[Vision2020] Plan in Action

[Michael]

Donovan,

 

I like some of your general points here, and I think they have wide
application.  However, I think Keely made some good points, which were
accurate and well focused. I'd go as far to say that this post from her was
one of the better I've seen in a while; and her argument with respect to
crabtree's interesting way of casting the issue seems cogent. Further, she
was merely explaining the actions of another poster against strong criticism
from crabtree.  I would think that standards of credibility should be
applied without a double standard; certainly not all criticism of Wilson on
Vision2020 is 'ludicrous' and certainly not all those who wish to defend
Wilson here are perfect examples of just discourse. And I'm sure most of us
here assume that the topic of CC/Wilson/NSA/Logos/Anselm House/Credenda
conferences are not irrelevant to discussions about our community.  

 

Thank you

Michael Metzler

 

 

Reverend Keely,

     It is one thing to use V2020 for the purposes of raising issues with
the actions and intended actions of a group or organization. However, it is
entirely something different to use V2020 or any public forum to
continuously and  personally attack another person or persons because you
disagree with those actions or beliefs.

     Frankly, there is no more creditability left with any attacks on Wilson
from V2020, NONE; in part because the claims against Wilson have become so
ludicrous, biased, and often wrong, and in part because the volume is so
overwhelming that we drown it out for information that is actually relevant
to our daily lives. 

    Most of us do not agree with Wilson or share many of his political or
religious beliefs. But the obsession with him by some posters has gotten way
out of hand-especially from some that will write slanderous materia! l and
not use their real name on the forum. Your attempt to defend that with the
Bible or Christ does your title and His good name little justice.

_DJA


keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote: 

OK, Mr. Crabtree, I'll grant that you were within a few yards of Doug Wilson

and suffered no ill effect. In fact, I'll match you and then some: I was 
once in a room alone with Wilson -- his open-doored office -- and suffered 
not one bruise, bump, scratch, or owie, nor was my psyche terribly damaged. 
No weapons were displayed, no threats were made, and no one insulted the 
other person's mother. We even shook hands. Without a hidden blade or even 
a joy buzzer.

Fascinating, indeed. But not terribly relevant. Why?

Because those of us who revere the Gospel of Jesus Christ see that the 
lead! ership of Moscow's most prominent "Christian" church group represents
it 
in the most irresponsible, ugly, damaging and divisive manner most of us 
have ever seen. That makes us far more grieved than angry, but anger 
certainly is justified. When the most visible group in town claims Christ's 
name and then continuously behaves badly -- very badly -- those who owe 
their lives to that Name will call them on it. Or they should; the 
evangelical and mainline community's near-silence on the subject is 
disheartening. Either way, those who hate religion will hate the hypocrisy 
and sneering arrogance they see in a religious group, and those who love 
their faith will hate it even more. Those who hate those who hate the 
hypocrisy and arrogance will likely continue to mock them.

I'm sure, Mr. Crabtree, that you'll understand why your approval matters 
very little to me, but I wish you well nonetheless and simply ask that you 
accord a measu! re of charity if not to me, then to others struggling
against 
the Kirk's influence in Moscow. If it were just about a wacky, 
irrepressibly puckish guy named Doug Wilson, you'd be right. It isn't, 
though, and you're not.

keely

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060216/800d3cd2/attachment-0001.htm