Friday, November 30, 2007

Clearing Things Up -- Modified

There has been some discussion on the web as to why I took down my two posts concerning a certain blog entry. Consequently, I thought I should try to clear things up.

First, this was not written with an irenic spirit, so I took it off.

Second, I took this one off too because after reading the letter I realized that my normal signature was not actually on the letter and could easily have led to the notion that I was trying to be sneaky. I wasn't, but I can completely understand how it might have been taken that way.

Third, my request to the pastor of this elder was supposed to be a private letter. The thing I regret and the reason I took my posts of this blog was because my putting them on the blog made the whole issue public. For that I am very sorry.

Finally, I am indeed a ministering elder at Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho. I don’t often feel qualified to be in the company of such a solid and godly bunch of men, but I’m very grateful to God for allowing me to be numbered among them. I’ve known Doug Wilson for around 35 years (we met in the Navy) and for that I’m more than grateful. I know God is sovereign and our relationship has been one of those areas of my life that has more than proved it to me. As far as my duties here at Christ Church I am happily Pastor Wilson’s executive assistant (My responsabilities include teaching, counseling, administrating, and a bunch of other things that free Pastor Wilson to do the things he does with more freedom.). I am also the administrator of Greyfriars’ Hall Ministerial Training School as well as one of the instructors. As for training and experience: I have a BA in Philosophy from the University of Idaho, and an MDiv from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and I’ve been in "full time Christian ministry" for close to 30 years. Yep, that makes me old, really old. I am very sorry that I inadvertently involved Pastor Wilson in this.

So, to summarize: I took the posts off the web because I had originally intended my letter to be between the elder’s pastor and myself. It was not intended to be official between my church and his; simply me to him, asking him to check into the behavior of one of his elders. I also told him, when I apologized to him for putting the letter on the web, that I wouldn’t put anything else on the web. I had already published my second post in response to a couple of comments and private e-mails, but upon reflection, thought taking them both off would be the more honorable way to go.

I hope this helps.


Keith said...

Pastor Lawyer,

Thank you for the clarification, I was genuinely confused as to why the letter had been posted, why it said some of the things it said, and why it was taken down.

Since questions about the content would be inappropriate (you're keeping it private, after all), the only question I have left is: if you wanted it to be private, why did you post it on your blog? No offense, but "posted on a blog" is about as far away from "private" as you can get ;)

Keith LaMothe

Fat Souls said...

Hi Keith,

I think it is similar to the first time I got an e-mail from someone and got all fired up and simply ripped off a reply without thinking. The second I pushed the "send" button I wished I hadn't sent it.

This was similar. I really didn't think anyone ever read my blog since the stats page pretty much showed my own access from day to day.

Over all it was just a stupid move on my part to put the letter on the blog.

Keith said...

Thank you for the response. I've made similar stupid moves. Thankfully I don't have a blog to provide me more opportunities.

I pray that you and the elder in question work this matter out privately and come to an agreement and reconciliation. There's enough tragic fallout going on from the various current conflicts, let us put out the fires of the tongue where we may.

Grace, and peace,

Fat Souls said...

That would be nice. Thanks.

Andy Gilman said...

So, you still defend the contents of your letter, while apologizing for having made your scurrilous remarks public? At this point you have publicly accused Bob Mattes of sin, of a vile act of coercing a young airmen into changing his testimony, and you think apologizing for having made your accusation public "clears things up?"

Does this mean that you continue to believe that Bob's treatment of the airmen was sinful?

And Keith, are you going to let him off the hook for this "apology?"

Fat Souls said...

Mr. Gilman, if you would like to discuss this in in private, my e-mail address is posted on my blog.

Blessings on you brother.

Andy Gilman said...

A private discussion between you and I is not going to correct the false, public accusations you have made against Bob Mattes. You have not cleared up anything by this so-called "apology," and your actions are reprehensible. At one point I entertained the slim possibility that you had merely grossly misinterpreted Bob's account of the young airman, or that you had read with too much haste. But it looks now like your intention is truly malicious.

Fat Souls said...

Mr. Gilman,

I can assure you that I would be happy to discuss this with you in private. If it turns out that I have in some way sinned other than what I've already confessed, I would be happy to make it just as public as the sin was. That seems to be a Biblical response.

I refuse to further compound my earlier sin by discussing this with you in public.

Also, it occurs to me, because you continue to write on my blog instead of to me in private, that you really don't have any interest in making things right. Therefore I will be deleting any further comments by you on this topic--at least with the tone that you've represented so far.

Keith said...


Whether or not I let someone "off the hook" really doesn't matter very much.

That said, I presume that the resolution process between Pastor Lawyer and the accused is still ongoing. If and when a resolution is accomplished, I look forward to a full "clearing up". If the matter hadn't been public to begin with, I would not expect such a thing; but since the comments (and reprecussions) were public, a final wrap-up for us bystanders would seem appropriate. But only when the private matter is resolved.