Contending For Truth - Ligonier Ministries Lawsuit Scandal

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Ligonier Ministries President Tim Dick Honors Me

It's not every day that I receive personal correspondence from the Presidents of esteemed Christian ministries. In fact it's never happened before. But in recent days I've been honored to have been contacted by Mr. Tim Dick, President of Ligonier Ministries, and not just once but twice!

Now I know perfectly well that Mr. Tim Dick doesn't intend to honor me, but I just can't help but feel honored about the whole thing. What an incredible thrill! I've just got tingles all over!

Why would the President of Ligonier Ministries go to all the trouble of expending his valuable time talking to me? I guess my little 'ol blog must be causing a much bigger stir than I'd thought!

Tim Dick asked me to keep his emails confidential, and this after he ridicules anonymous bloggers as "cowards" and he asks, "Where is the courage?" So now I'm really confused, Mr. Dick. You ask me to keep the content of our email exchange confidential, but you're also opposed to the cowardice of people who want to maintain their confidentiality. Well I've got a solution for that. Don't be a coward, Mr. Dick! What you've said to me really needs to be out in the public eye for all to see, and let's not change any names or any of that sissy stuff. Be a man! Strap on a pair Mr. Dick! Let's use your real name!

Oh, and the thing about your asking me to keep our emails confidential, well, I never gave you an answer about that -- until now. The answer is "no."


From: "Tim Dick" tdick@ligonier.org
To: "Frank Vance" advancemyten@yahoo.com
Subject: What is any discussion by unrelated parties accomplishing to restore Dr. Sproul Jr.?
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 21:08:59 -0400

Mr. Vance,

I find all the "chatter" on the internet lacking more credibility than R.C. Sr. and Jr. could possibly loose because of the recent actions. Many posts on various site build on prior posts which assume they are to accurate. I'm not trying to defend either of the Sprouls but I will defend Ligonier and to some extent, World. First, as is evidenced in your poll to approve or disapprove of Jr. speaking at the conference, it is laughable that you first show % responses and then only 7 votes were cast. Second, I would consider posts that do not have the courage to do so under a "real name", i.e. Hammerman. Were is the courage, this cowardly approach leads to loose lips, per se, where the author says anything with out accountability to substantiating the underlying truth to support slanderous comments.

There basically was no truth to the post about Jr.'s being deposed by his family. If the author wanted to be truthful about his content he simply could have called, I would give him the true answer, which is that I made the decision and I'm not on the board and the author has no clue what is required to produce a monthly 64 page devotional magazine.

Third, the post about World magazine is absurd, our budget for "space ads" for 2006 was $0.00, for any magazine. Quite frankly, this is one reason I made the decision to discontinue our forums, too many people have to much time on their hands and say whatever they want with apparent confidence they are truthful.

Unfortunately there is little charity being demonstrated for these men and the organizations they are associated with. I have handled discussions regarding this issue and I'm sure I don't know everything that happened but, as a former deacon in the PCA, too often we react to information that may be more complicated than the "selected" topics that make it to the internet.

I am not trying to defend anything other than proper church governance which, unless you or any other commentator is an officer in that denomination, you can not reflect all of the truth, and possibly should not if you are.

Since I am not aware of how to actually post information like this I ask you not to post this communication as it is intended to be confidential.

Tim Dick
President

Ligonier Ministries
400 Technology Park
Lake Mary Fl 32746

www.Ligonier.org



From: "Frank Vance" advancemyten@yahoo.com
To: "Tim Dick" tdick@ligonier.org
Subject: Re: What is any discussion by unrelated parties accomplishing to restore Dr. Sproul Jr.?
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 17:11:35 -0700 (PDT)

Dear Mr. Dick,

Thanks for your email. I'm honored that you would want to speak with me.

As to your question, "What is any discussion by unrelated parties accomplishing to restore Dr. Sproul Jr.?", I would just say had RC Sproul Jr responded in humility and repentance to being disciplined by his Presbyterian denomination, I seriously doubt any of us would be seeing what we now witness on the internet. I think we've all got better things to be doing with our time. Nevertheless it's an important issue that warrants discussion.

As one whose family was personally victimized by ecclesiastical tyranny in a manner all too similar to the way the RC Jr attacked the Austin family I'm pleased to see that he was held accountable. That would have never happened in our own situation, had we been in a real Presbyterian church.

I've been a great admirer of Dr. Sproul (Sr.) for years. Seeing him publicly state, through Pastor Shaun Nolan's web site that the charges against his son were "fraudulent" is troubling, and I believe that it was extremely unwise. Clearing R.C. Sproul, Jr's Name

I hope it doesn't harm his reputation. However, I don't see how any good can come of it. A respected Presbyterian denomination acted according to the very BCO that RC Jr swore to obey, based upon substantive evidence, including the fact that RC Jr stole the tax ID number of the ARP, and for "abuse of office." RC Jr even confessed to these things. That's nothing minor to just disregard, and in light of the evidence they have in hand, and RC Jr's own confession, I don't understand how Dr. Sproul can just sweep that aside and call it "fraudulent."

If the CREC's Pastoral Commission Report finds that the testimony wasn't fraudulent, is Dr. Sproul planning on making a public apology for impugning the good name of the RPCGA?

> First, as is evidenced in your
> poll to approve or
> disapprove of Jr. speaking at the conference, it is
> laughable that you first
> show % responses and then only 7 votes were cast.

Did you vote? If not why not? Probably for the same reason that most people who view such posts don't vote. That link received over 4000 hits before Tim Challies took the site down. Lots of hits, few votes. The reason only 7 out of 4000 people voted is probably because in order to vote you have to first create an account, and most people won't go through the trouble of doing that. The real story isn't how few people voted but how many people viewed the thread in a very brief timeframe.

> Second, I would consider
> posts that do not have the courage to do so under a
> "real name", i.e.
> Hammerman. Were is the courage, this cowardly
> approach leads to loose lips,
> per se, where the author says anything with out
> accountability to
> substantiating the underlying truth to support
> slanderous comments.

I can't address your concern about your belief that anonymous blogs lack credibility. I don't share such concerns because I can well appreciate why some people choose to remain anonymous. What matters to me is the substance of the allegations. If the allegations are true they can't be "slanderous." My own research indicates that most of what's appeared critical of RC Jr is true.

> There basically was no truth to the post about Jr.'s
> being deposed by his
> family. If the author wanted to be truthful about
> his content he simply
> could have called, I would give him the true answer,
> which is that I made
> the decision and I'm not on the board and the author
> has no clue what is
> required to produce a monthly 64 page devotional
> magazine.

What article are you referring to? There's no such article on my blog. Why address your concerns to me rather than the author of the article?

> Third, the post about World magazine is absurd, our
> budget for "space ads"
> for 2006 was $0.00, for any magazine. Quite
> frankly, this is one reason I
> made the decision to discontinue our forums, too
> many people have to much
> time on their hands and say whatever they want with
> apparent confidence they
> are truthful.

Just out of curiosity why is your advertising budget for the year $0.00? Have you disclosed that to World? If they don't know that then they could easily be operating under the assumption that you will be spending more in ad revenue soon, and they could be quite concerned about not doing anything to jeopardize that.

> I am not trying to defend anything other than proper
> church governance
> which, unless you or any other commentator is an
> officer in that
> denomination, you can not reflect all of the truth,
> and possibly should not
> if you are.

Tim, those are two of the most common assertions I've read in response to this whole RC Jr scandal:

1. "I'm not trying to defend RC Sproul Jr, but. . ."
2. "Unless you know the whole truth about the entire story you don't get to have an opinion about it or express your opinion."

I respectfully disagree with your logic.

Nevertheless, I'm appreciative that you took the time to contact me, and I'm more than open to continuing this dialogue.

Yours in Christ,

Frank Vance



From: "Tim Dick" tdick@ligonier.org
To: "Frank Vance" advancemyten@yahoo.com
Subject: What is any discussion by unrelated parties accomplishing to restore Dr. Sproul Jr.?
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 23:19:39 -0400

Mr. Vance,

My response was in no way meant to honor you nor to give credibility to your commentary. Whatever you and your family went through has nothing to do with R.C. Sproul Jr., unless of course you are/were members of Saint Peters Church. Worthy discussion obviously has an elusive definition. We all should have better things to do with our time. If this is an important issue, that by itself does not make it a worthy issue to discuss in such an unruly mode as the internet. For all I know you could all be anti-Calvinist preterits taking advantage of this situation to further your cause at R.C. Jr.'s expense. As to your comment about R.C. Sproul Sr., again, you are not stating any opposition based on first hand knowledge and or direct communication with either parties. If in fact you had such access, you would probably arrive at the same place R.C. Sr. did. How this has been dealt with "on-line" is as unwise as anything for handling such a situation.

The speculation that the RPCGA is a respectable denomination is, at best, speculation.

I see that you don't want to be responsible for your postings appearing on "badlands" which you" sweep under the rug" which you try to hide behind in your defense. My own experience does not speculate that the RPCGA is a respectable denomination, nor am I concerned with this. Your assumption of such as with your allegation of "a stolen EIN" is an exaggeration of what actually occurred. Does that mean I don't admit the ARP ID # wasn't used, of course not. Nobody is trying to "just sweep this aside", it just seems that you and others don't really care about the truth.

An example of this is your question about my voting on your article as to should R.C. Jr. be allowed to speak at the National conference or not, justifying your logic that only 7 votes were tallied out of 4000 hits again displays your lack of credibility and logic in such a discussion. Your question of an apology forthcoming is consistent with your lack of knowledge of the truth.

As for your other questions, of course I did not vote, why would I? On the other hand, your logic is weak, if considered logic, as to why you disagree with my position of anonymous postings as well as yours is consistent with those who lack courage.

Finally, I am not surprised that you so casually brush of the comments on anonymity and "posts that you are not aware of" as they are all on one site, and or linkable from one site, which demonstrates a lack of ability to address such an argument with any logic what-so-ever.

Mr. Vance, don't be "honored" by response, because none is intended. Unfortunately you provided no refutation to my response and as such, again expect you to keep this communication private and confidential, I don't need and nor seek, any "cyber world" exposure. In fact, this is my final
response to any "cyber chatter". Good night.

Tim Dick
President

Ligonier Ministries
400 Technology Park
Lake Mary Fl 32746

www.Ligonier.org



From: "Frank Vance" advancemyten@yahoo.com
To: "Tim Dick" tdick@ligonier.org
Subject: Re: What is any discussion by unrelated parties accomplishing to restore Dr. Sproul Jr.?
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 08:00:32 -0700 (PDT)

--- Tim Dick wrote:

> Mr. Vance,
>
> My response was in no way meant to honor you nor to
> give credibility to your commentary.

Dear Mr. Dick,

Thanks again for honoring me with yet another reply. I know you're not wanting to honor me, but you are. It's not everyday that I receive emails from the Presidents of such highly esteemed Christian organizations as Ligonier Ministries. I'm really just too honored.

> Worthy discussion obviously has an elusive
> definition. We all
> should have better things to do with our time.

That's where I'm confused, Mr. Dick. If you've got better things to be doing why do you keep sending me emails? Obviously this is all a lot more important than you're willing to admit.

> If this is an important
> issue, that by itself does not make it a worthy
> issue to discuss in such an
> unruly mode as the internet.

So what would be a more appropriate venue? World Magazine? I'd agree with that! But that's just the problem, Mr. Dick. You've bought their silence. If World weren't so compromised by your advertising boodle your buddy Marvin Olasky would permit at least some little snippet to appear somewhere in World's pages. But Olasky is so compromised by your payola the RC Sproul Jr scandal won't ever see a drop of ink in World. So don't be surprised that the angst of people like me over the Christian media's silence on this issue spills over onto the internet. A smart move on your part would be to stop trying to kill this story as a World Magazine article.

> For all I know you
> could all be anti-Calvinist
> preterits taking advantage of this situation to
> further your cause at R.C.
> Jr.'s expense.

And for all I know you could be a 33rd Degree Mason who makes burnt offerings to Lucifer, and that you're involved in some kind of bad-spelling secret society. But unlike you, Mr. Dick, I'll not digress into such unproductive speculation.

> As to your comment about R.C. Sproul
> Sr.,again, you are not
> stating any opposition based on first hand knowledge
> and or direct
> communication with either parties.

Perhaps so Mr. Dick. Perhaps I don't have the kind of first hand knowledge and direct communication that you have. So the obvious logical conclusion of all that is that I'm not permitted to have an opinion, and I'm not permitted to express that opinion, unless that is my opinion happens to jibe with yours. Then I'm sure I'd be permitted by you to express my no-first-hand knowledge opinion.

Truth be told, Mr. Dick, you're just opposed to free speech, or at least any speech that is contrary to your own. You're attempting to stifle my right to express my opinions on the weak premise that I don't personally know RC Sproul Sr and RC Sproul Jr, and therefore I'm not entitled to have an opinion. If your logic ruled the day then no one would be permitted to express an opinion on much of anything, because most of us don't personally know many of the people that we express opinions about.

Perhaps I don't personally know RC Jr, but the RPCGA certainly knows him, and they knew him well enough to know that he was unfit to be an ordained minister of the gospel. So they did the wise and prudent thing and defrocked him. My opinions come from my read of the public records of that case, and to tell me that I don't have the right to express my opinions because I don't personally know RC Jr is as absurd as to tell me I don't have the right to express my opinions about Hillary Clinton because I don't personally know her.

> If in fact you
> had such access, you
> would probably arrive at the same place R.C. Sr.
> did.

You mean as in RC Sproul Sr's opinion that the charges against his son were "fraudulent"? So what's RC Sr's opinion on the issue now that the CREC hasn't cleared RC Sproul Jr's name? What's his opinion now that the CREC pretty much confirmed what the RPCGA said about Jr? The CREC Commission doesn't agree with Dr. Sproul that the charges were fraudulent. Is Dr. Sproul planning on making some formal public apologies for slandering the good name of the RPCGA?

It's just come to my attention that Dr. Sproul also threatened Whitefield Seminary and demanded that they take his picture off Whitefield's web site, even though he'd previously granted them permission to use his picture. It's real obvious why he would do such a thing, since Whitefield is affiliated with the RPCGA. Such petty behavior is completely unbecoming of an esteemed Reformed theologian. Is Dr. Sproul also planning on tearing up his Whitefield degree and returning it? Just how low will this pettiness go?

> How this has been
> dealt with "on-line" is as unwise as anything for
> handling such a situation.

I couldn't agree more. It's just terrible the way that Dr. Sproul has made a fool of himself on the internet. I feel really bad about it because up until now I really respected him. But I think he'll find that Christians are very forgiving people. I'm certainly a very forgiving man. All Dr. Sproul needs to do is publicly apologize for it and it'll soon be forgotten. But if Dr. Sproul conducts himself in the same manner as his son, I don't think we'll be seeing him make any public apologies. Where did RC Jr learn to be such a proud, arrogant, impenitent man? As they say, "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree." I may not know the Sprouls personally, but it's not unreasonable of me to ask such questions.

> The speculation that the RPCGA is a respectable
> denomination is, at best,
> speculation.

Sounds to me like the old "if you don't like the message kill the messenger" routine.

> I see that you don't want to be responsible for your
> postings appearing on
> "badlands" which you" sweep under the rug" which you
> try to hide behind in
> your defense.

What are you talking about? Please be specific in your allegations. What "postings" are you referring to? Please provide URLs to substantiate your accusations, and please be specific about the allegation because I'm just not getting your drift.

> My own experience does not speculate
> that the RPCGA is a
> respectable denomination, nor am I concerned with
> this.

Why would you bring up topics that you say you're not "concerned with"? Quite obviously you are concerned, concerned enough to take a hit and run shot at the RPCGA, and true to your modus operandi you provide no specific testimony about your "own experience," just a backhanded inference.

> Your assumption of
> such as with your allegation of "a stolen EIN" is an
> exaggeration of what
> actually occurred. Does that mean I don't admit the
> ARP ID # wasn't used,
> of course not. Nobody is trying to "just sweep this
> aside", it just seems
> that you and others don't really care about the
> truth.

I'm very interested in the truth, Mr. Dick, and I've tried to get all sides of the story before making any public comments. But that's also part of the problem -- getting all sides of the story. There's folks out there like you who say, "You're not telling the truth." But they refuse to give any specifics of "what actually occurred," or at least what they think actually occurred. Like all other RC Jr defenders, you speak with an air of authority, as one in the know, as one who has reviewed the evidence. But when you're challenged to put up or shut up, the best you can do is to resort to ad hominem. Just like all the other RC Jr defenders you say things like, "Your assumption of such as with your allegation of _______________ is an exaggeration of what actually occurred." But then you refuse to specify what "actually occurred."

I wouldn't deny that I haven't heard your side of the story, so feel free to correct my understanding of things. I'm quite open to that. But don't expect me to cease expressing my opinions on the matter based on your juvenile logic, "I have first-hand information and you don't, which means I get to have an opinion and you don't. And I'm not going to tell you what I
know either, I'm just going to tell you that you don't get to have an opinion."

> Mr. Vance, don't be "honored" by response, because
> none is intended.

I realize that none is intended. But still I can't help but be honored that you would go to all the trouble of contacting me and expressing yourself, even if your expressions are remarkably juvenile for the "President" of a prominent and well-respected ministry. Quite frankly, Mr. Dick, it's just made no sense to me why the President of Ligonier Ministries would go to all the trouble of contacting little 'ol me. So I did some checking up on you and found out about the nepotism. Now it all makes sense! You're the son-in-law of Dr. Sproul.

By the way in which you've communicated with me it's obvious that you can't be a particularly intelligent or talented man. That's what had me so confused. I couldn't figure out how you managed to land such an important job working with such brilliant people as Dr. Sproul when you're obviously such a dim bulb.

Here's something else I'm really confused about. If it's true that you fired your brother-in-law as Editor of Tabletalk, why are you now so defensive of him? Are you suffering from some pangs of guilt over firing him?

Frank Vance



Mr. Dick, looking back over it I realize now that I didn't give nearly as full an answer to the question in your subject line, "What is any discussion by unrelated parties accomplishing to restore Dr. Sproul Jr.?" as I now wished that I had. So let me remedy that now. I don't want to see Sproul Jr restored. Why do you want to see him restored? Weren't you the one who fired him from Ligonier Ministries? Why are you now pretending like you care about him? RC Jr is unfit to be a minister of the gospel. The RPCGA declared that he was "not qualified" to be a minister. The man needs to go find himself a job that he's capable of doing because obviously he's not capable of being a pastor. Why don't you consider offering him some kind of job? Maybe stocking shelves in the Ligonier warehouse? Receptionist? There's got to be something you could find for him to do. Whatever you do though, don't make him the bookkeeper (I've read that he's got some real creative bookkeeping methods).

When it comes down to it the RPCGA's defrocking of RC Sproul Jr isn't a whole lot different from what you did when you declared RC Jr not qualified to be the Editor of Tabletalk. No one interfered with your decision to fire RC Jr from Ligonier Ministries (in fact a lot of people were really happy to see him go). Why are you meddling in the RPCGA's decision to depose him as a minister? It seems to me that the RPCGA is in a much better position to be able to determine RC Jr's lack of qualifications for the ministry than anyone else, and they're certainly a whole lot more qualified, and a whole lot more objective, than you are Mr. Dick.

Mr. Dick, before you start imposing your big fat, um, nose into the RPCGA's business and demanding that RC Sproul Jr be "restored," let me suggest that you quit being such a hypocrite and first "restore" RC Jr as Editor of Tabletalk.

Thank you Mr. Dick for, as the President of Ligonier Ministries, honoring me with your emails. My skin is still tingling from the whole experience. I hope to hear from you again soon.

Families often have pet names for family members. In the Sproul family RC Jr's pet name is "Precious." When RC Jr worked at Ligonier the employees, being most amused by his pet name, couldn't help but refer to him as "Precious." Of course they did so only behind his back. RC Jr wouldn't appreciate non-family members calling him "Precious" to his face.

Tim Dick has a nickname too. Although no one is absolutely sure where Tim's nickname came from, everyone seems to be in agreement that it didn't come from his mom and dad. Tim's nickname seems to have come from the Ligonier employees, and just like RC Jr it's not a nickname that they would ever speak to his face. Tim Dick's nickname (and I'm not making this up) is "Dickhead." Hmm, I wonder why they call him that?

14 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Vance, you have surely done something that will cost someone at Ligonier their job. Whoever there has told you that the employees refer to Mr. Dick by that profane name will cause there to be an inquisition among the employees until someone is fired and your source(s) will no longer be there for you. That is unfortunate for him or her.

5/28/2006 02:03:00 PM  
Blogger Frank Vance said...

That's an interesting tactic Anonymous, um, Mr. Dick. Is that supposed to be some form of guilt manipulation? Oh my! I'll really be losing sleep over this one!

As far as your "inquisition" goes, what forms of torture do you plan on utilizing to extract the vital information from your Ligonier employees? Making them sit in the comfy chair? Smacking them with the pillows?

Have fun identifying the internal source who passed along that interesting story that the Ligonier employees call you "Dickhead." Fire all the people you want, but you'll never get to my sources. My sources are former Ligonier employees, and unlike your current employees they're not the least bit intimidated of your big fat, um, personality.

Mr. Dick you should really make a point of not being such a dick. If you were a nice man and treated your employees like a Christian man is supposed to treat his employees,it's unlikely that the thought would ever cross their mind, "Tim Dick is a dickhead."

Thanks for now confirming what a dickhead you really are by threatening to fire people, and by trying to play your silly guilt manipulation games with me. Truth be told, Mr. Dick, if it weren't for the fact that you're Dr. Sproul's son-in-law you never would have gotten the President's job in the first place. Truth be told, Mr. Dick, if it weren't for the fact that you're Dr. Sproul's son-in-law you'd be in no position to be threatening anyone else with being fired because you yourself would have been fired a long time ago.

5/30/2006 09:36:00 AM  
Anonymous Sophocles said...

First - Mr. Vance, I admire your courage to speak the truth. Sadly, I too, am an ex Ligonier employee and you have not distorted the truth. Thank you for your strength and for your efforts in exposing the truth. I know for a fact that your sources are reliable. Thank you for everything you are doing. I hope a credible media outlet will investigate these facts and expose Ligonier what what it is - an aristocratic tyrannical oligarchy. Don't let this immoral regime shut you down.

Mr. Dick - I fear the law of God much more than I or your employees fear you. Why did you spend donor money on buying a new Lexus weeks before you fired 10 people in August 2005 and then blame the firings on "financial problems?" Why did you blame your financial problems on Hurrican Katrina in your end of the year appeal letter when in fact, the hurricane came several weeks after the August firings? Why did you once use donor money for an air condition unit specifically for your office when the building already had air conditioning? Was this a wise use of donor money? I ask these questions because I believe someone with good journalistic, writing, and research skills can publish the truth about Ligonier. I am not such a person.

My wife and I were sickened when you and Sr. bickered at the Christmas party. Although I have to admit it was pretty funny that RC said you were not as smart as you thought you were. I remember many moments in gatherings at Ligonier when such childish fighting took place between you and "Bubba."

Why are you defending Jr. when you fired him? Everyone knows you two didn't get along. But why defend him now? What are you trying to protect Ligonier from? Why are you letting John Duncan contact ex-employees and blame them for your current problems?

The truthful nature of ex-LIG employees has to scare you. How will you silence the voice of reason and truth before you are fully exposed? All it would take is one credible media savy individual and your little oligarchical tyranny will deconstruct itself. I'm certain you must be scared.

Mr. Dick: You have no reverence or humility. Reverence is the virtue which leaders need more than anyone, because it is the antidote to hubris. Reverence is absent in the tyrants on display in classical Athenian theatre. Reverence grows from a a sense of human limitations, pride and sin. Reverent leaders remember that they are mortal and live under God's law. Reverent leaders know they are prone to error and listen to advice and respect the wisdom of the past. I'm sorry but you lack true leadership and display nothing but pride.

6/19/2006 03:33:00 PM  
Anonymous joereformed said...

Frank & Sophocles,
I am sure your site has noticed a more than average growth lately. I, a former Ligonier donor, was so pleased to find your blog and its acknowledgement of the truth about Tim Dick and the leadership at Ligonier Ministries. It sickens me to no end how individuals use an organization's recognition and funds to abuse their own desires for power and riches.
 
I happened to notice you haven't posted lately. May this email be used as motivation to continue your quest against the unrighteousness out there inherent in organizations like Ligonier. This kind of abuse of power has gone on too long and must be exposed to the donors and fans out there like myself who give to such organizations. This kind of unrighteousness must not go on in an organization whose chief end is the glory of God.
 
I have been passing your blog on to others I know who donate to the ministry on a regular basis. They, like me, are shocked by some of the information posted here and elsewhere in the 'blogdom' about the drama going on at Ligonier. Thank you for exposing the truth about these matters.

6/26/2006 10:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Vance,
Why did you refrain from posting a comment from the author of the first comment on this blog post (anonymous)? Was it because he disagreed with your tactics of publishing dirty gossip?

I can assure you this comment was not authored by Tim nor a member of his circle, but instead by someone who wishes to see Tim brought to justice for his actions. However, like me, they wish to keep these tactics respectful and truthful without use of ad hominem techniques (publishing the profane nickname of Tim Dick).

Is it Christ-like to publish such gossip? I doubt not. Let's keep this discussion truthful and factual instead of slanderous.

6/28/2006 01:36:00 PM  
Blogger Frank Vance said...

"Why did you refrain from posting a comment from the author of the first comment on this blog post (anonymous)?" Now there's a confusing question. Just what "author of the first comment" are you talking about? We can assume, but we can't know for sure because all you've called him is "author of the first comment." If "Anonymous" would've had the courtesy to post as "Sam" or "Sally" or any name of his or her choosing then this wouldn't be so confusing. The fact is that I've "refrained" from posting several anonymous comments to this thread, and I will continue to refrain from posting most anonymous comments, because it only causes confusion.

"Was it because he disagreed with your tactics of publishing dirty gossip?" Quite candidly "Anonymous" it's just fine with me if you disagree, and if your unnamed "author of the first comment" friend or alter ego disagrees. In fact disagreement can be healthy to the dialogue here, so I welcome it. But what I do care about is credibility, and your repeated "Anonymous" posting attempts lend nothing to your own credibility, that is if you're the same person who keeps trying to post with nothing more than "Anonymous." That's just the problem. I have no way of telling if "Anonymous" is one or three or ten people.

I also care about clarity, which means I don't want to see people like you causing confusion. I don't care if commenters use their real name or an assumed name, but I do care that they at least do one of those. People like you who repeatedly attempt to post as "Anonymous" just cause everyone else confusion, particularly when it appears that more than one person is posting in the same thread as "Anonymous," and I reserve the right to "refrain" from permitting anyone from causing confusion here.

I'm pleased to hear that you want "to see Tim brought to justice for his actions." Tim should have never picked a fight with me in the first place because now I care very much about that too.

"Let's keep this discussion truthful and factual instead of slanderous." That's exactly what I've done. Are you being truthful and factual by alleging that I'm guilty of slander? Before making those kinds of allegations let me suggest you familiarize yourself with the definition of slander. To falsely accuse another of slander could be construed as slanderous in itself, and certainly a violation of the ninth commandment.

Furthermore, I must take exception to your accusation that I have used "profane" language by publicly disclosing Tim Dick's nickname. Again, you seem to have a problem with understanding the proper definitions and use of English words.

However, I do take note of your objection, if I understand it correctly, that your sensitivities are offended to hear Tim Dick's nickname. So with that I'll avoid using it again myself. My point was made so it doesn't need to be brought up again.

Now if you're indeed "someone who wishes to see Tim brought to justice for his actions" let me suggest that you read this article and then consider how you might contribute yourself.

6/29/2006 09:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I will continue to pray for Ligonier Ministries as I have for some time now. I know that if justice will not be carried in this life, it will be carried out in the next to whom God will allow.
Patience is the key.
" Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. To the contrary, if your enemy is hungry, feed him: if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, buy overcome evil with good"(Romans 12:19-21).

7/03/2006 08:48:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now i dont know if you guys know this or not... it looks as if i need to break it down for you guys...Ligonier is a Non Profit organization...And if you know anything at all about business then you would know that Ligonier would be watched by the Govt. and audited alot more than a regular company so it would be a little hard to miss use compnay money but again nice try...And this prob wont be posted because it again shows the truth and makes them look better and i know you guys dont like to post that kind of stuff

7/17/2006 11:49:00 AM  
Blogger Frank Vance said...

Anonymous number whatever you are, are you stupid? Are you illiterate? Or are you just an anarchist?

Just go right ahead and attempt to taunt me and falsely accuse me for not posting your anonymous posts even though I've repeatedly asked you and all the other anonymous posters to not post anonymously.

I've now received over a dozen anonymous posts which I've rejected, not because "this prob wont be posted because it again shows the truth and makes them look better and i know you guys dont like to post that kind of stuff" but because you don't have the common sense to comply with my posting rules. This blog is mine, which means the rules here are mine too. If you don't like my rules I don't really care. Go cause confusion somewhere else.

As to your assumption (and you know what they say about "assuming") that non-profits are more thoroughly scrutinized by the government than for-profits, do you have any statistics to back that up? No, you don't. In fact the stats prove you wrong. For-profits are audited far more often than non-profits, especially if we're talking about religious charitable nonprofits like Ligonier. No wonder you insist on posting anonymously. It makes it less embarrassing when you keep being shown to be an ass-uming ignoramus.

Once again, and just for you oh stupid/illiterate/anarchistic anonymous one, under "Choose an identity" select "Other" and type a name. I don't care what name you use, but do use a name. DO NOT under any circumstances select "Anonymous." Don't waste your time posting again unless you follow this very simple request.

7/18/2006 11:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Cavman said...

How anyone can say that the gov't watches 501(c)3s closely hasn't been around very long. Heard of PTL? Benny Hinn? Any number of parachurch ministries that misused funds were exposed, not by the gov't but by whistle blowers or investigative reporters. So, that the gov't has not done an investigation proves NOTHING.
Purges have been a regular practice at Ligonier (and probably other such parachurch ministries) for some time. Rare is the person who leaves on their own power.

7/18/2006 09:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Illiterate? said...

Well that’s funny, Because I just got done with two different business classes in which both stated that they in fact are watched much more closely for more than one reason,one being miss use of company money and the other because if they are caught making profit they will owe the government big time. (And no i am not a government hater by the way.) It was also stated that they are also audited at the least once every year. So yes I did have information to back that up. One more thing In both classes non profit was not talked about a lot but those few things I listed were heavily talked about.

7/18/2006 11:09:00 PM  
Blogger Frank Vance said...

Like Cavman already pointed out Illiterate, "How anyone can say that the gov't watches 501(c)3s closely hasn't been around very long." Especially if we're talking religious 501(c)(3) organizations like Ligonier. You're showing your ignorance by assuming,

1. That your "business" class even considers religious organizations to be under the category of nonprofit "business." Your first clue should have been the very title of the class "business." Next time take a class on "religious organizations." I don't think that's offered in the typical college but many seminaries offer that.
2. That all nonprofit organizations fall under the same "nonprofit" category and are scrutinized the same by the government (IRS or otherwise).

There are multiple categories of nonprofit organizations. Instead you're attempting to lump them all into the same "high government scrutiny" category. A 501(c)(3) tax exempt tax deductible religious organization like Ligonier is nonprofit, but it also happens to be in a category which would make it one of the least likely for audit.

7/19/2006 02:43:00 PM  
Blogger Frank Vance said...

Illiterate, I want to make it clear that I'm not saying that Ligonier Ministries hasn't been audited, perhaps even regularly. I wouldn't know that. But if Ligonier has been audited it wouldn't be because it's in a high-scrutiny category, because it's not. Rather it would be for things, say like Tim Dick using Ligonier funds to buy himself a new Lexus.

I'd heard recently from an ex-Ligonier Ministries employee that Ligonier has gone through 3 CPA's in a very brief period of time. That in itself is very suspicious.

When a CPA prepares an organization's tax returns he has to sign off on it personally. He's vouching for the integrity of the figures and compliance with the tax laws. If he's knows there are big problems he'd be a fool to sign the returns. The wise move is to just quit. No one client is worth jeopardizing his career over.

Anytime you've got a situation where 3 CPA's have quit in short order there's bound to be some big concerns over financial hankypanky.

7/19/2006 02:48:00 PM  
Blogger vroeg said...

Vance,

A couple posts ago, you made a point to introduce “scriptural” standards for judging Ligonier’s handling of this conflict. You yourself have to be measured by this same ruler. And, to be quite honest, after reviewing your recent posts I think that your “Christian” conflict resolution skills lack tact.

I’m not addressing your core contentions, but the means by which you handle them. Your posts exude more of aggressive truculence than any honest desire to clarify issues, uncover truth, amend wrongs, or reconcile broken relationships. You complain of Ligonier bringing you to court, etc. but I don’t see how your belligerent blogging methods are any more honest, honorable or tactful.

In a nutshell, I believe that you hold Tim Dick and Ligonier to standards that you yourself fail to keep. This whole mess is unfortunate and ugly to the world. Don’t make matters worse by continuing to self-righteously garb your “conflict-resolution skills” with Christian terms.

9/18/2006 06:34:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home