Constructive Criticism, Part 6

This is part of a series. See part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, and part 5. Note: links will go live upon publication.

So far in this series, we’ve both expressed and received criticism. Whether any of it has been constructive or not is a matter of perspective. It’s certainly been revealing.

Today we’ll conclude the series on constructive criticism by focusing on Deti’s recent response to my comments about excommunication in the church in “Feeriker On Fraud Among Christians.”

Deti

I’m fascinated that people on a certain other blog are obsessed with my participation or lack thereof on this blog.

Oh, dear. Around here Deti gets compared with Sharkly quite often. Here we see that, as in part 1, both of them share the same strategy of opening with an ad hominem. This is not a good beginning.

Recently, I did my own analysis of Sigma Frame’s “year in review.” There I analyzed all the top contributors, whose recent contributions have been in decline. This necessarily included—but did not especially feature—Deti. This is not the first time that Deti has made a false and slanderous claim about my supposed “obsession.” You can read what I wrote about that in “Habitually Being Wrong.” Deti keeps making this assumption regarding my alleged motivations without any understanding whatsoever of what is actually going on.

Telling someone they are obsessed with you is often just a poor attempt at deflection. Sharkly did it, Catacomb Resident did it, and who knows how many other people have done it and I just didn’t notice (how’s that for irony?). They all share that one thing in common: they’ve had their ideas questioned, don’t like it, and desire to dismiss the objections without debate. Of course, it is not based, in any way, on an actual obsession: most people just don’t like having their ideas so closely evaluated.

Deti

I’m also intrigued that I’m taken to task for pointing out what the church (not the “apostate” church, THE CHURCH) does to women and men: Women are permitted to do and say anything they want with impunity.

Before we go further, pay close attention that Deti considers the apostate church to not be apostate at all. He considers these men and women to be part of the actual body of Christ. His definition of what constitutes the church is thus quite broad. The church includes heretics and those who explicitly teach against what Jesus teaches (sound familiar?). Regardless of whether or not we agree, this is nonetheless very important and we will reference this fact later.

Deti’s argument is quite similar to Sharkly’s argument in part 5. Both agree that women have been allowed to do whatever they want while men have been held to higher standards. But Deti’s argument is more refined. He’s focused on church discipline (or the lack thereof).

Deti

Everyone in the church (and by the church, I mean the worldwide body of believers in Christ) knows what women are doing, with whom, and under what circumstances. Everyone knows even Christian women are having premarital sex and many are defrauding their husbands; but they are never corrected, disciplined, or excommunicated for it. This is going on in churches, real churches, and it is literally the only sin that is never even acknowledged as such, let along corrected, disciplined, or removed from its body.

This is generally true: excommunications are quite rare, and many fewer people are excommunicated for sexual sins than are committing them. Moreover, in many (most?) churches, neither an out-of-wedlock pregnancy nor filing for a divorce are cause for any church discipline at all. The sin simply becomes an accepted part of the church.

Deti

Meanwhile, men are viciously excoriated and screamed at for the mildest of “transgressions”, like noticing a pretty girl at church, expressing interest in her, and expressing disinterest in unattractive (but devout) women.

Sure, maybe this occurs in some churches. But, unlike Deti, whenever I’ve experienced this, it has been in churches that also practice excommunication and don’t allow divorce. So I’ve not witnessed this double-standard personally. It’s not clear to me to what extent this actually applies to churches at large. In my experience, in a variety of churches and denominations, if a church refuses to use church discipline for a women’s sexual sins, it will also refuse the same for men’s sins.

Deti’s experience is not universal, regardless of how common it actually is (or isn’t).

Deti

Everyone knows this is going on. Everyone knows about these problems. Everyone. Bishops, pastors, and lay leaders know it. The rank and file faithful know it. Men and women of all ages, stations, and statuses know it.

No one, especially not leadership, does anything about it. Dalrock covered this extensively and there’s no need to rehash that. I’ve seen everything Dalrock described, in every local body I’ve ever seen in over 50 years of life.

Again, it depends on the church and denomination. The double-standard is not universal. But since Deti is not disclosing which denomination or specific churches he is talking about, we have no way to verify his claim. So we’ll just move along.

