Building on an old post from Nov 07 - More on icons, part 2

---------------Chat we had later begins-----------

Correspondent: I have sent several e-mails/letters/messages (similar to the one I sent you about idolatry) to ministries and people earlier this week and I'm waiting to hear from them. Perhaps I'll try to follow up in a week or two...

 me: yeah? to what kind of people are you sending them?

  and i'm curious, what are you looking for from them? Helpful info? or more like a statement on where they stand on the questions?

 Correspondent: I'm interested in their understanding of the passages

11:45 AM me: ok cool

 Correspondent: I sent one message to AiG, Albert Mohler, Let US Reason, a local church,

11:46 AM And I sent one to Carrie, the other blogger at Beggars All

 me: there's a good chance that she'll answer you

...

11:52 AM Correspondent: I was suprised that Mohler had "Christ" images on his website -- after listening to one of his sermons/messages on the 2nd Commandment and reading one of his articles on the matter.

 me: eh, i'm not. it's not a big deal

11:54 AM i don't see why not have images of the incarnate Christ AS LONG AS they're not being worshiped/venerated/prayed to

11:56 AM Correspondent: Well -- images of "Christ" are making God (Christ) in our image; Christ would have left us his visual image. Every portrait that attempts to represent Him is a lie.

 me: well, Christ looked like SOMEthing, right?

 Correspondent: Yes

11:57 AM me: He could be seen with the naked eye

  He had/has a physical body

  has one even now

11:58 AM so i'm not sure what would be wrong with representing Him as long as inappropriate religious activity isn't done towards the IMAGE

 Correspondent: Well He did say that if you have seen me (Christ) you have seen the Father

11:59 AM me: true

12:00 PM now obviously representing the Father in an image would be wrong

  b/c He can't be seen

  but Christ could be seen w/ the naked eye

  He's the representation of the Father

  don't know why not represent Christ then

12:01 PM Correspondent: John 5:23 "That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth no tthe Father which hath sent him."

 me: yes

12:02 PM haha, I like to quote that verse to Jehovah's Witnesses

 Correspondent: Maybe that is the correct use of the verse -- but Christ is God, so people can't represent his Deity -- they are attempting to represent Him without his Deity

12:03 PM I'll have to study that verse more

 me: hmm, how is that?

  how are they representing Him w/o His deity?

  i mean, if it's a rep of Christ and it's obvious, that IS a rep of His deity

  since He was God

  and that's what he kind of looked like

 Correspondent: Because they are representing a person (not Christ)

12:04 PM they simply give the name of Christ to that image

 me: Christ is a person

12:05 PM well, I mean I see what you mean about just giving the name Christ to the image, but the image is OF Christ

 Correspondent: Yes, but he is also the Creator -- not the creation

 me: no one thinks the image IS Christ

  but the Creator clothed Himself in flesh

  flesh that could be seen

  flesh that could be represented

12:06 PMlet me ask you this - if an apostle, one of the 12, had drawn a picture of Christ at the beginning of HIs ministry, and then it was destroyed, say burned, 1 month later, before Christ's death, is that bad?

  objectionable?

12:07 PM Correspondent: Is it bad or objectionable that the picture was destroyed? No. Is it bad or objectionable that the picture was made? Yes.

 me: why is it bad if it was made?

12:08 PM Christ was right there in front of the artist

12:09 PM Correspondent: It was still an image of God made by man's device -- that's why it is wrong

 me: it would be an image of CHRIST

  in His incarnation

  Who appeared before the naked eye

12:10 PM Correspondent: "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

12:11 PM (John 20:29)

  I'm thankful that I have not seen, yet believed

12:12 PM me: how would a representation of Christ help someone believe and put faith in Christ, to be saved?

  i don't see that

  (no pun intended har har)

12:14 PM Correspondent: (nice no pun) Also, The Incarnation did not occur until God had prepared a people who would not make images of Him (e.g.) Dt. 4:15-16

12:15 PM me: hmm, well i guess that's possible

  not aware of any OT images of YHWH though

  mostly just idols

  of other gods

  calves, asherim, etc

12:16 PM you're right that the Jews of Christ's time had learned not to engage in idolatry anymore

  that's for sure

 Correspondent: Some images were made of cherubims

  and a snake

  but they did not attempt to represent God

 me: yeagh

  right, and those were ordered by God

  but the snake represents Christ!

12:17 PM Christ HImself says so, that He'll be lifted up as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness

  (John 6)

12:24 PM Correspondent: 1.) God told the people to make the image of the serpent; it wasn't something they dreamed up. 2.) We know that Jesus was lifted up as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness. So, it is saying that Jesus is simply going to be lifted up AS MOSES LIFTED UP the serpent...

12:25 PM Then in later centuries when the people started reverencing the image, Hezekiah destroyed it saying "It is a thing of brass."

 me: but the snake was LIFTED UP, anyone who looked at the snake (as we must look on CHrist with faith) was saved from the snakebite

  it's obviously a foreshadowing of Christ

  now it's of course not the same as a picture of Christ

12:26 PM but it's a re-presentation of the Redeemer, lifted up

  let me ask you another question

  the word "Christ" is 6 images

  that represent God

  C h r i s t

  taht is a representation of God

12:27 PM why is naming His name not wrong?'

12:28 PM Correspondent: "4He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan." (2 Kings 18:4)

 me: no argument there

 Correspondent: So, even if today an artist made a snake image on a cross, and intended it to represent Christ's death for us, it should be destroyed the instant that someone reverenced it thinking he was reverencing Christ.

 me: i agree 100%

12:29 PM but i've specifically said several times that IF nobody does inappropriate action to the image of Christ, I don't see the problem of making and having the image itself

 Correspondent: and the WORD "Christ" is a word

 me: Of course I'd call out venerating an image of ANYTHING as sinful

  that's not God Himseflf

  ok, fair enough

  yeah, that whole "word" thing is not a strong argument

12:30 PM never mind :-D

12:31 PM Correspondent: there has been a muddy definition between words, language, and images -- like with hieroglyphics

  And no problem about the whole word thing

 me: hmm

  that brings up an other question

 Correspondent: The third commandment goes on to say do not take the name of the Lord in vain

 me: Japanese/Chinese has a word/image/kanji that means "Christ"

  can we use it?

12:32 PM Correspondent: I don't know the Japanese language well enough to say; It would make sense to use the word if it means "Christ" though

 me: it's an image

  it's not a combination of letters

  like in English

5 minutes

12:37 PM Correspondent: Again, I don't know the Japanese language -- and how it is constructed. If it is a word I see no problem with it -- just as "Christ" is an "image" -- yet it is a word.

12:38 PM clarification

 me: well it's an image AND a word

  words are images in Chinese

  and most words are images in Japanese

 Correspondent: "Christ" - the word C-h-r-i-s-t

  each individual letter

12:40 PM It doesn't sound, or read, like it attempts to represent Christ as a corruptible man, a four footed beast, or a creeping thing

 me: hmm, who said Christ was a "corruptible" man?

12:41 PM He was recognisable in His body after the resurrection

  but He's not corruptible

  so what if we create an image of that as long as we don't do anything bad to it?

12:42 PM Correspondent: Christ isn't a corruptible man -- He is the uncorruptible God

  "And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." Romans 1:23

 me: Um, He's both man AND God

 Correspondent: Yes

 me: don't you agree with that?

  ok

  and I just said Christ was NOT a corruptible man

  i agree

  but He IS a man

12:43 PM but incorruptible after His resurrection, in His glorified body

  so I don't see how that applies

  the point of Romans 1 is that these people were worshiping things that aren't God

  but Christ is God

  the point is not the image

 Correspondent: Well, we have a lot of agreement there :-)

  A LOT

 me: haha yeah

  definitely

  this is a tiny thing to disagree about, thta's for sure!

12:48 PM Correspondent: Well, I think it is significant in that if such images are idolatrous, which I believe they are, they shouldn't be made and we shouldn't think of God as a corruptible man, a four-fourfooted beast, or a creeping thing -- graven by art or man's device.

  Thanks for the chat this morning, Alan

12:49 PM It got me thinking about some passages in the Bible that I should study more.

---------------His response begins------------------

Building on an old post from Nov 07 - More on icons

Originally posted here, but relevant to the discussions going on at Triablogue, at TurretinFan's blog, at Defending...Contending, and here with respect to visual depictions of Jesus.

I will post the original and then the further conversations that the email correspondent, who is apparently a friend of TurretinFan, and I had.
His name will not be shared, b/c and only b/c I reserve the right to post names of email correspondents along with their email to me if I choose to do so, but in this case see no reason to.  Of course he may reveal himself as the correspondent if he likes.

