Sarcasm

This is priceless.

About these ads

55 Comments

  1. September 30, 2007 at 7:26 pm

    Priceless, all right. In the middle of that laugh riot, MarkT says: “First, I am evangelizing the lost who, in this case, include those advancing the Federal Vision . . . another gospel, which places these men (and presumably their converts) beneath an apostolic curse . . . these men are wolves in truth and in deed.”

    Whenever anonymous accusers do their thing, they count on FV adversaries crediting them with all sorts of invisible virtues, which is generally given to them. Haven’t you heard what evil things would be done to them were their identity to be known? If it were not for Christ Church’s secret police, they would be mighty courageous. As it is, they have to contend for the faith once delivered from the shadows, as members in good standing of Athanasius Anonymous.

    Priceless indeed. We wolves are doing all right. All we have to deal with are these invisible shepherds — the really tough talking ones are all pretty ghostly.

  2. Robert K. said,

    September 30, 2007 at 9:00 pm

    For those too lazy to click on the link, the comments are indeed priceless:

    DaFedSez said…

    I’d like to appreciate your blog but unfortunately I can’t as I’ve noticed it is lacking in some fundamental things (not that I like fundamentals or fundamentalism of course) that signal people it is an important and noteworthy blog they should read and pingback constantly.

    1. It doesn’t have a Latin Name. All important blogs have Latin names or are associated with Magazines with Latin Names. May I suggest something like: “Add Marjerinium Morningum Gloriam”

    2. You don’t appear to have published any new books revising historic Christianity this month or even have his own church run printing press. All important blog authors do.

    3. While occasionally sarcastic, your blog has a serious deficiency in snide and smug. The #2 and #3 qualities of all good blog posts.

    4. I don’t understand the theology of your posts. None of them appear to be founded on paradox or mystery, the source of all good theology.

    5. None of your posts appear to say A and Not A at the same time. How can I take you seriously when your positions are so easily nailed down? You also appear to believe that your opponents can understand what you are saying. A position we all know to be fatal to the blog conversation.

    6. You appear to be against the Federal Vision. This is the surest sign that you are not right and don’t deserve to be read or listened to.

  3. Robert K. said,

    September 30, 2007 at 9:01 pm

    And:

    DaFedSez said…

    Well of course I don’t understand the things you have written, as I only read them. I failed to call you up and ask you what they currently mean at this present moment in time and without doing that, as is well known, it is totally impossible to truly understand what someone means. Also, I totally failed to understand you because I did not consider your comments in their proper context of everything you have ever written or said since birth. I see though that you are learning and may someday be respectable enough to drink with at one of our bi-weekly most important event in the history of Christianity conferences.

    Now I will only agree to the debate if we can agree on the following groundrules:

    1. I am wittier than you
    2. Whatever I say must be considered Reformed no matter how unreformed it sounds. If I say it, it is reformed, because I am reformed and vice versa (that’s Latin, I’ll be using that a lot so you’ll need a stack of Veritas homeschool materials to hand)
    3. The sole purpose of the debate shall be to impress the people who already agree with me and provide them with material to link to on their blogs.
    4. I get to randomly use the word “covenant” as a Noun, Verb, adjective, adverb, and if I wish an angry expletive.
    5. I shall be allowed to define the words I use however I wish, without being confined to their historic meaning. Additionally, if something I say is proven to be false or heretical (not that this is possible, see #2)I shall be allowed to explain the meaning of the words in such a way that it is no longer heretical. So that for instance, “Some people who have been truly united to Christ may indeed fall away” shall never be interpreted as contradicting the doctrine of the perseverence of the saints.
    6. All theological arguments shall follow the ad hominem abusive style of reasoning. It shall be remembered that my ad hominem arguments are witty (see #1) while yours are unkind.
    7. We agree that I’ve won before the start.
    8. I get to wear my robe and wizard hat.
    9. We allow for frequent breaks so I can play Halo 3 in between.

  4. Mark T. said,

    September 30, 2007 at 9:06 pm

    Wilson,

    I know that you’re under a lot of pressure and all, but since you invoked the “Christ Church Secret Police,” I remind you of the time when you put a former member and his wife to the screw and compelled them to sign a “Loyalty Oath” or face termination. Thankfully, they chose unemployment over subjection to a madman.

    In case you forgot, you can read about this historical event here. And as you know, every word of it is true.

    In fact, why don’t you publish the Oath for everyone to see how you rule your church. Either that or else do us all a favor and repent.

