Index to Jeff Meyers posts

 Here is an index, for quick reference, to all the responses.

Part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, part 8, part 9, part 10, part 11

And here is Jeff Meyers’s post, for easy reference.


  1. Chris Hutchinson said,

    May 24, 2007 at 7:58 am

    This is an email I sent to Jeff Myers earlier this week. He has graciously accepted my apology. Lane, if it’s OK with you, I’ll post this a couple of different places, so it gets seen.



    I want to apologize for the way I brought up our private email exchange from a couple of years back on Lane’s blog. My methods were worldly and did not live up to the high standards required of my own ordination, or of even being a Christian, cf. Romans 12:18, etc.

    As you well know, if you do hold to the beliefs and practices I mentioned and I have not misunderstood them, I do think them odd, and serious enough that a presbytery should determine their acceptability. But the more mature and courageous approach would have been for me to press you on that privately, and if need be formally, rather than ambushing you in public.

    So, please accept my apologies. I will post something to this effect on Lane’s blog later at an appropriate place, but I wanted to do this privately with you first.

    Chris Hutchinson

  2. May 24, 2007 at 8:11 am

    Not that this poll means anything, but I thought your readers would be interested to see it at the very least:

  3. Stewart said,

    May 24, 2007 at 9:05 am

    I don’t see a link to the Trinity Foundation listed.

  4. May 24, 2007 at 9:32 pm

    Did you make that poll up yourself?

  5. anneivy said,

    May 25, 2007 at 6:50 am

    Does anyone know Lane’s email addy?

    His blog has….as y’all have doubtless noticed….been hit by trolls of the worst sort. :^(

  6. May 25, 2007 at 7:00 pm


    Sorry to say, the pole is NOT my creation. I was tipped off to it by the fact that featured my comments. I pray that it represents the GA!!! AnneIvy…now, now…no need for name calling!

  7. anneivy said,

    May 25, 2007 at 7:47 pm

    You missed ’em, Matthew. They got deleted.

    Trust me….you’d have agreed. These posts had *nothing* to do with theology. =8^o

  8. May 25, 2007 at 8:55 pm


    My apologies! I misunderstood the post…

  9. Anne Ivy said,

    May 26, 2007 at 2:09 am

    No problem, Matthew!

    Seeing as how Lane caught ’em and ditched ’em, so they weren’t here any longer, I can see where my post would be puzzling.

    Just another Annechronism. ;-)

  10. Anne Ivy said,

    May 26, 2007 at 2:11 am

    No problem! With the long list of offending posts having been deedily removed by Lane, my post became out-of-date….IOW, an Annechronism. ;^)

  11. Anne Ivy said,

    May 26, 2007 at 2:12 am

    Well, dang. Sorry about the double post. The first didn’t show up so I figured it’d been eaten and reposted.

    Plus the “Annechronism” was so dang clever I thought it bore repeating. :-D

  12. May 27, 2007 at 8:15 am

    The poll at is certainly interesting and I noted no safeguard to voting more than once (but I didn’t!). I also note that the site is hosted by name servers and

  13. May 27, 2007 at 10:08 am


    You’re only allowed one vote per computer. Cookies or something…

  14. anneivy said,

    May 27, 2007 at 10:21 am

    Chris, I think you’ve got me confused with Andrew Malloy, as it was he who asked a question regarding the poll @ ReformedNews. ;-)

    Anne. Andrew.

    I guess I can see how confusion could arise. :-D

    Now whether *Andrew’s* gonna be happy to have been taken for a grandmother in her mid-50’s, I dunno. >;^>

    (Just teasing you, naturally.)

  15. May 27, 2007 at 10:51 am

    No confusion; I was simply following on your response to An”drew”. ;-) On the voting, cookies can be deleted.

  16. anneivy said,

    May 27, 2007 at 12:34 pm

    Very funny.

    And to think they say stupid trolls have no sense of humor!

  17. William Hill said,

    May 27, 2007 at 5:41 pm

    Ummmm…time for GD to update his spam guards! Hmmmmm???

  18. May 28, 2007 at 2:21 am


  19. barlow said,

    May 30, 2007 at 12:38 pm

    Yes, I host – I also host,,, a dozen PCA churches, a handful of OPC churches, a construction company, a coffee company, etc. Hosting is my business, and is my nameserver.

  20. May 31, 2007 at 7:54 am

    So, it is only a professional hosting relationship then? i.e. you are not involved in RN otherwise?

  21. barlow said,

    May 31, 2007 at 2:05 pm

    Chris, Pastor Hutchinson asked me the same thing, and so I’ll just cut and paste my answer here to save time:

    Hi Pastor Hutchinson,

    Since you’ve asked point blank, for full disclosure, I am involved in other ways besides hosting too, but the goal of anonymity being not to reveal any identities until the paper can establish a reputation for unbiased reporting. So judge RN by the content of the articles on their own merits, and if you detect bias, feel free to point it out in the comments on the site or in the discussion area. Maybe it was not a great plan, but it was the plan that made the most sense in holding RN to the goal of proving its good will in the endeavor given all the ad hominem stuff online. Anyway, I’ve been trying to get people interested in the idea of an independent, Reformed press for a long time on my blog, so it shouldn’t be surprising that I’m involved in some way.

    Anyway, that’s pretty much all I want to say about my involvement right now. If it helps you to put a face on things, just assume I’ve done every single word of the site, but still judge the content on its own merit (and admire writers that don’t want personal recognition for their writings).

    I will confirm that if I ever write any opinion content, I will put my name on it.

    As for the poll, if you have some suggestion as to how the wording is biased or something, that would be a good thing to put in the discussion area for that post for other readers to see. RN is responsible for, at most, two or three votes cast to test it out. At various times throughout the poll’s run (it might still be running) different choices were ahead, so the outcome is just as much a surprise to RN as it would be to anyone.

  22. June 1, 2007 at 6:52 am

    Thanks for a straight answer.

  23. Tim Wilder said,

    June 1, 2007 at 7:33 am

    “the goal of anonymity being not to reveal any identities until the paper can establish a reputation for unbiased reporting.”

    If you want to prove that you are not biased, how about a story on how the Federal Vision split the Reformed Churches in Russia?

  24. Todd R. Harris said,

    June 1, 2007 at 8:01 am

    Tim, can you give us more details?

  25. Tim Wilder said,

    June 1, 2007 at 11:19 am


Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: