Frank Turk and John Piper

This most recent phase of the issue I'll discuss here started when Frank Turk, aka centuri0n, wrote an open letter to John Piper last week.
Apparently his plan is to write one per week this year, and that's fine by me.  I have enjoyed them all so far, but the letter to Piper left me scratching my head a bit.  Apparently I am not alone.

Criticising Piper is still dangerous ground in many circles these days, but it is becoming more acceptable, and I think that is a good thing.  He is good in many areas but there are also areas in which we must turn away from him.


I don't necessarily have a big problem with Mike Ratliff's post, tbh.  If you ask me, Turk is in the wrong by giving Piper a pass.  Warren is a bad, bad influence and we would all do well to give him the theological left foot of fellowship.  Yes, we're not part of his church, but that doesn't mean we don't cut him out of ours!
Piper himself, as others have pointed out, has been devolving into the bizarre and even occasionally dangerous.  Bizarre - inviting Warren to speak and looking past Driscoll's behavior (I'd say the Warren thing is worse).
Muddled - he apparently can't figure out whether he's a full Calvinist or not.  I do not agree with everything in that video (in particular that the Arminian view of the extent of the atonement is heretical) but I post it for the sake of Piper's statements, particularly those beginning at 7m 16s.
And it's not so much the out of context "you must be born again into a Christian Hedonist" stuff - it sounds terrible, but I know what Piper means b/c I read the book "Desiring God".  Didn't like the book much, but I read it.

The dangerous - Piper wrote "The Future of Justification", and it was a good rebuttal to the New Perspective on Paul.  Then he writes "Future Grace" and seemingly takes it all back while muddying up the waters mightily.  Now that's dangerous.  http://trinityfoundation.org/PDF/197a-PiedPiper.pdf

Thing is, many of the commenters on Mike Ratliff's post should be ashamed of themselves for their behavior and quick triggers.  Turk has his part in bringing this upon himself, however, in his inexplicably gentle treatment of Piper and Warren.  If Turk had been in the mood to write an open letter praising someone, I can think of better addressees.  Also, since it was an open letter, it would have been acceptable ISTM to throw in a few caveats about Piper, since Turk has said multiple times that he doesn't necessarily expect the addressees to read the letter.  Further, there's nothing wrong with a mixed-bag letter.

For more on this issue, see my and Matt's from Vox Veritatis recent interactions with Defending.Contending. on the topic of separating from those who like Mark Driscoll.  Let's just simmer down a bit, people.

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