On the other hand, DGM appears to be the real thing. I don’t see massive marketing campaigns and calls to donate. Because of the blessing they have been to me and my family, I’ve gone out of my way to contribute at times. I’m now on their ‘donor list’ and they know that I’m a prime candidate for sending more money. But, unlike the organization that I was once with, which sends email blasts several times a week and direct mail pieces several times a month, I get very little from Desiring God. They are respectful and not pushy.

My only advice to them would be this. Stop growing. Don’t become a monster that needs to be fed. Logic gets really fuzzy and perverse when you have to come up with ways to end the year in the black. God is blessing you now for a season, but seasons come and seasons go. This too shall pass. Just pour yourselves out as much as you can and you may just avoid the temptation to ‘wax fat and kick.’

Maybe we should all bring this discussion to an end, go over to the Desiring God website, and download a bunch of free stuff! LOL

God bless.

I’m looking at the totality of the post. Yes, the video does start with the title as you stated, but notice on the top left it states: Make it Free. I also read Matt’s essay which JT linked. Titled, “Make It Free…”

So, I’m not simply looking at what was implied in the video but what was written in his essay. I’m not saying your doing this, but some people keep saying that they listened to the video over and over and over again. Great. I said on more than one occasion, that I also looked at Matt’s essay, which JT said, if you want to know more, read Matt’s essay. Which I did.

Anyway, I won’t restate my arguments but I just wanted to highlight, again, that I looked at more than just the video. So, in totality, Matt wasn’t just really dealing with why DGM does it, but why others should do it.

In fact, and I say this respectfully, but accurately, Matt in his essay said that if you are Christian media ministry, you should post all of your content, online, for free. Then he gave his basis (in his essay), which I was somewhat troubled with. Then Matt commented and clarified that he wasn’t intending to say that if a ministry does charge for content online, it is going against the gospel or not seeking to serve. I appreciated this clarification because in his video as an explanation (one of them) of why DGM offers its content online for free, he said, because DGM wants to serve and not be served. He also gave as one of reasons because the gospel is free. Again, I appreciated Matt’s clarification in his comment assuring me that just because a Christian media ministry charges for their content online, they are not going against the gospel.

Again, as I stated, previously, I am somewhat satisfied with his response. It’s a little confusing because he stipulates that if you’re a Christian media ministry then you should offer your content online for free and then goes into a pretty comprehensive explanation of why they should and then later comments (which I appreciate) then no, if you’re a Christian media ministry, just because you charge doesn’t mean you don’t want to serve or are going against the gospel. Still kinda scratching my head just a little, but, I’m letting bygones be bygones.

Anyway, I don’t want to regurgitate my arguments, so I’ll leave the friction argument alone because I explained it pretty well. But when I read your comment, I thought it important to comment on it. I’ll give you the last word.

Here is the title: Why Does Desiring God Offer Everything Online for Free? To me that is a question and it is the question that Matt spends the better part of six minutes expounding on. Its all about the Gospel. Do we exist for sinners to repent or for ourselves? Christ-centered thinking leads us to see what Matt is saying and not looking for implications in what he is not saying.

You said: “You get someone like Josh who insists on misreading you, and refuses simply to deal with what you actually said, preferring simply to repeat and defend his mischaracterization. Too often, no amount of reiteration or correction will persuade such a one to retrace his steps to where he went wrong.”

Sounds exactly like what you and CR having been doing to DGM, Josh Gelatt, and anyone else who disagrees with you. You refuse to actually deal with any criticisms of your arguments, just endlessly repeat the same mischaracterizations. I think your being very mean spirited in your personal attacks and do not find CR’s attack on DGM or your attack on another brother in Christ to be anything that resembles the fruit of the Spirit.

Sorry if I’m causing irritation. That’s not my intent brother. I certainly do not want to be guilty of misrepresenting CR. If I’ve got his argument wrong, I am open to your wisdom on this issue. I have re-read his posts again, I can I do come to the same conclusions. But you seem to know him better, and can perhaps offer a more nuanced perspective.

So I am very open to either you or CR explaining a bit more, or correcting me where I’ve gone off base. But I hope that also means you both will have the same willingness to see where you may be potentially off base in your own assessment of the DGM video. Regardless, I’m not trying to cause offense–but just to listen and exchange ideas.

Love you guys!

When you resort to the “nuh-uh” line of argument it doesn’t help your case any. This is rising to a level of almost sinful behavior on you and CR’s part.

What is your beef with Josh? Many others have also criticized CR. I’ve yet to see how he has misread or misinterpreted CR, you certainly haven’t pointed it out. In fact, I think he has pointed out quite clearly the incoherence of CR’s complaint.

I have seen, however, how CR has repeatedly misinterpreted DGM. Your defense of his horribly rude behavior, failed logic, and bizarre conduct is a bit alarming. This repeated of inconsistency, which you and CR seem to throw around regardless of what DGM actually said–with no attempt to actually deal with their actual statements, is simply appalling.

You get someone like Josh who insists on misreading you, and refuses simply to deal with what you actually said, preferring simply to repeat and defend his mischaracterization. Too often, no amount of reiteration or correction will persuade such a one to retrace his steps to where he went wrong.

Eventually you just have to thank God that fair readers can see the whole exchange, accept that unfair readers can’t be won anyway, and leave it there.

Sounds like someone had a bad day, or has an excessive guilt complex. It is so sad when a ministry is attacked for being excited about giving away free stuff and encouraging other ministries to do the same.

I’m very surprised to see you defending CR on this. I felt his post was off-base, rude, and a bit bizarre. I think he was correctly confronted by several of the commentators here.

(Still, see my other comment where I essential come down in agreement with your position vis-a-vis Paul)

I don’t believe that DGM needs to justify or explain why they give their resources free online.

Your opinion has been noted. But I don’t think you need to justify or explain why you don’t think they should justify or explain why they give their resources free online.

It seems you are misrepresenting DGM. They are not insinuating that ministries should give away all resources for free. Quite the opposite actually. Read this quote from the article attached to the video:

“If you are going to have people talking about and emailing your content, you need to make sure that you remove all obstacles to this process. This means you shouldn’t charge for your online content–not for any of it. Charge for things you pack and ship to people, such as DVDs and physical books. But don’t charge for anything that is accessed online.”

They are indeed urging other ministries to offer online media resources for free. That is true. But they are NOT urging other ministries to offer ALL resources for free (printed materials, curriculum, etc). I do not think you have truly grasped what was said in that video and you are grossly misrepresenting their statements. I am disappointed with your tone.

With that said, I would tend to agree with Dan Philips. I think in the excitement of what their doing they were advocating a certain approach when they would have been better off taking Paul’s approach of just describing what they do without a call for others to do the same. It’s probably a guilt complex that causes us to overreact (or the convicting of the Spirit?), but still Paul’s model would have been wiser.

Let me give you an illustration. Let’s say the local bookstore says “all books marked with a red dot are 50% off”. You try to purchase a book without a red dot and, when not given the discount, then accuse the bookstore of inconsistency. Sort of absurd, eh?

You seem to want me to handle your words with accuracy and care, but you are not offering that same courtesy to the DGM video. Your not dealing with what they said, but only what you believe is “implied”. If I must only deal with what you exactly say, so must you with DGM. Your demanding the very treatment you seem to refuse to offer. If you believe it is fair to tease out implications in the video, is it not also fair for me to do so with your comments?

DGM is saying that they want to reduce friction for online resources. A book, which comes under the ‘whatever you can afford policy’ is not an online resource. Its a book. A conference is not an online resource. Its a conference. In fact, you can get most if not all of Piper’s books for free online in PDF format (and as an online resource, there free!!!). Therefore, how is that inconsistent? Also, did they say they wanted to completely eradicate friction, or did they simply say they wanted to reduce it? Again, deal with what they say–not what you infer.

As for the hotel and airline fees, the issue there is that you specifically used those as examples of demonstrating DGM’s supposed inconsistency—-which is what I called absurd.

Again, I think it’s great that DGM offers their resources for free online. But suggesting that all other Christian media ministries should do so and reading his argument for doing so and seeing inconsistencies, I thought it was relevant to speak up about it.

That’s a great thing, and very generous of the people paying those costs. But I don’t think it makes it a better model than other resource ministries that charge those who can afford to pay and subsidize those who can’t. Both seem to be seeking to implement 1 Cor 9 kind of principles. So I neither criticize DG for explaining why they do it, nor venerate them for it. I just praise God whenever he puts it in people’s hearts to be generous.

Perhaps rather than stating what you see me as saying you should state what I say. I agree that asking DGM paying for hotel and transportation is absurd – in fact, if you read my comment, I said it is ridiculous. That was one of my points. The problem with Matt’s first point was that he said that charging for online resources (whether it’s 99 cents or 10 cents) causes friction. But by that same argument, so does charging for conferences (okay, let’s leave out hotel and transportation). So, does charging for books even their whatever you can afford policy. If there is friction for paying 99 cents or 10 cents for an online resource. Why wouldn’t there be friction for paying whatever you can afford for a book. Well, there would be using Matt’s argument. It clearly is an inconsistent argument. I’m sorry you can’t see that.

As far as the arrogance charge, again, read what I said, Josh. I didn’t apply any motives to anyone but as Caleb pointed out, yes, I thought it came out as arrogant – that’s what is usually meant by when you say something “rings…” Which is what I said.

JT in his heading of the post said that other ministries should consider this. Matt said (especially if you read the linked article) said other ministries should make online resources free. I mean, you can’t be more clearer, he says, “Make it Free.”

Anyway, Matt’s sort of address my issue in his response. He clarified some things that were not in his video or written article. I think if he had said things in his response in this thread in his video that he said in the video or in the written article it would be fine. There is a different message in his video and article. Be that as it may, I’m sorry you have some issues with my characterization of what I saw in the video and article. I stand by them. I’ll give you the last word.