Deti

This isn’t “Apostate” churches.

It’s hard to say what Deti would consider an apostate church. Here is a reminder:

Apostate, adjective: abandoning a religious or political belief or principle

What would you call a church that fails to do the basic duty that Jesus himself commanded? What would you call a church that takes the words of Christ and does the opposite?

The church has abandoned the Christ-commanded process of church discipline. The church has also, according to Deti, abandoned the Christian principles of human sexuality. But, according to Deti, it is still the body of Christ and not apostate. This is very important, and we will reference this fact later.

Deti

This is just about all of them.

In Deti’s experience, anyway.

Including my Anabaptist roots (Mennonite and Church of the Brethren), I’ve been to multiple Roman Catholic churches, multiple United Methodist churches, multiple Baptist churches, a handful of non-denominational churches, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and a number of other denominations here and there. I’ve never witnessed the double standard in any of those churches or denominations. It’s either criticism of both men and women, or criticism of none of them. But I’m also not as old as Deti, so maybe he witnessed that in the 70s and 80s.

Deti

(1) Persons “online” and interacting with me have no spiritual authority to subject me to correction, discipline, or excommunication according to any scripture including Matt. 18. None of you have any spiritual authority over me; and I claim none over any of you. I’ll call out error and correct it privately; but I have no authority to do anything about it nor can I ask for or demand Matt. 18 proceedings against any of you; nor impose consequences on any of you under that or any other scripture.

This is just about as inverted as it could be.

What Deti has found online is a group of men who have not abandoned Christ’s teaching on human sexuality and—purportedly—church discipline: a body of Christians who are not apostate. The standard for a church is where two or three Christians are gathered together in the name of Christ. This would seem to describe the Christian manosphere precisely (hint: it’s in the name).

So on one hand, Deti considers the apostate church to be the body of Christ, but on the other hand he rejects the notion of non-apostate online Christians being the body of Christ. He’s effectively denying fellowship to fellow believers on purely geographical or logistical grounds, all while clinging to apostate “local” Christians.

To deny the authority of body of Christ among believers—whether online or in person—is to deny the authority of Christ himself. I submit that the reason Deti could not be corrected was because he does not recognize the authority of the body of Christ to provide that correction. He believes that he must submit to the authority of the church for the church to discipline him. He is in error: the church does not need the apostate member to submit to its authority.

The core of Deti’s error is believing that he can pick-and-choose which believers in the body of Christ he must be accountable to.

Recently the Professor cited the famous “Curtains” example from Epiphanius. Epiphanius saw no problem with removing an idolatrous image from a church as he was passing by. The church itself did not recognize his authority to do so, and so demanded recompense. Nevertheless, despite their objections, they were nonetheless actually subject to that random brother.

Deti is not a random brother. Nor is he some kind of ephemeral passerby. He’s been part of a community of believers for many years. The idea that he isn’t subject to them in any way is absurd.

The only spiritual authority required to enact church discipline is for a brother to confront another brother, in the name and authority of Christ alone. It is binding because Christ commanded it.

Deti

(2) The manosphere is not a church or local body.

This is such a common, but utterly erroneous, view of what constitutes the catholic—universal—church. The Christian manosphere is just as much of a church as many of those churches that Deti has identified as churches, perhaps even more so. In many cases it is more than a church, because unlike Sunday services, when the Manosphere gathers, the believers testify together with one voice and one message (thus the shared name!).

Deti

This is just a few blogs talking about stuff that most of the world assiduously avoids talking about.

The high view that the church is made up of buildings or geographic locations is not biblical. The church is the believers themselves, in whole or in part.

Deti

The accusatory blog is not a church or local body.

First, it is not this blog which is accusatory, it was the testimony of the witnesses at the Sigma Frame blog (which you can read here). The process of church discipline of Deti largely did not take place here (i.e. the confrontation and testimony of witnesses). It moved here only after the process of church discipline failed when Sigma Frame denied being part of the church (even though it calls itself a “ministry”), failing to enact church discipline by letting blatant sin remain a part of it.

Second, if Deti is correct that “the accusatory blog” is not the church—and he might be on this point—then Sigma Frame is not part of the church and is thus not a ministry of Christ.  In this case, Sigma Frame’s failure to follow church discipline is merely proof that it is apostate (or not a part of Christ). It isn’t a Christian ministry. Neither is the “Christian” Manosphere actually Christian.

