Should We Outlaw 1 Corinthians 6?
I will from here refer to “Ministry Watchman” as Mr. & Mrs. Binoculars, Mrs. B for short, or perhaps some other unhappy names. The reason why is that Mrs. B has been so well high-jacked by unjust, gossiping ninnies that I don’t think the original label really has anything left to do with it. Doug Phillips, Mrs. B’s object of pummeling, is a politician, a business man, and he has his hands in just about every cultural cookie jar in our county while representing an ultra-conservative Christian/cultural point of view—from what I can tell anyway.
Now it is true that Mrs. B’s narrative about Phillips volunteering time to help out a bad marriage is too incoherent to warrant much more of my time; and it is so evidentially unintentional (e.g. Doug and Beall started crying tears of joy and compassion when they read Jen’s false statement of contrition…those abusers!) that I’m afraid I will end up liking the patriarch too much if I did continue investigating it. But even if I did continue investigating, and even if the story did cast some negative light on Phillips, it would have only weak bearing on Phillips’ broad roles. Unlike Doug Wilson, Phillips does not gain his status and authority by feigning papal ecclesiastical authority, the moral purity of a pastoral guide to heaven, or the prophetic utterance of the sage (which today included proclamation about local city economics). Hence, Mr. & Mrs. Binoculars are not “watching” any “ministry” at all at this point; it is all about a personal vendetta against a businesses man, politician, and visionary (of the 1950s), which to them justifies any rhetorical stunt on the internet that might possibly cause him harm.
Further, I have already presented a good deal of analysis and argument about this; and others have pointed out grave problems regarding the content of Mrs. B’s story, the current condition of Jen’s household, the condition of her household just one year ago, and the methods employed by Mrs. B generally. But Mrs. B is not answering the objections, which is another reason to let the folks over there just enjoy their gossip party. However, and this is what motivated me to write up this post, they did just start batting around a comment of mine—with no link of course. And they have been fairly aggressive about it. But their deciding to finally address something a critic has said (outside of threats and ridicule) has left them with the task of simply misconstruing my statements and successfully covered up entirely the very decisive argument I was attempting to make. Given the lack of a link, this appears to just be more intentional internet libel. My short comment they are responding to is found here. ‘Justice Prima’ says in response:
Michael Metzler attacked and defamed this Christian gentleman by mocking this very statement, turning it upside down its head and making it sound like Mr. Taylor was the one threatening the lawsuit and laying the framework to initiate a lawsuit . . . [Taylor] is *not,* as blind Michael insinuated, laying out the framework to initiate a lawsuit
And unfortunately, there are some who will believe just about anything so long as it supports feelings of outrage towards an alleged male abuser.
I must say, these anonymous ‘guys’ sure are on the sappy end of the religious piety stick. I have attacked and defamed a gentleman by mocking his statement! May my eternal soul perish in hell forever. Nobody would see the pious souls over at Mrs. B “attack and defame” anyone! I don’t care to defend myself on this point (although somebody else be my guest); but I do want to point out that I did not turn anything upside down, imply that Taylor was threatening a lawsuit or laying the framework to initiate a lawsuit. I have gone back and read my post and it is hard to believe this is an honest interpretation, particularly given the level of confidence and moral condemnation attached to it.
I’m not sure what is difficult about the point I made. Phillips wanted to arbitrate a dispute in an ancient and respected tradition of justice in which a decision would have be backed by tangible force and settled henceforth for the peace and purity of the world. Taylor refused to have their very real dispute adjudicated, and put to rest forever. Why did Taylor refuse to have his dispute adjudicated? In the most typical situation, it would have been because Taylor thought the judges would decide against him. However, Taylor explains that he refused to settle his dispute because Phillips was a Christian. Thus, it was better just to let Phillips take what he wanted and let him go away in peace.
If this is in fact why Taylor did not go through with adjudication, it would be commendable whether Phillips was guilty or not. I had a grandfather that did something like this once—and the Presbyterian attorney representing his opponent came and sat behind him in his Baptist church after the trial. But if my grandfather then took his dispute to the internet a couple years later, seeking to damage the man he initially let go in peace far more than would have ever occurred within the confines of the previous adjudication, he would have been playing the part of an unjust and malicious hypocrite.
Likewise with Taylor: anything that would have been good by letting Phillips go has now been completely undone. In fact, the situation is far worse. Certainly, Phillips would have preferred having their dispute settled in a court of law, even if it meant giving up some dinosaur bones, rather than now having the dispute drug through the world wide web on one of the most unjust web sites I have yet seen all for the purpose of harming Phillips irreparably. What Taylor is doing is wrong regardless of what happened in the past; but the fact that Taylor is presenting himself as a humble man who let his Christian brother go in peace over the dead dinosaur—may its prehistoric and famous soul rest in peace—is outrageous hypocrisy. Taylor is just evidencing he never had any gracious intentions in letting Phillips go in peace and has harbored his dispute since that day. Instead of letting justice be done years ago, Taylor decided to give himself the rights of a vigilante in order to participate in a lynch mob whenever the time was ripest. If this is how conservative Christians are going to apply 1 Corinthians Chapter 6, then I would propose that this Pauline chapter needs to be outlawed for the peace of our society and the safety of her leaders!
No comments yet.