Quis custodiet ipsos custodies – who will watch the watchmen? This dilemma has been posed in many ways over the eons, with Plato’s Socrates as the first in written record. According to the wikipedia article on the subject, Plato’s answer was:

they will guard themselves against themselves. We must tell the guardians a noble lie. The noble lie will inform them that they are better than those they serve and it is, therefore, their responsibility to guard and protect those lesser than themselves.

This is all good and fine when we’re talking about civil authority, but what happens when self-appointed “watchmen” in the church believe the “noble lie”? What happens when morality gives way to sanctonimity, and disagreement becomes heresy? Who will watch the watchmen?

Ultimately, God will, I know, but will He also appoint under-shepherds to do so?

I was heartened yesterday when I read Phil Johnson’s article, in which he responded to critics who were upset he didn’t go after the Slice of Laodicea (SOL) when he blogged on guilt-by-association (GBA) attacks. Granted, I, too (though I don’t consider myself on the “port side” of the Christian blogosphere), wished he would have. Why was I heartened? Because in addressing the issue itself, Phil more-or-less acknowledged that there may well be issues on the ‘Good Ship SOL’. I am hoping that Phil, a blogger I sometimes disagree with but believe would give most respectful dissenters a good shake, will keep the door open to future scrutiny. I have been praying that someone on their blogroll with a little bit bit of objectivity and discernment would step into the fray and call a spade a spade, and maybe Phil will be that someone.

Why someone from their blogroll? I don’t know if they would listen to anyone else – or if they would even listen to Phil – but being pulled aside by an ‘ally’ and gently pushed back into line seems to be easier to swallow than to have to admit wrong to an ‘adversary’.

As it is, a number of bloggers and readers who neither aspire to, nor will ever chance to land on the SOL blogroll will continue to carry the load – hoping that Ken or Ingrid or Jim’s deaf ears will deign to listen. And really, it would not take that many changes to patch the holes in Slice, but to make those changes would require humility, which is in short supply these days.

1. Change the Tone

I agree that widespread sin can’t be coddled, and that many of the posts on Slice are on the mark (like addressing rank hypocrisy, Joel Osteen, Burke, etc.), but the tone of the writing is so negative and truly mean-spirited that it is frequently hard to get past the invective and see the issues at hand.

2. Open the Discussion

Probably the first comment I hear about Slice (after their tone) is their discussion policy, which basically is this: If you agree with the poster, your comment is likely to be approved from moderation. If you disagree with the poster, your comment is most likely to disappear into the ether, unless it can be easily disputed or mocked (and even then, it is most likely to be rejected). Should you persist in your disagreement, you will be banned – or worse.

The pro-Slice comments that do get approved from moderation often get meaner and more judgemental than the original articles – referring to Christian brothers as ‘tools of Satan’, ‘worse than Charles Manson’, ’spiritual pedophiles’, ‘Lucifer’s army’, ‘child molesters’ and much worse.

Nothing eradicates darkness like the light of day, and opening the discussion on Slice would add a breath of fresh air to the discussion by holding commenters more accountable for outrageous statements and keeping article posters more accountable, as well. As it is, the no-negative-commenting policy creates an echo chamber of its own, resulting in confirmation (and forgive me here, but it is a recent article in the news and is in no way labelling SOL posters) in the same way pedophiles and other ‘degenerate cultures’ have recently been documented as reinforcing thier own twisted views as ‘normal’.

Without honest debate and discussion, there is no accountability to one another.

3. Drop the Labels

Many articles on SOL, particularly Ken Silva’s, are laced with so many esoteric, invective labels (Ecumenical Church of Deceit, Hollow Men this, neo-liberal cult of that, etc.) that what content might actually be in the article is so obscured with the rehashed labels that it is lost.

4. Learn to distinguish between ‘traditional’ and ‘Biblical’ (i.e. style and substance)

Just because a church has decided against using hymns in favor of modern tunes with solid lyrics, does not mean they’ve sold out. Just because a church has no dress code and most members wear jeans does not mean they are somehow disrespecting God. Just because a church has a dance ministry doesn’t mean that Satan has entered the building.

There are many culturally neutral elements that can be used for the glory of God – music, art, speaking style, to name a few. The articles on SOL that most often cross the line from moral to sanctimonious are those which mock styles not preferred by the pro-SOL crowd.

5. Be a watchman, not judge, jury and executioner.

Far too many articles carry an aura of authority no mere mortal can hold. They carry judgements of their targets’ salvation, pronouncements of “this is what God thinks of that…” (followed by the author’s opinion, or a prooftexted scripture). This carries on in responses to critics, where the writer (Ken, in particular) consistently attacks his questioners as if they are degenerate apostates for disagreeing with him, rather than ever addressing questions that have been asked.

In a recent Slicecast, Ken Silva said:

There were times I’m writing these articles and I literally turned to the Lord, as if He was standing there, and I said ‘Lord, I didn’t know that. I could not have written that sentence.’ I say that time and time again. I take no credit for this. I’m one of the few who’ll tell you that.

With this mindset, Ken frequently seems to give his words the authority of Jesus or inerrency, and I truly wonder how he would ever know if it wasn’t God that was moving that pen and writing sentences he ‘could not have written’.

With Ken, in particular, I have had to call him out for slandering a brother in the faith (see http://www.verumserum.com/?p=529#comment-3225 ) when he has overstepped his God-granted bounds. I hope he will address this issue, but I somehow doubt he will.

_________

All of these suggestions (and more I can think of) would allow SOL to keep its niche as a “watchblog” but would also serve to show that Christians who disagree with each other can do so in a respectful manner.

I’ve been guilty of losing my cool when writing to these folks, but I’ve also had the pleasant experience recently of having rational, Christian discussion with people who are sympathetic to the SOL viewpoint, but able to disagree respectfully. It would be nice if Slice could be this way, too…

In closing, I think Slice has the capability of fulfilling the role of a Christian watchman, but before that happens, they need to stop believing the ‘noble lie’…