web analytics

A Disappointing Attack Article by Richard Abanes

I came across a disappointing article by Richard Abanes yesterday called “ODMS:  A Cult is Born?”  I say disappointing because I like a lot of Abanes’ material.  However, I am not surprised by Abanes’ perspective.

Abanes complains about the multitude of ‘online discernment ministries’ acting without oversight or credentials.  He throws a bone here and there about some ministries being legit and worthwhile but it comes across as reluctant, if not forced.  I presume that I am in the group of apologetics ministries he graciously descends from on high to bless, but since so many aspects of his article seem to apply to my ministry I thought it was worth addressing.

Now, I have the feeling that Abanes is writing in self-defense.  I didn’t dig into it but I suspect one of the real motivators for his article is that he has been targeted by these ‘online discernment ministries’ (ODMs) and their hack ‘apologists.’  I infer this from a comment like this one:  “Rooting out heresy, even where it doesn’t exist, has become the prime directive.” (underline his)

Now, I certainly agree that these sorts of people exist and that they can be a nuisance. The problem is that Mr. Abanes paints with too wide a brush and allows a certain… snobbiness… to guide his analysis.  He complains that today ‘apologists’ don’t go to the seminary, or train under someone who did (or had appropriate experience), or don’t get their books published through the traditional outlets, etc., etc.   His half-hearted caveat in his last paragraph that of course not all websites/discernment ministries are like this fails to acknowledge that his general description of these accursed ODMs just as easily includes ones he’d find reputable.  Or so we might think, but since Abanes lumps them all together we might be hard pressed to find online apologetics ministries that are excluded.

Abanes weaves a story of heresy hunting hacks passing as apologists and assumes that certain facts, like the fact that ‘ODMs’ don’t get published by the real publishing companies, is prima facie evidence that “they pay to have their books published because no legitimate publisher will have them.”

As one who has been active in apologetics ministries for a solid 15 years, I can offer some other possibilities for his observations.  As I said, I know the ‘bad’ sort exist.  For example, though it wasn’t a member of an ‘ODM’ that I know of, I was recently taken to task by a reader who accused me of unbelief because I referred to the saying “Those who forget history are destined to repeat it” as a proverb.  “What?  That is not in the book of Proverbs! You heathenous liar!” That is the sort of stuff one puts up with on the Internet.  It does not justify dismissing everything and everybody on the Internet.  That’s the sort of thing you just have to laugh off.

Abanes’ basic attitude seems to be of derision of anything that doesn’t come through approved channels.  This attitude is common in certain circles.  Academic circles are filled with it.   You find it among the ‘professionals.’  The argument seems to be that unless something comes out of scholarly ‘peer reviewed’ circles it can’t be trusted.  This ignores the fact that the traditional publishers, the academic community, the professionals, etc, are routinely producing excrement.  There is no outrageous idea on the Internet that hasn’t been put forward at one time by some scholar somewhere and there is no traditional publisher that doesn’t factor in how much money a book will generate for them when contemplating the books ‘value.’  This was true in past decades and it is true now.  The only difference is that the Gate Keepers no longer control the gate.  The Internet has changed everything.

The Gate Keepers are not happy about it.  Now it is possible to get your rubbish published along with all the rubbish frequently seen out of the mainstream press and academia.

On the other side of the issue is the great necessity of there being people (like myself) active on the Internet.  I don’t suppose Mr. Abanes is going to correspond personally with the millions of skeptics and struggling Christians on the Internet?  Are we to hope that seekers of all sorts restrict themselves to ‘approved channels’ or are we going to go out and meet them?  It seems like we need every man we can get.

Moreoever, the problem Mr. Abanes describes is a problem made by the Gate Keepers.   As he well knows, apologetics requires a tremendous amount of research and study followed by synthesizing and writing.  If Mr. Abanes would like to give me a list of ten congregations in the entire country that has paid apologetics positions I would be grateful- and shocked.  I am currently jumping through the ‘hoops’ that Mr. Abanes and his sort think people should have, pursuing a Masters in Apologetics.  When I finally have it, what am I going to do with it?  How will I support my family while carrying out this intense and highly involved ministry?

In short, unless I become an academic or a pastor, I won’t.  The only problem is I have no interest in being either.  So, Mr. Abanes, if you don’t want rogue ‘online discernment ministries’ out there, perhaps you could use your influence to push congregations to add apologetic staff positions that in turn have a strong Internet presence.  That would provide the ‘reputable’ channel I think you are looking for.  Apart from that, I’m afraid, your article needlessly diminishes those who are doing work that still needs to be done even if it is not institutionally supported.

