The last time I wrote about GunnerQ, in “Lying to Combat Lying“, was when he falsely accused me of lying and misrepresented the biblical teaching on telling lies. In that post I laid out how being wrong is not lying, but requires intent. Remarkably, Gunner agrees with me that lying requires intent…

Being wrong is not a sin
— GunnerQ, “Gio, the Gatekeeping Hypocrite“

…and…

I’ve done more personal attacks than perhaps anybody else in this corner of the Internet, and I’ve never done one just because the other guy was wrong.

…and he also agrees that you are not morally responsible for people drawing the wrong conclusions from what you write…

You are not responsible for the salvation of others, either. This is basic Christianity.

…and so I’m surprised that he said:

I have publicly disagreed, sure, but the name-calling and mocking is reserved for the willfully evil… and particularly, those whose job or other self-identification requires them to be good.

Gunner calls fellow Christians “the willfully evil”: an assertion that one is not merely wrong, but intends evil. This is standing in judgment of another Christian, a claim to personally know another person’s inner state.

Yet, Gunner does not first approach his fellow Christians to call them privately to repentance—and ultimately having the matter resolved in the church if required—which is a clear violation of Jesus’ command in Matthew 18. Had he done so in my case^[1], he would have been unable to sustain the claim that I willfully deceive my audience and would have been forced to tarnish his record of “never done one just because the other guy was wrong.”^[2]

GunnerQ is anonymous. Following Christ’s command to bring a disputed matter of sin before the church would require him to shed his anonymity to the very people he abhors, something he will not do. Yet, as I said in “Anonymity and the authority of God“, we cannot speak on the authority of God as his agents nor be held accountable to fellow Christians (as Christ requires) if we are anonymous.

Being the one who has done more public personal attacks on “the willfully evil” Christians than any other is no badge of honor. Gunner is in error.

Footnotes

^[1] Because I know the intent of my own heart, I would have insisted that Gunner show two or three witnesses to my sin and, ultimately, insist that the church decide which of us (one, the other, both, or none) required repentence.

^[2] Not only did I not willfully intend to deceive, but I updated my posts in response to his constructive feedback in an attempt to correct any errors or unclear ideas that might lead to that conclusion. I also, in accordance with Matthew 18, opted for forgiveness. While Gunner is incorrect in his (still published) accusations, I do not believe he had anything but good intent towards me. He has no sin debt before me and I do not wish anyone to assume otherwise about either of us.