Following on from the article ‘Anonymous CWs claim authority to correct elders’, where it was revealed that the CWs are reluctant to step outside their comfort zone of peripheral analysis of tweets and rumours, it becomes glaringly obvious why the CWs want to avoid studious line-by-line Biblical analysis of teaching and doctrine of their target groups.
If the CWs actually take the time to scripturally scrutinise these ministries they will, in effect, reveal their own doctrinal stance, and be up for examination themselves.
As it is the CWs have a disclaimer on their sites which reveals that the main chookwatcher entity, which, remember, comprises of several individuals under the guise of a single pseudonym, has a variety of doctrinal stances, and the individuals under this single pseudonym may even disagree with one another.
I kid you not. The chookwatcher entity reveals itself as somewhat schizoid.
The chookhead could, potentially, according to its own disclaimer, disagree with itself, and, in fact, it’s plain to see that, on occasion, they do have contrary positions when there is a successive row of chookwatcher comments on the same thread. Absurd.
Implausible doctrinal stance
In other words, the chookwatcher entity, by its own admission, can’t even guarantee to agree with itself on doctrine, so how could it possibly be trusted to accurately analyse any other Christian group with any degree of consistency or validity?
The only apparent agreement they have is that they do not like their target groups. The way they approach this is dependent on the beliefs and strategic narrative of each of the entity’s individuals within the singular pseudonym.
The only substantive evidence of doctrine we have is revealed by their endorsement of certain churches, authors and teaching ministries, which, apart from one cessationist Lutheran pirate radio host, all point to anti-charismatic cessationist Reformed theology, so, because the CWs have never actually produced a single line-by-line apologetic that reveals their own doctrinal stance in comparison to the teachings of the groups they oppose, the only reference we have to their theology hinges on these revealed influences, plus, of course, their own comments on threads, which are often very revealing.
We also have the extraordinary evidence of the atheist authors and commenters that the chookwatchers support, champion and endorse, as well as the antichristian current affairs TV programs and media polemic that have been the staple diet of chookwatcher posts for the past couple of years.
It is not a good look for a series of sites under the entity chookwatcher that promote themselves as being Biblical discernment blogs.