Mike Criswell has contacted me and demanded that the following edits be made to the original post presented below - so we will post his three-fold request as follows:
1."Brother Battey, in the interest of honesty and integrity I'd like you to amend your claim that my short article was a critique of your Preachers Study presentation. I have not heard that presentation and was unaware of its publication. I did hear a sermon you gave on a similar topic on YouTube but my thoughts were not a review of your position."
Brother Criswell's post was not clear as to which video he was addressing (since both video's contain much of the same material) and I assumed he had watched the video of my Preacher's Study presentation since it had more recently been published. Turns out I was wrong and he was referring t0 the following video:
1."Brother Battey, in the interest of honesty and integrity I'd like you to amend your claim that my short article was a critique of your Preachers Study presentation. I have not heard that presentation and was unaware of its publication. I did hear a sermon you gave on a similar topic on YouTube but my thoughts were not a review of your position."
Brother Criswell's post was not clear as to which video he was addressing (since both video's contain much of the same material) and I assumed he had watched the video of my Preacher's Study presentation since it had more recently been published. Turns out I was wrong and he was referring t0 the following video:
Brother Criswell wrote, "Brother, I would encourage you in the future to be more careful in your assertions."
Brother Criswell objects to both my connecting him with my Preacher's Study presentation and labeling his post a "review" since a review would have been more thorough. So, I apologize for connecting him with my Preacher's Study presentation and mislabeling his post.
Brother Criswell has informed me that he has updated his original post, but I have chosen not to post the updated version for two reasons: First, I am blocked from Brother Criswell's profile and cannot see the changes he has made and cannot therefore update what he has written. Second, in a private email he stated, "It's certainly up to you but if you want you can post the newer version. It's virtually the same content. Just a few changed sentences here and there."
I apologize for asserting that he was reviewing my Preacher's Study presentation, a presentation that more fully dealt with that which upset Brother Criswell, a presentation that more fully addresses his points of objection, and a presentation which he would also strongly disagree with. I guess what I am apologizing for is asserting that he was attacking the greater of two evils, when in fact he was attacking the lesser.
2. Brother Criswell stated that I need to "be more ethical in asking permission before lifting a private article from the internet."
Brother Criswell objects to both my connecting him with my Preacher's Study presentation and labeling his post a "review" since a review would have been more thorough. So, I apologize for connecting him with my Preacher's Study presentation and mislabeling his post.
Brother Criswell has informed me that he has updated his original post, but I have chosen not to post the updated version for two reasons: First, I am blocked from Brother Criswell's profile and cannot see the changes he has made and cannot therefore update what he has written. Second, in a private email he stated, "It's certainly up to you but if you want you can post the newer version. It's virtually the same content. Just a few changed sentences here and there."
I apologize for asserting that he was reviewing my Preacher's Study presentation, a presentation that more fully dealt with that which upset Brother Criswell, a presentation that more fully addresses his points of objection, and a presentation which he would also strongly disagree with. I guess what I am apologizing for is asserting that he was attacking the greater of two evils, when in fact he was attacking the lesser.
2. Brother Criswell stated that I need to "be more ethical in asking permission before lifting a private article from the internet."
As can be seen in the photo above, his post was set to "Public" as is indicated by the picture of the globe at the top of his post. This means that anyone in the world with a Facebook account can see what he posted - except for people like me whom he has specifically blocked. I have therefore not acted unethically in sharing his post or offering comment on it - I have rather simply address a post that was about me.
Brother Criswell went on to state, "Thank you, however, for sharing my article. All you needed to do was ask!"
Since he clearly posted publicly, cried out for brethren to “wake up- not woke up”, and would have apparently given me permission to post what he had written even if it had been written privately, I fail to see why he is upset or considers what I did unethical.
3. Brother Criswell wishes to clarify, "Had my essay been a review of your position it would have included a critique of your marriage of the Kingdom with the "social gospel" of the early 20th century."
I honestly have no clue what he is talking about. You can listen to both my When Sexual Abuse Is Found In You Church presentation or my Preacher's Study presentation and you will not find traces of the Social Gospel in either presentation. Watch them for yourself. In a private email Brother Criswell spoke more to this concern by stating:
"One thing that did concern me was that the last 15 minutes or so of your sermon sounded like you were preaching something that might have been a part of the "social gospel" movement of the early 20th century. I see very little difference in what was said and the promotion of "women's suffrage" or any number of other social issues that the "church" (broadly speaking) tried to rectify in the early 20th century. I do agree with you that sinners should not be hidden by the Lord's body. But, given the mission of the church is not secular the only thing we are authorized to do is report offenders and let the legal establishment deal with it. The Social Gospel, historically speaking, created a mess for Christianity and we are still try to deal with what it spawned. The mission of Christ was never social justice. Neither was the mission of the early church. Just something to consider in all of this."
