[Vision2020] Slander: By what standard?

[Douglas]

Morning, everybody.

Thomas Bartnick asks two reasonable questions. The first is that if folks 
locally can discount what Douglas Stambler says and does, then why do we 
need to defend ourselves against him? First, the answer is that we do not 
have to. The point was not to defend against Stambler's charges, but rather 
to point out how many other people (who do not have his loose cannon 
reputation) were starting to act like him. So we do have to defend 
ourselves against others locally who have begun to employ the same kind of 
reckless charges and slanders as Stambler has. Logos School a white 
supremacist academy? For pity's sake. Anti-Semitism? Geez Louise. One good 
way to do this is to point out the similarity in tactics.

At the same time, I have to admit that I was a bit too optimistic about 
whether Stambler has been entirely discounted here locally. Over the 
weekend, I received a communication from someone whose rationalism did not 
protect him from the forces of unreason. That communication was another 
chapter in the continuing saga of Gullible's Travels.

The second question is whether the Bible prohibits conservative ministers 
from retaliating (I would say responding) in this way. The answer is that 
it depends. As Jesus said at His trial, "If I have done wrong, then testify 
to the wrong. If not, why do you strike me?" There are circumstances when 
it is best to simply say nothing, as Christ did throughout most of His 
trial. There are other times when the Scriptures call us to make a vigorous 
defense, as the apostle Paul when slandered by various false apostles (see 
Galatians and 2 Corinthians).

Cordially,

Douglas Wilson