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!

---

Some here, some there — November 28, 2014

by Dan Phillips

Happy day after Thanksgiving, y'all. Hope your yesterday was fun and familial and grateful.

Here's the first edition, 8:44 TX time. I plan to add through the morning as I can; have a hospital call pretty soon, so...limited! Enjoy.

• We're not all married here... so, was this anyone's yesterday? Yikes, I hope not!

• That was Thursday. Now it's Friday.

H-T this tweet: http://bit.ly/1xQRWzu

• So John Piper thinks (in a piece from 11/6) that bullying pastors abuse their authority and should be rebuked. Seriously, he does. Does say that.
• The article doesn't relate whether Piper was asked if those who have promoted and shielded bullying pastors despite repeated warning bear any responsibility or should be subject to any rebuke or expected to offer apologies or show repentance.

Has @ctmagazine crossed the Tiber? Not quite, but we honor #PopeFrancis's witness in our Dec issue. - @KatelynBeaty pic.twitter.com/fuhvkzslXo
— Christianity Today (@CTmagazine) November 25, 2014

• What does Fred Astaire in a beanie have to do with it, though?
• Anyway, my reply was:

• No response.
• One more in that general area: another person John Piper elevated despite a flood of pleas and warnings was Rick Warren. I wonder if this will bring a "Do you regret partnering with Rick Warren"/"I don't regret befriending Rick Warren":

Anyone who can talk like this has no business anywhere near a Christian pulpit: . Farewell, Rick Warren. http://t.co/qFXiZHKJpq
— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) November 27, 2014

• I quote James White about as often as he quotes me; that said, I'm in total agreement with this sentiment:

Your video capitulating to Rome and betraying the Reformation, @RickWarren , breaks my heart—and should be a warning to all.
— James White (@DrOakley1689) November 28, 2014

• Maybe someone needs to direct Warren to PA#27?
• Hm; that post is almost ready to become Forty Days of Phillips' Axioms, isn't it?
• Any post with lines like "The goal of the pansexualist movement is to remove all creational distinctives," and "They want to batter down every border, every barrier, so that when we are all done, every sentient being has been melted down into their great cauldron of lust.," and "I would rather be on the wrong side of history, as they see it, than on the wrong side of stupidity, as God sees it," probably demands to be read.
• Now the Ferguson section.
• I wonder what people see when they compare Russell Moore's Ferguson and the Path to Peace with this post.
• If Moore were the sort who interacted with his readers, I would have asked this question in the comments: "You say 'we ought to recognize that it is empirically true that African-American men are more likely, by virtually every measure, to be arrested, sentenced, executed, or murdered than their white peers.' If true, that is incontestably a tragic, sad statement, period. But why do you think it is an inherently meaningful statement? What do you think it means? What is your solution? ("Church," he says, and that is part of the answer — which, again, I ask that you compare to this answer.)
• Reformation21 has a writer who tells white people what they may and may not say to black people; but as a sort of balance, he also tells blacks what not to say to whites. Interestingly, his first dictum to whites is "Don't tell us we make everything about race" — and yet he writes for an organization self-named Reformed African-American Network. No further comment.
• (Which of course reminds me of the time I NEVER, EVER wrote for an organization called Reformed Pudgy White Guy Network.)
• By contrast, even though it's on TGC, this post by Voddie Baucham is really, really good. You'd swear he and I'd been in collusion, as if we'd agreed "You focus on this aspect, I'll focus on that, and we'll meet in the middle." But we didn't.
• On the other hand, Thabiti Anyabwile — a brother I like, love, learn from, and count as a friend — thinks the Grand Jury outcome is an injustice. Concerning my post, Thabiti was kind enough to say:

I think I’m in complete agreement with everything that’s said here, tho not everything is said here: http://t.co/LvA3m2Mdev @BibChr
— Thabiti Anyabwile (@ThabitiAnyabwil) November 26, 2014

