Remember “Charles the Brave“? When I was first passed the link to Charles-the-Troll’s newly created blogsite, I felt that the proper response was no response at all. I figured that his rhetoric could speak for itself, and eventually he would be swallowed up into his own corner of the blogosphere. Sadly, he has been given undeserved attention, through which he has gained a readership. That’s the negative side of dealing with trolls; they feed off of their own self-advertisement. The strategy is that if you can make enough noise around the blogosphere and bring enough attention to yourself, you’re bound to be noticed and receive hits to your website, even if it is just from others going to see what all of the fuss is about. But we all know that noise does not equal honest scholarship. Anonymous Charles can turn up the volume all he wants, but it is beneficial to no one.
Stepping on the toes of others in order to achieve his own soap box, Charles has offered some unnecessary commentary to the very brief exchange between Alan, Tom, Simon and me:
Simon, from the Thinking Deeply blog, is under fire. He wrote a great article on Wrongly Dividing The Body of Christ that was an indictment of the methods used by The Founders, The Calvinist Gadfly, and other rabid Calvinist blogs. This came on the heels of another article, Lord of The Gadflys, an expose of Alan Kurschner’s bizarre Calvinist blog.
Tom Ascol at Founders Ministries (yes, they really believe it’s a real ministry), responded with a whiny article. Didn’t you get the memo: The Founders can do no wrong.
Simon followed up with Apology, Observations, & Email. Simon said, “I publically apologize for implying that Tom or Founders personally attacks Arminians. I think that a lot of the people who visit that site personally attack Arminians, as evident from the thread you linked to. But Tom didn’t.” No, but he’s an enabler, and a big one. In my opinion, Simon did not need to apologize but you be the judge.
For the record, Simon once chastised me in a comment to my own article on Alan Kurschner. Simon was probably right, but I’m pretty hardheaded.
Reading Charles is quite the experience, is it not? Maybe Charles has assumed the under-cover occupation of aiding the Holy Spirit’s working of patience in the lives of believers. …Or maybe not.
1. I highly doubt that Simon would want to associate with Charles. I highly doubt that Simon would even like the fact that he is being promoted by Charles.
2. There was nothing “whiny” about Tom’s article. I have more reason to believe that Charles did not even read it than I do to believe that it was “whiny.” But for the Charles-the-unnecessary-commentator, unnecessary adjectives always sprinkle unnecessary comments.
3. For those of us who actually read Tom’s article, we know that the statement “Didn’t you get the memo: The Founders can do no wrong” could not be further from the case! Had Charles postured himself honestly and humbly towards those with whom he disagrees rather than simply searching to and thro around the blogosphere, seeking whom he may devour, he would have noticed Tom say, “No one is above criticism. Certainly not me or any of those who comment on this blog. Sometimes we may need to be corrected for what we say or how we say it.”
4. Notice how Charles displays an oh-so-Christ-like attitude by telling Simon that his response to the Holy Spirit’s conviction and his decision to apologize in humility was pointless and unneeded.
5. “Yes, they really believe it’s a real ministry”? What is a statement like that supposed to accomplish? Do you really think that Simon would want to associate with that?
I suppose that Charles thinks that Alan and Tom are “wrongly dividing the body of Christ” as well. But what could be more ironic? I mean, is the statement “Yes, they really believe it’s a real ministry” one that is made from a heart that honestly seeks to achieve unity among believers, or has Charles simply used the subject of unity as another means to attack his favorite blog-enemies?