    Thank you.

  5. October 1, 2007 at 12:58 am

    Of course, there are those of us who have had issues with Douglas Wilson and have been quite open about our identities though I fear not enough has been said about the fact that even our Reformed forefathers used anonymity when the occasion called for it.

    But notice, here at least, what Mr. Wilson puts forward once again is ad hominem–no real response to the points being offered via satire against Wilson’s or FV claims.. I for one would have rather heard him actually try to make his case.

    It seems to me that Mr. Wilson can dish out the sarcasm, he just can’t take it.

    I just had to laugh when reading the recent NYT piece about the family squabbles that have been going on for years between Wilson, his brother, and his father–seems like Wilson forgot that he has one particular rule among many about not being able to be sarcastic without having all those familial relations nice and tidy:

    A godly satirist should have a warm and affectionate relationship with his wife, sons, daughters, mother, and father. No close member of his family should flinch when he walks into the room…

    Life is tough as a legalist. Takes real guts to be so transparently hypocritical in the face of anonymous criticism. Yeah…uhh…whatever. A real hero.

  6. October 1, 2007 at 8:48 am

    Kevin, a couple things you apparently don’t know. First, I had no objection to the satire (as such) in what Lane linked. I actually thought it was done pretty well and was enjoying it — until we got to the point of the satire, which was to pronounce a bunch of brothers in Christ unregenerate. And I was objecting (and do object) to that terrible point, not to the vehicle of satire. But if people want to make fun of Ciceronian Latinisms like Mablog, I think they should be encouraged.

    And secondly, you clearly have gotten your information about our family relations from someone like Metzler, whom you would have done well never to have believed about anything. My dad’s 80th birthday is this week, and Evan’s family and mine have been helping to coordinate the celebration. I would characterize our relationship as personally cordial and doctrinally and positionally strained. No hypocrisy there. When you are dealing with such complicated issues in the future, and assuming it to be your business, I would urge you to get the facts first.

  7. October 1, 2007 at 9:23 am

    Douglas,

    First, I never pulled any information about your family relations from anyone or anything other than the NYT article I mentioned and your own comments on your own blog. There is more than enough information there for the curious. It is regrettable that you would accuse me of pulling information from (apparently) unreliable sources. Your continued ability to make such unfounded accusations without any evidence or knowledge of the facts as to what sources I used is just terribly out of order especially when one considers that I mentioned the very public source in my comment above in the first place (the NYT article).

    But to my original point, I suppose it is normal to go around and publicly hash out family disagreements about theology on your blog. What a family! It’s also probably normal cordial family relations to note tension and disagreement in the national media between your family members, theological or otherwise. Yeah, people do that all the time! Yeah, my comments are just completely unreasonable! Yeah, you are always right and your critics are always wrong. Ok. Again, whatever…

    We’ll likely disagree as to what might be appropriately learned by these things about you but in any case it really is irrelevant other than pointing out that your own standards as to what makes a man capable of using satire is just legalism because the Bible never lays out such requirements in the first place. Demonstrating that on a cursory read, you may very well be unable to live out the very standards you propose is not exactly unreasonable in spite of your objections to the contrary or your baseless accusation as to where I got my information. I’ve pointed out before that not even our Lord could abide by your standards but you shouldn’t let details like that stop you nor should you be discouraged by views which are reasonable to some but perhaps not to others! After all, your take is undoubtedly the one completely free from error and bias. :)

    In terms of what you objected to, obviously from your first comment above you state no argument against the point(s) being satirized except to point the finger back at your accusers and make your own accusations. You make no argument against what has been said to the contrary and that’s what I noted–so sorry for making your tactic so obvious.

  8. October 1, 2007 at 11:05 am

    At the risk of deflecting any reaction to my comments above, I’d like to concentrate on one other thing which Wilson implicitly puts forward in the following statement as if I’m out of line for publicly questioning and/or stating anything regarding his family–acting like it’s none of my businenss for even inquiring or commenting about these things:

    When you are dealing with such complicated issues in the future, and assuming it to be your business, I would urge you to get the facts first. [Emphasis mine, KDJ]

    The fact is that Wilson is a public figure and he has made these details about his personal life known and public on the Internet and now to the national printed media via the article in the NYT. I would stress that Mr. Wilson has not been forced to speak to an op-ed writer at the Times and no one has been forcing him to write blog posts about his brother’s apparent heretical opinions about open theism. Once Mr. Wilson volunteers this information, it is our business to check out these things and especially when it comes to ministers in the Church.

