Okay, so I just removed Stacey’s posting privileges. Why is that? I let this thread run a little longer than I usually do for several reasons. First, I wanted to see how the argument morphed and played out, and secondly, because I am on the road, and close monitoring is harder to do.
I have banned Michael Metzler from this list, and I did so because of his boorish lack of manners. The issue is not “disagreement” in itself, or some kind of allergic reaction on my part to primary documents. All sorts of people express disagreement with various things said on this blog, and they do so within the the bounds of Christian discourse, and they do so untrammeled by me. Michael was warned a number of times before he was evicted, but the warnings only made the situation worse.
Those who are reading this blog from a distance need to know that Michael lives here in the same small town with us, and currently he lives across the street from me. We know him pretty well, and the timbre of his postings is quite distinctive. Not that identifying his voice can be done infallibly, but it can be done with a high degree of accuracy.
Since he was booted, he has come back on the blog under his wife’s name, and under a series of pseudonyms. After a short time, the voice reveals him, and the boorish pattern repeats itself, and I ban the new person. I have lost track of how many times Michael has done this. The last one before this was Steve, and now Stacey. And, of course, because our reading of someone’s voice can be accurate without being infallible, it is quite possible that once she is banned, Stacey will then pop up in Des Moines, identify her pastor, and point to the grave injustice done to her on Wilson’s blog. And that is why, when we suspect someone of being Michael, we ask them to identify themselves, and give the name of their pastor, and we do this before the person is banned. I want those who want to express disagreement, and who are willing to do so within the rules, to be able to do so. I don’t want to ban anyone under false assumptions.
The problem is complicated by other bad actors, slander-meisters, coming on with their false identities to carry on their campaign against RC Jr., or whoever else. I said earlier that this was boorish behavior — and here is why. In a normal situation, there should be no problem with “Bob” or “Jon” or “Sally” carrying on a discussion about theology or politics in a internet space like a blog. But in internet parlance, Michael is a troll, and he specializes in getting himself someplace where he can be the center of attention, if only for a brief moment. Whenever he does this under a false name, he brings all the other “solo names” under suspicion, if only for a moment. Whenever a new person piles in, with deep concerns about Ligonier, let us say, it could be legit, or it could be Michael, warming up.
And this is the build-up to the point I want to make about justice. This blog is owned and operated by me. It is not a place like Hyde Park, where anybody can just say their piece. It is more like my living room, where people are invited to come over, and to talk. It is a private event where the public is invited to participate within certain specified guidelines. Whenever someone signs up to post, that someone is agreeing to abide by the rules or guidelines. In every one of his guises, Michael and repeatedly broken those rules. If this were a seminar in a rented room at a university, and a questioner was evicted by security for disorderly conduct, and ten minutes later showed up in a false nose and mustache, saying, “No, no, I’m not that other guy . . . but let me continue to try to make his point. I have some primary documents here . . .” it would not be long before everyone in the audience would see that they were being imposed upon in an egregious way.
A baptized church member has every right to come to the Table, and should not be prevented unless there has been a trial that shows that he is violating his baptismal obligations in an egregious way. A citizen of a free nation should have the full presumption of innocence, and his liberty should not be taken away unless his commission of a crime has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But an invitation to visit with others in someone’s living room is not in the same category. If someone puts their muddy boots on the coffee table repeatedly, despite being asked not to, it is not an injustice to uninvite them. Enrollment in a school, for another example, is a privilege, not a right, and a student can be simply dropped for poor academic performance. This is not an injustice either. Access to certain things is a right. Access to others is a privilege. Access to my living room in order to call me a skunk and a tyrant would be in the latter category, not the former.
Michael has repeatedly lied about his identity in order to get into a place where he was uninvited. He was uninvited for his behavior, not his name. If he wants back, he doesn’t need to change his name — just his behavior. But changing names is easy with yahoo, and repentance for this kind of problem is very hard. Michael has lied about his willingness to comply with the agreed upon rules for posting on this blog. When he signed up as “a reformed guy,” he agreed to behave in a certain way, and he did this while having no intention of doing so. He has lied about a number of other things as well, including lies that slander the character of others. He is doing all this for the sake of what he says is the truth. So, don’t feel sorry for Stacey, that homeschooling mom with a child on her hip, and an uncanny ability to mimic the tone and concerns of Michael Metzler.