Thinking Out Loud

January 6, 2011

David Mainse Calls ALL Bloggers Liars

The following is a copy of a letter sent to Crossroads Christian Communications in reference to this interview David Mainse, founder of Crossroads Christian Communications (producers of Canada’s national daily Christian talk show, 100 Huntley Street) did with Jim Cantelon on January 3rd.

At the 10:48 mark (approx.) David refers to all blogs as “lies” and thereby calls me a liar in the process.

“You get on the blogs and the blogs are always lies.   Half truths are lies.    One of the reasons that gossip, backbiting, is in the same list in scripture as murder and adultery, of evils that have attached themselves to the human race, is because if you don’t have all the facts —  this is why you have editorial controls. [wanders off topic]  …But, there are checks and balances. That’s what an editorial board is in a newspaper.  Checks and balances. But on the blogs — I treat a blog just like I treat the rags that are on the check-out counter at the grocery store.  I don’t read them.  I refuse to read them. They are half truths. They have not been well researched. They have no editorial control. There’s no checks or balances on these so they are not reliable.   So I give the other side of the story. [returns to larger topic]”

We’re going to check with our lawyer on this one… There are some fine, upstanding people of integrity writing Christian blogs including MOST pastors.  Pastors who support Crossroads.  Pastors who are on the follow-up list for 100 Huntley Street.  Pastors David and Norma Jean have met with and dined with and interviewed as guests on 100 Huntley.  They have all been dismissed here without exception.  “The blogs are always lies.”  There is no way that anyone who has been on television as long as David Mainse would call someone a liar unless that was his full intention.  He did not leave room for any other possibilities.   It was a blanket statement, not a generalization.

I then provided a list of the posts I wrote about the relationship between David’s sons, and the man who conned them and others out of $14.1M last year and prior; and asked them to identify the “lies” contained therein.

A much longer piece about this, including a video embed of Mainse’s comments, and a fuller transcript of the interview, may be found at the blog to which we handed off this story, Bene Diction Blogs On. Bene, as he is known, stuck to the facts to such a degree that his articles were somewhat, if you don’t mind me saying so, boring. He was simply trying to assemble, as you lay out evidence on a very large table, a clear picture of what actually happened. We are very grateful for the efforts of Bene and affiliate writer Rick Hiebert for bringing the facts on breaking Christian news stories to the surface.



  1. Sorry you were hit with Mr. Mainse blanket statement. I have a friend who serves in a third world country. She is not there to win souls and get money – she is there to do what she can to make people’s lives better. Is she a liar too? Does she lie about the poverty and hardship these children of God face?

    Good luck with your lawyer. It’s about time someone put the voice(s) of Crossroads and other ministries into the light of Canada’s legal system and make them accountable like the rest of us.

    Comment by Cricket — January 6, 2011 @ 1:22 pm

  2. […] I don’t blame this blogger for consulting a lawyer. My email to Crossroads is in the comment section […]

    Pingback by David Mainse of Crossroads slams blogs – the blogs are always lies | Bene Diction Blogs On — January 6, 2011 @ 1:59 pm

  3. Paul:

    I consider this a high compliment:

    “Bene, as he is known, stuck to the facts to such a degree that his articles were somewhat, if you don’t mind me saying so, boring.”

    Thank you.:^)
    I have also written Crossroads – I have not got the financial means to seek legal advice so I appauld you for making this move for all of us who blog, the investors who commented, donors who commented and all those who needed a public space to ask questions.

    My letter to them is in my comments and I am demanding (yes, demanding)a public apology.

    I’m so sorry to see so many good people tarred by David Mainse. It is even more aggregious he was unchallenged on air. He and Jim Cantelon knew exactly what they were doing.
    I am not sorry any blogger attempted to give investors their voice and other religious broadcasters should have been so lucky to have been treated fairly online.

    Blog on!

