<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceType"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceName"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1027" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>May 05,
2006<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Jerry,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Thanks
for the thoughts. I’d like to offer a response to you that should
provide further help as me, you, and others try to assess the trustworthiness
of your fresh claims here about my incompetence, imbalance, double standards,
presumptive and delusional arrogance, lack of love and compassion,
conspiratorial mindset, ugliness, jeopardized marriage (?), and my destiny for
a life of conflicts. You packed quite a bit in a few paragraphs; that is
some well done concision in my book. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Unfortunately,
however, you have not dealt with any of the claims, illustrations, definitions,
analysis, arguments, evidence, and examples that I have been providing every
week for the last 5 months. Not one really. Instead, you merely
attack my moral standing generally. This is not surprising, since this
has been a methodology developed and refined by Wilson and Jones over the last
decade in order to deal with dissent or challenge from without and from
within. This ‘character assassination’ has slowly replaced
argument, evidence, and the dignity of the kirker opponent. I would
actually call this a refined ‘art’ in the Kirk at this point.
The kind of control and manipulation that this art is capable of producing is
remarkable; I think Wilson and Jones are very wise in using this art. And
likewise, I think you were wise in employing it here on Vision 2020 since you
are not of the kind of intellectual frame, currently, to actually address my
challenges, argument, and evidence in a rational manner. So once again,
my life in the Kirk is comprised of fending off gross slander about my moral
standing and psychological normalcy rather than reasonably discussing
facts. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>You
Write:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>You were
willing to speak on behalf of Vision 2020, so you shouldn't mind everyone
hearing what you had to say. If you would've requested me not to speak
about it in public beforehand like your pastor did explicitly in the
letter you put on your blog, I would have certainly extended that common
courtesy. If you would like to take this off list, I'm more than
happy. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Me:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>I am glad
that you were willing to confess the truth here and admit that you took a
highly private email from me and posted it to Vision 2020 to ridicule and
critique it. This doesn’t make your fellow Wilson Apologists look
very good in hind site, given their rhetorical smoke covering up this very
question. But you undue this minor moral problem by telling us the truth;
thank you. Your defense of this strange action, however, leads us into
more troubling moral waters. Your conscience must not be feeling purky
enough to provide a helpful argument on your behave, for certainly, no sane
person here in Moscow would expect a friend to feel justified in posting
private correspondence without permission simply because they spoke about
Vision 2020, or implicitly referenced what they thought a majority of Vision
2020 posters believe. Do I need to say more to this? Obviously
anyone ‘would mind’ having their highly personal emails posted
without notice to Vision 2020, regardless of whether or not they referenced
Vision 2020. I’m not sure how to say anymore about this, for I do
not want to imply that you are lying here, but at the same time I do not
believe this argument of yours permits me to take it as a sincere
defense. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Your
reference to my Blog is very curious since I only post correspondence on my
Blog if :<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>1) It is
clearly assumed, or stated, that the material was for the express purpose of
being published to my Blog.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>2) If I
ask and get permission from the writer to post their material, usually with
clarification if the writer wants their name attached or not.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>3) Or
else the post clearly falls into the category of Kirk Leadership aggression
against me, my reputation, and my household. I attempted to make it very
clear early on that I would post anything that fell within this last category;
I posted <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Wilson</st1:place></st1:City>’s
‘copyrighted’ letter to further confirm this very principle.
