P2 (A Peacemaker Speaks, Part Two)

Posted by Dr. Jeff Hutchinson

(Once again, I am co-opting a comment from a thread below, made by Rev. Reed DePace, a Teaching Elder in the PCA, and am using it to begin a new thread, should anyone so interested care to read and consider.  Once again,  I have edited it a bit [for clarity, and a slight tweak to the content].  Once again, I have done so without asking Reed’s permission first.  And once again, I do so with threats to Reed that he had better let me do this, he had BETTER let me do this….:) )

Brothers and Sisters:

Maybe an attempt to focus the issue with a few questions (seeking to summarize all points fairly for all parties):

1. The “And So It Begins” thread began as a development from the matter of the PCA’s SJC finding that the LAP erred in their second examination of Rev. Wilkins.
2. Rev. Wilson believes the process is endemic of injustice in the PCA towards members who affirm the FV.
3. Rev. Wilson believes Bob Mattes has been injudicious in his comments about him.
4. Some (me among them) believe Rev. Wilson has been injudicious in his comments about the PCA.
5. Rev. Wilson made sufficient responses to document that he still believes points no. 2 & 3 stand, while denying point no. 4.
6. Ruling Elder Matters received a series of communications from an elder of Rev. Wilson’s church, Mike Lawyer, which Bob believed represents an inappropriate attack perhaps intended to silence his speaking out against Rev. Wilson.
7. Rev. Dr. Jeff Hutchison agrees with RE Mattes as to the nature of Mr. Lawyer’s communication, and further believes that Mr. Lawyer’s action represents an example of a pattern of such attacks experienced by others who have voiced opposition to Rev. Wilson.

8. Jeff believes the pattern has been established by the investigative reporting of journalists from WORLD Magazine, Presbyterian and Reformed News, and perhaps even the New York Times.
9. In addition, Jeff indicated that other, more questionable, and less easily verifiable reports exist as well, that may also indicate the presence of a pattern.  He then posted/allowed to be posted here a list of incidents, with appropriate warnings as to reading with godly discernment.

10. Some posters here believe this amounts to the same or even worse behavior, as that which Jeff believes Mr. Lawyer engaged in.
11. Some posters believe that the information documented in the links in question reflect relatively accurately the events in question (events accurate, while not necessarily agreeing with a given commentator’s explanation of motives and goals).

12.  Others do not.

Fair enough?

To be fair, we will need to leave the following questions unanswered:

1. Is Rev. Wilson right, re. point no. 3 above?
2. Are TE Hutchison and Re Mattes’ right, re. point nos. 6 & 7 above?
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?

Again, for the sake of peace and moving forward, can we be at peace and leave off personal attacks?

If not, it might be wiser to refrain from potential sin from our lips.

Rev. Reed DePace


  1. its.reed said,

    November 22, 2007 at 5:02 pm

    With a subtitle like P2, how can I object? (An echo of “I’ll be back” is heard when you think a movie series).

  2. jeffhutchinson said,

    November 22, 2007 at 5:05 pm

    Thank you, friend.

  3. im.steve said,

    November 23, 2007 at 2:11 am

    Perhaps it is merely paradoxical, but to uphold Reed’s 4 questions (esp. the 4th) to remain unanswered in #72 of [and so it begins], make that post (granted, after the fact) and most of the 71 comments preceding #72 moot, and we (lurkers and all) should move forward. But then, where are commenters to go with this new discussion, P2, stemming from comment #72? Is it now about peacemaking or the remaining 9 questions/ propositions from Reed (now that 3, 6, and 7 are off the table)? A lively, real, discussion on peacemaking here would be incredible!

  4. im.steve said,

    November 23, 2007 at 2:18 am

    correction: “makes the post” not “make the post.”
    And, upon further reflection, could any of the other 9 (or fewer) observations actually be taken up subtantively while, in good faith, sustaining the 4 suspended questions?

%d bloggers like this: