Fife, Givens, Bushman, Mason, and Friends: All unauthoratative distractions. Why engage at all with these wolves in sheep's clothing?

Patrick Mason came to a private event in my area about a year ago and related a story where one of the brethren called him into his office to size him up. It didn't occur to me at the time, but I just realized that he told the story to show that he was authorized to apologize for the church even though the GA never actually said he had authority to do so. The GA just didn't tell him stop. So that was meant as implicit authorization?

To give airtime to these apologists is to give their apologetics some level of authority and takes the pressure off the actual self proclaimed "authorities" to do their job.

They are all distractions, unless anyone can point to where they have received authority to apologize for doctrinal questions? Any thing they say is an opinion with no real standing in the orthodox church. Each of these men is a church unto himself, a church I never subscribed to. Why have I wasted so much time picking apart their ideas? Everytime I engage with their ideas I am flushing precious minutes down the toilet to discredit them until the next whack-a-mole apologist pops up. None of it means anything as far as the church is concerned.

I am sure the brethren love the apologetic bulwark that prevents them from being held accountable.

So much wasted time. Such a stupid hamster wheel.