Thought everyone would be interested in an e-mail sent to me by CGWhite.

I'll let the readers make their own summations as to the character of Mr. White.....here it is.....(by the way....take note of how the Christian love just oozes from his e-mail)....

Danny

I cannot believe an intelligent person would support "Dr. Jon." You are about as stupid as he is...

By the way, Genesis 1-11 is not literal history. Homeschooling is wrong... No parent anywhere can make educational choices in the best interest of their own child. The emotions they have for them make goood decision-making impossible.

And I do believe in hell and I think you are on your way there. I am not "liberal" but beeing conservative is just as damnable as being liberal.

I have graduate studies at 2 state universities and 2 evangelical seminaries and 2 liberal seminaries and if you think I am liberal, you need to get out more often.

I did not do an "ad hominem". I simply stated facts. It makes me boil inside to think that anyone who thinks like you and Jon are allowed in pulpits.

CG White

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2001

Answers

CG....

No problem with me!!!

I would only point out that my comments about Democrats was made "AFTER".....the broad brush strokes.

Personally.....I would have never responded to you except for your remarks to Dr. Jon.

You can say all you want to about your views....but like I said....I took what you said to Jon....personally.

Have a better day!!

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2001

Link.....

Just make sure your public and private discourse are honorable and consistent...and there will be no need for me to post.

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2001

First off.....it was not a private e-mail....it was an e-mail of non- Christian character. Do you see anywhere in the e-mail where it said...."This is private"....or "please do not post this??"

Second....even if it did.....like I said....if someone sends me an e- mail that is antithetical to their public discourse....than I most certainly will point out the incongruity.

Thirdly, did the e-mail not accomplish its purpose and bring civility back to the discussion??

Lastly....you are exactly right in pointing out that you "should not be casting stones. First, you do not have the courage, fortitude and integrity to post your name. Second, false e-mail addresses are a violation of the rules of the forum.

Have a nice day!!

-- Anonymous, April 15, 2001

Wow!

I guess my children are in danger from my decision making. I guess the communists are right, they are the state's children. The state knows best. The state is your friend. Trust the state.

God gave parents the responsibilites to train their children, not the state. Dt 6:4-6 (but maybe that is not literary history either.) They did not send their kids to a state run school. They educated them at HOME! Public schoold teach humanism. It is a fact. One of the planks of the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO is free, compusory education in government schools.

Well Danny, I think there is no question that e-mail was an ad hominem!

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2001

I want to express my sorrow over crossing the line and speaking with such vehemence. Yes, I have the same agressive tendencies in my heart, which our Lord said is just as bad as murder. I have sinned here and I seek the forgiveness of Danny, Jon and all.

We all hold those tendencies. It is original sin, and we are all capable of murder--which is why the body of Christ needs to oppose all forms of killing.

But I am not sorry I hold the views I do, either about theological education, Genesis 1-11, or politics. Folks, I am from Appalachia. I live in Appalachia, although I have lived in the midwest and been all around the country. And the prosperity never got here. And the reason it never got here was that there had to be someone who lost out to make everybody OK, and I think conservative leaders decided people here did not matter. The policies so many of you hold dear have hurt the people I love--and that is like cutting my heart in two. And holding those people up and revering them disturbs me.

I wil say I do not understand why it does not bother people as much that Oliver North, Bush, Sr., and Reagan, et al, lied about Iran\Contra but the fact that Clinton lies infuriates them. (And we should be infuriated over what Clinton did.) I am just saying conservatives apply a double standard to honesty as well as liberals do.

It bothers Danny if I am agressive but how many derogatory comments has he made about liberals...it is the same thing.

And while I am not a registered Democrat, I am definitely a philosophical Democrat. I believe my views on social issues are more Biblical than those of most of this forum, so I do not belong here. But it never upset anyone when Matt called us "Demoncrats". I believe there is probably a double standard here and that disturbs me.

This forum, or corresponding with you, except for maybe Bro Saffold, is not good for my blood pressure.

Please forgive me. But also please realize that it is possible to be a liberal politically and conservative theologically, and many of us find that combination attractive.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2001

CG,

Please do not take me out of context.

If you agree with the demonic concept that people should get food without work, then there is an issue. If not, then it doesn't stick. Besides, you said you were not a democrat. I am a registered republican, but I think the republicans today have been dead wrong on many occasions. I do not pigeon hole all democrats. My Rep. up here is Trafficant. He is a Democrat. However he is very conservative on many issues. The label of demoncrat held to the welfare concept. Please take me in context.

Besides, what about homeschooling and Dt 6? I would be interested in your view.

Also, Original sin is not supported in the Bible. What type of doctrinal school do you adhere to? I am just curious (an honest question).

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2001

OK. Matt...

I think with regard to original sin that you must be Referring to Rom 5:12, and you are probably right. But we are born with some propensity to sin as David acknolwdges in Ps. 51. I am not Calvinismtre: predestination, but I am not totally Arminian either. Regardless, Rom 5:12 and other passages in Romans make clear that we are all sinners by choice, so from than standpoint maybe original sin is moot.

As far as Deut 4:6--I believe religious education is a parental responsiblity..but I also believe that the state has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that basic education is overseen, because some day everyone will either work and contribute to society or not work and take from society.

But I also think we need as a Society to guard our children from the Waco's and Rubby Ridges of the world. Not all religious instruction is OK--we need to beware the extremes of right and left. My teacher Elton Trueblood said the Christians taks is to outthink the opposition, but we cannot do that if we do not engage them..I have a Biblical, parental responsibility to be able to counter the arguments of secular humanism, but it is a mistake to shield my children from them. Peter said always be ready to give a reason for the hope that lies within you. I can think of no better place to do this than to begin in our own homes. If I cannot successfully give my children a cogent apologetic for what I believe then what I believe is probably off base. I guess I see homeschooling and gun ownership both as symptoms of fear.

I believe in work. I have cerebral palsy, depression, and anxiety disorder and have supported by family w/o help from the state even though I have qu alified for it. But I believe it is hypocrisy to argue that success should not be penalized but not make the minimum wage adequate so that no one who works will be in poverty. And I believe there should be a maximum wage to keep the income gap from top to bottom from being so excessive. Lev 25 is not just about family property but about forgiving debt and periodically levelling the playing field so the income gap does not become looming and oppressive.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2001

CG,

Allow me one more question. If Genesis 1-11 is not factual, how can you trust any of the other parts of the Scripture? Jesus referred to the the days of Noah, Adam etc. He never corrected any of the "myths" that were stated. How could Jesus have been God in the flesh and yet verify these myths as real?

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2001

CG,

Sorry, my last post was made before you responded.

When God established the nation of Israel, He did so with parental support of education, not state. They also had to be productive members of society. In the days of Christ, it was the religious institutions who educated, not the state. The government forces a religion upon our children in the public schools. Their aim is to make them humanists. I don't believe in sending an 8th grader against someone with a masters degree in evelutionary biology for the sake of "defending the faith". The problem is many parents were instructed in humanism as well. I do not think many parents even know what humanism is. I am doing an in depth study of Humanist Manifesto I & II. They espouse many of the same concepts that you are (such as redistribution of wealth, government control of schools). All I am saying is why are they saying the same thing?

The last place my children will go is to a public school. I and my wife are more than capable of educating my children. We have a christian school that works WITH the parents in fulfilling their stewardship of discipling their children. Education is discipleship. It is just a matter of whose principles are being espoused.

For your consideration.

Matt.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2001

CG,

Also I commend you for supporting your family in the face of your challenges.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2001

CG -

I accept you apology, and truly forgive you. There will always be differences of opinion, but that doesn't negate the value of the person...which unfortunately your comments appeared to me to do.

You are entitled to your opinion on acreditation too. As an employee of the public schools system of the state of Oklahoma, I fully well understand the whole concept of accreditation. It can be a good thing. But, as Danny commented, its not the only thing. When I was a student at Bethany, they had accreditation from several other accrediting agencies, and were working on more, so their graduates could get certified by the military to be chaplains. Far from being a diploma mill, Bethany has three active campuses (Alabama, Canada and Korea). They have been a leader in the field of distance education. As an active duty serviceman who could not attend a 'normal,' sit in the classroom seminary, Bethany met my needs. It was the only way I could attend bible college/seminary, in spite of the possibility that someone somewhere at sometime would question the authenticity of the degrees. (I considered that a calculated risk.)

