Sinners in the Hands of an Angry Blog
I try to avoid writing about what feels like gossip. It is far too easy to write about issues that are contentious simply because they attract attention and satisfy some depraved and unsanctified portion of my heart. I know that I used to give in to this desire far more than I do today and I thank God for challenging me on this. Over the past few weeks, several people have asked me about a particular situation with Ligonier Ministries. Others have taken to posting links to exposés about the ministry. To this point, we (myself and David who helps me with moderating the comments here) have deleted these links since they point to a site we feel offers little more than gossip. I have also chosen not to write about it. Recently, though, the story has hit the mainstream. A Florida newspaper published a report on it and since then many bloggers have followed suit. Christianity Today has even seen fit to link to comments critical of Ligonier. And so I thought I would offer what I can on this issue.
On September 5, the Orlando Sentinel featured an article (link) entitled “Lawsuit seeks to block blogger.” Rene Stutzman, a Staff Writer, broke the news that Ligonier Ministries has sued a blogger, Frank Vance, for defamation, seeking unspecified monetary damages. For the past several months Vance has used his blog to post articles harshly critical of Ligonier Ministries, and in particular, its President and CEO, Tim Dick. As Stutzman points out, “In the past five months, Vance’s blog has described Dick as part of a ‘family of nincompoops,’ ‘a very corrupt man’ and ‘a lying, thieving con artist,’ according to the lawsuit.” Vance’s blog, “Contending for the Truth,” is the site that has been at the center of increasing controversy and to which people have often attempted to link from my site.
“Contending for the Truth” exists for the sole purpose of exposing what Vance considers the misdeeds of Ligonier Ministries. The site was begun on May 8, 2006 as a response to something that happened right here at Challies Dot Com. I’ll let Vance give his version of the back story:
On March 9, 2006 Tim Challies started a thread on his blog to report “live” on the Ligonier Ministries National Conference [Note from Tim: A reader of this site was at the conference and asked if I’d consider allowing him to post some reflections on the conference. I was glad to do this. Do note that I was not the one reporting from the conference]. Some discussion ensued there about the fact that RC Sproul Jr was speaking at the conference, even though he’d just been defrocked by the RPCGA just a little over a month prior. To say the least, some people were offended by that (myself included) and posted their objections in that thread. The blog moderators quickly stepped in and squelched any and all discussion of the RC Sproul Jr scandal. They also deleted several posts. Given the hostile environment arrayed against any open discussion on the issue, I didn’t even bother to post there.Then on March 13 moderator David made the following post:
“Those of you who want to discuss the Sproul Jr. issue can go here [link to the General Forum] to start your own discussion. Once again, this thread is not the place for that.” So, I did just that, at [now defunct link] Hits to that particular discussion thread rapidly climbed to over 4000, far more than any other discussion thread there had ever generated so rapidly.Then in early April, without any prior notice, Tim Challies jettisoned the entire forum and replaced it with a new one, minus all the content of the old one. His excuse? “Frankly, I am exceedingly tired of having to wade through so much spam and trash and perversion just to keep the forums running. Maybe I’ll investigate another option—one that does a better job of keeping out the trash.”
Vance went on to say that my new forum was a useless “Pile ‘O Crap” and suggested that there was another reason I had dumped the forum, hinting that his article about Sproul caused me to remove it. The truth of the matter is what I mentioned here. It turns out that the forum was getting heavily spammed and was causing incredible stress on the server. The heart of the problem was that I was using the forum as my commenting system for the blog and the combination of the two was causing excessive load on the server to the point that I was using 100 percent of the server’s processor. My host threatened to shut down my site if I did not remedy the problem immediately and even cut off service for several hours at a time to show they weren’t bluffing. The only workable solution was to shut down the forum. Sometime later, I believe it was a few weeks later, in response to pleas from those who enjoyed using it, I installed a new forum and attempted to solve the previous problems. Unfortunately, that proved impossible. The site was soon bringing the server to a crawl and I was being inundated with spam. I made the decision to take the forum down once and for all and to revert to using Movabletype’s internal commenting system. Had I not removed the forum, my site would have been permanently shut down. The decision certainly had nothing to do with Vance and his post.
All this is to say that Vance was dead wrong about the reason I took down the forum. And not only that, but he never contacted me to clarify, instead choosing to create a blog to share his inaccurate understanding of what happened. He has gone so far as to credit me with providing the impetus to enter the blogosphere. Until this point I have ignored him. It is interesting to see the influence he has had on others in their impressions of me. Here are a few quotes taken from his commenters, all of whom are responding to his charge that I am trying to hide the truth about Ligonier and about R.C. Sproul Jr.: “And Challies shut down a forum over it!! (Note he is live blogging for all the biggies).” “Tim Challies is a great example of a cover up artist.” “You’re too much of a shill to let anybody know about them yourself Tim, or even permit anyone else to say anything.” “Tim Challies needs a reality check. Keep up the good work Frank.” “And as to Challies, he has built up a nice live blogging business with these guys. He has a lot to lose, too. And he is young and mesmerized by these big men of God.” “This is off topic but today Challies posted that he is writing a book on…of…all…things…discernment! In light of his obviousw protection of the Sprouls, I find this quite nervy. I am afraid Tim has little credibility in this area.” I have never once, to my recollection, received an email from any of these people asking me to clarify my position or asking why I shut down the forums. None have ever tried to contact me, to properly admonish me, or to clarify the situation.
