2012 StandPoint Conference Session 1: A Bridge Too Far

Phil Johnson has been on Mark Driscoll’s trail for some time through the blogosphere. Mark Driscoll is ignoring Phil’s warning and rebukes. Doug Wilson has concerns and questions for Mark. Mark answers Doug in an open format he likes best: face to face. No computers.

Phil and Mark interact with Doug. All three like some good controversy. Could Doug, a cessationist, bring the both Phil and Mark together for moderating a public conversation (and debate)? In the West, young, Calvinistic evangelicals who are both cessationists and non-cessationists and back and forth on these issues could listen in.

et

JC

Allow me a few qualifiers. One, as to boundary issues and PJ, it is only to acknowledge this is a notable issue with hm and to give credit where credit is due which is that your objections are not unreasonable (though again I would find a greater cause for all your current efforts) and are based in part in a recognizable pattern of weakness in PJ and the petty bully surrogates who have blogged under his defacto oversight which ultimately lies at the feet if PJ, thus amplifying his indiscretions. But I would be amiss to fail to acknowledge many valuable contributions by PJ and his blog as well as his acknowledgement of the tendency to “pugnate” at times when something better could be done. Such admissions are rare by public Christian personalities and teachers. And specifically I do say you are right and that “pornographic divinations” unfairly describes MD’s context when such alleged visions came to him. I believe there is a more accurate theological/biblical description as well as contextual one that could reflect PJ’s cynicism (a cynicism I share on the matter and MD as a whole) without compromising his point with satisfying but inaccurate descriptions. And I will say I did not have Susan in mind with the earlier comment. She, to me, is exceptionally willing to see the points of others while sustaining the certainty of her own views.

[JCarpenter] Mike’s little joke got me thinking, with the topic of fundamentalist “discernment” ministries: How come so rarely do they denounce the sin of racism. BJU had a racist dating policy. Was that ever denounced by fundamentalist discernment ministries? With look out for compromise and rank sin, what about the overt sin of racism that seemed to thrive in many of the same areas as did fundamentalism?

Great Question! There were a number of Fundies who spoke out about it, but it sure was slow coming. In the end, it was a group of alumni and their online petition that seemed to make a difference.

I was unclear on your question, though: Are you saying that Phil Johnson is running a Fundamentalist Discernment ministry? Just wondering, since Phil being with us Fundies at Standpoint Conference (if Fundies we be) stirred some dissension. I would be amused to see this evidence that a person with a position of balance and moderation will always be shot at by the extremes.

The “Phil makes improper/unproven accusations” line of discussion is officially closing. If you want to start another thread on it, I have no objection.

The problem with the discussion on that particular topic is that JCarpenter wants have his view accepted at face value and see others prove him wrong. So he’s starting out with the perspective that his evaluation of Johnson is obvious and those who disagree or challenge are just being stubborn. Hence, he feels that he can claim is view “is not unproven” while Johnson’s criticisms of Driscoll are unproven. Since he’s assumed his position as a given at the start, he feels comfortable dismissing even authoritative third party sources such as dictionaries. In short, handles his view as one that is beyond argument and simultaneously handles other views as not being worthy of argument.

There’s no way to have a thoughtful exchange with those conditions in place.

So I’ll hazard that any new thread on the topic will also just go in circles.

In any case, we’ll unpublish or maybe move further posts on that issue. Meanwhile, there’s a lot of meat in Phil’s video worth talking about.

Aaron, I think you’re characterization of my approach is inaccurate. I know the English language pretty well, having a BA in it, worked as an editor, published articles, taught it to students learning it as a second language, etc. It’s simply a fact that the terms Johnson employs were inaccurate. I’ve explained that above and even given examples of how he could have used accurate terms while still expressing disapproval. In order for “thoughtful exchange” to go forward, facts have to be accepted. The thread goes in circles because some refuse to do so. And my original point is that someone who employs the kind of rhetorical bomb-throwing as Johnson shouldn’t be invited to a conference or have their talks posted as if they were an expert. Further, his handling of church history is so superficial as not to qualify as “meat”.