• (Aside: Challies also recommended the piece, which we appreciate; it apparently not visible to TGC writers.)
• Then Thabiti wrote FourCommon But Misleading Themes In Ferguson-Like Times, which at least seems to offer push-back to both Voddie (primarily and by name), and to yr obdt svt.
• I'll offer this: to the degree that every one of my prescriptions were followed, it would certainly reduce the rate of theft, imprisonment, death and all the related miseries. If every one of Thabiti's suggestions were followed... arguably could mean fewer dead innocents, more dead policemen, both, or something else.
• Now to finish on non-Ferguson topics...
• Somehow I missed the brilliance of Andrew Wilson's Case for Idolatry. I hereby correct that omission, and raise it an Accurate Parody.
• "Sologamy"? Wouldn't a better term be "ipsogamy"?

Now I'll leave you tapping your toes with a video suggested by Kerry Allen:

---

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.

---

...but what about Grudem / Piper / Carson?

by Dan Phillips

A couple of poor souls have unintentionally given us golden examples of why it is valid to fault the best for giving cover to the worst.

A number of dainty souls didn't like, and fretted anxiously about, this Twitter hashtag. Our focus isn't the hashtag itself, or all the broken tea-cups it's caused. It's these two Tweets:

That ignoramous, Wayne Grudem. Who gave him a doctorate anyway?cRT  @BibChr: Hebrew? Greek? Pah! Why study?! #CharismaticismInFiveWords
— bradford davis (@_BWD_) August 8, 2013

Carson, Grudem, Keener, Piper, Storms. #CharismaticisminFiveWords
— Jeff Doles (@JeffDoles) August 9, 2013

With those in mind, scan the rest of my Tweets under the hashtag. You know, if you want to.

Leave aside whether you think this is wise, loving, winsome, effective, ambassadorial, ecumenical, or eco-friendly or likely to produce global warming. I only have one question: given the limitations of 140 characters, and given that I have dozens of long-form essays on record and internationally-accessible, are my criticisms accurate and vitally important criticisms of the distinctives of Charismaticism/"continuationism"?

"Dan who? Sure, you bet: him too!"

With the candor you expect, whether you love it or hate it, I'll tell you straight up: in responding to that questions, there will be only three kinds of people:

1. Those who love and know God's word and know Charismaticism, and therefore basically agree with the observations.
2. Those who don't know one, the other, or both.
3. Those in serious denial about Charismaticism/"continuationism."

This still isn't my point; this is still premise-building.

So, with that established, what do my Tweets target in Charismaticism and "continuationism"?

1. Prizing experience over truth.
2. Unbiblical redefinition of prophecy to validate and legitimatize their experience.
3. Unbiblical redefinition of tongues to validate and legitimatize their experience.
4. Mistaking feelings for reality.
5. Mistaking self-image for reality.
   
6. Complete absence of Acts 4:16-level "gifts"-activity since the first century, endlessly rationalized.
7. Playing host to (and providing cover fire for) the very worst false teachers.
8. Avoiding Biblical assessment at all costs, and shaming any who attempt Biblical assessment.
9. Effectively sidelining the Word of God.
10. Promising the moon, delivering nothing but excuses, dodges, and blame-shifting — at best.
11. Effectively relocating the center of authority from God's Word to internal feelings and experiences.

And to this, what is one negative response I get? Well, besides unwitting validation of every criticism?

"But... Wayne Grudem! But... John Piper! But... D. A. Carson!"

So here, finally, is the point: every central, vitally important, and devastating Biblical critique of Charismaticism/"continuationism"'s horrendous doctrinal and practical errors is swept under the cover provided by respected names.

Because every one of us — me included — would regard Grudem, Piper, and Carson (some would add Sam Storms) as men we hold in high regard and from whom we've received great benefit, the mere mention of their names as validating this or that Charismatic position is thought to be sufficient to end the discussion. Charismaticism is basically okay and not a wholesale disaster because... Wayne Grudem has done good work on complementarianism and wrote a pretty terrific Systematic Theology (except for the gift-parts). Because... John Piper has written wonderful things about God (when not providing cover for "continuationism"). Because... D. A. Carson is D. A. Carson.

And so don't you see, this whole "Now now now, you mustn't lump them all together" argument just doesn't work. The worst practices are rationalized by adducing some (otherwise) really good names. I point out that Charismaticism/"continuationism" is not marked by much concern with Hebrew, Greek, exegesis... and "Wayne Grudem! Your argument is invalid!"

Well no, it isn't. One man who's done a lot of terrific work except for his terrible work on "prophecy," etc. does not change the movement's characteristic hue.

I think we all agree we don't want to worship men, and that would include the three I've named. But I for one have no problem admiring them, looking up to them with respect, recommending them and their work... and, at the same time, being able to say when I think they're dead-wrong.

Does having one really-good guy make a movement good? Or three? Or twenty-three? Is that how we evaluate things Biblically now? Stack up the names on each side?

(Aside: boy oh boy, should Charismatics/"continuationists" ever not want to play that game!)

In that case, we all had better start spattering water on our unsuspecting little babies, and calling the Pope the antichrist, and forgetting about most of the unfulfilled prophecies of the OT ever coming true in any sense authors or readers would ever recognize.

And in that case, perhaps instead of names like "Acts 29" and such, we should creating ministries called "John 7:48 Ministries," or "1 Corinthians 1:12 Ministries."

Grudem has done some great work, as I said. John Piper helped me out of depression. D. A. Carson is a lighthouse in the academic world. I recommend many of their books.

But if they've propped up modern charismaticism/"continuationism," in that particular, they're just wrong. Maybe it's .000013% of their total output, maybe more; but that part is a mistake. Though it may be relatively small, it may do a lot of damage. Grudem hasn't been shy about his redefinition of prophecy; think of how much damage that error alone has caused.

But to discuss that meaningfully — unless you want to take a few hours while I counter by naming off every notable non-Charismatic, non-"continuationist" Christian over the last 1900+ years — I guess we'll just have to get to Scripture and facts and logic.

You know, like we've done here since the very start, and like I've done in both blogs and other public venues, for about the last three decades.

---

Compare, Contrast, Caterwaul (1 of 2)

by Frank Turk

When I ran into these older videos last week, I knew I would be blogging about them this week because of the topical nature of the subjects they cover.  What I did not remember (saying I did not know this would be false, but I always hope for the best) is that Satan controls my scheduled work load, and when I have a great blogging subject like this I wind up having more work than 5 people can accomplish, and my blogging takes a back seat.

So here's the deal:  This is the first of a 2-part post.  Today I'm posting two videos by well-respected men speaking on the same subject, and here's my ground-rule for keeping the comments open: you must find all the good things from these videos this week -- because there is something good in both of these videos.  Negative comments will simply be deleted without any warning or recourse.  Next week we'll talk about whether or not one of these videos is better than the other, and in what way, and what the other video can teach us both from a positive example and from its shortcomings.

First, from John Piper:



Second, from Tim Keller:



Mind your manners.

---

[another] Open Letter to John Piper

by Frank Turk

UPDATED: I have received a couple of e-mails about this letter, and they are making the case that Rick Warren did not mean "Edwards influenced PDL" when he answered the question posed to him on page 4 of the transcript. This is an interesting position. I have opened a poll at the top of the page here to canvass the readers of this blog. Please take the pol only after you have either read the transcript or watched the first 15 minutes of the video. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.

Dear Dr. Piper --

First of all, I am personally still grateful that you are back in public ministry. I am personally still edified by you, and am grateful for your spirit and your mission to make Christ known. I would in no way retract my original open letter to you as I believe that you have been mightily used by God for his work to make Christ known in the English-speaking world, and I credit you for it.

I am also on-record to say that you were right, back when Rick Warren spoke by video at the DG conference, to point out that we allegedly-reformed people have something to learn from Warren when it comes to being intentional about people and not just about doctrine. I wouldn't retract one word of that post either.

While I can't speak for my fellow bloggers here at PyroManiacs, I can say that I am probably the least-unimpressed with Pastor Warren. Without naming names or trying to line out who would say what about whom, it's enough to say that the consensus here is that Rick Warren harms the church in general. His books have done more of a dis-service for local churches than they have served to improve them, and his own methods and writings are frankly a bad example for others.

[Note to readers: after Phil returns to the US from his trip to Europe, he's going to do a full review of the interview with Chris Rosebrough on Fighting for the Faith]

Personally, I'm not a fan of Rick Warren. I can't get excited about his approach to Scripture and Ministry because I see all his writing and sermons as glib, simplistic, mediocre, and often muddled in his broad endorsements of people in interfaith settings -- something I know you disagree with. This was the major stunner from last year's conference: you see Pastor Warren as a great communicator -- which I think is startling because you are yourself a great communicator, and I would think you personally would know better than this. From my perspective, Pastor Warren has done what so many Southern Baptist pastors have done: he has created a local civic institution which has come into national prominence because so many people have come to it. And on that platform his shortcomings are simply magnified, so that the kinds of criticisms he receives are at least warranted because they have such a wide-reaching effect.

But at the same time, I also cannot bring myself to brand Rick Warren, as Chris Rosebrough would say, a rank heretic of a pelagian stripe [a view Phil has a lot of sympathy for]. I can't do it because I know where he comes from denominationally and ecclesiastically, and I simply can't write off the standard vocabulary of the average SBC pastor as inherently-pelagian. It may be populist in intention, and anti-intellectual in spirit, and simply and finally guided by the view that the number of people who agree with you and will follow you defines the success of your work, but I honestly don't see Rick Warren as anti-Christian. He's just mediocre, and popular, and most of his critics cannot evaluate him from that perspective because, frankly, they cannot muster a generous or balanced approach to discernment in general.

That, I think, is what guided your interview of Pastor Warren: a reaction against his most-unfair critics. As you see him as your friend, I credit you for wanting to defend a friend against injustice. But here's the thing: it seems to me that you thereby missed the point of all the fair criticism of Rick Warren and the PDC/PDL approach to local church life. In seeking to overcome the unfair criticism, you brushed over the concerns legitimate people have about your friend.

There were great opportunities to address those problems during this interview. For example, when pastor Warren boasted that he'd put any 500 members of Saddleback up against any 500 members of any other church with regard to doctrinal knowledge (cf. pg 36 of the transcript), this was a great opportunity to consider his consistency. If the members of his church are deeply educated in systematic doctrine, why does he preach without using the language of the Bible for the doctrines of the Bible -- let alone the common language of systematic theology (cf. pg 37)? Isn't this kind of latently anti-intellectual approach to doctrine and the Bible the most serious cause for concern about what Pastor Warren has advocated for 25 years?

To that charge, it's also interesting that he offered the claim that he has read the "complete sets of Jonathan Edwards ... 22 volumes, 800 pages each" (pg 4), and it had a significant influence on PDL. PDL was published in Nov 2002, and written presumably in the previous year -- and through that time, only volume 18 of the Yale "Works" series had been published. Perhaps he forgot how much he had read prior to writing that book; we are all getting older and are not the Grad students we once were.  But more to the point, if Edwards was such a profound influence on PDL, why is his name so conspicuously-absent from it? Others are plainly mentioned in the book: Brother Lawrence is mentioned 5 times; Dr. Hugh Moorehead is quoted 3 times; Mother Teresa is cited twice; Hudson Taylor is mentioned once; Billy Graham is mentioned once; George Bernard Shaw was mentioned; Lane Adams [an author with fewer readers than this blog can claim] is quoted; there are others. [Thx, Kindle Edition search, since the book lacks a subject index] Plainly, these influenced Pastor Warren's writing of this book. Why not mention Jonathan Edwards if he had, as Warren said in the video, greatly influenced PDL?

To point this out and to ask Pastor Warren how he can substantiate this statement when factually it seems, at best, unsupported by the text, would not have been a hard item to come up with. I had not read PDL in almost 10 years, and this bit of emendation to the text seemed obvious -- an interesting and challenging point to investigate; it's unfortunate you missed the opportunity.

The enduring legacy of PDL, though, is Warren's use of any and every translation of a passage to allegedly make a point. For example, in Chpt 8 of PDL, Pastor Warren cites Ps 147:11 as "The LORD is pleased only with those who worship him and trust his love." This theological point is certainly true enough, but this is the CEV translation of a passage which reads "the LORD takes pleasure in those who fear him, in those who hope in his steadfast love," (ESV) or "The LORD taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy," (KJV) -- a phrase which, in the context of the Psalm in question, as you know, is a contrast of God's will to do good over and against the normal hope of man that one's own strength or accomplishments will carry the day. This example is a rather-mild incident in PDL, but it is by no means the only one. For your reference, Tim Challies shares this concern, as does Mike Oppenheimer of "Let Us Reason" Ministries. Monergism.com points out that PDL is not the only source of data regarding Pastor Warren's misuse of Scripture.

This practice of cherry-picking the loosest and most-imprecise translations of passages to make a point in PDL is probably the most-pervasive criticism of the text, and you never arrive there. Of all the things you are from the pulpit and in your ministry, you are a man of God's word, and the misuse of Scripture is not something you usually lay hands on lightly. From my desk, it seems to me you can't possibly have missed this. Let's admit this: you didn't ignore the issue of hermeneutics. You opened up the question of how one uses Scripture  (pp. 5, 14, 34). You simply didn't pursue it. You allowed Pastor Warren to simply say that he doesn't believe in contradictions in the word of God, and let that be enough. It's a casual approach to the man and his philosophy, not a deep consideration.

And in the end, this is why I have written to you. I am your fan, and deeply indebted to you for your lifetime of faithful ministry. I'm not a quack blogger who is now emptying my library of anything you may have written or edited because you are endorsing a dubious partner in ministry. I'm a guy who has grown because of your engagement with the glory of God, and have felt the weight of the divine act of the incarnation and crucifixion because of your meditation on and exhortation of God's Grace. I am a better man, and a better father, and a better husband, because you have put the Gospel to me in serious and sober and joyful terms. I believe completely that the greatest cause in the world is joyfully rescuing people from hell, meeting their earthly needs, making them glad in God, and doing that with a kind and serious pleasure that makes CHRIST look like the treasure He is.

I believe in your faith, and in your good judgment. While I cannot and will not question the former, I ask you to reconsider the latter as you are now campaigning for a broader and deeper acceptance of Rick Warren among those in broader "reformed", "T4G", and "Gospel Coalition" circles. He is, after all, a pastor and not merely a blogger. He's a shepherd and not merely a popular author. He's sending missionaries and not merely encouraging middle-class values. And as you seek to leverage the good name and good faith relationships you have among your partners in the groups listed above, remember that part of fellowship among brothers is honoring the concerns and objections your fellow workmen have expressed throughout the years about Rick Warren.  He only has something to gain from their acceptance -- while they clearly would tell you there is something to lose by uncritically allowing him in as a teacher and leader.

In closing, I have a great empathy for your efforts to seek to be inclusive for the sake of Christ toward those who are in Christ but not in our basic theological camp. As I close in on a decade of internet punditry as a blogger and advocate for the Christian faith, I am deeply sensitive to the dark and unrestrained excesses of those who count themselves as defenders of the faith but are unaccountable for their strident pronouncements. As someone who is often lumped in with those sort, I think it's important to say plainly that I don't think it's an easy or uncomplicated thing to write you, a seasoned pastor, a critical open letter.  I think you are right that some have treated Rick Warren with injustice -- but he is not hardly the man your interview with him paints him to be. He's not hardly someone deeply concerned with a robust declaration of the Gospel and its consequences. His weekly preaching does not reflect this, and his books do not reflect this. After 40 years of demonstrating pastoral care for real people and careful, weekly expository preaching, you must be able to see the deficiencies in what he has done, is doing, and will continue to do if accepted without asking the serious questions his writing and actions create.

Please: for the sake of your own continued credibility, and for the sake of the partnerships in the Gospel which you have forged with other men of good faith, reconsider the broad and uncritical endorsement you are giving to Rick Warren. Underscore your differences with him clearly and cogently, and ask him to respond seriously for the sake of his commitment to your integrity and his own.

For that reason, I leave you with a blessing. As the apostle charged, it is always our purpose to give a reason for the hope that is in us -- to put to shame those who would revile us for Christ's sake -- with gentleness and reverence. As you have spent your adult life doing this, I ask God our Father, through the Holy Spirit, and in Christ's name, to bless you for it now with these things: love for your friend beyond mere bonhomie; courage to speak prophetically and evangelistically; and humility to see the limits of your own approach to what you believe is addressing injustice.

My thanks for your time.

---

Open Letter to John Piper

by Frank Turk

Dear Dr. Piper,

With my letter last week is still rippling through the blogosphere, I had a list of letters I wanted to write, and they are all still in draft form as they're not ready for public consumption -- they are certainly not ready to be released into the public square under the jaundiced eye of those whom I last week offended. So to give them a breather, and to give myself some simpler fare for the week, I just wanted to write a letter of thanks.



I thought about writing a letter to the pastor who baptized me and who discipled me in the early years of my Christian life, and also my married life. But he's not a public figure, and he doesn't try to be. He has a flock which has grown, by God's grace, over twenty years if ministry in one place. He's got a brilliant heart for the lost, for those in his spiritual care, and for Christ. I am certain his reward will be great when he sees his Master.

So rather than draw attention to him, I thought I'd think about someone who was in the public eye, and does serve us all so well, and who probably isn't expecting it from this blog, anyway. You took almost a year off last year, and many of us were surprised -- especially given the reasons you listed (rather cryptically, I might add). But to come back to your pulpit and your church and your public life with a frank self-assessment of where you have been and where you'd like to end up if the Lord waits a little while more is an encouragement to the rest of us. It's encouraging to know that one can admit there is something spiritual and significant to do better, especially when one is at the top of his public game, and especially when it connects directly with one's qualifications for ministry.

I wanted to tell you that I have been encouraged for years by your love of, and exhortations from, the lives of post-biblical saints. It's one thing, for example, to be a properly-informed admirer of William Tyndale, and another to want to weep because his life story is so alien to mine -- and his faithfulness so simple and convicting. Thank you for showing us the myriad of ways to live faithfully through their example.

I wanted to thank you for your care for the Gospel even in your enthusiasm for, well, spiritual enthusiasms. I can't agree with you on all of the ways you think the Holy Spirit works today, but I am always edified to see you put God's word and His message to us above any other impulse or private revelation you might have confidence in. It teaches the model of spiritual moderation to all of us, so that we may adorn the Gospel and not cheapen it with our favorite gimmicks.

I wanted to thank you for the nearly-endless resources at DesiringGod.org. The only thing I can say there is "wow. Free? Wow."

Last, as I do not want to belabor this note, thanks for giving us hope in a world that can seem out of control. Thanks from making the supremacy of God in all things a matter that we have to consider and reconsider daily, hourly, minute by minute. Thank you for showing us that the Gospel is not just a declaration, but the definite plan of God which holds us together and keeps us safe. That you for showing us how good the good news can be.

As you come back to your ministry, and start ordering your legacy for the next generation, may what is left for you in this world be a blessing. We love you and honor you for giving your life to the encouragement of God's people.

---