-----------------Original post begins-----

I was recently asked by email: I was wondering what you believe concerning "art" that attempts to represent "Christ" and God. Is such art idolatrous?

It depends. Either way, I think the question of icons and art must be parsed carefully.
1) On the one hand we ask whether it's permissible to have icons, even icons in the church but placed outside the sanctuary/room of worship, that do NOT represent Christ or God. Say they represent saints who have gone before. John Chrysostom, Charles Spurgeon, John Calvin, Athanasius, etc. Just by themselves, what would be the problem? I can't see one.

2) What if they're IN the room of worship? Again, I personally don't see a problem. Of course, at some point Roman 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 ('the weaker brother') come into play, but I'm assuming there are none such present.

3) The problem comes when religious practices of devotion and piety are conducted towards said icons. I don't care what our Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends say about not praying TO the icons. When someone lights a candle in front of an icon, kneels before the icon, prostrates himself before the icon, prays to(wards) the icon, how is it not worshipful devotion?

4) The problem is greatly worsened when the wrongheaded and foolish idea of praying to someone other than God is introduced, virtually always in conjunction with the presence of an icon or statue. This is adding a mediator (in RC theology) between man and Jesus and therefore between God and man in violation of 1 Timothy 2:5. And this is where idolatry really comes into play, for religious practices of devotion and piety are given to persons who are not God. God alone deserves such practices; no person does.

5) And remember, these people are DEAD. There are multiple biblical injunctions against calling up the dead, such as Isaiah 8:19-20, Deut 18:10-12, etc. I don't see a problem thinking that the dead can and maybe do pray for us, but it does not follow that we can or should contact them and ask for that. We're not supposed to talk to the dead. Talk to God.

6) Now, the question of having an icon of Christ...you know, I don't see why not (at least right now, but I'm open to convincing the other way), to be honest. He was incarnate in flesh, after all, so He was tangible, visible, etc. What might be wrong with depicting Him in His incarnation?

7) Whether we should have an icon of the Father, I'd have to say no way. Unfortunately, some EOdox and RC icons do represent the Father, which is a huge mistake.

Now, as regards the history of iconoclasts/iconodules, I don't know a ton. I do know that asking an EO about the iconoclastic Council of Hieria of 754 is always a good starting point - why is it not an Ecumenical Council while the iconodule 2nd Council of Constantinople is? The only answer I have seen is "The Church says the former isn't and the latter is", which is highly instructive in and of itself.
An interesting interaction on the topic recently took place here. See this post (where the question is asked), the one right above where it's answered, and this post, where it's gone over again.

Finally, I'll forestall a couple of possible objections.
3) It's not latria, it's dulia.

Here are some instructive articles on the topic.

The long and short of my response:
-In the OT LXX, the phrase "worship and serve" occurs many times, and is translated from "douleo" and "latreuo" (or sthg like that). They are very often in conjunction with each other.
-Sometimes they are even juxtaposed within the same thought, demonstrating that they are similar ideas.
-Thus it is unbiblical to create an artificial distinction between them, even less to ignore biblical revelation for the sake of human traditions (Mark 7:1-13).
-Scenario: an Israelite has been calling up a dead believing ancestor and has been caught and brought before Moses for judgment.
His defense: I was dulia-ing my ancestor, not latria-ing him.
Is it your position that he would be exonerated? Should he be?

4) Are you saying you never ask anyone to pray for you? Wouldn't that be mediation?

-I fail to see how they're the same. In RC doctrine, these mediators dispense grace and merit. My friends don't; they just pray for me.
-They're also seen in many circles as preferable to ask for spiritual help rather than Jesus. Amazing.

5) "God is the god of the living, not the dead". There is but a thin veil between the living and the dead. You ask your living brethren in Christ to intercede for you; why not your dead ones?

-When I ask someone to pray for me who's alive, I ask him.
-When you ask a dead person to pray for you, you light candles, kneel and prostrate yourself before an icon, kiss the icon, burn incense, and pray at the icon. These are worshipful actions.
-Hopefully, you never pray silently and expect them to hear you, lest you think they are endowed upon death with the powers of telepathy.
-I challenge you: next time you want your church family to pray for you, make an icon of them, put it in the church, then do all the things you normally do when you ask St. Athanasius, for example, to intercede for you. But don't TELL them face to face; since your challenge is that it's the same, let it be the same.
-Scenario: an Israelite has been calling up a dead believing ancestor and has been caught and brought before Moses for judgment.
His defense: God is the god of the living, not the dead.
Is it your position that he would be exonerated? Should he be?


