The IM Underground

Frank Turk commenting on me again:

OK — it may have been more than 60 minutes, so I owe you some change.

Let me say this: one of the things I really, really enjoy about my blog is the number of times I am accused by people of being somehow bad — because when it happens, we get to review the facts.

For example, the facts iMonk has been so gracious to “cull”. I’ll use his word here because, well, maybe he won’t object to it — then again, who can tell? For those who want to see where almost all of them come from, you can go here and see all of what I said to get the picture.

So let’s make sure we track here:

– on iMonk’s point #1, I’m guilty! I did say “emotionally unstable”. But let’s remember that what iMonk originally objected to was that I said he was mentally unstable — which means something different. In a world where Jonathan Moorehead can be accused of saying something salacious about iMonk and his wife when he was not talking about them, let’s make sure we get our semantics straight.

– on the charge that I said he should resign his ministry because he is a fraud, how do the bits on your page (how long will that page stay up I wonder?) come to that end? I plainly said, “It’s not as far a leap — or any kind of a leap — to say that a minister who thinks his decision to enter the ministry as “the worst decision of [his] life” shouldn’t be in ministry and shouldn’t judge the ministry of others.” That’s not about you being a fraud: that’s about you being honest about your so-called honesty and confessional writings.

As to that comment, as you say, was concerning whether “entering full-time church ministry instead of doing ministry bi-vocationally was the wrong choice,” again I point the reader to the link in my previous comment, and let the reader decidie under what circumstances iMonk said, “It was, I’m convinced, the great mistake of my life. I regret it so much today that my bones hurt to think about it.”

FWIW, I point the reader there because that original essay was moved and tends to have a somewhat tenuous existence on the internet.

– as to the charge that you are an arrogant user of the authority of being a teacher, somehow that quote didn’t wind up in that hall of fame on your secret blog. The enhanced version (which I prefer, btw) is this:

iMonk only rolls out this factoid when he wants people to read him as something other than a randy blogger, and he doesn’t want to answer any questions. The “because I’m an English teacher” tag ought to come out where an English teacher could clear up some point of fact — but in this case, given that iMonk has demonstrated his own AWANA method for reading blog posts, I’d be a little embarassed to admit I’m doing something professionally when my hobby version looks rather home-job.

That doesn’t have anything to do with arrogance: it has to do with false appeals to authority, and the juxtaposition of your demonstrated skills v. your position of authority.

I’d call that fraud. But because I’m just a blogger, and that’s just my opinion, you have to take it as one opinion among many (or at least one of two which have been voiced). It’s not actionable because I’m not an authority.

So let’s be clear: I do think iMonk is a fraud and an emotionally-unstable person. I think those things ought to mean something — to him, if not to the rest of us. But do they mean he should put himself in jail or an institution or something — or do they mean that maybe the histrionics and the bloaviated opinions could use a dose of self-awareness?

Let the reader be the judge. And note — no exclamation points were abused to make this opinion. Everything was said in the indicative, not in the imperative — except, of course, “let the reader be the judge”.

Frank says he hasn’t called me unstable, hasn’t said I should leave the ministry. Here are a collection of Frank Turk’s comments about me. Enjoy:

Your hatred of (the) Christian life (starting with your own) disqualifies you from being a reasonable commentator.

I wonder — which is the greater hypocrisy: acting like that Michael Spencer is a credible person with a clear vision of his own life and the culture of the church, or refusing to be bullied into submission by a person who is a spiritual fraud, and using things like sarcasm and snark to highlight the reasons why Michael Spencer is a fraud.

If you find iMonk good-natured, you have redefined the term. At the heart of his internet persona is anything but a good nature. He is completely overwhelmed by his own history of failure and regret. And, in the end, he wants to hold other people accountable for it.

Why not just prove that iMonk is a stable guy?…Prove that he’s a stable guy, and that will utterly dismantle my original statement.

Here’s what I think: we should not allow emotionally unstable people to speak on behalf of Christianity in any respect.

iMonk: You are a fraud.

Saying he is an “emotionally unstable person” is not making fun – because that is, in itself, not funny.

Only in the world where telling him his views are unreliable because he is an emotionally-unstable person is not a critique.

Let’s go back to the word “fraud” for a minute, shall we? I have called you a “fraud”, …This is about exposing your rhetoric on the internet as fraudulent one way, or the other.

My suggestion is that is being degreed is the method by which we establish one’s suitability to be a critic, iMonk doesn’t have the paper to criticize the SBC and the Christian church. [My academic/professional credentials are on the site.]

It’s not as far a leap — or any kind of a leap — to say that a minister who thinks his decision to enter the ministry as “the worst decision of [his] life” shouldn’t be in ministry and shouldn’t judge the ministry of others. [The comment was that entering full-time church ministry instead of doing ministry bi-vocationally was the wrong choice. -MS]

“The problem is that there doesn’t seem to be any truth they won’t mock or question or stop short of affirming clearly, and that disturbs me greatly, for the reasons outlined above.”

Unreal.

I’m reading a discussion at a [not TR] [not watchblog]. Predictably, the topic is how postmodern emerging Christians don’t actually believe the Christian faith. But instead of saying what the author means- “these people aren’t Christians”- you get to read ditties like “you’re the problem.” And then into the meta we go where a brave soul named David tries to speak in less extreme tones about brothers in the faith. An errand doomed from the start. Not only do postmoderns not really believe, they aren’t certain. And when they are certain, they aren’t ABSOLUTELY certain. ***crickets***

Let me say that again. The Apostle’s Creed should read something like this: I believe, with absolute certainty, in God the Father….

Surely someone will come along and say that you can’t consider yourself a true believer until you really really really believe with absolute undoubted undaunted infallible certainty. Really. Absolutely.

The “I believe more and better than you do” contest is the equivalent of pulling off shirts and comparing muscles. Who’s really really really been in the gym.

Sola fide? Simple faith? The faith of a child? The faith of a sinner? The gift of faith to imperfect human beings? Existential faith that meets doubts? Not allowed. Absolute, unwavering certainty or here’s your sign, you pomo sissy.

As someone said to me in an email the other day, this seems to be a religion with no humility; ridiculing humility is a sport. If someone dares say they have any kind of certainty that isn’t decorated with the same ten adjectives as the [not watchblogger], then they are covered with contemptuous insinuations.

Is it really a big deal to suggest some of these people have the mindset of fundamentalist separatists? I suppose it’s not my place to say. But it’s their place to put anyone who admits “Lord I believe, help my unbelief” in the wastebasket of rejection.

Just say you and your friends are the real Christians, guys. It’s the manly thing to do.

Once again, Phil Johnson goes after me.

A handful of shrill watchblogs do get lots of publicity because, let’s face it: certain post-evangelical bloggers love to single them out for mockery, and they like to caricature such blogs as the very epitome of what’s wrong with practically everyone who stands to the right of Karl Barth.

But is runaway fundamentalism really a “rampant” threat? Try a test: line up and count every shrill “watchblog.” Start with TeamPyro, (since it’s so popular among post-evangelicals to characterize us as relentlessly intolerant and hopelessly dogmatic—practically latter-day counterparts of Jack Hyles), and throw in every blog in our vicinity and to our right. For every one on that list, I can point you to dozens of post-evangelical, emerging, emergent, neo-orthodox, and liberal blogs in the Christian blogosphere where daily, incessantly, and almost unthinkingly, certainty and conviction and every evangelical doctrinal distinction are under steady attack.

As I was saying, that is the spirit of the age. Of course it doesn’t stick out like a sore thumb, the way the shrill fundies do. But don’t be duped by that into thinking it’s a less serious problem.

Whatever.

