tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post324873535647663793..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: The Root of the MatterPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-66910252555076399592018-06-01T03:35:28.527-07:002018-06-01T03:35:28.527-07:00I am surprised to see that The Gospel Coalition h...I am surprised to see that <em>The Gospel Coalition</em> has seemingly bought into the <em>Friendship</em> culture that Wesley Hill, Matthew Lee Anderson, and many others of like mind are proponents of. I always took TGC to be a stalwart representative of the conservative evangelical world; and, theologically, they still do maintain so many of the important doctrines of grace that the Reformed heritage has given the Protestant church. But I'm afraid this issue, the issue of homosexuality and confusion around human sexuality, has the capacity to undo all of these important <em>traditional</em> theological distinctives that TGC and so many of its contributors are known for. I hope this tide can be turned, but I'm afraid it has already slid the other way. :( Isaak Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10868627167195165828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-39182878444539453212018-05-31T10:08:05.620-07:002018-05-31T10:08:05.620-07:00Welcome back. Excellent first salvo.
This morning...Welcome back. Excellent first salvo.<br /><br />This morning I was pointed to an old RC Sproul essay on the <a href="http://www.the-highway.com/pelagian_Sproul.html" rel="nofollow">Pelagian Captivity of the Church</a>. I was struck by how much Pelagianism and this desire for worldly approval come together in the American church especially, creating a new form of the gospel where people are saved by liking us. Seeker-driven madness, celebritism, strains of emerg*, "friendship evangelism", the recent Public Displays of Woke, all seem to be driven by this toxic brew.trogdorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452996348717802065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-16116945445968463652018-05-29T08:16:51.077-07:002018-05-29T08:16:51.077-07:00If you have to say it's a Gospel issue, it pro...If you have to say it's a Gospel issue, it probably isn't.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-67446130236110977242018-05-29T00:56:56.385-07:002018-05-29T00:56:56.385-07:00Phil,
Thank you for your reply and clarification...Phil, <br /><br />Thank you for your reply and clarification, brother. It really helped me see the precision of your words. It wasn't obvious to me, apparently. I'm happy to grow in my reading according to your authorial intent!<br /><br />Your second point is well taken. The fact that doctrine is not immediately denied but marginalized is a familiar danger. Your reminder made me feel the danger again. <br /><br />On TGC beginning to embrace the social gospel and mission drift, I look forward to your future posts. May the Lord bless your analysis and writing. <br /><br />More importantly, may he bless your pastoral ministry at Grace Church for the great commission.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />PJPJ Tibayanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14228520577319094218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-10020335852122842152018-05-28T20:26:18.016-07:002018-05-28T20:26:18.016-07:00Great post. Glad to have you back. Great post. Glad to have you back. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14182032413685214261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-14880704235750855922018-05-27T21:55:47.836-07:002018-05-27T21:55:47.836-07:00Since you’ve said three times now that you were ma...Since you’ve said three times now that you were making your last comment, I won’t hold my breath.<br /><br />Regardless, I’m not presupposing anything. I <b>personally know and personally know of</b> a lot of Presbyterians who have concerns about TGC.<br /><br />As for your own relative definitions and contexts, it might help your interactions (a lot) to either call them out in advance, or make less categorical statements when using them, or both. A sincere suggestion out of a desire to be helpful. Have a good night.Hohn Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08654409553544362219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-71186424366320482802018-05-27T21:45:01.063-07:002018-05-27T21:45:01.063-07:00Hohn,
I'll make this my last comment.