How then might we explain the rise of the ‘ODMs’ apart from fractures after the death of Walter Martin?

  1. A continued failure of the Christian Church to equip Christians to follow the clear command of Scripture to be prepared to give a defense of their faith.
  2. A need for those who do attempt that equipping and do engage in that defense to still support their families.   Or perhaps Mr. Abanes would prefer they starved while waiting for a traditional publisher to pick up one of their books?  (Even if they did, you’ve got as much chance of getting a living wage from putting out a book the traditional way as you do if you ‘vanity press’ it.)
  3. An observation that the ‘traditional’ media and academic community is not inerrant and in some cases utterly disgusting.  Case in point:  Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion.  This book is chock full with nonsense that mainly deserves ridicule but by Abanes’ (and other’s) perspective needs to be treated seriously, coming from an academic out of traditional publishing outlet and all.

In short, given that Mr. Abanes and I have the same kind of goals and objectives but different areas of influence and expertise, it would be nice if Mr. Abanes wouldn’t go stomping indiscriminatly on my face- and the faces of a good half dozen other ‘online discernment ministries’ I can think of that do not engage in ‘heresy hunting’ but strive to really defend the faith in the nooks and crannies of cyberspace, where the Gate Keepers are too big and bulky to ever effectively minister.

Share

12 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. Anthony: He throws a bone here and there about some ministries being legit and worthwhile but it comes across as reluctant, if not forced.

    RA: I did not throw a bone to anyone. I staunchly support a number of discernment ministries with prayers, financial contributions, and recommendations. The focus of the article was not the ministries doing it right, but rather, the cult-like people/websites/blogs doing it wrong.
    _______________
    Anthony: I presume that I am in the group of apologetics ministries he graciously descends from on high to bless, but since so many aspects of his article seem to apply to my ministry I thought it was worth addressing.

    RA: You and your ministry never entered my mind — positively or negatively. I have no idea why you would presume I was speaking about you. And I do not “bless” people. Nor do I “graciously descend from on high.”

    Why would you use such antagonistic terminology when I’ve not said a thing negative about you or your ministry at all?
    _______________
    Anthony: I have the feeling that Abanes is writing in self-defense. . . . I suspect one of the real motivators for his article is that he has been targeted by these ‘online discernment ministries’ (ODMs).

    RA: Let me correct you. You’re wrong.

    I’ve been dealing with these people/groups for years, seeking to tell the church about their divisive and hate-filled attacks against all kinds of Christian leaders (e.g., Franklin Graham), authors (e.g., Ravi Zacharias), pastors, (like Greg Laurie), and organizations (like Biola and Moody Bible Institute).

    Have they attacked me, too? Sure. But that is not the issue or my motivation. That is just a symptom to me of a much, much bigger problem with these people.
    _______________
    Anthony: He complains that today ‘apologists’ don’t go to the seminary, or train under someone who did (or had appropriate experience), or don’t get their books published through the traditional outlets, etc., etc. 

    RA: I never said ANYONE can’t do apologetics/discernment correctly without such things. But these are facts beyond dispute. There is nothing snobby about it. I was pointing out facts — nothing more. If the shoe DOESN’T fit you and you are doing things right, then don’t worry about it.
    _______________
    Anthony: Abanes’ basic attitude seems to be of derision of anything that doesn’t come through approved channels. 

    RA: First, I wasn’t deriding anyone. Second, what I am indeed seeking to point out is that these rogue apologists are operating UTTERLY without checks and balances, accountability, or proper leadership. They can say/do whatever they want to say/do on the Internet. That’s the beauty of cyberspace. It’s totally unregulated. And that’s also what makes it so destructive, especially when certain people seek to harm others using verbal assaults that are baseless.
    _______________
    Anthony: This attitude is common in certain circles.  Academic circles are filled with it.   You find it among the ‘professionals.’  The argument seems to be that unless something comes out of scholarly ‘peer reviewed’ circles it can’t be trusted.

    RA: It’s odd, then, that I’d be making this point since I have no earned degree or higher education.
    _______________
    Anthony: I don’t suppose Mr. Abanes is going to correspond personally with the millions of skeptics and struggling Christians on the Internet?  Are we to hope that seekers of all sorts restrict themselves to ‘approved channels’ or are we going to go out and meet them?

    RA: Actually, I do, in fact, spend hours speaking to seekers and cultists on the Internet.
    _______________
    Anthony: It seems like we need every man we can get.

    RA: NOT when that extra man/woman is lying, spreading incorrect information, slandering the brethren, falsely accusing brothers/sisters in Christ, and causing unnecessary division. We DON’T need that.
    _______________
    Anthony: I am currently jumping through the ‘hoops’ that Mr. Abanes and his sort think people should have, pursuing a Masters in Apologetics.

    RA: Dude, you are barking up the wrong tree. I am the LAST person to say that you MUST jump through hoops to be useful to God. If you are pursuing a Masters, then you have more education than I do.

    The issue is one’s heart. The issue is Truth. The issue is biblical approaches to apologetics/discernment — instead of the misuse of apologetics/discernment as an excuse to just attack people.
    _________________
    Anthony: it would be nice if Mr. Abanes wouldn’t go stomping indiscriminatly on my face- and the faces of a good half dozen other ‘online discernment ministries’ I can think of that do not engage in ‘heresy hunting’ but strive to really defend the faith in the nooks and crannies of cyberspace, where the Gate Keepers are too big and bulky to ever effectively minister.

    RA: I didn’t stomp on your face. As I noted: “Of course, not all websites/blogs committed to offering discernment/apologetics information is included in this category of Online Discernment Ministries (ODMs). I am exclusively applying that term to a very specific kind of apologetic or discernment organization/person that is active on the Internet—i.e., those whose writings are marked by false information, slander, a mean-spirited tone, juvenile name-calling, mockery, and sensational fear-mongering. These types of persons/organizations are more akin to witch-hunters than professional apologists or even lay/responsible apologists.”

    R. Abanes

    • Anthony on April 7, 2009 at 5:36 pm
      Author

    Hello Richard,

    Boy did you find this fast. 😉

    “I have no idea why you would presume I was speaking about you.”

    I would not presume to think that you were singling me out. I think you misunderstand my contention, which was not that you were singling me out, but that you were virtually excluding nobody. Your focus on the ministries ‘doing it wrong’ had an unnecessarily broad brush.

    “RA: First, I wasn’t deriding anyone.”

    You didn’t mean to perhaps, but I would beg to differ.

    “Second, what I am indeed seeking to point out is that these rogue apologists are operating UTTERLY without checks and balances, accountability, or proper leadership.”

    But this is true of a great many of the ‘legit’ apologists as well. It is, as you say, the beauty of cyberspace.

    “RA: Actually, I do, in fact, spend hours speaking to seekers and cultists on the Internet.”

    I know you do. 😉 But you don’t spend hours speaking to all ten million of them. 😉

    “The issue is one’s heart. The issue is Truth. The issue is biblical approaches to apologetics/discernment — instead of the misuse of apologetics/discernment as an excuse to just attack people.”

    I agree with this. Having also been subject to those sorts of attack myself, I certainly don’t like to see it happen. However, the ‘signs’ that you give for recognizing these folks often apply to the legit ministries. They self-published their book? They are not part of a system of institutional oversight? They did not mentor beneath one of the greats? These items apply to a great many of earnest contenders for the faith. You didn’t have to mention these things to confront back biting and heresy hunting.

    “RA: I didn’t stomp on your face.”

    It was a rhetorical device. 🙂

    “As I noted: “Of course, not all websites/blogs committed to offering discernment/apologetics”

    Yes, and I noted you noted it. However, your ‘marks’ of a cult-like ODM apply to a number of excellent folks out there. For example- and its just an example- in your advice to keep ODM books off of one’s shelf you urge people to peruse only books published by reputable publishers. Isn’t it evident that with that sort of advice even the earnest ministers we both applaud will be excluded?

    Given that the traditional publishers have their backs against the wall these days and so many people are going POD, vanity, and self-publishing, it follows that you will exclude a great many of good people in that advice.

    In my opinion, the better solution is to promote critical thinking so that one can determine bunk when they see it- whether it is online, in a book, or in a newspaper, and regardless of the source.

    Thanks for your reply. Still a bit surprised you found it so fast.

  2. A: but that you were virtually excluding nobody.

    RA: It’s difficult to show who is excluded without naming names of who is included, which is something I am not prepared to so.

    And so, when dealing in generalities, one must be content to offer only guidelines that give a person some map, if you will, for deciding on their own, who is and who is not included under the Cult of ODM umbrella.
    ______________
    A: Your focus on the ministries ‘doing it wrong’ had an unnecessarily broad brush….

