I appreciate all of your counter statements, and I am glad that you are really taking the time to think all of this through. I’ve tried to read and reread what has been said by both sides, and my reaction has varied a number of times. I only wish everyone who commented on here, whether I agree with them or not, would grant this case the same courtesy. I think that is the best way to come to a compromise of minds.

Also, I feel that if you came to know a little more about PN and NS, you’re opinions may change even further. I’m not going to say PN is a bad guy that is hurting people, but I feel like there are some areas where he seriously needs to improve his doctrine and methods. Some of the things he says really scare me. I know he does a lot of it for shock value, but there is a line. I’m of the belief that the Gospel is so shocking and beautiful by itself, it doesn’t need an imperfect person like me or anyone else to do something outrageous to motivate people to pay it attention.

I feel like a great deal of what he tries to do is seeing how many people he can get through the doors and saved. Just like any marketing plan. i.e. How do we get people here, get them to spend their money, and leave? I know the idea sounds nice for a church, but if you aren’t creating a life long/eternity long change in a person, what do the numbers mean? That is the whole point of a church. Not just to spread the Gospel, but to cultivate members of the body of Christ.

They are the only church that I’ve ever heard use the term “salvations.” As in, “we had 40 more salvations today! praise God!” The problem being that there is no plural form of the word salvation. I think that’s because salvation is meant to be a true and personal thing, rather than another statistic.

But all that of course, is a completely different topic and subject for people to make their own assertions about.

As to the topic of Christians suing each other, I have to say I am really at a loss on that one. I can’t blame you for being opposed to it, because it is certainly an interesting and sticky situation. I’ve thought about it a lot too. I would rather see NS settle with him personally than this go into court.

I’m with you, though. The best place for them to start is a thorough and Spirit led apology.

Peace,

Jay

Thank you for the response. I don’t feel that you have stepped outside the bounds of Christian brotherhood.

I find your point 1 compelling and would agree with your assessment. The sticky point for me is that PN didn’t publicly call out JDuncan, however it isn’t beyond possibility that staff meeting discussions included the “critics” name. My other belief is our public lives are often poor reflections of our private lives. I.E. If one struggles with a sin (anger) privately then publicly they are often less angry it’s a facade of the heart. All that to say I believe that PN probably said more privately because he said so much publicly. Therefore I NOW agree that PN should issue an apology to JDuncan. I don’t believe that the personal apology should be public but I DO think that PN should publicly acknowledge that the “We don’t fight critics sermon” was a little more like “These people suck but don’t lash out with what you humanly want to do”. The latter is like a kiss from your sister; a nice thought but really icky!

Theologically I can’t speak to where PN lines up. I honestly don’t listen to him. The only things I’ve seen are quick 2 minute videos on YouTube. So…I can’t speak to JDuncans claims about his theology being skewed. As someone who preaches; I would hate for someone to use 3 or 4 minutes of my recent sermon to create an argument against me. I would prefer that they use the entirety of my life and not one sermon illustration. Perhaps this method is a greater indictment of PN but again I can’t speak to that.

In regards to point 2 I’m hesitant to assume NS accountability structure. I think you’ve addressed the difficulty of this with a church the size of NS.

Point 3 I’ve addressed.

I’m adamantly opposed to Christians suing each other. Equally opposed to using the methods of the world to resolve issues among brethren. I think we should strive for more.

Anyway my 2 cents.

Peace,
Chris

Of course I forgive you, friend. What kind of Christ follower would I be if I didn’t? I understand that this board is emotionally charged because of the subject matter. I know I am guilty of being too brash at times as well. If you feel that I have been that way towards you, I would hope that you would grant me that same courtesy of forgiveness.

I appreciate your acknowledgement of my attempts to keep it civil. That’s all I want. A civil conversation. I think fighting about it only perpetuates the emotional aspect of it. When emotions run high, logic and reason tend to run low.

As for the sin aspect of this discussion regarding PN, I would say there are two things that one must consider.

1. The constant berating of other followers of Christ. The lack of compassion, love, and understanding that he has shown in that department, though indirectly towards a specific target, is not congruent with the teachings of Christ. Granted, one could (and probably will) argue that Dr. Duncan could be accused of the same thing. There is a key difference, however, in the way that they go about their criticism. This, once again, will probably be debated, but would you not agree that the styles of criticism are different? The violent and often vile rhetoric that PN uses is a far cry from the systematic and Scripturally defined criticism used by Dr. Duncan.