Third, even if Deti is correct about Sigma Frame, he’s wrong about the people who confronted him. These were, to the best of my knowledge, non-apostate believers who witnessed and testified regarding Deti’s sin. Their locality has no bearing at all on the universality of the body of Christ. Being the body of Christ, Deti’s refusal to submit constitutes a rejection of the body of Christ. This makes him apostate by his own choice.

Deti

The proprietors and participants here and there are not pastors and have not been given or claimed spiritual authority.

This is in no way relevant. The New Testament establishes that all Christians are priests. The notion of formal offices in an episcopal structure within the church—as opposed to specific task-oriented actions that people performed—was a much later development.

Deti

Nor have I voluntarily subjected myself to any of you as pastors or spiritual leaders in any form or fashion.

Obedience to Christ is not voluntary.

Deti

(Anyone who claims or is given spiritual authority over others not his own family in effect claims to be a pastor or shepherd and God will hold them to the standards of a pastor. Pastors are held to extremely high standards, so those who make such claims should be prepared to be judged according to those standards when called on to give accounts for their lives.)

This is neither here nor there.

Even if we assume that this theology can even be found in scripture, Matthew 18 involves witnesses who establish the truth of a claim, not pastors. Deti was confronted by witnesses, and he refused to repent. The only reason he wasn’t confronted by the larger church—including its elders—is because he has refused to allow it by refusing to submit to the authority of the witnesses.

Deti could, at any time and through his own choice, submit to examination by the pastors and elders. Nothing is stopping him but himself.

So let’s assume, for sake of argument, that a pastor is required. In that case, having been rightly—by the authority of Christ—confronted by witnesses according to Matthew 18, he should be facilitating bringing that forward to the whole church. But he’s not, because the problem isn’t with the witnesses not being pastors, it’s because he doesn’t recognize them as being the body of Christ.

Deti

(3) When a Matt. 18 procedure is instituted, it is always to be done in love and with the aim of restoring a brother to fellowship. It is not to be done harshly or vindictively or with the aim of imposing punishment or even judgment.

And it was. The aim was, and continues to be, repentance.

As for punishment, Deti makes the error in thinking that so-called “church discipline” is about punishment or judgment. It is that, in a way, but the only judgment that is made is deciding whether or not the person remains a  recognized part of the body of Christ.

Excommunication doesn’t cause the person to cease to exist, it doesn’t imply that there is no more interaction, nor is it otherwise punitive in any way. It doesn’t even mean that the excommunicated person isn’t a Christian, only that they be treated as if they are not one. All responsibilities of the body of Christ to that person as a member of the body of Christ end. They are left to their own devices. That’s what excommunication is.

Deti

(4) None of this is required with individuals who claim not to be Christians (they claim not to be Christians; not “you’ve decided they’re not Christians for one reason or another”. Whether they’re believers or not is not for you to judge.)

Well, yes. Whether they are actually believers or not is for God to judge. That’s rather obvious, and it’s true even of people who are not excommunicated.

However, Christ made it very clear that you are supposed to treat them like tax collectors and foreigners, that is, as if they were no longer your brother in Christ. After excommunication, you act as if they are no longer Christian, until they repent or God himself rules on it on the Day of Judgment. They are outcasts, and nobody casts out a fellow Christian.

But this doesn’t mean they are actually unbelievers. God may judge them to be Christians even though they were cast out from the congregation. The point of excommunication is to remove sin from the congregation (and to attempt to restore a fellow brothers), not to decide if a person is a Christian. At most, you act as if they are no longer Christian.

Deti

(5) The accusatory blog is not a local body. The most the accusatory blog can do is say, “I, the proprietor of said blog, declare myself to be not in fellowship with deti; and he is banned from being or commenting here.” OK. Fine. We’re not in fellowship; and you won’t allow me to comment at your blog. You’re not the first to do that and I’m sure you won’t be the last.

As I stated above, excommunication is not a punishment. Deti is not, and will not be, banned from this blog. The only “punishment” that Christ allowed is for the person cast off to be treated an unredeemed sinner. If anything, his comments here will be met with evangelical-style witnessing. Our goal is to convert Deti to Christianity.

