As a way of reflecting on this year’s activities, I’d like to express my thoughts on blogging in the PCA. I have a feeling it will be a big topic in the PCA in 2011.

TE Brian Carpenter, for one, will probably be brought to trial in the Presbyter of the Soluixlands for activities on his blog (and other blogs). Before it is over, I may be, too. I would not be surprised if there are overtures from some of our Presbyteries seeking to make some sort of statement on the use of the internet.

Metro New York is still smarting from the failure of their attempt to charge Dominic Aquiila with breaking the 9th commandment for publishing an article on the theology of one of their teaching elders, Craog Higgins.

Some in the PCA even have a disdain for blogging. One PCA Teaching Elder even told a group of seminary students that it was “ecclesiastical porn.”

For my part, I think that the issue of blogging is already very clearly and adequately addressed in our Constitution and our history. I would like to sum up my thoughts on a year of blogging by explaining what the PCA Constitution already says about the internet.

The sum of what I am going to say is this. The PCA Constitution affirms the legitimacy of blogging on almost anything a Court does. This is wise and good because the danger of a secret society doing evil is much greater than the potential abuse of too much light. If someone objects that someone may speak wrongly, the free flow of communication guarantees that they can be corrected. The lack of free communication, on the other hand, can lead to the cover-up of abuse.

1. The 9th commandment already provides a standard for blogging. If it can be proved that someone has slandered another person on the web, then that person should be held to account according to the severity of the slander. I have no problem whatsoever with the charge of slander in the abstract. When I defend TE Brian Carpenter from the charges by the Presbytery of the Siouxlands, my defense will not be that it is wrong to charge someone with breaking the 9th commandment, but that, in this case, the evidence does not raise a strong presumption of guilt, the evidence was dealt with poorly, and unconstitutional standards were applied.

2. In the courts, we must assume that bloggers are innocent until proven guilty. One may not like blogging or bloggers, but biblical justice requires that we use a standard of evidence that presumes that someone is innocent until they are proven guilty. In other words, certain statements expressed by a blogger, capable of being interpreted as slander, must not automatically be interpreted as such. This violates the judgment of charity, that if a statement can be interpreted as obedient to the 9th commamdent, it ought to be so interpreted until one is forced to do otherwise.

When anyone makes a statement, I am not obligated to believe that it is true unless I am convinced that the evidence presented indicates that it is true. The obligation is on the one who makes the statement to demonstrate its truth. However, if I charge someone with lying or slander, then the obligation shifts. Now I have an obligation to prove that the statement is false. This is the standard applied by civil courts, and I believe it is a just and biblical standard, as well as a helpful standard for ensuring freedom of speech and discussion.

3. If you allow latitude in interpreting the Confession, don’t become a strict subscriptionist when it comes to the Larger Catechism questions on the 9th Commandment. This isn’t really a Constitutional principle, but it is an important point worth making. I can respect those who have different theological ideas than I do. I cannot respect those who are inconsistent in applying their principles. If you believe that we should not press people on the details of the Confession, then don’t do it when it comes to the 9th commandment. If you think the details of what the Confession says about the Lord’s Supper are not binding and call those who say it is, “strict subscriptionists,” then don’t parse the details of the 9th commandment to try and show how someone has sinned. If you would call someone who applied the details of what the Larger Catechism says on the 2nd or 4th commandments “Pharisaical,” then don’t do that yourself when it comes to the 9th commandment. If you are going to allow latitude, then allow latitude.

I think Jeffrey Meyers has set forth this latitude principle as well as anyone else. He said:

Perhaps I misunderstand what we adopted a few years ago, but I thought that the “good faith subscription” debate settled how the PCA would use the Westminster Standards. We don’t treat the Standards as some sort of razor edge that everyone must line up on. (“30 Reasons Why It Would be Unwise for the PCA General Assembly to Adopt the Federal Vision Study Report and Its Recommendations,” 5).

In light of that, I’m sure we will find TE Meyers lining up to oppose those who would treat the Larger Catechism questions on the 9th commandment as “some sort of razor edge that everyone must line up on.”

4. My judgment is not bound by the decisions of the courts. Many are of the erroneous
opinion that someone cannot make a judgment about someone’s orthodoxy unless the courts have made a decision that someone is unorthodox. This view is totally erroneous and contrary to the basic rules of reason, the history of Protestantism, and the explicit provisions of our Constitution.

