I want to follow up my previous post on RC Jr. I am doing this, not because I have anything new to say, but rather because the situation demands that we go over the basics again and again.
My point has been that those who jump into a situation like this with glee, and who cut loose with scurrilous attacks are, on the face of it, not to be trusted with anything. I would provide links to the kind of sites I have in mind, but I don’t think it is responsible to administer poisons just to try to exhibit your skill with antidotes. But anyone who knows the situation knows about these people. And any responsible Christian who knows about these people knows his Christian responsibility to base absolutely no conclusions about RC and his friends from what is said on these sites. It is equally necessary to refuse to countenance anything from people who are associated with the character assassins, but who do not participate in any direct attacks themselves. The unconverted Saul never actually threw any of the stones at Stephen — he just held the cloaks.
Some might want to object that I write with a satiric edge, but that when I or any of my friends are in the crosshairs, I start immediately talking about the need to “love your brother.” Two points. Folks who cannot tell the difference between the long and honored literary tradition of satire, and the equally long and dishonored tradition of scurrility may be left to their own devices. I approve of the former and disapprove of the latter. In this I have the support of some of my friends, and all of Western civilization. The second point is related to the first. Not only can people approve the former and disapprove the latter, as I do, but I have frequently noted how some people reverse this. There are many who have no problem with scurrilous attacks but who become positively indignant about biblical satire. Some of the nastiest attacks I have ever experienced have come from people who belonged to the school of thought that would outlaw Erasmus, the prophet Amos, Swift, or Horace. So it is not quite true that these folks cannot tell the difference. They usually can tell the difference between the two approaches — they have just inverted the values (Is. 5:20).
And last, I am not defining scurrility as holding to the view that the action of the RPCGA was correct. It is not a scurrilous attack to disagree with me here, or to have a concern based on the fact that there was a decision of the RPCGA through their moderator. This was a public action, taken by the moderator of a Presbyterian denomination. It was not done in a corner, and I can easily envision a responsible person holding to the view, for example, that RC ought to have stayed and appealed. And I can easily imagine someone responsible holding the reverse. That is why I urged everyone to let the governing bodies involved in all this to sort it all out in a godly and charitable way — which is what is happening.
But in the meantime, while this is occurring, the only course of action that should be obvious to godly Christians everywhere is that of ignoring and despising attack sites that savage men’s reputations. These sites despise their responsibility under the 9th commandment to be guardians of their brother’s good reputation and name. In this, the pagan officials of Ephesus have more wisdom than our internet vigilantes. “Wherefore if Demetrius, and the craftsmen which are with him, have a matter against any man, the law is open, and there are deputies; let them implead one another. But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly” (Acts 19:38-39).