Deti’s “local body” designation just isn’t biblically relevant. No Christian can hide behind a cabal of their own people and act as if the catholic—universal—church has no jurisdiction over them. But he’s right that the “judgment” (as he sees it) isn’t particularly strong and its scope is limited. He obviously doesn’t care if a few Christians have confronted him—per Christ’s authority—and then done what Christ told them to do (to not be in followship with him). But, as he noted, it is ultimately God’s right and responsibility to confront him on this.

Deti

(6) I am sure I’m in sin (as are all people), but since we’re not at local bodies, they don’t have the authority to Matthew 18 me. When we’re at local bodies, I’m sure they’ll Matthew 18 me if they see the need to do so.

This may sound harsh, but his opinion doesn’t change the outcome. When the church speaks with one voice, the recipient can either listen or not. The outcome remains unchanged and just as valid.

Those who are excommunicated and object, like Bnonn Tennant, remain excommunicated despite their objection.

Deti

(7) I’m just a guy expressing his singular opinions at a blog read by about 20 people (if that). I’m not an important person; nor a protected person, nor am I immune from criticism. No one has to read or even care about anything I write or say.

This isn’t about that. It’s about an article—not an off-hand comment—that he authored where he said that certain people should—must—sin in certain cases. It’s about the fact that this article is still published. It’s about a refusal to repent of sin. It’s about an attempt by the church to correct that sin and its failure to succeed. That’s all this is, and all it ever will be.

Regarding points (6) and (7), there was a time when Deti broke down and called me a “disingenuous liar.” I corrected him, in this comment. Did he acknowledge that he’s a fellow human who makes mistakes? Did he accept criticism? Nope. After using witch-hunt tactics and instigating a mob, he refused to reasonably engage.

Deti

(8) I can be brought under church discipline at a church or a local body, by individuals having that authority. But that’s not what this is, nor is the accusatory blog, nor does anyone here have that authority. Unless of course they’re pastors or elders; in which case they’ll be held to much, much higher standards than I think they’re prepared to adhere to. And they’d also have to be MY pastor and MY elders; individuals under whose authority I’ve placed myself.

In this Deti reflects the Manosphere’s view of authority, rather than that of Christ’s.

5 Comments

  1. professorGBFMtm

    Deti
    (8) I can be brought under church discipline at a church or a local body, by individuals having that authority. But that’s not what this is, nor is the accusatory blog, nor does anyone here have that authority. Unless of course they’re pastors or elders; in which case they’ll be held to much, much higher standards than I think they’re prepared to adhere to. And they’d also have to be MY pastor and MY elders; individuals under whose authority I’ve placed myself.

    In this Deti reflects the Manosphere’s view of authority, rather than that of Christ’s.

    This isn’t about that. It’s about an article that he authored where he said that certain people should—must—sin in certain cases. It’s about the fact that this article is still published. It’s about a refusal to repent of sin. It’s about an attempt by the church to correct that sin and its failure to succeed. That’s all this is, and all it ever will be.

    YES & i just saw this this morning where the main ”secularist” that the ”Christian” manosphere puts down as NOT as Kosher as them:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cXMvznmSC8
    Rollo Tomassi Confronted About Faith in Jesus ‪@vtsoscast‬

    Ruslan KD
    695K subscribers

    32,597 views Premiered Jul 29, 2022

    With such comments as:

    @M-JACOY
    2 years ago (edited)
    Jaden, I saw you in the chat, mate! I personally believe that one’s audience is, to some extent, reflective of their person/platform so seeing the type of individuals that supported Rollo (and the manner in which they supported) was enlightening to say the least. He is responsible for the audience he cultivates, after all.

    17

    @jadendofflemyer3155
    2 years ago
    @M-JACOY yeah I totally agree. To be honest I haven’t watched any of Rollo’s content so I went into that livestream with an opened mind even tho I was definitely supporting Ruslan. From that livestream Rollo seems like a pretty respectable guy but yeah he’s probably said somethings that would get his audience riled up like they were in the stream.