My hyp...Hohn,<br /><br />I'll make this my last comment.<br /><br />My hyper-fundamentalist category has a broader context in consideration; in other words the definition is relative. My point was simply this: in the broader world of Christendom what TGC represents is itself a hyper-fundamentalist movement. On the continuum I'm thinking from, then, in order to suggest that TGC is moving towards 'the broader world of Christendom' would have to be made from an ultra-fundamentalist movement; so maybe my labeling is off, or it's instead coming from various points of contextualization which led me to label the critiquing position of TGC as hyper-fundamentalist, which I would see MacArthurites as a sub-set of indeed. <br /><br />Yes, I was intimating that MacArthurties fit into what *I* would consider hyper-fundamentalist on the continuum I work and think from. In other words, from my perspective, juxtaposing various perspectives, it does require a hyper-fundamentalist perspective to arrive at the conclusion that TGC is sliding towards the broader world of progressive Christendom, even from my own conservative perspective. So I'm not admitting to anything you've asserted, I'm simply defining terms based upon my own usage defined by my own location on the conservative continuum. <br /><br />You didn't have to make an extreme absurd claim about Pressies, all you had to do, through enthymeme is presuppose it; which you did in order to make some sort of liminal argument or suggestion towards an argument. <br /><br />Okay. My last comment. Done. So long. Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-91988976478808702542018-05-27T21:32:40.418-07:002018-05-27T21:32:40.418-07:00Your original comment was, “As far as TGC, "t...Your original comment was, “As far as TGC, "the worldly slant" critique <b>could only</b> be made from a hyper-fundamentalist perspective (emphasis added).”<br /><br />Then you redefined hyper-fundamentalist as MacArthurite. And now you admit to my original point, that it isn’t only hyper-fundamentalists OR MacArthurites concerned about TGC’s increasingly worldly slant.<br /><br />That you can find Presbyterians who like TGC is completely irrelevant, because I never made an extreme, absurd claim that you couldn’t.Hohn Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08654409553544362219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-41863791651507705292018-05-27T21:18:40.965-07:002018-05-27T21:18:40.965-07:00Hohn C,
The "come at you" language was ...Hohn C,<br /><br />The "come at you" language was more rhetorical flourish. If you think comboxes on blogs reflect vigorous discussion ... well, I don't really know what to say to that. But be sure, Phil knows, engaging in what you consider "vigorous discussion" is not something I shrink back from. Anyway, just a rhetorical riff; don't read too much into "come at you" lang. <br /><br />And no, I'm not suggesting there aren't others concerned with TGC---ie outside of MacArthur's family---usually the concern I hear from Pressies has more to do with theological issues (i.e. not confessional enough etc) rather than fear that TGC is sliding into libertinism. As far as your appeal to Pressies, at a certain point that quits working given the general nature of your reference; i.e. I could find just as many Pressie friends who aren't concerned w/ TGC and even contribute to its work in significant ways. So I'm not really sure how your reference, if you were attempting to do anything other than provide some sort of circumstantial illustration, gives us a premise for an argument. <br /><br />Anyway, I'd better cease from commenting (you apparently aren't aware of my history here; Phil is)Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-70035126443644443392018-05-27T21:09:15.616-07:002018-05-27T21:09:15.616-07:00If you think *my* posts were “coming at you” then ...If you think *my* posts were “coming at you” then I really don’t think vigorous discussion is for you, sir. And by the way, I’m sure my Presbyterian friends and acquaintances concerned about TGC will be shocked (and bemused) to learn they’re really closet MacArthur devotees.Hohn Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08654409553544362219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-30688187974938113182018-05-27T21:02:12.931-07:002018-05-27T21:02:12.931-07:00Phil Johnson:
1. The irony to me is that I have b...Phil Johnson:<br /><br />1. The irony to me is that I have been slammed for being way too conservative, indeed a grand exodus from me has taken place in the past half-year by any remaining vestiges of 'liberal' or 'progressive' Christian contacts I had; this for me being openly troubled by Karl Barth's relationship with Charlotte von Kirschbaum. But they were only connected to me for reasons of perception, I was never anything but a conservative-evangelical, and I continue as one (particularly when it comes to issues of morality). I'm considered a 'moralist' by many of those who I formerly had contact with. As far as the label of neoorthodox, that's simply a misnomer, and not an accurate representation of my approach (or Barth's for that matter). <br /><br />2. As far as being on the 'evangelical-fringe' I'm pretty sure that's not me. Most of my friends in real life and online are theologically evangelical-conservative (as am I). I guess how we understand 'fringe' is different (and is a matter of perspective e.g. most of the evangelical conservative non-Barthians I know consider MacArthur&co fringe-evangelical). And believe it or not it's possible to move beyond past moments in someone's life. I started out blogging the same time you did, and I didn't know any better but to be a troll; I hadn't planned on continuing in that mode going forward (in fact I hadn't really planned on even commenting here hardly at all -- although it seemed like I should at least in your first real post back given that you helped give me a start to blogging in the first place i.e. realize it was a thing). <br /><br />3. Yes, you did supply a paragraph break; noted. But the broader context still situated TGC within the same discussion with the same type of implications and critique. But, and with this I agree with you: I do believe evangelicalism (not just progressives) is on a slippery slope (particularly w/ regard to the issue of homosexuality), and that it is more than concerning to me! My concern has less to do with the probable demographic of your reading audience, and more to do with my kids' generation (ages 18 and 15). I am as troubled by this as you. I just demur when I look at TGC; I don't see them fitting this type of Christianity. <br /><br />4. As far as being an online propagandist: that is nice for rhetorical purposes, but all I'd say on that one is "look in the mirror." I have published volumes; articles; reviewed stuff etc. Anyway, I only note that to say what I write, particularly on my blog, is anything but "propaganda." And as I survey my comments on this thread I don't see me making any reference to Barth, neorthodoxy, Thomism, or any other ism; instead my comments were all directly related to the body of your blog post itself. I did start to withdraw back into a feisty mode when Hohn C came at me. But you already know what I think of the mood that MacArthur&co have set in general. But you're reading a lot into my comments from what you "think" you know of me theologically rather than simply focusing on what I actually wrote. But then again, I can't blame you for that; I do realize the past I present you with here on your blog. <br /><br />Don't worry, I don't plan on commenting here much if at all in the future. Not even sure if I'll even visit your blog anymore. <em>Pax Christi</em> (I think I commented in this thread more out of nostalgia than anything else :) Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1575586824431937502018-05-27T12:01:05.385-07:002018-05-27T12:01:05.385-07:00Bobby Grow:
1. I drew no connection between the &...Bobby Grow:<br /><br />1. I drew no connection between the "Revoice" conference and TGC. You did that all on your own. Notice the paragraph break. It comes right after a parenthetical statement promising to take up the subject of LBGTQ "orientation" at a later date. The immediate paragraph break signifies a change in topics.<br /><br />2. As for your insinuation that I haven't made the case that TGC is slipping away from its original <i>raison d'être,</i> I've been so frequently critical of TGC's public offerings that Joe Carter scolded me last year, claiming all I <i>ever</i> say about TGC are negative things. That's not really true, but it <b><i>is</i></b> true that I frequently point out TGC articles that don't strike me as soundly evangelical (much less "gospel centered")--and I've done it so often that I don't fault Joe Carter for regarding me as a persistent critic. You follow me on Twitter, so surely you know better than to suggest that I'm suddenly being critical of TGC without laying any clear foundation for my criticisms.<br /><br />3. (This final thought applies to you in particular because of my long track record with your style of commenting. But it's not for you alone; this is <b>for all the propagandists on the evangelical fringe who seem think my return to blogging was a signal for them to come swarming out out from under the dumpster, or wherever</b>):<br /><br /><b><i>The comments on my blog are as open as possible in order to provide a forum for conservative evangelicals to discuss whatever topic is raised in the post. Theological renegades who want to use my blog-comments as a soapbox in order to advance their own neo-orthodox agenda (or any other post-evangelical schema) will find themselves unceremoniously blocked from commenting further. Last warning.