7) But the Father was revealed in Christ.

-But I already said that I don't know of a problem (yet) with an icon of Christ, so have an icon of Christ.
-The Father dwells in unapproachable light (1 Timothy 6); there is no way to depict such.

--------------His response begins-------------

Defending...Contending overreacts again

They're still among my favorites, but their touchiness does sometimes get on my nerves a bit.

Now Coram Deo, a writer I enjoy reading and whom I appreciate, has turned his sights on a caricature cartoon depicting Jesus and one of His apostles. He becomes very critical of Triablogue and Dan Phillips among others, and these are not worthy targets of critical attention.  That's the problem.
Here's the first comment I left:

CoramDeo,
Yes, you are being unreasonable.
You pictured Christ in this blogpost and The Pilgrim did so here.
So, seriously, unless you think it’s a fair expectation that people are going to be worshiping this Twitter cartoon…lighten up on the “2nd commandment” nonsense.
Grace and peace,
Rhology

In response:

The Pilgrim says:

July 26, 2010 at 3:24 pm

Actually, Rhology, to be entirely fair, none of those pictures in my previous post were depicting the Lord Jesus Christ. The context of that post was false christs that people have created. In every instance the image was of a false christ. So if displaying an image of someone’s idol is wrong, then I am guilty as charged. The one and only instance in which the true Jesus was cited in that post, a picture of a page of Scripture was presented. Additionally, I checked out the other link you provided to Coram’s blogpost and it appears that he did the same thing.
Sincerely,
- Pilgrim

And:

Coram Deo says:

July 26, 2010 at 3:41 pm

Thanks Pilgrim.
You don’t need to apologize, Rho; I forgive you. I couldn’t help noticing, however, that apart from a weak effort at deflecting the charge of breaching of the 2nd commandment, you failed to respond to any of the other scriptural proofs I cited, and you didn’t give any Biblical exegesis in support of the caricature.
In Christ,
CD

So in response this morning, I said:

Brothers,

Come on now. 
ALL of the pics in those posts depicted Christ, but by use of a caricature!  That's exactly the point of this Twitter cartoon thing!  You yourself use the word "caricature" of it, and that's precisely what the "hippy Jesus" and "neocon hawk Jesus" and all those other ones are supposed to communicate. 
I am not faulting you for those, not at all, so don't get me wrong.  I'm faulting you for your inconsistency.  I thought those caricatures were dead-on and actually a lot funnier than the Twitter cartoon.  The Twitter cartoon thing didn't do a lot for me, just b/c it wasn't all that funny.  The reason it was cited was b/c it made use of obvious caricature to poke fun at modern evanjellyfish practices.  You did the exact same thing with your "hippy Jesus" picture.  And each is a great point and a good illustration of modern practices to be opposed by the biblical Christian.

You're making a mountain out of, not a molehill, an imaginary molehill.  If you really believed that the 2nd Cmdmt says that no images of Christ are permitted in any way, and then you go after someone for enjoying a caricatured image of Christ, you wouldn't post caricatured images of Christ.

Rather, you should withdraw this nitpicking and recognise that the 2nd Cmdmt applies when people are, for example, worshiping images of Christ.  And then stop making unnecessary trouble among faithful followers of Jesus.  Sheesh, even ripping Driscoll some more (of which you do too much) would be preferable to this.

Grace and peace,
Rhology

One of my favorite watchblogs overreacts - part 2

Continued from last time, dealing with this post and combox.

A commenter at Defending.Contending specifically challenged me on some statements I made, then one of the blog authors, Pilgrim, left a long comment detailing various generalised defenses of his position and arguments against Driscoll supporters.  I got the feeling he was talking to me, though I could be wrong.  If he was, he is wrong to do so, as I've never advocated letting MD off the hook for his actions and sins.
I'd like to note that Vox Veritatis attempted to leave a comment in their combox, and it never appeared there, so I have reason to believe my own latest comment will not make it past their moderation either.  So I reproduce it here:

DavidW, (not the same DavidW as the EO blogger with whom I've had many recent discussions)

If the Gospel is objective, then why are you going down that road? You go on to take that back in your long paragraph! MD preaches the Gospel. He also disqualifies himself from being a biblical pastor/elder and even from being a very good witness for Christ thru his OTHER behavior. BOTH ARE TRUE. If the Gospel is objective, then be consistent with that. As it stands, it's not I who am overbiased and beating a golden calf; it's y'all.
How many times do I have to say that MD's behavior is extremely serious and that he's disqualified himself from being a biblical pastor? Would it help if I said it yet again?

You are, however, totally wrong to say that MD preaches another Jesus.
Worldly? Where?
Fleshly? Um, you do realise that Jesus was a man, right?
A brawler? MD was unwisely referring to his shtick of the 'manly Jesus'. Wrongly, probably, but Jesus WAS manly! He was a man! He took a whip to a bunch of moneychangers in the Temple and threw down their tables, twice!
A sexual deviant? Now you're just being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn. Maybe you're too old to understand that kind of humor, maybe you're just unwilling, but that was a JOKE, for the sake of comedic effect. That does not excuse the disgusting, unholy, and perverse nature of the joke, but seriously, if you thought your case is that strong, there'd be no need to engage in this kind of ridiculous caricaturing. If you're going to bust MD's chops, stick to what he's done, not to what you imagine he's done.


And that changes his “gospel” from the one true Gospel to a perverse or “another gospel”.

And I'm saying that is incorrect. Can you really not distinguish telling dirty jokes from intentionally redefining an essential element of the Gospel? You cite Galatians 1 as if it's a coverall; were the Judaisers making immature, dirty jokes? Is that why Paul got after them? Or was it b/c they intentionally added works to the Gospel?


Thus this is not a case where someone may have personal faults and sins, yet preaches the true Gospel

Sorry, I have to disagree. I have made it clear that this is exactly what we're dealing with. I wish that Pilgrim would be a bit more specific and circumspect when he speaks about "MD supporters" (read: shills).


Pilgrim,

I'm sure the MD shills are out there, but I'm not one of them. I have made specific arguments, been very clear what I think about MD, and been very explicit that this is not about MD at all; it's about what standards you use to separate fellowship with other believers.

I am sorry that you didn't find it necessary to address:
1) my point about guilt by association
2) Phil Johnson's blogpost on that very thing, which I've reminded you of now three times
3) my asking you NOT to ignore MD's good stuff
4) my question which doses of error from Driscoll are “deadly”
5) whether other men of God named/endorsed on either CARM or Monergism has ever done anything you believe to be an unbiblical teaching or practice? None? Not VanTil’s fairly well-known saying that God is both Trinitarian and Unitarian? Postmillennial brethren? Continuationist brethren?
6) why you'd use time on Driscoll that you could be using on someone who DOESN’T preach the Gospel AND IS ALSO widely accepted in the church of Jesus
7) Will you stop endorsing everyone who endorses someone who endorses someone who you think doesn't preach the Gospel? (Since I specifically told you that I was wrong when I said "don't dislike Driscoll", remember? Or are you going to hold my mistake over me the same you're holding CARM's and Monergism's over them?)

Why avoid these major points of mine unless you felt they damaged your position?

I'd add to that list the question: why jettison fellowship with someone or endorsement of someone's ministry just b/c we differ on whether one should take/leave the whole man rather than, here's an idea, use our discernment if/when we listen to him?


You said:
Yet you wink and nod at Drsicoll, giving him a pass for doing likewise because he comes cloaked as a Calvinist and speaks “sound words” most of the time.

See, that's where I'd like you to be specific. I've never winked and nodded at him. And he DOES speak sound words most of the time! Maybe you could present evidence that shows that at least 50% of his words in any group of, say, 5 or 10 sermons are unsound, and then we can talk (though I'd grant you his Song of Solomon series, but I have reason to believe that the low quality of that exposition was atypical of MD). But you haven't proved he doesn't preach the Gospel. So you disendorse sites that endorse a very imperfect guy who preaches the Gospel. Got it. You've gone too far.

Grace and peace,
Rhology

One of my favorite watchblogs overreacts

Defending.Contending. is usually a good read, and they often have useful and discerning stuff about the zillions of shades of heresy and heterodoxy that are always popping up in the church of Jesus.
However, recently they announced that they are no longer going to endorse two massively helpful websites - CARM and Monergism - because they endorse Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle.  Happily, the author of D.C. will be contacting each ministry to let them know of his concerns and his removal of his endorsement for what it's worth, and no doubt asking them to reconsider their endorsement of Driscoll.  I would hope Monergism and CARM (read: Matt Slick) would go ahead and heavily qualify any endorsement of Driscoll that might remain, because that's the right thing to do.  But to go so far as this?  Here in order is the 1st comment I left, the response, and my reply.

Brothers, I’m a bit concerned.
I love your site and always have ever since I heard of it and read it.
In this case, I wonder if you’re not going a bit far when you decide to stop endorsing such sources as CARM and especially Monergism just b/c they don’t dislike Driscoll. Not everyone can spend all the time you guys do on discernment type stuff. I’ve listened to Matt Slick interview Driscoll on his show, and comment on Driscoll a few other times on his radio show, and IIRC his approval of Mars Hill is based on ONE visit to Mars Hill in which Driscoll preached a good sermon on the Penal Substitutionary Atonement. He frequently reminds his listeners (I listen sometimes to his show) that he’s just one guy and doesn’t have a really extensive team, or at least not nearly as extensive as he’d like or need, to do all the research he wants. He pulls no punches on Pagitt and Tony Jones, calls them out by name, calls out McLaren, calls out The Shack both directly to the author and indirectly to his audience. He drops the heretic-bomb on each of them. He’s far from perfect, he’s not omniscient, but he’s not afraid, he’s not compromising.
My educated guess is that Slick just hasn’t had the time to research EVERYthing that Driscoll has said, and Driscoll has said alot of good things as well as bad things.

Could I ask your reaction to those comments and also to these comments?

Grace and peace,
Rhology

Dear Rhology:

It’s not a matter of ceasing my endorsement of these sites “just b/c they don’t dislike Driscoll.”
That is a very shallow commentary on our stand, suggesting this is like a high school dispute when in reality it’s a matter of eternal death or life.

Both CARM and Monergism don’t merely tolerate or have no opinion of Mark Driscoll, they both openly ENDORSE the blasphemer. And because of this we cannot and will not endorse them.

I know we will not ‘make friends’ when we draw lines in the sand like this (and we’ll even lose friends), but we must draw lines in spite of the myriad of voices saying we’ve “gone too far,” we’ve “cried wolf one too many times,” or any other attempts to persuade us to “all hold hands and forget our differences.”

I will continue to refuse to endorse anyone endorses those who mock our Lord. And I have not demonized CARM or Monergism, as they may not be aware of the issues with Driscoll, as you suggest. But what happens when they are made aware and yet refuse to stop endorsing him? Then what? Does that change anything?

I have contacted both sites to make them aware of the issues with Driscoll, but please understand, neither you nor the many others who wish to have us deviate from our commitment to separate from the profane will cause us to budge. Regardless of how many comments we get urging us to not be so radical, we understand that this path we’re on is a very lonely one paved with much ridicule, but with God’s grace we are willing to go it alone if we have to.

Sincerely,
- The Pilgrim

Sorry Pilgrim, I did not mean to communicate that I thought your stand was shallow. Please excuse me.
You said:
it’s a matter of eternal death or life

Is it, really? Do you really consider that Driscoll does not preach the Gospel?
Yes, I fully recognise that he tells dirty jokes, at very unwise times. Yes, his mouth is quite dirty and I am not at all sure he should be in ministry w/o cleaning all that up, and I am VERY sure that he should not be put up on the pedestal that he is. But you really think this is a matter of Gospel vs non-Gospel?

But what happens when they are made aware and yet refuse to stop endorsing him?

Yes, that certainly changes things, but I just wonder whether that would simply represent an acknowledgement on their part that Driscoll preaches the Gospel. Yes, he has tons of bad baggage. Yes, you can hardly ever mention the man without a “…BUT”. But…Gospel, you know?

separate from the profane

Are you not separated from the profane already? You actively call out Driscoll for his many sins, and that’s great, and needed. But did you read Phil Johnson’s piece that I linked to in my last comment, about guilt by association? Why use time on Driscoll that you could be using on someone who DOESN’T preach the Gospel AND IS ALSO widely accepted in the church of Jesus? I know you do that, and you do it a lot, and that’s awesome. But surely you have plenty of stuff to say on plenty more people who fall into that category. Why not spend more time on them rather than on criticising faithful brothers who think that Driscoll preaches the Gospel, because Driscoll preaches the Gospel?

Again, with great respect.

Grace and peace,
Rhology