tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post1960234564695641921..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: [Bonus] Open Letter to R. Scott ClarkPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger138125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-8310330942732108742011-01-29T00:01:01.797-08:002011-01-29T00:01:01.797-08:00I think Tom Chantry, Mike Riccardi, and Fred Butle...I think Tom Chantry, Mike Riccardi, and Fred Butler should take over this blog and give Frank, Dan, and me a year's sabbatical.<br /><br />Get me some Tylenol. Extra-strength, quick-release, please.<br /><br />This thread is over.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-62953483486575601732011-01-28T23:16:33.503-08:002011-01-28T23:16:33.503-08:00Evangelicalism is going to have to file for bankru...Evangelicalism is going to have to file for bankruptcy after paying the tone police time-and-a-half for all the overtime they've been putting in over the past couple of weeks.<br /><br />I almost can't believe how many different people will actually get so anxiously, hand-wringingly bent out of shape because of people's "tone." <br /><br />All the angst and lamentations are about this notion of "friendly fire." Like it's just unconscionable that two guys who agree on the 5 points could have any justifiable reason for disagreeing strongly with one another about something else. Earlier in the week it was about MacArthur critiquing Darrin Patrick's book. The back end of the week it's Frank with Mike Horton and Scott Clark. <br /><br />The irony is, though, these same people who are so distraught over this horrible, needless, uncharitable infighting, are themselves willing to engage in some uncharitable infighting -- not over anything substantive, like one's philosophy of ministry or how one understands the relationship between justification and sanctification -- but over their <i>tone</i>. <i>What</i> people are saying doesn't seem to matter half as much as <i>how</i> people are saying it. This most certainly is evidence of our weakness as the Church.<br /><br />Iron sharpens iron. An extremely durable and extremely sharp piece of metal is swiftly and repeatedly striking another. That's the picture we have of one brother sharpening another brother. With all this mollified squeamishness about tone, I'm unsure how these folks can understand this passage. Let us indeed love each other, fervently and from the heart. But let's stop whining and licking the wounds on our thin skin long enough to realize that loving each other sometimes means some straight talk.<br /><br />I know, I know. Uncharitable.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-59824022201837248532011-01-28T21:50:48.038-08:002011-01-28T21:50:48.038-08:00Well. *looking around the comment threads* Plenty...Well. *looking around the comment threads* Plenty enough logs and specks to go around. <br /><br />I'll come back next year when the open letters are done. I agree with Tim and with Erik Raymond over at Ordinary Pastor. One or two are helpful; deciding to make a genre out of it at least looks like hubris to the nth degree.Barbarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16604068110452745043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-75317188160760298442011-01-28T17:06:56.594-08:002011-01-28T17:06:56.594-08:00RobertKunda said, Snarky comments well deserved. Y...<i> RobertKunda said, Snarky comments well deserved. Your corrective post didn't do anything more righteous than what you were ranting against. That is, unless you get to decide what's fruitful for discussion and what everyone else should pipe down about. In that case, you should start and read only your own blog. No?</i><br /><br />This is unnecessary and I'm not going to get into a debate over whether I'm "[self] righteous" for asking if God is glorified in this. Brother we need to ask that question in everything we do and it is never a self-righteous statement to ask it in a genuine manner, which I did.<br /><br />Frank, I appreciate your efforts here in defending your convictions. As I've stated I've learned alot from this site and your last response to Alex makes alot of sense. But what I would like to know is, is there a difference in openly rebuking a known heretic leading people astray and an open rebuke of a fellow brother and minister on the frontlines?<br /><br />Also, does Matthew 18:15-17 apply here? Is it even a prayerful consideration?<br /><br />Again, these are genuine questions I have. Finally, in Pastor MacArthur's open rebuke of Mark Driscoll, didn't he precede that with a personal 6-page letter? Is that the Biblical model or have we allowed the immediacy and public nature of the internet and blogging to circumvent how the Biblie outlines Christian brotherly rebuke?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17452757881363457275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-10127844808752665512011-01-28T17:01:36.142-08:002011-01-28T17:01:36.142-08:00I have to ask here (and this is NOT directed at Ti...I have to ask here (and this is NOT directed at Tim Challies, who, unlike the vast majority of tone objectors, does not ask others to take the microphone away from their mouths while simulataneously keeping the bullhorn at his), but why is it that Baptists (Pyro guys, Driscoll, J MacArthur) get taken to the woodshed regularly for tone, while Presbys (WHI, D Wilson, C Trueman) are considered witty geniuses and consistently praised for their gift of snarkiness?Matt Gummhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14698469400042045105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-40925474740198896522011-01-28T16:54:03.573-08:002011-01-28T16:54:03.573-08:00"the Law/Gospel distinction doesn't have ..."the Law/Gospel distinction doesn't have to be scrapped. But when we use it to say that the church is better off with a fruitless but systematically-perfect Gospel rather than maybe the right Gospel of Christ stated simply (and unsystematically) with all the trimmings of necessary fruit, we have flopped over." Frank "Centurion" Turk<br /><br />Good quote my brother. Some depth there, and so some deep thinking necessary, but by jove I think I got it.