[Vision2020] Wilsons Arrogance vs. the U.S. Supreme Court vs. MikeMetzler's Thick Skull

Sun Jun 25 08:50:17 PDT 2006

Princess,

I am very glad that you are willing to argumentatively interact with the
point I made recently on Pooh's Think and post it here. (My original post
can be found here: http://poohsthink.com/?p=602 )  Perhaps a better way for
the future is to submit your post to me privately so that I can post it on
Pooh's Think directly, unless it has direct relation to a current thread on
Vision 2020.  I'm also impressed with the tone of your writing here, but for
the fact that you would place in the title "Mike Metzler's Thick Skull."
This suggests you are still too much in the habit of Kirk insult; this does
not seem to help your better efforts. As for your arguments (I left below),
I agree with them.   There will always be many private pastoral issues that
should remain private, such as whatever emotional struggles the victims of
Steven Sitler are currently undergoing; I would think this is an area were
you might have some important admonishment for Doug Wilson.  

But all this says nothing to the argument in my post; in that post, I linked
to a particular post of Wilson's and the discussion that followed on his
blog.  This is directly about the R.C. Sproul Jr. scandal and the CREC's
recent involvement in it (as well as Wilson's original rhetorical tainting
of the process on his own blog).  This is an issue that has gone on public
record, and it is something to which a entire denomination has made a
judicial ruling, promulgated publicly.  The CREC's involvement with this
issue has been judicial in nature (despite their claims to the contrary) and
the CREC has presented its decisions and findings to the public.  All the
simple questions being asked of Wilson are with respect to these public
documents and the clear questions the CREC's public commentary has raised.
This is also about the extreme moral failings of an internationally famous
religious leader, which makes explanation all the more important.  The
CREC's decision is on the face of it ludicrous and the questions being asked
are with respect to the most basic public facts of the matter.  Also,
numerous claims from the CREC have been clearly false when compared to the
public record.  The many concerns people have about all this is entirely
justified and to be expected.  I would recommend that you continue to follow
all of this very closely.  Wilson's subterfuge and refusal to address simple
questions has led to some spectacular exchanges over the last couple weeks
on his Blog, which I have been tracking on Pooh's Think. It has also caused
him to threaten further censorship on his blog and it has resulted in him
kicking Kevin Johnson off his blog. The injustice and the boy's-club
politics in the Kirk has now hit the national scene.

Michael Metzler   

Mike Metzler approvingly quotes the following comment at Wilson's blog: "The
elder should be in the position because he is able to explain, explain,
explain, not hide, hide, hide."

Metzler's whole post misrepresents what an elder's obligations are.

Actually, ideally, an elder should be both good at explaining and also at
hiding, because there are some things that should be revealed and some
things that should be hidden. Generally the same person will be good at
doing both. And not only are not all things to be explained, what needs to
be explained or hidden will vary depending on the other party and the
circumstances.

To take a very extreme example, but one which illustrates my point well, am
I under any obligation to explain to a would-be kidnapper that I have have
hidden my children in the closet, and that I have a concealed weapon with
which I am about to kill him?

A less extreme example: am I under any obligation to explain to my neighbors
how much money I earn? Am I under any obligation to explain to a would-be
suitor of my daughter why my daughter and her mother and father do not
welcome his romantic attentions?

Even in my family not everyone has a right to an explanation about
everything that's going on. There are plenty of things I am perfectly
entitled to keep from my children if I so choose.

So how about in a church? There are plenty of things that go on in a church
that require confidentiality. Not every church member has a right to know
how the pastor is counseling other church members. There are plenty of
decisions that can be made by the church leadership without explaining to
the congregation why they did what they did. And there are plenty more
things about which the church leadership is obliged to explain to the church
members, but not to persons outside the church.

So, simply because somebody wants to receive an explanation from Doug Wilson
about something does not mean that they are entitled to an explanation. "It
depends."

If Doug Wilson was a supreme court justice, he would have to explain about
all his decisions. But he's not a supreme court justice. He's a pastor of
one church, and his obligation to explain his decisions to persons outside
that church are considerably more limited than a lot of people would like to
imagine.

-- Princess Sushitushi

_________________________________________________________________

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! 

http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

=====================================================

 List services made available by First Step Internet, 

 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   

               http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>

          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com

====================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060625/7e531839/attachment.htm