Scott Hill began posting about Conversation in God’s Kitchen. I wrote him this note:

I really don’t want to write this note, but since you addressed me in a reasonable manner in your initial post, I am going to write you briefly and attempt some kind of answer. Be absolutely sure I have no desire to say “We actually agree.” We don’t. Don’t think I want to persuade you or be better understood. I couldn’t care less if you are persuaded, interested or understand me. I respect you, and you are my brother in Christ. I recognize that you cannot state that you believe I am a Christian, and I completely understand that. In your circles, it would be inappropriate to say so.

I do want to cover the following:

1) I posted a humorous post on your site “jumping the shark.” No names. No theology. No criticism. No God stuff.

In return, I have now been called a pagan, a liberal, outside of orthodoxy, a denier of the inspiration and authority of the Bible and so on.

Since I am a bit older than you, and ordained in your denomination, I ask for a public apology or public evidence that I am these things to anyone other than a small group of reformed Baptists. Your covenant theology, etc is “out of orthodoxy” for a lot of Southern Baptists, as is your Calvinism. But that’s different. Right?

What you’ve done is nothing short of the sin of slander. And I’m telling you, as scripture commands, as your brother and as a fellow elder: you are slandering me in print by name at Fide-O right now, without provocation.

2) I believe the Bible was written by humans, and canonized by humans. I believe the books canonized were inspired by God the Holy Spirit to communicate to us the message of our salvation in Jesus Christ, iows the Gospel.

I’ve said this answer for 30 + years and never been challenged. Yet you say on your site that this answer is a denial of the inspiration and authority of the Bible.

I won’t argue with you. The Bible is a collection of writing by men, selected by men, inspired by God, true, truthful, authoritative for all believers and intended to tell us all things necessary for salvation and godliness. You say that I believe it is “merely” human, and that is a lie. I say repeatedly that it is inspired and that I believe WCF 1.

I have been ordained for 27 years and preaching for over 30. I have never- not ONCE, EVER- by anyone been accused of what you are saying about me. I have preached in a Ky Baptist school for 15 years to thousands of students from all over the world and staff from all over America. Never once have I been challenged by my President, trustees or fellow elders. I have stated by belief and confidence in the Bible thousands of times.

3) My refusal to use the term inerrancy is because in my setting it is confusing to the non Christians I minister to. I can’t say the Bible is without error and then say Job’s friends are in error. My Chinese and African and Muslim and Buddhist students won’t buy that. I explain to them that the Bible is written by men, inspired by God, true, and about Jesus. Is that a bad answer?

4) My view that Judges or Leviticus or Proverbs need to be read via the truth about Jesus is hardly controversial or new. If I said you can never preach anything except words from Leviticus, and no content from anything except Leviticus, would you be able to proclaim the Gospel as described in I Cor 15: 1-4?

I know you think I am denying something when I say that the Bible is about Christ and not about Proverbs or Judges, but I am not. If you don’t get it, then I’m sorry. You’ll have to trust me. I believe and love the Bible, but the inspiration of the Bible is all about Jesus.

Scott, I am only writing you out of obedience to my conscience. I have ignored your blog and then gave you one humorous post. You have responded by announcing to the world that I am a pagan that doesn’t believe the Bible.

I have more to say, but I can’t say it without sin in my words or in my heart. I’ll ask your forgiveness for that as well. I’m done.

Peace to you. I’m sorry if my initial post prompted this. I did not intend to insult you as Christians, but to merely tease you as brothers.

MSpencer

Says I’m not a Christian yada yada yada. The reformed baptist list of who is a Christian is available on a 3 x 5 card somewhere.

There’s a dogfight going on between the iMonk and Fide-O.

Jason reproduced part of an essay by Spencer to document his charge that Spencer has a liberal view of Scripture.

http://fide-o.blogspot.com/2007/02/spencers-essay-vs-sprouls-message.html

Apparently, Spencer then emailed Scott, demanding either an apology or evbidence to back up the allegation:

http://fide-o.blogspot.com/2007/02/imonk-says-he-is-misrepresented-again.html

Spencer’s reaction is illogical, but predictable.