    Mr. Wilson, as a minister in the Church, is responsible to more than just his local elders and the Christ Church congregation he pastors. He is responsible to the Church at large whether that is found on the Internet or in other congregations and as such his conduct and speech as a public ministerial figure in these debates is up for review especially when he puts forward much of this information himself.

    In other words, it is not inappropriate to question Mr. Wilson on the things that he puts forwards or the conduct he displays because he is accountable to all of us as members in the Body of Christ as we all are. The office of elder is not just responsible to our Lord but there is a dual responsibility to the flock to make sure that ministers are not unaccountable.

    This is particularly relevant in the debate concerning Federal Vision theology and both sides make a mistake if they think that the debate should only be about theology and not about these other things such as how Mr. Wilson treats his family and his congregants (current or former) as a result of the theology he advocates. Given that the Federal Vision movement was borne out of pastoral concern, it is not unreasonable to evaluate and consider what effect the pastoral policies and behavior of men like Douglas Wilson produces in the local and wider church environments within which we all find ourselves.

    And so, as this little aside hopefully demonstrates, there is more to consider and yes, it very much is our business as the Church to examine these things and hold them up to the light of the truth of the matter whether Wilson likes it or not.

  9. Mark T. said,

    October 1, 2007 at 11:53 am

    Kevin,

    You nailed it. Now here is a FACT CHECK.

  10. October 1, 2007 at 12:10 pm

    It’s all in Girard, man! Evan, Kevin, Michael, Douglas, the lot.

    “I never pulled any information about your family relations from anyone or anything other than the NYT article I mentioned and your own comments on your own blog.”

    ” . . . how Mr. Wilson treats his family and his congregants (current or former) as a result of the theology he advocates.”

    Kevin, how do you know how I treat my family from the NYT article and my own comments on my blog?

  11. GLW Johnson said,

    October 1, 2007 at 12:14 pm

    My disagreements with DW are well known, but this busy with the hachet job by the NYT writer and gleaning from items designed to embrass DW is very unsavory and should not be part of this debate.

  12. October 1, 2007 at 12:38 pm

    Gary,

    If you are reading an intent to embarrass Douglas Wilson in my comments, I can only ask you to avoid imputing such motives to what I have put forward. The point is not to embarrass but to examine and discuss where things fall short of the mark and as such public figures such as Douglas Wilson are fair game in looking at this Federal Vision theology issue. If the FV theology is as heretical as some of you have claimed, then it behooves us to examine these things closely and offer criticism where it is due. As a result, this is not merely about Douglas Wilson but about the gospel itself and so I hope this additional thought is helpful to you at least in examining my own comments on these things.

  13. pduggie said,

    October 1, 2007 at 12:48 pm

    Calvin had servetus put to death. Clearly Calvinism is false and produces bad fruit.

  14. October 1, 2007 at 12:59 pm

    Heh. Now that is a winner argument. Too bad you didn’t have James Jordan bark it out. Would have had much more entertaining rhetoric associated with it–but as usual the bark is always worse than the bite. Give me a break, pduggie!

  15. October 1, 2007 at 1:09 pm

    Kevin, it is not that doctrine and life are unrelated. Of course they are related, and Paul insists upon the connection in his teaching in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. But doctrine and lies about one’s life are unrelated. If you want to investigate the connection between FV theology and how people are actually living it out here, then I invite you to come visit us and look. This necessitates, incidentally, getting both sides of a story (Prov. 18:17), even when you think “primary documents” are involved.

  16. October 1, 2007 at 1:10 pm

    Douglas,

    It seems scandalous to me that you are quick to write myself and a host of others off to the theories of a modernist sociologist/philosopher who seems to have an undue appreciation for only certain prejudiced aspects of Judeo-Christian thought and practice. The Federal Vision Jedi Mind Trick. Great stuff.

    How wonderful it would have been instead to substantively counter what it is I’ve had to say to this point instead of unnecessarily linking me with your brother, Michael Metzler, and whoever else has opposed you–‘the lot’–as you say. It would also have been refreshing to hear something other than accusations as to where I got my information. At least this time you are asking a question instead of making a blatant and uninformed assertion.

    My guess is that more reasonable parties will raise an eyebrow or two and perhaps some will begin to smell the stink in the pot–the ones not immediately familiar with all of your opponents but who keep hearing you group us all together without discrimination and with the sort of vociferous denials as to the veracity of our differing but still critical points of view. Not that having a multitude against you in and of itself proves that you are in error but it does speak to the fact that something somewhere here is drastically wrong and it is likely statistically impossible that everyone except for Douglas Wilson is wrong in all things here.

    I do have hope that our Christian brothers and other ministers will take the time to consider how you respond and argue in a debate and how you consistently work to attack your opponents and point an accusing finger towards those who disagree with you rather than deal with their assertions.

    In regards to your question, I am not going to restate the obvious or have you pick apart what is clear from what you’ve already indicated even in your last post by listing your brother right along with all the others who have challenged you in the past with the sort of amateurish sociological analysis only Jerry Springer would be proud of.

  17. Sam Steinmann said,

    October 1, 2007 at 1:11 pm

    Kevin,

    How is “Douglas Wilson and his brother have serious theological disagreements, which work out in practical disagreements, but they still speak politely to and about each other” in any way discreditable to either of them?

  18. jared said,

    October 1, 2007 at 1:18 pm

    *bows to Keven*

    Obviously you have it all worked out.

  19. October 1, 2007 at 1:30 pm

    Douglas Wilson writes:

    If you want to investigate the connection between FV theology and how people are actually living it out here, then I invite you to come visit us and look. This necessitates, incidentally, getting both sides of a story (Prov. 18:17), even when you think “primary documents” are involved.

    Douglas,

    Umm. I have had all too much of a chance to test the waters and you well know it. Unless your memory is really bad, this sort of offer is so disingenuous given that you know I spent considerable time in a CREC church but I imagine mention of this will only tempt you or others to try to turn the table on this discussion and go in the direction of discrediting those who speak against you.

    You may not remember but I met you in the halls of your own converted gymnasium. I’ve been to the ministerial conferences and presbytery meetings. You’ve been telling your side of the story for some time and it’s plastered all over your websites, literature, conference material, and the like. The idea that both sides (and the myth that there are only two sides to these things) haven’t told much of the story is just more ridiculous fiction. Much of it is out there for people to read and examine.

    To others:
    I would encourage people to do their homework in looking at these things. Don’t take anything for granted including my own comments and perspective. Judge carefully and judge for yourself. Don’t merely rest with being persuaded. That’s how people are deceived. You can write me off as one more disgruntled Internet hack but I would encourage you to take the time to honestly consider what is being put forward here and in other contexts before you make up your mind about what is being said here and elsewhere about these things.

    And, for the record, I don’t claim to have the immaculate perception on these issues. You may have missed the reference to looking at these things with a “cursory read” as I said above–I’m willing to discuss these things and even be corrected where I’m wrong. But, as it stands now, this is my point of view and I put it forward for discussion and consideration.

  20. kjsulli said,

    October 1, 2007 at 3:57 pm

    Personally, I think the stipulation with regard to I Tim. 5:9 was met quite awhile ago in Pr. Wilson’s case. But I’m on the outside, looking in.

  21. Robert K. said,

    October 1, 2007 at 4:38 pm

    Notice Wilson references the point in the satire that doesn’t apply to him (the Latinate blog title). That is a small example of the unserious sophistic deflecting that these types do.

    Wilson engages in guerrilla marketing. He has to. He has a ‘university’ (according to Mark Horne) that is one step above the strip mall level. But just one step. He has real scandals involving real crimes, so he builds up a gambling scandal where less than $1000 dollars was involved and talks about it and gets others to talk about it as if it was a major event. He’s self-published and he emails stringers to (hopefully!!1?) get his name in the rag called the New York Times (see how important he is with his one step above a strip mall ‘university’?). All the while he’s engaging in fifth column false teaching against God’s truth (his worst crime by far).

    When I read even his critics they are as bizarre and vain and and small-scale pretending to be larger-scale as Wilson. It’s all weird. Some kind of home town Idaho weird. The leverage is one thing and one thing only: call yourself Reformed then engage in a multi-pronged campaign to defile and distort Reformed Theology from inside the various camps of Reformed Theology.

    Have I mentioned James Jordan, which is his intellectual and most likely spirital leader?

  22. tim prussic said,

    October 1, 2007 at 4:45 pm

    That’s right… far too many people on the outside [hardly] looking in…but don’t let that stop you from making comments about folks’ personal lives! I’m amazed that anyone can stomach personal attacks on ministers the way Mark T. dishes ‘em up. I’ve been highlighting his worthless personal attacks on here for weeks. When I linked to his blog, I’ll admit that I was quite sickened to see that he’s just an anonymous poster, afraid to reveal who he is. Gentlemen, is this the way Christians are to act? This kind of interchange makes me long for the likes of non-Christians like Spinoza – at least he was civil and addressed issues instead of slinging made-up mud at men.

