Mangle Tangle

I recently accepted an apology from Sean Lucas over a review he had written of “Reformed” Is Not Enough a few years ago. He did not apologize for what he had written, but rather for the way in which he had written — he apologized for the tone. I am not taking any of my response back, but I hunted down the review in question, and just now finished reading it. My problem now is that, considered in isolation, I didn’t see anything wrong with his tone. I thought that in terms of manner he was well within bounds. The content, for which he did not apologize, was a typical mangle-tangle of misunderstandings, and that created a tone of its own, one dependent on content. It was perfectly fine if he was right, and it was patronizing if he was wrong. Those misunderstandings were a good representation of the kind of prejudiced thinking that you don’t want to put on a study committee. Or, if you do, you certainly don’t want to put “nothing but” that perspective on a study committee. Be that as it may, I am still grateful for the apology and I still accept it. I did need to state for the record, though, that I don’t think an apology for tone detached from content was necessary. At the same time, anything that helps ramp down the level of indignation — on both sides — going into the PCA’s General Assembly is a good thing in my book.