Liberty Theological Seminary?????

Yep, it's a big change. Eddie Dobson boasted that LBC was just like BJU in the 1970's. Hair, dress, music, etc. were big ticket items in those days. Of course, look where Eddie is today.

Everyone seems to have missed my point. I'm not even arguing whether these things are right or wrong. The point is that a big deal was made out of things that are now practiced by those who condemned them. Falwell has changed. You may like and approve the changes but you have missed the point.

 

paid,

I, for one, praise God for where Eddie is today. Would that more people "change" the way Eddie has. Eddie has matured. Eddie has grown. Eddie's disease has helped him to appreciate much in life that he previously took for granted when he was young and had all the answers. Hundreds if not thousands of souls have been won for the Kingdom precisely because Eddie "is where he is today."

Falwell is a pragmatist. Often to a fault. The ends almost always justify the means. There are countless former loyal friends and colleagues who can attest to that. Many of their wounds are still quite sore. Not many who know him or the situation well would argue otherwise.

On the topic at hand, I might argue that many of the old rules and positions were legalistic silliness. You might argue that they were somehow more biblical and that the "new Liberty" represents an accomodation, ecumenicism, or whatever. (I suspect the Amish would, too, incidentally.)

But leave Eddie out of it. Equating changes at Liberty in order recruit more students to the changes in Eddie's life and minsitry over the last 20 years lends you musch discredit.

 

I think this is a sign of a problem in church's and seminaries today and it isn't "who is leading them," but rather, "who are you really following".

I expect men, even good, Godly men, to be flawed.

Some, I believe, are much more flawed than others.

I assume, based on Falwell's letter, that Borek is NOT Catholic. If he WAS Catholic in the past, I don't think that would have prevented him from being a good protestant today. Past does mean "past". If anything, it might make him more well-rounded and educated. He knows what the otherside teaches from the inside.

I assume that Jerry Falwell is not my cup of tea because of things he said regarding race ages ago, however - that doesn't seem to enter the pulpit, so I'm not going to condemn every man that studied at Liberty because I don't like Jerry's past politics.

I like Billy Graham, as a minister, too, but I am not a fan of his having lunch with the Clintons. Doesn't mean I'll reject Graham's call to salvation to millions.

As Christ said, let ye who are without sin throw the first stone.

If you have scriptural differences with Borek or Falwell, don't support their ministries or their seminary. If you know that they are behaving in a very ungodly way and committing a specific sin that they have not repented of, and aren't planning to repent from - by all means, don't support them.

However, by the same token, don't condemn them on things that are so debatable that neither side can come up with evidence to support their claim.

 

Is this the same Rod Bell that stepped down from his church because he was an alcoholic?

 

Paul, do your homework. Borek may have converted. Also, it is possible that the original information was wrong but a simple denial and refutation by Borek or Falwell would have been sufficient. With Falwell beating around the bush, the whole business had the marks of a cover up. Read the link and you will have your questions answered. Also, see Frontline(FBF publication) magazine.

I did Read my post! Did you follow the web link that I listed? It was from two men whom you should know—Rod Bell and Jerry Huffman. Give either one a call and ask about the info if you think it is wrong. BTW, Rod is living in G’ville, SC just now. Jerry said that he e-mailed Falwell to verify the allegation. Check with Falwell. If you don’t have a pipeline there, then others on this thread imply that they do. Check it out. I’ve seen other sources but I did not pursue it to absolute verification since the sources were overall credible and I had no special interest in the matter. I have made no error in fairness or veracity. I accepted information from a reputedly credible source. I named my source. Beyond that, there are no other reasonable expectations of me unless I was publishing this and I would probably personally verify with more research of primary materials. Yet, my behavior has been above board, honest, fair, acceptable and ethical. No one, I mean no one, checks and verifies everything from primary sources when engaged in conversation or informal argument.

In riposte, I am disappointed in your attempt to make hay out of wheat straw. This is a knee jerk reaction to challenge an opponent’s sources when one has nothing to offer. Where is your source? Is it your fantasy? Why don’t you present proof that I have bad data and I will publicly retract my assertion upon persuasive evidence? I was persuaded of better things from you.

