Ed Dingess: Evidence of Hypocrisy, Bullying, and Chauvinism

[SarahB]

Ed has offered a series of howler self-justifications for his behavior:

* He's going to slander and gossip about me so that people can see what I do "under the radar."

(Yeah. TWeb is really "under the radar". So is Tektoonics and so was Tekton for all those years.)

* His goal is "not to hurt you in any way" but to "guard the body of Christ against anyone who would influence young believers to adopt views that inevitably lead to sinful behavior."

(You mean, like Jesus' behavior? Or Douglas Wilson's? Or maybe Norman Geisler's?)

There's plenty more tedious self-justification, but I'll leave it at this: He has been offered the chance to gracefully and silently drop the whole matter. If he does, there will only be one more reference to him here by me, indicating his acceptance; if he does not -- we'll just leave it at that.


I have far better and more important targets than such small people as he is. If he wastes my time, it will be he who stands in the way of effective work.

From post 222
And that would be just the start of what would happen to him.... If he were smart, he'd drop the matter and fade off into obscurity where he was before.

Ed must really be hitting the mark. Turkel is such a master at language nuance--could veiled threats so close to one another POSSIBLY be an innocent error?

Ed may want to save this for of authorities of one stripe or another. I wonder what Licona would say.

Yeah, what does Licona say about your Insults for Christ cult? I can't believe he'd give you his imprimatur.

Let's see it, Turkel. Oh, you don't have it?

[Mountain Man]

And why don't you consider Ed's little outbursts as evidence that JP must be hitting the mark?

Double-standard Sarah strikes again.

[Rayado]

Ed must really be hitting the mark. Turkel is such a master at language nuance--could veiled threats so close to one another POSSIBLY be an innocent error?

Ed may want to save this for of authorities of one stripe or another. I wonder what Licona would say.

Yeah, what does Licona say about your Insults for Christ cult? I can't believe he'd give you his imprimatur.

Let's see it, Turkel. Oh, you don't have it?

This is going to end well. For JPH and Licona both.

[Manwë Súlimo]

So slandering someone's name through rumors and gossip is O.K. provided you have the right motives, but insulting one's opponent during the course of public debate is wrong no matter what.

[jpholding]

And why don't you consider Ed's little outbursts as evidence that JP must be hitting the mark?

Double-standard Sarah strikes again.

As always -- it's been her record ever since she showed up on Debunking Loftus.

Ed has not replied to my offer yet. But if he goes tattling to anyone, there's plenty from him that can be sent to the same parties. Note for example what he said on Amazon about this issue with Licona:

We already have too many false converts teaching in seminaries as it is. The more we can remove, the better we are. I like the Al Moehler model. Talk about cleaning house! Nothing like casting out demons to make one feel good about the SBC again.

So apparently associating Licona's material with "demons" and "false converts teaching" is fine. Yes, that'll certainly put Ed in good stead with his friends -- disrespecting a productive, reputable apologist like Licona by insinuating he's a demonically-inspired false teacher.

In light of that, the little girl's comment:

Ed must really be hitting the mark. Turkel is such a master at language nuance--could veiled threats so close to one another POSSIBLY be an innocent error?

Ed may want to save this for of authorities of one stripe or another. I wonder what Licona would say.

Oh, I'm sure he'd express his appreciation for Ed, especially after someone with the same mindset as Ed caused him to have to leave NAMB. But the little girl wouldn't want to mention that, because Ed is doing her dirty work for her.

Oh...and spare the whine about "veiled threats"...it's an OPEN threat...and it reflects the same thing I have done to other Internet trolls and predators before.

[lilpixieofterror]

Ed must really be hitting the mark. Turkel is such a master at language nuance--could veiled threats so close to one another POSSIBLY be an innocent error?

Ed may want to save this for of authorities of one stripe or another. I wonder what Licona would say.

Yeah, what does Licona say about your Insults for Christ cult? I can't believe he'd give you his imprimatur.

Let's see it, Turkel. Oh, you don't have it?

Well SarahB, what do you think he would say about following people around, while posting back handed comments? Likewise, why is Ed allowed to post nasty things about JPH, but JPH isn't allowed to do things back? Let me guess, you like Ed because he is critical of people you dislike (most likely because they will not let you get away with what you want)? I see that your double standards come shining through again...