As for the racism issue: my question is that if Christians leaders should stand out against compromise and sin in the church (as they should) and the sin of racism has been practiced in churches and Christian institutions, then where have the public stances against that sin been? A Seattle pastor saying things Johnson doesn’t like is worthy of a series of blog posts, but the systematic oppression of a whole kind of people (many of whom are our brothers and sister in Christ) gets very little (or no) attention. Why? Is the passion really for preserving the purity of the church or for preserving the status quo?

….also off topic.

Has nothing to do with the OP, Phil’s video or even Mark Driscoll. Might be an interesting topic for another thread if we can get past generalizations.

Further, his handling of church history is so superficial as not to qualify as “meat”.

This part is on topic though…. which I appreciate.

He’s not mainly talking about church history, rather, an evaluation of whether Carson et. al’s “center bound set” idea is adequate as a way of defining the boundaries of authentic Christianity. The history is part of the argument there, though, I’ll give you that.

Perhaps you can get beyond generalizations and tell us where his analysis of history is inaccurate?

If the topic is that we’re called not always to “build bridges” but to “contend for the faith”, against sin for the purity of the church, and the church has been ravaged by a particular sin, but very few have opposed that sin, how is it “off topic”? Further, it gets right to the motivation. I agree with the gist of the call from Johnson that we can’t always be about “winning friends” but sometimes have to be willing to denounce sins (and even the people who champion those sins). But then why are we very selective about the sins and doctrinal deviations we denounce? Drunkenness and anything approaching sexual immorality get attacked, as they should. Liberal views of the errancy of the Bible get attacked, as they should. But violating what the Lord Jesus called “the second greatest commandment” (and which He said was like the first) gets mostly ignored. Why? The tolerance of that sin can’t be excused by arguing that it was a debatable issue. It’s not. It’s evil is plain and profound. Further, that sin tended to be the most accepted in many of the same areas where fundamentalism was also the most widespread, namely the South. So this suggests something about the motives of those who loudest for denouncing sin but skip this one: either (1) they are simply inconsistent, sadly effected by the world in this area while otherwise well-meaning or (2) their real reason for denouncing sin and “burning bridges” has little to do with a passion for the holiness of the bride of Christ but more to do with preserving their status quo.

I wonder, has Johnson taken a stand against racism? (By the way, I don’t know what the “OP” is.)

The scary thing is, if the church has been so worldly as not to stand against racism when it was widespread in its culture, then when acceptance of homosexuality becomes widespread (as it tragically looks like it will in a generation or so), then will the church have the courage to stand up against that?

It’s easy to bash a preacher who lives far up the coast, three states away, who likes to wear Mickey Mouse shirts while preaching. It’s much harder to stand against a sin that is so accepted that it’s a part of the whole society, backed by laws (like the segregation or the coming “hate crime” laws that could make denouncing homosexuality a crime), in which some of your own members are a part, which get you denounced as a radical or a “hater” if you do. If you’re willing to do that, as John Piper has, I respect you. If not, then I wonder … .

In a way I agree with Johnson about the centered set thing. Having a “centered set” as the focus, sounds great in theory: that the Lord Jesus and the gospel is at the center and that we can allow liberty for other secondary issues that are further away from the center. That sounds like a good ideal. And to D. A. Carson, who is an academic, it makes for great theory. But in practice I don’t see how it can work. Yes, the Lord Jesus and the gospel should be at the center. But then you immediately have to define who Jesus is. Is He God? Yes. Then you have to define who God is. Modalism or Trinitarianism? So, the Trinity. What did Jesus do to give us the gospel? The atonement. Then you have to define the atonement. How do you know any of this? The Bible. Then you have to define what the Bible is. The canon, it’s inspiration and inerrancy. So, even if you start with an idealistic goal of having a centered set, you’re still going to have to define the boundaries of the center. So I agree with Johnson that we need confessions of faith to define boundaries.

