Make your TwitLonger posts ad-free
For just £1 a month, you can support TwitLonger directly and remove ads from your posts
Click here to make your TwitLonger posts ad-free.
Since You Asked:
The Watch-blogosphere has finally uncovered this link [http://bit.ly/2hel18n], which is reporting something that even the local news relative to the events is handling with kids gloves and not as some kind of crime wave. But: because the person arrested and indicted has a long-standing association with me via the internet, these ambulance-chasers are coming around to play a few innings of "stump the blogger."
First, let me say this: you really have no idea what my family has ever been through. You have no idea whether or not we have ever been inside one of these situations, and you have no idea whether or not we have seen this sort of thing from the inside. So before you say anything about my conscience toward victims or whatever other accusation you can muster, ask yourself if you know enough about my life to say anything which means anything other than you mean to take a pound of flesh from someone you think isn't going to respond -- or worse, can afford to take the hit. If what you mean to do is gin up your own audience to bring the torches and pitchforks to my doorstep for the sake of your follower count, make sure you are ready for what really lies inside the castle outside of town.
Regarding the contents of that link, there are at least 3 things which I think are important to consider from a Biblical standpoint: human legal justice, God's eternal justice, and my obligation as a Christian brother to Tom Chantry.
From a human legal standpoint, let me say this as clearly as possible: unless Tom Chantry goes to prison, the legal system does not say he is guilty. It says it has sufficient evidence to try the case. Tom Chantry is not guilty of anything right now: only charged with a crime. Those charges are serious and sober charges; they are charges his personal reputation will never recover from -- whether or not they are true. If my own daughter or son was making those charges against Tom, I would be both furious and distraught. But: until all the evidence was heard, I would not have any basis to say that Tom was already guilty. And in exactly the same way, I have no basis to say his accuser is a false accuser. What I have is an obligation to wait until both sides are heard in order to have a clean conscience.
From a human legal standpoint, Tom has been indicted and is awaiting trial. That's all -- God forbid the same ever happens to any of us.
From a perspective of God's eternal justice, if Tom did the things he is accused of, he is already convicted in his heart and before the true judge of what is right. God is the one to whom Tom owes an explanation -- if he is guilty. To me? Tom has been a friend and a truth-teller in all manner of hard situations, and I cannot believe that his approach in those circumstances came from either a seared conscience or a false heart. This means there is another aspect of God's justice I need to consider: what if I accuse and convict Tom when he is, in fact, innocent? Who am I before God if I treat my innocent brother like a criminal? What have I done to him before God? So as God has and will judge Tom, God is judging me -- and I seek to do what He would have me do in these circumstances, not what an angry mob is asking of me.
From the standpoint of God's justice, I prefer to show Tom mercy right now because I believe that I gain nothing before God by treating him as if he is guilty, and I gain nothing by lashing out at his accuser as if I already know everything about these circumstances.
From the standpoint of Christian brotherhood, I am and always have been (as far as you internet people know) a menace who must be stopped. I know what it is like to be falsely accused of doing wrong when I have done nothing -- or worse when I have actually done right. If every time someone accused me of being a horrible and unChristian person my friends -- and more importantly, my Christian family -- disowned me or made me go take a walk or something, I would never have had the chance to actually live through those things to the other side and see God's good will for me in the trials (Rom 8:28). Tom's trial right now is significantly worse than any I have ever suffered on the internet. I'm going to stand by him for the sake of Christ, and for the sake of His intention that this trial will be for Tom's good.
So as a Christian, I am bound to treat Tom as I ought to treat anyone who is a Christian and has been accused of doing wrong -- which is to stand by him with both truth and love, and to see him through to the end of this trial, regardless of the outcome.
If what you came here seeking is for me to somehow regret everything I ever did which said good about Tom or otherwise endorsed the good he has done, forget it. If he is guilty, that is for God and the courts to sort out; if he is innocent, what has happened here cannot be shrugged off as a mere mistake as his reputation will never recover from it (the Watch-blogosphere will make sure of that). And in either case, Tom has always been a friend to me even when he was being "that kind of puritan," so I will be that kind of wall-crawling menace toward him which everyone who knows me personally will recognize.
Thanks for asking.
Also this, from 2010: http://bit.ly/2gkrx0e