In this next section, I will quote Lane quoting me.
“Secondly, a bit about the Golden Rule. Wilson states this:
I have been misrepresented by FV critics time without number, and because I don’t want Schlissel or Lusk disavowing me for things I don’t really believe, I have no intention of doing it to them. And FV critics have not been reliable in handling what I have said, so why should I take them as reliable when they decide to give my friends the treatment? (emphasis original)
And then Lane responds with this:
“I would like to ask all FV advocates this question: do you think that FV critics have been lying about what the FV teaches? If so, then why have you never instigated Matthew 18 procedures against said people? . . .
The response here is that I cannot think of any critic of the FV — provided we are talking about critics who sign their own name to their concerns or charges — that I would dream of accusing of deception or lying. I believe the distortions and misrepresentations (which are quite real) come from a paradigmatic net that won’t let certain thoughts or concepts through. It is not lying to say something false. It is lying to say something false deliberately. This is not to say that there is no culpability in such tangles and confusion — there is, can be, and has been on both sides. But it is the sort of thing that should be sorted out in conversation and debate, not charges.
Lane’s next point has to do with the burden of proof lying with the accuser. I said this, and Lane agreed with it but. He then outlined all that the FV critics have done, all the hours they have studied, etc. This is a point where Lane and I will just have to flat disagree, no getting around it. Thousand of hours of study without meeting with the principals face-to-face is thousands of hours yelling up the wrong rain spout. Establishing committees that are as stacked as a painting on a WWII bomber’s nose is not the way to inspire my confidence. No, I haven’t gotten over the sheer brazenness of that study committee. But I am glad that Lane acknowledges the central point on the burden of proof, and I believe he is genuine in this.
“I, for one, feel this burden of proof rather strongly, that it lies on me/other critics to prove the guilt of the FV. However, what doesn’t lie on me, or any other FV critic, is to prove to the FV advocate’s satisfaction the guilt of the view in question. The FV is not the court that decides whether their views have been adequately and fairly represented. The denominations’ courts are those courts that decide.”
Sure, the denominations inquire into the doctrinal health of their members, and the larger Reformed world looks on, taking stock of the judicial and investigative procedures that said denominations claim are consistent with biblical justice. The denominations conduct their affairs, and those of us in the stands can tell whether or not there has been a wardrobe malfunction. If a minister gets the boot because it was determined by his presbytery that he was out of conformity with the Standards, well, then, that’s the way it is. And if the larger Reformed world (including, as I am fond of pointing out, the second-year seminarians who have read books) takes a look at how the wheels of justice were pre-prepared with extremely well-heated grease, then they will make their determinations as well. As they watch ministers frog-marched to the door without ever having been asked a single question, they will say to themselves, “Self, do you really want to remain under care at the Isaac Parker Memorial Presbytery? Not so much.” On this second, more demographic way of establishing vindications, the results will not become clear for another decade or so. But I believe they will become clear.
In the meantime, for those who want to look at what the denominations have done, along with how they have done it, they should take care to pay close attention. In the middle of all those investigations and reports that Lane talks about, there was only one church that included actual interation with the one being investigated as part of its research. That group was the CREC in their investigation of me. All the others determined that opportunities to answer questions, clarify points, or even to retract positions would constitute a terrible delay, and would only cause the grease to cool down.