The problem with that arises when people confuse what should rightly be secondary issues with primary convictions that should mark the boundary. For example, last time I saw (over a decade ago), Masters Seminary made belief in pretribulation rapture a requirement. Under no historical definition of the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy should that theory qualify for a core conviction. So that’s part of what is motivating D. A. Carson, the continual problem with people focused on the boundaries who are confused about what doctrines should really be a part of those boundaries.

But statements of faith are necessary and Johnson is right that they have to be enforced. Historically, he used (very briefly) the examples of Harvard, Andover, and Fuller. He seems to be saying that the reason they declined was because they failed to uphold their statements of faith. First, I don’t know if Harvard or Andover actually had statements of faith. Harvard was founded (1636) by the Puritans to train men for ministry; it began to decline about two generations after its founding as first it accepted a softer, more ambiguous Calvinism, then Arminianism, then eventually Unitarianism and universalism. Yale was founded (1702) as a more faithful alternative to Harvard. Both Harvard and Andover became liberal because people in them ceased believing. Fuller strayed from it’s original statement of faith largely for the same reason people above refuse to acknowledge what “divination”, “scripted”, etc., mean in their context. That is, people came who redefined the terms in a way that served their purposes. They signed statements of faith, not consciously thinking they were lying, but because in their minds they reinterpreted the meanings of the statements. There is no way that a statement of faith can keep out someone who doesn’t really believe it if people are not committed to up-holding with integrity the meaning of the words as they were plainly, originally intended. There’s no substitute for integrity and integrity comes from a passion for God — not just a stern determination to enforce statements of faith.

Sorry about the jargon. OP stands for “original post” or “opening post.” It’s supposed to determine what the discussion is about… ironically, in a center-bound set sort of way. :D

I think the topic of racism—and what you’re saying about it in particular—is so broad, it’s pretty hard to see the relevance.

In any case, it doesn’t follow that if preacher A doesn’t say as much I think he should about about X, he has nothing of value to say about Y.

So whether it’s racism, gluttony, laziness or cheating on tax returns that is allegedly not being denounced enough, it would be hard to prove that what people are not saying (or not saying enough) proves they are wrong about what they are saying.

But as it stands, going by your own rules, you can’t accuse Phil of neglecting the topic of race unless you can prove it… and claiming that it’s true until disproved is not proof.

(Here’s a cute little video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB2jmuZAJtw] illustrating the argumentum ad igorantium fallacy … The claim in the illustration: “There are aliens in the universe because you cannot prove there are not.” A quicker read on the fallacy http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html here .)

It would be pretty hard to comb through all of Phil’s ministry and produce proof of the neglect of any topic, much less neglect of a topic that is so fundamental to the Faith that the neglect itself must render everything else he has to say automatically untrue. Might be a bit easier to prove someone is not worth listening to, but in that case, wouldn’t your time be better spent just not listening to him? (vs. trying to persuade others not to listen to him?)

If you want to talk about the racism angle, JCarpenter, go ahead and start a new thread. I don’t think that there’s anyone who would object to having that discussion, and it is worth discussing. I’m just trying to keep this thread on track ;)

I think I’ve tried to remain on topic throughout this. The topic is, as I understand it, Phil Johnson’s call that we need boundaries to maintain. That, I don’t disagree with. However, I don’t think the messenger is a good example of how to do it. I’ve called into question the validity of his own rhetoric and tactics. Alex, above, says my examples are “mild” compared to examples he’s aware of. He’s probably right. I’ve read very little of Johnson and what little I have read or heard, I find problems with. I didn’t listen to the entire message above and have no plans to do so. There are many good, mature Christian leaders out there, genuine scholars (like D.A. Carson, or R.C. Sproul) or great preachers and some men who are both (like Mark Dever, John Piper, and the greats of history, like Martin Luther and the Puritans). My time is well spent learning from them. When I go to the pyromaniac site, it’s for the Spurgeon archives, not for Johnson.