    RA: I disagree.

    It certainly would have been a broad brush to say that any discernment/apologetic ministries based exclusively/primarily on the Internet, by sheer virtue of them being on the Internet, is a ministry that should be suspect. But, as you know, I didn’t say that.

    The problem is that we are faced with a crossover of sorts in attributes of bad websites/blogs & good websites/blogs. Both categories on on the Internet, both are often run by non-professional (if you will) apologists. Both self-publish materials. One of the reasons I did not name names is because people need to start discerning for themselves between these two categories of webstes/blogs.

    So, I needed to give them some red flags, but I added qualifiers that I found sufficient.
    ______________
    A: [these rogue apologists are operating UTTERLY without checks and balances, accountability, or proper leadership.”]…. But this is true of a great many of the ‘legit’ apologists as well. It is, as you say, the beauty of cyberspace.

    RA: When it comes to legit apologists, I have often found that many of them are producing materials through major publishers, under the auspices of a church, or they have a reputation marked by a rather sizable donor/financial base to whom they are accountable. Moreover, their actual writings, well-documented usually, can be checked and verified using standard methods of evidence gathering.

    Legit apologists — both lay and professional — also have a non-sensational, non-antagonistic, non-combative sound to them. So, for those interested, distinctions can be made between the good and the bad.
    _____________
    A: the ’signs’ that you give for recognizing these folks often apply to the legit ministries. They self-published their book? They are not part of a system of institutional oversight? They did not mentor beneath one of the greats? These items apply to a great many of earnest contenders for the faith. You didn’t have to mention these things to confront back biting and heresy hunting.

    RA: I don’t think I pointed to these things as definitive signs — i.e., ANYONE/EVERYONE to whom this might apply is an ODM. But these are indeed markers that can be found throughout the ODM community.

    What’s VERY sad is that, yes I agree, this tarnishes the reputation of others who are serving God through self-publishing or ministering without the aid of some larger apologetics organization. But that is the nature of sin. It hurts everyone — even innocent parties. I blame the ODMs for being the reason why everyone who self publishes is now suspect.
    ______________
    A: However, your ‘marks’ of a cult-like ODM apply to a number of excellent folks out there. . . . Isn’t it evident that with that sort of advice even the earnest ministers we both applaud will be excluded?

    RA: Possibly. But that is the fault of the ODMs as I see it. They have corrupted for EVERYONE the noble calling of apologetics/discernment. People have been, are being, and will be hurt becaus eof their actions. Sadly, some of those who are going to get hurt are faithful servants of God.

    I agree that critical thinking is necessary. But that is difficult to impart to people on a large scale through a blog post. The best that I could do, given the forum, was to say “Look out for these types of people” and then offer certain red flags that are commonly indicative of the kinds of people that need to be avoided.

    The best thing that could happen is for members of the church, like you and me, to rise up and say, “This MUST stop.” And start cleaning house……..This will open up opportunities and a clear field of operation/ministry for people like you and others who are being harmed by the ODMs and the trouble they are causing.

    peace in him,

    RA

    • Anthony on April 7, 2009 at 8:11 pm
      Author

    I concede that a blog entry is a less than ideal place to make every point and in that regards I am glad that you have followed up here to try to clarify your positions. However, I am afraid that I still disagree about the scope that your post effectively had.

    The questions is how much does it matter, especially now that you have tried to pad the other side of the equation. Here I welcome your effort but still don’t think you quite get it. For example, your description of your thoughts on what reputable apologetics ministries tend to look like (affiliated with a church, sizable donor base (seriously???), publish through traditional outlets is basically a re-hash of what I already accused you of doing and what you denied. There are a tremendous amount of apologetics ministries that do not meet that criteria (I wouldn’t say that I do, but I’m not concerned, really, to defend myself here). This is for reasons I have already mentioned.

    I don’t want to name names either, but I can think of a couple of pretty solid apologists that I am pretty sure don’t fit your general assessment but who are nonetheless doing good work.

    Which I think brings me to your point that this is all the ODM’s fault. No, I don’t think so. We must ask who is grouping in these reputable outfits in with the ODMs. Do the ODMs do that? No sir, you are doing that.

    If I were to take up the pen and compose your post myself I wouldn’t focus on a list of ‘marks’ that are mainly organizational in nature. The Mormons and Scientologists have those. Reputable publishing houses, even Christian ones, are known to produce trash. I would focus instead on the critical thinking component.