<br /><br />I can remember when I first came to Christ, and man did my brain have tons of cobwebs. I asked a guy what a higher power is, and he said, "It can be God, or a thing, but you just need to come to a god of your own understanding."<br />I said, "Well, I guess my choice is Jesus. He's all I know about."<br /><br />I perhpas went through a Cornelius season, but I'm convinced God brought me to Himself through the simplicity of Christ.<br />Since then I have grown in the grace and knowledge of my savior and Lord, Jesus Christ.<br /><br />What a love our Savior has for us. If we could only experience a small taste of this pure love Jesus has for us, His elect sons, we would be so fired up and out of control, that we would turn this world upside down.<br /><br />Have a wonderful weekend, and Christ-focused Lord's day Frank, and eveyone else.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-46746174941012855162011-01-28T15:58:32.190-08:002011-01-28T15:58:32.190-08:00HA-BI-TANS!
Man: I have won twice today -- terrie...HA-BI-TANS!<br /><br />Man: I have won twice today -- terrierGirl came by to insult me, and Habitans comes out of hiding to defend me.<br /><br />Winner-winner, chicken dinner.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-51180413052340081952011-01-28T15:56:41.554-08:002011-01-28T15:56:41.554-08:00Alex --
The fact which told me something about Ch...Alex --<br /><br />The fact which told me something about Challies earlier just said something about you to me, and I'm going to chastise him for his fussiness.<br /><br />You, personally, are right now missing the actual point, as you were the last time I posted. Let me take a moment to explain why to you, and if you can receive it, Selah.<br /><br />Let's imagine for a moment that I didn't write any open letters this year -- that instead of writing an open letter to DW, I wrote a blog post which spoke about him in the 3rd person. Then I did it with Don Miller. Then with Pat Robertson. You know: what if I was blogging them using the Ken Silva method of reproach: he did this and that, and then the other thing, and then it got worse, and I wish he would stop.<br /><br />How do you actually state the Gospel clearly when you are talking about someone rather than to them?<br /><br />See: on objective which I think your point of view misses is the <i>evangelistic</i> point of view for the lost and those falling away. If you <i>objectivize</i> someone, telling them they are bad bad bad you can't get to, "so brother: repent." It can only get you to, "reader: beware."<br /><br />So while you see this genre as self-aggrandizing, I see it as the opportunity to rather use this blog, which has garnered a reputation consistently in the top tier of all religious blogs in the world, as a platform to enter the public conversation with an <i>evangelistic</i> intent -- a James 5 intent to (in the best possible case) turn a brother away from sin, or (in a less-generous rendering) to convict the sinner of his wrong-doing.<br /><br />Now: before you chase the rabbit -- why an open letter, then, to Mike Horton? Is he a sinner? Is he in sin? Oh please: it's impossible to illuminate what I have done here in this light. What I have done instead is to speak in the public circle to a man of good character and good stature and good conscience about something he has some influence over. So rather than run him over -- as, for example, a certain talk radio host has done to Chris Rosebrough -- I wrote him a letter, and I published it publicly <i>because it is useful for making other people think hard about the issues at stake</i>.<br /><br />You know: the Law/Gospel distinction doesn't have to be scrapped. But when we use it to say that the church is better off with a fruitless but systematically-perfect Gospel rather than maybe the right Gospel of Christ stated simply (and unsystematically) with all the trimmings of necessary fruit, we have flopped over.<br /><br />I'm certainly not defending the hordes of charlatans and real compromisers available in the English-speaking world today, but I am concerned that we somehow can get to the place where we can make systematically-supportable statements which are, at face value, counter to the whole counsel of God, and expect we should get some slack cut because hey: we're confessional people.<br /><br />So I'm going to write about 44 more open letters, and you can read them, or not. That's the great thing about the internet: it's free, and you can walk past the things you don't like.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-64868306328771562332011-01-28T15:31:29.468-08:002011-01-28T15:31:29.468-08:00@Frank
Great! Thanks. (And I'll endeavor not ...@Frank<br /><br />Great! Thanks. (And I'll endeavor not to be a stopped clock.)<br /><br />@Halcyon and @Tom Chantry:<br />"Frank punched him in the nose" / "you punched a bully"<br /><br />I believe the proper term for that would be "love tap". One would hope. (May we all receive love taps upside the head when we need them, and may they be delivered from real love without admixture of pride or mere snarkiness.)Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-15550794796653923742011-01-28T15:29:03.975-08:002011-01-28T15:29:03.975-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82606820255981434312011-01-28T15:18:13.145-08:002011-01-28T15:18:13.145-08:00Frank Turk said...
Alex --
The open lett...Frank Turk said...<br /><br /> Alex --<br /><br /> The open letter is a genre, my friend. That I have chosen to compose all my blog posts for 2011 in this genre should not trouble oyu, unless the fact that bloggers blog in any genre at all bothers you.<br />_________<br />Again the issue isn't the genre itself or blogging itself, neither of with which I have expressed a problem. But then you know that, this is just an obfuscation of what I have already clearly addressed in echoing Challies' sentiment about the volume of a genre that requires a rather generous view of one's position and perspective.<br /><br />As well, a genre itself isn't a justification for its possible immodest use. None of this is to undercut any valid points you have made along the way. But those aren't the issue. Best wishes in your evaluation of all things.Alex A. Guggenheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04534710796711749227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-60013801304545510572011-01-28T14:44:06.246-08:002011-01-28T14:44:06.246-08:00Frank:
This is comment 127. How many people have ...<b>Frank:</b><br /><br />This is comment 127. How many people have <i>actually</i> commented on the substance of the post?<br /><br />FWIW, I agree with Chantry: you punched a bully, and it was awesome.Halcyonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12264274336322086961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-46633839127790282452011-01-28T14:38:48.212-08:002011-01-28T14:38:48.212-08:00Tim Challies:
Here's what I am thinking: Let ...Tim Challies:<br /><br />Here's what I am thinking: Let me level with you. Tim, I am finding some of your book reviews condescending. I enjoyed the first one or two thousand; but then I began to think, Does anyone really have the kind of perspective that would allow him to humbly assume a position to sit in judgment of 52+ books a year?<br /><br />I appreciate what you write and almost always find it beneficial. But when your tone turns critical and negative it seems to me that you are simply using the book review as a respectable kind of wrapping for your personal beefs.<br /><br />When you begin calling other bloggers out over matters of tone, I guess it just escalates the point.Habitans in Siccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13666311435942322569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-43341415670156584042011-01-28T14:35:27.650-08:002011-01-28T14:35:27.650-08:00I've said it before, and I'll say it again...I've said it before, and I'll say it again; I want to be <b>Tom Chantry</b> when I grow up!<br /><br /><i>Squirrel</i>The Squirrelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14082708506676251152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-26319546240463579702011-01-28T14:22:55.039-08:002011-01-28T14:22:55.039-08:00Eric said...
Tim Challies has blogged extensively...Eric said...<br /><br />Tim Challies has blogged extensively for many years. Over the course of these years Tim has expressed his opinion on many more than 52 events/teachers/topics/books. How is his accusation of hubris supposed to be taken, given these facts? Is it now an act of hubris for Christians to assume to publicly express beliefs for the edification of others? If so, how do you presume to explain your comments here?<br />____________________<br />Your inability to distinguish between the categorization of these letters and the publications, content and nature of Challies' (which are not devoted in volume to singular persons and corrective lectures toward them) is a problem I doubt I can solve for you in a comment section.<br /><br />Your invention of a straw man intimating I am suggesting that to give a public opinion is hubris may be helpful to your cause but it certainly has nothing to do with anything I have said. As you know this is about more than a modest and limited public expression of opinion. Again, if this distinction is beyond you I doubt a comments section in a blog will provide the necessary remedy.Alex A. Guggenheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04534710796711749227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-57587353221355470022011-01-28T14:00:25.060-08:002011-01-28T14:00:25.060-08:00I have appreciated this genre of blog post. You g...I have appreciated this genre of blog post. You guys blog about important theological issues--those that edify by commending right thought and action; and those that edify by pointing out bad thought and action, giving solid biblical understanding for why it is bad. This use of the open letter reminds us that theology is not some faceless person or detached mind. It comes alive in my face and acts through my hands. The open letters make painfully obvious my theological imperfections demonstrated in imperfect actions. And they undercut the notion that I can have perfect theology (read confession)if my actions are lacking.<br />working my way out of the stands to the scrum line.Magister Stevensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15507216978994361047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-38374094608615033912011-01-28T13:46:07.672-08:002011-01-28T13:46:07.672-08:00Alex --
The open letter is a genre, my friend. T...Alex --<br /><br />The open letter is a genre, my friend. That I have chosen to compose all my blog posts for 2011 in this genre should not trouble oyu, unless the fact that bloggers blog in any genre at all bothers you.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-78965305913259046052011-01-28T13:42:51.126-08:002011-01-28T13:42:51.126-08:00May I be the first to say that when Jugulum is on,...May I be the first to say that when Jugulum is on, he's spot-on.<br /><br />Juggy:<br /><br />I can't improve on what you said. That's it, and exactly it. the only addendum I would tack on is that if the WHI can berate the evangelical masses for being imprecise (and they do, all the time), then they need to midn their own precision -- <i>especially</i> as guys who are frankly on-record doing better elsewhere.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-3772499320378343062011-01-28T13:36:51.842-08:002011-01-28T13:36:51.842-08:00Alex,
Tim Challies has blogged extensively for ma...Alex,<br /><br />Tim Challies has blogged extensively for many years. Over the course of these years Tim has expressed his opinion on many more than 52 events/teachers/topics/books. How is his accusation of hubris supposed to be taken, given these facts? Is it now an act of hubris for Christians to assume to publicly express beliefs for the edification of others? If so, how do you presume to explain your comments here?Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16345630463450652762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-65188570968182331052011-01-28T13:20:13.429-08:002011-01-28T13:20:13.429-08:00Tim Challies said...
But here's what I am...Tim Challies said...<br /><br /> But here's what I am thinking. Let me level with you. Frank, I am finding these open letters condescending. I enjoyed the first one or two; but then I began to think, Does anyone really have the kind of perspective that would allow him to humbly assume a position to write this kind of letter to 52 (make that 53) different people over a year? I appreciate what you write and almost always find it beneficial. But when your tone turns toward the demeaning or the condescending it seems to me that you are simply using the open letter as a respectable kind of wrapping for your personal beefs. When you respond to criticism with sarcasm, well, I guess it just escalates the point.<br />_____________<br /><br />I believe Tim Challies' capital point is not the issue of tone but the hubris contained in the perspective that such a large number of these letters are warranted from one person. It does take a rather large estimation of one's own standing.<br /><br />As to the tone, not that the standard employment of similar personalities across the web should be the measure of our own expressions, but if we are making such comparisons I see nothing exceptional in Frank's tone.Alex A. Guggenheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04534710796711749227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-5299588157679332252011-01-28T13:14:19.864-08:002011-01-28T13:14:19.864-08:00I happen to like Frank's "tone."