But a funny thing happens on the way to accreditation. Accreditation by a state agency or even a religious agency requires that certain core beliefs will have to be modified in order to have approval from the accreditation agency. Bethany, being fundamentalist, independent Baptist, wouldn't do that. You will find that most independent Baptist schools are not accredited with national or religious agencies. This is not because of lack of quality of education. It is because they refuse to compromise biblical doctrine or personal principle. In some independent Baptist circles, an ATS accredited school would be considered "liberal" and therefore suspect theologically. (I don't personally believe that, but its an example of the variety of opinions about the subject.)

But we can disagree on this area too, and its fine. I actually only use the "Doctor" title when dealing with other religious leaders. I have found that having a title often punches through the religious pompousity I encounter in conferences and similar settings. My beef is not with those who received degrees through non-traditional methods, or even from non-accredited schools. At least they went! In Baptist circles most of the contention is with "Doctor's" who have no education at all, only an honorary degree. No one argues with Billy Graham, or H.R. Ironsides that they are not "Doctor's" do they? But their degrees are honorary, not earned. Many religious leaders with "Dr." before their name have honorary degrees.

Anyway, I digress again. I fully agree wtih you about Appalachia though. That is a national disgrace. But redistributing the wealth won't solve that problem. There are other solutions, which are too numerous to mention here. But it is a serious failing that this situation exists. Part of this failing lies (I think) because we have political philosophies which put profit ahead of people. To me, Christian political and business theory will have a proper balance of the two, not an either/or. But to explain further would require another thread, so I will stop here.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2001

Matt

I am not saying Gen 1-11 is not "factual" I am saying it is not all "literal". For example chapters 1 and 2 record creattion as having taken place in different sequences. If you insist on literalism you have to throw one out...But if you take them theologtically as a lterary genre, then just like Scott said in another thread, the 1000 years in Psalms are not neceessarily literal, nor does the "cattle on 1000 hills" in Psalms mean cattle in hill #1001 are not Gods. In other words, I believe the events are true but do not put the burden of verification of modern science on them--since they are not meant to bear this burden.

Jon

On the one hand you state how Bethany is approved by the state of Alabama, etc., and then on the other you talk about how fundamentalist Baptists do not sumbit to such agencies. Could you clarify?

Would you argue that Bethany is on a par with places like Asbury and Fuller or the ivy league divinity schools--not in terms of theologies--which differ--but in terms of academics? Did you have to study Tillich, Bultmann, etc?

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2001

Let me see if I can answer your questions. I really can't "speak" for the school, but I can explain better what I said.

1. Bethany is registered with the state of Alabama as a degree granting institution, but is not approved by the state. That's the difference. The state of Alabama recognizes the school as an institution of higher learning. It doesn't go to the school and approve curriculum (which is exactly what happens under an accreditation process), but does recognize it as a degree-granting institution. Bethany is actually more willing to work with state and federal agencies than many of the independent Baptist colleges, so they are a little different than some.

What I was talking about as far as independent Baptist colleges, there are some out there who do not register with the state for official recognition, and who purposely shun affiliation with anyone except the founding church. (I realize I am painting a broad stroke for those who aren't familiar with this concept, which doesn't give the whole story.) These schools are, as stated above, started by a local church, funded by a local church, and staffed and run by a local church. There is some history behind all this, which I can't talk about off the top of my head in detail. I think some of these schools are extreme in their thinking, but they are willing to do this in order to keep what they consider to be doctrinal purity.

2. As far as quality of education is concerned, that is a pretty subjective question. Yes, Tillich and Bultmann were taught. But not in too favorable light. They are considered to be liberal theologians, and Bethany's stated purpose is to produce conservative or fundamentalist ministers. For example (not trying to pick on you, honest. Just the first example that came to mind), to state that Gen. 1-11 was not literally accurate and/or was a myth would have gotten an F in my Penteteuch and Genesis courses. So, a fundamentalist student would consider my school the superior to say Harvard Divinity school, where a student could be taught that Genesis 1-11 was not the inspired word of God, but Jewish mythology.

Just another point which colors my thinking. You're truly attended part of the University of California system. I work in post- secondary education. I don't consider an education from an "ivy- league" school to be any better than an non-ivy-league school. In fact, my experience is that then best education is found in the smaller, private schools. I have sat in on classes at Boston University where there is one instructor to 250 students (Biology 101). Harvard undergraduate classes are exactly the same. I am currently a student at Cameron University in Lawton Oklahoma (part of the Oklahoma A&M system) as a Business Administration major. My classes average no more than a 35 to 1 ratio. Ivy-league schools traditionally have terrible under graduate programs. All you are paying for is the name (and paying through the nose, I might add). And for the most part, its not just my feelings either. Almost every year U.S. News & World Reports magazine says the same thing in their college ratings issue.

Now, I will concede this: at Bethany, I did not prepare for a Liberal Arts degree. I studied for a degree that would prepare me to actively engage in a form of church ministry. At a state sponsored and accredited school, a Liberal Arts degree is usually awarded. With the Liberal Arts degree I could seamlessly move into a secular job. I can't do that with my degree from Bethany. But to me that didn't matter. I wasn't training for a JOB, I was training for PASTORAL MINISTRY. But the quality of education isn't any different. It was the outcome that was different. I still had to pass an English, Math, Science, History, etc requirement just like any other college. Now, before I decided on Bethany, I investigated a lot of different schools. What I was seeing was that Bethany used the exact same textbooks, and taught the exact same courses, as the majority of Bible colleges and seminaries. The only thing that I saw that would be different was that since I studied mostly through extension, I did not have the same interaction with instructors as a resident student. But to me that was a minor point as long as I was learning the material. In some cases, distance learning was actually more difficult than in the classroom, because there is no grading curve like there often is in a classroom environment. In practical experience, I have found that I have retained more than my traditionally taught peers.

So yes, I would unhesitatingly say the quality of education was equal.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2001

Well, I think the moral of this story is that if I have any secrets I want to email someone, I'd better not send them to Danny Gabbard. He might quote me on a public forum that has the potential to show up on any search engine.

I searched for my own email on yahoo, out of curiosity, and find a post under the title having to do with birth control pills, and a quote about why my wife didn't take the pill. Pretty personal stuff to show up on a search engine. Scary things, those search engines.

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2001

"Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." (Ephesians 5:11)

"For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open." (Luke 8:17)

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2001

Love covers a multitude of sins.

If someone gets angry and it shows up in an email, and the issue can be resolved and rectified via email, why post it publicly. Why publicaly post a private issue about something done privately that hcan be resolved privately? The first step when a brother sins, for example, is to go to him one on one. It's generally considered bad net ettiquette. Is that a good witness?

Danny, if I had other kinds of secrets- missions secrets, family problems, etc. I don't think I'd share them with you. Not that you are asking.

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2001

Brother Danny:

I appreciate your pointing out for me in particular and the rest of the forum in general the difference in what you perceived as being the difference between Brother White’s portrayal in the public forum and his private responses to you. Though I am convinced that his case was exceptional from his normal behavior and is therefore, as you have done, easily forgiven. I believe that I have met the real CG White in the forum. And though I knew that he and I disagreed with each other since I was aware, because he told me, of his background, I like him very much and enjoyed our discussions with each other. And would like to enjoy yet more such discussions with him. And I would like to note that the oneperson who has not complained in the least about your publishing of his private e-mail to you is C. G. White himself. I believe that he understood your reasons for doing it and he was certainly man enough to take it without whining, don’t you agree?

The reason, however that I appreciate your taking the action of publishing this private e-mail is because I receive, as you can only imagine, several private e-mails. And many of those are from persons in this forum who are perpetually portraying themselves, and Brother White is not one of these, as so concerned about being “Christ-like” that they would never say anything that could be perceived as being unkind or unloving. Yet, if you were to read their e-mails sent to me you would see language that would most assuredly be considered by themselves as being not only unkind and unloving but down right insulting and hateful. Not that I mind receiving such e-mails. But I detest the hypocrisy. And I appreciate your basically putting a stop to it. For now none of these hypocrites can feel “safe” in sending such e-mails because now no one can be sure when I, and others, might just follow your lead and publish them! I find that quite humorous, don’t you? It is indeed a good way to stop this nonsense of having a person shift his responses from a matter being discussed in the forum to a personal attack made in private. So that he can vent his feelings and frustrations on you in private and appear to be ever so congenial in public. Those who speak faithfully and truthfully in public and private have nothing to fear from having their e-mails related to a discussion in the forum being made public. It is only those who are trying to have two faces that must fear having them both placed side by side by someone willing to publish their e-mail responses. You can publish any e-mail that I have or ever will send to you. For having spent much of my life in the military I know that “lose lips sink ships” and if I want to keep something secret I do just that I KEEP IT. I do not GIVE IT TO ANYONE AT ALL. Thus neither you nor anyone else is ever likely to hear anything from me that I want to KEEP SECRET. It does indeed amaze me how people wish to keep secrets and tell them at the same time. Such is just plain ridiculous. If you must tell it to anyone then you must forget about keeping it secret. If you tell it to no one it will always remain a secret if you are the only one that knows about it. Keeping secrets is just that simple, isn’t it?

