Janet Mefferd: the interviewer interviewed (Part Two)

by Dan Phillips

Introduction: see Part One. In this interview, Janet has the opportunity to share her thoughts and perspectives on some matters on which until now her voice hasn't been heard, or to which she has not yet been able to respond. Here, too, is the explanation of her move from her Salem Radio Network show.

****   ****   ****   ****

DJP:  What was the distinctive aim of your show? 

JM: Everyone always asks me that, and I never feel like I have a great answer.

We always billed the show as taking “a Christ-centered look at the news of the day, both in the church and in the world.” But I really wanted the show, from the very beginning, to be very Christ-centered and not a nonstop “culture war” show. I certainly covered politics and cultural goings-on, but I didn’t want the show be just politics or cultural stuff.

 I wanted non-Christians to hear the gospel, so I would share the gospel. I tried to encourage Christians who were listening to really trust the Lord, to obey Him, to honor Him. I did a lot of theological and biblical topics, and those were probably my favorite shows.

Along the way, I also thought it was important to tell the truth about a lot of things going on in the church that are just wrong and dishonoring to Christ, so that also wound its way into what I did on the air. And in that last category, I think we ended up distinguishing ourselves a little bit from other shows. I hate heresy and corruption, and I am outraged by the rampant child sexual abuse in evangelical churches. So I tried to speak out about those things whenever I could. 

****   ****   ****   ****

DJP:  Were you surprised at anyone who agreed to be a guest?

JM: Three come to mind: former Vice President Dick Cheney, Brother Andrew and the man who knew in advance he was going to get some tough questions and agreed to come on, anyway. And you know who that was.

****   ****   ****   ****

DJP:  Who was the most intimidating to interview, and why?

JM: Hands down, R.C. Sproul. He’s so biblically and philosophically brilliant, but he also has that good-natured ribbing edge to him that can come out. I just didn’t want to ask him anything stupid. If I did end up doing that, and I probably did, he was too much of a gentleman to point it out!

****   ****   ****   ****

DJP:  What were some of the greatest surprises in interviews, unexpected turns?

JM: There were a lot of funny moments.

I had one guest who was supposed to be on the air for an hour. But every time I asked him a question, he took a while to answer, and you could hear him loudly opening and closing doors and slamming cabinets in the background. I think he even went to the bathroom once; no joke. Uh, are you aware you’re doing a national radio interview, sir? Think you could hold it until the break? You have to

wonder what these guys are thinking. I had to cut him loose. 

Now and then, I would also get the guests (usually fellow radio hosts) who would just completely hijack the interviews and not let me get a word in edgewise. I also had a guest burst into tears on the air once. That was a little awkward.

But the end of the Mark Driscoll interview -- when he just didn’t answer at all and then hung up – was probably the most unexpected moment. Though if you listen to the preceding half-hour of that interchange, I guess it wasn’t at all surprising!

****   ****   ****   ****

DJP:  What feedback or contact from your audience stands out over the years?

JM: Again, the Mark Driscoll interview and its huge fallout would have to be the most memorable. I received so much hate mail, especially in the early days after the interview. That was tough. I was called everything from an “arrogant female” to “Satan.”

But there was a lot of supportive feedback, too, especially as time went on and I was vindicated in my accusations that Driscoll was a serial plagiarizer and worse. The emails that definitely meant the most to me were from inside Mars Hill -- from people who’d been personally abused by Driscoll or finally saw the light about him because of that interview. 

 ****   ****   ****   ****

I wouldn't recommend authors go on @JanetMefferd's show after she pulled this during an interview with @PastorMark http://t.co/a0zdkIC43P
— BetweenTwoWorlds (@between2worlds) November 23, 2013

DJP:  Did you have any relationship with Justin Taylor before his infamous Tweet? Have you had any contact from him since?

JM: He’d been a guest on my show once early on, but I didn’t know him at all. After that infamous tweet, someone also sent me a diatribe he wrote about me in the comment section of his own blog. He basically ripped me and falsely accused me of being a liar about the Driscoll hang-up, despite the fact that we’d released the raw audio and put out a statement about exactly what happened.

From the beginning, I told the absolute truth. But think about it: What possible motivation would I even have for staging a fake hang-up at the end of an interview in which I’d already proven  that Driscoll was a plagiarizer? The truly damning portion of the interview was already over at that point. It makes no sense, and I wouldn’t and didn’t lie about it.

On the other hand, a megapastor with a long history of lying and deceit and ties to The Gospel Coalition got the full benefit of the doubt from his Gospel Buddies. And in addition to playing footsie with Driscoll for years, Taylor’s M.O. was so obvious. He is the publisher for books at Crossway. Crossway has published a lot of Driscoll books. There’s a lot of money tied up in Driscoll. And there’s probably more plagiarism in them thar hills. KILL THE MESSENGER! Or at least discredit her so no one will listen to her. That’s all he was trying to do.

But no, he’s never contacted me to apologize for anything. Let’s be honest; that’s not what the Gospel Boys do. Repentance is just something they tell the little cash cows to do.

****   ****   ****   ****

DJP:  Tell us about the process that led you to decide to end the show?

JM: There were a lot of reasons for my decision to end the show, but one of the main reasons was the toll that my job was taking on my life and on my family.

I was talking not long ago with Dick Bott, founder of the Bott Radio Network, and he described my life better than anyone: “Doing three hours of live radio every single day is just a monster to feed.” He nailed it. If you want to do it right, and I did, it’s the kind of job that absolutely engulfs your life, 24/7.

For over five years, I was working on the show all the time, every day, weekends, evenings, even on vacations. I was staying on top of the news, reading books and articles, choosing guests, finding topics, doing social media. I was traveling. I was speaking at events. I had been approached to write a book, so I was working on that. And all the while I had a lot to do at home, too. I have a husband and four children, who I love more than my own life, and who I just missed all the time. I had no time to even be involved in something as basic as a group Bible study, which I did for years -- I even led a women’s Bible study for years -- and desperately needed and wanted and missed.

I did the best I could, but I was constantly exhausted and stressed out, and there was never any let-up. I eventually just reached my breaking point. Very few jobs are worth your life. So in January, I asked Salem to let me out of my contract early, and they agreed to let me do that. And I haven’t had one moment of regret. Sometimes the Lord just calls you to do something for a season, and then He calls you out. He’s definitely called me out of this particular job.