I presented you with the sources. If you’re interested, do your homework and show me to be wrong. I can take it if I accepted unreliable information. But, I am not going to do your work for you. Do I need to outline a research plan for you? Do your own homework.

For laughing out loud, what does this have to do with anything? You’re doing a partisan argument to justify Falwell. Obviously, it didn’t bother many people that BG had Roman Catholics on his platform and send his converts back to RC churches. So, we disagree on Biblical separation but that is another topic.

Paul, I thought you were a bright boy. Now, I am beginning to question my impression. You’re not separating the chafe from the wheat. Did it not occur to you that the question under discussion is not whether hiring a Roman Catholic is a bad thing but whether Falwell has changed his position on various issues. You see, Falwell can’t claim to be within historic Fundamentalism, which he claimed at one time, and cooperate with Roman Catholics. You really need to delimit your topic. You will learn that when you get around to doing your dissertation. I surprised that they didn’t teach you that at BJU but I suppose you came along too late to have Miss Potts. </font>[/QUOTE]Wow Paid!

You really like to demean other people (their intelligence, etc.).

You made the statement about Borek. Instead of me doing your homework, you should do your own. It is obvious that you don't have much to go on. When challenged to provide evidence, you resort to Rod Bell? Please.

For the record: I shared my thoughts for full disclosure. I don't care if a competent RC is in administration of a Baptist University.

In any event, I'm not upset with you or your prattling on. Historic Fundamentalism of the 1920s wasn't separatistic. LU has moved in the right direction. Thank God Jerry Falwell is not where he was in the 1970s. He moved away from the bitterness of Jones, Bell, and that type. To God be the glory!

 

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:

</font>[/QUOTE]Does the Bible say they were judgmental or is it simply your conclusion? If the Bible says it, then I am bound to agree. If it is your own conclusions, then I have every prerogative to disagree. Again, you are reading your own presuppositions into Scripture. An old Irish Plymouth Brethren once said: “Wonderful things in the Bible I see; most of them put there by you and me.” Moises Silva, D. A. Carson, et. al. speak of distanciation in their hermeneutical works. Maybe it would be a good idea to practice it here.

This sounds rather judgmental to me. Have you violated your own professed non-judgmental principles? Of course, the difference is that you are judging me, not me you. I have no problem with making fair, rational judgments within our bounds to judge. We can, of course, only judge what we can observe. You, on the other hand, seem to precluded making any judgment whatsoever. So, you can know nothing. BTW, I can see your point that you would be quick to find fault in me since I am so different from you. Your principle does apply both ways, doesn’t it?

I think He was saying, “Don’t be a hypocrite!” The warning is that you will be judged by the same standards by which you judge others. Read the rest of the passage in context and you will find what Christ said about judging. Jesus said: Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. (Matthew 7: 1-5)

Bible quiz question: What did Jesus say that you would be able to do after removing the beam from your eye?

From your statement, I take it that we can judge nothing. Then we know nothing. Please read I Corinthians 2:15 and explain it to me. Also, read chapter 6 and tell me what Paul was commanding the church to do. In fact, read all of I Corinthians and tell me what Paul’s view on judgment is. Seems there was a non-judgmental crowd in Corinth who tolerated fornication between a man and his stepmother. Perhaps they were trying to love him back into fellowship.

</font>[/QUOTE]Are you implying that I am living unrighteously? How do you know? Now, that’s judgmental. Read James 4:11-12. BTW, you never even addressed the question that you chose to quote—you just used it as an excuse to chase a rabbit.

</font>[/QUOTE]Do you know what it means to bear false witness. This is all about unjust accusations, not just lying in general. If I read and understand your sentence correctly, you are implying that I am guilty of belittling someone. That is a false witness. I have attacked no one’s person, character or sincerity. You would deny me right to disagree. Now, that’s tyrannical.

Yes, I agree entirely for a different reason. The problem is that our churches are filled with unbelievers (e.g see http://www.ccwonline.org/sbc.html). It is precisely this non-judgmental attitude that has filled our churches with lost people. Do you know your American church history? A focused preaching against sin preceded all the three great awakenings. Because we cannot judge today, anyone can masquerade as a Christian and live like the Devil. Judging and calling sin for what it is purifies and cleanses the church. A church has no true evangelism when it is just like the world.