    Why? I think it goes back to your idea about ‘cleaning house.’ I can’t imagine what that might mean. How do you get rid of individuals and organizations who are as unfettered on the Internet as you and I? Do you mean that we pursue disciplinary proceedings through their denomination? Track down their ISP and have them thrown off? Aside from taking a stand in regards to their CONDUCT and perhaps ignoring them, precisely what do you propose to be done?

    In the meantime, a ministry like myself will not be ‘harmed by an ODM’ because when people are directed to critical thinking and sound theology they won’t be on the look out for ‘tell tale’ markers but rather will judge for themselves, and judge quickly, about the value of a ministry. Since you can’t possibly take down these sites the only useful thing (that I can think of) is to equip people to evaluate the content.

    And content can be good or bad regardless of organization or institutional support and have seen plenty of examples of both.

    I think a conversation like this raises another issue of great importance. Apologists who are worth their salt are desperately needed in today’s climate. An apologist is not necessarily a pastor. He is not necessarily a scholar. He might be a teacher, but that isn’t a foregone conclusion, either. There are ready places in the Christian church for pastors, scholars, and teachers. Evangelists, missionaries, and (a distant last) apologists typically have to raise their own support. Rather than ‘clean house’ I propose that the real solution is twofold, critical thinking on one hand and on the other a determined effort to see the need for trained apologists in our congregations, along with the understand that they too need to feed their families.

    If you like, we can take this conversation to private email.

    • Anthony on April 7, 2009 at 8:20 pm
      Author

    Are you really sure that your post isn’t large part motivated by self-defense?

    It sure seems to tie in well with what I see here:
    http://abanes.com/rumorcontrol.html

  3. A: Are you really sure that your post isn’t large part motivated by self-defense?

    RA: Positive.

    Remember, A., just because two things happen to be true and/or related in some way, it doesn’t logically follow they they are connected in an cause-effect manner.

    RAbanes

  4. A: However, I am afraid that I still disagree about the scope that your post effectively had.

    RA: You’re free to disagree. And I support you in that. 🙂 You have your ministry. I have mine. I’m sure I’d disagree with you in a number of areas. That’s the great thing about freedom and balance in Christ. You can disagree agrreably and still love and support each other. (Something the ODMs do not understand).
    _________
    A: There are a tremendous amount of apologetics ministries that do not meet that criteria (I wouldn’t say that I do, but I’m not concerned, really, to defend myself here). This is for reasons I have already mentioned.

    RA: A “tremendous” number? I haven’t seen a “tremendous” number.
    _________
    A: a couple of pretty solid apologists that I am pretty sure don’t fit your general assessment but who are nonetheless doing good work.

    RA: Now it’s “a couple”? Is it a “tremendous number” or “a couple.” I would likely agree there are a couple. And they’ll be fine, despite my article.
    __________
    A: We must ask who is grouping in these reputable outfits in with the ODMs. Do the ODMs do that? No sir, you are doing that.

    RA: You need to read my atricle again. No, I don’t do that. I don’t name names. And I only give general guidelines. That’s what I I did. (Oh, and the “sir” is unnecessary).
    ___________
    A: If I were to take up the pen and compose your post myself I wouldn’t focus on a list of ‘marks’ that are mainly organizational in nature.

    RA: Then, by all means, have at it. I applaud your effort to get involved in this important issue. Write as you are led. And I will write as I am led. Awesome!
    ___________
    A: Reputable publishing houses, even Christian ones, are known to produce trash. I would focus instead on the critical thinking component.

    RA: Trash of a certain type. No trash of other types. For example, porn is trash. Some reputable Christian house produce trash. Does that mean reputable Christian houses produce porn? Obviously, no. I was taking about a specific kind of writing that is of the ODM nature. That would NEVER be tolerated by a legitimate house.
    ___________
    A: I think it goes back to your idea about ‘cleaning house.’ I can’t imagine what that might mean. How do you get rid of individuals and organizations who are as unfettered on the Internet as you and I? Do you mean that we pursue disciplinary proceedings through their denomination? Track down their ISP and have them thrown off? Aside from taking a stand in regards to their CONDUCT and perhaps ignoring them, precisely what do you propose to be done?

    RA: Long, complicated, discussion…….too complicated for this forum.
    ___________
    A: Apologists who are worth their salt are desperately needed in today’s climate. An apologist is not necessarily a pastor. He is not necessarily a scholar. He might be a teacher, but that isn’t a foregone conclusion, either. There are ready places in the Christian church for pastors, scholars, and teachers. Evangelists, missionaries, and (a distant last) apologists typically have to raise their own support.