Because of this, Kirk Leadership always knew that what they put in writing and
emailed me would very likely be published at my whim; they therefore had the
luxury to craft their statements with this knowledge, so that they could be
tailored to both me and the public, which they certainly took advantage of; if
they wanted to say something privately to me they could have stopped by for a
chat over a beer. I’m fairly certain that the only material I have
published against the wishes of the author was material from <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Wilson</st1:place></st1:City>; and yet again, even this did at least
include the author’s knowledge that it might likely be published. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Perhaps
there has been a time when the particular circumstance permitted a fourth
option, but I currently cannot recall any; and perhaps there have been times
when I used poor judgment, but I am currently not aware of any.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Now,
Jerry, consider: your posting of my email to you does not fit in these
three categories at all; you seem to want to make it fit into something like
category (3), but it clearly doesn’t. You did not have the unique
context under which I posted correspondence without permission at all. You also
knew that I wrote that email to you with no thought that you might be motivated
to publish it publicly. Further, from the moral standpoint, the distinction
between posting something to one’s private Blog and posting something to
an active and local list like Vision 2020 is fairly significant. In sum, your
breach of my privacy goes far deeper than anything I have done within the
context of my own Blog, and even though I have been an active participant on
Vision 2020 throughout all this, it never crossed my mind to publish
someone’s highly private correspondence to me to Vision 2020 without
their consent and without their knowledge of the possibility that it would be
so published. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Your
purpose of posting my private correspondence to you hardly makes sense.
Why would you offer such a surprise attack and breach this kind of privacy and
trust for a purpose that I can hardly fathom? There is an additional
quality of hypocrisy in your dealings about all this now, since you claim that you,
pious Greyfriar Jerry, would never think of publishing that very email if I had
actually asked you not to. This is subterfuge; of course I didn’t
want you publishing something highly private and clearly written only for your
reading. Of course I had no expectation that you would even consider
publishing that email from me. If the possibility even crossed my mind I
would have 1) re-written it for everyone’s enjoyment and 2) politely
asked you not to publish it. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Yet,
ironically, much of this is really beside the point. The real point I was
originally trying to make about all this is that even if you did do precisely
what I have done, thus giving you the chance to generate that lovely kind of
argument we call “well you are one too,” you are still a hypocrite;
and if your leaders and other in the kirk community do not point this out to
you, then they are hypocrites too. The reason why this is the case, as I
have already tried to explain on simple and clear terms, is that this action of
posting private correspondence is one of the primary replies, if not THE reply,
that the Kirk gives to justify their moral indignation against my blog, as well
as their justification to despise any of the work we have done on my blog for
the last four months. What I do not think you understand—or perhaps
you just understand it all to well to admit—is that even if you did merely
do what I have been doing (which is clearly not the case in truth), you have
none-the-less removed your very reason for reviling my web site. So you
can either begin respecting the work we have been doing at <a
href="http://www.poohsthink.com/">www.poohsthink.com</a> and start addressing
some of our challenges, evidence, and arguments, or else you need to admit your
moral incoherence and hypocrisy. These really are your only two options,
Jerry. If you think you can come up with a third option, please let me
know what it is.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>You
Write:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>You need
to come to grips with the fact that volume of words doesn't make up for lack of
competence. It's ironic that would you would 'ahem' assuming I've not
read McLaren when your earliest 'arguments' with <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Wilson</st1:place></st1:City> about McLaren occurred when you
admittedly hadn't read him. Your perspective is filled with
this sort of imbalance and double standards.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Me: <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Well,
I’m fairly certain that the last time I did some epistemic sweeping I
found the belief that “volume of words doesn’t make up for lack of
competence” well in tact. I wouldn’t imagine trying to
disagree with you here. I did not know that this was one of the disputed
issues on the table for discussion. If there is any phrase, sentence,
paragraph, or post you have seen me utter or write over the last five months
that you think exhibits significant incompetence, please do bring it to my
attention. I always welcome helpful criticism, and if you discover it,
I’m certain most others have as well. It seems in fact that charity
would bid you to do just this; withholding from me your knowledge of where I
have been in error is not very nice, particularly after telling all of Moscow
that you have much of this sort of knowledge. I do hope that in your next
post you will have many examples of my incompetence to help me out here. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>As for
the “ahem” word, I apologize; I had assumed that you had been
following my discussion about McLaren on <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Wilson</st1:place></st1:City>’s
Blog. For anyone closely following that, my meaning would have been crystal
clear. If you were not reading <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Wilson</st1:place></st1:City>’s
Blog however, I can see how misleading this word would be for you. I was
referencing the fact that after I started reading McLaren I start urging
everyone to read the book before blasting it, ridiculing it, hating it, and
jeering at it—how unsuccessful my requests were became a running joke.