****   ****   ****   ****

DJP:  What’s next?

JM: Spiritual and physical detox. Uninterrupted time with the Lord and with my family. I’ve also got some more irons in the fire. I’ll have more to announce in the next month or so. Stay tuned. 

****   ****   ****   ****

DJP:  What talk show(s) will you listen to or recommend, now that you’re off the air?

JM: I’ve been a huge listener to talk radio for years. But I’m on a prolonged, intentional break from all talk shows right now. If I tune into any talk show in the next few months, it probably will be Mark Levin’s; he’s great. The only Christian radio I’m tuning into at the moment is KFUO via app. I’m not technically a Lutheran, but I love the hymns and the sacred music on that station. Soothes the savage, tired soul like nothing else.

****   ****   ****   ****

DJP:  Finally: as an expert interviewer, what question should I have asked?

JM: I can’t believe you didn’t ask me my life verse. Then again, I could never just pick one Bible verse as my favorite. 

****   ****   ****   ****

Thanks, Janet, for all you've done for the truths we hold precious. Godspeed.

---

Top Ten Pyro Posts of 2014

by Dan Phillips

It was a good year for Pyro, thank the Lord. Reports of our death were premature. Our traffic just about doubled over 2013, which is not too shabby for some "middle-aged white Reformed guys."

Lists! Everyone's doing it and it looks like fun. So I asked Frank, and he was kind (and smart) enough to figure out which were our top ten posts of 2014. Actually, he figured out the top 100, but I'm only listing the ten!

Note: these aren't necessarily the top ten written in 2014, though the second, third, fourth, fifth... well, some are.

Here you go:

1. Pornographic divination. Really terrific post by Phil from 2011; really upset a lot of people; really prescient. Pity it wasn't heeded more robustly.
2. John Piper and Mark Driscoll: Lessons Not Learned? Hated by the Top Men's egoguard, but others found value in it.
3. Seven revelations of Ferguson. Finding preventative answers in the Gospel and God's Word, not in endless fuelling of bitterness, resentment, self-pity, statism, and career victimism. Yet Bryan Loritts says (white) evangelicals are silent on such matters, and no one challenges him. Ditto Frank Turk's powerful posts on the subject.
4. Truth worth dying for? Anyone? Bueller? Today, anyway? About the vital nature of truth, and the airy chatty indifference of professed leaders in dealing with truths for which our theological forefathers actually and literally died.
5. Some here, some there —” September 12, 2014 (special #TGCBlockedParty edition). More fun than Bibley types should be allowed to have. Yet have it, we did.
6. A. W. Pink: glorifying God by disobeying Him? This one continues to gather a trickle of angry attempted comments. Invariably they reflect no interaction with the post's contents, and can be reduced to "But he's A. W. Pink! He was a great man, because: books! How dare you! You're guilty of horrible sins!"
   
7. The most offensive verse in the Bible. This actually is our most popular post, ever, if I'm reading the stats right. It's been used by Dr. Georgia Purdom of AIG, reprinted, and noised about. Even some whose official position is that we don't exist in any significant way noted it, which is nice. For my part, it just feeds my slow-coming conclusion that I can never predict a post's impact. This one just bubbled up and was easy to write, and quickly written. Other posts that I was sure would have a far greater impact fizzled with a muted pop. Thank God for the uses others have made of it.
8. Of leprechauns, mermaids, and "loving homosexual couples." Biblically cutting through the gooey squish of modern religious thought.
9. Answering Todd Friel about the emblematic charismatic Michael Brown. 
10. Pyromaniacs: Some here, some there — September 5, 2014. Not sure why; maybe it was The Elitists' Crisis Management System flowchart?

Thank you all for reading. We appreciate you, and we're looking forward to meeting some of you in person for the first time in a few weeks!

---

John Piper and Mark Driscoll: lessons not learned?

by Dan Phillips

NOTE: this week's SHST is pushed aside by a recent turn of events. To wit:

A recent "Ask Pastor John" segment is titled "Do You Regret Partnering with Mark Driscoll?" An answer to that question could have been very helpful. However, once the question is asked, the word "partnering" never recurs. Piper instead poses and answers a question of his own: "Do you regret befriending Mark Driscoll?"

I don't doubt that question was more appealing. Low-hanging fruit always is. However, it is is a question I've heard no one ask. I asked my Tweeps if anyone had heard that question asked, and no one had. (I also offered some other thoughtlets on Twitter: here, here.)

"John Piper has no regret for befriending Mark Driscoll," Piper said Bob-Dole-ically, answering the question he alone asked himself. Piper did go on to admit that he regrets not being a more effective friend. But then Piper somewhat undoes that admission, by saying that Mark knew he had flaws of leadership attitude, unsavory language, exegetical errors, and that Mark knew Piper knew. Piper says he always hoped the relationship would be redemptive and helpful. So it's really Driscoll's fault. Which, of course, ultimately is true...and, once again, was not the question.

Then, somewhat oddly, Piper stressed that Driscoll gave Piper a lot of time and counsel and "guidance." Driscoll gave guidance to Piper and his elders. "He certainly gave me more time and counsel than I deserved." Oh? What is this? Taken seriously, this rather subverts the perception that Piper was an elder brother taking Driscoll under his wing to sober, mature, guide and mentor the famously loose-cannon leaky-Canoneer. Instead, Piper depicts them as equals, giving and receiving counsel to each other.

Would that make Piper still less responsible for the direction Driscoll took? Is that the intent?

But this is all wide of the mark (no pun intended). The issue is that Piper had, as far as I know, a well-earned stellar reputation. He was regarded as a sagacious elder statesman. He lit the fires of devotion to God, delight in God, open celebration of God's sovereignty. He did and represented much that is really great and good. I myself have often admitted with enthusiasm (and do so again, here) that Piper's writings have done me great good, particularly Future Grace.

So when Piper extended his embrace to Mark Driscoll, all that gravitas and bona fides was added to Driscoll's resume. Driscoll had been "the cussing pastor" and all; now he was "John Piper's protegee," "John Piper's partner." When anyone started to express misgivings about Driscoll, he might hear the response, "But John Piper embraces him. Piper's working with him. Driscoll must be OK." Driscoll himself had that card to play, as needed.

Good men cautioned Piper privately and publicly, warned him, begged him to reconsider what he was doing. But Piper resolutely brushed them all aside and stayed the course. And so has Driscoll.