This proves two things to me. First, Vance is willing to write something libelous about someone else (in this case, about me) without any proof or substantiation. His entire story about me is mere fantasy and fabrication. Secondly, those who allow themselves to be influenced by him are eager to believe what he writes and to have their impressions about others (once again, about me) shaped by him. Does the fact that he was wrong about me mean that he is wrong about other things he has written? Not necessarily, but it certainly does make me think twice about his desire to be truthful. Has anyone looked at Dan Rather the same since we found out about his eagerness to take down George Bush using fabricated evidence? I didn’t think so.
Vance has used his blog to level various charges at Ligonier Ministries and at Tim Dick. Until recently, the posts dealt with R.C. Sproul Jr. and his being deposed by his denomination. Recently, though, Vance also wrote an article in which he accused Ligonier of defrauding Soli Deo Gloria publications, which Ligonier acquired in 2004. He charges that Tim Dick found a way of underhandedly stealing the company from Don Kistler, the man who founded it. “Dr. Kistler’s ministry was stolen from him by, quite literally, nothing more than a cheesy sleight of hand trick. After weeks of contract negotiations a final version of the contract was agreed upon by all parties. However, when it came time for the signing of the final contract, unbeknownst to Don Kislter, Tim Dick secretly switched contracts. The textual difference in that switched contract was small enough to have easily escaped the notice of everyone, yet the implications for Don Kisler were immense.”
This article charging Tim Dick, and thus Ligonier, with fraud has now been widely read and I have had many people ask me to comment on it. What I have pointed out to all who have asked me about it is that Vance writes an interesting article, but one that is entirely devoid of any proof. He levels many charges at Dick and calls him many names. He writes like he has facts at his disposal, but provides no proof. He says only that he has gained his facts from someone who has spoken to Don Kistler. This is, at best, third-hand information. Without proof what he writes is nothing more than gossip. It is unconscionable that, as a professed believer, he would write such a condemnatory article but without offering proof. Regardless of whether what he writes is true, he deserves to be ignored on that basis. To this point I am not aware of any response from Don Kistler as he is currently recovering from a serious stroke.
Clearly one of the responsibilities of the President and CEO of a ministry is to protect the integrity of that ministry and the man who founded it. It should be mentioned that Tim Dick has a personal stake as well, for he is Dr. Sproul’s son-in-law and surely has a deep love and respect for the man. While the press is eager to report this as an issue touching on the First Amendment, in the lawsuit Ligonier makes it clear that they regard it as an issue of slander, libel and defamation. One does not have to read far into “Contending for the Truth” to see that they can make a case for this. The press will be eager to make this into an issue about freedom of speech. They will make it into an issue of the big corporation versus the little man. But, as I understand it, freedom of speech does not provide a person the right to fabricate stories and to slander others. Without proof, this is all that Vance offers. As believers we cannot regard Vance as a victim here, for his attacks on Ligonier and on Tim Dick (and his family) are mean-spirited and clearly not written out of Christian love or concern.
This lawsuit will inevitably raise questions about the teaching of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6. Paul writes, “When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church?” While I do not know how I feel about legal action in this particular case, especially because I have access to few of the facts, I think it bears mentioning that if a person continually responds as an unbeliever, he may no longer merit treatment as a believer, especially when he continues to do harm to an organization. Also, it bears mention that Ligonier is an entity, a non-profit organization, not a person or individual believer. Neither is it a church. When there is interaction between a person and an organization, it may fit in a different category than the one-to-one interpersonal relationship described in Scripture. A corporation dealing with an anonymous person does not have the ability to deal with such issues within a church setting.
My purpose in writing all of this is not to suggest that I feel Ligonier is a perfect or blameless organization. I have no stake with Ligonier in writing this. While I am acquainted (at best) with several people who work for the organization, I have nothing to gain or lose from them. I am not, as has been charged against me, a “shill” for Ligonier.
There may even be some truth about a misunderstanding in the situation regarding Soli Deo Gloria, though surely suggesting that Tim Dick surreptitiously switched contracts is either a fabrication or a ridiculous oversimplification. My purpose is not to condemn Frank Vance and to suggest he is a liar, though admittedly I do not know where Vance gathered his facts and he is not willing to reveal his sources. My purpose here is to urge caution. We do not know all of the facts and neither are we ever likely to. What we do know is that Frank Vance has shown his willingness to write negatively about me based on mere conjecture and without checking his facts or seeking any kind of reconciliation. He has since written a great number of negative things about an organization that has served Christ for many years. He has done so without offering any shred of evidence or proof. As I read his articles I thought immediately of the Old Testament laws concerning witnesses. Deuteronomy 19:15 reads “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established.” Already many professed Christians have had their opinion about Ligonier Ministries and R.C. Sproul influenced by the word of only one man. Surely we ought to know better.
Frank Vance has little credibility and, even if what he writes is true, does not deserve to be heard. If he has evidence, he ought to present it. If not, he should retract his comments, shut down his site, and be silent. At the very least, he should examine his motives and ask how his site is serving the body of Christ.
It is situations like this that cast a shadow over the blogosphere, for it has given voice to a whole new breed of gossips. People with only a story, no matter how little evidence is provided, can gather an audience and turn the opinions of men and women, even against a man with the long record of R.C. Sproul. There is something wrong when an anonymous gunslinger, who does not have the courage to identify himself beyond his name and his American citizenship, can cause great harm to a ministry with which he is not affiliated. There is something even more wrong with those who allow themselves to be so influenced by such a person.
If you agree with what I have written here, I’d urge you to do (or not to do) three things. First, do not to visit Vance’s site. There is no reason to sort through his articles and the increasingly belligerent and irrational comments that follow them. Second, if you are a blogger, do not link to his site. Links and visits are the currency of the blogosphere and there is no reason to give him either one. Third, and most importantly, I plead with you not to allow a charge to be established in your mind on the evidence of a single witness! Surely a man who has served the church as long and as well as R.C. Sproul, and surely the organization he founded, deserve the benefit of the doubt.




Comments (49) »
1. Bibliomaniac
September 7, 2006
11:15 AM
Thanks for a thoughtful, well-written and level-headed post explaining the situation. Just a couple of comments:
From a Christian standpoint, Vance’s behavior is clearly wrong. From a legal standpoint, when it comes to freedom of speech, what a lot of people don’t realize is that there’s a clear legal definition of defamation. To simply call someone stupid, a nincompoop, or a dirty cheat is not defamatory, but rather, is simply to state an opinion. Opinions that are “unproveable facts” are protected by the First Amendment, and leave the plaintiff with no cause of action.
Only when facts are stated that fall in the realm of “proveable fact”—such as Vance’s claim that contracts were switched—is defamation or slander possible. If you allege that someone engaged in criminal conduct and that person can prove otherwise, then you have engaged in defamation.
As for Ligonier, it’s unfortunate they resorted to a lawsuit. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 6 apply to Christians (in whatever shape or form) suing Christians. Doesn’t matter if its a nonprofit corporation whose name is on the complaint. Ligonier represents Christians. Granted, Vance’s behavior is clearly like that of an unbeliever, and in such a case, Ligonier MIGHT be justified, but for the company to move ahead against Vance like that is to make a judgment call as to whether or not he is a believer. Not an easy dilemma.
Thanks again, Tim. It’s good to hear the facts straight from you, given you’re a firsthand witness of what actually happened regarding your site.
2. Tim Challies
September 7, 2006
11:19 AM
“there’s a clear legal definition of defamation. To simply call someone stupid, a nincompoop, or a dirty cheat is not defamatory, but rather, is simply to state an opinion. Opinions that are “unproveable facts” are protected by the First Amendment, and leave the plaintiff with no cause of action.”
That’s a good point. I don’t think Ligonier is taking legal action because of those words. Rather, I’d assume it is based on his claim of shockingly unethical behavior.
3. JoeMama
September 7, 2006
11:32 AM
Hey Tim,
I know very little about this case outside of what you have written here. My encouragement (and exhortation?) for you is to ask if you have tried to approach Vance yourself before posting this entry. Is this post the result of a failed attempt at clearing the air, or is it a public statement in response to other public statements against yourself? (I hope that makes sense.)
4. Jabbok
September 7, 2006
12:11 PM
I tried running a board for comments and records. I only get a couple of hundred visitors a day to my site but I was getting spammed with over 200 posts a day to my bulletin board. It was rediculous. I was hoping to use the board as a database for links, articles and guitar lessons but after a couple of months of daily cleaning I gave it up. I can only imagine the amount of junk you had flowing each day.
Be certain that your sins will find you out. If Ligonier ministries is dirty, it will come to light. If this is just a matter of a false witness then that will come to the front as well. Either way the truth will be known.
5. Tim Challies
September 7, 2006
12:16 PM
“Is this post the result of a failed attempt at clearing the air, or is it a public statement in response to other public statements against yourself?”
What Vance wrote about me is a matter of public record and not a private disagreement. I wrote what I did simply to refute what has been a long-standing lie.
6. David Reimer
September 7, 2006
12:25 PM
TC wrote: This proves … to me [that] those who allow themselves to be influenced by [Vance] are eager to believe what he writes and to have their impressions about others (once again, about me) shaped by him.
Only to observe that this is true not only of Vance and his readers, but of life in general as well as every blog on the planet that is read by anyone other than its author.
Still, it’s a very sorry state of affairs no matter how you slice it. I appreciate how you have written this up, Tim.
David Reimer
7. mikbry24
September 7, 2006
12:39 PM
As one who helped Tim moderate the forums and tried to help turn the tide against the spam he was receiving, I can tell you that it was overwhelming……unbelievably overwhelming. About the time we thought we had a good solution, it would get worse than before. I miss the forums greatly, but there was no practical way to successfully eliminate all of the horrible trash that was being thrown Tim’s way in the forums. It grieves me to see that Vance would act so harshly without having all the facts. Hopefully, Tim’s latest post will succeed in clearing this issue up. I have found that Tim is quite level-headed in his posts, and, even when dealing with controversial subjects or personalities tells it like it is without being defamatory or hurtful in his remarks. This has been my experience all along the way here at challies.com and I am thankful for the thoughtful way in which Tim handles things such as this. Keep up the good work, Tim. I look forward to reading your book upon its completion.
8. Michael Garner
September 7, 2006
1:04 PM
I’m glad somebody has responded to some of the issues. In fact, for a long time I have been hoping that Sproul Sr. or a member of Ligonier would come out and explain all of the rumors/facts of his son. That being said, there is no reason for the defamation occuring by Vance and others.
You said, Also, it bears mention that Ligonier is an entity, a non-profit organization, not a person or individual believer. Neither is it a church. When there is interaction between a person and an organization, it may fit in a different category than the one-to-one interpersonal relationship described in Scripture.
I don’t necessarily feel that this is a strong point (even though it is called a “mention” rather than a point). It feels like making an end-around what the Apostle has more-or-less clearly commanded to believers.
That being said, I do feel it is important for an organization to maintain their appearance as “blameless.” It is a bit of a difficult issue and we should be praying for wisdom for all parties involved.
In Christ alone, mike
9. Tim Challies
September 7, 2006
1:25 PM
“I don’t necessarily feel that this is a strong point (even though it is called a “mention” rather than a point). It feels like making an end-around what the Apostle has more-or-less clearly commanded to believers.”
I’d tend to agree, I think, though never having been in the situation, I’ve never really stopped to consider it. As you said, it is a difficult issue for all involved and I hope it is resolved quickly and amicably.
10. Carla Rolfe
September 7, 2006
1:29 PM
Not that Tim needs my word to back him up, but as a former moderator at the forums, I can certainly vouch for his reasons he states for shutting them down. It was a disappointment to the regulars who really enjoyed them, but Tim had to make the best decision at the time to keep the blog up & running smoothly.
Tim advised Mr. Vance:
“At the very least, he should examine his motives and ask how his site is serving the body of Christ.”
I’ve written about this as well - cautiously - and when I did Mr. Vance commented. The advice Tim gives here is the same advice I gave Mr. Vance.
Tim’s pointing out the fact that none of us (onlookers) know the facts here, is also important. Always a bad idea to rush to judgement based on less than full discloser (which is highly unlikely something most of us will ever have).
Just a few thoughts.
SDG…
11. Brian Thornton
September 7, 2006
1:31 PM
Tim, As the one who provided the entries on your site from the Ligonier National Conference earlier this year, and as one who attempted to have a meaningful dialogue with Vance early on in his tirade against all things Sproul and Ligonier, I would like to say ‘Thank you’ for your post on this subject.
As I have learned from other encounters with types similar to Frank Vance, one cannot and should not try to continue reasoning with such unreasonableness. It doesn’t take long to see that what Vance was doing was parroting what he had heard others say…and maybe even making up some new stuff along the way!
There is no room in the body of Christ for such irresponsible speculation and gossip-mongering. And to those who are reading this…I know it is like seeing a ‘wet paint’ sign and just having to touch it to make sure…but please, don’t give Mr. Vance the satisfaction by going to his web site.
Tim has given all the information needed in this instance…you can rely on his counsel concerning this issue…and you can ensure that you won’t waste any of your time pouring over the venom that has come from the fingers of Frank Vance.
12. Darrin
September 7, 2006
1:41 PM
Just a few general comments on the last paragraph:
“If you agree with what I have written here, I’d urge you to do (or not to do)…”
1) “First, do not to visit Vance’s site.” Isn’t that really saying, ‘Let my discernment of the situation serve as yours.’ I certainly empathize with you in your situation with Vance and from what I can tell you certainly seem to have had your motives misrepresented. But if there are those who support a ministry either prayerfully or financially, should they not discover for themselves if what they are hearing is true? I’ll admit, I’m not sure at this stage if it’s even possible.
2) “Second, if you are a blogger, do not link to his site. Links and visits are the currency of the blogosphere and there is no reason to give him either one.” This would be good advice IF we knew for certain that Vance was wrong. And at this stage, we simply don’t know the answer. There may be very legitimate reasons why he cannot publicize his “proof” at this stage. Maybe he has none.
3) “Third, and most importantly, I plead with you not to allow a charge to be established in your mind on the evidence of a single witness!” Good advice. But there are those who see this incident as just another “puzzling” occurrence coming from this ministry, completely independent of one another; myself included.
Above anything else, this should sadden us all that those who name the name of Christ on both sides, behave in such a manner. This should not have been taken to the courts with no interaction occurring between the parties. This could have been easily mediated privately so that no shame comes to the One we serve. That is the real tragedy in all of this. I can just imagine the glee with which those in the world will read the newspaper article and say something like, “Another Christian ministry with problems, figures.”
13. Jeri
September 7, 2006
1:54 PM
Tim, what a great title! Good writing, too.
14. Joel
September 7, 2006
2:01 PM
I went and read his blog the other day. My word, this guy is a one-note singer! (And it’s off-key to boot.) He spews the sort of vitriol at Ligonier – and anybody who doesn’t loathe them as much as he does – that some other Reformed bloggers (cough James White cough) aim at the Vatican. The similarity of tone is kind of eerie. Except that the people he’s lambasting are close enough to him theologically that an outsider like me can’t tell the difference, so it sounds like it’s just a whopping big personal grudge.
15. clyde
September 7, 2006
2:28 PM
Hi Tim,
Thank you for being honest and addressing this with grace.
Blessings
16. GrammaMack
September 7, 2006
2:38 PM
“Regardless of whether what he writes is true, he deserves to be ignored…Frank Vance has little credibility and, even if what he writes is true, does not deserve to be heard.” But if what he writes IS true, the situation needs to be resolved by the ministry in a godly manner, doesn’t it?
17. Tim Challies
September 7, 2006
2:46 PM
“But if what he writes IS true, the situation needs to be resolved by the ministry in a godly manner, doesn’t it?”
It does. But I just don’t see that this is his battle to fight and certainly not his battle to fight in this way. As I said in the article, if he has proof, he owes it to Ligonier to show it. Vance may be telling the truth, but I think we are duty bound to ignore him until he can do more than offer the word of a friend of a friend.
18. moosiecat
September 7, 2006
2:47 PM
“Some discussion ensued there about the fact that RC Sproul Jr was speaking at the conference, even though he’d just been defrocked by the RPCGA just a little over a month prior. ” What was the reason? or is this not true as well? Sorry, I had not heard. Also - I would like to thank Tim for making his blog a place where folks can come and state their opinons respectfully to one another, and for always treating everyone with fairness. Keep up the excellent work Tim!!
19. Tim Challies
September 7, 2006
3:00 PM
“What was the reason? or is this not true as well? Sorry, I had not heard.”
It’s a long story and one that I don’t think is best told in this forum. A Google search will give you more information than you could ever want. Some of it is true, some seems not to be. As usual, it’s difficult to know what to believe.
20. CraigS
September 7, 2006
3:03 PM
Well said Tim. I only became aware of this situation about 2 days ago. Vance’s behaviour is shameful - I hate seeing the net used like that.
21. David Wayne
September 7, 2006
3:30 PM
Kudos Tim - I’m not a Sproulite, but I think you have hit all the right nails on their heads here. If Don Kistler has been wronged then let him be the one to raise the fuss. If your sources are all unnamed then you have no proof to offer to the public. This was exceptionally well written, very thorough, very measured, and with the appropriate amount of explanation and restraint.
22. Doc
September 7, 2006
4:06 PM
Tim, You stated, “A corporation dealing with an anonymous person does not have the ability to deal with such issues within a church setting.” However Frank Vance is not “an anonymous person,” rather his name and profile apppear prominently on Contenting for the Truth. Secondly, simply eliminating all Christian 501c(3) non-profits from the commands of Scripture seems to be a convenient “out.” Ligonier Ministries represents itself as a vehicle for proclaiming God’s truth and as such needs to model the principle of “… accept(ing) wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? 1 Corinthians 6:7 ” I’m not defending Frank Vance, a perusal of his blog indicates that he might have (in the current venacular) “issues,” but Ligonier’s response (in filing suit) seems indefensible from a biblical perspective.
23. Agent Tim
September 7, 2006
4:25 PM
Great work, Tim. Handled quite well. I, unfortunately stumbled across Frank’s site unaware of the whole situation. But caution has always been on my mind - experience has made me look at every issue like this with caution.
24. Rey
September 7, 2006
4:32 PM
Where have I been? This is the first I’ve heard of it.
25. BrianB
September 7, 2006
5:23 PM
Hey Tim, this is the first I’ve heard of this, I actually just discovered your site September 5th through Dr. Mohler’s links. The only part that I would add to your blog on this issue is a #4, if you would just urge your audience that not to us but to His Name be the glory in all of these matters and not fight for our own glory/honor/namesake but for the glory/honor/praise of the King! I’m hurt to hear such scourging comments about Dr. Sproul, I do wish they would come down a little on their prices, but that’s just the poor man in me. Thanks for your comments on these issues, may you continue walking with Him to the end.
26. Steve
September 7, 2006
5:43 PM
I wish Christians had better things to do than insult one another.
27. Evers Ding
September 7, 2006
5:49 PM
Sadly, we do.
28. martin
September 7, 2006
6:12 PM
I wonder if the donors are expected to pay for the lawyers and lawsuit?
What surprised me more than anything-and this is public information- were the astronomical salaries paid to the President and Founder of Ligoneir. And, how many family members are employed there at very nice salaries. Including the wife who is the only paid board member. This lawsuit, which is unbiblical, will only drive people to check up on such things.
Ligonier is just as accountable as Mr. Vance. Maybe more so since they are a ministry. After all, these people live off the fruit of their donors’ labor and certain proprieties are expected.
No offense Tim, but you sound like you have personal issues with Frank Vance which may color your view of the continuing soap opera that involves the Sprouls behavior. (I am speaking of the son’s defrockment and the father calling them fraudulent charges. Was he calling the church hierarchy liars?)
Tim you are a man of influence. Why not call Dr. Sproul yourself?
Some light needs to be shined on this ministry so we can get to the full truth. Donors have a right to know. Fidiciary duty and all. Not to mention stewardship. What the leaders of this organization are in private is just as important as correct teaching. Not to understand that is to dismiss the lesson of the Clinton years.
Let us pray that no matter what, God will be exhaulted.
29. donsands
September 7, 2006
6:20 PM
Thanks for taking the time to share these things.
I have a heavy heart over all this. I have been quite blessed through R.C. Sproul Sr, and his teachings from the Holy Scriptures. May the Lord clean this up speedily. Amen.
” .. there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known.” Luke 12:2
30. Michael Metzler
September 7, 2006
6:25 PM
Hi. I just skimmed all this, and find it all fascinating. I’m a bit disappointed with the apparent gossip and slander against Frank Vance here (!). Of course, both sides of any debate could level the kind of criticisms found here. Further, anytime a side seems to be loosing a public battle, it seems the mere fact of ‘publicity’ becomes the evil demon real fast. That is why one of the important things is getting the important facts straight; it is important who is right, who has the evidence on their side, and who can further a cogent argument and understand the arguments of the other side. In this respect, in terms of the current prima facie evidence I would give Frank Vance a 9 out of a 10, maybe even a 10, and this chat here about a 2 (e.g. one of the important facts now is the mere fact of Ligonier filing a constitutionally controversial law suit while refused to deny the allegation; this is ludicrous. It is also a well documented fact that Tim Dick has been egging this on for some time, responding foolishly on private blogs). But I have posted something recently along these lines today at www.poohsthink.com As always, anyone can submit a response for me to review; if it is well argued I will post it. Blessings, Michael Metzler metzler@moscow.com 509-330-1503
31. Wes
September 7, 2006
6:26 PM
This one doesn’t require much discernment and hopefully it won’t make the DoD project. Wise and sensitive response, tc. It’s best to ignore such accusations especially without any proof given from the accuser.
32. Tim Challies
September 7, 2006
6:40 PM
“No offense Tim, but you sound like you have personal issues with Frank Vance which may color your view of the continuing soap opera that involves the Sprouls behavior. (I am speaking of the son’s defrockment and the father calling them fraudulent charges. Was he calling the church hierarchy liars?)”
I have no personal issues with Frank Vance. He and I have been communicating today and I have told him that I harbor no resentment towards him and feel no malice. I believe he was wrong in this situation, but I do not resent him in any way.
“Tim you are a man of influence. Why not call Dr. Sproul yourself?”
I kind of doubt Dr. Sproul would be willing or able to speak to me, but even if he did, I’m not sure what the purpose would be. He is, after all, not involved in day-to-day operations at this point.
33. Tim Challies
September 7, 2006
6:44 PM
“I’m a bit disappointed with the apparent gossip and slander against Frank Vance here (!).”
I think the commentary here has been measured and calm. In fact, I think people here have been far kinder to Vance than he has been to Tim Dick and others and then his commenters have been to any number of people. I certainly don’t think there has been any gossip or slander. Read back through the article and the comments and I think you’ll have to agree.
34. Michael Metzler
September 7, 2006
7:15 PM
Tim, [p]
You Write: [p]
“I think the commentary here has been measured and calm. In fact, I think people here have been far kinder to Vance than he has been to Tim Dick and others and then his commenters have been to any number of people. I certainly don’t think there has been any gossip or slander. Read back through the article and the comments and I think you’ll have to agree.” [p]
The conclusions you drew about Vance here were very strong and not sufficiently supported by your arguments. Just from reading your side of the story, I would not be fully convinced even now that there were no motives involved in shutting down, at two times, talk about the scandal of RC Sproul Jr publicly teaching just months after getting defrocked. How much more so would this be the case from Vance’s perspective at the time? It is unfortunate that the only “proof” you have given to make these kinds of claims against Vance are located in the privacy of your own subjectivity. If Vance made a poor judgment call on that, it was not one without justification; you could have immediately, graciously, firmly, and directly pointed it out to Vance, if you are correct, instead of using it as an attack missile to mitigate Vance’s entire journalistic project, which has nothing to do with you unless you are going to clamp down on publicizing the out right scandal of RC Sproul Jr’s response to his defrocking. [p] I would sure hope you would be kinder to Vance than Vance to Dick! Why would you not? Vance got to the point with Dick that he felt it necessary to use publicity to offer Dick accountability; Dick’s ludicrous actions of late have only proven Vance’s approach justified. [p] Aesthetic calls in this context might not be helpful, but since you decided to go there (another example of why I give this thread a 2), I’ll just counter: Vance has been very judicial, calm, and careful in his approach. Tim Dick has not. [p]
Finally, just to clarify: I was sarcastically taking up the use of the words “gossip” and “slander”; it was a poetic reductio of the underlying premise in many of the comments here. [p]
Thank you Michael Metzler www.poohsthink.com Moscow, ID 83843
35. Mike
September 7, 2006
7:33 PM
After spending a lot of - actually, too much - time reading the post and all the comments, it occurs to me that I really don’t have a dog in this fight and that I probably need to mind my own business.
“Like one who takes a dog by the ears Is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him.” - Pr 26.17
Maybe that’s what all of us should do. I figure if I’m not part of the problem, not being affected by the problem, and am not part of the solution, then any time I spend talking about it is just gossip.
I do regret, Tim, that you posted this. I was appropriately and happlily ignorant of Vance and could have gone the rest of my life being content in my ignorance. Every organization has dirty laundry and skeletons; every doctrinal faction/denomination has its fools. I really didn’t need to learn of another scandal and bickering instigated by an archer who wounds indiscriminately.
A book of wisdom tells us,
“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will also be like him. “Answer a fool as his folly deserves, that he not be wise in his own eyes.” - Pr 26.4-5
Knowing when to do which is difficult, of course, but in this case, answering a fool as his folly deserves might have been accomplished more effectively with silence.
36. Frank Vance
September 7, 2006
8:11 PM
My thanks to Carla Rolfe (sweet lady — I wish there were more people in the world like her) for brokering a peace treaty between Tim Challies and me. Hopefully I can avoid saying anything here that would further stir the pot, but not promises.
Congratulations on the title Tim. That is funny. Not applicable to me but still funny.
There’s a great deal that can be said about your article Tim, but to avoid being tedious, or worse yet interfering with the peace process, I’ll not comment on every errant statement you’ve made, the irrelevant comments (e.g. misspelling Kistler, etc.) or all the defective and double-standard theology. Let me just address what’s most significant, your attacks on my credibility and thus how that might in some minds adversely impact the credibility of the Tim Dick fraud allegations:
“This proves two things to me. First, Vance is willing to write something libelous about someone else (in this case, about me) without any proof or substantiation. His entire story about me is mere fantasy and fabrication. Secondly, those who allow themselves to be influenced by him are eager to believe what he writes and to have their impressions about others (once again, about me) shaped by him.”
Tim please don’t try and pin on me the allegations made against you by those who post comments on my blog unless, that is, you’re also willing to accept full responsibility and you fully agree with every comment that’s ever been posted on your own blog. People are entitled to post their comments on my blog and I’m entitled to not be charged with guilt by association.
Your first point is just as easily rebutted. At no time have I “libeled” you. At no time have I even accused you of anything at all. At worst all I ever said was that the manner in which you pulled the plug on your forum, and the timing of it was “suspicious”:
“As far as Tim taking down his forum I don’t really know what to think about it. Mere coincidence? Maybe. But I do find the timing of it all, and his excuses for doing so, really suspicious.” Frank Vance, May 8, 2006
To equate that with being “libelous” doesn’t injure my credibility in the least, but it certainly doesn’t help your own. Tim I think you’ve blown things way out of proportion.
Thanks Tim for now giving a considerably more reasonable explanation about why you took down your forum. “The heart of the problem was that I was using the forum as my commenting system for the blog and the combination of the two was causing excessive load on the server to the point that I was using 100 percent of the server’s processor.” It would have been great if you could have said something like that 6 months ago. Had you back in April disclosed what you’re disclosing now then I wouldn’t have assumed anything suspicious at all. But that’s not what happened. I don’t think you handled it particularly well Tim, especially by allowing six months to lapse before giving what is now a much more credible explanation. So I’m willing to take you at your word for it now when you say “The decision certainly had nothing to do with Vance and his post.”
I can see your point now about the fact that I should have emailed you. Your story at the time just sounded suspicious to me and I distrusted you for it, but that was the wrong response. What I should have done instead was first assume that you just done a poor job with clearly communicating your server load predicament. I should have contacted you and gotten clarification. I apologize for not doing so and I apologize for being suspicious of you.
For legal reasons I won’t engage in much if any in the way of debate here re the Tim Dick/Ligonier lawsuit. Folks are welcome however to post comments on my blog or email me personally. Some kinds of questions I won’t be able to answer at the present, but many questions I can. There’s much more to this story than meets the eye from the perspective of a casual outside observer, including the fact that godly men have worked for two years in a biblical manner to bring Tim Dick to the negotiating table and get him to make things right. He’s evaded all accountability.
I’d ask you now to consider your own words Tim regarding how we’re to treat a man who refuses to conduct himself as a believer. Tim Dick epitomizes that. Please don’t equate my allegations against Tim Dick as an indictment against RC Sproul or Ligonier.
Regarding your last paragraph Tim, since a picture speaks a thousand words here’s a representation of what you’re recommending for your readers to do. I’m willing to think more highly of your readers than that Tim. I believe that most of them are probably very intelligent people, perfectly capable of examining the facts for themselves and making up their own minds.
To your credit Tim you did get a few things right in your article, like the fact that I gave you credit as being the reason that I started my little blog. My original intent was to just have a place to archive that thread that I’d started on your forum that got dumped. But then it just started to take on a life of its own. The emails started coming in, first from Tim Dick himself (very strange). Then in response to Tim Dick’s emails former Ligonier employees and other insiders started writing in and I found myself being exposed to, well, now everyone knows who cares to know. The testimony from those multiple witnesses is credible and consistent. I didn’t go looking for any of it. It came to me. Knowing what I now know I can’t in good conscience play the part of see not, hear not, speak not.
37. david
September 7, 2006
8:25 PM
Michael Metzler,
Tim was and is under no obligation to prove his reasons for shutting down his forums. If anyone wishes to accuse him of unethical motives, the burden of proof is squarely and completely on them. Paranoid conspiracy theories do not obligate anyone to answer them.
Vance’s assumption that Tim shut down a huge, popular portion of his site to silence him is only justifiable in the mind of someone who grossly overestimates his own importance. To the rest of us, it is laughable, even in the absence of any explanation.
The conclusions Tim drew about Vance are indeed strong, but they are fully supported by the evidence to be found at Vance’s blog. In contradiction of Tim, I’ll say go ahead and read it for yourself. He has done precisely what Tim says he has.
Tim has not engaged in gossip or speculation of any kind. He has simply given an account of what Vance has actually done, citing the source (which is more than Vance will do) as evidence, and answered the charges against him. He has not defended Ligonier’s innocence, but urged caution in blindly believing charges that are not backed by evidence and are made by a dubious character.
38. Bob
September 7, 2006
8:41 PM
Matthew 5:11 “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.