The word judgmental has been stripped of its denotative meaning and given a connotation that makes it a bad word. Properly understood, judgment is a good thing on the side of righteousness. Brother, you have just swallowed the bait and hook.

As applied by you, the question is whether the labels of judgmental and hypocritical are deserved. In some quarters, it is descriptive but in other circles, it is not. This is simply a convenient way of discrediting anyone with whom you disagree. You’re trying to tar everyone with the same brush. In propaganda, it is called guilt by association. Judgment is good, not bad. Unjust and unfair judgment is bad but fair and equitable judgment is to be desired.

Charlie, this is a foolish statement. Whereas you mention truth, you mix in error. Truth mixed with error is no longer truth. Do you think an “undiscerning, unrighteous Christian” brings people to Christ? Do you show Christ by “accept all—anything goes” attitude?

 

Paidagogos,

I've got news for you Paidagogos - the difference between you and the biggest sinner in town is that you have Jesus - it has nothing to do with the fact that you have more "personal holiness".

This sounds rather judgmental to me.

Judgmental? How about TRUE. Is it not in fact the blood of Christ that has justified you? Or is it your works?

That was quite a little tirade there...



I see no problem with preaching against sinful living. It warms my heart to hear Ralph Sexton or Tim Lee get goin' on today's society.

There is quite a difference between a churchgoer living shamelessly in an adulterous relationship and a woman who happens to like to wear pants. One is violating God's law and the other is violating the preferences of the self righteous (and typically theologically inept) Christian.

So what is judgmentalism?

It is the "pious fundamentalist" who "separates" from the "worldly believer" who goes to movie theaters.

It is the preacher who bashes CCM music.

It is the fundamentalist who considers lost anyone of the Arminian or semi-Pelagian theology.

I could go on.

Like I said - the reputation of evangelicalism in America has been tarnished by our own pride. We have let the dark weaknesses of human nature creep into our faith. And what's worse - we stamped the seal of orthodoxy on them!

 

Charles,

We actually agree on something!

Seriously, this is one area that is confusing. Attacking Falwell because he allegedly hired a former Roman Catholic and then bashing Falwell when he fails to answer the attack is ludicrous.

Thankfully Falwell has grown up and away from his former fundamentalist cronies!

 

Oh, come off of it! I simply indicated that Eddie is a long ways away from where he was in the 1970's. You have not challenged my facts but rather you have corroborated them. Yet, you are defending some perceived insult toward Eddie Dobson. It’s all in your imagination. No, I don’t agree with him but I haven’t even criticized his position beyond that. Eddie, however, was an integral part of the change process at Liberty. There’s no dishonor to either me or my position in my post regarding Eddie. You’re grasping at straws.

As for the ends justifying the means, I think Hitler and the Spanish Inquisition both used this reasoning. I rather do what’s right and let God take care of the results.

 

Yes, I did. Go back and read all of my posts. I even gave you a web site. Please pay attention. Somehow, you have managed to miss the point, miscontrue or misinterpret almost everything I have posted. I'm sorry to put it so bluntly but I don't have time to quibble about your misunderstandings.

 

Martin, would you please learn to use the quote and /quote functions. This is a mess and mishmash of my post and quotes from Rod Bell and Jerry Huffman. You screwed this up royally. There is no sense of context about who said what. I did not say what you have attributed as my words. Also, I simply gave one source, as requested, available as evidence that Borek may have had ties to Roman Catholicism up to and including the time that he was hired by LU. I won't bother to reply to the rest.

 

Paul, I am sure this will offend you intellectually but I will try to explain it simply. Of course, you have been in hard-core Fundamentalism, which gave you ulcers, long enough to know this but you refuse to admit it because you will have lost your case.

