Showing posts with label Frank Turk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Frank Turk. Show all posts

01 May 2014

IT'S COMING: Together Again, for the First Time

by Dan Phillips

Today, we snap aside the veil and show you what we've got ù so far. What could we possibly do that's never been done before?

It's the first Pyromaniacs conference! as you pretty much guessed.

Details are still being firmed up, and we'll let you know as matters are finalized, but This Is Where We're At Right Now:

Speakers:
Phil Johnson
Frank Turk
Dan Phillips


...and maybe a surprise guest speaker:



(We're also looking into some music)



Dates:
January 23-24, 2015

Place:
Houston, Texas


Working Theme:
Sufficient Fire
(The sufficiency of Scripture, ablaze)

What difference does it make when you really, truly believe that Scripture is sufficient? It makes all the difference. We'll show you.

A whole lot more should be available within the next month, Lord willing. But we did want to let you know the basics early, so those who want to come can start planning.

This is the first time we've all spoken at the same conference. But you know it isn't the first time we've been together.


Join us! Tell your friends.
 

...then hurry on out, y'all.


Dan Phillips's signature


29 April 2014

ANNOUNCEMENT — from the "Well, It's About Time!" Department

by Dan Phillips

Fond of long introductions as I am not, I shall cut straight to the chase...or at least to its opening sequence:

Keep calendars and budgets clear for 
January 23-24, 2015

Price flights to 
Houston, Texas, USA, Earth


(Some) details to follow... Thursday.

Dan Phillips's signature

12 January 2012

An Open Letter to Frank Turk

Sir Aaron, as posted by Phil Johnson



his message came to us via e-mail and is posted without editorial revision:

Dear Frank:

I know your open letter series has come and gone, but since your last open letter I've been thinking that there was one open letter that was never written but should have. So I took it upon myself to fill that gap by writing this letter to you.

I think I started reading the Pyromaniacs blog in 2008 or early 2009. I suspect I'm unusual in that I first discovered Dan Phillips and only after following his blog for a while did I take my first jaunt over to Pyromaniacs. From the very first post I read at Pyro, I was hooked. Fortunately for me, that first post wasn't written by you because, and I hate to say this, of the triumvirate that really is Pyromaniacs, I just didn't get you. I shamefully confess that I did not look forward to days you posted, at least not at first. If my first introduction to Pyromaniacs had been one of your posts, I might have left and never returned. Had that happened, I know you and the other Pyros would have missed me like a horse misses a fly, but I truly would have missed out on some life changing content. But let me be more specific: I would have missed out on posts you wrote that changed my life.

When I say life changing, I don't mean it in some amorphous way, the same way a man looks back through time and says his life has changed. I realize we are always changing so it's an easy matter to say "my life changed." And for that matter, one cannot read every blog post at Pyro for nearly three years and remain unchanged. But when I say you changed my life, I mean that I can point to specific posts you wrote that affected my thoughts and my deeds in such a way that it unmistakably altered the trajectory of my life. As much admiration as I hold for both Phil and Dan (which sometimes borders on idolatry), I cannot point to a specific post by either one of them that had as much singular influence as I can with you.

I don't recall how I started reading this particular series since it predated any comment I made at Pyro, but your Stay or Go series forever changed my thinking about church membership. More specifically, in your post, Why I Left, I was immediately convicted by your statement: "when my church fails, I am at least partially responsible." Church membership was not a new concept to me and the need to be part of a local congregation was never a doctrine I, in any way, disputed. But until I read your post, my membership was closer to intellectual assent than genuine action. Never before did I accept personal responsibility for the state of the church to which I belonged. So in 2011, when my church had some significant challenges, I didn't mosey on to greener pastures nor did I sit on my hands. I translated my belief into action and took a leadership role that I believe has helped me and helped my local church body. And that, my brother, is something I credit to you, through God's grace.

You also have used a phrase in several posts that resonated with me. You've said, "Be in the Lord's house on the Lord's day with the Lord's people." I know it is such a small thing but after a long work week, sometimes it takes just a gentle reminder to get my lazy self out of bed. When Sunday mornings roll around and I'm eyeing the clock from my bed contemplating sleeping past the Sunday service, it is your words that motivate me: "You—Be in the Lord's house today." And it works. It's weird, I know, but there you go.

My appreciation for you has grown since I've been reading Pyro, but this last year I was overwhelmed by your generosity towards me, personally. A few months ago, I tweeted you asking if I could email you about something unrelated to Pyromaniacs. You didn't just send me your email address, but offered to let me call you even though you had no idea what it was I wanted to discuss. I don't know a single blogger who would have done the same, and that gesture touched me.

So you gushed on and on about Phil and Dan and even the great John MacArthur, but somebody needed to say something about the tremendous work you've done at Pyro and other places. You have truly been a blessing to me and I'm sure to all the other readers at Pyromaniacs.

May the Lord continue to bless you and your ministry at Pyromaniacs in 2012.

Sir Aaron


Phil's signature

21 October 2011

A brief word on Truth & Unity (illustrated)

by Frank Turk

I have three pictures for you today to think about.
Figure #1
Here's a picture we might call "Unity in Truth," right?  A simple Venn diagram which puts all aspects of "Unity" as a subset of "Truth," and I think it's easy, when you see "Unity" this way, you can (and must) believe that as long as you're talking about "Unity," you must be talking about "Truth."

There are some transparent problems with this.  For example, if you start talking about having spiritual solidarity with Muslims because all Unity is a subset of Truth, you are off the rails -- because you are denying some part of what is True in order to obtain Unity. This view of Unity and Truth doesn't actually work.

So let's try another one:

Figure #2
This one eliminates the problem that the first one had by illustrating that there are some aspects of "Unity" which are actually not part of "Truth" -- but it assumes that if you are talking about "Truth" you will automatically demonstrate "Unity."  That is, all Truth is in Unity, but some Unity is outside Truth.

Hey: this is the Internet, folks.  You don't have to go very far to find contrafactual evidence for that statement.  So let's toddle over to yet another attempt to diagram the relationship between "Truth" and "Unity" in order to have a reference point mentally for what we ought to be talking about when we say something like "Unity in Truth."


Figure #3
To which all the readers say, "Aha!"

On the one hand, we have the kind of Unity which is absent from the Truth; on the other hand, we see that some kinds of Truth have nothing to do with Unity; and on the third hand we see that there is a place where we find Unity and Truth together.  This is the one which should help us visualize the relationship between Truth and Unity.

But so what?  Why break out the Gadfly color scheme and make us think using something other than words on a Friday?  Well, here's what:
Figure #3A
This is what we need to talk about.  There are probably 10,000 applications of Figure 3 -- like how to think about the "Occupy" movement, for example -- but Figure 3A here now makes us think about US for a second in a way that isn't going to be self-congratulatory.  Because the first thing we have to realize or recognize is that the church, walking around today (as it has from the day after Pentecost) really looks more like this:
Figure #4
That is: while we would love it that the Church actually is the place where Truth creates Unity and Unity reinforces Truth, we actually have some places where we are unified over the wrong things, and we are clinging to kinds of Truth in a way that harms Unity, and we also have things we do which are neither in Truth nor in Unity -- and these are, by a lot, our worst moments.  This is what the LBCF means when it says, "The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name."  The Church ought to be the place where Unity and Truth intersect, but because we are talking about people here and not a bag of dimes, it's not going to be a uniform thing from the standpoint of what is and isn't inside it.

So here's the thing: if this is the reality of how the church exists in fact (and I am open to reasonable arguments against this view), why is it that we make such a big thing out of the problem of, for example, inviting T.D. Jakes to a meeting of pastors and calling him a brother in Christ?  Can't we just sort of sweep him up in our confessional escape clause here and say it all comes out in the wash?

Or subsequent to that: can't we just let the Gospel Coalition work it out privately now that this thing has happened?  Is it really necessary to see the calculus which gets us from the statement of the problem to the resolution of the issues -- or can we just be satisfied without all the steps to hear them say, at various times and places, "oh yeah -- we talked it all over, and we're good.  #Brothers #AgreeToDisagree."

Here's my answer to both those question, and then you can have at it:

We can make a big thing of this because the church is actually tasked to be Figure #3 in spite of actually being Figure #4 -- in fact we must make a big thing of it, if we believe our Bibles as we say we do.  We make a big thing out of it because what the Confession warns us about is becoming this:

What we categorically do not want is to become so concerned with Unity that we are simply giving up on Truth for Unity.

Last thing today: this is the struggle which produced the confessions and the creeds.  This concern about how much truth needs to be present in our unity is what caused the Church (big "C") to make creeds and confessions so that the clarity of the Gospel -- the whole Gospel, and all its necessary consequences -- can be both proclaimed and received.  When we choose a path -- no matter who we are, no matter what else we have accomplished for Christ's sake in the course of out lives -- which abates the drift, above, we are doing it wrong.  We are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

That said, this weekend, you personally be in the Lord's house on the Lord's day with the Lord's people where there will be some admixture of falsehood in with the truth -- but at least you will not have forsaken the fellowship of the believers, as some have already done.








15 June 2011

Open Letter to Frank Turk

by Frank Turk

Dear Frank:

Some people are offended when you do this, but Phil loves it. That's the actual yard stick for this blog anyway, so here goes.

No more throw-away open letters. You have plenty of time during the week to prep, research, draft and finalize a decent open letter for Wednesday, and if you played less City of Heroes, you'd get it done right.

I mean: think of the open letters you could have written this week! The SBC is in full swing in Phoenix! You got some astounding solicitations in the e-mail this week -- think of what one of those could have rendered, given the sources. The Presbyterians are meeting as well, and Doug Wilson wrote a piece on peadocommunion. What jovial repartee could have come from that!

So listen: get yourself together. It only takes about 3 hours to write the better letters, and you have that kind of time. This is your only blog post all week, for pete's sake. You're not too busy to do it right.

Thanks, and God bless you.