    Simply disgusting.

  23. Robert K. said,

    October 1, 2007 at 4:50 pm

    By critics I wasn’t referring to Mark T., but to Metzler and the lady who has the website, and…. The ones that swish back and forth and never really get to the point of saying anything concrete but seem to exist in the same cyber goo Wilson exists in and seem to be part of his guerrilla marketing. All of this is partly internet culture and partly self-publishing culture, partly small-time graft culture (boarding room scams and what not); but it’s Wilson’s and his fellow liberal theologians like Jordan and Leithart, shamelessness in exatling himself in the temple of God’s truth (the only camps that are still teaching and defending sound biblical doctrine – Calvinism/Reformed Theology) and playing the role of the devil in distorting and defiling that doctrine that is giving him any leverage to get national attention.

  24. October 1, 2007 at 5:45 pm

    Robert,

    American Reformed churches and even evangelicalism are strange worlds these days and it is nothing like what I read about churches historically. If I remember correctly, you aren’t even in the States and so it must seem even more strange. At least in Europe there is some amount of history to refer to in calling people to faithfulness.

    There are those though in this environment that are seriously at work trying to be as Reformed as they can given the circumstances. We do not always succeed and I believe it is helpful to hear from our brothers and sisters in other communions on these matters even when what we hear is not resoundingly positive or even affirming. We ought to be valuing truth merely because it is truth and not because it comes down on high from some obscure central Idaho enclave.

    I take comfort in knowing that in the end no matter what the truth and reality of our Lord’s Kingship will win out in the end and the Lord will judge His people, the wheat and the chaff will be separated, and we will see our Lord for who He really is. May He be praised!

  25. Robert K. said,

    October 1, 2007 at 6:07 pm

    Kevin, one correction, I’m sometimes joking that I’m associated with a certain university outside the United States (I know you probably don’t read all the comments here), but I am in the states.

    I agree there needs to be an assessment re Wilson and Federal Vision regarding just what scale it really is in terms of influence and so adjust the rhetoric and reaction accordingly. Up ’til now I think Wilson and company have been enjoying the bloated attention. But you can’t deny the leverage they get when they force the hand of whole denominations and so on. Working within organisations or institutions that you are attempting to change (in whatever way) forces the hand of the people there to take you seriously. Kind of like the difference between the nuisance that ants can be outside your home and what they become when they are storming all over your kitchen.

  26. Kyle said,

    October 1, 2007 at 7:47 pm

    That’s right… far too many people on the outside [hardly] looking in…

    Were it the case of one man slinging wild accusations at Pr. Wilson, I could dismiss it. I Tim. 5:9. But the fact of the matter is that there are many people over the course of several years who have accused Pr. Wilson of misconduct on various levels, and some of it is quite well-documented (for example, the casino scandal). That Pr. Wilson and Christ Church have consistently tarred the character of anyone who dares cross paths with Pr. Wilson is troublesome to me (and makes the anonymity of some accusers more than understandable); worse that no charges against him ever seem to be taken seriously. Pair that with a bizarre Jeremiah-complex that has frequently come to expression in his public writings, and it’s not looking so good.

    But you don’t have to take my word for it. There’s plenty of information available on his history. And I’m sure Pr. Wilson will have something to say in his defense.

    My mention of insiders/outsiders is really about this: It seems that you cannot really understand the happenings at Christ Church unless you’re an insider. But if you accuse Pr. Wilson or Christ Church of bad things, your made into an outsider, and you no longer really understand the happenings at Christ Church.

  27. Robert K. said,

    October 1, 2007 at 7:58 pm

    >”My mention of insiders/outsiders is really about this: It seems that you cannot really understand the happenings at Christ Church unless you’re an insider. But if you accuse Pr. Wilson or Christ Church of bad things, your made into an outsider, and you no longer really understand the happenings at Christ Church.”

    Cults are like that.

