You know who you are.
Your blog bio proclaims your ‘love of open dialogue’.
You ‘enjoy helping people grow spiritually’.
You cherish ‘meaningful conversation between people living out their faith’.
This is for you.
Here are 3 reasons you should quit blogging.*
1. You don’t actually ‘love open dialogue’.
See, in an open dialogue…
…opinions contrary to yours are allowed to stand.
They don’t get deleted.
Deleting contrary opinions is ‘Censorship’.
It’s the opposite of ‘Open’.
2. You don’t really believe what you’re saying.
You would defend truth.
(Wouldn’t you?)
Pastor, let’s say, hypothetically, that you believe the New Testament is true.
If someone posted this comment in your blog:
“Jesus didn’t actually exist. He was invented by the disciples because they needed a hero figure for their religion. There is no historical evidence that Jesus Christ was a real person.”
As a Christian minister, you know this comment is patently false.
(Right?)
You should RESPOND to this comment.
Because you have a solid, historical case for the truth.
You believe that Jesus was a real, historical figure.
(Hypothetically. I’m not putting words in your mouth…)
However…
When I say something like:
“I can comment on racial issues even if I don’t have a single black friend. Suggesting that white people don’t understand race issues because they’re white is a deeply racist thing to say.”
…your only response…
…is to delete the comment.
…and ban me from your Facebook page.
Is my comment wrong?
Is it untrue?
Why not explain where I’ve erred?
I thought you wanted to ‘help me grow spiritually’!
When I’m banned…
…how can I drink deeply from the fount of your wisdom?
Perhaps…
…and I’m just spit balling here…
…You can’t defend your premise.
…I’ve raised a valid point that contradicts your thesis.
Silencing the opposition is the only rational response
…when protecting your pride is your primary motivation.
You don’t actually believe what you’re saying.
You’re just saying things to attract readers.
3. You’re actually hurting the body of Christ.
Pastor, let’s say, hypothetically, that you believe that the church is the body of Christ.
For the sake of the analogy,
let’s just say that I’m a part of that body.
(Still speaking hypothetically…)
You and I represent different parts in that body.
You would obviously be the brain.
I would be something like…
…an appendix…
Because you can ban appendix…
…without damaging the body’s overall health.
But what happens to an appendix after it’s banned?
Does it thrive?
Does it ‘live out it’s faith in a meaningful way’?
I know, I know.
A ruptured appendix can kill the whole body.
Be rid of it before it turns everything toxic.
Tell yourself I’m poisonous.
That’s certainly easier than forming a rebuttal.
Let me arrogantly presume that I may be right.
Wave away the clouds of condescension covering your face…
…and listen to this appendix.
The people reading your blog are just as smart as you.
They notice things.
When the only comments under every article
…are effusive praises for your brilliance.
They notice.
Many of them don’t comment.
(Why should they? You’ll delete them!)
Some of them are non-Christians…
…who quietly go away.
Convinced that Christianity is a religion without reason.
Christianity doesn’t defend it’s claims.
Christianity is merely the opinions of mega-church pastors,
…who do not tolerate dissent.
So quit blogging.
You’re not good at it.
(*The comment section on my blog actually is a place for ‘open dialogue’. I will not delete your comments. I will not ban you from this space. Go ahead! Disagree with me! See what happens…)
After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body.
Ephesians 5:29
15 Responses
Today, September 18, 2021, I received an email that said it was a new post on John Branyan. And the fine print at the bottom of the email does indicate this date. I followed the link to see the comments. They were all posted in May 2015! I scroll back up – yep, it’s the text of the same blog post. And I note that it doesn’t have a date on it at all. This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened. So, is this a time-travelling blog, or what?
I wonder if tweeting is okay. I’ve noticed that the Bible is silent on both blogging and tweeting.
The internet is probably ok, but electricity is obviously forbidden.
Hi John –
I can’t see color – and I can’t read the names of colors like “white” and “black.” But if I could do either of those – I would have noticed that three of the six Baltimore officers were black – including the one charge with 2nd degree “depraved heart” murder. I then would have assumed that you just can’t trust black police officers that work with white police officers. Fortunately – I don’t have to make that assumption. Whew!
Btw – nice font!
You certainly dodged a bullet there.
…
…wait…
…
…probably shouldn’t have said it that way.
John – Please learn the difference between using it’s and its! Example from your latest post:
Christianity doesn’t defend it’s claims. (Should be its)
Does it: “Live out it’s faith in a meaningful way?” (Should be its)
But what happens to an appendix after it’s banned? (Hooray! Correct! Rule: If you
can say “it is” where you put the apostrophe, you’re OK! )
Sorry to bother you with this, but it’s getting in the way of enjoying and learning from your posts.
Thank you Deb. I too hear the fingernails on the blackboard when the mechanics get in the way of enjoying the content. 🙂
I am astounded by people who post in public, yet cannot brook a reasoned response that differs from their point of view. What were they expecting? That they had formed the perfect thought? Even Jesus had detractors.
Evidently you violated the charismatic pastor feedback rule: “amen” is said aloud by adult congregants to acknowledge a pause in the sermon and to affirm said congregant is still conscious. Similar to chicks gaping upward to inspire the parent bird to regurgitate nourishment, amen coaxes the pastor to continue to the next phrase.
Try that next time. Yes, that can be done without agreeing, or even listening. #harmonyTrumpsTruth
Yes, the blogger to whom you refer has proven himself to be quite cowardly. I tried to engage him in a very civil manner some time ago. Let’s just say he didn’t return to favor.
I disagree with your font size.
I once found myself in a slight theological disagreement with the blogger this is aimed at. The next day I became the focus of his follow up blog, complete with condescending comments about my lack of understanding and a picture of Dwight Schrute to illustrate my foolishness.
I ignored it. Seemed like if he was that worked up about someone who disagreed with him it wasn’t worth my time to respond.
By the way, I have a really cool blog at http://www.awordfortheweary.com !
For the record, this post mentions no names…
I appreciate what you’re saying, Bret. Under most circumstances I respond as you did. Not worth my time.
However, when someone posts as a ‘Christian Leader’ then I feel they are accountable to fellow Christians for what they say.
I’ve heard some criticism that I shouldn’t make my disagreement public. I disagree. A blog is a public forum. When I post to my blog, I expect dissenters to post publicly. They don’t owe me a private message. In fact, private rebukes do nothing to help other readers understand erroneous thinking.
…and I apologize for the font size.
Sorry, John, I tried to disagree with you to see what would happen, but I just couldn’t find a way.
Please try again, Michael. I regularly offend many people so there must be something you find disagreeable.