Reason obligates us to believe a statement is true if the evidence and arguments for it indicate that it is true. Before a court makes its decision, we may discover that evidence. In such a case, we are obligated to believe that the statement is true. Even if a court rules contrary to what we believe is true, then we are still obligated to believe what the evidence tells us, regardless of the court’s decision.

That is why the Protestant churches (over against Rome) have always believed in the duty and right of private judgment. A court’s decision must always be evaluated by the Word of God. As the Westminster Confession states, “[A council’s] decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission. . .” (31.2, emphasis added.) Similarly, our Book of Church Order states, “the rights of private judgment in all matters that respect religion are universal and inalienable” (Preliminary Principle # 1). To attempt to say that we must submit our own judgment to a court is contrary to the Protestant faith, which has always denied any idea of an implicit faith.

If we just think for a moment, it should be obvious why we should not be bound in our judgment by the decisions of the court. The court is dealing with a limited amount of evidence. If you talk to a credible witness that the court did not hear, then you are obligated to take that into account. You are dealing with a different set of evidence that the court did. The SJC recognized this distinction when it said, “One may suspect that TE Moon is guilty; one may even be privately persuaded that he is guilty; but apart from a showing of clear error on the part of SLP in the Record, this Court must defer to the judgment of Presbytery” (SJC 2010-4). The SJC recognized this common sense distinction between private judgment and the rulings of a court.

5. We can make no law that would bind the conscience. Binding the conscience is trying to forbid what the Bible commands or does not forbid or commanding what the Bible forbids. Any attempt to forbid blogging would be an attempt to bind the conscience, since the Bible does not forbid blogging. Worse, it could actually be forbidding what the Bible commands.

If someone is convinced that that there is error in the church, and their conscience says that they must refute that error; then forbidding blogging could be binding the conscience. The only way for a court to deal with such a matter is to charge a person with slander and then go through the legal process of demonstrating that what someone said is false. To simply forbid posting on a blog would be an attempt to bind the conscience contrary to the Word of God. Our 1st Preliminary Principle in The Book of Church Order states:

God alone is Lord of the conscience and has left it free from any doctrines or commandments of men (a) which are in any respect contrary to the Word of God, or (b) which, in regard to matters of faith and worship, are not governed by the Word of God.
The Bible does not forbid public speech as such; therefore, to seek to limit public speech as such would be contrary to the Word of God and the Constitution of our Church.

6. Our Constitution clearly states that all of our actions have a public nature. This is clearly articulated in the 8th Preliminary Principle:

Since ecclesiastical discipline must be purely moral or spiritual in its object, and not attended with any civil effects, it can derive no force whatever, but from its own justice, the approbation of an impartial public, and the countenance and blessing of the great Head of the Church. (emphasis added)

Please note that part of the force of our discipline is the approbation of an impartial public. This means that one of the tests of the validity of our discipline is that we make it public and let the public approve or disapprove of what we have done. At the very least, this inhibits any attempt to shield knowledge of our courts’ actions from the public. At most, it requires publication of them! Thus, there is no possibility for a secret society in our Constitution because part of the force of our courts’ decisions derives from the public’s approbation, which surely must be based on knowledge. This knowledge can only come about by publicity.

As a side note, we should remark that “blogging” was one of the reasons for the founding of the PCA as you can read here. [Editor’s note: the original URL (link) referenced is no longer valid, so the link has been removed.]

Conclusion

For some reason, there are people who think that blogging is evil. They then complain that those who blog do not represent them fairly. Instead of getting a free blog from WordPress or Blogger in order to respond, they prefer to demonize those who blog. They are in a tough position. If they don’t blog, those who do will control what is said about them. If they do blog, they can no longer demonize those who do. Moreover, you will validate those who blog.

But there is another option, they can try and suppress blogging in some way. The only problem is that every attempt you make to suppress blogging is going to look like, well, suppression.

Worst of all, suppression is not going to work. If you succeed in shutting up Scott Clark or Lane Keister, someone else will rise in their place, or people will just blog anonymously. What I say to the PCA is this: we might as well just get a thick skin and get used to it. The internet is here to stay unless we have some sort of electromagnetic attack that destroys our infrastructure, in which case, the PCA probably won’t survive anyway and the point will be moot.

Wes White is a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America. He is currently serving as the Pastor of New Covenant Spearfish Presbyterian Church, Spearfish, South Dakota. This article originally appeared on his web site Johannes Weslianus and is used with permission.

[Editor’s note: Pastor White’s blog has moved to weswhite.net.]