I hope this thread can spark some genuine discussion regarding some of the pitfalls of trying somebody on the Internet for the things they write and say. To wit, I am referring to this thread:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=16575
Any discussions about whether Dr. McMahon should have written what he did or how he did are really not the topic of this thread. At issue is the propriety of charging a Brother in Christ and convicting him before he has had a chance to respond to the charges.
Let's look at the timeline of the thread to put things in perspective (all time are in EST):
2-8-05 @ 2254 - Matt begins the thread with a link to the article.
2-8-05 @ 2358 - First post that begins an argument about what Matt's article actually says. There is marked disagreement as to what it signifies.
2-9-05 @ 0912 - Matt responds to one question but fails to clarify or settle the controversy as to intent of his article.
FIVE pages of controversy ensue in which his article and intent is dissected. He is accused and convicted of saying that everybody who is not a five-point Calvinist is condemned to Hell and is even referred to as cultic.
2-10-05 @ 1023 - Matt reappears apparently previously busy with things more important than the Puritanboard. He dittos a warning to a member to be kinder to a fellow elder in Christ's Church. An elder who, heretofore, has been telling Matt to repent of his article and impugning his motives.
2-10-05 @ 1201 - Matt finally begins to explain himself having to respond to 5 pages of a thread in which his motives are impugned or defended.
He is able to post a couple of more times until about 2200, literally 10 hours after he began to explain and defend his remarks, a long time member resigns because Matt's article apparently represents the worst of the Reformed faith. Others have not resigned from the Board but have given him little opportunity to speak for himself and express distrust of his motives instead of suggesting, gently, a way to re-write. Still others have not even asked him to prayerfully consider revision but prefer to body-slam him and demand repentance.
NOW, the question I have for all of you:
WHAT THE HECK?!
Look at the timeline. This controversy has "embroiled" the Puritan Board for a grand total of 48 hours! Further, Matt's "defense" of his article has only been 10 hours.
Is this how we try and convict brothers in Christ? This is the danger of the Internet on full display. The discussion goes so rapidly with tempers getting amped up so quickly, with people piping in at the rapid rate who don't even represent the poster, and before you know it folks have condemned the original poster without giving him a chance to explain and even potentially repent of his article.
What do we expect of a man? If he doesn't repent the moment we press Post Reply that he is unrepentant? The verdict is still out on this whole controversy frankly because I think Matt still hasn't had time to sufficiently consider and weigh the pros and cons of the article presented. We all agree that it shouldn't take months for a Presbytery to deal with a heresy but God forbid the day when a man has 10 hours to defend himself before he's cast out of the Church because he's cultic and unrepentant.
Forget the topic at hand, forget the man. If this was you and your thread and your ideas would you have liked the courtesy of some more time to pray and consider your position rather than being pinned to the ground while people spit in your face demanding immediate repentance. Try physically crowding most men the way you crowded Matt and see if the worst you walk away with is bruised sensibilities! This is pugilism on full display.
For shame!
[Edited on 2-11-2006 by SemperFideles]
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=16575
Any discussions about whether Dr. McMahon should have written what he did or how he did are really not the topic of this thread. At issue is the propriety of charging a Brother in Christ and convicting him before he has had a chance to respond to the charges.
Let's look at the timeline of the thread to put things in perspective (all time are in EST):
2-8-05 @ 2254 - Matt begins the thread with a link to the article.
2-8-05 @ 2358 - First post that begins an argument about what Matt's article actually says. There is marked disagreement as to what it signifies.
2-9-05 @ 0912 - Matt responds to one question but fails to clarify or settle the controversy as to intent of his article.
FIVE pages of controversy ensue in which his article and intent is dissected. He is accused and convicted of saying that everybody who is not a five-point Calvinist is condemned to Hell and is even referred to as cultic.
2-10-05 @ 1023 - Matt reappears apparently previously busy with things more important than the Puritanboard. He dittos a warning to a member to be kinder to a fellow elder in Christ's Church. An elder who, heretofore, has been telling Matt to repent of his article and impugning his motives.
2-10-05 @ 1201 - Matt finally begins to explain himself having to respond to 5 pages of a thread in which his motives are impugned or defended.
He is able to post a couple of more times until about 2200, literally 10 hours after he began to explain and defend his remarks, a long time member resigns because Matt's article apparently represents the worst of the Reformed faith. Others have not resigned from the Board but have given him little opportunity to speak for himself and express distrust of his motives instead of suggesting, gently, a way to re-write. Still others have not even asked him to prayerfully consider revision but prefer to body-slam him and demand repentance.
NOW, the question I have for all of you:
WHAT THE HECK?!
Look at the timeline. This controversy has "embroiled" the Puritan Board for a grand total of 48 hours! Further, Matt's "defense" of his article has only been 10 hours.
Is this how we try and convict brothers in Christ? This is the danger of the Internet on full display. The discussion goes so rapidly with tempers getting amped up so quickly, with people piping in at the rapid rate who don't even represent the poster, and before you know it folks have condemned the original poster without giving him a chance to explain and even potentially repent of his article.
What do we expect of a man? If he doesn't repent the moment we press Post Reply that he is unrepentant? The verdict is still out on this whole controversy frankly because I think Matt still hasn't had time to sufficiently consider and weigh the pros and cons of the article presented. We all agree that it shouldn't take months for a Presbytery to deal with a heresy but God forbid the day when a man has 10 hours to defend himself before he's cast out of the Church because he's cultic and unrepentant.
Forget the topic at hand, forget the man. If this was you and your thread and your ideas would you have liked the courtesy of some more time to pray and consider your position rather than being pinned to the ground while people spit in your face demanding immediate repentance. Try physically crowding most men the way you crowded Matt and see if the worst you walk away with is bruised sensibilities! This is pugilism on full display.
For shame!
[Edited on 2-11-2006 by SemperFideles]