[ukchristian28]

Well SarahB, what do you think he would say about following people around, while posting back handed comments? Likewise, why is Ed allowed to post nasty things about JPH, but JPH isn't allowed to do things back? Let me guess, you like Ed because he is critical of people you dislike (most likely because they will not let you get away with what you want)? I see that your double standards come shining through again...

Yes Sarah. Ed is a Christian too, so surely the same standards should apply to him, right?

[Kenny]

So apparently associating Licona's material with "demons" and "false converts teaching" is fine. Yes, that'll certainly put Ed in good stead with his friends -- disrespecting a productive, reputable apologist like Licona by insinuating he's a demonically-inspired false teacher.

So Ed gets all indignant what someone calls him a “dingbat” on the internet (on an internet message board for crying out loud – you’ve got to have a thicker skin than that!) but then he goes around insinuating that a fellow Christian, doing good work, is a false convert and a demonic teacher who should have his livelihood taken away? And he really can’t see his own hypocrisy here?

Yes, there is a time and a place for “cleaning house” as it were. But in contemporary conservative Evangelicalism, what we have now is more like a witch hunt. If we want good scholarship in our community, we need to promote an environment where good scholars can thrive, and that involves allowing room for dissent on minor issues. Yes there should be boundaries, but the boundaries ought not be drawn so tightly that they choke the life out of anyone who shows the slightest hint of independent thought.

[jpholding]

That's okay. I say enough wonky things that I'm sure I'll come by one honest some day.

Alternatively, I could create special awards for artificial performances -- Rich Little Screwballs as it were.

[jpholding]

Ed has posted a sermonette on his blog in which he basically recopies most or all of the email he sent me which he told me not to repost here. Yeah, that sure made sense. Let's see what kind of silly self-justifications he offers.

The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

A couple of very important observations about the truth revealed in this text are in order. First, the people who are in error, who are in opposition to the truth of God are described as in the “snare of the devil.” They are in serious trouble, being held captive by Satan to do his will.

Well, there he goes again, siding people with "the devil" any time they break his little world apart and make it hard for him to understand. How rancidly childish. And never mind that Satan is bound right now, eh, preterists? Hey Ed -- does Satan also try to ruin your family BBQs the way he does Joyce Meyer's?

After more rancid discourse about people being captives to Satan, we are told:

The first characteristic that stands out is the prohibition against being of a quarrelsome disposition. The servant of the Lord MUST not have a propensity to fight, verbally or otherwise. God forbids it.

First: quarrelsome behavior is strictly forbidden. “de” is the contrasting conjunction used to begin the sentence. Actually in the Greek it is a post-positive. At any rate, contrasting false teachers, the servant of Christ must not be quarrelsome. What does this word mean? Since we are commanded to NOT to do, perhaps it would be a good idea to find out. This word appears four times in the NT.

I'll skip the analysis, because it's just the same la dee da about 2 Timothy 2 that we've gone over before here with skepticbud. Ed can't reconcile his twisted treatment of this passage with the behavior of Jesus, Paul, and other Biblical figures, because unlike me, he doesn't have a clue about the private-public discourse distinction.

The servant of the Lord must passionately defend orthodoxy against all enemies, but without being a fighter.

Gee, let's see -- I guess alleging that people are under the influence of Satan isn't an example of that. Or blackballing them with open letters. Or calling them false teachers. Or.... Oh of course not. That's just Ed being "kind".

In addition to this, we have instructions from Paul regarding the use of foul language or any language that is not edifying to the hearer. We have pastors like Perry Noble and Mark Driscoll and others actually swearing in the pulpit. Perry Noble actually played the song, “Highway to Hell” during an Easter service with the goal of upsetting “religious” people.

Wow, hear that? "Hell" is a swear word. That means Jesus swore (Matthew 5:29-30, etc). And ya gotta wonder what Ed's gonna do with Malachi 2:3 and all those other passages with the dirty words in them. Especially Song of Solomon.

Didn't I say Ed was the guy who really was upset when Campolo used the "s-word"?

Mark Driscoll has long been known for his cussing and swearing.

Has he? Not that I have heard, but does anyone know anything about this?