The documentation was provided in the very post he takes exception to. Jason simply quoted Spencer verbatim. What further documentation do the Fide-O boys need to provide? This wasn’t a roundabout inference from some oblique statement of Spencer’s. His essay speaks for itself.

The essay articulates boilerplate liberalism. It could have been penned by Fosdick.

To say that Spencer has a liberal view of Scripture is not, in the first instance, a value-judgment, but a simple statement of fact.

Why does he get on the defensive? It’s his stated position which was put on public display. Either he stands by his own words or he doesn’t. Does he believe what he said in his essay?

By contrast, the email is pretty orthodox. There’s no obvious way of harmonizing these two statements.

The only way to reconcile the two statements is to read the email with a set of mental reservations supplied by the essay. Spencer is like a politician who makes contradictory policy statements depending on the time, place, and audience.

He is capable of making perfectly orthodox statements. But these have to be caveated by his perfectly heterodox statements.

I think Spencer’s problem is twofold:

1.He’s an emotional reactionary.

In this respect he belongs to a stereotypical character type. There are men and women who feel that they’ve been burned by the church, or by some Christians they know.

And they react by turning their back on the Christian faith or—which amounts to the same thing—liberalizing their theology.

And some of these people have a legitimate grievance. There are people have been mistreated by individuals in the church or by members of the Christian community.

But, of course, you can only become disillusioned if you harbor illusions in the first place. If you begin with false expectations about the church, your expectations are bound to be dashed sooner or later.

The best remedy is preventive medicine. Cultivate a realistic view of the church.

I’d also add that some people merely pretend to be mistreated by the Christian community. In fact, the church was right, and they were wrong.

But due to their need for self-justification, they retaliate by attacking the church and all it stands for.

2.This, in turn, can degenerate into a vicious cycle. In the course of defending themselves, they make increasingly unorthodox claims.

Ironically, their reaction only serves to confirm the original charge. They themselves pile up ever more supporting material to substantiate the accusation that got them so riled up in the first place.

When they are accused of making a left turn, they react by moving further to the left.
They try to show that their accusers are in the wrong, but they do so by admitting the original charge. The accusers were correct in what they alleged, but their beliefs are mistaken.

If we can take him at his word, then it’s clear from what he wrote that Spencer has turned a corner on what he believes about Scripture (unless this is what he always believed, but kept mum about it in the past). He has given a series of reasons for his belief.

There is no way for him to back down without retracting his arguments. On the face of it, he’s crossed a line of no return.

NOTE TO VISITORS: The Underground is an archive of letters to me and comments about me. I want easy access to certain comments about myself and the BHT, and this is the easiest way to do it.

Please remember that certain indiviuals have a standing invite to send me posts to be published without editing at IM, standing invites to post at the BHT, and open comments at IM. I don’t have time to monitor comments over here. I’m happy too allow my critics equal time and space on my nickle.

A BHT Lurker sent this along a day or so after Johnson pulled up a two year old quote of mine to say how mistreated he’d been in the past week. It’s spot on:

It’s funny how you can have a post at the BHT linking approvingly to a teampyro post, w/o qualification (”not bad, even if they guillotine kittens every Friday”), but that kind of basic consideration is not reciprocated (at least that I’ve ever seen). That is where the inequity is (if it matters): not in quantity of mentions, but in the spirit of them. Phil and Dan have NEVER, to my knowledge, given the least reason for any of their readers to think that BHT fellows are “good Christians” or “faithful servants” or, perhaps, maybe, “really saved” (or, somewhat better, “not non-apostate”). [And, by the by, that’s just swell with me. Unlike Brad the broke. mess., what they think of me or you or anyone matters not in the least to me.]

I think this disanalogy is borne out in one of Phil’s tendencies (quite evident in the Chan business): there are some people with which he simply doesn’t disagree (White, MacArthur)-… Then there’s everybody else–the people he believes he is superior to. These are in two basic groups: (a) those who are of a kindred spirit (fundies, Sharper Iron), and who may be publicly challenged, but always with a reserve of deeper unity; (b) those who are not (iMonk, N. T. Wright, etc., etc., ad infinitum), who must be publicly challenged with no suggestion that they are not non-apostate. The best (b) people can look for (if they bother), is begrudging agreement on some point or other that is so general or uncontroversial that only c.t. would find fault. However, this begrudging agreement can then serve as a premise to heighten the antithesis, e.g., “While we should all applaud his defense of the historicity of the resurrection, it only makes his views on the biblical disposal of kittens that much more troubling/deceptive/wicked.”

Nothing that Phil said in the Chan business was a surprise. That he used it as an occasion to take a shot at you was also not a surprise. God forbid–literally–that anyone on the team get the least hint that he agrees with you. That’s why he lumped your two-year-old comment in with those recent ones. Because he knows that the two of you basically agree on the Chan thing and we just can’t have that. We need to remind everybody that even if the iMonk is right about Chan that this is no time to suggest that we agree over the gospel, for the iMonk is wrong about so much else. And he’s been mean to us, and we mustn’t forget that.

The lurker is right that no amount of agreement on my part will ever make up for the fact that I 1) sometimes am critical, 2) may support some people like Wright at times and 3) am ultimately not a Christian at all.

NOTE: Comments are open at IM 24/7.

Comments about me from Phil Johnson:

Raja: “you DID say that something Michael said provides you with warrant for “not taking his patrons (i.e. me) seriously”

Actually, the several points I made were much more complex than that, and perhaps the way I tried to make them was too elliptical to be easily followed, but it all goes something like this:

1. Googling for names isn’t going to reveal accurately the number of times James White or the Pyromaniacs have been trashed at the BHT, because you fellows generally like to rubbish us without actually mentioning our names. Google that.

2. I then cited (and linked to) one specific but typical instance of where Teampyro was derided at the BHT in a way that would never show up on any Google search like the ones that were being conducted.

3. I then also pointed out that what was written in that instance was a gross misrepresentation of what the post here actually said–and I suggested that such misrepresentations are typical fare over there. Note carefully: My complaint is not and never has been merely that we are so often criticized in the conversation at the BHT; my actual complaint is that we are routinely misrepresented in the conversation there.

4. Now, here’s where I shifted somewhat elliptically to a slightly different point. And it’s this: I’ve never once seen anyone at the BHT quibble about whether James White or I have been correctly interpreted or fairly represented in the discussions there. Check out all those disparaging references to “[name deleted]” (and the slightly more oblique references to the massive TR conspiracy that some of the BHT regulars seem to think emanates from TeamPyro). Nearly all of those wisecracks either pass without critical any scrutiny, or (worse) unleash waves of self-congratulatory sarcasm.

5. Meanwhile, there have been numerous instances when various BHT regulars have accused us of not properly representing the nuances of some opinion we have disagreed with. You are certainly the main critic in that regard, but you are by no means the only one. Michael himself was doing it long before you showed up there.

6. My ultimate point, then, was that if you were genuinely concerned about truth and accuracy in other people’s criticism, you’d monitor your own conversations a little more closely and someone (starting with you, I should think, since this is, after all, your main go-to response to every critic) would occasionally raise a peep of protest when Michael (or whoever else has the barroom floor) spews forth with that kind of slanted sarcasm. In other words, the fact that you love to hang out in a place where exaggeration and deliberate overstatement are served by the bartender himself from a large bowl like Beer Nuts more or less takes away your moral authority to stumble over here every so often and complain when you find a dash of hyperbole in the onion dip.

Moral of this story:Nobody can do the thing we do except us.

If you call a bully a bully, you’re being unfair. Classic playground ethics.

Phil Johnson quotes IM Podcast 29 to prove his claim that I said Steve Camp spoke for “teampyro.” Note his subtle use of “uh…” Very perceptive.

Brendt: “I listened to the podcast.”

“Facts” are slippery things in the post-evangelical wilderness inhabited by tavern-lackeys, I guess.

iMonk: (from the podcast): “Driscoll, uh, in a sermon on the humanity of Jesus, has sent the TR blogosphere into outer space. Hunnert ‘n’ sixty-six comments over at TeamPyro and, uh, I dunno if they’ve shut it down [Nope.], and then about fifty on another and they just keep goin’ and keep goin’. . . .

iMonk: “[Steve Camp is] associated very much with the uh, with the MacArthur, uh, uh sort of folks. He–he’s a straight shooter. I, uh–You know, a lot of these guys [what guys? check the immediate antecedent] they kind of hedge, you know? They uh–for example, I think that there’s a number of these people that don’t like John Piper, but they won’t say it, you know? I think they have real issues with Piper. Well, it’s not a problem with Camp. . . .

iMonk: “As I said, I have great respect for Steve Camp, cause I think he’s a straight shooter, which is opposed to most of these guys [what guys? see “as I said”] which are pretty mealy-mouthed and dodge the bullet and don’t say what they think.”

For a year and a half, iMonk has continually and sneeringly pointed to this blog and its predecessor as the epitome of what he falsely labels “TR.” So “most of these [”MacArthur, uh, uh sort of”] guys” certainly implies (or “intimates,” as I suggested in the original post) the inclusion of TeamPyro. I’m by no means the only one of iMonk’s listeners who thought so.

Brendt: “So what gives? Is your distaste for iMonk so great that you are unwilling to backtrack a bit, or at least clarify.”

Not at all. While I don’t agree with most of the iMonk’s opinions, I like him OK. But I’ve had enough arguments with him. As I’ve told him before, he is much too sensitive for someone so cynical.

So this time, I was planning to let him have the last word. Oh well.

The following letter came to me this morning. It is from a woman who is married to a TR- oddly one who reads me- and is being abused in what I would call cultic practices by abusive church leadership. I recognize much of what I am reading here as sadly part of an approach to church discipline and male leadership that flurishes within the corners of the reformed world.

I’ve cleared all personal information from the letter, and I have left it as I received it. No corrections in spelling or grammar. Please pray for “Saddened.”

All in the name of Christ and Calvinism. God help us. Read the rest of this entry »

Jeff takes me to task a bit for inconsistency on my critique of Rick Warren:

Michael –

Since my 2000 iBook tangerine dream with Mac OS 9.2
can’t seem to climb aboard the WordPress train, you’re
stuck with getting an email from me. Don’t mean to
clog up your day, but having resonanted so strongly to
your “inhibiting missional churches” post, and then
seeing this, can i just ask: so doing church different is
cool in the third world, but don’t do it here? I really am
confused, though i know the “snarky salesman as
pastor” persona does exist. Read the rest of this entry »

Sad to have to list these two links, but I am not going to be called a liar without an answer. Read the rest of this entry »

The Blue Raja has one great post. Too funny. That man will always find a way to get in trouble.

Commenter Wendy nails Carla perfectly. This has nothing to do with IM, but I want this comment archived. It is a perfect description of the TR war on the Body of Christ.

You said, “at the same time, I’m tired. Tired of slander, lies, hypocrisy, pot-stirring, veiled-insults, busy-body people who have nothing better to do than rail against other Christians because they dared to speak out against unbiblical and unChristian teachings and/or conduct.”

Carla, I think you are articulating the very position of the people you perceive as your critics. I am SO TIRED of the slander, lies, hypocrisy, pot-stirring, veiled-insults, busy-body people who have nothing better to do than rail against other Christians who are pouring themselves out in ministry to those who don’t know Christ. You aren’t criticizing people for tolerating homosexuality or fornication or drunkenness or lying or murder. You aren’t criticizing them for teaching another gospel or adding rules to the gospel. You aren’t criticizing them for promoting a feminist agenda (one of the biggest attacks to the gospel in secular culture currently). Instead, you tear down God-honoring brothers and sisters in Christ left and right and then weep when their defenders rise up against your slander.

For example, you tear down Beth Moore for some obscure link to meditative prayer despite her clear, written views on the subject. And I still haven’t seen a Scriptural defense from you of what you claim to be her problem. You attack Mark Driscoll because you don’t like his language and he continues to fight for a right view of the atonement among an emerging audience, from which you think he should distance himself.

And you do all of this without being under the God-given accountability structure of a plurality of male elders. From what you’ve written, it sounds like your husband is aware and approving of your online communication. But it doesn’t seem that you have a plurality of elders aware as well. If you do, it might be good to have them (and/or your husband) give their endorsement somewhere on site to put that criticism against you to rest.
Wendy | 06.27.06 - 1:19 am | #

An especially deserving candidate of that advice would be a certain Mr. Spencer who, while commending Nicholson’s advice to others, is moderator of the BTH, as well as maintaining his own blog, along with a radio podcast, as well as the IM underground.

One rather wonders what time is left over for sermon preparation. Come to think of it, that would explain the quality, or lack thereof, of his…oh well, never mind!

iv) It is quite true that Triablogue has very different priorities than BHT.

Out of curiosity, since Nicholson brings up the issue, I input the names for the four leading contributors to Debunking Christianity into the search engine at BHT and pulled up exactly zip each and every time.

Unlike the art of group thumb-sucking, mastered by the monkeys, watchblogs like Triablogue are actually concerned with engaging the wider world of unbelief.

Yes, Virginia, there is a real world outside the Tavern.

IM Underground? There’s 45 posts on this blog. This entire blog is smaller than what Hays types in corrections every day.

“that would explain the quality, or lack thereof…” If only I could be like you, Steve. Wouldn’t it be grand, in fact, if all us slimy throwback could grow up big, strong, smart and humble like you.

The BHT hasn’t blogged “Debunking Christianity?” Well, what else is left to say, y’know? All the great thoughts have been thought ***already***.

Quote from the nice guys at Triablogue, where, for some reason, I have shown up as a topic in a post having absolutely nothing to do with me.

The Blue Raja is merely following in the sad footsteps of his fellow tavernistas who have pioneered the art of the naïve, arrogant, and uncredentialed critique of works of serious [credentialed] evangelical scholars (something they, ironically, accuse their own critics of engaging in).

Unlike TBR, I’ve taken a class given by Carson – he has actually brought PhD students to tears in some of his past doctoral seminars as a result of his withering responses to neophyte claims and assertions. I would pay money, I think, to see Sharad share his “critique” with Carson in person.

In any event, I suppose that such arrogant posturing from a tavernista isn’t surprising given that the tavern monkey’s spiritual icon is a DMin dropout who seems to think he actually contributes something substantive to serious academic discourse.

The great thing is here is one more time I wanted to use disgusting profanity, and I’ve resisted. Point…me.

Is it worth it? Yes. It is. And here’s why:

iMonk,

Thanks for putting the link up to —’s post. I’ve prayed for him and will continue to do so.

After reading it, I had to do something I’ve been putting off. I have to thank you and the fellows of the Tavern. I feel God has used you to keep me from doing the same thing that Mr. —– has been contemplating.

I’ve had a rough 18 months. My wife left me in 2005. I found out after that she had multiple affairs. I couldn’t believe I was so stupid not to see, but I loved her still, and her leaving devastated me. But I had our two children, so I had to carry on for their sake. In September of 2005, I was admitted to the hospital for an angiogram. The doctors had to insert four stents into my heart (one artery had 90% blockage). In addition, I developed type 2 diabetes.

I returned to work at a local radio station, only to find my only other staff member had quit. Since that time, I have had to do everything on my own — on-air shift, sales, commerical production. My work suffered, sales tanked, and I felt it was all my fault. Add this to the pains that still lingered from the divorce, and I was just I walking shell. I could do the basic things, but hardly had any interest in anything else. I got fairly good at looking normal while at church too. Even though I knew better, I thought I shouldn’t burden anyone with my problems.