2. The next, and most important, problem facing PN is the problem of accountability. Just as a shepherd is accountable for his flock, a pastor is accountable for the people of his church. This is a very important principle, that cannot be misinterpreted. The spiritual leader of a household is held very much accountable for the actions of his household. This includes himself, his spouse, and his children. Whatever he does or they do while a part of his household, he is held accountable for by God. It’s a huge responsibility. This is why he must teach them in the ways that parallel the teachings of Christ and the Bible and help guide them in that path.

The same principle applies to the pastor and the church. Granted, PN can’t and shouldn’t be able to know every little detail about his church. It’s impossible. He can’t know who’s sleeping around, who’s got a drug addiction, ect. So where is the link? The link lies within the teaching. As long as PN teaches that all of those things are wrong, he cannot be held accountable for the actions of people not willing to accept his teachings. In the case of Dr. Duncan, PN should have done a better job of teaching love for those who oppose us. He should have done a better job of not painting people like Dr. Duncan into the image of “the enemy.” As for the comments about being unsaved and what not, a pastor should have never made a statement that brash. When a very influential person teaches in this manner, things get dangerous. This is the explanation for what happened.

Likewise, even if we were to take away the entire religious aspect of it, PN and NS would still be accountable. If a person slips on a puddle in a Wal-Mart and no “Wet Floor” sign is present, that same person doesn’t sue the negligent employee. They sue Wal-Mart. It’s a very simple concept. In taking on the responsibilities of a corporation the size of NS, PN takes on the full weight of the actions of himself and his employees. Just like the spiritual leader of a family.

3. Back on the subject of sin. I feel as though PN may have known about this situation well before any actions were taken by NS. I know this is a matter of opinion, but it almost seems naive to think that so many people around PN could have known about it and known Dr. Duncan and he still didn’t know what was going on. I mean, Anderson is a small town, and even as big as NS has gotten, it’s still not the biggest church in the country or anything. Unless PN is completely shrouded and protected from things like this (if he is, there is a problem), he knew at least a little of what was going on. And if he knew that this was happening to another follower of Christ, or another human being for that matter, he committed a sin when he did not act to stop it. So did anyone else that knew what was going on.

With all that being said, even if a person can successfully argue that PN committed no sin whatsoever in this whole situation (I don’t think that is possible), it would definitely be impossible to Biblically and/or legally absolve him of all accountability. It just doesn’t work that way.

Peace,

Jay

As I stated in my last message I was typing on my Iphone. Stupid Qwerty. Not the most efficient way.

I also want to say that I appreciate the tenor of your responses. It’s nice to have dialogue and not a sarcasm fight. Which by the way after rereading and examining my heart I want to apologize for my snarkiness and biting comments. Can you forgive me?

Since it appears that nothing is being accomplished by the “they started it..” “you started it…” defenses I want to ask; biblically/scripturally how do you feel that PN sinned against JD? I think this is the core of the disagreement. Maxwell certainly.

I’ll leave it there. Everything else is a matter of opinion.

All of that is well and good, and once again, it’s very nice that you know more than one language. It still doesn’t escape the fact that you used a word that could be bent to your specific bias, and on a board that is obviously this charged, is it really necessary to use an ambiguous word? Also, my search isn’t broken. I was referring to the Wikipedia site, and my meaning in that is that anyone could go on there and name off the etymological background of the word, just as you have done. In other words, I’m not impressed.

Once again, this is not about another blog. This is not about other people’s comments. This is not about what I believe or what you believe. This is about the fact that NS and PN are in the wrong on this, and Dr. Duncan is not. Furthermore, he did not deserve any of what happened to him. I know PN and NS didn’t physically cause any of what happened, but he knew about it, and I fear that it is impossible to convince me otherwise without evidence. That’s what I’ve been saying again and again. That’s what Dr. Duncan has said again and again. It’s really easy. It’s black and white.