    RA: Agree 100%.
    ____________
    A: Rather than ‘clean house’ I propose that the real solution is twofold, critical thinking on one hand and on the other a determined effort to see the need for trained apologists in our congregations, along with the understand that they too need to feed their families.

    RA: Actually, that is part of what I would consider, “cleaning house.” Good ideas, A.

    RAbanes

    • Anthony on April 7, 2009 at 10:00 pm
      Author

    Sure, not necessarily. Nor does it follow that they aren’t connected, either. And yet two related things are more evidence of a cause-effect relationship than if they aren’t related at all. I’ll take you at your word but from where I stand it sure has that appearance.

    I’m not even sure why it would be a negative if it were true. If you are constantly hounded by these heresy hunters it makes perfect sense why you’d want to address them. In contrast, though I have my run ins with them on occasion, it isn’t to a great extent. Hence, it isn’t something that I tend to address.

    On the other hand, I do tend to notice a fair amount of dismissal of ‘internet ministries’ and related criticism. That provides a plausible explanation for my choice to react to your blog.

    • Anthony on April 7, 2009 at 10:16 pm
      Author

    “RA: A “tremendous” number? I haven’t seen a “tremendous” number.”

    I suppose it depends on the circles you run in.

    “RA: Now it’s “a couple”? Is it a “tremendous number” or “a couple.”

    My ‘tremendous number’ was a reference to the total number of ministries. By a ‘couple’ I was thinking of several in particular that I know more intimately. On the scale of things, it would seem that we weight things differently. To use some numbers to make the point, you think that 99 out of 100 apologetics ministries are cult-like ODMs, I think it is 1 out of 100. I know you will resist the concrete numbers. It is just an illustration.

    Like you said: you can think of a couple. It’s a big Internet out there, no?

    “RA: Long, complicated, discussion…….too complicated for this forum.”

    It seems pertinent. Aside from cutting off ODM’s (and the poor hapless genuine apologists who get caught in the middle) at their financial knees by not buying their books or any books produced in the same way I was left with a cloudy picture of precisely what you wanted people to do about it. It would seem that eventually you’d want to expound on that part. If not this forum, very well, although some hints seem appropriate. If you ever do address it more thoroughly I hope you will send me the link.

    “RA: Actually, that is part of what I would consider, “cleaning house.” Good ideas, A.”

    Thanks. More where that came from. 🙂 But seriously, I think to avoid misunderstandings some musings on what you meant by ‘cleaning house’ is warranted. Given the nature of the Internet, unless you are proposing draconian measures (and yes, I know you aren’t 😉 ), it is hard to imagine how that would, or could, ever happen.

    Yours,
    Sntj

  5. Anthony,

    If you look through my numerous internet postings about these people, you will see I have been consistent in stating my concern to the damage to the Body of Christ they are doing.

    Others are feeling the same way and speaking up. For example, consider this great article by Pastor James MacDonald at Harvest Fellowship:
    http://blog.harvestbiblefellowship.org/?p=1527

    He, too, has been attacked, but his concern is clearly about the damage to the Body of Christ being done by these accusers of the brethren.

    The issue is not what nasty thing someone said about me, or Rick Warren, or James MacDonald, or whatever. It’s a MUCH larger problem than some petty irritation. It’s a widespread net of slander, false accusations, fear-mongering, and hate rhetoric that is infecting the Body of Christ and making it sick in various sectors.

    I hope you can understand my actual position on this matter.

    You noted, “I think to avoid misunderstandings some musings on what you meant by ‘cleaning house’ is warranted.” Yeah, I agree. You know, this was actually my 3rd article on the issue. So, there is indeed a lot to say as I formulate my thoughts as a side project to my main daily activities.

    Anyway, Tim Challies also just wrote a VERY intersting piece that has the ODMs gnashing their teeth and rending their clothes. You might want to read it. See EVIL AS ENTERTAINMENT:
    http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/evil-as-entertainment.php

    peace in him,

    RA

  6. “He also has two years experience teaching at the college level at a small Bible college in Rockford, Illinois.”

    Uhm, did you know that Rockford is my hometown? ROFL!!! God has a sense of humor.

    Richard Abanes

    • Anthony on April 9, 2009 at 4:39 pm
      Author

    I did not know that. However, I will not hold this against you if you will not hold it against me. 😉 Of course, I suppose neither of us are to blame for that ‘symbol’ of Rockford. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

20 + 15 =