More on Content and Tone

November 23, 2007 at 1:50 pm (Uncategorized)

Posted by Rev. Lane Keister

I’m not sure if I am especially adept at peacemaking, but I aspire to be.  As such, I need to remind everyone of Reed DePace’s summary of four questions that aren’t going to be resolved anytime soon on this blog.  This was the “P2” post.  Since that post the argument about each of those four questions has continued, WITHOUT the discussion being advanced by either side.

And so I now declare a moratorium here on all comments that beat the dead horse of these four questions, which we simply must leave alone for the forseeable future on this blog:

1. Is Rev. Wilson right that RE Mattes has been injudicious in his comments about him?

2. Are TE Hutchison and RE Mattes right, that the series of communications that RE Mattes received from an elder of Rev. Wilson’s church, Mike Lawyer, were an inappropriate attack perhaps intended to silence his speaking out against Rev. Wilson; and that Mr. Lawyer’s action represents an example of a pattern of such attacks experienced by others who have voiced opposition to Rev. Wilson?

3. Are those who disagree with TE Hutchison’s posting of the links right?

4. Are those who believe there is a pattern of bullying opponents on the part of Wilson and supporters right?

Brothers and sisters, we are not going to be able to answer those questions here to everyone’s satisfaction!  That much should be obvious!  Please, let us continue to discuss theology and polity first and foremost, for Christ’s glory.

Lane Keister

17 Comments

  1. anneivy said,

    November 23, 2007 at 1:59 pm

    “Please, let us continue to discuss theology and polity first and foremost, for Christ’s glory.”

    Sounds like a plan, Lane. :-D

  2. its.reed said,

    November 23, 2007 at 2:03 pm

    Great!

  3. Kevin D. Johnson said,

    November 23, 2007 at 2:11 pm

    Of course, one wonders where these things can get discussed and/or resolved given that the men in question and their actions span across denominational and other organizational lines. In my view, the Internet is the place for this discussion because it at least allows for a communal expression and inquiring of the facts whether all parties come to any sort of agreement or not. The one thing we shouldn’t do (and I don’t think Lane is doing this by returning to the main purpose of his blog) is sweep these things under the rug and go back to business as usual.

  4. its.reed said,

    November 23, 2007 at 2:32 pm

    Ref. #4:

    Kevin, of course not (offered with a genial smile and no condescension – how’s that for trying to mitigate internet communication weaknesses :)).

    We just need to make sure while discussing we don’t kick each other under the table, or throw any punches above.

    Like all His children, my flesh is still suspect. I’m grateful that faith-buffeting is honored by God. Back to pounding on myself now …

  5. reformedmusings said,

    November 23, 2007 at 2:40 pm

    Lane,

    Aye, Captain, full speed ahead on theology and polity, the reasons that I started blogging in the first place! All ahead flank! (see Jeff, even us AF guys can learn some Navy talk. Don’t they say that stuff on the ship all the time?)

    I hope that your family visit is going very well and they the Lord is providing you much-deserved rest for you body and your spirit.

    Blessings and peace,
    Bob

  6. DaveGlasebrook said,

    November 23, 2007 at 10:14 pm

    The internet is a good place to hammer out FV and theology. However that must be done in fairness, in honesty and carefully. ***SNIP***

  7. reformedmusings said,

    November 24, 2007 at 12:48 am

    DaveG.,

    I edited your post for tone and content. Please reread Lane’s desires for this (his) blog. We are no longer discussing the issues which I snipped out of your post. Discussions here will be centered on theology and polity, period. Please constrain your comments to those areas of discussion and I believe that you will see the balance that you desire. All respectful opinions are welcome in those two areas.

    To be clear, attacks on individuals or charges against them will no longer be tolerated on this blog. Fairness will almost inevitably result from this policy if everyone cooperates. If anyone wants to attack or make charges against someone, they can do it on their own blog or at least somewhere else.

    Also, the post to which you refered and all comments under it have been deleted. Other posts have had comments disabled in order to lower the temperature.

    Thank you for your cooperation.

  8. jared said,

    November 24, 2007 at 10:09 am

    reformedmusings,

    Did you somehow miss Robert K.’s post that’s right before David’s? Just curious…

  9. jeffhutchinson said,

    November 24, 2007 at 10:50 am

    Jared,

    I can’t speak for Bob, who edited Dave’s comment this morning, but I did see Dave’s full comment last night, and, as a result, removed what I think was a response of mine to him that had troubled him. If you had seen the full comment, perhaps you would be glad for that.

    I also removed some other comments (including some of my own) that were in violation of Lane’s moratorium. We are not allowing to stand, unaltered, only those comments with which everyone who reads Green Bagginses would agree (how many comments would we be left with?); we are continuing to allow all sorts of comments to speak for themselves in unaltered form, just not those in plain violation of Lane’s moratorium (on four specific questions) and overall guidelines.

  10. reformedmusings said,

    November 24, 2007 at 3:20 pm

    Jared,

    Thanks for your note. You didn’t see the personal attack in the comment I edited. It was very personal and not appropriate by the very clear rules that Lane posted.

    Please see Lane’s latest post. Commenting about the germaneness, etc., of other’s comments is not appropriate. We value your comments here and hope that you will continue to interact with the folks here. However, complaining about other people or their comments is neither germane nor permitted. If anyone wants to complain about anyone else, they should do so on their own blog. Thank you for your cooperation.

  11. Robert K. said,

    November 24, 2007 at 6:18 pm

    So am I banned? My two posts here have been deleted. And (trust me folks) they were written very much in a ‘strike one’ mentality and carefulness. I guess anything that isn’t total flowers and joy to the FV gets deleted now.

    Maybe it’s time anyway to leave this civil war (I’m a John Bunyan, John Owen Calvinist)…

    If you Reformed/Presbyterian guys can’t, though, keep such a ridiculous attack on biblical doctrine as Federal Vision out of your communions and publications and so on then you may deserve them.

  12. its.reed said,

    November 24, 2007 at 6:22 pm

    Robert:

    If you would, email me at “pastor dot reed at gmail dot com”.

    Thanks,

    reed

  13. jared said,

    November 24, 2007 at 10:17 pm

    Bob,

    I wasn’t contesting your editing of David’s comment in particular, nor was I attempting to have Robert’s comment(s) in this thread removed. I didn’t think his comment was “bad”, rather I was more concerned with Lane’s intentions that the editing and the strikes be fair and unbiased (i.e. both side’s comments are to be carefully considered by the moderators). Since this thread is about tone and content I didn’t think my last comment was off-topic, nor was it about the “germaneness” of Robert’s comment. I’m not entirely sure how it would be possible to continue in this thread without talking about other people’s comments so I thought I was well within the guidelines in formulating my argument and presenting it in the manner I did.

    You say that “complaining about other people or their comments is neither germane nor permitted” and I whole-heartedly agree that it shouldn’t be; I didn’t mean to sound like I was complaining or whining (in fact, I wasn’t). My primary purpose in writing my last comment was to ensure (or at least remind) that anti-FVist comments receive the same consideration given the guidelines as FVist comments. If you’re going to read tone into an FVists post, then you need to be reading it into anti-FVist’s posts as well. You’re right, I didn’t see the whole of David’s comment, but I did see the whole of Robert’s and, as usual, he is opaque (sorry for the round-about “compliment”, Robert; being clear, and blunt, and straight-forward is a gift and I would not deny you that). I understand I am not a deputy moderator and I will refrain from “complaining” about other’s comments in the actual threads. I see Reed’s email, here; might I also have yours and Jeff’s?

  14. reformedmusings said,

    November 24, 2007 at 11:04 pm

    Jared,

    Thanks, I got your point the first time.

    By policy, I don’t post my email address on the net. If you want to contact me, leave a comment with your email address on the About page at my blog. The comment will not appear on the blog, but I will get it in my control panel.

  15. reformedmusings said,

    November 24, 2007 at 11:09 pm

    Robert K.,

    You are not banned to the best of my knowledge. This isn’t a secret system. If you get strikes, you’ll be the first to know.

    I didn’t delete your posts, but it wouldn’t hurt to read and internalize Lane’s very clear guidance. We value your inputs, but they must be within the guidelines. It is possible to be direct without getting personal, even if with a broad brush. Believe me, I have to work at it at least as hard as anyone.

  16. Robert K. said,

    November 25, 2007 at 1:26 am

    This all though has the effect, by default, of a gag order. And *that* only helps the side that is bent on doctrinal mischief…

    On the other hand, it’s gone on too long (just look at the ‘Call to Repentance‘ portion of this excellent document, written in 2002!). If they are ignored they will start to modulate into some new *thing* and try again, unconsciously following age-old patterns of heresy…

  17. David Gray said,

    November 25, 2007 at 5:45 am

    So are you banning people for saying things like “are you kidding”?


Leave a comment