[Vision2020] the Princess, Part 4

[Michael Metzler]

Oops. I forgot to note one important item in Part 3. The Princess writes:

“[to Keely] You know that you don't know, but he doesn't know that he
doesn't know. He trusts his nose's ability to administer sniff tests to
claims that he encounters in cyberspace [re. RC Sproul Jr., Ligonier law
suit, Doug Phillips], and to then editorialize on the basis of the
outcome of his sniff tests.”

Mr. Josh Princess,

I wanted to call your attention to a few things. First of all, pastor
Wilson offered the most extreme and brash judgments about the Ligonier
Law Suit made by a blog owner on the world wide web: calling one of the
parties “vile” and Ligonier fully justified in filing a law suit; and he
did so, self-admittedly, ONE OR TWO DAYS after publicly confessing that
he had not been following any of it and knew “next to nothing” about it.
Now that is what I call one big sniffing snoozer. And indeed, the public
consensus was to offer curiosity (if not outrage) about the kind of sniff
pastor Wilson offered with his big big pastoral snoozer, even after folks
had expressed their appreciation that he had not inserted himself into
the situation like he did the RC Sproul Jr. scandal before this big
sniff.

This was a fairly ironic situation, particularly after Wilson then
refused to link to the primary sources. It was also ironic given the fact
that I had been following the situation very closely for a number of
weeks before Wilson gave his one sniff, which included debating the issue
with others and researching on some of the topics (e.g. law professor
Glen Reynold’s essay on blogging and freedom of speech). And if you look
at Wilson’s discussion with me about it, you will note that Wilson didn’t
know what he was talking about and did not know how to ask or answer
questions on the matter. Finally, my analysis of the situation has been
well received and I cannot find an opponent who is willing to further
debate me on the matter on the world wide web. Perhaps it helps that I
have known RC Sproul Jr., RC Sproul Senior, and attended church with them
at one time; I feel a good deal more epistemic distance to Doug Phillips,
which is perhaps one of the sources of my failure to predict his actions
recently. I still stand by my analysis of Phillips’ teaching on
patriarchy and theonomy however.

I point all this out primarily to highlight once again the steady
hypocrisy that comes from both Wilson and his defenders in the way they
crticize their opponents; I could perhaps live with a good bit of
hypocrisy (aren’t we all hypocrites at times and in certain ways) if it
was not so brazen and so strategic.

In conclusion, let me also point out that there are few critics of Wilson
who have the personal, historical, and theological knowledge related to
him and his ministry that I do. Clearly, your smear about Phillips and
Ligonier do not apply to my ‘sniffing’ at Doug Wilson. And this causes me
to once again pause and ask myself about the level of sincerity in this
criticism and what the motivation truly is. Would you perhaps just like
me to stick on target, and not move on to other topics beyond the life
and work of Douglas Wilson? After all, we nail it every time, as our next
multi-part series illustrates. If this is your motive, perhaps you are
right; perhaps I should stick to the topic of my experience and
expertise.

Thank you

Michael Metzler

www.poohsthink.com

-- 

Search for products and services at: 
http://search.mail.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20061210/22d84898/attachment-0001.html