The following post is taken from Doug Wilson’s blog, “Blog and Mablog.” You can read the original here; the following text is the complete post:
Some Heartening FV News
Written by Douglas Wilson
Monday, January 10, 2011 10:17 amOur friend Jeff Meyers has been cleared on all counts by the Missouri Presbytery. Six doctrinal allegations had been made against him, and he was exonerated across the board. You can read more about it here.
End of post.
Yeah, He’s not FV though, MO Tree-house club cleared him. OUR friend.
Well, here’s an interesting circle of events. Make of them what you will.
1. Jeff Meyers, a signatory of the Joint Federal Vision Profession, is exonerated by the Missouri Presbytery.
2. Rob Rayburn (who is also related by marriage to one of the persons of concern in the Siouxlands Presbytery Federal Vision controversy) is on record saying that he was in St. Louis visiting Covenant and/or members of the Missouri Presbytery, and both the Missouri Presbytery and Covenant Seminary are “fit to be tied” about the issues raised by TE White and others. He further states that his defense of Federal Visionist Peter Leithart has been as well received at Covenant as it has been in his own presbytery.
It would be interesting to know how many members of the Covenant faculty are also members of the Missouri Presbytery. I believe there are at least some.
3. Peter Leithart is a pastor at Doug Wilson’s church in Moscow, Idaho. This church was the impetus behind the formation of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals (which is the official Federal Vision denomination.)
4. Doug Wilson goes on record as saying that Jeff Meyers’ exoneration by the Missouri Presbytery is “heartening FV news.” This does, indeed seem to indicate that Federal Visionist Doug Wilson agrees that Jeff Meyers is also a Federal Visionist. After all, why call it “good FV news” if Meyers was actually not FV?
It also seems as though the Missouri Presbytery is now officially saying one of two things:
1. Jeff Meyers is not Federal Vision. This is sort of an odd thing to say, since he signed the Joint Federal Vision Profession and is the main architect of their theology of worship.
OR
2. The Mo Presbytery is saying what Doug Wilson seems to be saying, that Jeff Meyers is actually Federal Vision and there’s nothing wrong with that, and therefore they are not going to do anything concerning it. In which case the presbytery is simply in opposition to the express will of the General Assembly.
We do live in curious times here in the PCA, don’t we?
Pastor Carpenter,
Clearly option #2. Missouri Presbytery is pretty transparently flouting the GA. Option #1 is simply not a credible position for a rational person to take, which, of course does not mean that some will not adopt it.
Pastor White,
Could we have a caption contest for the photo?
I’m confused.
The General Assembly says being a FV adherent is bad.
Jeff Meyers said he was not a FV adherent.
MOP agreed (ahem!) that Jeff Meyers is not a FV adherent.
Doug Wilson calls this good news?
Kevin
Caption: “I pledge allegiance/to the Joint Federal Vision Profession/and to the blessed brotherhood/for whose theology it stands/one trans-denominational movement/once under the radar/now increasingly acceptable to all….
Kevin, where did Jeffrey Meyers say that he was not an FV adherent?
Has anyone heard whether any faithful, brave presbyter in Mo Pby had the temerity to complain against the decision?
You gotta love the irony. No one less than Doug Wilson counters the MO presbytery assertion that Jeff Meyer’s is not FV. ‘How you like them apples’ And the hijacking of a denomination continues on with nary a hiccup. You couldn’t make that up if you tried.
Pastor White
Scary to think he never backed off from advertising himself as a FV.
According to MSNBC this recent decision of the MOP demonstrates a significant change in swing voter mood. Only four years earlier I thought 90% or so were against FV and today it appears the opposite. Fox News headlines shows more optimism. They believe there is a chance the moderate swing voters in the PCA will go back to being solidly against the FV again if Pastors are able to stay on track and emphasize the gospel message of salvation by Christ Alone.
Sean, I think we need to be fair to MO Presbytery. Where did they assert that Jeff Meyers is not FV?
Wes,
Good point. So, then I’m left with Brian’s option #2. Great. Of course, maybe he went in recanted all FV and FV like rhetoric he has ever propagated or supported from either the pulpit, internet forums, signed documents and private or public teaching of same. In which case, I heartily apologize to the MO presbytery and would sincerely throw my support behind Mr. Meyers in his calling as a protestant pastor in the PCA. In the meantime if you need me to tone down the snarkiness, consider it done.
@9th Commandment Signatory Dude:
Yes, his name is Pastor Dead Meat.
call me crazy but that photoshop looks a bit touched up?
Sam, far from crazy, I thought it was fairly obvious that it was two different pictures of each man in the same pulpit but, of course, at different times.
I may have been a while since Pastor White, Pastor Carpenter, and Pastor Wilson have agreed on a PCA court decision, but today they appear to agree at least on one point. When Will S. asked, “Does this mean that they are of the opinion that he [Pastor Meyers] is not FV or that FV is an acceptable view? then Pastor Wilson replied “Will, if measured against the resolutions passed by the GA a few years back, nobody is FV.”
Is this the first step to a PCA and CREC merger?
Should make for a very interesting GA this summer.
Wes,
OK, he never used those words. I really do not know how to answer your question further without making it painfully obvious that I am privy to very detailed information that I ought not be.
This is indeed troubling.
Brian:
Let’s get our facts straight, shall we? Leithart is not a pastor at Doug Wilson’s church.
Part of the reason for the vitriol on both sides here is the fact that (often) neither side bothers to check facts before speaking.
Joseph:
Yes, you are kind of correct.
Peter Leithart was pastor of a group in Moscow that met under the authority of Wilson. So, technically speaking, he was not “a pastor at Doug Wilson’s church”; he was pastor of a group in Moscow that met under the authority of Wilson and he left that position to become dean of graduate studies, in addition to being senior scholar of theology, at New Saint Andrews, which, like the small group he pastored, is under the authority of Doug Wilson.
This means that while Pastor Carpenter’s facts were incomplete, your facts left a false impression, though for some reason I suspect it’s not because you didn’t bother to check the facts.
Pride usually comes before destruction. The fact that Wilson is heartened is a good sign that God is working.
To the 29 9th commandment signatory dudes:
You did your best, now you can go home to your congregations and faithfully preach the Word. Feast on His promises; enjoy and glorify God together. I lost my younger sister this New Year to a brain injury. What a reminder that our sojourn here on earth is short. Let’s not waste it by trying to get rid of the tares – that’s God’s job.
Let the half-baked temporarily saved folks wallow in their own mud and fear of apostasy. I feel sorry for them; they will never know the joy and peace of the Lord as long as they are still trusting in religion or outward works.
My sister is with the Lord not because of her “faithful perseverance” but because the Holy Spirit gave her an unshakeable assurance of the truth of God’s Word: “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God”(John 1:12). Let’s pray that these half-baked folks in the PCA as well as the CREC will receive that same grace and be set free.
Joseph,
Is it, or is it not true, that Dr. Leithart is now, or has in the recent past, been the pastor of a CRE church plant?
>>Is it, or is it not true, that Dr. Leithart is now, or has in the recent past, been the pastor of a CRE church plant?
Men, with Google, it’s the work of a moment to find Peter Leithart’s call: http://trinitykirk.com/
Peter is a PCA pastor laboring out of ecclesiastical bounds as pastor of Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow, Idaho–a congregational affiliated with the CREC. And the church was particularized (Presbyspeak for the moment when the church becomes self-governing) five years ago.
>>Let’s not waste it by trying to get rid of the tares – that’s God’s job.
Lauren, it might be best for you to limit your comments when the subject matter here is the discipline of ordained officers of Christ’s Church and the application of God’s Word to that discipline. If there’s ever a time when it might be good for women to limit their online contributions, this would be a good candidate for careful consideration.
With love,
Pastor Bayly,
It might be best for you, as a pastor, to comfort Lauren, a woman who has recently lost her sister and who, according to her previous comments, has obviously been grievously hurt by this theology. It is interesting that your main concern here seems to be a particular view of the proper role for women in the public sphere. I will not comment further on that issue here, but I just wanted to highlight your focus, which seems a little peculiar in this context.
Lauren,
I appreciate your contributions. It’s a blog not an ecclesiastical court. The minute we start confusing the two, is the moment the ecclesiastical court begins to lose its weight.
Eileen- good point. From one complementarian to another.
>>It might be best for you, as a pastor, to comfort Lauren, a woman who has recently lost her sister…
You’re right.
Lauren, I’m very sorry for this loss you and your family have sustained. May God comfort your hearts. And I regret not expressing my sympathy in my earlier comment.
Love,
>>It’s a blog not an ecclesiastical court.
God’s Order of Creation has no application to blogs? Well, there you have it and I’ll leave you to it.
Love,
>>God’s order of creation has no application to blogs
Pray tell where does scripture declare that all women submit to all men without particularity and/or discretion? Cult is one thing, culture another.
>>Pray tell where does scripture declare that all women submit to all men without particularity and/or discretion? Cult is one thing, culture another.
We’re not talking about submission, here, but the public rebuke of teaching elders on a matter of doctrine by a woman who does so, publicly, and with some considerable invective. Read what she said about my dear friend, Doug Wilson (who by the way is one of the more humble pastors I’ve met), and ask yourself if it’s seemly for a Christian woman to address a pastor in such a way at all, let alone in public?
Feminine deference is not “submission,” nor is a teaching elder “all men.”
Love,
Tim,
You’re the one who made reference to the creation order as mandate for proper behavior not me. As I said, there is a difference between cultic order and broader cultural order on this matter. However, this isn’t an ecclesiastical mandated forum or assembly, it’s a blog and it’s these public men in cultic offices who have been careless with their theological formulations and words, and carried on such activity beyond their own officially sanctioned ‘jurisdiction’ of their specific particular church body. These men believed/believe their words and theologies were of benefit for broad consumption, beyond the sheep committed to their charge and as such opened themselves up to a wider criticism beyond their own pulpit and office. Irregardless of sex.
You have heard the expression, a picture is worth a thousand words, well this picture of FVer’s Wilson and Meyers says it all.
Thanks for your explanation, Sean.
Warmly,
Tim, if you knew Lauren and her husband’s situation with Ohio Valley Presbytery you might understand.
In an attempt to bring this thread back to the post, and in agreement with Pastor Welch’s observation about the picture accompanying it:
Pastor Bayly wrote, “…Read what she said about my dear friend, Doug Wilson (who by the way is one of the more humble pastors I’ve met)…”
This is the phenomenon many of us have observed in all things FV, so let’s explore how that might be applied in other situations:
Please accept uncritically the teaching of my good friend, the most humble Arius.
Please accept uncritically the teaching of my good friend, the most humble Pelagius.
Please accept uncritically the teaching of my good friend, the most humble Marcion.
If the principle applies to Doug Wilson, then it should apply to these men as well. If not, then what we have here is something which is not clear thinking.
Would that our churches were filled with Jenny Geddes.
Seth,
And stools.
-Brian
Good point, Eileen. Humility is not necessarily a sign of orthodoxy.
Doug’s tie (as opposed to Jeff’s tab collar and angelic white shirt) is a sure sign of humility.
Wow, what a bizarre twist in the comments since my last post. I appreciate all your expressions of comfort; my intent was not to bring on sympathy but to rejoice in the privilege we have to serve and know the Lord in Spirit and in Truth and to encourage each other in the assurance of our salvation. We do not need to live in fear of apostasy for if we are truly born again in the Spirit we can rest in the finished work of Christ on our behalf.
My sister suffered for over a year in a nursing home (she was only 53), so her homegoing was a celebration. What kept us going through those months was the assurance we had of her faith in Christ. Not her baptism, not her covenant faithfulness, but the saving work of grace in a sinner’s heart.
The sad ingredient of Federal Vision theology is its absence of hope and assurance and futile dependence on works righteousness. Eileen, the hurt and grief we experienced with the Federal Vision came from having to witness the damage it did to our church youth. You might say I turned into a Sarah Palin mama grizzly and I guess that’s what got us into some trouble. It’s easy to blog about this false teaching, but it’s another matter to try and pick up the pieces of broken lives that result from its poison.
Tim, I did not know there were theological parameters and restrictions for blogging women. Please enlighten me.
>>Tim, I did not know there were theological parameters and restrictions for blogging women. Please enlighten me.
Dear Lauren,
Sorry, but it doesn’t seem best to go beyond what’s written.
Warmly,
Lauren,
Thanks for sharing that. I think that, as women, we feel the effects of false teaching at a different place, and hopefully that makes our perspective helpful to the men who must fight this good fight. We love our families deeply and that does, indeed, turn us into Mama Grizzlies. And we appreciate and deeply respect the men who are engaging those who would pervert and corrupt the gospel which gives us hope and assurance.
Tim- I’m not sure I understand your last comment. Could you clarify?
No references to the covenant faithfulness of Jeffrey Meyers’ *humble* publican yet???
The bigger point I was trying to make was to point out that appeals to the “goodness” of “dear friends” and the “fruitfulness” of their ministry in no way demonstrates that their theology is not toxic.
Personally, I don’t think anyone except our Lord himself has ever been really humble, although we expend a lot of effort trying to appear so.
All: sorry for not sitting by my computer all day to monitor the discussion.
Tim: Thanks for the helpful clarification.
Anonymous: I was 100% correct. Leithart is not, nor ever has been, a pastor at Doug Wilson’s church. He was not – to use your words – “a pastor of a group in Moscow that met under the authority of Wilson.” He is pastor of a congregation in Moscow that is independent of Wilson’s congregation, except in that they are both CREC congregations. While a church plant, it was under the authority of the session of the church where Wilson is a pastor, but Trinity Reformed has been separated for the majority of its existence. Also, Leithart is still a pastor, and you are incorrect when you say that he left the position at Trinity Reformed. Hope that helps to clarify further. Thanks for the fact check.
9th dude: You’re correct. But it remains false to say that Leithart is or ever was a pastor at Doug Wilson’s church (even granting there is a place that could be called “Doug Wilson’s church”).
(Lauren, let me try and translate his thinly veiled fundamentalism: I think what Tim Bayly means to say is “sit down and shut up.” But please feel free to ignore it and continue at will.)
Joseph,
OK, point taken. I amend #3 to read:
Peter Leithart is a colleague of Doug Wilson’s, and a pastor of a CREC work in the same town as Doug Wilson. This town has a population of less than 25,000 but has two CREC churches. Peter Leithart also is not mentioned as their pastor on the CREC website, though he does show up on the congregation’s website. This group was once under the authority of the session of Christ Church CREC in Moscow. Leithart also seems to have or have had something to do with New St. Andrew’s College (where he is a “senior fellow.”) New St. Andrews is also under the “formal oversight” of Christ Church. Other than that, Peter and Doug don’t have much to do with each other.
Pastor Carpenter,
You forgot to add that Leithart is an author for Wilson’s mag Credenda/Agenda (a literature ministry of Christ Church, according to the website) and that he wrote the foreward for Wilson’s book, Mother Kirk (which was published by Canon Press, another literature ministry of Christ Church per the web).
Why, they wouldn’t know each other in the liquor store!
Tim,
Perhaps you can enlighten me on where in Scripture you see a prohibition on women offering their opinions on matters in the public sphere. As a strong complementarian, I see role differences in Scripture and limitations on teaching and conduct in worship, but nothing on offering opinions in public. Perhaps I missed it.
OTOH, I realize that you are sensitive about criticism of a self-ordained man who has directed vile invectives against the PCA, especially its courts and officers. But that sensitivity doesn’t rise to the level of Scriptural authority.
Blessings,
Bob
“Read what she said about my dear friend, Doug Wilson (who by the way is one of the more humble pastors I’ve met),”
Oh brother. You need to find better friends, at least not confuse them with actual pastors.
Bob,
I had forgotten about the non-traditional ordination of Doug Wilson. Thank you for reminding me.
Dear Joseph:
The primary difference between us is that I was there and you were not. I understand that everything you see over there is a big shell game, so you better look fast because now you see it, now you don’t. Dr. Peter Leithart is pastor of Trinity. Toby Sumpter is pastor of Trinity. Now you see it, now you don’t.
They brought Toby in because Peter is on record saying that he is not called to be a pastor. His role there is titular only (except I believe he has a fetish for baptizing). This is why the pastor-child named Toby with relatively no education preaches at Trinity and the Ph.D. from Cambridge named Peter does not. Check the sermon notes on the website. It’s all Toby. But the website greeting is from Peter. Now you see it, now you don’t.
This is why they list Toby Sumpter first and Peter Leithart second (unless an NSA graduate did it because they were told to list the names alphabetically). Why would Peter take a back seat to Toby if he’s the pastor? Then again, maybe Peter is co-pastor of Trinity like Jan Crouch is co-host of TBN (feel free to correct me if this comparison is no longer accurate; I haven’t seen TBN since the ’80s and for all I know Paul married his boyfriend and Jan’s flying solo).
We also differ on the meaning of independence in much the same way Tim Bayly and I disagree on the meaning of humble. However, since I do not want to derail this thread, the best way to illustrate how we disagree is by asking you when Doug gave you permission to post your comments, though I think the false impression that you left said enough.
Does anyone have any idea how long it will take to get these official documents from MO Presbytery telling us why they exonerated TE Meyers? I hope they stamp the documents with the Imprimatur, so that everyone knows that it is official.
Musings,
You wrote, “I realize that you [Tim Bayly] are sensitive about criticism of a self-ordained man who has directed vile invectives against the PCA, especially its courts and officers. But that sensitivity doesn’t rise to the level of Scriptural authority.”
Vile invectives are vectors which only go in one direction — toward FV guys. Coming *from* FV guys, vile invectives like “Star Judicial Chamber” and “bowing the knee to Antichrist” are not vile, at least in the decretal sense. Hope that clears things up, because FV guys are big on clarity and the Ninth commandment.
Some of the comments above are mystifying. It seems that the title of “FV” is far more important in some folks’ minds than it is in reality. I don’t think the MO Presbytery was trying anyone for wearing a label, but for sufficient evidence to sustain the accusations against him. I think that too many brothers are approaching this in a paint-by-numbers fashion… and they only got two colors.
Tim,
Forgive me, but that’s just silly — paint by numbers in two colors. FV is shorthand for a set of doctrines, some or all of which are held by FV adherents. If I say “Tea Party” rational people have a fair idea of the referent without great elaboration every time I use the term. As for sufficient evidence, we shall see what the MP considers sufficient and what it considers insufficient and the reasoning they apply to that evidence. Then, everyone will apply their own common sense and experience to that just as we have in this thread to the evidence available thus far.
@Tim,
If I was you I’d avoid painting with a broad brush. And two colors are all anyone needs in this controversy — they’re called right and wrong.
Eileen, EXACTLY. When one references Tea Party, one references a bunch of people with numerous political and social agendas. The FV is similar. There are common notions, but there’s a great deal more diversity than the black and white pundits let on. That’s silly?
Anon’s comment exemplifies precisely the narrow mentality that is far too prevalent among Christians. It give us a bad name and makes Christ look bad, too.
Tim,
No, not EXACTLY. Implicit in your comment is the notion that those who oppose the FV think that it is monolithic. I don’t think that you can demonstrate that anyone posting here believes that. You are trying, quite subtly, to use a form of the argument that has become tiresome to many of us: Federal Vision consists of all doctrines A-Z; Pastor John Smith denies doctrines A, M, R-T, and Z; therefore, Pastor John Smith is not a Federal Visionary.
Jeffrey Meyers was not accused of being FV. He was accused of teaching particular doctrines which are contrary to Scripture and the Westminster Standards. That is where we are intractably binary: we are firmly opposed to the propagation of any doctrine(s) which violate Scripture.
As Winnie the Pooh would say, “Oh, bother.” Looks like the Clintonian syndrome is back again — we have to define what “is” is.
Lauren,
Exactly. The FV doesn’t exist like the Klan doesn’t exist (and, sad to say, that’s not the only similarity between the two — recall that a prominent FV dude wrote (or should I say stole) Southern Slavery As It Was, and another prominent FV dude was also a prominent member of the League of the South).
Just because they all go to the same conferences, wear the same goofy Groucho glasses, write books together called “The Federal Vision” and signed a “Joint FV profession,” that doesn’t mean they exist!
In fact, I would call it a violation of the 9th commandment even to suggest they might exist, because, after all, they have told us they don’t, and we must respect their reputations by extending to them every benefit of the doubt.
Excuse me while I go vomit.
Lauren and 9th Dude,
What they have in common is a free-range maximalist hermeneutic wherein “is” means whatever they say it means, because they are not confined to the text, as we are.
Peter Leithart is the scholar who edits and disseminates the thinking of James Jordan, who is the prophet/Chief Musician of the movement. Meyers is their Sacramentalism apologist, along with Leithart. Wilson is the witty face of the movement, who for some reason, evangelicals find amusing. Leithart makes Jordan’s vain imaginations seem plausible and even attractive to those whose self-identity is tied up with being perceived as intellectuals. The acolytes and foot soldiers of the movement are the Biblical Horizons crew who spread the poison throughout the church under the noses of men who refuse to acknowledge them and it for the poison it is.
Borrowing from the Clintonistas: It’s the hermeneutic, stupid.
I forgot to state what is fairly obvious. The first person we have in the Biblical record who applied a maximalist hermeneutic to God’s word is the Serpent, who was also the first gnostic (speaking anachronistically.) The two people who, at the time, were as intelligent as it is possible for humans to be were deceived despite their intelligence.
We should not be intellectually intimidated by those with lofty ideas which are not in God’s word, nor should anyone presume that he or she is immunized from deception by virtue of intelligence.
Eileen, my original comment references *some* of the comments above that are simply paint by number with two colors, and thus mystifying. There is enough of this two-color assessment in the first ten or twelve comments to prove my point. Equally mystifying is your response: ” Implicit in your comment is the notion that those who oppose the FV think that it is monolithic.” There is, of course, nothing of the sort implied. Go read my little comment again; I think you’ll see that your inference is unfounded.
Some opposition of FV ideas is quite fair-minded and helpful. Some (that does not imply “all”) opposition is narrow-minded and not helpful. What I was trying to draw attention to is the latter sort on this thread. Any fair reader will immediately see what I mean.
Wow, Eileen, you did a great job with your “paint by numbers”!
To the “paint by numbers” FV folks:
If I put a drop of poison in a batch of brownies and then put a cup of poison in a second batch, which batch of brownies would you eat?
Tim,
You wrote, “It seems that the title of “FV” is far more important in some folks’ minds than it is in reality. I don’t think the MO Presbytery was trying anyone for wearing a label, but for sufficient evidence to sustain the accusations against him.”
You are the one who is highlighting the importance of the FV label by writing that the title of FV is “far more important in some folks’ mind than it is in reality.” You set up a straw man by stating or at least implying that those of us who use the FV label as shorthand for an entire set of docrines or any subset thereof are more concerned with the label of the set than the content of the set–the doctrines themselves.
The second implication in that first sentence is that FV doesn’t *really* exist in any important sense relative to its existence “in some folks’ minds.” Well, OK, if you say so…
Your second sentence implies that those of us using the FV label as shorthand think that MOP was (or should have been) investigating someone for wearing a label rather than teaching doctrine. I don’t think you can demonstrate that, and I think the LOC demonstrates otherwise.
In short, I don’t know what the point is of your first sentence, and I think everyone here agrees with the second sentence I quoted above.
Tim, you said that some here fail to appreciate the diversity of FV. Eileen replied by saying none did. Instead of replying with proof, you responded with an ad hominem, or perhaps ad mulierem. But while we’re at ad hominems, that’s no way to treat a lady. I think any fair-minded reader could see that.
Pastor White,
No worries about the ad mulierem. We’ve already been sent to the corner to sit on our stools and shut up by the other Tim commenting here ;o)
Thank you, Eileen. You made me smile. (from my stool in the corner, of course)
Personally, I have never smiled more when reading on the internet than since Eileen and Rachel have become regulars on JW!
Speaking for myself, I sublimate my anger into words and humor lest I actually break something or weep uncontrollably over what we discuss here. But for my faith in God’s sovereignty and providence, and the encouragement I get from you men, I would.
Wes,
Is that all I had to do to not get past the censors? Say I went to Wilson’s church for a while? I know it’s your blog, but allowing slander/falsehoods to be posted without a response is wrong.
I’m truly not trying to proselytize or argue FV points here. Just setting the record straight.
Eileen and Rachael,
A woman with a stool has historically been a powerful weapon for the Lord in the past when popery was introduced into a Presbyterian church.
http://www.wardsbookofdays.com/23july.htm
“Jenny Geddes, was so outraged that she picked up her cuttie-stool and flung it at the preacher with the immortal words ‘Deil colic the wame o’ ye, fause thief. Daur ye say Mass in my lug’. This can be translated as ‘May the Devil cause your bowels to bring into being an abundance of farting, you lying thief, Sir. How dare you have the effrontery to say the Mass in my hearing?’ ”
Stand up and fling that sucker, girls, and may the Devil give all the FV men an abundance of painful gas, so that we shall know them by their flatulence.
Joseph, in answer to your loaded question, “Is that all I had to do to not get past the censors? Say I went to Wilson’s church for a while?” No, Wilson’s martyr complex is unrelated to the reason I banned you.
I banned you because you posted comments from Durham, NC (Duke U to be exact), on January 11 at 5:30 AM; from Kirkland, WA, on January 11 at 3:38 PM; from Austin, TX, on January 12 at 9:51 AM; and from Durham, NC, this morning at 4:57 AM. That’s east coast, west coast, Texas, and back to the east coast in less than 36 hours. In other words, I banned you because I don’t believe you’re being honest wrt your identity/identities or the substance of your comments.
Wow, talk about women being impertinent in theological debate! Praise God for Jenny Geddes and her modern sisters.
Pastor Carpenter,
Admittedly, I had to Bing Jenny Geddes when she was first mentioned, so when you mentioned the stools, you had me LOL.
Maybe if Lauren and Rachel and I could get a pass from our duties sitting on our stools in the corner working diligently hand-stitching our burqas from patterns downloaded by our husbands from the men-only internet, we would have more time to take on the “men” who are obsessed with Romanist wardrobe and church decor matters instead of preaching the Gospel.
The part in her rant about GI problems reminded me of the Herod’s final scene on the stage at Ceasarea Maritima…
Pastor White,
Regarding Joseph, he’s certainly one busy and apparently spoofy guy. What hath Austin to do with Durham? He does resemble other FV guys in that a persecution complex does seem to be rather widespread in those circles, complicated by a phobia of strong and direct language.
Eileen,
Then by the power vested in me by the State of Irritation, I pronounce you released from your burkha stitching activities.
You go, Girl!
B
Enjoying the conversation here. Eileen especially.
Vern,
I like your site, too, especially the parts that I can understand ;o)
Hi Eileen, Lauren, and Rachel,
Hopefully you’ll catch this note from the Recent Comments widget.
Dr. Daryl Hart read this thread and wrote a post about Bayly’s contribution to it, mostly remarking the obvious, which I shall not observe myself for fear of Pastor White censoring me with his trigger-happy delete finger.
He calls it “Barefoot, Pregnant, and Unplugged”; I think you’ll get a kick out of it.
Thomas- Thanks!
Thomas,
Now I know, courtesy of Zrim, why Pastor Bayly turns a blind eye to Doug Wilson and FV, or at least downplays it. Thanks for letting us in on the discussion there.
Dear Pastor Bob Mattes (reformedmusings, January 11 at 5:05 PM),
As you know perfectly well, I have never objected to any woman offering her opinion on the internet. Look above, dear brother, and you’ll see that a woman named Lauren wrote these words: “Pride usually comes before destruction. The fact that (Pastor Doug) Wilson is heartened is a good sign that God is working…. Let’s not waste it by trying to get rid of the tares – that’s God’s job…. Let the half-baked temporarily saved folks wallow in their own mud and fear of apostasy.”
To which I responded: “Lauren, it might be best for you to limit your comments when the subject matter here is the discipline of ordained officers of Christ’s Church and the application of God’s Word to that discipline.”
But you twist my words into my seeing “a prohibition on women offering their opinions on matters in the public square.”
I did no such thing and you knew it full well.
Baylyblog is filled with women’s comments. In fact, when you’ve commented there yourself, your comments have appeared alongside those of a woman and there was never a mention that those comments were inappropriate.
As to my being sensitive to criticism of Pastor Doug Wilson, my words would have been precisely the same if this good woman had predicted God’s destruction of you, dear brother. Which is to say, I am committed to feminine deference when it comes to officers of Christ’s Church disciplining one another. I’m also committed to Pastor Doug Wilson. I put stock in things like bravery, courage, loyalty, and love which are so intrinsic to truly Biblical pastoral care.
In the past month, Pastor Wilson has taken me to task publicly (although he was gracious enough not to name me), and I’ve taken him to task privately. This is normal among pastors who love one another, as is error in doctrine and practice. You need correction. Doug needs correction. I need correction. But the correction should come from love–not simply a desire to win.
Love,
Pastor Bayly,
I believe you are taking Lauren’s comment as *necessarily* being some sort of imprecatory invocation of Proverbs 16:18 which she is directing at Doug Wilson personally. While that may be her intent, I very much doubt it. It is more plausible to interpret her comment about pride going before destruction as an application of Proverbs 16:18 to the entire FV movement as personified by Doug Wilson, who is the face of the movement to the broader evangelical world.
Could you please direct our attention to the Scripture which prohibits a woman from publicly commenting on the disciplinary procedures being undertaken (or not being undertaken) by a church court? You banned me from your blog for making a polite follow-up comment to your response to me which was precipitated by the failure of a session to discipline a TE who committed a sin in the blogosphere. Why should a TE have blanket immunity from being called out by a woman in the very venue where the sin was committed? Scripture, please.
You also banned my husband, who is an ordained elder, when he attempted to respond to your response to me. Banning people from your blog is your prerogative, but let’s not pretend that there is some consistency in how you apply your criteria for female comments, at least in my own limited experience at Baylyblog.
I appreciate and applaud your pro-life and pro-adoption stances. But I think that some of your methodology may be counter-productive when it comes to gender/sex issues. I do not understand, for example, why you are not outspoken against the Federal Vision, unless Zrim’s anthropology-trumps-all explanation is correct.
And, yes, I did use two spaces after sentences ;o)
>>You banned me from your blog… You also banned my husband…
Sorry, but I can’t recollect banning either of you. And when I look for any record of doing so either on Typepad or in my e-mail, I find none. I edited some inappropriate content from one of your comments, but after that edit you continued to submit comments and they were published.
Concerning your other complaints, I’ve addressed them over on Baylyblog.
Love,
What seems lost on Mr. Bayly is that Mr. Mattes referred to Mr. Wilson as being self-ordained. He did this in the comment above and also in a GreenBaggins 18 Nov 2007 post by Mr. Mattes.
There could be no impropriety by Lauren (as alleged by Mr Bayly) in addressing one who is not lawfully a minister of the Word, which is the case for one who is self-ordained (Mr Wilson per Mr. Mattes), not to mention the ecclesiastical status (or lack thereof) of said person’s organization.
Perhaps Mr. Bayly would like to try to prove Mr. Mattes wrong with respect to Mr. Wilson’s being self-ordained?
Pastor Bayly,
My husband and I interpreted the message from your server rejecting our comments as being banned. Perhaps it was a glitch and we are mistaken about being banned. I’m a DOS fossil and not a web expert.
Why do you evade the substantive portions of my comments above and on your blog?
Consider two classes of believers:
1) women who comment about elders’ public acts in a public place
2) men, including but not limited to, elders who turn a blind eye to the sin and/or false teaching of their fellow men and elders by refusing to call evil what it is and excusing it.
Which of these two classes of people pose a greater danger to the church and why?
I think that you would answer the question differently than most of us here. If that is true, why do you think that is so? It is a serious question, because I truly do not understand your position.
There does appear to be a double standard involved here. On the Bayly blog, there are examples of women strongly criticizing Pastor Keller for his statement on homosexuality. One woman says, “His response is so shameful it poisons every word he’s ever preached or written.” Am I missing how this is different from what Lauren said?
Sorry, I forgot to add that I believe the primary reason why the the class of *active women* I mentioned are so vocal is because the class of *passive men* I mentioned is so very, very large and why that class of women particularly appreciates *active men* who are willing to defend the faith and the church.
>>the message from your server rejecting our comments
Sometimes this happens, and I don’t fault you for thinking it was personal.
>>There does appear to be a double standard involved here.
As I said on Baylyblog several months ago, this is a new discipline for us, there. Which is to say we have not dealt with the issue in the past correctly. We were wrong.
Love,
Pastor Bayly,
OK on the server burp. However, once again you dodge the substance of my comments here and on Baylyblog as well as the clarification questions I posed above. Why?