Internet Discussions and Church Discipline

A post by Mark Horne made me think about the role of the blog-o-sphere and the Internet in theological debates. On the one hand, the Internet is a very handy way to discuss theological topics. One can post thoughts and receive immediate interaction from people of all backgrounds and time zones. It is also very easy to interact with other theologians or bloggers via comments and trackback pings and all sorts of fancy things I do not fully understand. Clearly this is easier (and quicker) than exchanging long, handwritten letters, and it’s cheaper than making long-distance phone calls. On the other hand, it is a poor way to communicate theological debates because it is impersonal. It is easy to bash the character of someone that we have never met and who we know only by his or her web address. Too often things are done anonymously and behind the backs of men who are in ‘good and regular standing’ within the church.

I do not agree with the broad brushstrokes of Rev. Horne’s post, nor do I know anything of the specifics alluded to in the post and the comments, but I do agree with his critique that “No charges or (sic) ever filed; no direct interaction ever takes place.” The Internet is not the church, and it’s definitely not a church court. The Federal Vision controversy has been raging for over 5 years now, yet no cases have come before the Standing Judicial Commission in the PCA. Individual presbyteries make their own pronouncements in Special Study Committees that never result in action on a wider scale. ‘Good and regular standing’ means nothing on a denominational basis anymore.

The Internet and web logs are good for theological discussion, but when theological discussions become theological battles, action should be taken outside the computer room. It is evident from my blog that I do not favor the Federal Vision, I believe it to be in error; however, I do think many Federal Vision ministers have a legitimate complaint when it comes to how they have been treated by their denomination. Five years is too long for this level of disagreement to go on with neither exoneration nor conviction from the church courts. It is the loving thing to do. If one believes this or any other error to be that serious, then it would be unloving not to bring it up before the church. I worry that this impersonal, electronic format has led us to forget to treat each other with love, including the love of church discipline. The so-called ‘TR’ churches need to either take their case before the courts or take their accusations off their web sites and blogs.