Racism is an illustration of the problem because it is (1) a very serious sin (by Biblical standards), and at least was (2) widespread in our culture. That being the case, and if Johnson and others really believe in the importance of fighting for the proper Christian boundaries, then have they contended for the faith in that instance? If they haven’t, that doesn’t negate everything else they say. As I said, they could only be inconsistent. But it makes me wonder. Why do they spend so much time and energy going after fellow evangelicals in Mickey Mouse shirts but then hardly any on sins like racism. (And if they wouldn’t oppose racism in the past, will they be willing to oppose homosexuality in the future?) I don’t know about what Johnson has said about racism specifically. I asked a question. But I find it interesting so far we can’t cite numerous cases in which he has denounced it — but we can all easily think of examples of him denouncing preachers he doesn’t like.

Anyway, I think I engaged the centered set-bounded set issue pretty substantially above (“the center”). It’s not that I disagree with Johnson on the theory of maintaining the boundaries. It’s just that I don’t think, right now, he’s the one who has the maturity to do that.

[JCarpenter] I think I’ve tried to remain on topic throughout this. The topic is, as I understand it, Phil Johnson’s call that we need boundaries to maintain. That, I don’t disagree with. However, I don’t think the messenger is a good example of how to do it. I’ve called into question the validity of his own rhetoric and tactics. Alex, above, says my examples are “mild” compared to examples he’s aware of. He’s probably right. I’ve read very little of Johnson and what little I have read or heard, I find problems with. I didn’t listen to the entire message above and have no plans to do so. There are many good, mature Christian leaders out there, genuine scholars (like D.A. Carson, or R.C. Sproul) or great preachers and some men who are both (like Mark Dever, John Piper, and the greats of history, like Martin Luther and the Puritans). My time is well spent learning from them. When I go to the pyromaniac site, it’s for the Spurgeon archives, not for Johnson.

Racism is an illustration of the problem because it is (1) a very serious sin (by Biblical standards), and at least was (2) widespread in our culture. That being the case, and if Johnson and others really believe in the importance of fighting for the proper Christian boundaries, then have they contended for the faith in that instance? If they haven’t, that doesn’t negate everything else they say. As I said, they could only be inconsistent. But it makes me wonder. Why do they spend so much time and energy going after fellow evangelicals in Mickey Mouse shirts but then hardly any on sins like racism. (And if they wouldn’t oppose racism in the past, will they be willing to oppose homosexuality in the future?) I don’t know about what Johnson has said about racism specifically. I asked a question. But I find it interesting so far we can’t cite numerous cases in which he has denounced it — but we can all easily think of examples of him denouncing preachers he doesn’t like.

Anyway, I think I engaged the centered set-bounded set issue pretty substantially above (“the center”). It’s not that I disagree with Johnson on the theory of maintaining the boundaries. It’s just that I don’t think, right now, he’s the one who has the maturity to do that.

So you’ve read very little of Johnson by your own admission, but you’re ready to condemn him for spending very little time condemning racism and to wonder if he’ll stand against homosexuality? You’re right…you’ve read very little of Johnson. And you accuse others of rhetorical bomb-throwing?

I haven’t read enough of you condemning bestiality, or Anders Breivik’s killing spree, or Greek neo-Nazis, or Apollinarianism or Donatism. So I really don’t think you should ever say anything about anything another evangelical might be doing, no matter how bad. Sorry. :)

You got me, JG. I guess I’d have to get up pretty early in the morning to pull one over on you…especially since you are what, 8 hours ahead of me? :)

By the way, have you heard that Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality?

[Greg Long] By the way, have you heard that Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality?

Does that mean Obama is right????? :Sp