Tim wrote that during the years he served as the Executive Director he “became increasingly disillusioned by CBMW’s pathological desire to be liked by God’s enemies.” Tim objected to limiting male headship to the home and the church:

As you can see the Bayly Boys like to mix it up with others. But they don’t like it much when others mix it up with them.

On January 14 Tim published Reformed dithering and Roman Catholic resolve…. Tim wrote:

The thing about Roman Catholicism is that secularists’ vicious hatred has stiffened her leaders’ resolve at the gaps in the wall. Not so much Reformed pastors and teachers: our hearts palpitate as we note the contrast between the world’s hatred for Roman Catholicism and the universal adulation of Tim Keller. Hoping to escape the former by embracing the latter, we name our churches “Redeemer this-and-that” and weave Kellerisms like “human flourishing” into our sermons and conversations. Fondly we hope we may escape the hatred and persecution Jesus guaranteed His faithful witnesses.

And thus faithful witnessing is left to Roman Catholic sacramentalists such as Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke…

What Tim likes about Cardinal Burke is that the cardinal’s view of manhood is similar to that of Tim and David.

Tim quoted from the interview with the cardinal and provided a direct link to it. I clicked on the link and read the whole interview. I was particularly interested in the cardinal’s view of the solutions to the manhood crisis. I copied and pasted a number of them in the comments section of Tim’s blog. These showed that the cardinal endorsed such things as devotion to St. Joseph, families praying the Rosary daily, the Knights of the Altar, the appeal to men of Christ’s coming down on the altar, using only boys as altar servers, catechizing men about the mystery of the Mass, going to confession…You get the drift.

Tim responded:

The interview was not commended for its practical counsel concerning the formation of manhood. Rather I commended it for its forthright recognition of the abandonment of sexuality and manhood these past few decades. I’m confident Baylyblog readers are skilled at differentiating between wheat and chaff.

I replied:

Patriarchy puts one into bed with strange fellows. Cardinal Burke, the Roman Catholic who commends to us traditional Roman Catholicism, is an ally who is willing to go outside the camp of human approval, to be hated by the world, and to fill up the sufferings of Christ with us. On the other hand Tim Keller, the evangelical who preaches the Gospel of Christ, though not the gospel of patrimony, is rejected and warned against. It get curiouser and curiouser.

At this point, Tim the patriarch entered the exchange:

Bill, you are a mere scoffer. Please move on.

Firmly,

I pointed out:

Tim, I am not the one who commended Cardinal Burke and linked to the interview with him in which he recommends traditional Roman Catholic doctrine and practice as the path to the recovery of manhood. I am not the one who attacks and warns against Tim Keller. I am not one who turns patriarchy into gospel and scoffs at those who do not see it and practice it as I understand it. In these cases that would be you.

Honestly,

Bill

The patriarch spoke again to the rebellious child:

Thanks, Bill; now again, please move on.

More firmly,

There was no further exchange between Tim and me, but at this point several followers of the Baylys entered the discussion and directed comments and questions to me by name. I thought it was a matter of fairness that I should have the right of reply when I was addressed.

The most important exchange had to do with what the Gospel is and if patriarchy is a part of it, to which I replied:

I can answer your question to me regarding the Gospel of Jesus Christ rather briefly. The saving acts of God are the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, God acting in him for the salvation of sinners. The saving significance of those acts is that sinners are justified in Christ, reconciled in Christ, sanctified and preserved in Christ, and will be glorified in Christ. The means by which salvation is received is faith. The focus of the Gospel is that sinners are forgiven their sins and declared righteous in God’s sight by the work of the grace of God apart from human cooperation, on the basis of the work of Christ alone apart from human contribution, and received by faith alone apart from human merit.

Do I think patriarchy as understood and practiced by Tim is the Gospel? No, I do not. Of course, it is worth pointing out that most Christians who believe in male headship do not believe or practice it in the Bayly way. But, even rightly and Biblically understood, male headship is one aspect of living the Christian life, or living life under the Gospel, but it is not the Gospel. One is neither saved nor damned on the basis of belief in or practice of patriarchy or male headship.

Tim did not like it that I responded to the comments directed to me and said:

Tired of his mockery and churlishness across many posts on this blog, twice above I asked… Rev. William H. Smith, to stop commenting. Sadly, my requests were useless and only caused Mr. Smith to double down. Now we have a running discussion with Mr. Smith in which other brothers have contributed sincere and quite helpful comments and removing Mr. Smith’s double-downs would leave other good comments hanging in the air without a context.
What to do?

Seems like the only choice is to rescind the previous ruling…

In a transparent attempt to discredit me with readers of his blog, Tim called attention to my transfer to the Reformed Episcopal Church and quoted three sentences from a blog I wrote explaining my decision to become an Anglican. He did not provide a direct link to my blog, but did provide a footnote that did not link to but cited the reprint of my blog at Virtueonline. After pointing out the lack of a link, which denied to readers the opportunity to see the comments in context, I provided the link in the comments section. This was eliminated.

Then I got this email:

Dear Bill,

Now that you’ve had a good bit of time to respond to (name deleted by me) and others, I’ve followed through and removed your commenting privileges.
Cordially,

Annoyed I churlishly responded:

Wow a father-censor. Autocratic. Insecure. Often joined.

Then brother David jumped in:

Dear Bill,

Do you have a superior I could talk to about your conduct? Lay? Ecclesiastical?

In Christ,

David Bayly

I was in the Men’s Room at the movie theater when I received this and humorously reponded with “Darryl Hart.” I received back from David the question, “Which of these men?” followed by the names of two Bishops of the REC. I wrote back to David that his concerns were personal not ecclesial, that it seemed to me that Tim’s ban ought to be sufficent, and that I was not intimidated by his latest communication and thought we ought to act like men who have a disagreement.

David believed that he had succeeded in intimidating me but felt a further threat was also needed.

Dear Bill,

If I thought we could deal with you in a reasonable manner I’d not have asked who your superior is.

That you’re intimidated is clear by your response.

So be it. At least you’ve stopped commenting. If you go on, I will run that list until I find someone you’re accountable to.

In Christ,David

My response included:

You seem to be something of a bully who hits other kids on the playground and then, when someone stands up to him, wants to find the teacher to tattle and ask her to do something about that mean kid who stood up to you. As has been observed many times, the only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him.

I also gave him the name and contact information for my Bishop.

The day came when Ralphie had enough of Scut Farkus. (Watch the video by clicking, if you wish, but please note this warning: It’s not pretty.)