I feel that Dr. Duncan does in fact deserve a public apology. I feel that the NS congregation does as well, as well as the rest of the community. Why should it be private? They must want to keep breaking those attendance records. As far as the money, I believe that Dr. Duncan is definitely entitled to a negotiated sum, and he plainly stated why he hit them so high. Also, in case you didn’t read, they offered him money before they offered him their ears. I’d reread that part if I were you. I don’t wish Newspring would close, and I don’t think Dr. Duncan does either. I think the assertion that I feel that way is asinine and overly dramatic, and I would hope you would agree.

1. “If JDuncan considers PN to be a brother in Christ then the biblical mandate is to “restore gently” (not that PN is complicit) not blog incessantly your concerns to an audience.”

First of all, PN is complicit both legally and Biblically. Second, it doesn’t get much more gentle than typing at your keyboard. It’s a far cry from a holy war. Third, how would you recommend he go about it then? Are you saying he should remain silent? If so, why? Can someone give me a GOOD reason why? Not just, “well, he disagrees with me, so he shouldn’t say those mean things. ”

2. “Again I know that somehow he’s justified because he’s saving others from believing error but if PN is a brother in Christ what’s the fear? But that’s not the Matthew 18 route either.”

If you know he’s justified in that, then why disagree with him? And, what’s wrong with saving others from error, even if it is another Christian? I wouldn’t want to run around proclaiming a lie in the name of God and another Christian realize it and not act. Ignorance is one thing but refusing to act on something that you knew was wrong seems even worse. Sort of seems like what PN and NS did to Dr. Duncan, doesn’t it? Hmm..

Also (I’m holding back the urge to not yell this as I am typing it) how in the world does Matthew 18: 15-17 not apply here? Seriously? Please, please, PLEASE, explain that to me. You’re going to have to consult some serious Scripture twister books or something to make that work. Dr. Duncan’s case parallels that passage the whole way through, word for word. It’s almost hilarious how something so ancient lines up even now. Come on, Chris. I wasn’t even going to go there, but you set it up. That was a little too easy.

3. “I know…I know why would we want anybody who was wronged to do the right thing. I mean Jesus would never forgive anybody who wronged him without provocation…wait a second. Maybe we all shouldn’t be striving to look like Jesus.”

The same principle of a chocolate donut, filled with chocolate, and glazed with chocolate sauce could be paralleled to the sarcasm laced in these lines. It sounds good at first, but you have to regret it later. If you talk the way you type, you probably win a lot of debates, because I was quite confused by this. I really had to reread it a lot, and I still don’t fully understand it. I invite you to rewrite this, because it seems like you’re setting yourself a trap. How did forgiveness get in there? Dr. Duncan said he forgave them. But, you do realize that there are still consequences for actions, right? I mean, God has forgiven me of all my sins, and yet, I still live in the judgement. I’m not alone there. I mean heck, why do you think we all die? Actions have consequences, my friend.

4. “If you can find me one verse just one verse that says “Tell the largest audience possible your complaint” I settle for a close facsimile, then I’ll never comment here again. JDuncan is neither a prophet (unless I missed it) nor biblically handling grievances against a leader. Again not that PN is complicit.”

Again, I say unto you, PN is at fault. The minute you become a leader, you take on more responsibilities. This includes responsibility for your employees. Can we agree on this? If not, go ask your boss. He’ll back me up on this. This is a legal and Biblical principle.

For one example, see 1 Timothy 3: 1-5.

Also, I guess the closest passage that I can think of for you offhand (a very appropriate one at that) would again be Matthew 18: 15-17. Know why? Because it applies to this whole mess. Maybe you disagree, and maybe you can say that it doesn’t literally say that, but I really don’t see how it doesn’t. It even accounts for the audience aspect of your argument. I mean, if you want to throw it out just because it doesn’t say “largest audience,” I guess you could if it means that much to you. And, even though you did set up that intriguing agreement (I’m pretty sure I just won by the way), I ask you not to do that. Because, unlike the church you seem to love so much, I’m not going to try and silence those who disagree with me.

You see, I am a fan of open discussion, much like Dr. Duncan. That is the purpose of this blog. To give another side to the story. Because we all know that if Dr. Duncan had not posted his side of the story, many of the people who saw the Newspring blog would have just imagined him to be some looney bird that was ranting and raving and wanting an easy pay day. And, as we all should know by now, that is not the case.

I think that about covers all I feel like saying. I could probably really nitpick and ask you why Newspring has engaged in the same exact process if it is so wrong? The anti-critic rhetoric and what not.