I hope sharing this lengthier quote is not unethical of me; I share it for the sake of clarifying his public statement. I do not understand how preaching about sin that happens within the body of Christ is the same as preaching the "Social Gospel". I have not, nor will I ever teach that it is the mission on the church to get involved in the social justice movements of this world. What I do preach, and will continue to preach, is that the church MUST expose sin (Ephesians 5:11) and to try to change the world with the gospel. Please listen to the last 15 minutes of my When Sexual Abuse Is Found In Your Church presentation and help me understand what he is labeling the "social gospel".
I have not tried to misrepresent Brother Criswell in any way and have thus allowed his comment to be posted at the end of this article as per his request. I have left the remainder of the post unchanged so that readers can tell what was originally stated in this article and where Brother Criswell has issued objections.
Without further comment, here is my original post:
Brother Criswell went on to state, "Thank you, however, for sharing my article. All you needed to do was ask!"
Since he clearly posted publicly, cried out for brethren to “wake up- not woke up”, and would have apparently given me permission to post what he had written even if it had been written privately, I fail to see why he is upset or considers what I did unethical.
3. Brother Criswell wishes to clarify, "Had my essay been a review of your position it would have included a critique of your marriage of the Kingdom with the "social gospel" of the early 20th century."
I honestly have no clue what he is talking about. You can listen to both my When Sexual Abuse Is Found In You Church presentation or my Preacher's Study presentation and you will not find traces of the Social Gospel in either presentation. Watch them for yourself. In a private email Brother Criswell spoke more to this concern by stating:
"One thing that did concern me was that the last 15 minutes or so of your sermon sounded like you were preaching something that might have been a part of the "social gospel" movement of the early 20th century. I see very little difference in what was said and the promotion of "women's suffrage" or any number of other social issues that the "church" (broadly speaking) tried to rectify in the early 20th century. I do agree with you that sinners should not be hidden by the Lord's body. But, given the mission of the church is not secular the only thing we are authorized to do is report offenders and let the legal establishment deal with it. The Social Gospel, historically speaking, created a mess for Christianity and we are still try to deal with what it spawned. The mission of Christ was never social justice. Neither was the mission of the early church. Just something to consider in all of this."
I hope sharing this lengthier quote is not unethical of me; I share it for the sake of clarifying his public statement. I do not understand how preaching about sin that happens within the body of Christ is the same as preaching the "Social Gospel". I have not, nor will I ever teach that it is the mission on the church to get involved in the social justice movements of this world. What I do preach, and will continue to preach, is that the church MUST expose sin (Ephesians 5:11) and to try to change the world with the gospel. Please listen to the last 15 minutes of my When Sexual Abuse Is Found In Your Church presentation and help me understand what he is labeling the "social gospel".
I have not tried to misrepresent Brother Criswell in any way and have thus allowed his comment to be posted at the end of this article as per his request. I have left the remainder of the post unchanged so that readers can tell what was originally stated in this article and where Brother Criswell has issued objections.
Without further comment, here is my original post:
At the 2023 Preacher’s Study I was asked to present on the topic of Forgiveness and the relationship between forgiveness and repentance. I asked if I could address the topic of forgiveness in relation to the topic of ethics and the brethren in charge of the Study obliged. I enjoyed the work that went into my presentation and hope that the material I presented was first and foremost Biblical, that it glorified God and His Word, and that it benefits His people.
I knew going into the Study that there is disagreement on the subject of forgiveness, even though it is a foundational doctrine of Christianity, and I knew that not all would agree with me. The following is a review from one preacher who has listened to my presentation (at least in part) and posted his thoughts publicly on social media. His review was forwarded to me by several brethren as I am currently blocked by this reviewer and am unable to see anything he posts.
I knew going into the Study that there is disagreement on the subject of forgiveness, even though it is a foundational doctrine of Christianity, and I knew that not all would agree with me. The following is a review from one preacher who has listened to my presentation (at least in part) and posted his thoughts publicly on social media. His review was forwarded to me by several brethren as I am currently blocked by this reviewer and am unable to see anything he posts.
I don’t feel that the review I have just shared is a fair assessment of what I presented, but I will allow you the readers of this post to watch the presentation for yourself and weigh what I have taught on its own merits and in light of God’s word. I am open to criticism, and do not object to brethren disagreeing with me, or addressing publicly what I have taught publicly (as is demonstrated by my willingness to present in a public format where any man in the audience - including my reviewer - was welcome to question me and take me to task that very moment), but would ask that I be fairly represented and that the arguments I have put forth be dealt with rather than avoided.
With no further adieu, here is my presentation:
With no further adieu, here is my presentation:
Writte Notes:
| Ethical Forgiveness by Nathan Battey.docx.pdf |
For those interested in a similar but distinct presentation on the subject of Forgiveness, here is a presentation my father gave a while back:
RSS Feed