There is an internet apologist at Tekton Apologetics (tectonics.org) who justifies calling people stupid, idiots, and morons in his apologetic method. He makes use of Social-Science Criticism, the honor/shame value of Mediterranean cultures couple with his view that Jesus engaged in the challenge/riposte style of debate that was popular in His culture to justify name-calling. He contends that Scriptures like the one above and the ones below do not apply to public debate. Well, nothing in any of these Scriptures indicates that there is ever a time when they would not apply.

That, Ed, is only your perception because you are profoundly ignorant. Never mind that by this reasoning you now have no way to excuse Jesus for his behavior, or Elijah, or any other Biblical figure. Never mind that this was a high context society where the public-private distinction would be taken for granted. Never mind that what Paul describes in 2 Tim is clearly a PRIVATE exchange. No, Ed needs a pencil the size of the new World Trade Center before he can connect all the dots.

Oh, and now he not only gets my name wrong, but...what else?

Ed then yaks off a list of the usual ho-hum passages I have already dealt with; he never bothers to ask himself, "Gee, couldn't the Pharisees have applied Eph. 4:29 to Jesus?" But here's a revealing admission by Ed:

I once had a pastor say to me that I say things “to cut” people. He was wrong! I say things to confront people with sin, especially if they have already been confronted and refuse to repent.

HA! No, Ed, the pastor was RIGHT. You ARE a pathetic bully who says things to "cut" people; though you sanitize it with the language of holiness (eg, "he's teaching demonic things", "I'm just confronting people with their sin"), the fact is, you have just admitted that you have a record of being recognized as a bully, just as you were here. And here's what he also misses: we can say too, "we're not cutting you, Ed, we're confronting you with your sin" -- and what can he say? NOTHING! He's caught in his own web of self-justification -- one that we can't be caught in because of the private-public discourse model.

As Hoehner puts it, “Since PAS is before an anarthrous substantive, it means, “every, each” word that comes from the mouth is to be wholesome. SAPROS is actually used to describe rotten wood, withered flowers, and rancid fish. I don’t know about you, but I cannot think of anything worse than rancid fish!

I can -- Ed's scholarship!

On the flip side, your goal is edification of your fellow brothers and sisters. You cannot accomplish that by calling people stupid or referring to them as morons when they disagree with you. That is how a cult leader behaves. He bullies and intimidates people. He uses his position of power and privilege to manipulate others to do his bidding. Those who are good at this will have others thinking they are taking a stand for the kingdom! Of course, the lack of critical thinking skills makes it all the more easy for these hirelings to do their work.

Sparko, check your supply of irony meters, I think another 3 boxes just 'sploded!

Detractors will often cite Matt. 21, 23, and Gal. 5:12 as justification for this their audacious and insulting behavior. I will provide a very brief response to this approach.

Oh boy....this ought to be good for some yuks....

Jesus cleanses the Temple in Matt. 21:12-13, driving out the money-changers because of the corruption. People who engage in abusive and insulting speech refer to this passage to say, Jesus did it, so can I. As God with full right and authority to do so, Jesus cleansed His temple. We are not God and we do NOT have the authority as individuals to purge the church. Jesus did a number of things we cannot and should not even try to do.

Bingo -- the old "Jesus was God so he can insult people" canard. We've seen this excuse so many times already, Ed. It doesn't wash, because God's image means He gives us His authority to execute on earth. Moreover, God has delegated us authoritative gifts such as teaching, so you have no right to say someone does or does not have authority to insult. Finally, you turn Jesus into a roaring hypocrite with this excuse (well, Ed does make God into his image, doesn't he?), and you also can't get rid of other people like Paul and Elisha that way.

In Matt. 23, Jesus pronounces numerous woes on the Scribes and Pharisees, calling them all sorts of names. First, these were oppressive, religious hypocrites who were experts in the law, and experts at perverting it.

Precisely, Ed. And you're an oppressive, religious hypocrite who thinks you're an expert in the Scriptures, and are expert at perverting them. Next?

Second, Jesus was fulfilling His role as prophet and in His prophetic voice he pronounced the judgment of God on the religious hypocrites of His day.

Oh Lordy, the old "prophetic oracle" excuse. Get real, Ed. All this means is that Jesus told the truth. That's what prophets do. But there's no logical connection that requires someone to be a prophet to pronounce such judgments. That's just a made up connection you use to try to weasel out of an argument you can't rebut otherwise. You may as well say, "Jesus had a beard and wore sandals, that's why he could do it."

Ed, we had a guy here who tried that rationalization already, named "jwarrend". It got him laughed off this board because it was a patent rationalization.

Finally, to say that this exchange fits the challenge/riposte style of the culture is a serious stretch. This fits into the category of a prophetic rebuke by God of the religious leaders of Israel. One has to look no further than the OT prophets to see the same style employed there.

Uh, Ed? Please stop being so stupid. The OT prophets were doing challenge/riposte too, a prophetic rebuke IS a challenge. There's no "stretch" here -- you're just profoundly, monumentally ignorant.

Gal. 5:12 is a very interesting verse that many have misunderstood in my opinion. Paul uses the Greek word APOKOPTO, which means to cut off, or castrate. Those who employ the insult rhetoric refer to this verse to justify their tactics as well. In response, Paul was not addressing the ones that were troubling the Galatians, but the Galatians themselves. He was saying this about them, not to them.

Uh, so what, Ed? It's still foul language by your own reckoning, and news flash -- since Paul's letters would be read aloud and discussed, this would get back to them eventually. Ed goes on further about whether this was self-castration but it doesn't make a crapload of difference.

It does not follow that the existence of challenge/riposte in Jesus’ culture necessarily means he engaged in it.

Oh no of course not. He just HAPPENED to engage in something that just COINCIDENTALLY looked JUST LIKE IT. How convenient. This is the kind of goofball thinking Ed considers solid argument.

Moreover, there is nothing to preclude that Jesus may have engaged in riposte while making slight to significant modifications to the practice.

Unfortunately, there's no indication of any "modifications" in any of the subject texts at all. This is Ed fantasizing for the sake of convenience yet again.

! I am not seeking to naively dismiss riposte or Social-Science Criticism here.

Yes you are, Ed. You just did it.

I am saying that it is somewhat naïve and uncritical for anyone to assume that such criticism ipso facto has a place in hermeneutics.

What a riot. I've been studying this stuff for years, and the CG between them has decades of experience in studying it, and because King Ed, who has studied this for all of five seconds, doesn't like the conclusions, we must be "naive and uncritical".

In addition, I am saying that to assume Jesus adopted every practice of his culture just because it was a practice of his culture is extremely naïve. Perhaps it is possible to read cultural practices into the text where they actually did not exist. Yes, I think that is quite possible.

Really! It's also possible Ed is a talking mutated jackass from the planet Gumwad. No, Ed assures us, despite the bill, quacks, and feathers, that's no duck -- IT'S A WATERMELON!

Finally, even if insult rhetoric is valid from a NT perspective (and I do not see how it could be), it seems to me that it would best be reserved only for the most antagonistic of skeptics and not to those who are more open to civil dialogue. Additionally, it seems especially inappropriate for dialogue within the Christian community.

It isn't. There are no limits specified anywhere when the matter is someone like Ed who deceives, gyrates, misleads, bullies, and refuses to answer questions put directly to him, and also contrives fantasy versions of history to suit his purposes.

What a joke.

[jpholding]

http://www.tektonics.org/eddingess.html

Since Ed is no doubt peeking in (being tempted by Satan to do so, or else ordained by God ), he can feast his eyes on this. It's not linked from Tekton's main page -- yet. But it will be if he persists in his bullying behavior, and more will be added to it each time he continues.

And then, he can watch in horror as it races to the top of search engine results for his name.

[Mountain Man]

Holding/Turkel

His legal name is Holding, you dimwit.

[ukchristian28]

Ed said:

Gal. 5:12 is a very interesting verse that many have misunderstood in my opinion. Paul uses the Greek word APOKOPTO, which means to cut off, or castrate. Those who employ the insult rhetoric refer to this verse to justify their tactics as well. In response, Paul was not addressing the ones that were troubling the Galatians, but the Galatians themselves. He was saying this about them, not to them.

Wouldn't bad mouthing people behind their back be worse than saying it to their face? When people have a problem with me for whatever reason I find it most offensive if they moan and insult me behind my back instead of having the courage to confront me with their complaint. It seems Ed is trying to make Paul out to be a coward!

[jpholding]

My item on Ed already turns up on the first page of Google searches...fifth or sixth I think. And I've done nothing to promote it.

Hope you're thinking this over carefully, Ed.

[jpholding]

Ed has sent me a crybaby email in which he says that he is rejoicing in "that I am considered worthy to stand in Christ's place and suffer" at my hands. The poor egomaniac now has a Christ complex on top of everything else, to say nothing of having misplaced priorities. Ed, you're a soft target who has no idea what REAL persecution is. For you to subsume yourself under that rubric is a monument not only to your egotism, and your poor understanding of Scripture as some sort of Western lullaby in print; it's also pathetically sad.

He says, "You have put words in my mouth and misrepresented me entirely." No, we haven't, Ed. We've seen through the hypocrisy and exposed you for what you are. The little girl insinuated that I was "inserting" myself into the Geisler-Licona situation. Hardly: AP, Mike's son in law, is my ministry partner; I was "inserted" into this situation by virtue of that long before it came this far. However, I have made myself a loud voice in the issue for the simple reason that whereas Geisler can hurt Licona and AP in various ways right now -- he can't hurt me at all. And for that reason, I'm in an ideal position to defuse his bullying efforts, as well as the bullying efforts of holy miscreants like Ed who cloak their hypocrisy and devastation of others with Scripture. My goal is to defend those who are not able to defend themselves, from those like Geisler and Ed who use their bully pulpit to ruin the lives of others. And that is what I will continue to do as the opportunity presents itself.

Ed says he'll pray that I repent and he still loves and prays for me. Spare us the guilt manipulation, Ed. That's just more of your hypocrisy cloaked in holy language; the same rhetoric Geisler used before he punched Licona's career in the nose. He also says his friends know he's not like all that. Well Ed....they're going to find out that you are, if you don't cease and desist with the stalking behavior. I told him to stop writing me after this. However, he continues to be obsessed and make a fool of himself on his blog, with comments like this:

I now am aware of an internet apologist who has come up with the most elaborate method for handling anyone who disagrees with his views on anything. He begins by pontificating about the differences between the Mediterranean Culture of Jesus’ day and our own. This is not an illegitimate observation by any stretch. There is much to be gained by understanding the social practices of the culture in which Scripture was penned. Social science (Sociorhetorical) criticism has real potential to add value in the area of hermeneutics. Like any other critical method, it must come under the theological discipline of the Christian ethic.

Translation: Ed wants us all to sanitize the truth with his preconceived notions of how things ought to be. This is exactly the sort of rampant and undisciplined decontextualization that the scholars warn us NOT to do. Ed's "Christian ethic" is mostly a construct of his own decontextualized readings of Scripture, which he has arbitrarily decided to give pre-eminence over contextualized readings.

Neutrality is a myth that we do not have the luxury to concede to any method.

Basically, Ed desperately suggests that there's "bias" involved (which he does not and can not prove) as a way to poison the well.

This apologist points to the challenge/riposte method of Jesus’ culture to justify his methodology. The challenge/riposte method was a system of maintaining honor among one’s peers. As with any theory, there is substantial disagreement among scholars concerning the intricate details of how this worked in actual practice.

Uh, no there isn't, Ed -- not to any serious degree. And please, don't pretend that you've actually done any serious study that allows you to say that such "substantial disagreement" exists. Bearing false witness is a sin, Ed.

The idea is that you would challenge your peer and they would have to answer with a response (riposte). If their answer is substandard, they were shamed and the winner achieved or maintained honor. Scholars are not in agreement over the idea that this exchange only occurred between peers. There is evidence that lower class challenges took place with those in a higher class. In Jesus’ culture, maintaining honor in front of the collectivist society was extremely important to the individual. Space constraints prohibit a fuller treatment of this subject, but I think you get the picture.

No, Ed, "space" does not constrain anything; your ignorance does. It's manifest that all he did was recopy and slightly alter a few lines from a CG or other book he picked up less than a week ago and is now pretending to be an informed expert.

