From hinves@world.net Sat Oct 19 21:37:18 1996 Received: from world.net (sydney2.world.net [198.142.12.2]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id VAA11355 for ; Sat, 19 Oct 1996 21:37:08 -0700 Received: from hinves (sydney63.world.net [192.190.215.63]) by world.net (8.7.4/8.6.6) with SMTP id OAA24971 for ; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 14:38:34 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961020044212.006930fc@world.net> X-Sender: hinves@world.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 14:42:12 +1000 To: ariel@best.com From: Martin Hinves Subject: A chunky Article Status: RO Below is a copy of an article you may find useful. ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.boston-church Subject: Re: Internet Evangelism From: dander9518@aol.com (DAnder9518) Date: 15 Jan 1996 23:03:10 -0500 Chunky Charles has asked me to post the following message: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Gosh, I hope this gets through! I've been having such problems with this account, lately...in any event... Some time ago, a sort of disciple's e-mail newsletter came across my POP account. I put it aside, intending to read it at a later date and have just now, finally gotten around to reading it. It contains a gem of a document called "Internet Evangelism" (which I've included below). I've xx'ed out the names and e-mail address of the authors, removed a couple of words that might be used to identify one of the authors, and I've added paragraph numbers since I intend to repond to some of them. In any event, the document in question... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + +++ Internet Evangelism xxx xxxxxxxx, xxxx@xxxxx.xxx.xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx 1. Many of you have begun to notice that there's an awful lot of negative material about the International Churches of Christ on the network! Kudos to all of you have done the right thing by getting advice before trying to singlehandedly defend the church on the newsgroups. Here are our general thoughts on the subject, based on scripture, experience, and advice from a few evangelists. 2. In general, remember the lesson in Matthew 7:6: "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under your feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." 3. Very few of our opponents on the newsgroups will personally benefit from arguments. That is, we're not going to win them over. So then, what is the purpose of arguing our case online? To win over those watching? No - -- that doesn't work either, because all they see is a bunch of religious arguing going on. No one appreciates that. 4. So then: why argue our case on the net? 5. Leadership has considered having members share our experiences on the newsgroups. That decision was delayed after some simple observations that when we (the disciples) limit our interaction, the discussion quiets down quite a bit. And it gets rather silly. 6. One major problem that we've seen in the past is that those who feel the need to defend the Kingdom forget that there really isn't such a need. God is in control. We've always been criticized and slandered. Do you see Jesus overly concerned? How did he respond to such? What was so remarkable about Jesus in front of Herod was not what he said, but that he didn't say anything. Likewise, do you see top leaders vehemently making an effort to rebut such criticisms? Do you see them overly concerned? 7. Another problem is that many disciples are very ill-prepared for such debates. Either from a hermeneutics/theology point of view or simply from a factual basis, we tend to get ourselves in trouble. I cringe from the things _we_ have written -- not what they have written. We've said some really dumb things about ourselves. We've argued round and round about some things in which our critics were right from the onset. 8. Now, could we correct some inaccuracies? Sure. But we'd be correcting all our corrections all day long if disciples made it a habit of doing that. It is more important that we as disciples reinforce each others' faith in the face of such opposition than try to publicly debate such. I am in no way suggesting that this supersede our focus on evangelism. But you have to agree that these critics on the net are not the first place we should go to make disciples. These are those who Hebrews talks about who have tasted the truth and now are so messed up it is practically impossible for them to get right with God again. 9. If you feel you can relate to our critics in a unique way -- perhaps you have been restored after falling away or are a former critic of the church -- then let your wisdom be used by God to strengthen the brothers and sisters around you and to make disciples. It won't do much over the net. People need to remember that the net is a tool, much like the phone system. It is not this fantastic, mystical "new society" thing that everyone is so hyped about. In relation to reaching out and such, we need to get discussions off the net into talks on the phone and _actual_ studies. 10. If you enjoy hanging out on newsgroups and building relationships that way, the most fruitful avenues have been non-religious newsgroups. xxxxxx xxxxx in San Diego, who gave birth to her first child last week, has built friendships and is reaching out to women in a pregnancy newsgroup. I (xxxxxx) have new friends from an xxxxxxxxxx newsgroup. Members of religious newsgroups tend to have their minds made up about doctrines; although some people read these groups because they're looking for a church, most of the discussion is specifically prohibited in the Bible! ("Avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless." (Titus 3:9) and "Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels." (2 Tim 2:23).) 11. If you have questions or concerns, please feel free to ask xxxxxx (xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx) or xxx (xxxx@xxxxx.xxx.xxx). We have years of net-experience, and have been dealing with these issues for some time. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + +++ Chunky responds: 2. I'm not sure that the scripture quoted applies here. In practice, what this newsgroup tends to be is a volley of "Yes you do" "No we don't" type messages from current members, former members, and non-member critics. However, underneath the quibbling, there exists the potential for a very healthy debate between members and critics. I like to feel that I have, in some way, contributed to the latter, and I hope that that aspect of the newsgroup (rational debate) continues to be the basis for the group. I feel that a healthy debate of the issues can be of benefit to those on both sides of the issue. Engaging in rational discourse cannot possibly be interpreted as "throw[ing] your pearls to pigs." 3. "Very few of our opponents on the newsgroups will personally benefit from arguments. That is, we're not going to win them over." The implication being that critics NEED winning over. Have the authors perhaps considered that WE need winning over in some areas? 5. I am not certain how this is relevant. If the goal of the group is healthy discourse--and I am convinced that this is what most of our critics want--then no one benefits from a lack of participation on our [members'] part. 6. I do not see a need to "defend the Kingdom." What I *d*o* need is to strengthen and codify my own beliefs: to prune away false doctrine that may have entered/has entered into my life and to embrace the truth. Without an outside viewpoint every now and again, we run the risk of being worshippers of doctrine and tradition--we *n*e*e*d* to have our views challenged and put to the test and, yes, sometimes, even often, we need to admit our mistakes and discard beliefs and practices that we have previously held dear. 7. I learned a new word today (hermeneutics) 8a. I'm not sure that I follow the "we'd be correcting all our corrections all day long..." line of reasoning. The implication being that if one disciple corrects and inaccuracy, that correction is inevitably flawed, as is any correction made to the correction and so on ad infinitum ad nauseam? Rubbish, if you ask me. 8b. "But you have to agree that these critics on the net are not the first place we should go to make disciples. These are those who Hebrews talks about who have tasted the truth and now are so messed up it is practically impossible for them to get right with God again." First of all, I note an extreme amount of cynicism in these two sentences. The implication is, of course, that no critic of the ICoC on this newsgroup is a disciple. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I have seen more disciple-like qualities in Chris G, Dave Anderson, and I-Chun Lin than I have seen in many members of my congregation...and that I think all three of them are disciples. Second, *w*h*y* are these critics not the first place we should go to make disciples? Granted, its easier to evangelize the clerk at the local 7-11, but the people here are just as deserving of the Gospel as a 7-11 clerk, yes? 9. "People need to remember that the net is a tool, much like the phone system. It is not this fantastic, mystical 'new society' thing that everyone is so hyped about." Perhaps the internet is not a "new society", but it is certainly a *c*o*m*m*u*n*i*t*y*, and one more diverse than any you can possibly imagine. At its most basic, the net is information and a set of protocols used to retrieve it. But the people who create the information, who compile the information, and who provide the information are *p*e*o*p*l*e* and those people give the net its personality and its sense of community. I have many net.friends, and one of the authors admits that he/she/it does as well. 10. I do not believe that Titus 3:9 applies here. In very, very few cases are we arguing about "the law." In fact, most of what concerns critics are ICoC EXTRA-BIBLICAL practices. Moreover, the 2 Timothy scripture condemns "foolish and stupid arguments." I suspect that the definition of "foolish" and "stupid" is highly subjective, but I must say that I find very few of the "arguments" taking place here to be "foolish" or "stupid." - -- Chunky Charles - chunky@alpha.c2.org The anonymous bible thumper! "Man! Man! Your time is sand, your ways are leaves upon the sea; I am the eyes of Nostradamus, all your ways are known to me." -- Al Stewart -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMPrpUKbYOyP4Q/SFAQHejQQAgqgSpTbTB3z6zE9+8y/aG6Hm1+TgRu7D c34CJClc8wuQA+KzNcZ+xBWsNF9qRzo3BepsEHC2M7StQ9iIwlxuSX6aaXlapmek 88sG+7mhHYIhc7HezWCYVAv6CBVBHus/zGIUEOIH9FxqXMyNwxWDh8sSARHryK3U q63Jubz+ENo= =bFCB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Paranoia is useful when they are out to get you..... It keeps you alive longer... The problem with paranoia is that it makes you think you are important enough to worth the trouble to persecute in the first place.