So I need to respond very briefly to this rejoinder from Hohn Cho. I have three basic points, rising in order of importance.
First, in that rejoinder, he referred to himself as “a gent named Hohn Cho,” quoting how I had referred to him in my earlier post. I also referred to him throughout as Mr. Cho, and in all of it I was intending no personal disrespect. I had gathered that he was an attorney, but it appears that he may also be a pastor, and I was unaware of who he was. This should be attributed to my ignorance, and not as a charge from me that that Hohn Cho is a nobody. So I should clarify that in my usage, gent is not a term of dismissal. I replied to the post in the first place because I believe that Team Pyro ought to be taken seriously. And, while I am here, I should say I really appreciated the balance in the article by Phil Johnson that was linked.
Second, in this reply, he leans heavily on the CREC Review of our “situations” here in Moscow, and concludes with a request that I might “heed the wise counsel” of that Review. For the sake of peace in our denomination, I have made a commitment to my brothers not to publicly dispute the findings of the Review, despite any agreements or disagreements. And what that means is that a person in Hohn Cho’s position has every right to quote from the Review, and to apply it as seems fair to him. I might wish that he had quoted from other portions of it as well, but I have promised not to get into any of that. So on anything related to the points raised by the Review, I am fully content to leave the last word to him.
I can point out, however, that the mere fact of this Review does answer a separate charge that is periodically made by some of my frothing foes, which is that the CREC is a toy denomination, under the control of my iron fist. If that were the case, then we really should add incompetence to the list of my many failings. Worst use of the iron fist ever.
But third, here we are at the heart of things. I heartily applaud what Phil Johnson said in his post, which is that impartiality is required of everyone in church leadership. We must all abhor the double standard, which was the point of my post yesterday.
And so here is my question again. Why is CJ Mahaney the only one required to call for a third-party, independent investigation? Why do the Southern Baptists, with worse scandals, get to distance themselves from him for not calling for one, and they are allowed themselves to not call for one? Why the double standard? I read the accusation about the death of MLK against John MacArthur, and read Phil’s response, and was happy to leave it there. But apparently not. Why does MacArthur not have to call for a third-party, independent investigation? Why does Boz not have to call for a third-party, independent investigation?
Why is that the line for CJ, and not the line for the rest of us?