Comments on: Criticizing Religious Leadership in the Digital Age

By: Fred Applegate

Fred Applegate — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Proverbs 10:17

“He is in the way of life who heeds correction, but he who forsakes reproof leads others astray.”

If Phil’s critique was anonymous, I would agree with those who take exception. But it’s not. He puts his name to it. And I notice that there are many criticisms of him on his very public blog: did everyone try to reach him personally first? Food for thought… but I, and Phil, think they did the right thing in replying to him in his forum of choice.

It’s the big glass house: if your ministry is in the mass media, and your appeal is to a congregation in the mass media, then you should expect to hear from them in the mass media.

Jesus warns many times about being wary of people, coming in His name, who will lead many astray. A media preacher has the means to lead millions astray. There used to be a real reason for all those local pastors and deacons sitting on the platform in the tent. It wasn’t just a place of honor: they were keeping a watchful eye on the traveling preachers. We need to do the same with mass media preachers.

The biggest issue is stewardship. (It should be theology, but that’s for another day…)

One gets the feeling from much of Christian media that God is constantly on the verge of personal bankruptcy: as if God’s kingdom itself were fueled by money.

Responsibility, accountability, transparency: all vital to the Christian mission. These are the issues Phil is trying to start a conversation about, and he’s doing the right thing. And he’s doing it in the right forum.

Not that he’s always right… and when he isn’t, he hears about it. Rightly so.

By: John Seel

John Seel — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Surely tone is critical in any public criticism of believers or nonbelievers, living or dead. All our remarks should be couched in terms that we would feel comfortable addressing to the person in person. It is here that the technology often gets us in trouble, i.e., email flaming, et. al. What is said in print has a much greater potential for being misunderstood than that which is said in person.

I have not always followed this rule, but recently I spoke in person to someone about whom I was writing a very negative review of his book. It taught me a lesson and made my remarks much closer to the mark.

On the whole, Phil's comments make sense to me. But it should be noted that we live in a highly polarized, slash and burn society infused with a hermeneutic of suspicion. It makes operationalizing John 17 much harder.

By: Fred Applegate

Fred Applegate — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Mr. Seel makes a very good point. Reason and Christian compassion must form the foundation of all our communication, and the anonymity of the internet emboldens our worst impulses. I am certainly guilty. It's why I started using my real name. It makes me think twice before I hit "post".

And the phrase "hermaneutic of suspicion" is wonderful.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

How did one use to criticise christian leaders?

Is there such a thing as constructive public criticism?

I suspect a leader be more open to listen to criticism in private than in public.

By: Bart Breen

Bart Breen — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I see it as pretty cut and dried.

People who reach me with their message by the public airwaves be they tv, radio or internet and who solicit for followers and financial supporters are fair game to discuss in the same forum in which they initiate their message.

More often than not, those who complain about response and invoke Matt 18 are more concerned about squelching dissent, minimizing impact to that persons reputation and revenue or asserting their own power by attempting to censor what others have to say.

That doesn't excuse things like being rude or unfair in one's response, but Matt 18 is something that is given in the context of a local body of believers with already established personal relationships.

Claiming that others have the right to give their message in public but then attempting to silence dissent or response is more about manipulation and control than any sincere concern over the individuals involved. A response at the same level the original message was made doesn't strike me as unreasonable or unbiblical. That doesn't mean it is always wise or that it itself is not subject to the same, but let's leave off with the holy guilt trips that in the end only serve to empower irresponsible conduct for those initiating communications in a public forum.