Okay, please bear with me for a moment — I have a string of quotations, and with some answers and responses from me interspersed. First, from his blog, Lane asks me this question:
“I know, I know, this post comes from the self-proclaimed Fully Documented Anonymous Attack Blog, or FDAAB for short. You all will notice that I don’t link to that blog. I simply cannot, and Mark knows why, and has accepted that fact. However, I will admit to reading every post of his. Hypocritical? Probably. I would like for Doug to answer this post, though, if he has a minute. The evidence is all from Doug’s own blog, which is public for everyone to read. Would he chalk it up to rhetorical flourish? In which case, Mark T’s comment still stands: does this rhetoric make the charge of lying worse or better? Wilson does seem to have charged people with lying, and not just seeing through their paradigm-limited glasses. I am thankful that he has recently dialed down such rhetoric. The internet is far too vitriolic as it is. But has he never accused Scott Clark or Guy Waters of lying?”
This question was asked because in a recent Auburn Avenue post, I had said this:
“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.”
When I posted that, I received a friendly inquiry about this in the comments section from a friend, given his awareness of the “full-contact rugby” I have been playing in this controversy. Here is his inquiry, followed by my response.
Doug,
“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 don’t want to stir the pot on this, but there is a related issue: what about your accusations of ninth-commandment-breaking and other problematic behavior? I’m hesitant to name names, but in the interests of being specific (you’ve already been public enough) you have taken moral issue with John Robbins, Guy Waters, and R. Scott Clark, to name three. Am I mistaken? If not, are not lying and/or deception in some way involved in the alleged sins of these men?
Blessings, Keith LaMothe – 4/4/2008 9:05:29 PM
And my reply . . .
Keith, thanks for the check. I don’t believe any of those gentlemen are getting up in the morning and saying, “How can I lie about Wilson today?” But I do believe that because they are trained in theology, they have a moral responsibility to grasp what they appear to be incapable of grasping. And that is a moral, ninth commandment issue in the Larger Catechism sense.
Now let me make what I meant by “Larger Catechism sense” a little more specific. When I charge someone with violating the ninth commandment, I am invoking a broad set of issues. This, in my mind, is distinct from accusing someone of lying directly. The two are obviously related so let me outline what I mean (which I should have done earlier). This controversy has contained numerous breeches of the ninth commandment. From where I sit, the really egregious stuff has come from the FV critics, but given what I am about to quote, I do not believe that FV partisans have been squeaky clean in this either. I will highlight sections I believe to be particularly relevant, even though almost all of these questions and answers are relevant to this controversy.
Question 143: Which is the ninth commandment?
Answer: The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Question 144: What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
Answer: The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things: Whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for, and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requires; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of: Whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.
Question 145: What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own, especially in public judicature; giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calls for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others; speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice;speaking untruth, lying, slandering, backbiting, detracting, tale bearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults; hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession;unnecessary discovering of infirmities; raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion; envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any, endeavoring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt, fond admiration; breach of lawful promises; neglecting such things as are of good report, and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering: What we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.
From the comments of mine that Mark T assembled at his bog (is there a problem with the l on my keyboard? perhaps!) the two strongest appeared to be my references to “high slander mode,” and “taking a chain saw to the ninth commandment.” The others he either misunderstood or misconstrued (for example, saying something is a false charge is not the same thing as saying the person uttered the false deliberately, knowing it to be false). Those two references (colorful to be sure) were references to the world of the ninth commandment as outlined above by our very convicting fathers at Westminster. Do I believe that FV critics have taken a chain saw to questions 144 and 145 of the Larger Catechism? Yes, I do — they have done so repeatedly. It is continuing down to the present, most recently when Lane (who ought to know better) asked me to comment on this sludge.
So let me be very explicit about this, and clarify what I have meant in the uses of phrases like that, and in the charges I made about breeches of the ninth commandment.
But before I explain and defend myself here, I think it is necessary to do something else first. If you have been in controversy like this one for five years, as I have, and have written hundreds of thousands of words about it, as I have, it is impossible to read through those Westminster questions above and say, “Yep. I sure did all of that right.” Specifically, I can say (and do say) that my purpose and intent was not to accuse any of the named individuals in this controversy with the sin of purposefully lying. But because I did not make this qualification carefully at that time, I believe that it would be quite a reasonable for a reader not to see this, and that problem was my responsibility. I was not making a blanket accusation (for example) of flat-out lying against the men at Mid-America or Westminster West. I don’t believe that accusation to be true, but since my words could reasonably be construed that way, I need to seek the forgiveness of any FV critics affected by it. In short, any of the named Christian leaders, critics of the FV, who believed I was calling them liars simpliciter, please forgive me for my breech of the ninth commandment in this.
But as tempting as it would be to end everything right there with a group hug, there are still some outstanding issues that need to be resolved. Why are we here? Notice that the Larger Catechism also requires “love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requires.” That is what I have been seeking to do for the last five years, heart and soul — defending in the first place the names and reputations of my friends, and also of my own.
So here is the summary. I believe that men like Mark T lie as as fast as a dog can trot. And when I say “lie,” I mean that in the old-fashioned sense that would get you into a fight in a bar. He wants to defend his anonymity by means of yet another slander — which is that we here in Moscow “haff our vays” of dealing with opponents, with a secret police and everything. Disagree with Wilson, and get a visit from jackbooted deacons in the middle of the night! That’s why he has to attack without any accountability for himself. We, by our evil, have forced him to it. Now I don’t fault anonymous critics in cultures where there are Gulags, racks, stakes, and more. But is anonymity really necessary when what would happen is that the man’s pastor (assuming with a long shot that he has one) would get a letter?
The lake of fire is reserved for liars, and I take this as referring to those whose consciences are seared as with a hot iron. I believe this is speaking of men who don’t care about the truth, and are willing to advance stories that they know to be false. I don’t ever use that word lightly. One of my tasks in pastoral counseling, while trying to unsort human tangles, is to keep people from using that word.
This doesn’t mean that Larger Catechism violations are okay, but just that we should have a sense of proportion. The Reformed world today has huge problems, caused and perpetuated by our sins in this area. I do believe that many Christian leaders, like Lane, who would never dream of advancing an overt falsehood knowingly, nevertheless do violate the ninth commandment, routinely and egregiously. They have done so repeatedly in this controversy. That is what I have been referring to, and what I have been fighting against. I am answering this particular question right now because of one more gross violation of it. When Lane gives the time of day to men who make false accusations from the shadows, by reading every post written in those shadows, he is “countenancing evil reports,” to take just one example. Read Deuteronomy 19 again. For reasonable men to bestow any kind of credibility at all on anonymous attack blogs like Mark T’s is for reasonable men to sin in just the way the Larger Catechism describes. The excuses and evasions made in defense of countenancing such evil reports is just mind-boggling to me.
Lane said this:
“Wilson does seem to have charged people with lying, and not just seeing through their paradigm-limited glasses. I am thankful that he has recently dialed down such rhetoric. The internet is far too vitriolic as it is. But has he never accused Scott Clark or Guy Waters of lying?”
No, I have never accused them of lying. I have accused them, and continue to accuse them, of conducting this controversy in a manner that is completely out of step with the Larger Catechism’s teaching on the ninth commandment. I believe that Lane has fallen into the same trap, which is why I had to write this post. So there is the context, and that is what I mean. Happy to answer any questions about it.