But, here’s what I would really like to ask you: every coin has a flip-side, and since I pretty much know you are going to disagree with the choice of Bible passage that I chose, what would you say is a good Biblical argument for NOT telling people about his situation.

I’m pretty sure there isn’t one. I suppose that’s the one gray area in all of this. The rest is pretty simple. He’s right. They’re wrong. It’s a terrible situation. Why will they not just try and make it all in the right and go on about their business? Maybe that’s what they call themselves doing, but I’m not really impressed.

And, I guess freedom fighters is an improvement, but I’m really not fighting for anything. I just want the truth to be told and justice to be had. Maybe you can call me, Just Jay or something. Eh.. I don’t know. Maybe I’ll just stick to Jay.

Peace,

The Jay is for Just?

A Mujahid (Arabic: مجاهد, muǧāhid, literally “struggler”, “justice-fighter” or “freedom-fighter”)

and

The word is from the same Arabic triliteral as jihad (“struggle”).

But for the sake of argument and assume that you’re definition is accurate. How often do these “discernment” blogs say things like “fighting for the faith” “contending for the faith” or my favorite “waging war against the enemy” to describe their work? Here’s a few of my favorite:

http://defendingcontending.com/2009/07/24/bitterspring-newspring-defenders-defend-this/

http://www.raptureforums.com/forum/apostasy-local-church/29602-perry-nobles-newspring-church-ghost-sighting-wish-i-making-up.html

http://www.alittleleaven.com/2009/03/new-spring-churchs-easter-service-to-open-with-acdcs-highway-to-hell.html

Sounds a lot like they’re mujihadeen. But I digress.

I know it’s easier to assign guilt by association (logical fallacy) because 3 people decided to act way outside the lines of appropriate, christian, behavior to Perry Noble and ignore the other side but can you not see the similarities? Additionally; as far as I can see, NS followed biblical mandate by firing the guilty party, the police investigated, the church disciplined all the guilty parties. How much more is necessary? A public apology? $1.5 million? The moon? I’m sure what the ultimate answer is: New Spring closing.

If JDuncan considers PN to be a brother in Christ then the biblical mandate is to “restore gently” (not that PN is complicit) not blog incessantly your concerns to an audience. Again I know that somehow he’s justified because he’s saving others from believing error but if PN is a brother in Christ what’s the fear? But that’s not the Matthew 18 route either. I know…I know why would we want anybody who was wronged to do the right thing. I mean Jesus would never forgive anybody who wronged him without provocation…wait a second. Maybe we all shouldn’t be striving to look like Jesus.

If you can find me one verse just one verse that says “Tell the largest audience possible your complaint” I settle for a close facsimile, then I’ll never comment here again. JDuncan is neither a prophet (unless I missed it) nor biblically handling grievances against a leader. Again not that PN is complicit.

Carry on freedom fighters! Was that better?

Sorry for the choppiness my iphone is not the best modes of typed response.

Actually, I went to a dictionary to get the exact definition. I have a hard time trusting online dictionaries. I did that so that the others being referenced by that word would know what it meant. I already had a general idea of the word meaning from watching the occasional CNN or FOX News program. I can’t claim to know Arabic, but I do know English quite well. And from knowing English, I understand writing. That being said, if you weren’t wishing to describe people who disagree with you using a word that has come to have a negative meaning, then why use it at all? It’d be like me saying PN is gay for his church when it does something good. Gay, of course, used to mean happy.

Once again, I applaud your reference of the word’s etymology. That is a very interesting field of study that I would recommend to anyone with a lot of time and a heart for research. But, now that I think about it, I could just as easily say that you are bluffing and that you Googled the word. I just did, and wouldn’t you know it, it mentions the word’s etymology right off the bat. Imagine that. Hmm…

Enough with the trivialities.

I can’t speak for everyone who comments on this blog, but when it comes to me personally (seeing as how you did address me personally), I would rather not be referenced as an enemy to anyone. I would be just as mad about this if the situation were flipped. I assure you of this.

I don’t have to speak for Dr. Duncan, because if you would simply go back and read, he again and again says he does not consider himself an enemy of the church. Nor does he consider the church an enemy. He is merely critiquing some of the policies he finds negative about the church. You wouldn’t consider a movie critic an enemy of a movie he or she doesn’t like would you?

-Jay