1. Falwell started out in hard-nose Fundamentalism.
2. He proclaimed that he was a dyed-in-the-wool Fundamentalist who cherished all the Fundamentalist “legalisms.”
3. For a while, it appeared to some that he posed as the heir apparent to the Fundamentalist Chair (i.e. Fundamentalist Pope).
4. Along the way, he has softened his stance to accommodate an ever-widening circle of support.
5. Falwell had to toe a narrow line in the beginning because he could not afford to lose his Fundamentalist base while garnering more followers in the broader circles of evangelicalism.
6. Historic Fundamentalism to a man has rejected and separated from Roman Catholicism.
7. BG’s loss of Fundamentalist support was over his exclusivism with Catholics and liberals sitting on his platform.
8. Falwell, as a pragmatist, knew that he could not openly hire a Roman Catholic in 1999 and retain his Fundamentalist supporters.
9. If John Borek was a Roman Catholic when he was hired, Falwell could scarcely admit it to two such hard-core Fundamentalists as Rod Bell and Jerry Huffman without being raked over the coals.
10. Did he equivocate in his e-mail to Jerry? I don’t know. He may or may not have dodged the bullet. His track record lends credence to the idea that he could or would upon occasion. Falwell has been back and forth with the prevailing wind on a lot of issues. This is enough to arouse suspicion. A straightforward denial by Borek and Falwell would have killed the whole business. Why wasn’t it made if it was just rumor?

Contrary to your attempt at ridicule, this is not ludicrous, absurd, or ridiculous. It sure makes more sense to the rational man than your attempts to brush it aside. Falwell’s Fundamentalist followers have now moved far enough left to accept his new positions and he doesn’t need the Fundamentalist fringe anymore. Even you admitted that he has abandoned his Fundamentalist cronies.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]Charlie, you have done a bad, unfair and unethical thing. You have edited without any indication of cutting both my post and your original post to twist and make your point. This is wrong. Yes, I am judging your actions because they are observable and condemnable. One only needs to go back and read the original posts to see what you have done. This is verifiable by anyone on this thread.
The original post read:

</font>[/QUOTE]You have made it sound as if I am somehow teaching a works salvation. I am not! I challenge you to show me one fragment of my posts which imply such a belief. You try to vilify me by twisting my post. I was not even replying to your first sentence. My argument was centered in your statements: “It's human nature to find fault with those who are different than we are. We must NOT use the Bible to justify our own selfish behavior.” You cut these from the post.

Without any twinge of paranoia, I think we can safely say these are innuendo directed toward me. If not, to whom do they refer since you personally addressed the statements to me? It has nothing to do with works and salvation. You are indirectly charging me with using the Bible for my own selfish ends. That’s what you imply, isn’t it? Well, if that’s not judgmental, then I don’t know what is. You are judging motives, which you cannot observe, and that’s obviously a violation of your professed non-judgmental principles. I attack this in my reply but you edit it in a way that puts yourself in the more favorable light. You cut the meat right out of my reply making it weak and anemic.

I don’t know whether you did this unwittingly or intentionally through maliciousness. Regardless, this is unfair and dishonest. Yes, I make the charge and support it with the plain evidence. Call it judgmental and I admit to it. I am not afraid to call wrongdoing wrong. However, you are more judgmental by insinuating that my motives, which you cannot know, are selfish. To say one thing and do another is hypocritical. As posted earlier, this is exactly what Christ condemned in the Pharisees, not their judgment according to the law. As of date, you have used no Biblical argument or exegesis to refute this.

Charlie, you did wrong and I challenge you to be man enough to admit it. Otherwise, you can’t walk that high road of pious non-judgmental love and spirituality that you are proclaiming.

As an aside, although I did not address it, your statement on differences between me and the biggest sinner in town is not completely accurate and Biblical. Whereas I may agree with what you intend and are trying to say, I cannot wholly endorse your statement. You give no consideration to sanctification and the power of the Holy Spirit. There are other differences. My salvation and justification is wholly based on Christ’s redeeming work on the cross. However, I am now a new creature in Christ. Things are much different now. Ephesians 1:10 is the great passage emphasizing salvation by grace alone through faith alone but 2:10 (if you read on) tells us that we are created unto good works for God’s glory. Some people just don’t read far enough.

The rest of your posting is so far a field that I have no inclination to reply to it.

Adios amigo.

 

Is there some inconsistency here? You can accept Borek with a Roman Catholic past because the past is past but you don’t like Falwell because he made some racist comments in the past. Can’t Falwell convert from his racism as easily as Borek can convert from Roman Catholicism? Is racism the only unforgivable sin? I wonder where that is found in the Bible? Evidently, I just don’t understand the principle.

 

Yes, it is. He is also the same Rod Bell who brokenheartedly confessed and repented publicly for his sin. He faced his church, confessed and asked forgiveness. He resigned his pastorate and the numerous leadership positions that he held. He appeared before groups and begged forgiveness. He wrote and published public letters of confession and begged to be forgiven. He moved to G’ville, SC and put himself under accountability to Dr. John Vaughn. He has been very humble and contrite in the whole matter. He was no Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Bakker.

The man is forgiven. What more do you want? Has God forgiven your sins? If so, why did you bring this up about Rod Bell? What did this have to do with the question under discussion? Rod Bell’s sin was drunkenness, not lying. You cannot necessarily correlate the two. Were you trying to question his veracity because he fell into another sin? Smudging a brother’s character is sin. Impugning another believer’s character without observable evidence is wrong. This is worse than any of those rabid Fundamentalists who give you dyspepsia.

Your question bothers me. If it means what it seems to mean, I am very disappointed in you. Although we seldom agree, I did consider you healthily skeptical, reasonably fair and honest. However, your question appears highly biased and weighted to one side. If you are, in fact, slamming Rod’s character to gain a point in discrediting Borek’s Catholicism charge, it is despicable and unworthy of you. Shame on you if this is true. You may want to consider this before you step into the pulpit before your people this Sunday morning. Now, tell me it ain't so.

 

Wow Paid!

You really like to demean other people (their intelligence, etc.). [/QB][/QUOTE]
I can’t see anything demeaning in my post. If you’re talking about the language, it was written tongue in cheek though the points were serious. Where is your sense of humor? In our age of personality, everyone seems to take himself too seriously. After all, I thought we were all secure egos with our positive self-images. It appears that we are insecure paranoids. You’re a bright boy—jab back at me.

What’s your problem with Rod Bell other than you don’t like him? If you don’t believe Rod, ask Falwell and Borek. You don’t seem to have any facts, other than your own mental biases, to the contrary.

I’m not surprised.

Never said you were. It’s really aside from our discussion. Sometimes people get upset and sometimes they don’t. I can take it either way.

Hogwash! Historic Fundamentalism was never allied with Roman Catholicism. They were separatists from Catholicism and eventually from liberalism and modernism. Read any American church history.

Well, that’s your opinion. It’s of little interest but your attitudes are very much interesting. I am intrigued by your fixation against the hard rightwing Fundamentalism. Perhaps some of the children of hard-core Fundamentalism are similar to children of drunks. They despise their parents’ drunkenness but they manifest many of their parents’ abusive personality traits. In your bashing of the separatist Fundamentalists, you are more like them in caricature of bitter, biting obsessed denigration than their children who still claim the name of Fundamentalist. Strange, ain’t it.

 

Paidagogos,

Taking your ball and going home?



Charlie, you did wrong and I challenge you to be man enough to admit it. Otherwise, you can’t walk that high road of pious non-judgmental love and spirituality that you are proclaiming.

First of all my name is Charles.

Second, I quoted from your post, no ellipses or parentheses. I merely said that the difference between you (Christian) and a lost person is Christ, and NOT your works. I assume you agree with that statement.

Given that Christ has given you such a wonderful gift how should you respond?

By showing others the same love Christ showed you. If you do this then good for you.

The rest of my post is dead on. You needn't respond to it. It was merely intended to reprove some of the error of your last rant.

 

Paul, I am sure this will offend you intellectually but I will try to explain it simply. Of course, you have been in hard-core Fundamentalism, which gave you ulcers, long enough to know this but you refuse to admit it because you will have lost your case.

1. Falwell started out in hard-nose Fundamentalism.
2. He proclaimed that he was a dyed-in-the-wool Fundamentalist who cherished all the Fundamentalist “legalisms.”
3. For a while, it appeared to some that he posed as the heir apparent to the Fundamentalist Chair (i.e. Fundamentalist Pope).
4. Along the way, he has softened his stance to accommodate an ever-widening circle of support.
5. Falwell had to toe a narrow line in the beginning because he could not afford to lose his Fundamentalist base while garnering more followers in the broader circles of evangelicalism.
6. Historic Fundamentalism to a man has rejected and separated from Roman Catholicism.
7. BG’s loss of Fundamentalist support was over his exclusivism with Catholics and liberals sitting on his platform.
8. Falwell, as a pragmatist, knew that he could not openly hire a Roman Catholic in 1999 and retain his Fundamentalist supporters.
9. If John Borek was a Roman Catholic when he was hired, Falwell could scarcely admit it to two such hard-core Fundamentalists as Rod Bell and Jerry Huffman without being raked over the coals.
10. Did he equivocate in his e-mail to Jerry? I don’t know. He may or may not have dodged the bullet. His track record lends credence to the idea that he could or would upon occasion. Falwell has been back and forth with the prevailing wind on a lot of issues. This is enough to arouse suspicion. A straightforward denial by Borek and Falwell would have killed the whole business. Why wasn’t it made if it was just rumor?

Contrary to your attempt at ridicule, this is not ludicrous, absurd, or ridiculous. It sure makes more sense to the rational man than your attempts to brush it aside. Falwell’s Fundamentalist followers have now moved far enough left to accept his new positions and he doesn’t need the Fundamentalist fringe anymore. Even you admitted that he has abandoned his Fundamentalist cronies. </font>[/QUOTE]Paid,

Despite your condescension and arrogance, I already knew everything you just shared. In fact, I agree with most of what you wrote, except that I don't think Falwell had a "mapped" out strategy of how he was going to use the Fundamentalist fringe until he became more poplular with the evangelical world.

The truth is, as you noted, Falwell started out a Fundamentalist and has gradually modified his position. I think it is in reaction to the fundamentalist nutcases like Jones and Bell, and a realization that the fundamentalist fringe was just that, a fringe.

Ultimately, neither you nor I know what Falwell's motivations were and are in his pulling away from the hyper fundamentalists!

Since you are much more intelligent than I am, I'm not sure that I've communicated in a way that you will understand and grasp. I apologize in advance for my intellectual short-comings and my off the cuff remarks. I will strive to be more refined and rigorous in the future. Perhaps, some day I will meet with your approval.

 

Yes, it is. He is also the same Rod Bell who brokenheartedly confessed and repented publicly for his sin. He faced his church, confessed and asked forgiveness. He resigned his pastorate and the numerous leadership positions that he held. He appeared before groups and begged forgiveness. He wrote and published public letters of confession and begged to be forgiven. He moved to G’ville, SC and put himself under accountability to Dr. John Vaughn. He has been very humble and contrite in the whole matter. He was no Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Bakker.

The man is forgiven. What more do you want? Has God forgiven your sins? If so, why did you bring this up about Rod Bell? What did this have to do with the question under discussion? Rod Bell’s sin was drunkenness, not lying. You cannot necessarily correlate the two. Were you trying to question his veracity because he fell into another sin? Smudging a brother’s character is sin. Impugning another believer’s character without observable evidence is wrong. This is worse than any of those rabid Fundamentalists who give you dyspepsia.

Your question bothers me. If it means what it seems to mean, I am very disappointed in you. Although we seldom agree, I did consider you healthily skeptical, reasonably fair and honest. However, your question appears highly biased and weighted to one side. If you are, in fact, slamming Rod’s character to gain a point in discrediting Borek’s Catholicism charge, it is despicable and unworthy of you. Shame on you if this is true. You may want to consider this before you step into the pulpit before your people this Sunday morning. Now, tell me it ain't so. </font>[/QUOTE]I was just wondering if the Rod Bell of Calvary Contender was the same Rod Bell that was an alcoholic. Nothing more.

I had heard that a "Rod Bell" in fundamentalist circles stepped down from his church, but when I searched the internet, I found no mention of it. I thought I must have been mistaken, because I'm sure if Rod Bell of Calvary Contender had been the alcoholic I would have read about it in the Calvary Contender, since this is where he exposes the "sins" of compromise and shortcomings of other ministers.

Since I didn't find any mention of it in the Calvary Contender, I was sure that I was mistaken. Thanks for clarifying for me that this indeed is the same Rod Bell.

I'll let the reader determine who is demeaning, despicable and unworthy.

 

What's to challenge or corroborate. Eddie's grown in Christlikeness since the 70s. But you will forgive me if I received your remarks as insulting towards his character and current ministry. Perhaps your readers are just conditioned to anticipate an insulting tone.

Wow. Would have that you'd have been able to read that in its context as applying to Jerry's actions and not tacit approval of a Machiavellianism.