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Apparently
you have heard something about this discussion on <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Wilson</st1:place></st1:City>’s <br>
Blog however, since you reference my arguments I made on behalf of McLaren
before I had read his book. Perhaps you got this from Aaron; he made a
similar accusation months ago. Be relieved that your concern here is
based on pure mis-information. What really happened was that I at first
granted that Wilson’s conclusion about McLaren was correct and yet was
frightened by the way Wilson and some others were reasoning to this conclusion;
my concern was primarily ‘internal’ to the ‘arguments’
furthered against McLaren. Once I started researching McLaren on the
internet, all of my factual findings, including material written by him and
others—pro and con McLaren—was contradicting <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Wilson</st1:place></st1:City>’s assertions. I therefore
began quoting McLaren and noting some of the information I was coming up with
in McLaren’s defense. My primary thesis was not that McLaren was
ultimately not guilty as charged; rather, my primary challenge was with respect
to the justice of <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Wilson</st1:place></st1:City>’s
‘trial.’ I explicitly used courtroom metaphors in my criticism
at the time; at one point I explained that we were in process of destroying any
just institution for criticizing false teaching regardless of how guilty
McLaren really was. It seems my concerns back them were only the tip of
the iceberg; we have clearly come full circle. Throughout all that time I was
explicitly noting the extent of my knowledge of McLaren and his views, and I
only started positively defending McLaren’s full views along with the
book after I had read a number of chapters in the book. In sum, your
concern here is based on complete ignorance of what actually transpired in our
discussions of McLaren on <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Wilson</st1:place></st1:City>’s
Blog. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>As for
“imbalance and double standards,” if you are referring to more than
this one misconception about what I actually said about McLaren, then I’m
not sure what you would be referring to. Could you help me out and
provide another example? I would truly appreciate an opportunity to stand
corrected or else defend myself against these serious charges. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>You
Write:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>You are a
self-appointed leader that no one follows, and assume the position to correct
and guide when no one recognizes the gift and, more importantly, the love and
compassion it takes do to so. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Me: <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Jerry,
once again I really am lost. I’m a self-appointed leader?
I’m not sure what you are referring to. If you could help me out
with an example or two, I would appreciate it much. I don’t think
anyone “follows” me and I have never attempted to set myself up as
a leader; I have been trying to seek truth, survive the exiting of a
pseudo-cult, escape character assignation the best I could, and make a very
difficult transition in life while also trying to hold Doug Wilson accountable
for his actions through the only possible means I can fathom outside of physical
violence—publicity. I’m still hoping that my hard work here
will one day prove helpful for even you. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>If you
are merely referring to people “assuming my position is correct”
then you are working with a very false belief; I know that this is what the
leadership of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Christ</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Church</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> has been
aggressively trying to get you to believe; they have even tried to get me to
believe it recently through intimidating utterances of this proposition. The
problem is that, because of my vast correspondence generated from Pooh’s
Think, I know that in fact most people not socially tied to the personality of
Doug Wilson agree with the majority of the positions I espouse. I even know for
a fact that there are underground kirkers still in the Churches who agree with
the majority of the positions I espouse. Almost all kirkers who have left
<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Christ</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType
w:st="on">Church</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> after expressing distrust of the
leadership believe all of my positions, just about down to the last one. I even
have old friends, parents, and reformed pastors giving their thumbs up to the
majority of the views I espouse about <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName
w:st="on">Christ</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Church</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>.