So now where are we? We are exactly where Piper's friends warned him he'd be. Driscoll has come to a sad place, yet remains defiant and undaunted, and it's Piper who has to explain their connection.

But Piper still doesn't seem to take it all that seriously.

In a way, Piper seems to ackonwlege that things are sort of bad now, though for unspecified reasons. Piper says he sees why Driscoll's books might be off of shelves temporarily. Yet he also immediately goes on to say he sees a day when they could be replaced and stand on their own merit. Which underscores something I'm going to say, below, about "echo-chamber":

Piper says Driscoll's books can stand on their own merit if they're true and helpful? Sir, they're PLAGIARIZED! They're someone else's work!
— Janet Mefferd (@JanetMefferd) November 13, 2014

Before we leave that paragraph, Piper says, "If he is disqualified from being an elder should he still exercise the teaching office of an elder through his books?" "If"? Is he, or isn't he? Driscoll himself insists that he is not disqualified. His hand-picked committee that was supposed to be counseling him insists that "we do not believe him to be disqualified from pastoral ministry." Is Piper saying differently? If so, he is not saying it very clearly.

Despite all that publicly known information, what Piper does say clearly is that he has "no regret." Hear Piper:

John Piper has no regret for befriending Mark Driscoll, going to Mark Driscoll’s church and speaking at his events, or having him come to the Desiring God conference. I do not regret that.

Instead, Piper sees himself as in a position to issue lessons that he says he has learned, and which he says we should all take from the whole affair. Having admitted no errors in judgment, and detailing nothing specific that he would do differently, he's ready to bid adieu to the whole thing, it appears, with this list. Here it is, and I shall add my own brief thoughts in brackets:

1. People are very complex. Some of our sins are hidden to ourselves. [Amen. But I didn't need this, to know that; and all the harm that has been done was not necessary for this point to be made.]
2. We need to take very seriously what wise counselors tell us about ourselves. [Ironic. The advice of wise counselors to Piper himself that he should distance himself from Driscoll, or be more public in his rebukes, apparently is excepted.]
3. Sometimes you can see what others are saying about yourself, sometimes you can't. If you see it, you repent and fight the sin. But if you can't? What then? You have to go with what you see, or you'd be hopping to everybody's varying opinion, something neither Paul nor Jesus did. Says Mark stood down instead of a fight (implying he did the right thing). [This paints Driscoll's stepping down as a noble act, given Driscoll's inability to get what his critics are saying. Putting it mildly, I do not see it that way.]
4. Biblical leadership structures are not luxuries. [Amen. Yet Driscoll was unwilling to follow the counsel even of his hand-restructured structure.]
5. Salaries shouldn't be huge. Corporate mindset, beware. [Like a pastor seeing himself as "the brand"?]
6. Same theology on paper can coexist with very different personalities and leadership styles and sins. No theology on paper or merely in preaching that keeps a man from sin. See Peter — what he did in Galatia had nothing to do with his theology. Peter and those who erred with him believed the truth, but did not walk in step with it. [Amen.]
7. God's kingdom and his saving purposes never depend on one man, church, denomination. His word is not bound. [Amen, and thank God. But is it not also true that "one sinner destroys much good" (Ecclesiastes 9:18)?]
8. Let him who is thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall; restore such a one. For Mark's detractors to sniff "Good riddance" is sin and un-Biblical.  Renew and restore all, including Mark. [Already? It's time to talk about restoring Driscoll, already? To what? After what process? After assuring ourselves of what, and how? Should repentance play a part in restoration? Shouldn't we be talking about what repentance looks like (— like this, and this, and this, and this) before moving on to restoration?]

I'm not reassured to see that Piper thinks these are the main lessons he should learn from this. He did not already know these things? If not, what would he have done differently, knowing them?

Here are the lessons I'd like to suggest might be more helpful to learn from this. Were I someone whose judgment meant anything to John Piper, I'd be putting this before him:

1. To whom much given, from him much is required (Lk. 12:48; Jas. 3:1). Piper should have been much, much slower to extend his good reputation to someone with such a genuine and palpable cloud around him (1 Ti. 5:22, 24). Piper made a mistake. I have no trouble believing that it was good-hearted and well-intentioned, but it was a mistake. I think it he should own it, not double-down about it. That would serve him and the church better.
2. To turn a deaf ear to wise and godly counsel, as Piper did, is not wise (Pro. 11:14; 12:15; 15:22; 26:12).
3. Widen your circle and get out of your bubble. The echo-chamber clearly did not get the word through to Piper. They did not serve him well. So I'll just say it, and take the hate that will come: what if Piper had read Pyro? What if he'd really thought about what (for instance) Phil Johnson was writing, years ago? What if Piper were to say, "Someone pointed me to this blog nobody'd ever told me of, it's called Pyromaniacs. Years ago, Phil Johnson and others warned that exactly this would happen. I wish I'd been reading and listening; I've learned I need to widen my circle among those sharing my core convictions but seeing things differently. I regret that I didn't do that then, and urge others not to repeat my mistake." Would that be constructive, specific, and perhaps admonitory to others who keep making the same sorts of errors?
   
4. Re-think your enabling of Charismaticism. And then withdraw it. If you had read this (and additional comments like this and this), and had thought it through, you would have seen. Please, please consider what I am about to say very slowly and very seriously: there is a very short and straight line between (A) thinking God tells you stuff He tells no one else, yet (B) taking no responsibility and accepting no consequences for your claims to such revelation, and (C) abusive, egotistic, narcissistic, damaging leadership. History's told many such tales, and you just witnessed another firsthand. With such rotten fruit, shouldn't the tree be reassessed?
5. Force yourself to admit the extent of the damage caused.

I don't begrudge Piper's befriending Driscoll, for my part. I have been befriended by men much, much, much better than I. Thank God for them. I feel like they're all slumming, having me for a friend. So what I do is (A) I try to learn all I can from them, and (B) I try not to make them regret their friendship.

So what I am sad about is Driscoll abusing the friendship Piper extended. And what I particularly regret is that Piper simply is not admitting the extent of the bad public decisions he made, the damage that resulted, and the utter preventability of the whole thing.

Which simply assures more iterations. And does nothing to correct the specific situation we're discussing.

Thus endeth the post that, of all my many posts, I probably most hated having to write. I hope it does someone some good, for the sake of Christ's name and church.

---

Some here, some there — October 24, 2014

by Dan Phillips

Well, another week! Got my beautiful wife back from helping with my beautiful granddaughter, Zoé Isabelle Allen... oh, what's that you say? Do I have another picture? Mm, let's see, I'm sure there's one here somewhere... Ah:

Ahem. Now to business. Remember to check back at day's end for updates.

• Let me say at the outset: one of the sites that refers me to great posts and articles is The Aquila Report. I tend to use their links and read the articles at the sites, and when I use the articles, I link to that site. But I'm putting The Aquila Report in our blogroll prominently, and commend it to you.
• You probably will have heard by now that Mark Driscoll's elders, who notably softballed the process as it was by excluding should-be issues, have shared that he resigned rather than submit to any process of restoration. No price too little to pay, evidently.
• Joel J. Miller is not even evangelical, and he gets what many don't. Miller's apparently Eastern Orthodox and, to be as candid as you expect me to be, I'll say I think that's a bad thing. Yet Miller gets what some evangelicals don't as clearly seem to see: that there are points on the line between wishing Mark Driscoll hell and destruction on the one hand, and wanting to see him restored to pastoral ministry on the other. Restore him? Yes, says, Miller, who then asks, "...but to what?" For instance, "what’s wrong with Driscoll becoming a lawyer or waiter or what have you?" Further:

Since when does welcoming someone back to fellowship mean that you have to welcome him back to a post he abused? What’s wrong with a pew, even up front if he wants it? But just a pew? Laity, as the kids might say if the idea ever entered their heads, rocks!

...The truth is that Paul’s criteria for pastoral leadership are pretty stringent. I daresay few of us really qualify. Maybe Driscoll is simply not pastoral material.

That’s not bad or shameful. Some would say it’s just blisteringly obvious. I don’t know. I just don’t see any point in crucifying him—or giving him back the keys to the building. That’s a bogus choice.

Having said that, I’d be happy to sit with him anytime.

• Miles Mullin draws an extended parallel between Driscoll and another living, breathing cautionary tale, the trainwreck that is Bill Clinton, and makes application to what we should (and shouldn't) look for in church leaders (h-t Aquila Report).
• Now, I won't even bother to link to any of the posts saying "Stop gloating" and all that. Instead, let's observe the process.

1. Some warn of the impending disaster.
2. They are shushed, criticized, ignored, blacklisted.
3. The disaster happens. Even enablers are forced to take some small note.
4. Almost immediately, the former enablers say "Don't gloat! Maybe we were wrong, but you were wronger (because: tone)! Move on!"
5. Any suggestions of preventative systemic change are thereby snuffed out a-borning.
6. Nothing changes.
7. Cue the next slow-mo train wreck.

• Well, nevermind anyway. Apparently "God" has "told" Mark it's all-good, and going to get better. (Thanks again, open-but-clueless crowd!)
• As You Wish! Ooh, lookie: Christmas is coming, and here's the Princess Bride Monopoly game.
• Mark Snoeberger reminds us that the need for churches to have documented policies regarding marriage and weddings is increasing, not decreasing. He advises documentation, and in a comment I asked for examples. Can any of you link to such examples?

Despite TGC tarring it as "careful," this review of Enns' bk by Michael Kruger is an excellent, vigorous read: http://t.co/isQnGlVqOW
— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) October 20, 2014

• Ryan T. Anderson maps the path forward in waging a "long war" against the redefinition of marriage in attempts to legitimatize pseudogamy (h-t Turk for that term).
• In case you missed it, I think you'll enjoy this word from Gurnall on love, the master-affection in God and man.
• Here's a good word from Christina Fox, reminding the depressed and despairing Christian that God is always at work. I'd add Isaiah 50:10 to her thoughts.
• Save The...um...Snails?
• The previous entry is best enjoyed with the chorus of this song as accompaniment. (Note: one d-word, and allusion to Presbyterian beverages.)

Silly @JoelOsteen Moses dead already was. pic.twitter.com/rSkmSoYPjs
— yoda (@CalvinistYoda) October 24, 2014

• I really have come to think very highly of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. They are not as well-known as they deserve. Here they make available the talks from their recent conference, Striving Together for the Faith of the Gospel.
• Like a zombie impaling itself ever more deeply on a stake, California continues its slow serial suicide, by reportedly forcing churches to cover abortion in their health insurance. I did not get out a second too soon.
• Apparently I had a brush with Rachel Held Evans.

• Seemed like a simple enough question. But she never answered it. Snif! When I brought it up, she asked what I was talking about, so I linked her to my tweet with the question. She never responded. I mean, unless this is in the place of a response...

@BibChr @mriccardi23 @JasonMWoelm All this glib condescension is getting old. At least atheists don't call me names & treat me like crap.
— Rachel Held Evans (@rachelheldevans) October 22, 2014

• No, you're not missing a tweet where I myself called her a name or treated her like, um, bad stuff. I asked a question, then noted I wasn't answered. So, there you go. It's like...

Evangelicals are too much, "It is written," and not enough, "My opinion."
— Fake Liberal Xian (@FakeLiberalXian) October 21, 2014

• UPDATE: someone else pressed RHE, and received her response that she is "pro-life." The other question, which goes to the heart of...well, everything... remained unanswered.
• Here's how to win today:

• In this edition of SHST, I discussed with you dear brother Doug Wilson's lamentable attempts to tone down the content-aspect of "saved by grace alone through faith alone." Well, God help him, he's trying again. I actually think he makes it worse by doubling down. 
• Most of us gladly allow that there are saved people attending RC churches who don't yet get how opposed Rome is to that Gospel and Savior in which they savingly trust. But Doug now specifically indicates instructed, faithful-to-Rome Roman Catholics, and says they're saved if they believe the version of the Gospel he gives. He says it's the Gospel that matters, not so much our response, saith Doug.
• However, Doug seems to be aware that Galatians tears that theory all to heck. Specifically Galatians 5:3. Can we really think that the apostle who said "if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you...you are severed from Christ...you have fallen away from grace" (Gal. 5:2, 4), would not equally say "if you accept a sacramental, works-system of salvation, Christ will be of no advantage to you," and all the rest, including 1:8-10? Indeed, we are saved by grace, through faith — and not just any "faith."
• Glass strength: check.