Enough said.
39. CraigS
September 7, 2006
8:48 PM
In thinking about this further, I think Ligonier have made a “tactical” error in suing Frank Vance directly. They should have approached blogspot.com directly and pointed out their concerns, and possibly even sued blogspot (to have the page removed) if necessary.
40. Tim Challies
September 7, 2006
8:51 PM
I’ll answer a few of Frank’s points.
“My thanks to Carla Rolfe (sweet lady — I wish there were more people in the world like her) for brokering a peace treaty between Tim Challies and me. Hopefully I can avoid saying anything here that would further stir the pot, but not promises.”
Likewise, I am grateful that Carla took initiative in putting Frank in contact with me. We have had some useful discussions and have ensured that there is no great anger or malice between us. I am not angry with Frank and I do hope that my words and my tone were indicative of this.
“Had you back in April disclosed what you’re disclosing now then I wouldn’t have assumed anything suspicious at all.”
To reiterate what David said, I am under no obligation to disclose such things. And frankly, I didn’t think anyone would be interested in the technical details. When I finally did encounter your site, I chose to ignore it thinking that any attention I gave to it would draw attention to a site I didn’t feel was constructive.
Having thought about this a great deal, having communicated with several men who are far more godly than I, I continue to believe that I was justified in posting what I did. I do hope that the point of my article was clear: such serious allegations should be proven and should only be considered credible when sufficient evidence is provided. Until then, as believers, I think we are obligated to assume the best of each other. I don’t think it is useful to post a story such as this without bringing forth evidence.
Frank and I are going to have to agree to disagree on the way he handled this one. If this article causes myself and others to think seriously about why and how we believe what we believe about others, I’ll feel this has been worth it!
41. martin
September 7, 2006
9:53 PM
I am curious, just how should Frank have handled this situation? I know the answer seems obvious to some but I am not so sure Biblically how such a thing is to be handled? There are scriptures for both sides.
BTW: I agree calling someone a nincompoop is not helpful. I wonder, how does one prove if one is or is not an nincompoop in court?
42. Ched
September 7, 2006
10:38 PM
Tim,
I appreciate the balance you bring to the Blogosphere. I have more than once been edified by this site.
43. Brian Thornton
September 7, 2006
10:50 PM
Careful, Tim…if you let this back and forth continue on much longer this thread will resemble more the likes of Vance’s web site than Challies.com…
But, then again, maybe people will get a better idea from this banter of what the point was for your post.
44. Carson Allen
September 8, 2006
1:07 AM
A few years ago a couple of fellows were making some prety strong allegations against John MacArthur and Grace Community Churc. Well; it’s been about five years. Long before Blogs were popular. People just used web sites the same way blogs are used today.
These two fellows; Darwin Fish and Rick Mesiel proved to be crack pots. All it took was for Phil Johnson to rebut these false charges. Of Course the rebutal was not good enough for the crack pots. So; Phil Johnson issuied a second rebutal. After the second rebutal is was more the obvioius that the crack pots would still be crack pots and a third rebutal was a waist of time.
So why didn’t somone from Ligoner just rebut Vance and get it over with. They can turn out hundred page books rebuting the grandest of heretics(rightley so); but they find it dificult to do the same with Frank.
I think this should have been done before a law suit. It looks like to me Mr.Dick is just going to do whatever he want’s; and if you don’t like it too bad.
45. Frank
September 8, 2006
1:11 AM
Wouldn’t it be better titled “Blogs in the Hands of Delinquent Sinners”?
46. jb
September 8, 2006
5:17 AM
Thanks to Tim’s post I e-mailed Don Kistler about his health ( we graduated together from Azusa Pacific Univ. back in ’ 71).
Don Kistler had a brain hemorrhage 3 weeks ago. But he is alive (a minor miracle) and he was able to e-mail me back (another minor miracle).
Ya’ll pray for Don. He says recovery apparently can take 1 year. He’s a great guy; his life hasn’t been easy.
47. Herman Gunderson
September 8, 2006
8:58 AM
Doesn’t Sola Deo Gloria have a board of directors? If such a board exists wouldn’t they be able to confirm or deny Mr. Vance’s reporting? It seems like it would be easy enough to defuse all of this and restore the credibility to Ligonier that so many of us ascribe to it if the board of directors at Sola Deo Gloria would just confirm for Ligonier that Mr. Vance is all that Mr. Challies suggest he is.
Herman
48. Zwei
September 8, 2006
11:29 AM
One other interesting item regarding the SDG contract-switching snafu: if such a contract switch was made (a fact which has not been publicly established), it is highly doubtful that it would be enforceable. Quite simply, a “cheesy sleight of hand trick” generally doesn’t work in the real world. Contract law is a little more complicated than “it’s got your signature on it, so it’s binding.”
I’m no lawyer (though I interact with them on a daily basis), and I’d be interested to hear from someone with more legal education than I have. But my guess is that if the omission error is either a mutual mistake or a unilateral mistake on Kistler’s part, he could get the contract invalidated or the omitted clause enforced.
So while if Tim did intentionally switch contracts, this is reprehensible and he should be disciplined, it is likely a significant overstatement (certainly a premature statement, in any case) to say that SDG was stolen from him.
49. John Carlson
September 8, 2006
12:20 PM
Hey Tim,
John