white chicken looking rightI wanted to make a comment at Pulpit & Pen recently over some things they said that I knew just didn’t add up.

I also wanted to write in to Steve Kozar, who is a writer for the Pirate Christian on their ‘Museum of Idolatry’ section, because he made some claims that turned out to be false, but rather than remove them once the truth was out, he chose to leave them.

No comment

The thing is, they don’t have comments sections on their blogs. They issue forth damning statements about Christians and make accusations, some of which are patently inaccurate, which is why I wanted to write to them, but I can’t because their sites are one way traffic. Their opinion only.

You can write emails to them, but the chances are that they will use them as fodder for their comments. I would rather be able to engage with them on their site without the possibility of being banned for having a well presented perspective, as with the chookwatcher sites, which have always stopped people from proving them to be wrong about many of the things they write.

There’s a pattern to chookwatcher control: all dissent, right or not, is ridiculed, the dissenter is accused of being a troll, they are hampered by the moderation tactics of the myriad chookwatchers at hand, they are demonised, and then they are told their comments are stopped.

The chookwatchers‘ exclusivity is a sign that they are unable to resist dissent and are only interested in publishing their own perspective, even when they are shown to be in error.

Why support the anonymous bloggers?

The main thing I wanted to ask the aforementioned bloggers, though, was why they support the opinion of anonymous bloggers like the chookwatchers. Surely their anonymity disqualifies their claims.

Steve Kozar especially, is practically a clone of the chookwatcher sites. He swallows their vitriol whole and regurgitates it all over the blogosphere. Bleuuuk!

I wanted to ask Chris Rosebrough, who is the pirate chief, why he is so keen to support the chookwatchers when they are too unbiblical to reveal themselves when they make accusations against elders.

This is patently and obviously unscriptural.

I would like to ask these people who champion the chookwatchers why they publish their articles when they are anonymous, and their claims for why they are anonymous are so obviously false.

What scripture and verse from Sola Scriptura can they come up with to condone anonymous criticism of this kind? ‘Thou shalt hide thy light under a bushel.’ No, that’s not right.

I’ve had this discussion before with people, and the best they could come up with was that the writer of Hebrews was unknown, but, of course, he was not unknown to his audience. This information is merely lost to us. And he his epistle was endorsed, at a later date, by recognised scholars and theologians, as authentic and included in the canon. He did not write anonymously to hide from his readers. He was not afraid to be known.

He did not hide behind a pseudonym.

OK to be Berean

I understand that we have to test every spirit whether it is of the Lord, and that we need to discern the doctrine and teaching of those who minister. I understand the need to contend for the faith. I agree that there will be those who preach a false gospel that need to be exposed.

But where in scripture does it say that an anonymous Christian can confront an elder with perceived error?

Where, Chris? Where, Steve? Where, Bud? Where, JD?

Show us one instance in the New Testament where Christ, or Paul, or the other writers of the New Covenant say that a hidden pseudonym can authentically be authorised to refuse to show their face and give their name to their accusations against an elder.

Show one instance. You know there isn’t one. It should be by two or three witnesses that these things are established, but can you show us one instance where it is permissible for an anonymous accuser to have their testimony accepted when they accuse an elder.

1 Timothy 5:19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.

A witness is defined – has a name, an address, and swears on the Bible that they will give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. How could a witness stand before the church and not be named and known as a witness? They could not be a witness unless they were revealed so that they could be cross-examined by the defence.

How do you cross-examine vapours?

By what authority?

Another question I would ask these bloggers is; who are the chookwatchers sitting under? Under what authority do they make their accusations? Who is checking their very public claims?

Do you know who their pastors are? Do you know what their credentials for making accusations against pastors and leaders in the Church?

We know who Chris Rosebrough is. We know his credentials. We know his name. He puts his name to his claims. He backs up his criticism with his own name, not a pseudonym. We know he is a Christian, a pastor, and a commentator. Similarly, we know J D Hall, Bud Alheim, Steve Kozar, and the others, like John McArthur and Phil Johnston, who make claims against these churches and ministers.

But we do not know who is writing the articles at the chookwatcher sites, even though they claim at least eight people in the chookwatcher moderator’s seat. We do not know the authors of the articles, posts, accusations and claims.

How do we know they are even Christians, or saved, or in fellowship, or under a pastor or denomination?

We don’t.

Yet you champion and publish their accusations against elders and the Church.

That is what I would like to ask these bloggers. But I can’t, because they have no way for a person to question their claims on their sites.

One way traffic.

.

Advertisements