09 August 2007

Let's get this over with, OK?

by Phil Johnson





Phil's signature

18 comments:

Sewing said...

Hoo boy.

Well, one thing's for sure...this blog comes by its reputation the old-fashioned way: it earns it.

Just for kicks, I'm waiting for that "perfect storm," mother-of-all-posts that critiques emergents, Catholics, charismatics, and postmillenial Presbyterians all at once—oh, and IFB KJV Onlyists, just for good measure.

centuri0n said...

Bob Hyatt weighs in with the first really decent attempt to fight fire with fire.

His commenter "Dustin" reminds us what it's like to be a person who can't take a joke.

centuri0n said...

And here's something you don't see every day: I agree with Bob Hyatt -- this is a scathing review.

Now, why isn't the Emerging Church torch-and-pitchfork squad out to against these guys, I wonder?

SolaMeanie said...

Over? Over? NOOOOOO! More! More!

LeeC said...

What I don't understand is how Phil is a big meanie, for pointing out very real issues in the EMC (and NO neither I, nor Phil ever said his posters represent everyone in the EMC).

But Bob seems to be rather free with calling people dumb, or even asinine. Asinine in my old life would be considered fighting words.

Do you believe Bob that your defammitory comments that are directed at individuals and thier character are better than Phils general posters because what you say "is true"?

LeeC said...

BTW,
I can also say that there are seriously whacked charismatics out there without tainting Adrian Warnock, and some very unloving Reformed types that do little, or no evangelization out there without libeling Grace Community Church or my own.

I find it very telling when people want to take every general observation as a direct and personal attack.

You see I can realize that I don't have a complete and total grasp on the Bible, and I certainly do not apply what I know as well as I should, and I can still hold to the fact that God is absolute, and His Word has very clear meanings that He intends to impart that never change.

donsands said...

That was nice to read about Brian McLaren's video.
It really is quite bad, all the way around.
Glad to hear an honest review.

Sewing said...

I can't remember the last time (if ever) I've seen the expression "whoop-de-freaking-do" in print.

Phil Johnson said...

Centuri0n: "Bob Hyatt weighs in . . . His commenter 'Dustin' reminds us what it's like to be a person who can't take a joke."

I hope Bob will save that comment-thread forever. It reveals in microcosm what's wrong with the emerging "conversation."

1. "Dustin" leads off with a profane comment that serves no purpose other than to be deliberately insulting.

2. Bob himself is hopelessly conflicted because he doesn't want anyone to think his parody of our parody means he doesn't think parodies like that are inherently unloving. He's not being unloving mind you, but those who criticize the ECM clearly are.

3. Another commenter urges Bob to shun Frank Turk rather than reply to Frank's friendly comment commending Bob on his attampt at humor.

4. Dustin returns and declares that he's fed up, and he has given up on "these guys and this conversation."

What conversation?

A reminder—again—that the posters here were preceded by a long series of detailed and dispassionate posts outlining my concerns with the ECM and interacting with various points in Scot McKnight's CT article.

No one responded seriously to any of those posts, including Bob.blog, whose "interaction" with the material we have posted at PyroManiacs has consisted mainly of cheap-shot carping about tone and attitude and other mostly-cosmetic issues.

But, see: when someone's first volley on your side of a dialogue consists of a deliberate insult like "this guys an ***-clown" and you let that stand and no one on your side raises a peep of complaint about the "tone" of THAT—then you don't get to pretend you are offended by funny pictures that are neither profane nor personally insulting.

Even if the point the pictures are making might tread a little too hard on your bunions.

centuri0n said...

Oh, exactly. I'm enjoying the thread at Bob's blog. I have a great metaphor what it's like over there, but I don't want to use it up until after Bob and I finish up on Hell and 1 Thes.

DJP said...

Let's not forget Rick Ianniello (!) from that thread:

Teampyro ...have shown that they are agents of the Accuser

Rick Ianniello.

Gotta admit, my jaw dropped at that one.

centuri0n said...

Rick's a keeper.

That's all I'm going to say about that.

LeeC said...

"Let's not forget Rick Ianniello (!) from that thread:

Teampyro ...have shown that they are agents of the Accuser

Rick Ianniello."

Well, if'n y'all weren't so JUDGEMENTAL....

Garet Pahl said...

ilTeampyro ...have shown that they are agents of the Accuser

Even though I just lurk around and pop in now and then, I consider you guys friends and that one set me off a bit.(a cooler head prevailed for once and I edited out some level 4 snark) Then he was like, "I thought I was being gracious."

UNBELIEVABLE!

rick said...

Hey - somehow I missed that you were talking about me here, sorry for the late reply.

Is what I said different than what you guys have said other than pointing it the other way?

Have you ever used the word heretic referring to some group that might be Christian? Have you allowed on-going comments based on something you wrote where that group is referred to as heretic? Have you recommended blogs that dedicate a large amount of their space uncovering heretics? Etc..

For the word heretic, substitute whatever word you like, deceiver, false-prohet, wolf in sheep's clothing, divisive, etc.. You pick the word/phrase, either way, if you stay in that vain you'll find you did/do it.

When doing that, aren't you saying the same I am except you are saying it about Charismatics, Emergents, Seeker-Sensitives, etc. while I'm saying it about you?

Please - if I misunderstood what you are saying about these groups. please clarify - many have heard and/or read it the way I have.

Assuming I am correct, who do you think is deceiving these people? And whose agent do you think they are becoming while they propagate their message, split churches, etc.?

I'm not saying you shouldn't question doctrine. In fact you should do so.

I'm not even holding to the "did you confront the person privately first?" point.

What I'm saying is that you continue to use generalization, straw-men, guilt by association, etc. (you've heard the charges) and now you have compounded it with the humor tact you've chosen.

Net, I think you are doing damage to the body of Christ and thereby being used by the enemy in this area.

I'm a big promoter of yours (as if you need one) when you are teaching from the Word. And there have been times when you have done a nice job challenging my Charismatic-like theology. But there are other times when you fail and you seem to want to continue in that vain.

You even seem to take pride in your right to do that - e.g., with these cartoons.

For me, I became exposed to poor confrontation way back in 1993 in these loving words from MacArthur.

“The effort to market the Third Wave as noncharismatic fits as a pattern of shrewd promotion and semantic smoke screens that permeates Third Wave teaching.”

“The truth is the evangelical veneer of the Third Wave is a carefully crafted image, another crucial element of the skillful marketing campaign that is attempting to sell the movement to non–charismatic evangelicals.”

etc..

I haven't seen much improvement since. And when you do this, I don't think you are representing Christ as you normally do.

The pictures do not "tread on my bunions". They demonstrate lack of regard for truth and lack of respect for others. In creating these, you did harm and in that you were on the wrong side.

rick said...

Lee C - I'm confused by your comment. Do you think I made the judgement I made because because TeamPyro made a judgement?

If so, I failed in my communication.

DJP - yes that is a jaw dropper. I wrestled with that quite a bit. If you have trust that I will not use your words against you and if you get even a little bit of what I'm trying to say, then feel free to write to me at rianniello {at} gmail {dot} com to coach me on a better way to make the point.

If you don't have the energy, think I'm incorrigible, or might somehow turn this on you, I understand.

No Name Preacher said...

too bad Justice IS an issue of the left. Perhaps, instead of hammering the left for it, maybe the right would be better off trying their own hand at justice.

All Christians are to be people of justice.

Mike Clawson said...

While I'm honored that you would single out my blog for your ridicule, I'm a little confused about what you think my post had to do with left-wing politics. My article about "What is Justice?" was primarily theological in nature - I don't recall bringing politics into it at all.

Was it because I used the words "oppressor" and "oppressed"? I've found that some people think that only Marxists are allowed to use those words. Of course, Jesus mentioned liberating people from oppression too... I wonder, does that make him a Marxist as well?