• A sister who works with Creation Ministries International appreciated one of my sermons from the Proverbs series, and asked that I convert it to an article for them. I very much appreciate the work of organizations like theirs, and was happy to do so. The comment thread, though... whew.
• M'man Prof. David Murray writes about the most honest atheist in the world.

That's it for now. Be safe.

---

Some here, some there — October 17, 2014

by Dan Phillips

Howdy amigos and amigas.

• We'll start out on a happy personal note. Wednesday (September 45, Phillips calendar), just a bit more than an hour after our church had prayed for her, my beautiful daughter Rachael and dashing husband Kermit welcomed my beautiful granddaughter, Zoé Isabelle Allen, into the world. Zoé weighed in at 6 lb 15.8 oz, and was born at home. Here's pictures I have at post-time; will add more if I get more!

• And here's my beautiful wife and my beautiful granddaughter.

• Ahh.
• Now, from the sublime to... well, Mark Driscoll. You'll know by now that he has resigned as pastor. Here is Mark's letter, which I would characterize as defiant, unhumbled, and resentful. He makes sure everyone knows he's still qualified to be pastor and has a clean bill of health; any unspecified "imperfect" aspects have been all taken care of. His accusers are the real problem; nobody but Mark comes off very well, in his telling.
• Here's the letter from the Mars Hill overseers. They agree with Mark that, though he's got his problems, he's really a great guy.
• Of many articles I've seen, I think the crispest insight is from Michael Newnham, who says "In the corporate world, you cut your losses, protect your resume, and move on to the next opportunity." Does that not pretty well capture the Driscoll situation?
• Now surely the most surreal note comes in a post in, of all places, The Gospel Coalition, written by Trevin Wax. If you hadn't read it, and I summarized his third point for you, you'd say I had to be making it up. So here it is, verbatim. The point is "Character Matters as Much
  as Doctrine," and part of what Trevin says is (bold added):

Every tribe has its blind spots. It’s human nature to assume the best of your friends and worst of your enemies. I have seen this club mentality when well-known evangelicals with good reputations and solid character are dismissed simply because their biblical exegesis differs from ours. And I think some Christian leaders were slow to see the problems with Driscoll because he ”believes the right things.”

If anything, evangelicals gifted with discernment and biblical doctrine of sin and grace should have been the first to expose these problems. I know some of this critique happened behind the scenes, inside and outside Mars Hill. But more could have been done sooner to warn and protect the flock.

• So...

Trevin Wax at TGC says oh! if only SOMEONE had said SOMETHING about Driscoll's dire trajectory! IF ONLY! < buries face in hands >
— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) October 16, 2014

• Prompting:

@BibChr Someone = Top men. IOW, John MacArthur ≠ Someone. Carl Trueman ≠ Someone. The Pyromaniacs ≠ Someones. @JanetMefferd ≠ Someone.
— Tom Chantry (@tjchantry) October 16, 2014

• And perhaps:

John MacArthur Reads “Too Little, Too Late” Comment in @TrevinWax’s Mark Driscoll Post-Mortem; Literally Smacks Forehead
— The Gospel™ Corp (@TheGospelCorp) October 16, 2014

• And of course:

Trevin Wax Launches Satire Column at http://t.co/WTWlW5RzPy
— The Gospel™ Corp (@TheGospelCorp) October 16, 2014

• Some commenters asked Trevin to be more specific, but as of this posting, it hasn't happened.
• I don't know of anyone blocked or blacklisted by the TGC who's been contact by them, or "followed" by them in Twitter (to signal that they're opening up their echo chamber). But those were really nice words Trevin wrote.
• Not all comments passed moderation. Like Tom Chantry's.
• Carl Trueman has now weighed in. Some "money-quotes" [bolding added]:

It is interesting that the crisis finally came only when the aesthetics flipped the other way, when Driscoll and his antics became more distasteful than the words of his critics. It is important to notice that it was not the embrace of a Unitarian prosperity teacher and that decision's obvious doctrinal significance [on which see here, among many others by all three of us] which brought things to a head. Rather, it was the numerous allegations of bullying and loutish behaviour which finished him off -- things that are aesthetically displeasing in the current climate. The whistleblowers, however, are still not regarded as vindicated, despite having spoken the truth. I suspect they can -- pardon the pun -- whistle for an apology from the Top Men or for rehabilitation by the mainstream of YRR evangelicalism. For they can even now still be dismissed as smug (an aesthetic word if ever there was one) or simply forgotten because, whatever the truth they spoke, they were nonetheless engaged in the activity at a point in time when the aesthetics of the marketplace made their criticisms easy to characterize as unloving and thus distasteful.

When it comes to an instinct for staying ahead, the Top Men and their camp followers are masters of the taste-driven dynamics of the evangelical stock exchange: winsome and loving when the market's aesthetics demand such, then wise and discerning when tastes change. Like the secret of great comedy, the secret of being a respected leader in the world of Big Eva is really very, very simple: it's all a question of timing.

• Christmas is coming.

• I think that if something like this had been attempted when I was a student at Talbot, there would have been a very vigorous response. It reminds me of the classmate who said, back in the 80s, "I'm afraid that one day I'm going to have to explain my degree, like guys who went to Fuller have to do now."
  
• More news from the dominant, ever-broadening "fringe." One reads these revelations and accusations about 93yo Charismatic "prophet" Ernest Angley — who admits requesting to view mens' privates — with horror, but not particularly with surprise. See, here's the thing: in a healthy church, one would have watched Angley for about 5 minutes, to be generous, and dismissed him. He would never have been able to earn a living, let alone such a lavish lifestyle, from Christians.
• Except that Charismaticism gives him cover. And Christians who ought to know better (the "open but clueless" set) give Charismaticism cover. It is just as simple as that.
• Which BTW is a drum that John MacArthur has banged yet again and again. God bless him for his stand. I have no doubt as to what sort of ministry — enabling, or discerning — will stand better in that Day, in terms of how it dealt with the Charismatic movement.
• Too cool to miss: a Lego telling of The Hobbit in 72 seconds.
• Fred Butler hates Christmas, but loves "impact" as a verb.
• Wait, that's not quite right. The first part isn't, anyway. Fred Butler hates it when people read into Christmas trappings things that were never intended by their originators, even with the highest motives. There.
• Hm. How do I get my cats to do this?