For now, I agree, as I am sure you do as well, that we should generally keep e-mails private. It works better for us all even though it has provided a “hiding place for hypocrites”. In fact, I know that your general practice is to keep e-mail private for I have sent e-mail to you which you have kept in strictest confidence even though you knew that I would not mind if it were published. But let all those who think that they can continue to pretend to be congenial in the forum and send private e-mails and show your true colors be warned. You may be sending it to the forum by an indirect route and you may be showing your true colors to everyone.

I think this will put a stop to this particular form of hypocrisy, which is common practice for some in this forum. Those days do indeed seem to be OVER for them, don’t they?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 14, 2001

Danny,

What makes you feel morally correct in violating someone's trust by publically publishing a private letter without the writer's consent? To me your behavior is at least as despicable as any opinions White had to offer. I shouldn't be the one to throw a stone here either, but think about beams & motes before you post.

-- Anonymous, April 15, 2001

Let me say I have no problem with what Danny Gabard did regarding my e-mail. As he said, it was an incongruity, and I deserved to be called on it. I was out of line, and while we may not agree on issues, I let me emotions get away from he and needed him to correct me. Did not David say, "let the righteous smite me."

But whoever "Long" is, let me say that I do not like my views being called "despicable". That is certainly not the case.

-- Anonymous, April 15, 2001

Correction for typo in paragraph 1:

I let my emotions get away from me and needed him to correct me.

-- Anonymous, April 15, 2001

Danny,

First off.....it was not a private e-mail....it was an e-mail of non- Christian character. Do you see anywhere in the e-mail where it said...."This is private"....or "please do not post this??"

Did the e-mail say, "please post this to the forum?" If he wanted everyone to read it he could have just posted it here himself, a reasonable adult would *assume* an e-mail was private. Would you feel it's acceptable to post the details of you and your wife's intimacies just because she never *explicitly* said it was private? He sent you something for YOU to read, and you posted it for everyone. This is wrong. The character of the e-mail doesn't matter, your actions do.

Second....even if it did.....like I said....if someone sends me an e- mail that is antithetical to their public discourse....than I most certainly will point out the incongruity.

You should have pointed this out to him in private by e-mail, as he addressed you, not publically, smearing his character. Jesus got angry with the money-changers and overturned their tables in the Temple. Do you say this was incongruous with His character? No, it was a part of it. Christians can be angry, but I defy you to find an instance where Jesus betrayed someone's trust the way you did with Mr. White.

Thirdly, did the e-mail not accomplish its purpose and bring civility back to the discussion??

Does the end justify the means? Can you *really* produce good through evil means, or did you in fact just silence more people from coming in a roundabout way to Christ?

Lastly....you are exactly right in pointing out that you "should not be casting stones. First, you do not have the courage, fortitude and integrity to post your name. Second, false e-mail addresses are a violation of the rules of the forum.

I don't post my name because I don't want people like you abusing me at my place of business. With regards to the second part, violating the forum rules, I looked in the "about" section of the forum, and didn't see this mentioned. If it is indeed a policy here, I apologize to the forum for breaking the rules. It was not my intent, and it won't happen again.

Have a nice day!!

Have an introspective day! And, although the post isn't in goodwill I suppose, sincerely, have a joyous Easter.

-- Anonymous, April 15, 2001

When you post an answer, right under the "Submit" button, is the following statement:

Please don't use a fake email address; it creates a lot of technical problems for the community. For example, this software will send you an email alert if someone responds to your message and those alerts will bounce back to us if the address you type isn't valid.