  28. GLW Johnson said,

    October 2, 2007 at 9:03 am

    As I have made clear, I have doctrinal and personal issues with DW. I have openly stated here and eslewhere that I made repeated attempts to address my concerns about the FV to DW by personal correspondance before ever airing my beefs publically and got rebuffed. To make matters worst instead of owning up to this DW instead painted me to look like a cross between Oil-Can Harry and Snidely Whiplash on this very blog. That said, I still do not see dragging into this debate the NYT writer’s biased slant on the issues between DW and his brother. Did anyone else notice that the writer seemed delighted to gave the limited academic background on one of the professors at NSA but did not mention that Liethart held a PhD from Cambridge? I am sure that if some cub reporter wanted to do a similar story on me, they would have no trouble finding any number of disgruntled formed members of the Church of The Redeemer more than willing to grind their axe against me . I have been here for 15 years and in the process of ‘Reforming’ this church I have stepped on alot of toes, i.e. got rid of the worship team along with the praise band, nixed the children’s sermon, removed from teaching one of the home Bible studies a man who was very popular but was a hardcore ultra-dispensationalist, refused to involve the church in Promise-Keepers and led the church out of the N.A.E. My point is that whatever issues that were highlighted in the NYT piece issues designed to cast a bad light on DW in his role as pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, ID. are really secondary to me in this debate over the FV and its negative impact on the larger Reformed community.

  29. tim prussic said,

    October 2, 2007 at 9:15 am

    It’s only about feeling really big when you type something… that’s the whole point.

  30. October 2, 2007 at 9:33 am

    Gary, in all honesty, thanks much for the distinctions you are making here. I appreciate it greatly.

  31. Mark T. said,

    October 2, 2007 at 9:36 am

    Gary,

    I agree that the writer did a hatchet job (a well-deserved hatchet job IMO) on NSA, and I agree that omitting Leithart’s credentials looks like a snub, unless she did it as a favor to Cambridge University. But in what way do you believe she biased her report about the family breach?

  32. GLW Johnson said,

    October 2, 2007 at 9:38 am

    Doug
    You are very welcome…..now forsake the errors of the FV!

  33. October 2, 2007 at 9:40 am

    Kyle, the “documentation” of the casino “scandal” is risible. What happened was this: the elders found out that some idiot kids were gambling at their house (the casino), shut the operation down the day we found out about it, and required everyone to return the money to the point where it was the day before the gambling started. When some couldn’t or wouldn’t do that, we expedited the required restitution from church funds (moved, seconded and recorded in the minutes), which money was then subsequently restored to the church’s deacon fund by one of the principal offenders. If my enemies want me to feel bad about the charges made against me, they need to find something I would be ashamed of.

  34. October 2, 2007 at 10:03 am

    Gary,

    Just because a source is biased, it does not immediately follow that all of the information presented by that source is incorrect, unreliable, or unusable. Wilson, in my view, confirms the facts as they are presented in the NYT article with the comments he has made over time on his own blog.

    I understand these issues are secondary to you in regards to the Federal Vision controversy, but that also doesn’t mean that they are not important issues to go over as necessary and as I have explained above.

    Too often, I believe we divorce our doctrinal concerns from the real-life consequences inherent in the way we view our salvation and the world. Though we can separate these things, make distinctions, and treat one or the other in conversation as the times require, in truth the connection between doctrine and life is absolutely inseparable and therefore things like this are very much relevant to our concerns in the Church regarding new and competing theologies.

  35. Mark T. said,

    October 2, 2007 at 10:40 am

    Kevin,

    I believe that a recent comment from Douglas Wilson affirms your point. The other day he referred to his revision of a former Christ Church member’s “full history” in an attempt to reframe the conversation, writing,

    Or third, you can stay on my blog as is with the proviso that that you formally waive all pastoral/parishioner privileges, granting me permission to respond to your assertions via reference to your full history with us.

    If Wilson can make public implications about people from their “full history,” then shouldn’t he welcome others to apply the same standard to him, which obviously involves examining his “full history”?

    I welcome his answer.

  36. October 2, 2007 at 11:52 am

    Mark,

    Those comments by Wilson would be seen by me and likely other reasonable people acquainted with the etiquette and legalities of the issue as an implicit threat and in my view outside of normal and appropriate ministerial discretion.

    Additionally, given the fact that Wilson is both a leader and a public figure in the American Church, his own case should be inherently more transparent than we might expect of the average layman that might challenge him. More transparent, not less. The standard is supposed to be higher because Wilson, like any other minister, has fiduciary responsibilities to his elders, his congregation, and as I point out above, the Church at large.

  37. Dave Rockwell said,

    October 2, 2007 at 11:58 am

    I have been listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio today after the Senate Democrats put forth a ridiculous resolution denouncing him. As I listen to his political analysis of the situation, I can’t help but see the parallels to the Federal Vision controversy. The similarities are amazing! Listen for yourself. All you have to do replace a few names and terms, and you have a Rush Limbaugh clear presentation of the Federal Vision and why PCA pastors – like Republicans – are not speaking up. And, how the FV pastors – like the Democrats on the Senate floor – are desecrating the gospel of Jesus Christ and His bride, the Church

  38. Dave Rockwell said,

    October 2, 2007 at 1:48 pm

    Isn’t this the month when the SJC rules on the Lousiana Presbytery and Steve Wilkins? Is the SJC making a ruling on the LA Presbytery’s exoneration of Steve Wilkins? What exactly is supposed to happen and who are the parties involved?

  39. October 2, 2007 at 2:33 pm

    MarkT, unfortunately for you, a full history of this story would include the names of all my accusers. I suggest you stick with what you are good at — partial histories.

  40. magma2 said,

    October 2, 2007 at 3:11 pm

    I am sure that if some cub reporter wanted to do a similar story on me, they would have no trouble finding any number of disgruntled formed members of the Church of The Redeemer more than willing to grind their axe against me . I have been here for 15 years and in the process of ‘Reforming’ this church I have . . .

    Can I go to your church? ;) It’s good to be beaten over the head for doing the right things. Can’t say the same for some of the things I’ve read about Wilson. While I too don’t feel particularly comfortable with all the personal history stuff going on with Wilson, it does illustrate one obvious aspect of church polity that I find disturbing in the FV and it’s the implicit ecclesiastic authoritarianism.

    Mark T. has provided even more disturbing examples on his blog site. Harassing people at work and bad mouthing people to their employers. Is that for real?

    Mark T. is that link you provided above broken or was the piece you were linking to taken down or do you suppose it is something on my end?

  41. Mark T. said,

    October 2, 2007 at 3:33 pm

    Douglas,

    I am not aware that I have accused you of anything; please, if you would be so kind, can you show me this so-called accusation. Also, I do not wish to misrepresent you in any way, so please show me where I have erred or left a false impression in my “partial” history and I will gladly correct it. And when you cannot, please demonstrate the same willingness to correct the false impressions that you have left.

    Thank you.

    Sean,

    Here is the correct link (check the comments section).

    http://dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=4552

  42. pduggie said,

    October 2, 2007 at 3:40 pm

    You dweebs (:-)) have posted 41 posts on this sarcasm debate (I haven’t even read it) and I’ve done about a dozen posts dealing with exegetical matters and questions related to justification as a verdict of deliverance. Nobody wants to comment on anything of importance?

  43. tim prussic said,

    October 2, 2007 at 3:47 pm

    Mark T. has shown that he handles himself without much care as to the honestly of what’s said by him or others. Read post #31. According to his own admission, we have a hatchet job that omits facts pertinent to the whole, but, in his opinion, it’s well deserved. I suppose that Mr. T. thinks it’s well deserved because the basis of an accusation in reality makes not a bit of difference when it serves his purpose. He loathes the FV (and fair enough, I suppose). But, in his opinion, deceiving folks regarding men associated with the FV is not a problem. His ends must, in his mind, justify his base means.

    It seems evident enough that anyone interested in truthfulness, I’m sad to say, should avoid Mr. T.’s posts on his enemies.

    Would to God this foolishness would end.

  44. October 2, 2007 at 4:33 pm

    MarkT at 3:33 pm on Oct. 2, 2007: “I am not aware that I have accused you of anything.”

    MarkT at 6:36 pm on Oct. 1, 2007: “Douglas Wilson’s horrible treatment of his brother Evan. . .” “one of Doug’s primary weapons that he uses against his perceived enemies . . . economic sanctions” “the first place he looks to seek revenge” “Wilson dispatches his goon squad . . .”

    In the “About me” section of MarkT’s blog: “I have witnessed much of the spite and deceit animating Pastor Douglas Wilson.”

    I think Gary knows that this kind of thing is discrediting the wrong people.

  45. Mark T. said,

    October 2, 2007 at 4:35 pm

    Tim,

    The phrase “hatchet job” is neutral. Some are deserved and some are not. The context makes the distinction, which distinction you did not grasp when you said that I admitted, “we have a hatchet job that omits facts pertinent to the whole,” which I never admitted.