• (...or, for that matter, my sons?)
• Ahhh, contextualizing...

Study Reveals Campus Ministry 57% More Phat Since Campus Crusade for Christ Changed Name to Cru
— The Gospel™ Corp (@TheGospelCorp) October 17, 2014

• Contextual street evangelism. Watch this evangelist reaching out to a Michael Jackson impersonator, contextualized-style:

• (Actually, that's not it at all. The note says it's a Mormon missionary. Emergo-Morms?)
• City officials subpoenaing sermons by pastors not even involved in a lawsuit, to see if they criticized city policy allowing sexually perverted individuals into bathrooms of the opposite sex. Sure, you say: in Sweden. But no. San Francisco? Not this story. England, France, Seattle? Nope. Try Texas. Try Houston, Texas. No lie.
• People think of Texas as conservative, and largely we are. But Austin and Houston teem with liberal, totalitarian, anti-Christian officials fighting their own war with God.
• Doug Wilson comments on the Houston situation. So does Carl Trueman. (Both men actually know a Houston pastor personally.)
• David Allen brings a good word about real men, touching on Driscoll and related matters.
• "How do I know if I'm elect?" Here's a pretty wonderful answer from Joseph Alleine.

• Doug Wilson seems to argue, not for the first time, that believing in justification by faith should prevent us from being too critical of Roman Catholics and others who claim to be Christian despite many and grave doctrinal and practical errors. After all, are they justified by faith, or by correctness and precision?
• Doug expresses admiration for a somewhat similar "magnificent" post by Mark Jones at, of all places, Reformation21. Jones, who has recently been defending the practice of "baptizing" people who have no faith at all, makes a more nuanced case than Wilson.
• What of it, then? For one thing, it seems to rest on a definition of faith that tears it from the realm of truth and doctrine. It seems to me to reverse what believers have argued since Schleiermacher, that saving faith must have content, and not just any content. For another, it makes Paul's attitude towards the Galatian errorists incomprehensible (I don't find Wilson's dismissal persuasive). For yet another, it leaves me wondering how we can criticize Zane Hodges and the rest of what chapter 10 of TWTG calls "gutless gracers." And isn't that an odd turn of events, when the nuanced and deep thinking of some Reformed brother leads them to stand pretty darned close to dispensational antinomians who are rejected by dispensationalists who affirm the Biblical Gospel of God's sovereign grace?
• I asked that question over at Doug's place, btw; no answer. He wrote more about it yesterday in an attempt to explain, but didn't allude to or answer my question.

As usual, check in later. This post usually grows through the day.

---

Some here, some there — August 8, 2014

by Dan Phillips

It is possible for a high-traffic blog to become an echo-chamber for others on the A-list. My vision is otherwise: I'd like to alert you to worthy material that may or may not be from the Top Men or their friends. So if you know of any low-profile, excellent, pithy and pointed material, email it to me. I'd love to expand the tent.

Such as...

• One who should be far better known and read than he is is my friend Fred Butler. Check out this narrative of his encounters (including a dinner) with Mormon missionaries. (And now I love his wife, too, though I've never met her!)
• Professor and pastor David Murray offers excellent tips for hospital visitation. Anyone could profit; particularly elders and deacons.
• Humor-pause:

• As he is wont to do, Carl Trueman poses a question many won't want asked, let alone answered.
• The problem, of course, is that what Trueman raises won't be dealt with seriously as long as there are enough "Leave Brittany TGC alone" types to shout down and vilify those asking even the most earnest, proactive, timely, brotherly questions.
  
• But some hope murmurs softly. When an article titled in part Why Collectively Ignoring Mark Driscoll Isn't an Option is greeted by some bright lights as if that suggestion has never been made, and must now be taken seriously... well, the tardiness may be irksome, but "late to the party" is still at the party. And that's something. Right?
• Some others think it's a big deal, too.
• So let me just say my one main and only point: the tardiness issue has such a grip on me because "a word in season" (Prov. 15:23) spoken years ago by those with Mark's ear, might have pointed a very gifted man in a direction that would have spared him and others a lot of heartbreak, pain, and regret, and been good for the Gospel. That being the case, I'd like to see lessons learned to prevent The Department of Redundancy Department from descending on us all again to do what it does. Understood?
• New topic!
• Despite it being on CT, here's a really good, touching, thought-provoking piece from sister Trillia Newbell on why she remained in a predominantly white church.
• Related reminders: we've weighed in here previously on racism from both directions, on the whole notion of deliberately-targeted-ethnicity Christian churches, and on how to think Biblically when walking into a church that seems not to be big on one's own comfort-zone. That last features the story of a man (Bill) who found himself in a situation similar to Trillia's.
• I'll admit my heart did a happy little leap when professor Mark Snoeberger (in a great little article) spoke appreciatively of "Pastor Phillips" and his clear writing on the relation of the Gospel to sanctification. Yay, someone is showing how TWTG anticipated and speaks directly to the grace-and-sanctification kerfuffle! Ah, but the good doctor meant the very fine post-length treatment by Rick Phillips, not the book-length treatment in TWTG by that other Phillips. That the truth is spreading, I rejoice, and I love Rick's writing.
• Jared Moore helpfully tackles 10 myths about lust. Seriously, that would be a great read after TWTG, as it's premised on a robust grasp of the transformative power of the Gospel.
• But then again, this is all some folks will be talking about. Properly so.

Programming note: I think my Hiatus will officially end 14 Sept 2014 Mark it down.
— Frank Turk (@Frank_Turk) August 8, 2014

• Two (non-contradictory) ways of responding to "But the Bible was written by man" dodge: Timothy's, and NEXT!'s. At least one of those should help you if you run into it.
• Finally: during my brief stint as an occasional church drummer, there was a song or two that I really didn't love ("Breathe" being the chief). So I compensated by trying to figure out an interesting way to accompany, that did adorn the song but also was more interesting to do. Is that at work here, in the mind of the drummer for one of the worst pagan-paean songs ever?

---

Janet Mefferd: The Alternate Ending

by Frank Turk

UPDATED 05 Dec 2013: Yesterday at the start of the 2 PM hour (central time) Janet Mefferd issued an apology for the interview with Mark Driscoll, and also removed all the links and files related to this incident.

For the record, my assumption is that Janet has acted inside her own good conscience and has reached this conclusion based on her own review of the events. Until/unless there is evidence to the contrary, we should all operate under that assumption for two reasons:

1. It speaks best of Mrs. Mefferd. It assumes that she is neither a victim nor the kind of drive-by hooligan some in the blogosphere have made her out to be.

2. It keeps our own consciences clear, and avoids acting like rumor mongers and people with hard hearts.

If there is more to discuss here, I'll come back to it.

Yes, I know.  I should be doing something else, Like Ministry.  This is the third of 3 posts on this subject, tracking back to yesterday and earlier today.

Back on Thursday, I got a tweet from some of my magic helpers that I needed to listen to the next segment of Janet Mefferd when it came on the web (recorded).  So I waited for it to go to the archive, and it took a little while, but here's what I found:

I have a few comments about this video and the ensuing firestorm, so what else have you got to do? Prepare for Thanksgiving?

The first comment is this -- Mark Driscoll is obviously a fantastic historian.  I have covered that in the previous post.

But let's forbid that we seem too harsh.  Mark may be battling the flu, or be on cold medicine, and he may be too weak to take it.  But the uncut video reviewed there seems to be less than congruent with the events Pastor Driscoll has described.

In that context, Janet certainly went after Mark in her radio interview -- something, let's face it, Mark has never allowed before.  Maybe no one has ever really had the audacity to try since Driscoll is well-known as a manly man. But Janet addressed the appearance of wrong-doing at the StrangeFire conference in the first segment, and then moved on to Mark's new book in the next segment.

Put on your Big Girl Pant-TAYS!
If you want to DANCE!

That brings me to my second comment: I think it's a lot less than credible for Driscoll to believe nobody would eventually call him on his antics if he gave enough interviews.  Let's be serious: he did what he did for publicity, and it was exactly what he wanted.  For him to feign suffering indignity at this point can only be accounted for as part of the show -- not as any actual loss of dignity.  He doesn't have a scrap of that left to lose.

But let's turn to the second segment for a moment just for the sake of finishing this post well.  It's one thing to mention you have heard something from someone you know (and to do so in print), and it's another thing use those ideas without attribution.  That, ultimately, is the hazard of writing non-fiction.  Over the weekend, Wade Burleson weighed in about his view of the documentation problems with Driscoll's book.  I don't know anyone who would write a book using someone else's ideas without fully attributing them at all points.   I think Janet's argument gains full force when she cites the Mars Hill web site's fair use statement and points out that it seems like Pastor Driscoll may have the problem of a double standard.

Further, let's also remember that Mark Driscoll is a man and not a venerated saint.  As Carl Trueman points out in his piece from this weekend, someone ought to tell the Emperor when he's not wearing any clothes -- and if that's not politically correct, we have a problem of Christian ethics to deal with when it comes to the lifestyles of the Young, Restless and Reformed.

However, what has surfaced, apparently through Mark's publisher, is this alternate version of the last 2 minutes of the audio:

DOWNLOAD THE MP3 RIGHT HERE

What's unusual about this clip, I think, is that it turns out that it was allegedly recorded by the fellows at Mars Hill.  I had no idea that was ever done when one does an interview, but everyone lives the way they live.  It's obviously different than the end of the interview which went out live, and it bears another strange artifact: the voice of Mark's producer during the end of the interview.

That artifact is strange for one reason only: plainly, Mark's voice is over the phone; his assistant (I am told it is the voice of Justin Dean) is plainly not on the phone -- his voice doesn't sound like it's coming over the phone line but from another (better quality) mic. If they were doing a remote or some sort of studio-to-studio broadcast, that makes sense, but a phone interview?  Obviously they do it differently than many.

It seems to me we have to clear this one up, too.  By "we," I don't mean tiny, unable-to-hiatus me and then DJP.  I mean "we" the people tossing out accusations who are public people.  And I think there's an easy way to do this.

The version published to YouTube by the Janet Mefferd Show and Salem Radio has the breaks cut out, as podcasted radio often does. That audio is an air check, recorded from the output of the board in Janet's studio.  It is recorded on the Dallas end of the line.  While Ms. Mefferd's people have been adamant that they did not use the kill switch at any time for this interview (it's clear this is true during the interview earlier as Janet and Mark talk over each other a couple of times), it's possible, I guess, that someone's finger slipped.  However, it's unlikely that any fingers slipped on the Seattle side of the phone.  Since they were plainly recording the show, I say they come forward with the whole thing including the breaks so we can see what Pastor Driscoll was doing while the listeners were listening to commercials.  I'm sure he got moral support from Mr. Dean as the interview was not conducted from a position of genuflection on the part of Ms. Mefferd, and it will speak to the authenticity of the whole "alternative ending" now provided by Mars Hill and Tyndale.

What we certainly don't want to find out is that Mark Driscoll hung up in frustration, Mars Hill lied to Tyndale, and has caused Justin Taylor to promulgate a lie and accuse Ms. Mefferd of a few things he might regret having said.  What we want is to bring all the facts to light, exonerate Mark Driscoll, demonstrate that he doesn't live in a fantasy world where he is the dictator of thing past, present and future, and that the rest of us can retire since the only safe future for the Church is the one in his hands, according to his book, with or without a footnote.  That's the safe path, and I pray that we can all take it -- because after the events at StrangeFire, Mark's batting average is at stake. (which is not to say: again)

Can we live with the consequences of what we find when all the facts come to light?

The Mark Driscoll Experience

by Frank Turk

Do you know how I expected to spend my weekend?  Moving furniture around my house and watching WAY too much Doctor Who.  That's all I wanted -- maybe a nice visit with our prospective new Family pastor at church, a decent morning of worship on Sunday, and a couple of walks with my dog.

Instead, due entirely to my own fault, I am writing blog posts.

What I am actually trying to do is to show some solidarity and good will to a long-time friend of this blog, Janet Mefferd.  Janet is a radio host out of Dallas, and has been a fan of fellow Pyro Dan Phillips, for years. Up until Friday, Janet was a well-respected broadcast personality -- but then she had the audacity to be less than submissive toward Mark Driscoll on her radio show.  We can all guess how that went.

Anyway, I intended to do one blog post about that interview, but that turned into quite a ride -- and may have been unreadable in one sitting.  You can imagine how long it was to say that here.  So here's the agenda for today:

YESTERDAY, I gave credit where credit is due to Steve Cha, who provided the raw video which is featured below in today's post.

THIS POST TODAY is about that video vis a vis the other account floating around the internet, which happens to be Pastor Mark's account.

THE NEXT POST will be about Janet's interview with Mark because she has received a good deal of flack for it -- and most of that criticism  is, frankly, worthy of the dung heap.  More on that next time.

In a very muddled and expansive mess of a post, Driscoll attempted to do ... well, something.  Was he trying to be nice to John MacArthur? Helpful? Inviting? Collegial? Or self-serving and obsequious? It's hard to tell because while it starts, "Dear Pastor John MacArthur," is has a pretty long (about a third of the letter by word count) excursus on how he was bullied in the parking lot by security.  One wonders how Chris Rosebrough's treatment at ER2 missed his notice.

As always with Pastor Mark, it's a gripping tale in which he is the hero:

As you may have heard, I dropped by your recent Strange Fire conference. I happened to be in the area speaking at an Act Like Men conference in Long Beach. I intentionally came during a break so as not to interrupt the sessions, and I met some great people. I got to pray with a number of great young leaders in your seminary who also podcast my sermons. Out of respect for you, I said nothing unkind about you or your ministry to anyone on my visit.

Your pastoral staff was very gracious and hospitable. I met your executive pastor, Michael Mahoney, who offered me water, asked if I needed anything while signing books, and was very gracious. I also met Austin Duncan, your college pastor who hung out for my entire visit and was very enjoyable.

The volunteers on your security team, most of them seminary students, were also very kind. They helped me park and enter the event, and some came by for a photo or a free book and brought great practical questions about their future ministry and how they could serve Jesus most effectively.

Everyone I asked who is attending your seminary said they chose your school because they wanted to learn to preach the Bible. As a Bible preacher, I rejoice in that. I actually considered attending your school myself after I finished my undergraduate work, but I was newly married and could not afford any seminary at the time. Some years later, I was thankfully able to get my master’s from Western Seminary.

The only difficult moments on my visit came during my interactions not with your pastoral staff, but with a few of the apparently staff security personnel. I had been handing out advance copies of my new book for free; the pastoral staff said I was welcome on campus. They were kind, and some of them even asked for photos and books, which I gave them and signed with a pen I borrowed from your son, Mark. He kindly lent it to me, we visited, and he too was very kind, very welcoming, and very gracious.

However, there were two security guards who seemed to operate in a manner inconsistent with the permission I received from the pastoral staff. These two men took turns approaching me as I was talking with and praying for people, and things got confusing.

Security said I could not hand the books out, so I stopped. But people started helping themselves to the books that remained in the box, so security said the books had to be removed. One of the security guards said if I did not remove the books, he would “have to take it to the next level.” I asked him what that meant, curious, as his tone was different than the pastoral staff I had encountered. He admitted he did not know what the next level was. The other security guard then approached, saying the books had to be removed. He told me that they were taking them to put them in a Mustang, which they apparently thought was my vehicle. I did not know what Mustang they were referring to. In any case, it was obvious that my gift books were being removed.

It was at this point that I told the security guard that, since they were going to confiscate the books anyway, they could just keep them as a gift from me. Apparently, someone recorded the final words of this conversation on video, but nothing of the prior conversations that led up to it.

As Bible teachers, we both know that people often arrive at the wrong conclusion when they extract a line out of an ongoing discussion, ignoring the context, and then wrongly impugn someone’s character. I am guessing the security team and pastoral team were not entirely rowing in the same direction, and that security thought they were just doing their job.

Mistakes happen. I understand. And since no one owes me anything, I am grateful I got to hang out for a bit and meet some of the pastoral staff and your son. I would’ve been glad to have met you as well.

Maybe that can still happen?

Quite an account, yes?  You would think that there was nearly a street fight the way he tells it.  The reason he has to say anything about it, of course, is because this is how he summarized it on Twitter:

Right?  I mean: the story we find ourselves in here started with Driscoll's tweet on 18 October that GCC security took his books, and it's paired with a photo of a fellow who, frankly, looks like security.  To that end, I'm sure it's right of Mark to let everybody know that, in spite of rough treatment, he's OK -- in fact, in spite of rough treatment, he's actually coming back with a kind and brotherly spirit.

Which is a great story -- if any of it is true.

If only we had a way to check the story.  If only we had ... Steve Cha's video.

Now, a few caveats:

[1] Yes: Steve's video is only 4 minutes, and Driscoll was on the campus about 30-45 minutes, so this is at-best a 10% sample of the whole visit.

[2] Yes, some of the audio isn't great.

But I think these 4 minutes of video do tell us something.  Let's watch:

Now: so what?  What's that video tell us?  Mostly, it tells us that the Mark Driscoll Experience at the GCC campus was, to say the least, cordial.  Even his interaction with Mr. Tom Hatter was almost entirely friendly and uneventful.  But it also tells us when the photo posted on Pastor Driscoll's Instagram/Twitter account happened:

Oh wait -- no, that's a frame from this video with three guys not Tom Hatter called out for reference.  This one is from Driscoll's Instagram:

These photos are snapped within moments of each other, and plainly: this segment of the video shows there's no confiscation going on.  So the Tweet wasn't quite a historical account.  Wouldn't it be great if Driscoll actually said, "I was wrong to say the books were confiscated.  I apologize as I made it sound  like your people were out to get me.  Please forgive me?"  I think it would.

But let's ask ourselves: how about the blog post?  Is the blog post any better than the tweet?

Well, of the 30-45 minutes he was there, we can admit that most of it is missing.  Most was not recorded.  But let's be fair to all parties: the sort of confusion and tense situations Driscoll describes also seems absent.

It could be that the fix was in, and Steve Cha was only recording nice stuff.  It could have been a set-up by the GCC staff, right?  See: that makes sense if somehow they invited Driscoll or intended for him to be there.  But somehow, since Driscoll's tweet is transparently false based on the video evidence, how much stock should we put in his blog post?  "the Next level"?  What is this - an off-broadway production of Roadhouse?

My only purpose in rehearsing this clown show is this: the experience at GCC was for publicity only, and of course Mark played it for the cheap seats.  The phony tweet, the obsequious blog post, the phony invitation to his conference -- all of it entry-level stunts.

After all these, he appears on the Janet Mefferd Show.  As he says, he does Janet a favor.

And that's the subject of the next blog post.

---