Banner
Comments on Comments PDF Print E-mail
Church Government - A Justice Primer
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Sunday, 01 October 2006 10:58

This last week, after there was a comments pile-up here in the discussion of the Ligonier situation, a reasonable question was raised by David Bahnsen, which was, why have a comments feature at all? Ironically, my wife and I had just been talking about the same thing, and then after the question was raised here, I brought it up at our elders' meeting and we discussed it there. I am certainly willing in principle to pull the plug on the comments feature because St. Paul says that all things should be done for edification. If it ceases to be edifying, then we should quit doing it. That said, let me list a few reasons here why I currently want to keep the comments feature. The reasons here are listed in no particular order.

1. If it is true (as I hope it is) that the posts on this blog are generally helpful and edifying, then it is a good thing to increase the traffic to the blog. The comments (and with them, the occasional food fight they engender) have been an important part of the dramatic increase of traffic to this blog.

One time years ago I was doing some open air preaching on the campus of WSU, and no matter how often you do that kind of thing, the experience is always something like cliff diving. When you preach in church, you are addressing people who came there willing to hear you. But when you do open air preaching, you are speaking to people who didn't come there to hear you, and gathering a crowd is always the most difficult part of the venture. So this one time I drove over to Pullman to do this, and when I got there it was overcast and there was a kind of drizzle, and I (quite willing for an excuse to just go home again) thought that this was not a good time, some other day perhaps. But then I thought better of that, and got up to preach. As soon as I did this, another guy who was nearby (a Maoist selling newspapers) jumped up and tried to shout me down. Suddenly, whomp, two hundred people. So I would present the gospel, he would do his commie tirade thing, I would answer and present the gospel, and so on. He was an atheistic godsend.

2. In any kind of public communication, feedback from those on the receiving end is most necessary to ongoing adjustments of what is said. When I am preaching, I can tell by looking at the congregation whether they are with me or not, whether I need to speed up or slow down, go over something again, etc. I need to know how to read the congregation as I speak. The same is true here, but the feedback mechanism is different. If someone checks in to this blog occasionally just to read what I have written about Deuteronomy, say, the comments might be a distraction or an irritation to him. But they are still very important to me, and they are part of the reason I can write something that is helpful to the guy who doesn't really care for the comments. I learn a great deal from them. I learn how what I write is coming across to others who have nothing to go on apart from what I write here. Of course, there are fans out there, and there is the "I don't know about that" group, and there is the hostile response simpliciter. There is a difference in how you make adjustments for all the various kinds of readers, but it is really important to know beforehand that if I say this, someone will respond with that. Occasional surprises are okay, but all public communicators have a responsibility to be open to various kinds of feedback. Oscar Wilde once said that a gentleman is someone who never gives offense accidentially, and the same principle applies to writers and speakers. This does not mean that I have to agree with whatever the responses are, but I do need to take them into account, and I ought not to set a bunch of people off accidentally. But in order to be able to do this, a comments feature is really necessary.

3. For preachers, the people who gather on the Lord's Day to hear us are generally appreciative. The feedback you get there is overwhelmingly positive. Yes, I know there are exceptions, but for the most part the folks who like you are there, and the folks who don't are worshipping somewhere else. This can create an interesting spiritual cocoon. Even when your parishioners are simply doing what God says they are to do -- honor those who are leading them spiritually -- the effect on the preacher, if he doesn't get out much, and if he doesn't watch his heart, can be identical to the effects of sycophantism. Even if no one is sinfully flattering him, he can still be sinfully flattered. So what I am saying here is that it is spiritually helpful, bracing, and invigorating to be called an arrogant bastard from time to time. Either that or a drooling idiot. Just as praise to a pastor obediently rendered can still be badly received, so a disrespectful and wicked name-caller can be used to bless the hearer. Shimei was completely in the wrong in what he said, and God judged him for it, but David still heard him in a way that was edifying to David.

4. The comments feature helps to reveal the holes in our comments technology. Cotton Mather once said that if you tie an animal up, he will know the length of his tether by morning. And so the misbehavior of some making comments has helped to show what sorts of technical adjustments we need to make (and are making).

5. If this kind of Internet monga-discussion is going to occur from time to time (and it will), I would prefer to have it occur here, rather than somewhere else. Some of you may recall that a few years ago, an extended, um, discussion about our deficiencies took place on Worldmagblog, and, having dealt with both kinds of situations, this kind is much more contained and controlled. It is the difference between something being done to you, and something you are actively involved with yourself.

6. Many Christians are unsure of how to answer a fool according to his folly, and how to refuse to do so. Scripture requires both, in different ways, and in different settings. But how are we to decide? Part of learning how to do this comes from watching someone else try to do it faithfully. There are times when I answer a fool according to his folly, lest he become wise in his own conceits. There are times when I refrain from it because I don't want to become like these people. And Scripture requires both responses. The Bible tells Christian leaders to confute those who contradict, and to answer gently, and to avoid foolish and unlearned arguments that gender strife. This is not a "one size fits all" kind of deal. It is something we have to learn how to do. A continued comments feature means that a number of people can see when I think a patient explanation is called for, when impudence should be challenged, and when insolence is to be given the old heave-ho.

Comments?



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
Last Updated on Sunday, 01 October 2006 10:58
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Cindy  Sunday, October 01, 2006 12:06 pm
I am not sure what to assume about your comments on comments. I wonder if Tim Dick would agree. He showed up in my tiny blog world a couple of weeks ago to rebuke me for trying to drum up blog hits by posting a rather inocuous post about Ligonier suing a blogger. I did confirm it was actually Tim Dick himself who was concerned about my mentioning the suit. My blog statistics didn't go up but then again maybe my blog isn't edifying in the first place. I got more hits by posting about gestapo homeschooling moms. Ironic.
Bill Harris  Sunday, October 01, 2006 2:15 pm
Doug, the main problem I see with being able to make unedited & unaccoutable comments is that anyone can say anything about anything & then offer no proof or care if it is correct.As liberal democrats are apt to do they will sling dung hoping some will stick. even my comments...
David Bahnsen  Sunday, October 01, 2006 3:23 pm
Pastor Wilson -
I hope it all does work out. I am sure folks like me are more than capable of just reading the stuff they want to, and ignoring the rest. One other consideration, though, in case you re-visit the issue in the future, is the amount of time YOU have to take doing the filtering, discerning, editing, blocking, etc. I hate to see productive pastors sidetracked with less than crucial Kingdom work ... But, I do think your points were all good, and continue to wish you the best. Perhaps one day SOMEONE out there will actually reply and interact with the true meat of your blog (Deuteronomy, theological and devotional content, etc.), and not merely RUN to the newest "Ligonier/Moscow/Postmodern fight/Blah blah" they all seem to live for. =)

Blessings,
Gene  Sunday, October 01, 2006 3:59 pm
Pastor Wilson: Like David, I hope it works out well, too. I cannot tell you what a blessing it has been to have this blog here. I have to admit that the naivete of many sincere commenters has surprised me. Perhaps, if they knew you a little better, there would not be the distressing posts that I read on occassion. Such is life! God bless you and your wonderful family. - Gene in Houston.
Christopher Witmer  Sunday, October 01, 2006 5:57 pm
I have no additional comments on commenting, but I do have an opinion on comment comments. If it ever comes down to that, just let me know.
dave matre  Monday, October 02, 2006 1:20 am
To paraphrase my mother, if you're going to be a drooling idiot, be the best drooling idiot you can be.

Dave Matre
bill melone  Monday, October 02, 2006 1:55 am
Why don't you plan ahead of time to close comments on certain posts that engender food fights? Or at least wait till they turn unedifying. If some really stupid comments come along, you can just say you're closing the thread, and by doing so you show at least some (albeit minimal, but its still there) commitment to edification which you don't when you let comments go. Get your wife or someone to monitor comments and shut them when you're on the road.
Frank Turk  Monday, October 02, 2006 2:01 am
You know: as if my opinion matters on this subject.

I think -- I think -- that the world survived pretty well prior to blogs. That is, things happened and people found out about them and the proper authorities (more or less, vis. Rom 13) dealt with issues.

But that said, I think there is something a little less than savory in posting your opinion and not allowing anyone to call your bluff when you (generally, not you personally) bloviate (which we all do from time to time).

And that said, trolls will be trolls. DW might post a thing about why RC Jr. was misunderstood, and then the lynch mob shows up and wants to find out why, exactly, DW can't keep his opinions to himself when he is obviously guilty of drinking with publicans and whores. The down side of comments is that there's no credibility algorithm you can run on each comment to find out if it is a credible statement or one intended to foment unrest.

-more-

Frank Turk  Monday, October 02, 2006 2:05 am
-con't-

Another end-run here is to make the "name and e-mail of your pastor" part of the sign-up process. That way people know up-front that if they want to talk about ecclesiastical matters with a "man of the cloth", they need to be transparently accountable on the front-side.

My pastor reads my blog. And he checks up on me to make sure I'm not starting any fires he himself wouldn't start (if he had that kind of time). People who don't want to get into that kind of relationship with their own pastor should probably not want to get into that kind of relationship with someone else's pastor.

-end of rumination-

Chad Degenhart  Monday, October 02, 2006 2:05 am
Doug, here's a related question on comments and justice: Are you, as the author of this blog, liable for any comments published which others may consider slanderous? Say you post about Ligonier or RCJR, and a commenter says that a certain individual is a fraud. Or maybe they link to an article that says a certain individual committed fraud. Or they comment that the individual is a nincompoop. Or a commenter alleges that another commenter is a fraud or a nincompoop. If any of these individuals think they have been slandered, do you think that you are in any way liable for publishing the comment?
Jon Lin  Monday, October 02, 2006 3:13 am
Chad, There aren't that many court cases that have applied the First Amendment to blog authors, let alone outsiders who comment on blogs. Although I expect a court would find a difference between the two, if a blog owners wished to err on the side of caution, he could consider the matter as if he had written the comments.



In general, if the negative comments are directed to a public figure, such as the head of a national ministry, there is no legal liability unless the poster knew the accusations were untrue but posted them anyway. Furthermore, if the charges are true (however outrageous), there is no liability. And, of course, there is no liability for opinions, such as calling a ministry head a "nincompoop." If you'd like some examples of charges that are protected under the law, just read the complaint filed by Ligonier and Tim Dick; it is utter frivolous legally as well as unbiblical. Hope this helps -- Jon

Jon Lin  Monday, October 02, 2006 3:17 am
Chad, it's sad but true that some ministries use legal bullying as a component of their public relations and try to get every critical word taken from every website through the use of demand letters and other forms of intimidation. This usually works because bloggers don't know the law as well as the legal bullies. But, for the most part, bloggers who try to be careful and don't print anything they know is false are free from legal liability. Details matter in the law, however, so any blogger such as Pastor Wilson who is concerned about a particular quote or comment should consult with legal counsel to be sure.
Dan Sack  Monday, October 02, 2006 3:22 am
Chad, I don't think that liability can’t work in the same ways here as it does with a magazine or book. The internet not on the same level of “publishing”. There is no proof reading and editing of comments. They are either off or on. Holding someone accountable (in the same way you’d hold a publisher accountable) for comments on their blog would be very ungracious… And it would be very ungracious of him (Mr. W) to police the comments to the degree needed to avoid liability for offensive content…
Lawrence  Monday, October 02, 2006 5:25 am
FWIW: Wilson has stated that this blog is analogous to his living room. As such he is welcome to do as he pleases. If he wants to encourage lively conversation or let his cat pee on the rug, either are at his whim.