You are using your computer at work? If you can "send email" from work, you should be able to receive it to... :)

-- Anonymous, April 15, 2001

Mr. “Long”:

You have said concerning Danny’s publishing e-mail that he received from someone who regularly participates in this forum

“Did the e-mail say, "please post this to the forum?"

No and it does not have to say such before one can justifiably post it into the forum, however, if one does not want it posted in the forum he would be wise to make that clear, would he not?

Then you say:

“If he wanted everyone to read it he could have just posted it here himself, a reasonable adult would *assume* an e-mail was private.”

Indeed you are correct that such a conclusion is nothing more than an assumption. And you have shown no reason whatsoever that anyone is required to make a similar assumption. And that if they did make such an assumption that they are required by the word of God to refrain from publishing such just because of such an assumption even if it is a correct one. In other words, we follow the word of God and just what place in the word of God are we taught that we cannot publish the words of another sent to us with the assumption that we will keep it private?

Then you try to place this matter on the same level as one who would justify publishing marital “intimacies” because of a lack of explicit statements from the wife to prevent it as follows:

“ Would you feel it's acceptable to post the details of you and your wife's intimacies just because she never *explicitly* said it was private?”

I believe one could show from the word of God that discussing such things as marital intimacies in public would be sinful not simply because they are private matters but because they are sexual and sharing such with the public is a form fornication. For sexual matters are not merely physical in nature but also involve the thoughts of the heart as well. So, privacy alone is not the concern in that matter but the sin of fornication that would result from such an publication.

But I do understand that the actual thrust of your argument is whether the lack of a stated object implies acceptance of that which would commonly be objectionable. But all concede that a lack of stated objections to anything does not allow it or make right or acceptable. But there is nothing whatsoever inherently wrong with publishing any e-mail that we receive unless we have promised in advance to the person who sent it that we would not do such. In that case only would it be a violation of trust and would therefore be sinful. And anyone who sends an e-mail without having first received a promise that it would not be published is either not concerned whether it is published or not. Or, if he is concerned, he fails to exercise prudence if he sends such with nothing more than an assumed unwritten agreement among all men that such will not ever happen. There is no justification whatsoever for this assumption. Just because he did not publish it in the forum is not conclusive evidence that he would be offended if anyone read it and it is certainly not a sufficient reason to allow him such a privilege even if that were his intent. For there are no rules that guarantees anyone the right to demand that others allow them to say things in private that they would not want anyone in public to read. There is certainly nothing in the scripture that condemns the publication of such.

But you insist:

“He sent you something for YOU to read, and you posted it for everyone. This is wrong. The character of the e-mail doesn't matter, your actions do.”

You say this is “wrong”. According to what standard? Who says it is wrong? Does the word of God say that it is wrong? Are we to agree that it is “wrong” just because it is your opinion that it is “wrong”?

Then you accuse Brother Danny of “smearing” Brother White’s character as follows:

“You should have pointed this out to him in private by e-mail, as he addressed you, not publically, smearing his character.”

Now just who says that Brother Danny “should” have pointed this out to him in a private e-mail? Should he do this because it is your opinion that it should be handled this way? On what scriptural grounds do you conclude that this is what should be done? And even brother White does not believe that Brother Danny’s action was intended to “smear his character” but rather to correct him. And it does appear from Brother White’s own words that it had such effect upon him. So, just who made you the authority that should dictate merely from your own opinion how one should react to the receipt of such e-mail from someone in the forum? You certainly have not demonstrated that this “smeared”Brother White’s character. In fact, I am one who still considers Brother White’s character to be sterling regardless of this moment of impassioned argument between him and Brother Danny. So, thus far you have not convinced me that Brother Danny was guilty of “smearing” anyone’s character with his action.

Then you talk of Jesus and the moneychangers as if that event has some application to this situation as follows:

“ Jesus got angry with the money-changers and overturned their tables in the Temple.”

Indeed he did and they were “privately” stealing from the people and he made their stealing public didn’t he? For he said, “it is written that my house shall be called a house of prayer and you have made it a den of thieves”! I can just hear you telling the Lord right now that he had brought their “private actions” out into the public without their permission and had “smeared their character”. For stealing is definitely not something that a thief does in “public” or plain view of the people openly for them all to see, now is it? And Jesus exposed their private thievery.

Now, I certainly do not believe that Brother White’s comments to Danny in his e-mail were anything like the actions of those whom Jesus ran out of the temple. And the only real comparison that I can see between the two is the exposing wrongs done in private into public view. And our Lord definitely did this, now didn’t he? I am merely responding to your argument which certainly seems to show the direct opposite of what you hope it would demonstrate, now doesn’t it?

Then you ask:

“ Do you say this was incongruous with His character? No, it was a part of it.”

No one even remotely implied that such was incongruous with our Lord’s character. In fact you fail to notice that our Lord did this in PUBLIC and not in a “private letter to the money changers”. He did not hide his words or his actions in this case at all so I fail to see just how it is that you intended to make this matter parallel to what Brother White did at all?

Then you inform us:

“ Christians can be angry, but I defy you to find an instance where Jesus betrayed someone's trust the way you did with Mr. White.”

Sure, Christians can be angry but they cannot use it as an excuse to sin. And no one has even remotely implied that Jesus ever betrayed anyone’s trust. But I defy you to prove that Brother Danny betrayed brother White’s trust by this action. Even Brother White himself does not seem to think that Danny betrayed his trust. Read his statement in his post, which is just previous to yours. No complaints whatsoever of a violation of trust. You cannot prove that Danny violated Brother White’s trust but you falsely accuse him of it. Now false accusations are surely something that you will not find our Lord doing, now will you?

Then you asked:

“Does the end justify the means?”

Only if the means is right and good. And the problem with your argument is that you have failed to prove to any thinking person that the means used by Brother Danny were not right, now have you? You have done nothing more than ASSUME it to be wrong?

Then you ask?

“Can you *really* produce good through evil means, or did you in fact just silence more people from coming in a roundabout way to Christ?”

I know of no one, least of all Danny Gabbard, who believes that “good” can be produced by the use of “evil means”. The problem is that you have not proven that Brother Danny’s action of publishing this e-mail was “evil” now have you? But it is obvious that it produced some good. All one need do is read Brother Whites own words concerning the good that came from it. Thus, if as you say, good cannot be produced by evil means and the action taken by Danny produced some good then it would follow, using your own logic, that his means were therefore GOOD. Though I am convinced that they were good even if they did not produce any good result. For good does not always produce the intended result when it is directed toward evil men that have no concern about righteousness and truth. And I believe that the good was produced by a good rebuke given by a good man to another good man who is deeply concerned about righteousness. If Brother Danny had done the same thing to any evil man his action would still have been good but it would not necessarily have produced a good result. Brother Danny knew he was basically dealing with a good and righteous man and thus the result speaks for itself, now doesn’t it?

Then in another post you say to Brother Danny:

“I don't post my name because I don't want people like you abusing me at my place of business.”

What exactly do you mean by “people like you”? Now, what “end” are you hoping to produce with such “means”. And what indication do you have that Brother Danny would “abuse” you at your place of business. You speak unjustly as if Brother Danny has a reputation of doing such things and I can assure you that he does not. But if you think that he does then prove it! But if you cannot prove that he would or even could abuse you are your place of business why would you deliberately try to leave a false impression such as this upon the Brother? You really should be ashamed. For the scriptures say nothing about whether we should keep all “e-mails” private. But it says much against falsely accusing others. You should have indeed removed this beam from your eye before having attempted to remove what you mistakenly thought was a “splinter” in Brother Danny’s eyes.

For Christ and the faithful in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 15, 2001

**For the scriptures say nothing about whether we should keep all “e- mails” private. ***

Actually it does. It give us principles to settle matters such as this.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2001

Mr. C:

You have said that there are scriptures that tell us to keep E-mails private which apply to the circumstance we have been discussing in this thread as follows:

“Actually it does. It give us principles to settle matters such as this.”

Maybe you would like to give us the scriptural references that tell us to keep e-mails private so that we can examine them and see if they actually exist. And if you are speaking only of principles you might want to give scriptural references and show us just how they might apply to the circumstance that we are discussing in this thread.

Your friend,

E. Lee Safffold

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2001

There is nothing in the about section and yes it is after the submit button. But many on lusenet do not use their real email addy's.

I do see alot of respect here, and I've recently began to lurk here.

However, I will most certainly NEVER post my true email address and will NEVER email any privately.

A question though, had CG White asked it not be taken to the forum, would it of been?

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2001

Even though the internet is restricted in this sense and offers it’s own unique difficulties in following the guideline at Matthew 18:15- 17, it still applies.

First, instead of “blowing this out of proportion” (for whatever reason), applying the principle “between each other” (and keeping in mind the correctly pointed out principle “rafter” and “splinter” and Christian attitudes) and trying to solve the matter, it would not have developed into such a heated discussion at the onset. Thereby eliminating “blood pressure.” Such one-on-one discussion – between two Christians – should have eliminated the problem, without forcing people to “get defensive” or offensive. It may have taken a while, but those who need not know, or really shouldn’t (as seems here by the comments), would have been kept out of matters that where truly none of their business.

This principle can be seen in many of the comments here, whether intentional or un-conscious. Even in the original “poorly” phrased email that was sent. It was “between two” who should have kept it between themselves, if possible. It’s a tough thing to do when someone offends, but helps to step back and try to remember and understand we’re all sinners.

The second step of course on a forum would have been harder to follow, but not impossible. But, putting to the “congregation”, as it were, at the onset only forms dissent which is harder to overcome and even seems to be adding more sarcasm in other post I’ve read toward individuals. It is unlikely that those here will few each other in like manner, even though possible, it will take time – and of course The Gods help to overcome.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2001

The Gods? Hmmmmm ....

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2001

"God's" ?

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

Mr. C:

You have said:

“Even though the Internet is restricted in this sense and offers it’s own unique difficulties in following the guideline at Matthew 18:15- 17, it still applies.”

This passage has absolutely no application whatsoever to this forum or any forum like it, nor to the Internet in the least.

“Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone:

This is passage says “go to him and tell him his fault”. It does not say send him a letter or an e-mail. And he certainly does not say tell him the fault of someone else as was done in this case.

Then it says: “if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.”

But what is next if he does not hear thee?

“ But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.”

Well, if one has an email written by anyone he has “every word established” but this does not say for the disputants to meet on a net meeting with two or three other brethren and establish each word via two or three e-mails.

Then however, all of these private negotiations, if nothing is resolved, can, according to this passage become public to the church.

“ And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”

The simple truth is that these principles cannot really be followed via e-mail or on the internet. This is referring to our dealings in the church with each other and there is absolutely no guarantee of privacy in any of it. In fact, there is the certainty that these matters will become public if they are not resolved.

In the above e-mail exchange between these two brethren concerning matters that were being discussed in a public forum it was not an effort to follow Matthew 18:15-18. But an angry reaction with information concerning others that had responded in that same discussion who had a right to know what had been said concerning them. The two in fact did resolve the matter between themselves by its being brought back into the public forum where the discussion was on going. But to use these verses to guarantee privacy of e-mails is just not at all even taught in principle by these verses.

Let us not abuse the word of God just to protect some imaginary “rights to privacy” which we do not have guaranteed to us by either the word of God or even the constitution of the U. S.

Your Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

I just wanted to address something CG White said in the original letter (regardless of whether or not it was right of Danny to post it). He wrote, "Genesis 1-11 is not literal history."

Interesting, since Jesus accepted it as being literal history. He showed he considered the story of Adam and Eve to be a true story in when he alluded to it in Matthew 19:4-5; He spoke of Noah as being a real person in Luke 17:26-27. In fact, He put the divine stamp of approval on the entire Old Testament, including Genesis 1-11, when he said, "Thy Word is Truth" (John 17:17). Since Jesus is God in the flesh, he would know, wouldn't he?

There is some evidence that all languages stemmed from one initial language at some time in the distant past. The story of a great flood is universal to all cultures on the planet, many of those stories in distant lands being eerily similar to the Biblical account, and it is very possible that the Ark itself has been found on Ararat; many credible people have alleged to have seen it and the Turkish government has officially claimed it is there. And tests of DNA have recently proven that all men and women on the planet originally came from one set of parents (this was a big story in the Los Angeles Times a couple of years ago).

Also, if the fall of man in the garden was not literal, then the entire rest of the Bible, the story of God's redemption, makes absolutely no sense. Why should God bother to redeem us if we had not literally fallen? If you do not accept the first 11 chapters as being literal, then you might as well not accept any of the rest of it either, for you have removed its very foundation.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001