A marriage made in Sto-vo-Kor

I’ll respond to some objections that Paul Hoffer has leveled to my defense of TFan.

One wonders, too, of the hypocrisy in all of this. Mr. Hays does not hold the pseudonymous Mr. Fan to the standard he sets for me. Nowhere on Mr. Fan’s blog will anyone find his real name, his occupation, where he lives at, his actual denominational preference, the church he attends, or a link to his pastor in case of misconduct. For that matter, Mr. Hays does not hold himself to that standard either as he does not list his actual denominational preference, where he goes to church, a link to his pastor or even occupation or his address, unless the Klingon version of the afterlife is an actual address in the United States.

i) There’s no inconsistency in my holding you to your standards while not holding myself to your standards, since your standards aren’t my standards. That’s a pretty elementary distinction.

ii) In terms of Protestant standards of accountability, I believe that TFan is answerable to his elders, who also know about his blogging activities. I could say the same thing about my own situation.

iii) At the same time, accountability is not a one-way street in Protestant ecclesiology. There’s mutual accountability between clergy and laity.

I can hold Catholics to a hierarchical model of accountability while I myself reject that model. And the priestly abuse scandal is a prime example of what’s wrong with hierarchical models of accountability. 

My definition of accountability was that the author needs to own his words. It was Mr. Hays that imposed the additional requirement upon a writer of posting a listing of one's pastor and hierarchical authority. Mr. Hays did not object to my standard, he added to it.

I’m imposing an additional requirement? Is he suggesting that Catholics aren’t supposed to be answerable to their religious superiors?

How can you hold them to account if they refuse to provide direct contact info for their religious superiors?

Let us talk about ownership of words. When one takes ownership of his thoughts, his words, his actions, he is accepting responsibility for his thoughts, words, his actions. There are a variety of ways of accepting responsibility. One can be accountable by posting under one's own name which allows the readers to offer feedback directly. It is an outgrowth of the relationship created between writer and reader. There is nothing said about the imposition of a hierarchical authority to review and censor the remarks in my comments.

Isn’t he defining accountability in the very terms that Catholic epologists typically impute to Protestants? They say Protestants are only accountable to themselves, as individuals. And they tell us that to be accountable to yourself is to be accountable to no one.

Yet he’s defining Catholic accountability in terms of taking personal responsibility for his words and deeds. But that's quite different than being held responsible for your actions by someone in a position of authority.

Hello Mr. Hays, while it is true that Mr. Fan has acknowledged in writings that he is some sort of Presbyterian, there are as many flavors of those as there are ice cream at Baskin Robbins. Given the multiplicity of Presbyterian-leaning denominations out there, there must be some reason that they are different.

i) The fact that you put it that way shows you don't know enough to know what you reject.

They are generally differentiated by degrees of adherence to the Westminster Standards. To take some major examples, the PCUSA is a traditionally, but now nominally Presbyterian denomination that went liberal years ago. Clearly TFan doesn't belong to the PCUSA.

Far to the right of the PCUSA are the OPC and PCA. They basically adhere to the Westminster Confession, but with some caveats. They adhere to the 18C American revisions, and they don't enforce the Confession on the days of creation. Likewise, they don't adhere to the Westminster Directory of Worship.

Given TFan’s Puritan view of worship, it's clear that he couldn't in good conscience join the OPC or PCA.

Then you have very traditional Presbyterian denominations like the PRC. That’s the sort of church TFan would probably attend.

ii) Moreover, the fact that TFan’s favorite theologian is Francis Turretin already pinpoints his theological commitments. I assume TFan is an old school, jure divino Presbyterian. Given his strict adherence to the 1646 Westminster Confession and the Westminster Directory of Worship, it isn't difficult to narrow down his denominational sympathies.

As for yours, your profile show that you are Reformed in temperment but like some ritual with that. Thus, you could be anything from a Lutheran to a UCC man. That really narrows it down for me.

i) You keep superimposing your Catholic reference frame on me. But your comparison is equivocal. Since you believe the Roman church is the only true church, your denominational affiliation automatically selects for your theological identity.

Since, by contrast, I don't think any particular denomination is conterminous with "the church," my theological identity can't be inferred from the church I happen to attend. My church doesn’t select for my theology; rather, my theology selects for my church.

Denominational allegiance was never my standard. For that matter, an evangelical can attend an independent church. Many do.

In any case, my theological commitments are hardly shrouded in mystery. I have a very long, very public paper trail.

ii) Moreover, the fact that you and Armstrong are Catholic was never in doubt. That’s a red herring.

iii) Conversely, the fact that John Kerry is Roman Catholic tells you nothing about his theological commitments, or lack thereof. So why are you fixated on one's denominational affiliation?

The closest thing one can find on either yours or Mr. Fan’s website is a reference to Klingon hell, which must make your wife, if you have one, real happy.

Um, no, that's a reference to Klingon heaven. And I'll have you know that my beloved wife Vixis is more than happy with our accommodations in Sto-vo-Kor.

It’s bad enough that you’re a papist, but when you lack a rudimentary grasp of Klingon eschatology, that’s truly beyond the pale. Have you no priorities?