</i></b>Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-46051270078674669142018-05-26T21:49:35.688-07:002018-05-26T21:49:35.688-07:00Just to clarify, and then I won't comment anym...Just to clarify, and then I won't comment anymore on this thread. I don't disagree with Phil that there is a massive problem confronting evangelicalism in regard to some of the issues he notes. What is causing me issues is his targeting of TGC; i.e. in the post he hyperlinks to "Revoice" and then in the next breath starts speaking about TGC as if they are similar movements. Those who I know involved in TGC, contributors, are no sliding anywhere close to what we see in Revoice etc. Again, I do agree that the homosexual agenda is making in-roads, as well as other agendas, into the evangelical world; I just do not see that in TGC. This is why I brought up the "hyper" perspective. Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-69423161126905044362018-05-26T21:33:02.873-07:002018-05-26T21:33:02.873-07:00Don't bother Hohn. It's not a baseless sme...Don't bother Hohn. It's not a baseless smear, it's that the critique as I reflect further upon it, is simply one that has no theological ground under it. Your linked example hardly illustrates that a fundamental theological shift is taking place, or has at TGC, it may well be they are seeking to engage with a variant demographic which happens to be enamored with pop-culture. Maybe TGC has the theological resource to use such hooks as ways to draw young people into deeper theological reflection and realization. The reason I said 'hyper-fundamentalist' because that's what MacArthuritism largely produces when it comes to cultural engagement; it represents a ghettoism within N American Christendom that operates out of an old 'Fundy-fear' rather than more thoughtfully and critically engaging with the culture in the types of accommodating ways that we find resource from in the analogy and particularization of the incarnation itself. Not accommodation in the sense that it is succumbing to cultural pressure, just the opposite, accommodating in the sense that they are taking the pressure that the Gospel exerts and using that to reverse the curse that the popular-culture often presents. My name is Bobby, btw. Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-81885517347855384572018-05-26T20:55:07.441-07:002018-05-26T20:55:07.441-07:00As a baseless smear, "hyper-fundamentalist&qu...As a baseless smear, "hyper-fundamentalist" is an easy enough one to make, Mr. Grow, but again, that's on you. I actually know and know of tons and tons of people who have been concerned about TGC's increasingly worldly slant, and none of them are fundamentalists, much less hypers. (Quite a few of them are Presbyterians, actually.)<br /><br />As for specifics, I'm short on time right now, but I could easily load you down with examples. Here's a recent one that I found to be particularly absurd.<br /><br />https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/11-films-capture-themes-galatians/<br /><br /><br />Hohn Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08654409553544362219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-10197369366871270132018-05-26T20:52:45.650-07:002018-05-26T20:52:45.650-07:00PJTibayan: "But perhaps I'm still missing...PJTibayan: "But perhaps I'm still missing something or not understanding what you're saying. Am I?"<br /><br />Perhaps. You've certainly put a finer and more sinister interpretation than I would have on the phrase "are being replaced." I normally avoid the passive voice because of its ambiguity, but in this case that was a deliberate choice, as was the verb tense. NOTE: I didn't say (as you suggested) that "they [i.e., TGC or anyone in particular] have 'replaced' social justice and wokeness for sola fide and sola scriptura." I said cardinal doctrines <i><b>"are BEING replaced"</b></i> by those concerns <i><b>"within the so-called evangelical movement."</b></i> Given so many young evangelicals' infatuation with ideas first touted by Sojourners, Shane Claiborne, Brian McLaren, Steve Chalke, and now the late James Cone, I'd have thought the truth of that statement obvious, but apparently it isn't as obvious to you.<br /><br />(But wasn't it a TGC event where comments were recently made suggesting that MLK, who denied cardinal gospel truths, was a better model for Christian ministry than Jonathan Edwards and George whitefield?)<br /><br />Two things in reply:<br /><br />1. My point about TGC is best explained, I think, in that final paragraph. Namely, it seems they have begun to "abandon <b><i>the focused simplicity of Luke 24:46-47</i></b> in favor of a social gospel that encompasses a large complex of racial, economic, and political issues." I'll expand on this in a later post, but it seems ironic that an organization whose stated purpose is to promote unity based on our common commitment to the gospel is now fueling division over issues that are not the gospel. It looks like a classic case of mission drift.<br /><br />2. To my knowledge, no evangelical institution or organization that ever apostatized <b><i>began</i></b> the process by repudiating its own doctrinal statement. The fact that many of today's leading evangelical social justice warriors are still willing to sign an orthodox confession is no proof that they aren't drifting. Open repudiation of cardinal doctrines invariably comes at the <i><b>end</b></i> of the downgrade, not the beginning. What happens in the beginning, is that cardinal truths are set aside ("de-prioritized," if you prefer), and the stress is put on other issues--usually matters of temporal, and seemingly urgent, concern. The selling point of the social gospel has ALWAYS been its appeal to justice and compassion. It never starts as an overt attack on core gospel doctrines. It actually pleads for a more "complete" or more "balanced" message than "repentance and forgiveness of sins"--and then proceeds to make "societal woes" the real focus of the message.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-6663406053030515722018-05-26T16:43:38.544-07:002018-05-26T16:43:38.544-07:00This whole thing is silly to me. We have one side ...This whole thing is silly to me. We have one side calling out the other for making things a "gospel issue" when the other side likes to use the same defense as well when it feels the need to justify their argument as a serious gospel issue. Sometimes, Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura, or any other Solas are insufficient answers for societal woes. Answering someone's questions regarding racism with a discussion on penal substitutionary atonement, justification by faith, or the like seems to be a nonstarter. I have a hard time believing that if one engages in a conversation about race, social justice, or any of these things without first solidifying one's belief in Sola Fide he has somehow turned toward liberalism.<br /><br />The Gospel is more than the Solas, but not less.Cliffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04495940096631617937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-8845734261587940362018-05-26T16:39:48.713-07:002018-05-26T16:39:48.713-07:00And if the critique is only going to be based on t...And if the critique is only going to be based on the abstract without engaging with actual authors and contributors at TGC I don't see how this can be a fruitful endeavor. In other words to gloss TGC as a whole rather than paying attention to its parts on a continuum doesn't seem like something that will produce an actually critical critique that will in the end be meaningful or be taken seriously by anyone at TGC. But we'll have to wait and see how the actual critique is made through the various blog posts from Phil. Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-57897603039842269982018-05-26T16:33:53.469-07:002018-05-26T16:33:53.469-07:00Hohn C,
I think Swanson's comment is intrigui...Hohn C,<br /><br />I think Swanson's comment is intriguing, as I explained, because of his former and rather pivotal role at The Master's Seminary. His comment is intriguing to me for that reason; i.e. because I don't exactly understand the whole context and backstory to it in regard to Swanson's genuinely true "inside" knowledge vis-a-vis Phil and the setting at TMS and GCC itself. In other words, I find whatever is motivating Swanson's comment to be intriguing because of where he came from and was situated for years (in the sphere that Johnson is presently ensconced within). <br /><br />As far as TGC, "the worldly slant" critique could only be made from a hyper-fundamentalist perspective. It seems unaware of what actually is going on in and among actually progressive-Christians, and the bases for such critique seem pretty outlandish to me when it comes down to it. Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-81207212631384078012018-05-26T16:27:10.972-07:002018-05-26T16:27:10.972-07:00The critique of TGC for years has been its increas...The critique of TGC for years has been its increasingly worldly slant. Whatever anyone’s critiques of Pyromaniacs might be, I don’t think slanting toward the world would make the list. Given those options, however, I’ll take the latter every time, especially in light of the verses Phil cited.<br /><br />As for the rest, I’m a little disappointed you would find such a vitriolic comment so interesting and intriguing, but I suppose that’s on you. Be well.Hohn Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08654409553544362219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-18159655690352445892018-05-26T16:13:36.099-07:002018-05-26T16:13:36.099-07:00Hohn C,
I don't really get this sort of gener...Hohn C,<br /><br />I don't really get this sort of generalization by quantification over a relatively small amount of time. If we were to look at all of TGC's posts (remember these are blog posts were talking about) over the years, and use Phil's quantification theory as an indicator, there would be not argument or critique to make of TGC;other than some folks don't like that TGC is potentially getting too involved with issues oriented around pop-culture and the culture wars. Then again that same critique could be made of the Pyromaniacs themselves over the years; i.e. being too focused on pop-culture-war issues in various sectors of the church rather than developing theological themes that indeed have to do with the Gospel and its entailments itself. So there is some irony here, even the reasons for Phil's return are motivated by issues that are pop-cultural rather than simply for purposes of more positively offering explications that would magnify the Gospel reality itself. Much of blogging is indeed a watch-dog sort of thing for some, indeed this has been Pyromaniacs MO for many years. But Swanson put it out there in a way that I think is rather prescient, and this was what I was more softly attempting to highlight in previous comments; i.e. knowing many of the TGC people I don't see, not at all!, the type of "drift" that Phil et al seem to see. I realize they won't have a high opinion of what I think anyway. But be that as it may, I've hung around these sectors for many years myself, and I simply don't see TGC shifting like the apparent fear seems to indicate. I know some of the truly Federal/Covenantal Reformed have never like TGC (in the main!)---look at guys at the Davenant Institute for example---but there critique of TGC, as is mine from another direction, is oriented around theological issues, around basic issues that have to do with the Gospel and the theological systems themselves. This does not seem to be the critique that Phil is going to mount, and as such, again, is somewhat ironic since again the critique seems to be coming from a pop-culture-war direction. <br /><br />As far as Swanson's comment: It is an interesting one given Dennis Swanson's former location and role at The Master's Seminary. I was actually surprised to see him make his comment in the terms that he did. Swanson, when I lived in CA, actually did some pulpit supply work at a church I attended, Bethel Grace Baptist Church, in Bellflower, CA. Anyway, I find his comment, again, given his former location at TMS, rather intriguing. Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-69000819393418136862018-05-26T15:56:39.205-07:002018-05-26T15:56:39.205-07:00Mr. Swanson, what an outrageous post. Your last se...Mr. Swanson, what an outrageous post. Your last sentence and its praise of “peace and civility” is so astonishing that I’m amazed you apparently lacked even the barest self-awareness to post it in the midst of your hostile attack.<br /><br />Mr. Grow, thanks for your clarification. Please note that I wasn’t accusing you of conflation, rather, just as you noted similarities, I was noting differences. And yes, I have read Calvin, who was undoubtedly impacted significantly by his political entanglements and viewpoints. Regardless, I don’t think even he beat the drum quite like this on one issue, as we appear to have seen in the past few months. Finally, I agree with you on the terminology point... personally, I cringe whenever I see critical race theory language coming from the mouths of solid Christians.Hohn Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08654409553544362219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-79120615805077778832018-05-26T15:24:49.840-07:002018-05-26T15:24:49.840-07:00Phil's tactics are rather transparent. He will...Phil's tactics are rather transparent. He will always set up false "AB Switch" situations. He will insist on lexical precision from his opponents, while playing fast and loose with facts and disclosure himself. He will also often find seemingly outrageous examples on the other side, insist that you renounce those people (usually this will be done if he needs to distract the conversation) and if you don't you will be lumped together with the fringe element. The silly notion of "counting" blog posts is another well worn tactic. As his slap/reply PJ also demonstrates he will pretend to "inside" knowledge which indicates he "knows" why you are responding in one way or another. It's all tabloidism which should have no place in proper discourse. Retirement from blogging had brought a level of peace and civility to theological discourse, I would encourage a return to that state.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-16161898131901475332018-05-26T15:13:55.333-07:002018-05-26T15:13:55.333-07:00Hohn C wrote: Honestly, there are large difference...Hohn C wrote: <strong>Honestly, there are large differences between the race-centric discussion (largely involving sins and crimes long past; where current alleged wrongs are often either vague and unspecified, or disputed multivariate analyses; and with poorly described — if at all — remedies of questionable wisdom) and the discussion relating to abuse of women ...</strong><br /><br />I wasn't conflating the two, instead if you reread what I wrote, I was noticing the similarity, in re to issues, that the SBC is dealing with and what has been dominating TGC's posts as of late; I wasn't equating the two---except to note that these are issues that are being addressed by both bodies, issues that are currently live in the pop-culture and among certain demographics to boot. <br /><br />Hohn C <strong>... But I strongly question the soundness of their thinking and the results of their actions, and again note that the historical results of emphasizing anything other than the Gospel (“mission drift”) have uniformly led to Gospel compromise.</strong><br /><br />Have you read Calvin? He addressed a multitude of issues that were extensively related to implications of the Gospel rather than <em>just</em> sola fide/sola gratia; same with Luther et al. I don't think this necessarily indicates 'mission drift' instead I'd imagine TGC believes that these issues are actually implicated by the reality of the Gospel (i.e. feeding the poor, ministering to the least of these etc). I do think that TGC is probably imprudent to simply use the grammar offered by movements like BLM, Christian anarchists, the LGBTQ community, even if they are appealing to that equivocally. Instead it would be more shrewd to invent a new grammar that is indeed explicitly and historically tied to the language of the church and the Gospel itself. So in this sense---a semantic sense---I do agree that they should not hook themselves into the entailments that attend to neo-Marxist/Liberationist theology. That said, it's always possible to do so in non-correlationist ways retexting the grammar under the pressure of the Gospel reality itself. But I think the more prudent way is to indeed recognize that the church itself has its own Kingdom grammar (like biblical) and to engage the culture at large from that semantic and grammatical domain. Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-89508435230371037712018-05-26T14:29:14.339-07:002018-05-26T14:29:14.339-07:00PJ Tibayan wrote:
"Amen. That is the debate a...PJ Tibayan wrote:<br />"Amen. That is the debate and it is just manifesting itself in different ways in our comments."<br /><br />But I think you've moved the goalposts a bit from our original discussion, which was your allegation that otherwise faithful Christians were denying that racism (as with abortion) is sin. Given your inability to quickly cite even one example of a credible Christian doing this, I'll let that stand on its own, although I will still welcome any examples you might be able to cite in the future.<br /><br />Obviously, there's a current debate on the extent and prevalence of racism, and from my view the ones trying to emphasize it are doing so in an unbalanced way, with a real paucity of hard data and evidence, a conflation of equality of opportunity vs. equality of result, and tons of heart-reading assumptions and experience-elevating generalizations which are unfair or uncharitable.<br /><br />"But yes, I think we should try to bind Christian consciences according to God's Word and the right application of God's Word to cultural questions when applicable: like abortion, gender confusion, marriage confusion, or the prevalence of racism in our culture today. I hope that clarifies my understanding for you, Hohn."<br /><br />I think it does, although not to any degree of comfort. It's one thing to teach abortion and racism are sins. Of course, they are.<br /><br />But it's another thing entirely to try to bind Christians' consciences as to how they ought to prioritize their own stewardship and Christian liberty, which is the very type of conscience-binding legalism that I decried.<br /><br />I view the worst of the race-centric crowd as little different from the AHA zealots who insist that every Christian needs to make fighting abortion their number one priority, and to do it in ways that the AHA zealots approve of. And it reminds me of the courtship-only and homeschool-only crowds.Hohn Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08654409553544362219noreply@blogger.com