    6

    @EagleZtoTheGrave
    2 years ago
    @M-JACOY Some of Ruslan’s audience wasnt much better, lets relax on the bias. OP is right, you have to let the people speak for themselves sometimes, this is America, people are free to act how they want independent of who they support.

    @M-JACOY
    2 years ago
    @EagleZtoTheGrave Can’t say I agree. If you rewatch the chat, I think there’s clear distinction between comments made by Rollo’s audience vs Ruslan’s audience. I agree that people are free to act how they want and, to a certain extent, they’ll always be fringe characters but when certain behaviors seem non-coincidentally prolific within an audience, isn’t it reasonable to suggest there may be something about the figure/platform that is attracting those behaviors?”

    Do you know who owes Rollo an apology?
    Most of the ”Christian” manosphere who looked down on Rollo-even ”Sharkly” in 2023 at Spawnys-who thought ”him/her/it and Rollo would have vastly different views on God and Religion” yet ”Rollo describes himself as a Christian, a follower of JESUS, Believes in the Divinity and physical resurrection of JESUS who is the CHRIST=messiah as per the Abrahamic telling.”

    Yeah, Sharkly was right! Rollo mentions nothing about ”only MEN are in the image of God” or ”women should be (Chastisement -if you’re an actual old-schooler who actually knows History, debate terms & can comprehend those things instead of a modernist Soros soy boi bot like a certain Kansan that imitates other modernist Soros soy boi bots like bgr=larry solomon=matt Perkins)Punished for wickedness or as Soroian modernists say ”Disciplined” but are too scared of leftist feminist Government to obey God for 15 years by actually doing it.”

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      He is responsible for the audience he cultivates, after all.

      I agree that people are free to act how they want and, to a certain extent, they’ll always be fringe characters but when certain behaviors seem non-coincidentally prolific within an audience, isn’t it reasonable to suggest there may be something about the figure/platform that is attracting those behaviors?

      These comments are largely correct, however, it gets complicated when you have a mix of believers and non-believers. The biblical standards for believers is different from that of non-believers.

      On my blog I ask my audience to substantiate their claims and to avoid ad hominem. But I don’t delete comments if anyone violates either of these precepts. (I did delete a picture of nudity that Sharkly once posted).

      It’s not possible to have a free, open, and productive discussion in the presence of censorship. I don’t know what Rollo Tomassi’s stance on censorship is, but I hope he applies it consistently, whatever it is.

      Rollo mentions nothing about ”only MEN are in the image of God” or ”women should be Punished for wickedness or as Soroian modernists say ”Disciplined” but are too scared of leftist feminist Government to obey God for 15 years by actually doing it.

      by actually doing it. As Lastmod said earlier:

      Someday, someone will just read the Bible and actually believe it. All of it. That man will indeed turn the world upside down

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      Right?

      The entire manosphere is based on the idea that men can judge all women for any reason at all—including women who are under another man’s domain of authority—but are themselves immune to judgment because they don’t acknowledge anyone’s right to judge them.

      Well, guess what? Women don’t acknowledge the right of the Manosphere to judge them either.

      Without men judging women under another man’s domain of authority, there would be no Manosphere.

  2. Lastmod

    Well…..on forums like that you have to behave like “when in Rome” I guess.

    Big protest here in LA today. Evidently every “illegal” immigrant is going to protest, thus crippling California because “if LA has no illegal help / workers, the whole shebang is going to come crashing down!” It hasn’t btw.

    Several of my office co-workers (who are as white as I am mind you) left work to join in “solidarity” with this protest and were upset that HR would give them a “sick day” for this .(entitled brats, the people they are protesting with dont get “sick day pay” and not even “minimum wage” you would think they would be more upset at that, and the State of California for not “enforcing” the laws on employers for minimum wage pay……..the employers of many illegals are HUGE Democrat donors, that’s why its not enforced)

    Kind of like the ‘sphere. Do as I say / obey and “not as I do”

    Modern day Pharisees. They can quote scripture and explain “Gods Way” and are so passionate about “obeying Him in everything” that they left their heart “back in San Francisco” lol

    More layoffs coming at my firm. Im not worried, but I am going to start looking for work in another state (probably Utah, Wyoming or parts of Colorado) sooner than later.

    A shame. I like living out here. Its home.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *