A few people noticed that a mugging was about to happen. There was no doubt. It was unmistakable: an act of violence was about to unfold right in front of their eyes, and it was going to be gruesome.
Something had to be done. Those who saw events begin to unfold could not imagine not doing what they could to prevent it. So they let out a shout of warning.
The moment they began to cry out, however, a circle of people formed around both victim and perpetrator. The circle was composed of big, respectable, decent folks. Their backs were turned towards those crying out.
Oh good. The right people were on the scene! Surely they saw what was going to happen. Surely they'd intervene.
And yet... they did nothing.
So the outsiders, really alarmed now, raised their voices. They were pointed, they were specific, they were passionate, they were eloquent to the point of heart-breaking. It was a life or death situation; this was not the moment for collegial tea and crumpets on the deck. But there was enough time, if someone did something in response to all their shouts and cries.
But how was that possible? The folks who were sounding the alarm were right there, and they were plenty loud. Yet these good, decent folks just stood there. But this one... did he actually have his hands over his eyes so as to "not see" the people waving their arms? And that one... were those his fingers, stuck in his ears so as to "not hear" the cries of warning?
Others formed in the crowd as well, onlookers...
Then, suddenly and inevitably, it happened. It was every bit as brutal and shocking as the outer circle had warned. Worse. Still, they gasped. They gaped. How could this have happened?
And then, at long last, the inner circle finally turned around and faced outward.
As the bodies were being carted off.
They made hushing, calming gestures with their hands. "Now, now," tutted a central figure:
"No doubt what happened was regrettable. It's a sad day, and a sad, sad thing that happened. We are all deeply grieved. All of us love peace. We all detest violence. We cherish exactly what you cherish. We are with you. We are you.
"No doubt many will be upset. No doubt many will wonder why something wasn't done. Well, just be assured, your leaders are in charge. They have the situation well in hand. There is absolutely nothing to be alarmed about, nothing to be upset or energized about, certainly nothing to raise your voices about. If there had been, you know we would have told you.
"Perhaps something good may even come of this!
"Now, back to your homes and churches with you, go on, that's a good lot.
"We may even write a book about this. If one of us does write a book, we'll be sure to let you know. And if we don't tell you, you don't need to know."
And to the slack-jawed amazement of those who had cried alarm and had been ignored, to their ears came the sound of...Applause!
Applause, and shouts of praise for the inner circle of silent spectators. Praise for their sagacity, their "nuance," their "judiciousness," their "carefulness," their "graciousness" (towards the muggers), their "thoughtfulness," their "helpfulness"; the hours they'd put into such careful and intelligent watching and spectating, and then for so articulately commenting... after the mugging.
And so, in the end...
...nothing changed for the better.
122 comments:
Brilliant.
And when the inner circle hears this recounting of the mugging they will cry out bring us those who did nothing to protect and safeguard the victim and the prophet will shout "you are the man!"
Very well said...and so sad that it's all true...
Mark 12:12a - "Then the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them..."
I'm trying to figure out - Was it a mugger or muggee who threatened to call the cops on one of the outsiders?
WV: vicar
Then some in the inner circle pointed to those who given the warning and sneered, “who do you think you are with those crazed eyes and wearing camel hair clothes? You are bloggers. You don’t know of what you warn against, you were not in the circle with us. We will tell you what you saw. Soon, or at least in the next week or two.”
And those clapping wildly ceased for moment to take another drink of kool-aid then began shouting “Huzzah!”
Even more heartbreaking will be how big time blogging "fan boys" of the inner circle, will write reflective posts asking their massive readership why there wasn't anyone who said anything to warn against and prevent the mugging.
I'm waiting to see if TGC survives this or if there will be any more resignations. I mean, if they expect people to take them seriously they have to actually live out what the Bible teaches.
I have faith that God is working through this for the godo of His church, but I feel much pain for the division that MacDonald is causing by acting foolishly. I don't know his heart or his motives, but I know that he has been acting foolishly. Same goes for Driscoll and most of TGC for their silence on the matter. I haven't looked much into the response from Acts29, but from Frank's comments I'd say the same is true for them as well.
The reason that I say that MacDonald and his cohorts are causing division is that they are lining up people to defend his actions instead of receiving criticism openly. And then he is going so far as to call people who criticize Jakes and his participation in ER2 racists. What can that serve to do except divide people?
throw in some chest thumpers and this story would sound eerily familiar...
seriously though, nice work
I'm not sure you're being fair on DeYoung here, who admitted in point 6 of his post mugging response that he was wrong not to speak up about it before it happened.
I should claridy...Driscoll is in MacDonald's category of acting foolishly in the ER2 mess (and comments since) and TGC is acting foolishly by not taking a strong stand against what all happened. And as DeYoung noted, they should have said something beforehand. I'd take it even further and say that they shouldn't have left Thabiti out on an island by himself (no pun intended) in his criticism of Jakes' invitation to ER2. Of course, when they don't address what Driscoll does in public, why did I ever expect anything more than this?
“To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that ‘seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand." Luke 8:10
Hater.
(somebody had to say it... :-P)
Excellent.
You forgot to mention that all of the really animate protesters were 'old, angry white guys' or their sympathizers..
@ Robert. You can't write "no pun intended." Ever. You knew it was there, and you left it in. It was intended. (And well done!)
Just read justin Taylor's response and found it to be way too gentle on the whole matter. And I think he oversimplifies things a bit, too, when he says that there was a choice between two imperfect options. While I won't say people can really make a perfect decision, I think that he is setting this up as a more difficult decision than it should have been.
We have a Biblical model for how to address people who act incorrectly in a public setting...Paul provides many instances of handling such things. How difficult can it be to turn to Scripture and follow the example laid out there? And how much anguish and pain would have been avoided if that had been done? Would these guys act this way about protecting people in their own families? Because they are not protecting their brethren in Christ by worrying about meeting over a cup of coffee to keep things on a personal level. MacDonald didn't offer to meet Jakes in private and he made the whole thing public...at that point things needed to be done publicly.
Really, to me, it comes down to this:
Do we have fear of man or fear of Yahweh? One creates a snare for us, while the other is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom.
Tom,
I really didn't realize until I read what I had typed in my mind...I need to learn to slow down a bit and think when I type, I think.
As for Thabiti, just imagine how heartbreaking this has to be for him. And how isolated must he feel to be the only one at TGC to address these issues publicly beforehand...I know he is a strong man, but still that is a heavy load...
This made me profoundly sad all over again. As a little meek sheep, the hierlings stood by and watched wolves devour me and my friends. And the experienced and caring shepherds were derided as the boy who cried wolf.
Thank you Pyros, you guys never cry wolf for the heck of it because you know one when you see one.
Not defending TGC, just musing aloud.
I once stood dumbfounded as someone shoplifted from my former employer. We were walking out at the same time, and when the alarm triggered, I assumed it was an honest mistake and that she would return to have whatever had tripped the sensors deactivated. (She didn't look like a criminal.) By the time it registered with me that she was running to her car it was too late.
Could the other TGC members just believed that JM and MD would do the right thing when the time came, but by the time they realized they wouldn't, the train cars were already coming off the tracks.
Again, not trying to absolve them, because the reasons why don't change the end result. I just keep hoping that their silence leading up to the debacle was just because they couldn't fathom that JM would let it come to this.
As to their silence immediately after...I've got nothin'
The bodies are still dropping! HBC attenders and others who are defending James Mac are "morally wounded" but don't know it yet -- they will either be sorely disappointed, or they may sour on ANY church leader, or they will continue to follow the leader into further errors.
Good point, Doc. There are some good people in that church, and they're heartbroken and gutwrenched.
You know: every church is an admixture of truth and error. Every one of them.
The question is only this: are we making our errors into idols by not admitting them and owning them? And is it wrong to say, out loud, that someone is frankly not owning their errors? On what basis?
Especially, mind you, when some people have the hindsight of Superman but are usually too grieved or too dainty to turn their gaze at today and tomorrow rather than generally click their lips at what we might have avoided.
I haven't seen this really written about yet, I don't believe, because I know we are only supposed to focus on what was done, not motives of the heart that we don't know.
But couldn't all of this be boiled down to greed? Maybe that's the driving motivation here. Platt's "Radical" message gets blasted. McDonald owns a $1.9 million home. Only big church pastors can offer wisdom according to Driscoll. And one of the main money guys, Jakes, is someone worth associating with. This this pay-per-view event is hpyed and I'm sure is raking in the bucks.
Sometimes the heart's wickedness is not all that hard to figure out.
Jay, I (and Frank as well, I think) call motives off-limits.
First, we can't know them.
Second, there is SO MUCH and SUCH SUFFICIENT MATERIAL to talk about here in terms of actions and words that there simply is no need to get into motives, even if it were doable.
Let's focus on what was said and done; and, in the case of the parable here, what was not said and not done, and then said too late and too daintily/incompletely.
you know what I think happened? they must've forgotten 2 John 1:8-11...maybe the thief ripped off those pages off of their Bibles...or maybe they just skipped over it. Oh and what about 2 Pe 2:1-2..hmm they probably skipped that one too, Mt. 7:15? Titus 1:9-13?? Rom 16:17? Titus 3:10?? Wait..was the thief ever admonished?? 2 Timothy 3:5??....hmmm maybe the thief was dressed in sheep's clothing? or as an angel of light?
Among the things that could have been done:
1. Say what needs to be said, while it still matters
2. Link to someone who is saying what needs to be said, while it still matters
3. Wait until it doesn't matter anymore, murmur judicious-sounding sonorosities, and pretend that nobody much had really said anything previously because, you know, who could've known?
Which was done?
IOW, a day late and a dollar short?
Though I am most sympathetic with what you have said here, as per usual, I would suggest that it is wise to be cautious about writing parables where we are the heroes and everyone else the bad guys.
These self-appointed leaders (the circle of big, respectable, decent folks) are held to a much higher standard. You want to hold yourself up as a teacher, a leader, a pastor? Then LEAD. TEACH. SHEPHERD. I am seeing a lot of post-game analysis, and here's my metaphor: these men are gazing upon the wreckage of the mugging with a "huh? How'd THAT happen?" look on their faces, and vainly trying to sweep up the piles of rubble and body parts left behind.
NOT good enough. Not at all.
Well, Dan: let me say that since this was the FIRST TIME that this sort of pitch was whiffed, we should be generous and graceful about it. I mean, this is the FIRST TIME some public figure who has a record of being inside the fence has gone outside the fence.
um, I mean the SECOND TIME. The SECOND TIME -ever- where a high-paid pastor embraced another high-paid pastor who wasn't quite right about a lot of things using the wrong set of criteria for discernment. And since it's only the SECOND TIME it's every happened, we ought to ... um ...
You know: it's only the THIRD TIME this has happened in the last 100 years. I mean, when it only happens 3 TIMES in 100 YEARS, how are we supposed to see it coming? How can we know? When it only happens THREE TIMES in 100 ...
... I mean FOUR TIMES in 100 years -- that's still only like once in a lifetime. if I only see something once in my lifetime, I should err on the side of ...
... um FIVE TIMES. So FIVE TIMES, and prolly not that often when we had the INTERNET available to get multiple perspectives, and after all someone on the internet is wrong, so we have to add additional restraint and ...
... SIX TIMES ... no wait SEVEN TIMES since 1970 ...
.
.
.
Well, at least all their ministries are fruitful. We have to know them by their fruit.
Let me add a detail, if I may. While the trusted respected folks were circling around the mugger and his prey, one of them issued this statement: "Earlier today that fellow with the knife there publicly announced his resignation from our Neighborhood Watch. He was one of our founding members, and we would like to thank him warmly and publicly for his years of service and support. As the reason for his departure, he notes that he 'has very different views on how to police the neighborhood.' He added, 'I believe their work will be assisted by my absence, given my methodological convictions.' We acknowledge that he feels called of God into these spheres, and we wish him well in his far-reaching endeavors, and many years of ministry both faithful and fruitful."
Talk about a trumpet call!
Earlier in this thread, Staci asked a charitable question: "Could the other TGC members just believed that JM and MD would do the right thing when the time came, but by the time they realized they wouldn't, the train cars were already coming off the tracks." But let's not pretend that TGC stood by dumbfounded while this was happening.
Is it an accurate observation that alot (most?) of the clamor over the Jakes invite was over his Modalism (serious issue) at the expense of his Prosperity Gospel (just as serious)- which allowed for ER2 to use word gymnastics on the former and completely ignore the latter?
R.C. --
I like this parable because it is extremely narrow in scope. And let me say this very seriously and soberly: this is the glaring leadership gap in the high-brow Evangelical stratosphere right now. The responsibility to call a crack-pot a crack-pot publicly when it is cracking the place up publicly is so far lacking in the realm of evangelical leadership today that it is actually viewed by most of them and their disciples as a vice and not a virtue to say something clearly and critically when warranted.
But they can always muster a gelatinous tear when the worst has come to pass, and bemoan what "someone" could have done better.
I have a conclusion I am self-censoring here because to call this parable "triumphal" or "self-congratulatory" is to ignore the parade of triumphalism those here parabled drape themselves in like a prom dress every day.
Does this parable use reductive categories? Sure it does: that's what a parable does, as a mode of wisdom literature. That doesn't mean the lesson is not therefore helpful.
Tyler:
Maybe. How does that influence the point of the parable?
I read the transcripts from Trevin Wax while he live-blogged the events. ANything good that was said was ruining and fouled by the way this event was handled. Words obviously mean nothing to them. "Brother" became nebuluous. "Person" as confessed by Christians worldwide for 1.5 millennia is thrown out because 'Scripture says manifestations,' To top everything off with a chest thumping that says, "We determine what words mean because we are successful." If I may be competent enough to say, this is Emergent, evanjellybean, and celebrity-ism all rolled into one.
Now many sheep are left with hard decisions, and weak and baby sheep are left confused.
Tom said: "But let's not pretend that TGC stood by dumbfounded while this was happening."
True. In my scenario above, I was dumbfounded by the shoplifter, but I was just a naive college kid who ran the cash register in the pharmacy. I would have expected more of a security guard.
But if the security guard knew the shoplifter, he might also hesitate before acting.
Of course this all falls apart when you think of the whole "wolf in sheep's clothing" warning.
I guess I'm like Jane in Pride and Prejudice. I want to figure out a way that Mr. Wickam and Mr. Darcy can both be nice guys.
Staci - Darcy & Wickam: perfect example, though I admit I wouldn't have gotten it before I was married!
Problem is, these men are not college kids, nor are they eighteenth century English maidens. They're supposed to know a mugging when they watch it going down.
Here's my dumb question of the day: Why does Evangelicalism have "big, respectable, decent folks and lofty inner circles and outer circles and onlookers?"
Are these Christian castes?
Maybe I'm just a dumb, mommy-blogger, but who exactly appointed these lofty inner circles?
Expected this is, and unfortunate.
YGG, I again doff my hat at the font of perfect movie allusions that you are.
Frank,
I'm sorry but even though you all did well, wisely and graciously telling them so in advance, the point of their failure could have been made without the self-congratulatory, "We told you so." That those you told are likewise guilty of self congratulations and that you recognize that, isn't a justification to do it yourself, but all the more reason not to. I don't, of course, want to rain on your parade, and again, agree with what the main point is. My peculiar take, however, is something I have already written about though not yet published. If any should see this piece when it goes out, please be assured it wasn't written in response to this piece, but was written before I read this piece. Peace.
There is another version of this, too, and I think it says something about Team Pyro's ultimate audience (and ministry).
It is not a mugging due to unclear thinking about the future, it is a merger and is the result of thinking about the future. The powers that be decide a merger should take place, they understand the collateral damage but deem it worth the costs of the short-run casualties. The deals are done by the inner circle and from there on it is a job of selling to those not in the inner circle. This happens all the time in organizations.
This has happened a number of times in churches at the local level where mergers have been planned, executed, "announced", and the flames are endured for about six months. These have gone un-remarked at the national level because they are local but have occurred in a number of locations in A29. They are a large contributor to the formation of "executive elders" (who make the decisions and do the talking) and just "elders."
The point is, this may not be a catastrophe due to lack of thought, it is as likely to be a strategic move that is the *result* of thought. ER2 "discussion" was clearly scripted.
Pyro's audience for warning may not be the inner circle -- they know. The audience is all those in the organizations being merged: to understand what the short and long-term implications of the merger are, what the new merged organization is defined by, its message, its impacts. Because Pyro has the ear of those *in* these organizations (and not, apparently, the ear of the inner circle making the decisions), the message is to leave the merged organization -- it is not the same as it was before.
Jules: the inner circle is self-appointed ("I have a calling!"). They collect unto themselves an audience who, left unintelligent by decades of pathetic government-run education, loves to have their ears tickled by the pleasing teachings. Having jettisoned historic, traditional confessions (one must, to varying degrees, if one is of the contemporary evangelical dispensational sort), they write their own "Statement of Faith" and start a church, under no one's authority but their own. Run on a business model complete with strategy, marketing, and payrolls, this church grows and is pronounced "successful" because of the sheer volume of goats (did I just say that? Whoopsie) in attendance. Another Wanna-Be hitches a ride and launches a spinoff, thereby gaining access to the Inner Sanctum.
But woe, woe, woe unto the hoi-polloi who dare to question or gain access to the Inner Sanctum. Walls of separation are erected and defended: security goons, PopeMobiles, "he's pulled in so many directions he doesn't have time, but let me refer you to this website," etc.
The Good Shepherd guarding his flock? Hardly.
Snort: Word verification: "didworse"
I think I hear what you're saying, RC, and understand its force. Yet the fact that they were warned loudly, repeatedly and specifically, and feigned deafness and blindness (not for the first time), and pose as they do, are integral to the parable's point. Anyone who has a better way to tell it is invited to do so on his blog, and email me the link - I say that sincerely, no sarcasm.
I was waiting for the line, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!!"
Well done, guys.
DJP:
This wasn't the first time?
oh yes -- we've been over this. Sorry.
Frank - it doesn't. Was just an observation.
Fair enough Dan. It sure would be tough for you to rightly point out that they were warned, without all of us knowing it was you who, again, wisely, did the warning. Sometimes it's hard to be humble and honest at the same time, or so I've heard. You guys do an awful lot of good work, and I am grateful. Plus you often make me laugh.
Why does Evangelicalism have "big, respectable, decent folks and lofty inner circles and outer circles and onlookers?" Are these Christian castes? ... who exactly appointed these lofty inner circles?
...the inner circle is self-appointed ("I have a calling!"). They collect unto themselves an audience who, left unintelligent by decades of pathetic government-run education, loves to have their ears tickled by the pleasing teachings...
I would have to respectfully disagree with this. The real tragedy here is that the inner circle here is made up of men who have earned their audience through a history of solid gospel teaching. Not all of them have even abandoned the historic confessions, and most of them are under some form of ecclesiastical authority.
What happened, I believe, is that a few such men, knowing that the time is coming when they must go the way of all flesh, gathered around them younger men into an organization dedicated to the gospel. Their intent was no doubt good: to promote the biblical gospel. But they fell prey to the temptation which all organizations face: to protect the orginisation at all costs. As has been asked before: what matters, the gospel, or the coalition? You don't have to be one of the big guns to appreciate the quandry. Every small church pastor knows it - if you deal with sin in the leadership of the church, you risk everything. So it goes with any "coalition." Once you start turning on your own members, no matter how much they may deserve it, you risk the whole structure. I have no doubt the older and more influential felt some obligation to those they had invited to join. No doubt also the younger men, appreciative of the voice they had been given, deferred to their elders (as young men usually ought to do.)
But the end result is precisely like what happens when, say, a board of elders allows one of its own members to continue in unchecked, unrepentant sin. When it comes out, the damage is multiplied by institutional failure.
How, today, can we avoid saying to that Inner Circle, "We know you saw this coming, yet you did worse than nothing. One of your 'founding members' could not continue in membership because you knew that he was engaged in what would amount to a betrayal of gospel truth. Yet you said nothing - oh, wait, no, you spoke -you clapped him on the back and said, 'Well, if you believe that this sin you are about to commit was something God called you to, then the Lord bless you and cause your efforts to flourish.' How could you? Does the gospel count for so little?"
I say the above because I consider this parable to be not only accusatory of them, but cautionary to many. These men were known for their love of the gospel, and look what they did! What damage might I do - even with the little influence I have.
Well said Tom.
I think you are right to question whether the nature of TGC is fertile soil for this type of situation. The Coalition is a loosely based fraternity that has no higher ecclesiastical authority so who does the policing? It seems that they all hold themselves accountable to each other, but what does that look like? They talk about discussions behind closed doors and that is good and appropriate but Thaibiti is the only one who took a public stance to MacDonald’s very public antics and they apparently left him hanging on his own. Do I have it right that Carl Trueman was TGC member who left when this first started? Am I remembering that right?
I’m certain that TGC has their own contract or other binding document they sign on to whereby they pledge to adhere to whatever the Coalition’s stated principles are but how is this enforced and who determines what course to take when a member ‘crosses the line’? More importantly where exactly are the lines? Evidently the nature of God and the Gospel itself must not be within those lines.
It is certainly early after the fact but where do you suppose TGC goes from here? Is the Don going to fall on his sword? It appears that others in the entourage may have attempted to fall on theirs but only pricked a finger.
No one wants to see the end of TGC, certainly I don’t, as it has such possibility for good within the church. What a resource they have been and still can be but at this point how can we hold them in good faith as champions of the Gospel? Their actions prior to and now after ER provide the answer to a question that was rightly asked. It’s more about the coalition that it is about the Gospel.
I’m sure they would be first to say that we should be willing to give our very lives for the Gospel but yet they can’t confront JM or MD because….why? It’s uncomfortable? They are their biggest ‘stars’? Again, why?
If it weren’t for the outpouring of shock and disbelief and yes, righteous anger, would there have been ANY response at all from TGC? I really think that the answer is no.
Tom, thank you for some helpful additions to my comment. It is even more grievous when those who were once solid veer away, as MacDonald did, and those who seem to remain solid let it go, as some of TGC did, and when it seems to be for the sake of priorities other than the Gospel, as it seems to be in the ER2 mess.
My comment was based largely on personal experience with local congregations as well as what has happened in the celebrity Interwebz pastors circles. It is pandemic in American churches, with variance in the details, and I know this because I have seen it firsthand and talked it over with numerous others who also have walked through it firsthand. The end result is the same: a pastor who, whether he is pursuing bloggy fame, book-authorship fame, Internet Coalition fame, conference fame, or merely hiding behind excuses (nearing retirement, spread too thinly, no time, that ministry was transferred to Elder XYZ, our church doesn't do it that way) is unavailable to the sheep he has been given to shepherd over.
Sheep are starving for nourishment, and being left to bleed to death from muggings, because their shepherds are too busy pandering to the wolves.
@Tom,
I see the point you're making, Tom in regards to this particular situation, but in the broad sense I'm asking, is there a Biblical anchor for self-appointed coalitions and leaders who operate outside the God-ordained ecclesiastical authority?
Are there castes within the Body of Christ?
I have to give a big ditto to Rabbit.
Reading this post was curiously cathartic for me. Well done, Dan, Frank and Phil.
"Every small church pastor knows it - if you deal with sin in the leadership of the church, you risk everything."
I've seen many a man turn a blind eye because of this truth. But to be fair to the small church Pastor, the splitting of a church is a devastating event that obviously destroys a local congregation and damages families on a personal level. I can at least sympathize with the small church Pastor.
"There is absolutely nothing to be alarmed about, nothing to be upset or energized about, certainly nothing to raise your voices about. If there had been, you know we would have told you."-backs turned towards those crying out
This speaks loud and clear to me, in our day of the shallow theology we have:-a mile wide and an inch deep. The Gospel is eternally deep in God's wonderful truth, and yet it is simple truth as well.
The whole "parable" was quite good. Enjoyed reading it a few times.
Gracias mi TeamPyro three Amigos.
We need to face our El Guapo, and you help us. Thanks bros. (Since there was a little bit of film dropping going on.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioKto0di3EA
DJP, Ha! My mother thanks you, my dog thanks you, and lastly, I thank you. :D
Hey Dan, Phil & Frank,
Would it be fair to say that your response to Justin Taylor when he says this:
"Most of us do not know all that was said to T.D. Jakes before and after the event. Most of us do not know all of the conversations between the Gospel Coalition and James MacDonald prior to the event—or how he responded. But some critics have assumed that since they haven’t read a public statement on the web about X, then there are not hours of conversations—some winsome and careful, and some neither of those—happening behind the scenes."
would be something along these lines?
-No, we never assumed that those private conversations weren't happening. Or concern all along has been that public actions and statements were not being dealt with publicly.
So the outsiders, really alarmed now, raised their voices. They were pointed, they were specific, they were passionate, they were eloquent to the point of heart-breaking.
That last was a link to Thabiti Anyabwile's post. Is he really an outsider? In the parable, wouldn't he be one of the inner circle who actually was waving his arms and saying, "Wait!" or maybe I've just missed the distinction you made between inside and outside. Is the inner circle identified as such only on account of their silence?
OK, so, I've avoided posting anything of humorous intent on this very serious thread, but the day is gone (at least it's dark here in Milwaukee) and, well...
...nice work posting something this explosive under all three names while Phil is in transit from Kiev. What's he going to think when he re-emerges from his travel-induced internet-nap upon arrival in LA?
Sombody's gonna' have some 'SPLAININ' to do!
I agree with Christine Pack -reading the parable was cathartic, cleansing as a purgative medicine. And sense my sanctification is still ongoing, and I have not yet arrived at the pearly gates, I'll confess that from here on out, until I hear something that changes my mind, I'll avoid all forthcoming wisdom from TGC. For as far as I'm concerned they have enabled the pearls to be cast among the swine. Perhaps next week I'll feel more gracious. Until then, I say this ought not to be.
How refreshing to read this parable after reading Justin Taylor's so highly praised equivocations.
"But here’s the problem, as I see it: at the end of the day, we just don’t know precisely what he believes. This should chasten both sides. For those who say “he’s still a full-fledged modalist”—I’m not sure. For those who are convinced “he has come out as an orthodox Trinitarian”—I’m not sure."
Weeniness. We know which side should be chastened.
Tom Chantry - I appreciate your sensible words about organizations protecting themselves at all costs.
"But the end result is precisely like what happens when, say, a board of elders allows one of its own members to continue in unchecked, unrepentant sin. When it comes out, the damage is multiplied by institutional failure."
Sorry, but I can't resist saying this: This perfectly describes another recent "institutional failure" and the man behind it. Tim Challies will not allow negative comments about this man on his blog; Justin Taylor uncharacteristically allowed no comments on his blog when he posted something about him recently.
Sorry to derail this discussion, but it's not only the ER that has been treated with kid gloves by the inner circle; so is Sovereign Grace Ministries and its re-installed leader. And their damage isn't potential, it's been realized.
I know I'm like a broken record on this issue, but the silence and lack of curiosity among
leaders because Mr. Mahaney is "one of theirs" (and among leaders in general) is frustrating and saddening.
I said yesterday that I was hopeful after reading the TGC posts. I was wrong. This post is a (helpful, godly) slap in the face for people, like me, who need to see these issues more clearly. Thank you.
What bothers me is that not one of those watching and yelling, didn't step forward and intervene.
Israel shouted against the Philistines but cowered when the giant issued his challenge.
So what does that say about those illustrated in this parable?
@ hi-liter,
Keep in mind that in this context, the "mugging" was of a theological nature. Aside from pointing out false doctrine, how would you define "step forward and intervene"?
JMP -
Since you bring JT's post into it, he cited me (roughly) in the comments of that post so I have 3¢ or 4¢ to share on that.
1. I hear the echoes of Rob Bell in the quote you cite. I picture JT in skinny jeans and a hipster pea coat chastening us as to whether we can know (really?) what Jakes said.
2. My point about Jakes is this, which JT did not really get or get to: even if we accept Jakes as a brother who is a victim of the pathetic theological education one would get from common evangelicalism, there's no time like the present for him to cast that off and get on the right track. If he does have faith in Christ, let him repent of his mistakes and come clean, and then do better. Failing to do that speaks to his lame confession as much has having the lame confession in the first place. Saved by Jesus? Maybe - sure, why not. Suitable for ministry and generic acceptance as a leader? According to what Scriptural precept?
3. And it goes back to that utterly absurd "it's a mystery" quote from the transcript. Trinity? Mystery. Confession of Faith? Mystery. Suitable for ministry? Well of course: mystery, so we roll over. Paul might not have said to people like this "cut it off," but he surely would have said, "cut it out."
4. JT certainly knows better than this. He wouldn't let this run around in the church where he is an elder. And that is why the acceptance of this "matter what" is so incongruous: apparently it's good enough for the rest of us.
I think Frank makes a point (at 9:54 AM) that can't be missed and that really gives context to this parable. I don't think we can even give an accurate count of how many times this has happened before...and people should have learned from it. The problem is that a lot of the people involved in this mess were also involved in the preceeding examples and weren't willing to listen to any critics.
I'd also add that Frank's note at the end of that comment is one that really irks me a bit. How do people really judge the fruitfulness of one's ministry? Mormons are increasing in number...they have a fruitful ministry. Joel Osteen has one of the largest congregations around...he has a fruitful ministry. Jesus gave us a way to know who false teachers...by their fruit. And that doesn't mean the size of their congregation, but it is more along the lines of this:
"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, 'You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance". (Matthew 3:7-8)
I'm not trying to compare anybody to Pharisees and Sadducees here, but just saying this fruit isn't the amount of followers you have or even the amount of people who might be saved by God working through words somebody says or somebody's teaching. The fruit comes from you repenting of sins instead of staying in them. And when we're confronted with sinful actions in our life, we need to repent and mortify the roots of that sin by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Excellent post, Team Pyro!!!!
Or should I say "three watchman on the wall?"
"But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take [any] person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand. So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me. When I say unto the wicked, O wicked [man], thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked [man] shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul (Eze 33:6-()."
And here I thought this was going to be a blog post about Luke 22:36 (35-38, really) and the need for responsible adults to carry weapons to stop muggings.
I suppose, not having followed the specifics of whatever the acronyms are for, this parable isn't meant for me. A good example of the verse about parables only being meant for certain groups.
Rest assured, though: I can and will stop muggings if I see them. Shepherds should carry staves, else wolves *will* come in among the sheep.
hi-liter,
In the parable, the good and fine men form a circle around the victim and mugger that prevents direct access. Those who shout alarm are (unlike them) doing everything they can.
Check Frank's remarks about Justin's post, a post which seems to strike the pose of having been written in a universe where all the warnings I linked to were not visible. Even afterwards, Justin blinks in helpless puzzlement as to what Jakes' position is, as if he lives somewhere with no access to this post, to name one, for the last nearly three months, as if he had been "unable to see" it, as if he and others could have done nothing to make concerns like this central and unavoidable BEFORE the fact, and as is there is nothing to learn or admit re. that failure now, after the fact.
jmp
Challies bans posters who disagree with him quite regularly. It has nothing to do with Jakes per se
JT closes comments less regularly, but generally when some zealots try to make his blog look like something that Ken Silva would be proud of. Again, nothing to do with Jakes, just the people who can't control their wagging tongues (so to speak)
word verification - fiefs
isn't that appropriate
To tag to what I said: Justin says Jakes' murkiness on the Trinity "should chasten both sides."
Should it? Really? If my "side" made a large and passionate and forceful issue about that very matter of clarity MONTHS in advance, and if my "side" made a large and passionate and forceful issue about what questions would clarify Jakes' putative repentance MONTHS in advance, should it STILL feel "chastened" when all warnings were and still are ignored?
Should not those who chose to ignore those warnings be chastened for having done so, and admit it in so many words?
Isn't this the very "Oh well, everyone's to blame" line that prevents actual progress? When it's true, fine; when it isn't, admit it and deal with it.
And here, it isn't.
I'd like to once hear/read somebody from TGC say something along the lines of the following:
"To those who have been critical of TGC and the lack of public response, we apologize for not taking heed and stepping up to offer public comment to a public action by members of TGC."
Instead, what I see for the most part is that they think anybody who is critical of their inaction should just be patient and let them sort it out.
I'd like to know how people would handle a similar situation with their own family or church. Would they say to just be patient and stop being so critical or would their be more of a sense of urgency? This is actually worse because it affects a much larger group of people within the Church. And anybody who wants to be a pastor, elder, teacher, or leader within the Church is going to be held to a higher degree of accountability by Jesus. I wonder how much that thought has crossed their mind because that should make them pause and reflect more than any of the criticism they are facing from us.
That's right, Robert. Well put.
However, even more could be said.
DJP and the rest,
My apologies then on presumptions concerning motives when I certainly couldn't speak to that.
I do wonder why there blasting of "Radical" ideas from someone who could be seen as biased and then would equate prosperity gospel to be closer to evangelical truth about money were not addressed, especially now in light of the free pass that Jakes got on the prosperity gospel stuff.
I guess in the context of the article, it seems like this signs of this mugging have been taking place for a long time with no action being taken.
I mean, the TGC has no problem with council members going at it about things like sanctification (DeYoung v. Tullian), so would that have been a better route for this? Blog posts concerning trinity? Of course those are free...
(Robert) I'd like to once hear/read somebody from TGC say something along the lines of the following...
Perhaps you'll get your wish (in some sense).
threegirldad,
Call me a cynic, but I don't expect the substantial response from Carson to address the lack of a public response before ER2 took place. I also am having a harder time taking them seriously when Driscoll is so far out of whack in a lot of his antics and they don't take him to task over that. Every time I hear of MD, I am reminded of something I heard RC Sproul say once...here is my paraphrase of it:
We shouldn't be asking what can we get away with or how far we can go before we're in sin, but we should rather be asking how can I best serve and glorify God.
Tom - Scripture doesn't say this, that we battle not against flesh and blood but against doctrines and dogma's... theological arguments in academic places... does it? There was a time when an army surrounded the town Elisha was in and his servant panicked. Yet Elisha asked the Lord to open his eyes... what did he see?
What was the difference between the men who cowered at Goliath's challenge and the one who ran toward him? They were all Israelites, all knew the law (some better than others) offered sacrifice, held feasts... what was the difference? What did David 'see' that the others didn't? (Eph 1:18)
DJP - Read Psalm 18 let me know what you find. (keyword, wall) Also when the Jebusites mocked David thinking he couldn't enter the city, how did he get in?
And yet all the warnings were of no effect... the mugging still occurred, correct? Where was law enforcement? Where was the police helicopter hovering overhead with it's night sun blazing? (Ps 18; Ps 44:3)
Even now, it seems that everyone is more interested in yelling after those directly and indirectly involved in the crime than pursuing after them... as in the time David pursued after the Amalekites when they raided Ziklag.
hi-liter,
What exactly are you proposing? That people go kidnap these guys and then have a public broadcast of a discussion over the pertinent issues? I don't know exactly what more you expect...how about offering some details if you're so gung-ho on this being the wrong approach?
Exorcism.
My question was, "How do you define 'step forward and intervene'?" Your answer is . . . What?
Tom, sorry, thought you were a big boy and could cut your own meat... but let me check, I think I have some 2% in the fridge. (Heb 5:12-14)
Honestly, John 3's a better fit "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things" It's not a 'theological' issue, is it... but a spiritual one. And if a spiritual one, how can you hope to win it with a theological argument... ?
DJP, not all that far off... When Peter rebuked Jesus for saying He'd be betrayed into the hands of men and crucified, how did Jesus respond? "See Peter, here and here in the OT it says this of Me... so, close but not quite." What was His response and why? Also consider 2 Tim 2:22-25
Robert, Okay, here's the plan... you bring the eye black and Chloroform, I'll see if I can find an abandoned warehouse on the outskirts of town... What did David do after the Amalekites raided Ziklag? Or when the Philistines attacked? (Pr 3:5,6; Ps 108) As much time as you've wasted, it may be too late... may be nothing left to do than transport the victim to an inn on the back of donkey and tend to his wounds (parable of Good Samaritan).
"..tend to his wounds.."
hi-liter,
Who is wounded? I was thinking of how TD Jakes keeps people from hearing the truth of Jesus Christ, and so a false gospel can cause great harm.
And perhaps we need to kick around the whole idea of who is wounded.
I would say there's no need for any wounded, if those inner guys would have opened their eyes and ears.
have a terrific Lord's Day, and may we all be strong in the truth, and not shrink back, as some do. For our Savior's honor and praise.
hi-liter,
Can you repeat the part of the stuff where you said all about the things?
hi-liter,
You said, "Scripture doesn't say this, that we battle not against flesh and blood but against doctrines and dogma's... theological arguments in academic places... does it?"
Well, it does, actually:
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor 10:3-5)
Those things you mentioned (doctrines, dogmas, theological arguments) are exactly what Paul has in mind when he talks about speculations that are elevated above the truth of Christ.
Unless I've misunderstood you(?)
You know, I've tried to talk directly to you and not sarcastically, so thanks for reciprocating. And for "cutting my meat." I'm still choking on it, though, and wondering: if you are unable to reduce your metaphors to a simple proposition, is it possible there is nothing behind them? Quite possibly, given your distain for the spirituality of theology. I think I'm done.
Eric FTW
I hope they some day make a Four Amigos Film.
Tom C. is definetly a Fourth Amigo of the TeamPyro Three Amigos; for me that is.
God bless.
And one more film excerpt drop:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RolAQMtUjMY&feature=related
Call me a cynic, but I don't expect the substantial response from Carson to address the lack of a public response before ER2 took place.
Well, I said, "Perhaps...(in some sense)" for a reason.
Here's hoping we're both wrong...seriously.
@DAC
Mugging Ken Silva was really out of place, inappropriate, and vicious. If your going to slam someone, right or wrong, why not do it in the open. You could start with explaining "..would be proud of".
Frank - Your last comment on this thread: All 4 points - exactly.
dac - Thanks for the info on Challies and JT, but I was referring to Mahaney, not Jakes.
Don, the victim. Why wounded? Because the blindness of the inner-circle and the impotence of those standing around yelling. And shouldn't the question, instead of being 'who are the wounded?' be 'why were those yelling incapable of stopping the mugging?'
Aaron, and still the mugging took place... If that's what Paul intended, truthfully, what went wrong? Why so incredibly ineffective? John 6:63; 8:32 (whole chapters are good...)
When the disciples were unable to cast the demon out and Jesus rebuked them as a faithless and perverse generation... Matt 17:17; they later asked Him why they weren't able to cast it out, what was His reply? (Rom 12:1,2; Heb 12:1,2)
Tom, Done? Really? Little wonder you're among those standing back yelling. "If you have run with footmen and they have wearied you, Then how can you contend with horses?" Jer 12:5
Tried but failed, second question.... just saying... Honestly, who wouldn't show disdain for the 'spirituality of theology' if it did nothing to prevent a mugging?
'why were those yelling incapable of stopping the mugging?'
It's a parable, not a real mugging.
It's making a point. You seem to miss it, and are confused my friend.
Jakes is a heretic, and others welcome his heresy. Some have warned that it's wrong to entreat an heretic. But to no avail.
I think this is the heart of the parable.
I could be mistaken. The Three allegory tellers shall have to chime in.
Lord bless us this weekend, and may we grow in strength for Your honor, as we come together to worship, and hear Your Word; Your Word is the Truth. Amen.
100! Whoohoo!
Don, thanks for your comments, however I understand it's a parable... just as Nathan's story to David in 2 Sam 12 was... that there was no lamb actually killed to feed a rich man's guest.
You recognize that the parable illustrates a real person/people otherwise you wouldn't have chimed in about Jakes and those enabling him.
And again, though I got the point the authors were trying to make, I voiced one they seem to have completely overlooked...
I think you are over doing it hi-liter.
There's only so much in one parable. You can't stuff in a whole lot of different subjects.
It would be like taking Jesus' parable about the lost sheep Luke xv 4-7, and making a point that Jesus overlooked a few things in His story. And surely we could pick His story apart, couldn't we.
But we had better not!
Let the Parable Tellers explain their point, and don't add to it. Discuss it for sure, but don't add to it.
I know this "conversation" - I've had it in two churches in the last 25 years. I both cases I talked about 3-5 years too long. And once the wolves were among the sheep, there was no stopping the slaughter. Thank God for the faithful church we now attend where the Gospel is central and the leaders are men of integrity. I hope that TGC will cleanse itself and confess its errors. I've held them in high esteem until now.
"And once the wolves were among the sheep, there was no stopping the slaughter."
In other words, there is no placating wolves. One does not maintain a dialogue with wolves. One does not pander to the felt-needs of wolves. We do not need a "seat at the wolves" table.
There's only one thing a shepherd does to a wolf.
Don, when Jesus taught, often there were those present who wanted to discredit Him, disprove Him and even kill Him. So if there could be anything of fault found, they tried to find it and exploit it.
I think about the parable the Sadducees told Jesus in Matthew 22:23-32
Had the discussion gone off the rails, I'm sure the Tellers would've chimed in by now and set it back on track. However, what has me concerned, is that they're trying to find an out themselves to justify their ineffectiveness as they condemn the inner-circles'.
"..often there were those present who wanted to discredit Him, disprove Him.."
Yep. When the parable is laid out, then there are those who come in with disapproval.
They hang about to give their 4 cents worth.
We simple meed to listen to the Allegory teller, or tellers, don't we.
But Jesus did that with the Sadducees' parable, or didn't you read the passage...
You're waiting for the Teller's to do something, as the Yellers waited for the inner-circle of enablers to do something. Everyone is standing around waiting for someone else to do something...
Meanwhile you're, like David's older brother, getting in my face because he marveled that no one was actually doing anything about it! I'm sorry if that offends you.
Wow, hi-liter,
We all just need to listen to you, now I get it.
Centurion, Phil and Dan will chime in when needed. They are quite good pastors, and disciples.
I prolly shouldn't be going back and forth with you, to be honest.
Don, so, in other words, you found nothing wrong with what I said, only how I said it and that it was me saying it?
Jules you raised a good point, saying, "There's only one thing a shepherd does to a wolf.
John 10:11-13; 1 Sam 17:34,35
So what does that say about the three Tellers/Yellers?
hi-liter,
The three parable tellers are ignoring you because you are incapable of ever actually saying anything. Don Sands is actually trying to engage you in conversation and figure out what it is you are saying because he's nicer than them. He's also nicer than you, than me, and than everyone else who comments here.
But if he thinks you're ever going to come up with a point, he's wrong. I doubt you have any idea what should have been done. I'm fairly sure that if you had such an idea, you wouldn't articulate it. Whether it is because you can't or because it amuses you to play a character here I can't guess.
But I would suggest you go sell crazy somewhere else before the moderators start deleting your posts. That they haven't done so yet is in part due to it's being the weekend but also in part due to their actually being humble guys, contrary to what some might think.
Tom, and yet, in his nice attempt at conversation he accused me of several things... and though corrected each time has yet to apologize.
So if you can't see that, how do you hope to see the other? You've got to look up (Ps 121:1) In His light, we see light...
Deleting is one option, unless of course they figure out why they were so ineffective in the first place...
If they're as humble a guys as you say they are, I think they'd readily acknowledge that failure. David did, didn't he.
Sigh. The best possible way to read the troll's 'point' is that this fiasco went on because we just didn't pray hard enough. That would be a stupid and ignorant accusation, and it reeks of word-faith nonsense, but it's the best possible reading I can come up with.
More likely, it seems to be saying that it happened because they're demon-possessed, and we needed to drive out the demons. And I'm detecting a strong whiff of: if that doesn't work, resort to physical violence. If necessary, find out if they weigh the same as a duck and burn them at the stake.
Hate to tell ya that that's what you've been arguing with, but those are the only options I can think of that fit its comments consistently. Feel free to move on.
Best possible? "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?"John 6:5
Was Jesus talking about His flesh? Blood?
Praying hard enough? When the disciples couldn't cast out the demon in Matthew 17 did Jesus tell them it was because they weren't praying hard enough? Partly. But also because of their unbelief and lack of fasting.
Who said anything about demon possession? Was Peter demon possessed when the Lord said 'Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me..." Haven't you read 1 Kings 22 when a lying spirit was in the mouth of the prophets of Ahab so he'd be persuaded to go into battle? 1 Kings 22:19-25
Which dovetails nicely into the physical violence thing... wondering which part of 'we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers' doesn't cover that?
Getting back to John 6, just because something is a difficult saying doesn't mean it can't be understood? Pr 1 covers that. Isaiah 55 God says His ways aren't our ways, nor His thoughts our thoughts... so if we're to understand His ways, His thoughts, we need to walk in His light. (1 John 1:7; Ps 25:4)
In mercy and truth atonement is provided for iniquity; And by the fear of the Lord one departs from evil.
Two comments:
1). Great parable. Well told...
2). And now, you know what it feels like to be treated like a woman in the evangelical church.
Pro 1:20 Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares;Pro 1:21 at the head of the noisy streets [fn] she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:
Pro 8:1 Does not wisdom call out? Does not understanding raise her voice?
"...and though corrected each time has yet to apologize."
Apologize for what exactly hi-liter?
Let me know, and I will, if I said something derogatory.
I have one question. Do you think you are wrong at the way you judge Phil, Frank, and Dan's parable?
Yes or no?
Yes, and what does Wisdom say?
Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you.
Didn't David shout after Saul when he cut off the corner of his robe? And when he'd taken Saul's water jug and spear?
As David said after the first encounter 'Wickedness proceeds from the wicked.' But my hand shall not be against you.
Pr 8:34; Pr 9:1-6; Pr 24:6
Kind of like having an appointment with Wisdom... sitting down over a meal, as it were; listening to wise counsel as to the best way to proceed. Good rule to live by.
Blessed be the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle
After all, if you say the two are similar Wisdom and those Yelling, they should match up when compared, right? (Know a tree by the fruit it bears, Matt 12:33)
"Yes"-hi-liter
In what way are you wrong then?
Don,
Did you read passed the 'yes' at all? Who was talking about wisdom, you or Jehovah...?
If you'll notice the time stamp between my post and yours... I'm a fast typer, but not that fast.
Thing is, I was going to reply to yours thinking the 'yes' might be misunderstood, but then saw how the Lord made it work, two birds, one stone type thing, it was pretty amazing!
How wrong? I hoped to find the latter, instead they've proven themselves to be the former.
DJP,
I just finished reading the response from Keller/Carson and it seems that team pyro, as well as we who comment here, are guilty of the sin of contempt for how we have asked them to comment publicly on this. I am guessing I might have a bit of sin in my attitude towards this mess, but I certainly don't think that is the main thrust of what has been said to date on this matter. And it takes a bit of pride to take criticism and level an accusation like that in defense of one's position.
I also found it a bit funny that they talk about MacDonald humbly coming down off the ledge...as if they were patting themselves on the back for helping him to see the error of his ways.
And all of this talk about talking with those who have different theology and that we disagree with doesn't really apply here. This was a conference with people pertnering together...and does darkness partner or fellowship with light? One could certainly ascertain that MacDonald, Driscoll, and the rest of the gang would all call ER2 a time of fellowship.
I'm sad that I was right to expect their response to lack what it needed.
"How wrong?"
Yes. How wrong?
Post a Comment