    Comment by Bene D — January 6, 2011 @ 2:11 pm

  4. Paul:: are you looking for “blood”? D/M’s comments where it seems his personal opinion ,and though he should have clarified it as such, at the time,he’s not deserving of the”guillotine”ofcondemnation by thecourt of the “household of faith”. If you go the path of “legal”,legal,then a host of the unregenerate will, with thirsty glee gladly applaud at the sidelines!! I say leave him alone.Maybe I should ask a lawyer to check all YOUR copy to be sure it’s “scrubbed and sanitized”JL

    Comment by Joe Lambert — January 6, 2011 @ 4:55 pm

  5. I just sent an email to David Mainse and copied to Jim Cantelon. I appealed to David to consider the thousands of Christian brothers and sisters who blog with a sincere desire to build up the body of Christ.

    I was also thinking about the fact that though our audience is smaller, we have the same responsibility as David Mainse to guard our hearts and words.

    We all have said things at times that got us in trouble. Rather than throwing stones at a communicator with a larger audience, let’s respond with grace and truth.

    Comment by Kevin Rogers — January 6, 2011 @ 5:52 pm

  6. Kevin:

    Let’s be clear, this is not the first time David Mainse has gone on air and been critical of coverage around the Axcess/Crossroads story. In that rant he targeted media with approximately the same words.

    Thank you for writing Crossroads on behalf of yourself and all bloggers.

    Comment by Bene D — January 6, 2011 @ 6:32 pm

  7. Cricket: Thanks for the reminder of the breadth of what constitutes bloggers. I’d love to read what your friend posts.

    Bene, Joe & Kevin: Truth be told, my legal guy, a Christian, is a I Corinthians kind of guy. We’ll just turn the other cheek as far as the legal system goes.

    I do recognize the danger of “responding in kind.” Ironically, I watched Star Wars 6 with the family last night; and recognize that if you let anger determine your actions you’ve already given in to the dark side. So Kevin, you are right; the proper response sometimes is no response at all. (Kevin is a pastor and I respect his wisdom. Click on his name, above, and check out his blog, The Orphan Age.)

    I was away from my computer for about five hours this afternoon and then returned to the various comments and off-blog e-mails. I wasn’t sure when I wrote “lawyer” if I was making an idle threat or not; it seemed to me they crossed a line with this one that warranted response, and the word “lawyer” is disturbing enough to some people that it wakes them up and causes them to reconsider. Sometimes. I find it often sufficient to remind people that legal means are an option, and not everyone is going to be as charitable as I.

    But a lawyer can also be instrumental in demanding an apology without violating the premise of I Cor. 6.

    Where I do see this going right now is that there is enough momentum out there — and many people haven’t yet seen either Bene’s post or mine — to warrant a public, on-air apology from either David, the ministry or both.

    But I also think CCCI needs to take a hard look at the risks it is taking as a ministry by continually allowing David access to a live television audience.

    It’s only a matter of time before something more serious happens.

    Comment by paulthinkingoutloud — January 6, 2011 @ 7:17 pm

  8. Paul:

    My friend gave up her career and family to go to a third world country to work with a village co-op as a housing expert. No fanfare. She has one post so far. In the coming months I think she will have much to offer. She hates computers and blogging is an enigma to her. If she is able to keep up the blog I’ll do my best to let you know.

    Comment by Cricket — January 7, 2011 @ 10:59 am

  9. Sorry, but I have to agree with David Mainse to some degree on this subject. It is virtually impossible to ever be SURE one is reading the truth on-line…whether it be in blogs or on a website, even on Wikipedia (Ha!).

    What is truth? How do you know that I am telling the truth on my blog – about anything? I may be a wonderful missionary, but one who tends towards blogging ‘evangelastic’ figures, when it comes to the number of people I say were saved under my ministry.

    I may ‘sound’ like the most loveable, likeable, believable person when I post on my blog – but is that the real me? How could you ever know, unless you knew me personally? Which brings up an interesting point: how many of us (especially a female, alone) would be crazy enough to meet up with someone whose blog we have been following but whom we have not previously met and don’t know personally? And why not? We know that would be foolish, because we can’t know for sure that they have been telling the truth on their blog — they may not be what they seem to be…they may have ulterior motives.

    This “What is Truth?” principle doesn’t only apply to blogs/the Internet. What is truth in newspapers? There don’t seem to be any checks and balances in journalism any longer either.

