Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformed Musings  Quote:
Originally Posted by tcalbrecht How ironic that in a blog post chastising the Baylys from their one-sidedness, we get true gauge of the author's contempt for his opponent with phrases such as "He Who Must Not Be Named (HWMNBN)". | I confess that py3ak's idea of relating HWMNBN to the (I think, according to Google) Harry Potter antagonist is quite clever, far more clever than the actual reason. I used the initials to prevent my blog from showing up when folks do Internet searches for "Doug Wilson". When I used his name a lot in a blog post back in June, I received a large number of page hits looking up the slavery thing and other unsavory issues, with which I do not wish my blog to be associated. Unless I've missed a reference, you'll find that his name almost never appears more than once (on rare occasions twice) in any single post, and doesn't even appear in many posts. With such a low occurrence, my blog isn't likely to come up in a search on these other subjects. I actually mentioned this technique in a post I did way back in the summer. With the same reasoning, I try NOT to abbreviate "Federal Vision" too often because I DO want my blog to come up in searches for that topic.
So, sorry, not much humor there--just keeping under the search-engine radars for unsavory topics. I think that I may have used the initials once recently on GreenBagginses, but later realized that was silly because Wilson's name is all over Lane's blog. I will admit, though, that I did start finding it a bit humorous after typing it for a while. I'll post a link to this comment on my blog so others may benefit from your question. |
Well, I understand it a bit better now. The only problem is the "intelligence" in the alogorithms of Google. There's a number of them including Latent Semantic Indexing that will eventually associate HWMNBN with Doug Wilson so that if someone searches for Doug Wilson then your posts might still come up depending on how referenced they are.
I confess that I've read a few of the Baylys' posts and I just don't get it either.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by py3ak 1. Even in opposing them we run the risk of collapsing into heterodoxy ourselves.
2. And we also run the risk of malice, where any stick is good enough to beat them with.
3. And in addition, we run the risk of falling into hypocrisy: where people who ought to be opposed or rebuked or whatever get a free pass simply because they oppose the FV. Thus we can squeal if the FV tries something, and remain silent if the TRs try the same thing: that is not justice, and that is not Christian. |
True enough but let's remember that the issue is a both-and and not an either-or. I agree with many who are criticizing the tone and one-sidedness of some FV critics but all sin has to be exposed. Wilson's arrogance has long preceded this and can even be found in his books before he became persona not gratia. Even when I was still a fan of his writings and would recommend him to others I always warned others about his attitude toward people. This is par for the course for him for at least a decade now. I used to find in it something witty and insightful and now I just see in it a "mean-spirited Will Rogersesque" smartest person in the room attitude. The man simply can't write something without spinning some harsh analogy that he thinks captures the essence of things. All his devotees fawn: "Oh, he's
so folksy...." I've gotten to the point where I can't stand the poison of asps that drips from his tongue.
It occurred to me the other day that Elders are supposed to be those that have a good reputation among those in the community. Wilson is reviled. Why? Because he's made a career out of being personally offensive to the world instead of offending for the Gospel's sake. He dies glorious deaths on all the wrong hills and glories in his disdain for the lost.
I also agree with you that there are serious issues elsewhere that some critics need to note in their own backyard but, again, the focus of this blog post is rather specific. It is strange how they simply will not acknowledge not only his tone but also his butting in to the PCA and its SJC process.