I really hope you are willing to be corrected here, since this is just the
plain truth. I have no doubt that inside the kirk an opinion very
disconnected from the outside world is able to flourish; Wilson has been
progressively cutting off the Kirk from the outside world in various ways,
which has included trying to close down Vision 2020 and encouraging kirkers to
stop reading the Daily News while encouraging the vision of starting our own
Kirk newspaper. This is why it is so important for you to just ‘get
out’ a little bit more. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>You
Write:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Chesterton
has a great section in <em><i><font face="Times New Roman">Orthodoxy</font></i></em>
where he talks about the maniac and his water tight conspiracy
theory. If <st1:City w:st="on">Wilson</st1:City> and <st1:place
w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Christ</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Church</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>
are as evil as you say they are, why don't you just move on and get to
something lovely in this fantastic world?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Me:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>I
don’t know what to say about me being a maniac selling a tight conspiracy
theory. I do, however, appreciate the fact that you would allow my maniac
conspiracy theory to have the quality of ‘tightness.’ At
least I have succeeded in something. But I’m not all that convinced
about a relativistic, coherence theory of epistemic justification. I have
furthered arguments, made specific claims, and provided evidence for your
investigation. Conspiracy theory or not, all these are on the table for
your criticism. Perhaps you could give one or two illustrations of my
conspiratorial maniacy. If you could do this, I think I would be greatly
helped. Again, I do not think withholding such knowledge from me is very
charitable; if you have good reasons to believe I’m a maniac, it would be
good for you to share them with me so that I could have good reasons to agree
with your assessment. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>You Write:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>I imagine
you think you are called to this, which is just more of the ugly. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Me:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Well, I
don’t want to be ugly. I want to be beautiful, lovely, and
edifying. So help me out here; how is thinking I’m called to do
what I’m doing ugly? I’m not sure I get this. But in
any case, you can be relieved to know that I don’t think I’m called
to anything very special. Five years from now I hope to be teaching at a
community college in Arizona [or else somewhere the Crotons don’t have to
get covered in the winter], and by then I hope I no longer have need for a
Blog. I would like to publish a book by the time I am 50 years old
however; I hope that is not too grandiose a desire for your aesthetic
sensibilities. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>You
Write:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>I say
these things intended as faithful wounds of a friend, hoping that you will
find something constructive to put your efforts toward. If you don't find
some sort of balance, proportion and charity in your life, you will
continue to find conflict in the rest of the relationships you have. How
will you deal with the next church (if you decide to leave), or marital
conflicts? How do former conflicts in your life exhibit this pattern and
how can you look to yourself, before others, to take responsibility? <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Me:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Jerry, do
you know anything about me? Well, I mean, anything other than <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Wilson</st1:place></st1:City>’s lies about me? I think I have
found enough constructive things to put my time to. Right now I have a
marriage to tend to. I have four children I am raising. I am in the
process of building two houses as a local home builder. I am a full time
graduate student, and in fact would be writing a paper on the Narrative and
Judicial Decision Making right now if you had not found the need to make public
accusations against me about my incompetence, imbalance, double standards,
presumptive and delusional arrogance, lack of love and compassion,
conspiratorial mindset, ugliness, jeopardized marriage, and destiny of a life
of conflicts. I suspect that I am doing more constructive things at the
moment than many sufficiently Christian men in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>. And as soon as kirkers
slow down in their maligning of my character, I will be able to once again
participate in the delightful debates and discussions on Vision 2020. Hopefully
I can lead the way in getting other kirkers to start treating other members of
Vision 2020 like human beings. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>As for
“the next church,” do you have any knowledge of “the previous
church?” I’ve been a member of two other churches the last 10
years, and I don’t recall setting up a web site about my other
pastors. I have also been a Wilson/CC defender over the course of the
last 11 years. Jerry, this is one of my biggest concerns about the
cultish state of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Christ</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Church</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> by now. It
does not matter who the person is, how long they have proven themselves, or
what their track record is. (Please read the qualifications for Greyfriar
students if you would like to know what the elders thought about me six months
ago). If someone dissents in the wrong sort of way they will be harassed,
insulted, belittled, maligned, and accused of all sorts of things. It
just doesn’t matter what the damn facts are, as your beautiful,
defamatory post to Vision 2020 today has perfectly illustrated.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Your
Friend<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Michael
Metzler <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=4 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
14.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>