    I said it “looked like a snub,” and nothing more, because IMO Leithart’s credentials don’t do a whole lot to bolster the credibility of the rest of the faculty (almost half?) who don’t have doctorates.

    I point this out as another example of you arriving at false conclusions based upon your misunderstandings or misrepresentations of other people’s words.

  46. tim prussic said,

    October 2, 2007 at 4:45 pm

    Mark, quit playing games. Your credibility is shot. I’ve been call people’s attention to your character smears for weeks. You’ve finally sunk your own boat. Please, take your own advice: “do us all a favor and repent” (post 4).

  47. Mark T. said,

    October 2, 2007 at 4:48 pm

    Thank you, Douglas, for the quotes, but I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree.

    You see, I am an eyewitness along with hundreds of others on the Palouse to these things, which is why I wrote them as facts, not accusations. You are free to disagree.

    But I know what Evan would say and has said. I encourage you to ask him. And if that does not satisfy you, perhaps you could ask Drs. Quinlan, Ramsey, and Sanchez.

    How much bandwidth do I have?

  48. October 2, 2007 at 6:39 pm

    MarkT, you are not an eyewitness at all. You live in Mexico City, right? That’s where all the anonymous people that I know live.

  49. Dave Rockwell said,

    October 2, 2007 at 9:07 pm

    How can you know these people if they are anonymous, Pastor Wilson?

  50. Robert K. said,

    October 2, 2007 at 10:49 pm

    All Federal Visionists (and their supporters) should do this exercise: read Thomas Boston’s Human Nature in its Fourfold State, and write out clearly everywhere in that work they think Boston is wrong.

    And does one even need to mention the fact that in that work Boston wrote a famous 70 pages on the mystical union between Christ and believers? 70 pages no Federal Visionist has matched or exceeded, it goes without saying. And it’s a subject they claim as uniquely their own.

  51. GLW Johnson said,

    October 3, 2007 at 8:02 am

    Will wonders never cease. Here I am defending DW alongside Tim Prussic and PDuggan against my fellow critics of the FV I I am not careful I am liable to get invited to speak at the next Auburn Avenue Conference! Well that’s a bit of a stretch considering my well-deserved reputation as a Old Princeton curmudgeon.
    Look fellow critics of the FV, what if after pondering my appeals to DW shortly after the Knox colloquium, Doug responding along these lines-” Gary,thanks so much for taking time to write me personally and to express your concerns over the FV. I very much appreciate it and I intend to convey these concerns to my fellow FVers and to take the necessary steps to publically distance myself from views held by some of them that I likewise am very uncomfortable with.” And so instead of taking the position that he has,Doug does just the opposite and refuses to be identified with the FV. IF that had happened would Mike T. and Kevin Johnson be dredging this stuff up about DW and his brother and other rumors that have circulated around Moscow? I seriously doubt it. I am all for criticising DW for his role and views on the FV, but taking cheapshots at him outside that context is reprehensible.

  52. Keith LaMothe said,

    October 3, 2007 at 8:09 am

    Lane,

    If I could find a suitable clip of circus music, could you set it up to play for anyone reading this comments thread?

    Gary, thanks for sticking to principles even when the irony meter redlines.

  53. greenbaggins said,

    October 3, 2007 at 8:55 am

    Folks, I am agreeing with Gary Johnson on this, and am declaring a moratorium on DW’s family life being up for discussion. It is not what this blog is for. If Mark wants to talk about it, he has a blog. This blog is theological, not judicatory in nature.

  54. October 3, 2007 at 9:10 am

    Let’s just remember that Douglas Wilson started off personally attacking his anonymous critics in this thread and my initial post was in response to that. I believe, Lane, if you’re going to police comments on your blog and make these matters theological only, you should start by disallowing any sort of personal attacks including those made on either side.

    I’m not going to do anything other than what the blog owner wants but to respond to Gary the world isn’t like the hypothetical situation he proposes and Wilson hasn’t in fact recanted. The fact is that doctrine and life must be evaluated and the more public that evaluation is the better. I know this is controversial and maybe this is the wrong forum for that (and clearly it is now since Lane has spoken) but I hope what I have put forward has not fallen on deaf ears or seen as the sort of scorn some people are trying to portray it as.

  55. greenbaggins said,

    October 3, 2007 at 9:13 am

    Point well taken, Kevin. I will try to be better about that. It is difficult when there are this many comments. Oftentimes it winds up being after the fact that I even see the offensive comment.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 351 other followers

%d bloggers like this: