The PCA GA has come and gone and, as has seemingly been the case since they began live-streaming their assemblies, there has been clips flying around on the internet post-assembly. One wonders if live-streaming church courts is beneficial to the hearers. Do children sit in on dad & mom's disagreements? Can you imagine live-streaming session meetings for the church? I digress... The most recent furor surrounds a speech given by Rev. Timothy Brindle and Rev. Kevin DeYoung moderating Brindle's speech:  Doug Wilson [responded](https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/books/reformation-and-survival.html) to De Young's moderation of Brindle's speech: > *Whatever Pastor Brindle was going to say after that word denial, I am sure that it was going to be on point, and pretty spicy. To outlaw such on parliamentary grounds is to elevate the dignity of process over the pungency of truth, and is a mark of how easily cowardice can drive hypocrisy. Paul says that Peter withdrew himself from the Gentiles because he was fearing those who were of the circumcision (Gal. 2:12). Fear was the motive, but hypocrisy the result (Gal. 2:13). It is the same thing here.* Wilson, after implyng DeYoung acted cowardly and hypocritically, ratchets up the accusation (!!!): >Given his disposition, Kevin De Young made a serious mistake in accepting the role of moderator. No longer will he have the luxury of speaking only for himself, and only in his own voice. That is how he was able to put daylight between himself and the nonsense that was going on at the Gospel Coalition, for example. He was able to speak only for himself, and he, when by himself, is fully orthodox. But he is now the umpire, and that means he has to call balls and strikes. He has to call balls and strikes between contending parties . . . and this first nakedly bad call has revealed the presence of that progressive invisible umpire standing right behind him, and looking over his shoulder. If all this seems a bit cryptic, check out Rigney on the progressive gaze. The problem for Wilson's argument is that he has misunderstood both parlimentary proceedure *and* Rev. DeYoung's ruling. In parlimentary proceedure, part of decorum in debate is that "the proposal, not the member, is the subject of debate" (RONR In Brief, 31). While Brindle did indeed address Rev. Ince by his officer title, he then proceeded to level an accusation of sin against Ince, something which is a violation of parlimentary proceedure. If indeed Brindle believes Ince has violated scripture in showing partiality (James 2:1-9), as he noted in his speech when he stated "This is a denial of the sanctifying grace...", there is another proceedure for dealing with this kind of issue. The moment an infraction (admininstrative) or sin (judicial) is personalized "I, we, you, he, she...", we have ventured *into* disciplinable area and have moved *out* of merits of a motion. It was thus noted and then ruled out of order. And this is what is more significant: Wilson has failed to understand DeYoung's quite simple and clear ruling: Brindle's speech became "personally attacking." Speaking directly to an *issue* and not the *persons* involved in the issue is one of the more difficult aspects of parlimentary proceedure. I myself have violated this and received rulings of being out of order. Rev. Brindle's concern may very well be germane to motion on the floor. The issue for Brindle is not whether it was germane, but the manner in which he addressed it. Rev. Brindle's tone was measured and earnest. But it was not the *tone* that was moderated but the *substance* of Brindle's speech. (Mind you, Rev. Ince was sitting at the front of GA, visible on the clip above). All this comes back to Wilson accusing the "tone police" of, well, needing to check their *tone*. Irony of ironies. The irony in all of this is that Doug Wilson (along with many others) have turned this into an issue of *tone* when, as Rev. DeYoung stated in his ruling, this was a matter *substance* (i.e., personalized accusation), not *tone*. That Doug Wilson has failed to see this is ironic because Doug Wilson, of all people, should be able to endure when people are critiqued for their actions. By turning what is a matter of *substance* into a matter of *tone*, Wilson has himself committed the very error that he so frequently laments in his interlocuters. Why has Wilson failed to see this? Is it because Brindle addressed an issue for which Wilson is sympathetic? Wilson's lengthy defense of the issue seems so. And has this caused Wilson then to feel empathy for someone who speaks to an issue for which he is sympathetic? Wilson accusses DeYoung of "very much operating under the authority of what Joe Rigney calls 'the progressive gaze'." It's not hard to wonder if Wilson himself is the one here who is guilty of what Joe Rigney calls *[The Sin of Empathy]()*...