    Mainse talks about the ‘rags’ at the checkout — I’ve yet to find even a newspaper report that I can 100% believe, never mind the ‘rags’ — whether it’s about a personality, real estate, politics…because there are frequently ulterior motives behind the stories (and maybe behind blogs, too — to gain a larger following, raise more funds, boost our egos).

    There is only one source of 100% truth that I would stake my life on — the one source of Truth that the ‘world’ now calls lies.

    I said all this to say that I think that, while Mainse did paint all bloggers with the same brush,
    I don’t think he is very far from the truth.

    So, sorry, Paul — you have a great blog which I enjoy reading (and sometimes come out of hiding to comment on!), but how can I be sure that EVERYTHING you post is the truth?!!

    Comment by Kaybee — January 7, 2011 @ 11:11 pm

    • I agree with what you’re saying here. Whether or not it’s the New York Times, The Toronto Star, or USAToday; you can never know if a news source is deeply biased on an issue, unless you’re a long-time reader or know the politics of the particular news organization.

      David’s comments had a particular context however, he was talking about the questions that have arisen on his “Thank You Canada” tour concerning his sons. As one of the two blogs that “broke” that story — I somewhat reluctantly because it’s not in keeping with this blog’s overall style — I believe it was a story that should have been reported. Crossroads, IMHO, erred in trying to hush the thing up.

      So it was, in a very large sense, one other blogger and I that David was largely referring to. I’ve asked Crossroads to provide me with a clue as to where I published outright misinformation. They have not replied.

      It’s not every day that a respected Canadian Christian leader calls you a liar on national television, but in essence, that’s what happened on Monday, January 3rd.

      By God’s grace, I didn’t let it ruin my day.

      Comment by paulthinkingoutloud — January 7, 2011 @ 11:22 pm

  10. Having been in front of the mic and camera I know people don’t always hear what you say, or in blogging, read what you write.

    When you have been given charitable status by the Government of Canada, when you request money from donors, andwhen you have been given the privilege of a licence to broadcast and you use that privilege to call a group of people liars; you can be openly queried.

    That is what Paul has done. Kevin. Me. Possibly others.

    Like Paul I’ve written Crossroads.
    Staff were invited during the Axcess Automation/Funds scandal to correct and contribute to all posts at my blog. The right of response has always been available.

    Now, like Paul I am asking for proof of the accusations.
    The onus is on Crossroads.

    If I have erred, then fine, I will publicly correct my errors.

    To request an accuser provide proof is a biblical approach.

    I don’t expect anyone to accept anything at face value. Go, do your own research, be responsible and have the decency to come back and correct me publicly and privately on the blog if I’m wrong.

    To accuse, to then say ‘I don’t read’ and to re-accuse, to be unchallenged by the person you claim is assigned to ‘check and balance’ your opinion on a nationally distributed broadcast is not acceptable.

    Ron and Reynold Mainse are named by the OSC as finders. Motivation was examined, heard and ruled on. (Reynold has not settled with the OSC) Rons statement of response is legally binding and a matter of public record. He paid his fine and restitution.

    No ones opinion, including yours, or ignorance will change core events, facts and the legal record.
    No matter what David Mainse feels, wants, or needs – he is responsible for his accusations.
    He is responsible for addressing donors concerns over what they have ‘heard’ or ‘read’.

    Scapegoating and shooting a messenger is not acceptable.

    That is the issue Kaybee.

    Comment by Bene D — January 8, 2011 @ 11:01 am

  11. I appreciate both of your comments, Paul and Bene D, and I know that in mine, I didn’t zero in on what you consider to be the main issue.

    I continue to have many questions, on both sides, but this is not the forum for them. Paul has moved on to newer blogs, so I will move on, too.

    I am praying, however, that you all(Mainse included) will do all you can to maintain a “spirit of unity in the bond of peace,” since you are brothers in the Lord. There are enough people out there who hate us and love to bring us down -a steadfast love for each other and unity within the Body, needs to be our banner. We are all in the same status before Him and can only plead His mercy over our own lives too…”there is none righteous; no, not one.”

    Comment by Kaybee — January 8, 2011 @ 12:37 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Your Response (Value-Added Comments Only)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: