New Book on the NPP

January 17, 2008 at 7:19 pm (Books (reviews and recommendations))

It looks like this book is a collection of essays. It will be very convenient to have them all in one place.

20 Comments

  1. Jeff Meyers said,

    January 18, 2008 at 11:23 am

    Looks like the comments are turned off in the previous post.

    Please remove the photo of Jordan that appears in the previous post. It is my property and I did not give you permission to use it here. You have stolen what belongs to me without asking my permission. Your are clearly in violation of copyright laws.

    Thank you.

    Jeff Meyers

  2. Jeff Meyers said,

    January 18, 2008 at 11:29 am

    Second, since I cannot comment on the previous post, everyone should know that James Jordan has apologized and asked for forgiveness. Clearly, the discussion phase of this controversy is NOT over.

    You can read his apology here or you can read it here:

    —————————
    Gentlemen,

    I hereby ask your forgiveness for my several overheated posts over the last few days. I have deleted all but the first, which is the only thing I had any right to post to you; to wit: that there is nothing wrong with anyone’s commenting on the public actions and behavior of certain parties in the PCA, behavior that is public and that some regard as shocking and scandalous.

    I was out of line in my comments here, partly because the rhetoric I employed is not appropriate in a public blog, and partly because, being neither in the PCA nor a presbyterian, anything beyond a general expression of concern or horror at how these affairs are being conducted is inappropriate.

    I allowed my friendship with persons I believe are being wrongfully persecuted to inflame my language, and I wrote in anger, and I should not have done so.

    So, please forgive me for having troubled your waters, and be assured that it will not happen again.

    Sincerely,

    James B. Jordan
    ————————–

    A proper, Christian response to this would be to remove the previous post.

  3. greenbaggins said,

    January 18, 2008 at 11:37 am

    Thanks for posting this, Jeff. I have a question for James, however, since I am a tad confused. Is he apologizing for the original post that is the subject of the previous post by Andy? Or is he apologizing not for that one, but for all the subsequent posts? Secondly, what precisely does he want us to remove? I am only asking for clarification here, not challenging the sincerity of the apology. I will personally remove the picture from the post.

  4. James B Jordan said,

    January 18, 2008 at 11:44 am

    Hi. I apologized to Gleason and Co. for all but the first post I sent to them, which I have left up. I have not followed the discussion here, so I don’t know what Mr. Webb put up. This is what I have left up:

    “The actions of the Star Judicial Chamber of the PCA are so openly wicked and evil, and so totally tyrannical, that is makes the Papacy look like small potatoes by comparison. All Christians in all kinds of churches should be appalled by this tyranny, and it is certainly fine for Armstrong, myself, and others to comment on it.”

    I’m happy to stand by this. It’s no more “over the top” rhetorically than most of what goes up on blogs. And I believe it is quite true. There are checks and balances on the Papacy. There are no checks on the SJC in the PCA. It was a very serious mistake for the PCA to set things up this way.

  5. Andrew Webb said,

    January 18, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Jeff et al,

    I should make it clear that I only have contributor access to the blog, I cannot read pending comments, neither do I have the ability to turn off comments, or edit other people’s comments etc. Regarding the photo, it was actually linked to from your post, the image was not uploaded to WordPress or stored on their servers – Blogger was actually still the host. Additionally there was no copyright information regarding any of the photos on your blog, neither do you mention that the material on your blog is not in the public domain, nor is the material hosted at your expense. In any event, I’m more than willing to replace the image link with a text link so no image shows up on the post. In future, please note that you can remove linked images from someone else’s blog by simply removing or changing the image on your own blog.

    James, I’m unclear, how can you say that you “don’t know what Mr. Webb put up” when you actually posted twice in response to what I “put up” defending and attempting to explain your original comments?

    In any event, it’s Lane’s Blog, if he wants to delete the entire post at James Jordan’s request, then he may do so. It doesn’t change my opinion about the wisdom of continuing “discussion.” To tell the truth at this point, I believe the discussion is as useful to the church as the Paris peace talks were to South Vietnam and the USA.

  6. Mark T. said,

    January 18, 2008 at 12:43 pm

    Pastor Lane Keister,

    As the Assistant Prosecutor whom the Star Judicial Chamber of the PCA appointed to disembowel your fellow-ministers, I call on you to repent of your sins that are so openly wicked and evil, and so totally tyrannical, that it makes the Papacy look like small potatoes by comparison. You appall me.

    Thank you.

  7. Brian Carpenter said,

    January 18, 2008 at 12:52 pm

    In all the heated rhetoric, I wonder if anyone has expressed the view that some of us view the discipline process in the PCA concerning FV adherents as quite unfortunate, but also quite necessary?

    There are people in the PCA that I genuinely like, both in my current presbytery and in my previous one, who are FV. My affection for them makes me reticent to see them disciplined out of the PCA. My concern for the church makes me see it as something that must be done.

    I understand the anger and feelings of persecution on the part of the recipients of discipline (has it ever been any other way for those who don’t think they need discipline, even if it was the judgment of those in authority over them that they did need it?)

    And perhaps there are those on my side of the fence who have a genuine antipathy towards the people holding the position, and not just the position itself. The exchanges I see on the board makes me think that’s possible. But I don’t think what goes on in this echo chamber is the norm. Out in the real world I sense a heaviness and a great reluctance to take up the matter at all… an inertia and a desire to just let sleeping dogs lie. I myself am frankly sick of talking about the thing.

    Make no mistake, I intend to do all in my power, meager though it be, to see this task carried through. But it will be heavy, gritty work to me; unpleasant and with a good deal of sadness and possibly even damage to my own reputation within my immediate circle of peers. So be it. I don’t crave conflict. Neither am I afraid of it.

  8. GLW Johnson said,

    January 18, 2008 at 1:05 pm

    Is Jordon going to follow the example of Reggie Kidd and seek forgiveness for his sinful assessment of RC Sproul? What about the members of the PCA study committee that he defamed?

  9. Andrew Webb said,

    January 18, 2008 at 1:25 pm

    Not to mention 90% of the GA assessed as a “gaggle of fools”…

  10. Andrew Webb said,

    January 18, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    Also, I’m wondering how these recent overheated posts differ substantialy from the prior pattern of defamations, which have included Jordan’s piece published in Biblical Horizons (“How to Do Reformed Theology Nowadays”) which was packed with the same kind of thing referring, just to give one instance amongst many, to “the Warfield List (where idiocy abounds)” and stating “Strange’s essay is just a summary report of the OPC Committee report mentioned above. That Report is one of the most amazing series of mindless misreadings and outright deceptions that I think I have ever encountered. It is not far from the kind of internet theoporn that oozes from the Warfield List and other cybergutters. There is no way I’m going to bore you with all the evil contained in this report: If you are really interested, go to http://www.federalvision.com, where you can read the Report itself and then numerous essays pointing out its stupidities.”

    Do Allan Strange, the OPC, and the nearly 700 members of the Warfield List not qualify for an apology and a retraction as well?

  11. pduggie said,

    January 18, 2008 at 1:56 pm

    I’ll just mention that I grew up in the OPC way before any of this, and the fact that the GA of the PCA didn’t have any ability to review actions of its committees was a big reason against J&R.

    That and all the Masons.

  12. its.reed said,

    January 18, 2008 at 2:24 pm

    Ref. #11:

    Well Paul, ya got us there. Them jars are always a problem :) (Seriously, point noted).

  13. Jeff Cagle said,

    January 18, 2008 at 2:24 pm

    Dr. Jordan,

    Thank you for the apology and retraction. The Federal Vision food-fight is extraordinarily painful to watch, and I would appreciate any efforts you or others could make to reduce the level of conflict and personal animosity. As you can see (comm. 8,9,10), there are still open issues out there.

    Jeff Cagle

  14. Ron Henzel said,

    January 18, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    James Jordan wrote, “There are checks and balances on the Papacy.” I think what he probably meant to say was, “There are checkbooks with very high balances in the Papacy.” There, now that makes more sense. (Just ask the bishops who were asked by Pope Paul VI to craft a statement on birth control how well that “checks and balances” thing works in the Vatican!)

  15. jeffhutchinson said,

    January 18, 2008 at 2:29 pm

    One factual correction. It is not true that the PCA doesn’t “have any ability to review actions of its committees.” Neither is Mr. Jordan correct that “there are no checks on the SJC.” There are many constitutional avenues one may pursue to seek to bring correction either to our committees or our SJC.

    Now, no more comments on this thread about the previous post. Comments were turned off there (by me) for a reason. Any subsequent comments on this thread that aren’t about the “New Book on the NPP” will bring a warning, and be deleted. Thanks.

  16. Jeff Cagle said,

    January 18, 2008 at 2:33 pm

    Copyright does not require official notice:

    The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works.

    Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989. — http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc

    .

    However, criticism, comment, and reporting fall under Fair Use and cannot be restricted via copyright laws.

    § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

    (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

    (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

    (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

    (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. — 17 USC 107.

    Jeff Cagle

  17. Jeff Cagle said,

    January 18, 2008 at 2:35 pm

    Sorry Jeff H, I posted before seeing yours. Delete away if you wish.

    So about that New Perspective on Paul … who’s in the book (other than Dunn)?

    Jeff C

  18. jeffhutchinson said,

    January 18, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    All’s well, Jeff. The time stamps bear out your innocence!

  19. greenbaggins said,

    January 18, 2008 at 2:57 pm

    Jeff C, I believe it is a collection of Dunn’s essays.

  20. Federal Vision Meltdown - Part Deux « Reformed Musings said,

    January 19, 2008 at 11:46 am

    [...] immortalized here at GreenBagginses. Apparently the BH talking points include Jeff Meyers using the copyright tactic that failed the Jim Jordan earlier on another blog. Jeff Cagle provides a quick lesson in Fair Use [...]


Post a Comment