Posted by: reformedmusings | December 5, 2007

A Troubling Post – Revised

I’ve waited several days before commenting on this post to ensure that I didn’t approach the subject emotionally. The long and short of the situation is that these blogging brothers have routinely defended He Who Must Not Be Named (HWMNBN) against the world no matter how egregious his conduct, while at the same time chiding those who attempt to hold HWMNBN accountable for his misrepresentations and bad behavior. (Update: Please see my comment over on PuritanBoard for the reason for the HWMNBN initials.)

I want to say up front that I have no ill will towards the Bayly brothers. They are fellow elders in the PCA, and this post isn’t meant to attack them in any way. I simply intend here to offer them some thoughts for their careful consideration.

Note: I revised this post after Rev. Lawyer assured me that Doug Wilson had no part in Rev. Lawyer’s posts. I removed three paragraphs from this post that were written under the mistaken assumption that there was such cooperation. I apologize to both for my erroneous assumption. While my updates interspersed below make the main post a bit more difficult to read, they are necessary to reflect the welcome reconciliation that has taken place between Rev. Lawyer and myself.

The primary focus of my blog concerns issues in the PCA, so normally I couldn’t care less what HWMNBN says or thinks, no matter how absurd. In this latest round, however, HWMNBN has been trashing the Presbyterian Church in America and its judicial processes, our Standing Judicial Committee, and the results of SJC Cases 2006-2 and 2007-8 in an attempt to defend Steve Wilkins. Wilkins, by the way, is not on trial. I feel like my ordination vows require me to answer such unfounded accusations and mischaracterizations against my brothers and our courts. When I and others stepped in simply to challenge the misrepresentations and educate others on the Net about the PCA processes, those loyal to HWMNBN ratcheted up the blog attacks. Yawn.

I was surprised that when the Baylys entered the fray, it wasn’t to defend the PCA, SJC, or any PCA officers, but to defend HWMNBN. Huh? So, I challenged their one-sided approach:

 

From Lawyer’s new post (speaking of me): “I just didn’t think any of that was relevant to his disgraceful behavior. The fact that he was an elder in a church and was misrepresenting Christ was my point.” [Update: Rev. Lawyer has since apologized and removed this language from his post.]

If someone can explain how that’s an apology, I’d appreciate it. Best I can tell, he’s just sorry that he publicly embarrassed himself.

I also wouldn’t mind hearing from the Baylys on why they don’t think Lawyer’s post and Wilson’s initial posts on this weren’t slander. Seems to meet your definition. Wilson may have tone it down a tiny bit on that post, but Lawyer hasn’t.

BTW, Mike Lawyer never contacted me personally IAW Matt 18:15 before making formal charges to my Session. Any comment on that? Or is the standard just lower in Moscow?

I received no answer to my inquiry in that thread, but instead the post that prompted this humble post appeared next, which bypassed my challenge and again gave HWMNBN yet another pass. Others seem to agree with my comment, so it can’t be just me:

…Doug did clarify (later) that he didn’t think Bob was pressing the airman to lie, I think he and Pastor Lawyer did unwarranted damage to Bob’s reputation and should apologize.

[Update: Again, Rev. Lawyer did apologize, and I fully accept his apology. Since that apology happened after this exchange on the Bayly’s blog, I left this point here as it had less to do with Rev. Lawyer’s posts than the Baylys’ lack of response to them.]

I understand friendship, but whatever happened to Prov 27:6 or 27:17? This approach of always excusing egregious behavior doesn’t help anyone.

I close by repeating that I have no ill will towards the Bayly brothers. As I said at the beginning, they are fellow elders in the PCA, and this post isn’t meant to attack them in any way. They can do and write whatever they want on their blog. However, I think that it hurts their credibility and their fellow officers in the PCA when they cannot see the damage that their “serrated edged” friend does, and when they openly defend the indefensible. That truly grieves me, and it just encourages the egregious behavior. I simply ask my brothers to carefully consider my words. And though I speak only for myself, they know by reading many of the comments on their blog that I am not alone in these thoughts:

Do y’all have a vested interest in making sure that Mr. Wilson is seen as a victim? Here is a guy tearing up Reformedom (along with his opponents, to be sure) and he is a victim?

That’s like trying to get somebody to feel sorry for the crocodile because the Gnus organized and decided to try and fight back.

I seriously doubt that any of those who are reputed to be pillars in the Church are experiencing envy over Doug Wilson’s status. They just flat think he is wrong.

As the Baylys themselves say in their post in question:

David and I realize we’ve lost friends by defending Doug Wilson, but this isn’t the first time.

Brothers, please consider that maybe it should be the last time.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. […] Musings on A Troubling Post A Troubling Post Reformed Musings __________________ Chris Coldwell Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Member Naphtali Press: […]


Categories

%d bloggers like this: