Not content with hugging on to popular anti-charismatic polemics sites like Pulpit & Pen and Pirate Christian Media to build their clientele, and gaining traffic by listing well known and renowned charismatic speakers and ministries in clickbait articles, churchwatchcentral also want counter-critics to include links to their sites.
These are the same nameless bloggers who, when they allowed comments on their anonymously critical sites, banned anyone who criticised them in any way, falsely accused them of all kinds of theological errors, and generally encouraged their fanbase to berate any commenter of whom they did not approve, and without right of reply.
They are the most censorious censors of the century.
These are the same pseudonyms, who, like most of their cohort critical sites, now have no commentary section on which anyone can challenge their many false assertions.
The code of conduct joke
Now they have joined Chris Rosebrough, an ardent critic of charismatic ministries, in pressing for a charismatic code of conduct. What a joke. The man’s spent years hammering charismatics.
What about a polemics site code of conduct? Should they be able to criticise ministries in anonymous articles? Should they allow themselves to use such provocative language as the neo-hyper-polemicists? Should they govern themselves in such a way that their articles and claims contain less supposition and innuendo and more fact?
Charismatics actually do have a code of conduct. So do the polemicists. It’s called the Bible, particularly the New Testament written to Christians, and it has enough information on God’s code of conduct to include the likes of churchwatchcentral and Pirate Christian Media in the mix.
Besides this, they are judged by the same judgment with which they judge others.
It’s the measure by which this site critiques the criticisms of the critics.
Why would anyone who points out the errors and falsehoods promoted by polemics sites direct anyone to any of their hypercritical waffle-tomes?
It’s enough to give a credit to the (often anonymous) author of a quote that is then critiqued by the counter-critics.
Name it and claim it
When the anonymous critics at churchwatchcentral put their actual names to their criticism of the Body of Christ, then, perhaps, counter-critics can consider links to their so-called discernment articles. Or, maybe not.
When they name themselves they can claim some kind of authenticity.
Until then, they remain unknown, unqualified, inauthentic, secretive, hidden, faceless, nameless critics, and therefore unrecognised.