Still, as a minister of the gospel one would expect that when people come into his living room and start fornicating on the couch in front of the rest of us that he has an obligation to speak up.

There are several instances where he has stated in the justice primers especially that certain assumptions and types of accusations are unjust and ungodly, yet he has allowed the exact same to be posted here toward whomever is the dougwils.com boogeyman of the day without comment or challenge. If we are truly dealing with principles of right and wrong, as he would lead us to believe, then the principles will be applicable regardless of the identity of the intended target or the identity of the poster. As a teacher and minister he should be on top of that; it is his living room after all. As master of his house, lord of his castle, and so on (to extend the metaphor) that also makes it his responsiblity.

If he is not willing to expend the effort to clean up the messes, then he should either get a maid or quit asking people over.
Rob Steele  Monday, October 02, 2006 5:26 am
Listen you arrogant drooler, you will sit there and suck it up and like it! Do you understand? I can't hear you! Turn the other cheek when I'm talking to you, you misbegotten pile of organic waste.

You're right, it is bracing. For me anyway. Seriously, I'm glad you have comments because it's frustrating to read something really good or bad and not have a way to get in touch with the author.
Geoffrey Carver  Monday, October 02, 2006 5:44 am
Pastor Wilson, please forgive my ignorance if you've already answered these questions elsewhere but I'm quite new to your blog. Isn't one of the functions of having a comments section to permit people to ask you questions and seek clarification about what you've written? Since you don't favor sycophantism and since you recognize that preaching from a pulpit doesn't afford your audience the opportunity to dialogue with your teaching in the way that Q and A format of a blog comments section would, wouldn't you want to encourage credible Q and A? And if you permit questions to be asked don't you have some kind of obligation to answer them, or at least answer the questions that obviously deserve an answer? Shouldn't it be a source of personal embarrassment to avoid answering reasonable questions?



I've now seen several articles and comments on other blogs noting how selective you are about answering questions, and these aren't just the questions of the "answer not a fool" (Prov 26:4) variety. In perusing your blog in the last few days I've discovered many good questions that you've never answered. It's easy to identify where those are located -- just look for any thread showing 100 or more posted comments and what I've noted is that few if any of them will be your own responses. -cont-
Geoffrey Carver  Monday, October 02, 2006 5:46 am
There appears to be a pattern where you just disappear but then go on to write a new article that, probably less than coincidentally, is an attempt to address the questions you're avoiding giving direct answers to in the comments section of a previous article. The problem is that the new article doesn't forthrightly answer those questions either. So you get barraged with the same questions all over again, plus a whole new set of questions the latest article provokes. Then you avoid answering those questions too, move on to writing a new article, and then the process starts... all over again.



Then there's the drama that unfolds if a questioner gets too insisting about getting an answer and/or if the question gets way too personally embarrassing, you'll quickly jump out from behind the curtain (confirming the suspicions of those who believed that you actually have been observing the comments section all along) and attempt to silence any cogent dialogue by demanding "accountability" -- pastor's name, church name, phone number, baptismal name, birth certificate, etc. -cont-
Geoffrey Carver  Monday, October 02, 2006 5:47 am
Pastor Wilson if you're going to keep your comments section open let me suggest that you make the comments and questions less embarrassing to yourself by prequalifying all commenters with a questionnaire requiring all the personal info stuff, as well as a sworn affidavit affirming, "I do solemnly swear under penalties of excommunication, and/or being banished to the Land Of Perpetual Tickling, that I will only make statements and ask questions that affirm that Doug Wilson is a wonderful and cool guy, and that if I ever call him an "arrogant bastard' that I'll do it in a spiritually helpful sort of way."
Zwei  Monday, October 02, 2006 5:57 am
Geoff seems to be the latest in a long line of people who are so deeply and compassionately concerned about Doug "embarrassing" himself.

How sweet.

On second thought, how transparently manipulative.

Geoffrey Carver  Monday, October 02, 2006 8:34 am
Zwie, for the sake of not taking the bait I'll pass on responding to your "transparently manipulative" comment. However I do appreciate the rest of your comment though. So what you're saying is that my observations of Doug Wilson's questionable methods have been the same observations of many others before me? If that's the case why do you suppose that Doug Wilson continues engaging in conduct so unbecoming of a Christian pastor?
Matthew Hoover  Monday, October 02, 2006 9:38 am
What about a publicly moderated comment system, something like they use over at Slashdot? Under their setup, certain established users can assign points to a comment based on the content, and readers can filter comments as they desire. For example, I would log in, read Geoff's comment above, and moderate it "-1 Troll" (or, in other cases "+1 Insightful" or "+1 Funny"). Then other people wouldn't have to see it, unless they chose to view flagged comments. It could work with some sane and trusted moderators.



Slashdot's source code is available for free, I believe.
David C. Moody  Monday, October 02, 2006 10:01 am
Matthew Hoover, that sounds like a good program.

Mr. Wilson, I like the comments feature because it gives people an opportunity to ask you a question about something you've written or to cross-reference via hyperlink something elsewhere on the internet to discuss what you've written here.

Geoffrey Carver, it's Mr. Wilson's blog. He's a busy man and can't answer all questions directly (especially those questions from people he doesn't know). He does a good job of working answers into his posts, though, so I've enjoyed asking the questions and looking for the general principles later on. By the way, for a new-comer you seem to know quite alot about Mr. Wilson's blog. Perhaps you should give Mr. Wilson a couple months before you jump to the conclusion that his conduct is unbecoming a Christian pastor.

Jesse A. Broussard  Monday, October 02, 2006 10:39 am
I think that the idea of having everyone "sign in" with the relevant information (re. pastors) is an excellent idea. The only hesitation that I would have is that some pastors (those who attempt to have lives) might not want their contact info posted. If that information was available only to Mr. Wilson, I would see no problem with it.


Everything else I would say has been said and said better than I would have done.


Zwei, where did you get your name?

Douglas Wilson  Monday, October 02, 2006 10:57 am
Lawrence, there is a difference between comments made about a person elsewhere, for which there has been no proof or accountability offered, and someone challenging what someone says here.

If someone posts, "Did you all know that Pastor So-and-so of Nonesuch Ministries is a thieving adulterer? Sincerely, Alien6", the comment will be yanked, and so on. But if someone posts, "Dear Alien6 (may I call you Al?), I can't believe that you don't see how twisted your comments are," the latter comment would be allowed to stand. And why? Because we can all see what he is talking about.
Jeff Tell  Monday, October 02, 2006 11:37 am
I agree with David Bahnsen on this one.

Before comments, reading this blog was like watching someone whose heart had been made a little too glad with wine swerve their way down a country road... amusing, instructive, slightly dangerous, but mostly just to the driver.

With comments, reading this blog is like watching the same driver swerve down a crowded city block. All the enjoyment is taken away by all the screaming and yelling. And occasionally someone gets hit, but its usually the same person who keeps running back into the road.
Jeff Tell  Monday, October 02, 2006 11:39 am
Although...... if you decide to keep the comments, then I wish you would take away the need for the silly html tags.

If I paragraphize something in the comment box, it should still be paragraphized when I submit it.

This darn tether is too short.

Lawrence  Monday, October 02, 2006 11:55 am
How does one go about making paragraphs in these comments?
Douglas Wilson  Monday, October 02, 2006 12:03 pm
Lawrence, first you type <, then /, then P, and then >. When you shmoosh them all together, like

Douglas Wilson  Monday, October 02, 2006 12:03 pm
Darn.
Lawrence  Monday, October 02, 2006 12:37 pm
Mr. Wilson,


I have no problem with your example; those instances are right and proper. My problem lies elsewhere. To make this example I am going to use the current boogeyman of Christ Kirk, Michael Metzler (MM). I am not using Metzler for any personal reasons other than he is the most convenient example and serves my purpose at the moment. I have my own issues with some of what is posted at his blog. Personally, I think you would both find paintball pistols at dawn to be quite cathartic.



Anyway, here is my observation. With Sproul Jr. we were told that considering him guilty was unjust. Despite multiple actual witnesses (most of these first hand victims) of pastoral abuse, objective evidence of violations of Law and BCO, and a confession admitting to all charges, you maintained that it was not justice to declare him guilty. So what we have is:



witnesses with direct physical involvement + published objective evidence + confession to all charges = not guilty



Not only not guilty, but cannot be guilty without a proper trial. A trial that was moving forward until he begged his way out of it.



Lawrence  Monday, October 02, 2006 12:37 pm

Now regarding MM, and I will use a recent example of the Stacey issue. (By the way, it is possible to spell ones own name incorrectly when typing. I typed my name as Lawrene at the bowling alley years ago and my kids have yet to let me live it down.) Stacey was accused of being MM due to spelling errors and such. Several people here were egging MM to deny this on his blog. He actually did just that and then appeared to be challenging you, Mr. Wilson, to prove it. Several people continued to claim that MM was Stacey, and simply because he would not deny it, that he must be guilty. (Note: This IS EXACTLY the logic Frank Vance used with Tim Dick, and it bothers me both places.) Anyway these false witnesses, false because MM had indeed issued a denial, were allowed to continue this objectively false witness and go unchallenged by you.



You came on later and claimed to have a private email where MM "let slip" that he was Stacey. MM denies this as well and evidence to the contrary has yet to be published. Therefore without proof available to them the "witnesses" are still false and have yet to be called down or repent. As for you, your formula for MM in this instance is:



Witnesses without direct physical involvement + no published objective evidence + denial of allegation = guilty as charged no trial needed.



Lawrence  Monday, October 02, 2006 12:38 pm

There seems to be a glaring inconsistency in your application of justice and really it would not bother me so much except for your position as a teacher and minister of the Gospel. If I were to try to apply your brand of justice which would I choose? In the recent case of Ligonier, it I chose "Sproul justice" I must reserve judgement and they cannot be guilty unitl a duly conducted full church trial. If I choose "Metzler justice" then they should have been excommunicated weeks ago.



None of us is without sin, which one look at the life I have lived shows in glaringly vivid technicolor, and all of us are hypocrites to some extent especially when someone pulls that right chain and our emotions get the best of us. I am only asking that as a teacher we be presented with a consistent picture, consistently applied. (BTW, I do not buy the argument that one cannot wrong an alias. Every alias has a person made in the image of God behind it and that dehumanizing tactic is nothing if not denying that image by declaring that it does not even exist.)



Thanks for hearing it out and sorry about the length,
Lawrence
kamelda  Monday, October 02, 2006 1:44 pm
I really liked 'misbegotten pile of organic waste'....
Douglas Wilson  Monday, October 02, 2006 3:07 pm
Lawrence, thanks for laying out your reasons. In my mind, there is a difference between accusing someone of a grievous sin or crime, without a trial, and accusing someone with a screen name of being someone else. This is especially the case when the charge (to my ear) is entirely reasonable. Not just spelling, but arguments, timbre of complaints, the whole deal. But even this assurance is not infallible, which is why I was willing to have it falsified by Stacey, or by Steve. "Just let me know who you are, and I will check with your pastor to confirm you are a real person, and I will refute those who jumped to conclusions." But jumping to conclusions about someone being MM is not the same thing as accusing them of being a horse thief. And Michael did confirm to me privately that it was he who was kicked off. I don't know what he says on his blog about this because I don't read it.
Douglas Wilson  Monday, October 02, 2006 3:11 pm
As for the RPCGA's judicial processes, I indicated earlier during that dust-up that one of our central concerns was maintaining peace between two Reformed denominations, even though we had strong disagreements. And, in that venture, it looks like we succeeded -- despite the efforts of some to get us into a conflict. Not everything in the world is worth fighting about to the last ditch. This decision, I believe, contributed to the broader peace and purity of the church, and I am grateful for it.
Lawrence  Monday, October 02, 2006 4:46 pm

A false accusation is a false accusation either way, big or small breaking one law breaks them all. From a strictly biblical point of view there is little difference. As Jesus pointed out looking and lusting is as good as getting a room from the Lord's perspective. That said, if you do not read Metzler's blog then you could not have known that that was, in fact, occuring here anyway.



Thanks for the response, it was much more straightforward than I had expected.


Jon Lin  Monday, October 02, 2006 10:45 pm
Several people continued to claim that MM was Stacey, and simply because he would not deny it, that he must be guilty. (Note: This IS EXACTLY the logic Frank Vance used with Tim Dick, and it bothers me both places.)



Lawrence, there really is a categorical difference. Metzler did not have a fiduciary to duty to deny he was Stacey, whereas Tim Dick had a fiduciary duty to deny that Don Kistler was defrauded, if he was not defrauded, once Frank Vance told him that, if he did not deny the matter, Vance would go public because he believed the reports he had heard to be credible.



Instead of denying that he had defrauded Don Kistler, Dick sued Vance before the deadline but didn't inform him of the suit until after the deadline and thus after Vance posted the Kistler story. Interestingly (and I just checked the scan of the lawsuit to be sure), while suing Frank Vance for defamation, Tim Dick does not list among the allegedly defamatory statement Vance's allegation that he defrauded Don Kistler by switching the contract with him at the last minute. Instead, Dick sued for being called a nincompoop and other, similar insults.



Under the circumstances, with a defamation lawsuit in which Dick still won't claim the defrauding allegation is false, I think it is reasonable to regard Dick's silence about the Kistler matter as the functional equivalent of admission of guilt.

Jon Lin  Monday, October 02, 2006 10:53 pm
To clarify: Dick did not amend his suit to include the Kistler allegations after they were publized, even though Ligonier senior management subsequently claimed that had been the reason for the suit in the first place. This is not what innocent defamation victims do if they go to the extensive trouble to sue.
Jon Lin  Monday, October 02, 2006 10:53 pm
To clarify: Dick did not amend his suit to include the Kistler allegations after they were publized, even though Ligonier senior management subsequently claimed that had been the reason for the suit in the first place. This is not what innocent defamation victims do if they go to the extensive trouble to sue.
Lawrence  Monday, October 02, 2006 11:58 pm
Jon: You are going way beyond the point in equating the logic. I equate the logic (and only the logic, not the issue of innocence or guilt) only at the level of "see, he did not deny it, surely if he was innocent he would have denied it therefore he is guilty". Any comparison I am making starts and stops there. Only there.

The problem I had with the poster here was that Metzler had denied it publically on his blog prior to that, (after they stated he had not I went and looked) making the statement "he did not deny it" false witness.

Globally, the items do not compare, and I have not compared them in that way, only in the very specific ways that I outlined.

Frank Turk  Tuesday, October 03, 2006 12:50 am
I would also like to point the "no comments" advocates to this post by Ergun Caner.

My personal opinion is that people who do not like comments on blogs have a track record of not doing very well when they are questioned or cross-examined. That may, in and of itself, draw some blowback, but there you go: blog on.

Zwei  Tuesday, October 03, 2006 1:18 am
Lawrence, I am not aware of any place where Mikey denied being "Stacey". Rather than being offended at being "accused" of false witness, I'll simply request that you pass along the date and enough of the title of his post that I can track it down. Thanks.

I haven't seen a response to my claim that Mikey is obligated to clarify whether or not he is "Stacey" because he stated that Doug wronged "Stacey" in various ways, which would be either entirely untrue or significantly mitigated if Mikey was "Stacey". Do you find any merit there?

Finally, it might be helpful for Doug to clarify further what it means to "accuse" someone. I think that the trend has been to take that term to mean something very broad. For example, is the following an accusation?

"Here is some publicly available evidence that A is true. It is not sufficient to prove that A is true in a court of law, but I am convinced that A is true."

How does this compare to statements like "I know that A is true because I have a bunch of sources I can't/won't disclose"?

Jon Lin  Tuesday, October 03, 2006 5:18 am
BREAKING NEWS: Ligonier Ministries' unbiblical lawsuit against a Christian is now part of a cover story in USA Today.
Jane Dunsworth  Tuesday, October 03, 2006 5:44 am
Jon, what's unbiblical about the lawsuit?
Lawrence  Tuesday, October 03, 2006 5:49 am
Zwei,


As convoluted and tortuous as it is the posting "Wilson’s Libel: I Think I’ll File Charges On This One" appears to me to be denying outright in a couple of places that MM is Stacey or Steve and challenging Wilson in essence to prove it.



Interesting question about accusations, I can think of a couple of ways each could play out in practice depending on a couple of variables. Of course, what is right always comes back to the searching of Scripture, our only sure guide.
Jon Lin  Tuesday, October 03, 2006 6:55 am
"Jon, what's unbiblical about the lawsuit?"



The fact that it's a lawsuit against a Christian in a secular court. See I Corinthians 6:1-7.

Jane Dunsworth  Tuesday, October 03, 2006 7:18 am
John, since you evidently have sufficient knowledge of the blogger in question to be able to testify that he is in fact a Christian, and therefore accuse the trustees of Ligonier Ministries of acting in an unbiblical fashion, I hope that you have already contacted the blogger's elders and the elders of Saint Andrew Presbyterian Church so that they can meet together and resolve this in a biblical manner. That would indeed be preferable to anonymous blogging and lawsuits.


I think you're the first person I've run across who actually knows the blogger personally, or knows enough about him to know whether his profession of faith is credible such that an accusation can be made against others on the basis of that profession.

Jane Dunsworth  Tuesday, October 03, 2006 7:19 am
Sorry, that's Jon, not John.
Jon Lin  Tuesday, October 03, 2006 7:41 am
Miss or Mrs. Dunsworth,



What you said does not follow from what I said. I do not and cannot know the state of Frank Vance's soul any more than I can know the state of your soul. But like you I have sufficient grasp of basic English to read Frank Vance's blog and discover therein that he is a professing Christian.


Given Vance's profession of faith, the burden of proof, for purposes of I Cor 6:1-7, shifts onto those who claim he is not a believer. Ligonier has not met that burden of proof; indeed, they did not even try to meet it before filing suit against Vance in a secular court of law. This is why I regard the Ligonier lawsuit as unbiblical.

Zwei  Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:23 am
Lawrence, fair enough; I won't belabor the point. I think a better reading is that Mikey is very carefully *not* denying that he is either "Stacey" or "Steve". His two main points seem to be that 1) "Stacey" and "Steve" didn't break any rules, and never lied about being Mikey; and 2) Mikey would be justified to use a pseudonym to post on this blog, and that to do so would not be lying in any way.
Jane Dunsworth  Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:34 am
You misunderstand. I am not claiming that the blogger is not a believer; I am claiming that "I am a believer" spoken by someone who is not willing to be judged or held accountable for that statement (because he's not willing to make his identity known) is not sufficient testimony on which to base a charge that someone else is acting unbiblically in suing him.

My assertion is not that Ligonier is not suing a believer; my assertion is that there is no basis for the charge that they are doing so, since one's own unaccountable testimony on the matter isn't sufficient, especially when it's being used to charge other believers with sin. Ligonier may well be suing a believer, but we don't actually have sufficient evidence of that to accuse Ligonier. If we were sitting and speculating on the spiritual status of the blogger over drinks, his (whoever "he" is) unaccountable profession might be something I'd consider in his favor. But it's not enough to form the basis for a charge against another party.

jameybennett  Tuesday, October 03, 2006 9:02 am
When I used to edit the old razormouth.com, we had a comments section for a while. We had some kinists (not to mention the garden variety jerks) take over. We ultimately axed the comments because it wasn't worth the time and the headache. In the garden, a blog comment section would have been awesome.
Lawrence  Tuesday, October 03, 2006 9:24 am
Dangerous territory to be in Jane. All we have for several members of the church is their profession as well. And for many of those there is insufficient evidence of their faith regardless of their geography on Sunday Morn.


In fact, we often extend that courtesy when it is not warranted. Early church councils clearly determined that those sects who are non-trinitarian are outside the faith, heretics tried and true. Yet I dare say many a Christian would still cringe at a Christian suing a Oneness Pentecostal.



Vance has professed to be a Reformed believer, do we discount that and treat him worse than a we do bonafide declared heretics only because he uses an alias? On what Scriptural basis can we do this?
Lawrence  Tuesday, October 03, 2006 9:33 am
Please pardon my less than stellar proof reading on that last comment.
David C. Moody  Tuesday, October 03, 2006 9:53 am
One problem with the comments section is that, when people comment upon something the post deals with, they inevitably must add to the post. That is a blessing when they are able to add to the conversation with brevity and clarity. But it backfires when either 1) what they add is misunderstood by other readers or 2) what they add is too broad to be dealt with in a short comment.

Perhaps, in the first case, when there are misunderstandings, we should ask direct questions and give direct answers.

Perhaps, in the second case, we should provide links to our own blogs to debate the issue there. We could, of course, link to an article of interest here.

I would take my own advice, but I'd rather not debate these issues on my new blog. I am more interested in other things.

Jon Lin  Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:58 am
...there is no basis for the charge that [Ligonier and Tim Dick have sued a Christian], [because] one's own unaccountable testimony on the matter isn't sufficient, especially when it's being used to charge other believers with sin.

Huh? This makes no sense logically and has no basis in Scripture. In fact, it is a Pharisaical gloss on God's Word. The Bible teaches that no human testimony, including one's own, is sufficient to prove one is a Christian. That being so, I Cor. 6 does not say that we may treat a professing Christian as an unbeliever until he produces two elders to testify to his faith. In fact, basic faithfulness is presumed in a professing believer; it is only to prove sin that one must supply extra witnesses. In your desire to avoid thinking ill of Ligonier, you have reversed the biblical presumptions.
Lukesma  Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:36 pm
Dear everyone,
For two seasons, I was a painter on Michael Metzler's painting crew, as well as his personal go-for in his construction company. A year or two before, I was the regular weed-wacker for Pastor Wilson and his wife. I have been employed by both of the men who are involved in this present controversy, and know them both decently well.

The reason that I am chipping my ten cents here is primarily because Pastor Wilson has over time identified several commentators on this blog as Michael Metzler hiding behind a different name. Someone commented that DW was a sole accuser (ergo, unbiblical). And Geoffrey Carver claims that Wilson doesn’t answer the important questions. I have come to second DW’s claim that many of these other personalities such as Stacy are indeed Michael. But before I do that, allow me to explain a little.

First off, both Metzler and Wilson treated me very well when I worked for each of them. And for those with a low opinion of Michael, let me mention this in his favor: half-way through my second season of painting, Michael realized that I and the other painters weren’t really going to earn him any money (due to some complicated circumstances). At this point, he made it the sole goal of the painting company to keep us guys employed simply because we’d committed to work for the summer. In other words, he was very sacrificial in employing guys who wouldn’t profit him.

Lukesma  Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:39 pm

My college job while in my freshman year (2005-6) was being Michael’s go-for. It was during this time (particularly the late fall-winter months of ’05) that MM began to post on this blog. When I got wind of MM’s questioning of DW, at first I encouraged him in it because I thought he was being good Christian accountability for DW. But I soon discovered, through reading the comments section, that MM had asked a lot of questions and demanded answers from DW, and was posting incessantly. I asked DW why he wasn’t answering MM, and his response was that it was ‘spiritually unhealthy’ for him at the time.


This struck me as odd, but when I called MM on the phone to try to confront him for what seemed to me a very disrespectful approach to his pastor, I found out that DW was exactly right. MM thought that his questions were a) important, and b) very good questions, and c) deserving to be answered. He could not let them go. I was horribly ineloquent on the phone, but I could clearly see throughout the convo (and also in some private emails that we exchanged) that MM had a lot of anger and bitterness against DW.


‘Pooh’ was later banned from the blog. But thereafter, people with very similar ‘respectful questions’ for Pastor Wilson showed up, Stacy among them. They really are MM.
Lukesma  Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:44 pm
How can we tell? I’ve noticed several things over time. 1) Poor spelling. Metzler has told me himself that he hates the emphasis on spelling in the academic world. You will consistently see things misspelled in various posts. 2) A unique way of ‘passing over’ certain remarks. He likes to obviously ignore things in an obvious way. 3) Occasionally highly convoluted, large, stuffed sentence structure. It’s verbose and sometimes, in a highly sophisticated way, with weird grammaticalness like this sentence, clunky. 4) A unique sense of style that is reflected on Pooh’s Think. Compare MM-types with his many polemic posts against DW.


I don’t encourage you to read Pooh’s Think; it is a root of bitterness defiling many. However, if you do, you’ll see him interacting with the new characters showing up. And the content always focused on the evils of DW. Nothing new under Pooh’s sun…


Before this whole thing, MM as a Greyfriar’s student really depended upon Wilson for advice, as he himself revealed to me. But in the course of 9 months, he has done a complete 180 and now depends upon DW to give his bitterness something to talk about. It’s sad. I like the man, and I owe him a ton. But he’s completely flipped, and something is wrong. Oh, and I think MM = Geoffrey Carver. Read carefully.


Luke Nieuwsma, uilleannman@gmail.com. Christ Church, Moscow. Pastor: Douglas Wilson


Jon Lin  Wednesday, October 04, 2006 1:00 am
Luke, wearing the name of your pastor on your sleeve preemptively is no more required than doing the same with the name of your local constable. Even if you sin in a manner worthy of church discipline or commit a crime worthy of the punishment by the civil magistrate (neither of which is apparent from your postings thus far), all that is needed is the whereabouts of the proper authorities, which appears rather easy to find in your case. =) SDG, Jon.
Jane Dunsworth  Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:05 am
"Dangerous territory to be in Jane. All we have for several members of the church is their profession as well."


You've never met several members of your church? You don't even know who they are? You have NO WAY of judging whether their testimony is credible (note, I didn't say airtight or flawless, but credible)?


I thought the operating worldview on this blog was Reformed -- I'm surprised that there are a whole pile of people here who don't believe that there's anything more to a "credible profession" than an anonymous protestation from an unknown individual. Do you really run your churches that way -- admit people to the Lord's Table via unsigned letters, and so forth?


I'm not suggesting we treat the mysterious blogger in any particular way. I'm suggesting we don't subject Ligonier to charges of sin for which there's no actual basis. We might suggest that they're unwise in suing someone who might well be a Christian, but we can't charge them with suing a Christian if we don't know whether the party in question is a Christian because we don't even know who he is.

Jane Dunsworth  Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:07 am
"The Bible teaches that no human testimony, including one's own, is sufficient to prove one is a Christian."

Correct, which is why I'm not asking for anyone to prove he's a Christian. I'm asking for evidence that he has a credible testimony before accusing a third party of a sin that can only occur if he is indeed a Christian. "I'm a Christian but I won't tell you my name" is not credible testimony. Credible testimony is that backed up with the ability to be accountable and examined, or backed up with those with the authority to do so having examined him, etc. Someone who won't tell you who he is is not considered a credible witness to something in any other arena, so why this one?

The alternative to accusing Ligonier of something without sufficient grounds isn't to cry out that nobody can prove the guy's a Christian (did you think that's what I was asking for?), it's to hold off on the accusation. Is that for some reason difficult to do?

Jon Lin  Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:51 am
"I'm suggesting we don't subject Ligonier to charges of sin for which there's no actual basis."



No actual basis? What about all the lying? That has been documented in black and white by many people besides Vance: (1) Ligonier lied to the judge in a signed statement saying that they had no way to contact Vance (after Tim Dick had already emailed him many times). (2) Then, after the Orlando Sentinel disclosed the existence of the lawsuit, Ligonier lied to callers who asked about it: "There is no lawsuit; we don't know where that story came from." In fact, Ligonier's first public admission that the lawsuit existed was a month after filing it when they issued a statement claiming to have "withdrawn" it. (3) This also was a lie, as they did not even start the process of withdrawal by filing papers with the court until a week later. None of these facts is a mystery; what is a mystery is why you continue to defend Ligonier despite such a web of deceit.

Jon Lin  Wednesday, October 04, 2006 4:00 am
By the way, for the record, I personally confirmed each of the points I made above, either by checking into the court records at issue or by calling Ligonier myself to be lied to multiple times by the customer service staff (repeating what they were told by the management) and by management (to confirm what the customer service staff told me). And I'll willingly testify to any or all of it in a church court or a civil court if needed. And I'm not the only one; many witnesses have lined up to testify against Ligonier and its leadership.



The truth is that Ligonier is very fortunate they have had trouble serving Vance with their lawsuit. If they had actually succeeded in serving him and the lawsuit had gone forward, they would have been far more embarrassed than they already are, given the very intrusive character of the discovery process.

Lawrence  Wednesday, October 04, 2006 5:41 am
Jane, I should have written "Church" not "church". I dare say Scripture gives us every reason to believe that there are baptised "believers" who by all reckoning we account as Christians standing in the pews of Reformed churches faithfully every Sunday who are going straight to hell and not passing go when they die. Some probably in your church, sitting in a pew near you or do you believe only in the visible church? If so, then that's not very reformed of you.



Remember that in the end Jesus will say "I never knew you" even to some of those that cast out demons and performed miracles in His name. The example leads us to believe that they honestly believe that they're good Christians are serving Christ. I'm betting the people around them do too. An alias does not an automatic heathen make.
Jane Dunsworth  Wednesday, October 04, 2006 7:55 am
Lawrence, you keep misplacing the burden of proof. I am not assuming anyone is a heathen, should be regarded as one, or should even have his profession called into question. I'm saying it shouldn't be accepted for the purposes of accusing other brothers when it doesn't have a foundation that would be accepted in any ecclesiastical court. Accusing brothers of sin is a very serious charge. I'm accusing no one -- I'm not accusing the blogger of not being a believer, but I see no sufficient reason to accuse Ligonier of suing a believer when we simply don't have reason to believe (not absolute knowledge, good reason to believe) that such is the case. Someone saying "I'm a Christian" without even giving us a way to know what that word "I" stands for, just doesn't seem like a good enough reason to accuse someone else of sin. The point here isn't to say something bad about the blogger, it's to ask people to quit saying one specific bad thing about the people suing the blogger without a better reason for doing so than we already have.

Jane Dunsworth  Wednesday, October 04, 2006 7:59 am
And Jon, that gets to your point about "we know Ligonier has sinned, etc., etc." I don't know anything about those charges you bring up, so I won't dispute them, but my point wasn't that Ligonier hasn't sinned in any way, or even that they haven't sinned in suing a fellow Christian. It's that we don't have sufficient reason to accuse them of having sued a Christian. Saying "Mr. Anonymous might be a Christian, and therefore it's possible that Ligonier is suing" is something I'm more than willing to concede. But definite accusations of sin are acts of uncharity unless they're founded on something. And the testimony of someone who won't identify himself that he is a Christian isn't a foundation. It might still be true testimony, but it's not credible. That they may be sinning in some other way doesn't mitigate the problem of accusing them of this particular thing without sufficient reason.

Jane Dunsworth  Wednesday, October 04, 2006 7:59 am
To put it more simply, and wrap this up because I' think I've made my point and I've been egregiously abusing the post limit, accusations are serious things. They're not harmless, and they shouldn't be based on educated guesses about things that can't be judged according to the standards by which such things are normally judged. We can't infallibly know whether someone is Christian, but we do, as Reformed people, practically speaking, utilize means to make a judgment that someone should or should not be regarded as such for practical purposes. That's the very foundation of church discipline. When someone renders such a judgment impossible by refusing to make himself accountable, he needn't be condemned, but his word ought not be held as sufficient ground for an accusation against another, either.
Geoffrey Carver  Wednesday, October 04, 2006 8:58 am
"Oh, and I think MM = Geoffrey Carver. Read carefully." Now there's a fine example of "careful reading." For the record my name is Geoffrey Carver. My name is not Michael Metzler nor has it ever been Michael Metzler nor do the fingers typing out this comment belong to Michael Metzler. Nor do I reside in Moscow Idaho or anywhere near it. I will however admit to having looked over Metzler's web site today. All this discussion about him piqued my interest. Sorry, but I didn't see any of that "bitterness" you're accusing him of Luke, and nothing in your description of Metzler gives me any sense of confidence that he's bitter enough to, say, put a used condom in Doug's mailbox for example. Playing the "bitterness" card seems to be a common ploy with people who can't come up with any better defense. Attack the messenger and when you can't even successfully do that attack his motives. Then demand the name of his church and pastor. Anything to avoid the issues at hand. -cont-
Geoffrey Carver  Wednesday, October 04, 2006 8:59 am
All this Michael Metzler discussion is very strange but also ironic. Doug Wilson started out with "the Ligonier situation" which led into accusations against the "Muslim" Frank Vance. After all, both of them do seem to have some common interests in holding the unaccountable accountable, and as we all know Michael Metzler must be a Muslim too. Metzler and Vance have some common interests and probably a common non-Christian religion too. That of course could only mean one thing. A conspiracy. Maybe Michael Metzler is actually Frank Vance. But as Frank Vance he's put up a good front by putting more care into his spelling. And let's not forget that even I am Michael Metzler too! Michael Metzler is everwhere posing as everybody!


This is the most paranoid conspiracy theoristic web site I've ever seen in my life! Put on your tinfoil hats! They're coming to take me away he-he!
Luke Gelinas  Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:17 am
Shhhh! You weren't supposed to tell them that Vance is MM, Geoff! Hee hee ha ha, to the funny farm...
David C. Moody  Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:44 am
"Nothing in your description of Metzler gives me any sense of confidence that he's bitter enough to, say, put a used condom in Doug's mailbox for example."

Geoffrey Carver, for a newcomer, you know an awful lot. It took me a while to remember what you were alluding to because it happened at least at the beginning of the summer if not before that. You must have spent the last few days reading all the archives on this site, huh?

Lukesma  Wednesday, October 04, 2006 1:29 pm
Geoffrey,
I'm just curious, where DO you live? and what is your church? And who is your pastor?

Luke
Geoffrey Carver  Wednesday, October 04, 2006 1:35 pm
Thank you once again Luke for making my point.
Jon Lin  Wednesday, October 04, 2006 2:07 pm
Thank you once again, Luke, for making my point.



I second the thank you. And thanks also for the extra humor for the evening. I needed that.