it seems that the church has also capitulated to this secular trend. The superficial aspects of relationships and communication override the substance. Oh, how postmodern! The medium is the message. It’s sad to see that men like Matt Slick (trained at a seminary that I hold in high esteem) and others in the Reformed faith have so strongly capitulated to this ideal. At least, this is what it looks like to me. This is a very difficult problem affecting apologetics that I was not prepared to confront. I feel sometimes as if I’m in gradeschool trying to reason with children who cry “na, na, na…”
October 4th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
So true, Under Much Grace. I think I wrote somewhere before about the fine balance between squelching all traces of personality and individuality on one hand, and losing all civility and Christian restraint on the other. (Oh yeah, it was This Article.)
I think the problem is not only a lack of personal application of scripture as opposed to other-application, but also a lack of discernment to know when and where to show fire and passion, and when and where to show compassion. It’s made more difficult by the PC mentality everywhere, because people cannot handle disagreement at all.
There was a time when people could really give each other a thrashing and still be friends. In the Bible we see Christians “vigorously refuting”, “contending earnestly” for the faith. We also see Paul being crude at times in his loathing of legalists and false teachers, even saying “let them be cursed!” This is properly directed and controlled passion, the kind that we should feel if a loved one is insulted.
Yet it is the passionate defense of truth and God’s very honor that is no longer tolerated. And quite hypocritically, these same PC promoters get very passionate against those who disagree with them. Somehow it’s okay for them to rage, but not anyone else. (reminding me of some earlier rants Here and Here).
I know some people think only cowards or hypocrites don’t allow comments on their writings, but personally I’m just tired of all those whiny babies and control freaks. And when you write about truth that’s the kid of crowd you draw. I figure if somebody is genuinely interested in conversation instead of a mud-slinging contest, they’ll click their mouse one extra time (oh, the inconvenience!) and send me an email.
And even if you find some reasonable people to talk to, they want it to be a debate instead of fellow believers coming together to resolve differences or at least try to understand that other people’s views have legitimacy too. And to think, here we are having such difficulty communicating among people of the same language and culture, yet we demand that the Bible be read only on the surface.
October 4th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
technomom wrote: “And even if you find some reasonable people to talk to, they want it to be a debate instead of fellow believers coming together to resolve differences or at least try to understand that other people’s views have legitimacy too. And to think, here we are having such difficulty communicating among people of the same language and culture, yet we demand that the Bible be read only on the surface.”
Thank you for this both passionate and well-reasoned response. As an idealist at heart (working hard to overcome cynicism), I’ve always assumed that fellow believers do want to come together to resolve intermural issues in a spirit of mutual respect for the Lord’s sake. It’s been a hard learning process realizing that if this was the norm at one time, it is certainly less true today.
I’m also recalled of James Sire in “The Worldview Next Door” in his discussion/comparison of the Christian Existentialist vs the Biblical Theist. The Biblical Theist, of course, is grounded in God’s Word; however, the Christian Existentialist is grounded in his own experience and circumstances. Because everything is contextual, all knowledge and truth is inextricably bound to the knower. It starts with the man and not with God. To bring criticism then threatens his experience and knowledge which is ultimately grounded in his own concept of self, making any criticism very personal. To bring criticism to a Biblical Theist, however, even if they are in error, does not induce the same kind of personal response. A desire to learn truth and be true to the standard makes clarification and new understanding (even of concepts that are foreign) is a welcomed venture and not a personal threat.
So, in observing these responses in those like Matt Slick, I suppose that any understanding that is not earnestly focused on God’s Word and faith in God’s guidance of His people into all truth will produce this type of defensiveness. We’re apparently now in an age where it is also acceptable to launch offensive tactics also. It’s certainly not any litmus test of someone’s doctrine, but it may indicate from whence one derives his confidence. (I hope my witness demonstrates that my confidence is rooted and grounded in the Lord and His Word, moreso with each passing day. I pray that for Matt Slick and all these others like him in the body. And Cheryl’s demonstrating a fine example, IMHO.)
October 5th, 2007 at 4:42 am
Good points, UMG. You’re right, the postmodern Christian is turned inward through teachings like contemplative prayer and other mystical, self-centering worldviews. This does make sense of the criticism = personal attack mentality. Although in Matt’s case I don’t think it’s as much a matter of mysticism as it is old-fashioned Pride. And I’ve met many like him. They have their own “private interpretation” and then wrench that verse out of context to use it as a weapon against anyone having a different interpretation.
And I do see this hierarchy view as leading right into the prophesied global religious system, since individuals are being stripped of their worth and told to bow to the concept of only allowing synods and official committees to declare doctrine for the masses.
October 5th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
One needs to see where male-prefernce hierarchy leads, which is to more hierarchy with most men under some men and some men under one man who is not Jesus. I see the hierarchy of the church as flat, everyone is under Jesus. We can choose to be under someone else ONLY as they are under Jesus and ONLY for a Biblical reason, for example, to learn from them, etc.
October 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Don, Well put. These are the very ideas Anne Hutchinson was put on trial by John Winthrop and declared heretic for. As Solomon observed so aptly, there’s nothing new under the sun. Fortunately, we live in a nation where religious persuasion is a matter of individual conscience and not subject to the dictates of a theocratic state.