Gosh! Where do you start with this one? Chookwatcher, still on the run because he has been caught out both here and by Dr Michael Brown with fatuous excuses for being anonymous, has put up a weird and oblique post defending, once again, his use of a pseudonym.
Look, the article is too obscure and beyond reason to comment on, so I’ll go straight to the excuse given this time.
After a long winded and poorly explained series of accusations that, basically, operate on the premise of guilt by association, chookwatcher suddenly springs up with this ill conceived passage…
‘God-fearing Christians ensnared by this cult do not want to be seen as cut off by God and opened to be used by the demonic.
This is why it is important we are anonymous.
Whether we are in or outside of the NAR, to question the validity or conduct of any Apostle or Prophet is to open ourselves to their “touch not Gods anointed” handling.’
Of course, like all of his previous excuses, this is total fabrication. There is no one putting out threats towards the hidden chookwatchers aligned with some kind of ‘touch not the Lord’s anointed’ tag-line. No one.
Dialogue with named people
In fact, the only ones who have commented about chookwatcher’s anonymity and modus operandi have said they should have the decency, integrity and honesty to give their names and reveal their church affiliation, so that we can know that they are bona fide Christians answerable to some kind of oversight.
I have not seen a single article, comment, tweet, social media entry that says of the chookwatchers, ‘touch not my anointed’. They have made this up.
And so what if there was anyone saying this? We all know that it’s not applicable to anyone. It’s not what the Word of God refers to.
Why would a comment like this shrink someone into hiding? I’ve had far worse said about me on the chookwatcher sites, even after I’d been banned from commenting, and it’s merely empowered me to keep standing. I’m not ashamed of the gospel. They know my name, and my affiliations, so why would I be afraid of their whining, false claims, or empty rhetoric? Persecution is a crown.
No. It’s another excuse from the weak-willed chookwatchers.
Rather than soaking up any criticism of their criticism, they run and hide under a nom-de-plume. Even though Jesus told us we would be judged with the same judgment with which we judge others, they are too afraid to back up their constant and rather obsessive judgment with the courage of their convictions by putting a name to their claims.
The irony of the article is that they then attempt to accuse a few of their target ministries of not being accountable to anyone. Oh the hypocrisy of this. We don’t know who they are, nor their credentials for accusing elders, nor their accountability, yet they accuse others who are known, credentialed and accountable of not being accountable.
The chookwatchers have completely missed the point of what is being asked of them by the people they accuse and criticise.
Those who have said anything at all about the chookwatchers, and there are a mere handful, such as Dr Brown and Carl Lentz, are asking them to come clean with their names so that they can dialogue with a person, not with a secretive, masked entity that screens at least eight people who are hyper-critical of everything their target groups do or say.
Their false accusations that charismatic or Pentecostal churches and movements are cults, wolves, or demonic should be at least accompanied by their openness to a response.
Critics like Chris Rosebrough, J D Hall, Jeff Maples, Steve Kozac, Amy Speelman, John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, and the like are being far more articulate, and in many cases, more verbally aggressive in their polemics against the very same ministries, but they are not suffering a single moments’ anxiety about persecution from the churches, ministries, movements and ministers they level their claims against. And they give their names. Why should it be any different for the chookwatchers?
In fact, most of the articles produced by the chookwatchers were composed by these named polemists and critics, who are not afraid to put a name to their articles, and let people know their church affiliation, and, therefore, accountability.
Chookwatcher looks increasingly lame every time he puts out an excuse for being a critic of people he names whilst being anonymous and not accountable to anyone himself.