Wh...I happen to like Frank's "tone." <br />When did using a little bit of rhetoric in communications become illegitimate? <br /><br />Keep it up, dude.<br />Looking for another 40-something open letters,.Mike Westfallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06944727980772754938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-58481958339447213952011-01-28T13:09:00.783-08:002011-01-28T13:09:00.783-08:00Frank,
I've been trying to figure out if you&...Frank,<br /><br />I've been trying to figure out if you're unreasonably interpreting Dr. Horton's statement about a "healthy" church. (Is it really the case that the only proper commentary for Horton to give in that case is "Your faith is dead; you're a liar, and the truth is not in you"?) So let me ask you the following. And first, here's Horton's comment again for context:<br /><br />"<i>Now: we have problems in that area, and there are passages in Scripture that talk about hospitality, generosity, and all sorts of things that we need to work on in our traditions. But if you don't have hospitality, and you don't have generosity, and you don't have relationally (whatever that means) you don't have kindness, gentleness, humility—all of those qualities that are so important for inter-personal relationships, you're not healthy, and you don't have a healthy church. If you don't have the preaching of the Gospel, you don't have a church.</i>"<br /><br />What if he had broken it down something like this? Would you be ok with it then?<br /><br />"(1) If you don't <b>consistently display</b> humility, kindness, generosity, love, then you're unhealthy, your church is unhealthy. (2) If you <b>don't have any</b>, your 'faith' in the Gospel is a dead faith, and when you say you're a church, you're a liar. (3) And if your 'church' doesn't have the preaching of the Gospel, you don't have a church."<br /><br /><br />"Your faith is dead" is appropriate if "you have no love". But if love is the "sorts of things that we need to work on in our traditions" (Horton's words), aren't we potentially still in the "unhealthy" range? Not yet risen to the level of "your faith is dead"?<br /><br /><br />If this is a good way to break things down, then I think you're justified in calling Horton's statement muddled on the point. Because he went from saying that the Reformed "need to work on" the relational things (which could be simply "unhealthy"), to talking about people "not having" the relational things, which takes it into "dead faith" territory.<br /><br />And it's seems fair to say that we wouldn't catch WHI saying (2) and (3) together, from fear of confusing Law & Gospel. (Even though, as you keep saying, WHI is orthodox and does <i>believe</i> (2) and (3).)Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-3513910974372292272011-01-28T12:54:47.048-08:002011-01-28T12:54:47.048-08:00Shaun:
I am like a fungus: I can grow on anybody....Shaun:<br /><br />I am like a fungus: I can grow on anybody.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-20095147195654100342011-01-28T12:48:42.542-08:002011-01-28T12:48:42.542-08:00I didn't get to chime in in the original open ...I didn't get to chime in in the original open letter since the comments had been closed, but I just want to say that I've found the original open letter to be quite engaging and it drew me back into some past thought I had set on my theological shelf.<br /><br />I have a great deal of respect for MH, and just recently enjoyed reading his 'Putting Amazing Back Into Grace' which was given to me by a Presbyterian Reverend at a church I had visited. <br /><br />Honestly Frank, when I first began to follow you guys here at Team Pyro, initially I wasn't much of a Frank Turk fan. But over the course of the last couple month's you've grown on me a great deal, and your open letter series has been a great contribution to changing that. Not that I'm anyone important but you're cool in my books. <br /><br />The letter to MH actually re-iterated some of my concerns I was unsure of when I recently read PABC, and although I would still heartily recommend the book to someone, I found myself in strong agreement with the main thrust of your open letter. I would by no means (and neither have you in spite of what some seem to believe) accuse MH of antinomianism in any way. But I believe you've raised some valid and solid concerns, which are far more edifying than they could ever be interpreted as being slanderous or destructive.<br /> <br />That said I have to say I agree strongly with this letter as well, and considering the tone taken by R. Scott Clark I thought your tone was not nearly as abrasive as some are making it seem. I see it as though he took a sloppy shot at you before honestly assessing your stance, and your response being like the boxer who slaps away the wild punch. Sure there's some force of words involved, but it is far from being ungracious or uncharitable.<br /><br />As far as the tone police are concerned: I guess after following this blog for over a year now and often reading the meta, I've come to the realization that many of commenters interpret being 'gentle to all men' and 'patient' as meaning we're supposed to kiss each others pinky finger when we address them about an issue. Sure there are times that warrant a little softer tone, but surely Frank is not out of line in this letter. <br /><br />The assumption that the use of sarcasm must necessarily be the fruit of a wrong motive is completely faulty. <br /><br />-Shaun Little<br /><br />secret word: tiorskayShaun RW Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06685534883259511793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-44152915035897501522011-01-28T12:40:01.875-08:002011-01-28T12:40:01.875-08:00Just for my edification, TG:
Imagine I said, &quo...Just for my edification, TG:<br /><br />Imagine I said, "you know: it's all right for a local church to be unloving, and rude, and joyless, and impatient, and unpeaceful, and somewhat not good -- as long as they preach the Gospel every week from the pulpit." <br /><br />tell me in 150 words or less what you think of a church like that -- only "unhealthy", or does the book of James and the letters of John come to mind at all?FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.com