John Piper and Mark Driscoll: lessons not learned?
John Piper and Mark Driscoll: lessons not learned?
“… when Piper extended his embrace to Mark Driscoll, all that gravitas and bona fides was added to Driscoll’s resume.”
- 719 views
Ok, I am wrong on the ‘regularly’ aspect.
My point, however, isn’t that they do it regularly. It’s that Kent misrepresents the truth (even if he does so unintentionally) when he claims that the only time that Evangelicals mention separation is to ridicule it. It’s sloppy and unfair argumentation, akin to saying that Kent ridicules the concept of Christian unity.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Andrew Comings] I saw TeamPyro’s insistent warnings as mean-spirited and counter-productive.
One reason I don’t follow TeamPyro anymore is that they are snarky and mean-spirited. Phil Johnson was usually the pleasant exception. I get what they’re saying and for the most part agree, but I think it could be said in a more gracious way. Of course, when anyone brings up their tone in the comments section, it’s like throwing red meat to a pack of pitbulls. I stopped following TeamPyro when Phil left and Dan started obsessing about being shunned by TGC.
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2006/09/iceberg-ecclesiology-101.html
Certainly, the weight of Scripture seems to suggest that when an organization officially sanctions a bishop who teaches that Christ is a mere man—that organization is no true church, and believers ought to cease participation in “worship” with such a group (2 John 7-9; 2 Cor. 6:14-17; Eph. 5:11; 1 Cor. 10:21). Moreover, a bishop who denies the deity of Christ is at least as gross an abomination as a lesbian “pastor.”
And one breeds the other. Where doctrinal apostasy is tolerated, moral decay is inevitable. If evangelical hangers-on in the denominations have been unable to stem the tide of rank heresy for decades, why would anyone hold out hope that extreme moral rot might finally cause a backlash that will turn the denominations around spiritually?
But lay people who get exercised over moral issues can’t fix the problem in the denominations anyway. You don’t reform a harlot by giving her lessons in how to apply cosmetics. Besides that, Scripture never encourages believers to try to reform the harlot church in the first place. Rather: “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues” (Rev. 18:4).
History would also seem to be overwhelmingly on the side of that perspective. Lay renewal efforts among Methodists, Lutherans, and Episcopalians date back at least to the 1960s—and they have always been colossal failures. The article even tacitly concedes this point. (“In the past evangelicals have tried to reform the denominations, but each time they failed.”)
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/02/sectarianism-and-separation.html
Just because a church or denomination calls itself “Christian” does not mean it is part of the body of Christ. That has been true even from biblical times. Consider, for example, the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3. At least one was totally apostate and three or four others were already apostatizing. We know from Jesus’ warning to the church at Laodicea that it is possible for a church to abandon the truth so completely that Christ Himself will reject that church and spew it out of His mouth.
True Christians must not fellowship with such apostate groups (2 Cor. 6:15-17; Eph. 5:11).
In other words, some degree of doctrinal purity is a valid prerequisite for organizational unity. It’s simply wrong to set aside all our doctrinal differences for the sake of an artificial organizational “unity.” This is particularly true of those doctrinal issues that are immediately germane to the gospel. In fact, the apostle Paul taught that so-called “Christians” who corrupt or compromise the utter freeness of justification are not to be regarded as brethren at all! He pronounced a curse on them (Gal. 1:8-9). The apostle John taught the same thing (2 John 7-11).
Since the major point at issue between Protestants and Catholic or Orthodox traditions is the gospel (particularly the doctrine of justification by faith—which is the very point Paul wrote to defend in his epistle to the Galatians), it is utterly fatuous to suggest that a show of external unity should take precedence over our doctrinal differences. It is tantamount to saying Christians are not supposed to be concerned with truth at all.
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2012/02/faithfulness-fruitfulness-and-twis…
So what are Paul’s instructions to Timothy? Should he mentor these guys, invite them for Elephant-Room-style dialogue, become a headliner in their conferences, or publicly embrace and encourage them in the hope that he can harness their popularity and perhaps influence them for good? Not at all.
With regard to pastors and church leaders who promote and model innovative, worldly, self-loving ministry philosophies, “reckless [church leaders] , swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure”—Paul wants Timothy to be a separatist: “Avoid such people” (v. 5). In fact the Greek term is active, aggressive: “from such turn away.”
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[T Howard]One reason I don’t follow TeamPyro anymore is that they are snarky and mean-spirited. Phil Johnson was usually the pleasant exception. I get what they’re saying and for the most part agree, but I think it could be said in a more gracious way. Of course, when anyone brings up their tone in the comments section, it’s like throwing red meat to a pack of pitbulls. I stopped following TeamPyro when Phil left and Dan started obsessing about being shunned by TGC.
Actually, T Howard, I was one of the people the helped kick off the #tgcblockedparty thing on twitter with Dan Phillips. The whole thing is done tongue in cheek as a way to push back against TGC’s stated claim of building a network of Christians who are committed to “glorifying the Savior and edifying those for whom he shed his blood” (http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/about) with the mistreatment of those who point out truths that they don’t want publicized, like the public mistreatment and castigation of Janet Mefferd by Justin Taylor, the shutting down of all dissent and questions related to their relationship with Mark Driscoll, the subsequent whitewashing of that relationship, and the stonewalling of questions related to the Sovereign Grace church abuse mess. For starters.
It’s not about being obsessed with being blocked. It’s about pointing out their utter hypocrisy, and realizing that they’re probably more serious about protecting their image and keeping uncomfortable questions away than they are about ‘glorifying the Savior’.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[T Howard]Andrew Comings wrote:
I saw TeamPyro’s insistent warnings as mean-spirited and counter-productive.One reason I don’t follow TeamPyro anymore is that they are snarky and mean-spirited. Phil Johnson was usually the pleasant exception. I get what they’re saying and for the most part agree, but I think it could be said in a more gracious way. Of course, when anyone brings up their tone in the comments section, it’s like throwing red meat to a pack of pitbulls. I stopped following TeamPyro when Phil left and Dan started obsessing about being shunned by TGC.
Me, too. The snark gets tiresome, and frankly gets in the way of the message. It’s like being in the room with that guy who knows he’s really funny, but…isn’t.
Wayne and T Howard,
I am sure we agree that there is some room for diversity of personality within the body. Everyone is not a fan of sarcasm, but some of us believe it can be a useful tool. What you perceive as snarky, I see as militant. I am thankful for men, not just Team Pyro, who have teeth in their mouths and are willing to stand, firmly and unashamedly, for truth. If you want something different, I think the blogosphere is big enough for everyone to find what they are looking for.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Now I would agree fully that one ought not shock simply for the purpose of shocking, but it is also worth noting that Scripture does describe our good works as “filthy rags” (and I believe the Hebrew is even earthier), John the Baptist calls the Pharisees a “Brood of vipers”, Jesus calls them “whitewashed tombs”, and the apostle Paul notes—sarcastically I believe—that it would be good if the Judiazers emasculated themselves.
It strikes me that the difference between those I’ve mentioned and Driscoll—beyond classifications like Prophet, Son of God, etc..—is that the Bible authors are pointing to something that is true in fact. The Pharisees were analogous to poisonous snakes and prettified graves. Our good works are as disgusting as the filthiest rag you can think of in contrast to the holiness of God, and for all the good circumcision does someone in Christ, the one advocating it would do well to emasculate himself and at least prevent himself from raising up more children who might advocate the same.
In contrast, the Pyro crowd (and a lot of others) point out, rightly, that a lot of the obscenity and such employed by Driscoll does not have its roots in Scripture and fact, and that a lot of it comes from Driscoll’s habit of “untested prophecy” that somehow always tends to the fantastic and lurid.
And it’s worth noting that the sarcasm employed by Team Pyro ought to be evaluated on the same criteria. No? I think they’re big boys and will be able to man up to confront reality if it’s pointed out that they’re using sarcasm unBiblically.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]In contrast, the Pyro crowd (and a lot of others) point out, rightly, that a lot of the obscenity and such employed by Driscoll does not have its roots in Scripture and fact, and that a lot of it comes from Driscoll’s habit of “untested prophecy” that somehow always tends to the fantastic and lurid.
I have a question. I know very little about Driscoll. I wasn’t interested in him in the slightest…So pardon my ignorance.
People often connect him to prophecy. Other than the “God showed me images of them having sex” sermon that I have heard, did he actually give prophecies in church or counseling? Or is the prophecy issue a touch exaggerated?
Actually, a full blown charismatic would distinguish prophecy from “word of knowledge”/”word of wisdom”. From the few instances I am aware of concerning Driscoll full-force charismatics would call what he used as “word of knowledge”.
[Chip Van Emmerik]Wayne and T Howard,
I am sure we agree that there is some room for diversity of personality within the body. Everyone is not a fan of sarcasm, but some of us believe it can be a useful tool. What you perceive as snarky, I see as militant. I am thankful for men, not just Team Pyro, who have teeth in their mouths and are willing to stand, firmly and unashamedly, for truth. If you want something different, I think the blogosphere is big enough for everyone to find what they are looking for.
Yep, it’s big enough, and there’s so much better out there IMHO. That was the point. Don’t go to pyro anymore unless directed there, then usually disappointed. Used to love it. For me, snark isn’t teeth. It’s preaching to the choir.
[Jay] It’s not about being obsessed with being blocked. It’s about pointing out their utter hypocrisy, and realizing that they’re probably more serious about protecting their image and keeping uncomfortable questions away than they are about ‘glorifying the Savior’.
I agree with you, Jay. Dan was obsessing about TGC long before they blocked him on Twitter. That just fed his narcissism and added fuel to the fire.
I’m glad you and Dan are clairvoyant enough to know what goes on within the TGC council that you can make the statements you made above.
[Wayne Wilson]Chip Van Emmerik wrote:
Wayne and T Howard,
I am sure we agree that there is some room for diversity of personality within the body. Everyone is not a fan of sarcasm, but some of us believe it can be a useful tool. What you perceive as snarky, I see as militant. I am thankful for men, not just Team Pyro, who have teeth in their mouths and are willing to stand, firmly and unashamedly, for truth. If you want something different, I think the blogosphere is big enough for everyone to find what they are looking for.
Yep, it’s big enough, and there’s so much better out there IMHO. That was the point. Don’t go to pyro anymore unless directed there, then usually disappointed. Used to love it. For me, snark isn’t teeth. It’s preaching to the choir.
Sarcasm can be useful when used in its proper place and time. At TeamPyro, that place and time is apparently 24/7 (yes, this statement is hyperbole). It just gets old and loses its impact. It’s like typing in all caps. IT SERVES A PURPOSE, BUT WHEN SOMEONE TYPES ALL THEIR POSTS IN ALL CAPS ALL THE TIME, THEY QUICKLY BECOME AN ANNOYANCE AND SENSIBLE PEOPLE STOP READING THEIR POSTS, REGARDLESS OF THE MERIT OF WHAT THEY’RE SAYING. Or, it’s like using hyperbole in everything you write. Everyone hates it; nobody likes it.
Don: My argument is simple, just do a simple search on a website.
Person1 “Chip”: But the simple search: seems legit, eh?
Don: I’m Canadian, which is a perfect excuse 80% of the time. (and later) But hold on, that simplistic thing I told you to do that I thought would help my case is actually more complicated. Let me explain.
Person2 “Jay”: In the US, we have a phrase: “knocking it out of the park.” Let me show you.
Discussion