11 November 2006

¿Dónde están los acoplamientos?

by Phil Johnson

reetings from Morelia, Mexico. During a lull in the conference, I've decided to see how many BlogSpotting links I can accumulate. It won't be many, I fear. I hope no one feels left out if I miss you.

Incidentally, the "lulls" in this conference have been few. I miscounted earlier in the week when I said I was coming to do eight hours of teaching. Turns out it's eleven hours. Fortunately, I grabbed some extra notes on my way out the door, and with the time needed to translate everything, I've had more than enough material. In fact, I hope I can get through the absolutely essential stuff in the time remaining. It's a marriage conference with couples, and the theme is "Guarding Your Marriage By Guarding Your Heart." I have only two more sessions to teach tonight, plus a Q&A. So far it has been a lot of fun.

At the moment, it's siesta time between sessions, and I'm actually blogging from the roof of a hotel here in Morelia. It's cloudy and mildly breezy, with a perfect temperature for outdoor blogging. I was thinking of devising a graphic for this post featuring a Mexican Hairless dog, or a piñata, or something typically Mexican, but I gave that up because I don't want to take the time.

So let's get to it:

BlogSpotting

  • Ryan Moran makes the most pathetic attempt ever for a BlogSpotting link. Kudos, Ryan. We prolly would have linked you even if you hadn't drooled all over yourself, but the Dan Marino story was priceless, so I'm glad you were moved to share it.
  • See: All Bob Hayton had to do to get BlogSpotted was add to his post on global warming a single "HT:" with a link back here.
  • Rick Ianniello likewise mentioned the global warming thing, along with the other funny links I posted just before escaping to Mexico.
  • Hey. While I'm gone, go over to "Dluxe's World," where Brian Dellinger is looking for feedback on an issue raised by Tim Keller at this year's "Desiring God" conference: What is the right approach to presenting the gospel in a postmodern culture? It's an important question. Add your thoughts to the discussion.
  • Roger Olson left a comment at Kim Riddlebarger's blog, in response to Riddlebarger's post titled "Dissed by Roger Olson," which was prompted by Gary Johnson's review of Olson here at PyroManiacs.
  • Rebekah at "Rebekah's Front Porch" has some helpful insights prompted by Dan's Friday post.
  • Scott Ragan can't figure out why anyone would think Ted Haggard's sin is "somehow bigger and/or badder and/or more important" than anyone else's. He also implies that I said Haggard's sin "is proof of the 'evil fruits' of everything that isn't easily identifiable as 'Reformed.'" Evidently he got his impression of what I believe from the Boar's Head Tavern or some similar dive, rather than from reading what I actually write. Nowhere (much less in the context of my remarks about Haggard's moral meltdown) have I ever spoken negatively "of everything that isn't easily identifiable as 'Reformed.'" Nor can anything I said be legitimately construed that way. Once more: I'm thoroughly Baptistic, not (technically) "Reformed." "Truly Reformed" is a label that was first applied to me by a certain virtual bartender and then aped endlessly and mindlessly by his patrons. At no time have I ever suggested that "Truly Reformed" is a suitable description of the spiritual standard to which we should all strive.
  • But Jason Woolever, who is much less TR than I am, evidently found something to agree with in my remarks about the deplorable state of the contemporary evangelical movement.
  • Chris at "Fishing the Abyss" draws together a whole lotta links where people have addressed the problem of "contextualization," and he offers his thoughts on the topic.

    Ted Haggard is already old news, it seems. But I couldn't help noticing that this post is already probably the most-linked-to Pyro post ever.

    Hasta pronto.

    Phil's signature

  • 7 comments:

    Matthew said...

    "Once more: I'm thoroughly Baptistic, not (technically) "Reformed."

    Yeah, I get this a lot. I'm a "Founders-friendly" SBCer if I'm anything, but I too often get the "TR" label dropped on me by my more permissive "high church" bethren. Weird.

    HeavyDluxe said...

    Thanks for the link, Phil. Saves me typing a long follow-up reply to myself tonight. :-)

    Enjoy Mexico!

    Carla said...

    The "TR" label is used by those who are just looking for something snarky to say about/to you - whether you are technically reformed or not.

    It's the Christian/evangelical version of name calling, without resorting to vulgarity.

    Said I suppose with the same amount of self-righteous disgust and contempt when someone says "Arminian" of someone who holds to free will.

    Not that I didn't just say anything that anyone didn't already know...

    shrugs and waves hello to Darlene

    Fundamentally Reformed said...

    Phil,

    Thanks for the link! Truth be told, my initial post left off the HT. I had meant to include it but forgot. Thankfully I fixed it. Boy it pays to give credit where credit is due, doesn't it?

    Oh, and about the "TR" label. Be careful abbreviating it as TR. That stands for Textus Receptus and might get you confused as a KJV only guy. (Or is the abbreviation "TR" now common web slang for Totally Reformed??)

    Bob Hayton

    sk said...

    Prolly?

    REM said...

    Thanks, Phil. Normally, I am only outrageous during a game of horse.

    John said...

    "He also implies that I said Haggard's sin "is proof of the 'evil fruits' of everything that isn't easily identifiable as 'Reformed.'"

    Apparently Reformed was a bad word choice, but if you go back and look at what you actually said, Scott's comments aren't far off:

    It’s time for evangelicals to rethink their priorities, reexamine the evil fruits of pragmatic and market-driven “spirituality,” and retool their own movement. Better yet, Christians with a concern for the glory of God and the authority of Scripture should renounce the latitudinarian-style movement contemporary “evangelicalism” has morphed into. It is a hopelessly mixed and muddled multitude. The fashionable brand of NAE/Christianity Today-style “evangelicalism” actually abandoned historic evangelical principles long ago, and hasn’t taken a firm stand for biblical and evangelical doctrine for some time. The current scandal is only a symptom of that much deeper problem.

    You did say that evangelicalism was full of "evil fruit" and that Haggard was just a symptom of the deeper problem, a problem that resulted from muddled, latitudinarian theology.

    Which begs the question...if Ted Haggard had gotten his theology straight from John MacArthur would all of this have been avoided? Maybe that's not what you intended but that's certainly how what you wrote came across.

    Haggard clearly knew what he was doing was wrong. He didn't need a theology primer to figure it out. The problem here is sin.