I'm shocked. I'm been a member of the Baptist Board since its old days, and one thing that I have seen through all this time is that some people are not content to disagree on the issues, but seem to feel they must pass judgment on the hearts of those with whom they disagree. The thread that has most recently brought this to my attention is the "Elaborate Churches" thread. I disagree with Jack Graham and the staff of Prestonwood, and evidently their philosophy of ministry that calls for the elaborate church plant that is being discussed. Nevertheless, I have no reason to suppose they are insincere or that they are not following what they believe to be scriptural. My difference is on practice, and has nothing to do with their motives, and does not suggest they are not doing anything good. Some who agree with and are defending Prestonwood feel that those who disagree are simply little, petty, jealous men. Maybe we are. But why do you jump to that conclusion rather than first supposing that maybe we have a sincerely held religious belief (just as they do) which happens to be different from their sincerely held religious belief. I don't suppose all the judgment passed was only on one side either, but, of course, would tend to notice that of those with a differing position. This question is for anyone who feels they regularly answer this way. Why? If you tend to see those who doctinally oppose your view as folks having a heart problem (jealousy, insincerity, envy, laziness, greed), rather than an honest difference of opinion, why do you do so? Do you have a gift of judging? Is it a debate tactic? Do you quickly post emotional responses without thinking? All of the above? None of the above? Just some questions to get things moving. This thread is not to rehash about Prestonwood, but to investigate the mentality we use in opposing viewpoints differing from our own.