Hrms, I’m curious Shaun, the verse from Matthew is talking about a brother, a fellow believer, and while the other passages says not to bear false witness against those around us, I’m curious whether this applies (the private part) to those who are not in the body of Christ?  hrms…

And then - and this was quite amazing to read - his readers believed him.  With no proof, just words.

On the flippant side, this sounds like a horrible twist to the “name it, claim it” philosophy.

On the non-flippant side, this is just plain horrible.  I won’t say I’ve never called people out for behavior that reflected poorly on Christ; but I have tried my utmost to do so in the kindest and most one-on-one way possible.  Using a blog to slash and burn is beyond the pale of Christian behavior.

And yet, I can spend ten seconds on Google and find a plethora of “Christian” websites that talk less about Christ than they do about why someone else is wrong.  Usually in the most harsh language they feel they can use and still call themselves Christian.  It truly makes me sad.

Jesus DOES have a blog! It’s hosted on Brant’s site…

Good call on not posting the name/blog. That’s one less person that I can feel judgmental about.

A great reminder.  WWJP = What Would Jesus Post?

This is just one more symptom of a larger phenomenon - information illiteracy.  Somewhere along the way, people stopped learning how to verify sources and they stopped understanding that just because something is on the internet doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s true.  That’s compounded when it comes from a source you supposedly trust.  Anyway, I’m sorry to hear about this and hope it will be resolved in a more appropriate manner.

makes me think about what my mom used to say. “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all” especially in the blogosphere.  thanks for not posting the blog.  although i’m curious and may do some searching of my own.  btw, i didn’t know that Brian Seay was your brother in law.  i’ve been friends with Robbie and Chris for a few years now.

That is the danger of an instantly connected world.  Impulsiveness and jerk-ness aren’t filtered by publishers or retailers, and they aren’t confined to one recipient or however many people can be called long distance in an hour.

Good job not slamming him.  I probably would have.  But that’s because I’m a jerk.

Thanks for the reminder.  I think that sometimes it becomes easy to forget although we might physically be interacting with a keyboard and computer screen, we are still interacting with people and we have no way of knowing their response on the other side.

Good job, Shaun! When I come across stuff like this I get frustrated and do the very mature thing of removing them from my google reader or something. (You know, out of sight, out of mind, out of my own personal responsibility?)

You are actually trying to help them. That’s great. And, um, thanks? for the kick in the pants to do likewise…

Stop and Think about it is so much more refreshing than all the reactive stuff.

This is why I don’t watch/listen to what passes for “news” these days.

@veretax

What is “hrms” ?

@Debby

its one of my mannerisms online.  When I ponder something I often go Hrmms to myself.... I’m not sure what you’d call it grammatically

WWJB?

Man, I have no idea what Jesus would blog about - it would probably be a lot more profound than anything you or I have written (and your writing is already several orders of magnitude more profound than mine). It would probably involve a lot of open-ended, unexpected questions like the kind He posed to people who asked Him all kinds of legalistic crap with the hopes of backing Him into a corner. It would probably reveal unexpected emotions about different people He encountered who His heart went out to, who made Him laugh, who made Him angry, etc.

But I think your blog entry here safely sums up at least one thing that Jesus would not blog about.

It’s tricky, though - what’s with that whole deal about accusing a fellow Christian of wrongdoing only in private? I can meet up with a guy in my church for lunch or at least send him and Email, and not call him out in front of everybody. I can’t really do that if it’s a celebrity, someone I don’t know personally. Or if it’s the President and I believe he’s not acting in accordance with Godly principles. What’s the better approach - not saying anything? Or should I bring up the action to discuss its moral merits (or lack thereof) without naming the person? Or how does that work?

It seems that when we write something on our blog, we don’t think about who might read it or what the repurcussions will be.  Of course, we should be careful in our writing as in our speech and thoughts.  Good call about not spreading the site.

i’m glad you address this.  i’m simply amazed at how many potentially (if not obviously) offensive posts i’ve read...by Christians!  even if people aren’t specifically named, we bloggers must be very careful how we treat others.  there’s plenty to say without posturing ourselves, or worse, being vindictive in such a public forum.

That’s definitely an important subject to bring up, too. Thanks again for making us think about it.