One example of challenge/riposte is found in Mark 15. Before tackling that story, I have to ask the question, “does it necessarily follow that Jesus’ participation in some of these exchanges indicates that he was equally concerned with his place of honor in his culture?” Good question I think. This internet apologist, in my opinion, has wrongly assumed that it does. My contention is that Christianity, like its founder, is a counter-culture religion for the most part. It is antithetical to the sinful patterns and foundational commitments that make up most cultures throughout most of the world.

So once again, although it has a bill, has feathers, and quacks, Ed assures us it isn't a duck, but a watermelon! What a crock of bovine excrement. This is historical revisionism of the very worst sort -- head in sand ignorance. And keep in mind, Ed is a bully who will use whatever power he has to try to force people to accept views like this. Thankfully, he has almost no power to speak of.

Moreover, Scripture was not written merely to provide historical accounts of what happened, but to change our way of thinking as a result of what we see taking place in the story.

No, Ed, that is NOT what ALL of Scripture was written to do (change our thinking). That's an absurd modern notion that's derived from bibliolatrous conceptions which see the Bible as a "fax from heaven" that was specifically designed to minister to 21st century neuroses like yours.

Mark 15 is a perfect example of the challenge/riposte game and how Jesus did not play it exactly the way His culture played it. And He did so much to the complete bewilderment of Pilate. After all, Jesus was not nearly as concerned with gaining honor in the eyes of His God-rejecting culture as the religious hypocrites who were his chief opponents.

Wrong, Ed. You should have actually read some of those social science works rather than just pretended to. That's an example, of Jesus playing the game within the culture, all right: His silence is a way of snubbing Pilate and the Jewish leaders and indicating that their charges are so foolish that they are beneath him to dignify with an answer. It's a thoroughly contemptuous response, one Pilate rightly marveled at since it was inconceivable to him that a prisoner would do anything but beg for mercy. So, Ed, when you (mis)use Robbins to say Jesus didn't take part in challenge-riposte here, you miss the point: he didn't take part here because he indicated by his silence that he was transcendant to it in this particular case. The same is true of his silence on the cross to taunters: He is indicating that their riposte is so trivial to him that he will ignore it.

You see, Ed, this is the kind of mistake an amateur like you makes when you're rushing around pretending to be an expert. You rooted around on Google desperately looking for something to use against me, and found Robbins' article (1996!). It would never occur to your uncritical mind to check whether Robbins had been superseded -- and he has!

Jesus now remains silent ([John] 19:9). He neither defends himself nor offers a riposte to the challenge. Silence in the face of accusation is very difficult to assess; but in an honor and shame context it would probably be read as a shameful thing (see Neh 6:8). To fail to give a riposte to a challenge is to accept defeat and so loss of honor.

The narrative suggests that Jesus' silence in fact challenges Pilate's power, who then responds with new questions: "Will you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?" (19:10). "Power" (exousia), an expression of honor, is at stake.

http://www.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/shame.html

Robbins is put to shame himself by Neyrey's far more detailed treatment, but because Ed's interest was propping up his own distorted visions -- not truth -- he didn't bother to look any further than the answer he wanted.

That's the kind of failure that comes of being a bully who just wants self-validation, Ed.

Finally, Ed makes the irony meter explode with this one:

I was once part of a church that decided they wanted to engage in a building project. Well, I should say the pastor decided he wanted to expand the ministry. The very first thing leadership decided to do was use Israel in the wilderness as a lesson plan to help people get the right perspective. This was lost on me at first. Then I heard the very first lesson about the “grumbling” Israelites and I realized that the fine art of manipulation was at work. Anyone who dared question the necessity of the building program was a “grumbling” and “complaining” Israelite. This tactic had one purpose: to shut down any potential opposing views to the building campaign.

You learned your lessons well, didn't you, Ed?

One last joke:

I saw in one place where he used the term “Jerry’s kids” in a very disconcerting pejorative sense with a person who was a non-Christian. You don’t have to wonder how that person felt about Christians after receiving that insult.

Don't have to wonder!! Ed, that person is on here as "jimbo" and his hatred of Christians is and was deeper than the ocean long before that, and continues long after it. If you had any idea who he really was and what he's done, and who you're gullibly giving credence to by this, you'd hang your head in shame (or should; but knowing you, you won't, but will see it as validation of your holy crusade). jimbo would laugh in your face and dismiss you more readily than I do. You've had your head in the sand far too long -- and that's why people like you do more harm than good in the church today.