It came to a head three weeks ago. My children were going to visit their mother half a continent away. I would be alone for 6 weeks. The prospect of being alone for that long, in additon to everything else I had been going through, pushed me to deciding it was time to end pain I felt was no longer bearable.

I decided that after I had take my children to the airport, I would go home and take as much of my medications as I could swallow. I didn’t think about how this would affect them. It was like there was a dark wall around me that I couldn’t see past. Even at this point, though, there was no relief. I would hear voices in my head accusing me of being selfish, of not trusting God enough, and it drove me further into despair. Everywhere I looked at my life I saw nothing but utter failure. Why go on, I thought?

The next morning, I was on the air and went to the BHT while I had a song on the air. Someone (I don’t recall who) posted a link to a Mark Driscoll page that spoke about pastor burnout. I read the list. All, with the exception of extramarital affairs, applied to me. Even though I’m no pastor, the feelings of failure and despair applied. I just sat there and cried. It was all there in front of me, everything I had felt, on that list.

I can’t say why I did what I did next, other than say God was in it. I emailed a friend and told him everything…my situation, my thoughts, my feelings…and what I planned to do. The dam had burst; I couldn’t hold it in any longer.

He got in touch immediately to pray for me and encourage me to hold on. He showed me that I had the classic symptoms of clinical depression, and that I should seek counsel, and maybe perhaps medication. I wasn’t entirely sure about that. My childhood in an IFB still nagged at me…all the things they said about psychiatry led me to think that I didn’t need any of that if I was a good Christian. But my friend is a wonderful follower of Jesus…and he’s been through depression as well. So I’ve come to the point that if I need the drugs, I will take them. But I’m also praying for healing from God.

I’m taking it day by day, and keeping busy with things while I wait for my children to come home. But I wouldn’t be doing that if someone hadn’t posted that link on the BHT. I think God used you all to save my life. Thank you. God bless you.

D——

It’s a long story. Read the rest of this entry »

Phil Johnson has never lacked for rhetorical flurish in raking me over the coals for allowing discussions, questions and conversation that would never be allowed in his environment. But even Phil outdid himself with this one:

Michael Spencer: “The BHT, unlike your blogs, is not an attempt to gather “True Believers” into a group.”

Most of us caught on to that fact long ago, Michael.

However, you do profess to be “believers” of a sort. And you yourself have complained long and hard—as recently as this morning—about people who don’t automatically accept the Tavernistas’ profession of faith in Christ.

I frankly don’t see any significant difference between what you do and what NT Wright said. And I think that’s one reason it’s so hard for you to come to grips with how seriously wrong and destructive Wright’s remarks about Borg are.

I’ve always been completely frank with you about this (and you regularly give evidence that I am right): I question the propriety of a minister of the gospel hosting a members-only conversation (themed around swilling beer in a pub and broadcasting their ideas publicly on a blog), where members are welcome, even encouraged, to attack any doctrine of Christianity or any truth of Scripture, however they like.

Furthermore (as I have told you repeatedly), it’s not about being “TR.” If you had any scruples at all about what you give a platform to, I’d probably not say a lot about it. But the conversation you guys are having today, and the flippancy of some of the remarks accompanying it, demonstrate that no truth is safe in the BHT.

So as long as you keep providing a platform for that kind of stuff to be broadcast via the Internet, I’m going to keep pointing out how inappropriate that is—especially for a minister of your influence, in your denomination.

As I said earlier, however, the one good thing about it is that it illustrates in microcosm how post-evangelicalism is doomed to collapse on itself.

BTW, for the record, I’m neither “questioning your salvation” nor affirming it. I’m saying because of your profession and your position, you have a duty to guard and contend for the truth, as opposed to giving a platform for a “wide ranging . . . conversation” led by people whose favorite hobby is drinking. 2:13 PM, April 18, 2006

The BHT is nothing more than a conversation among a diverse group of Christians, mostly conservatives by any definition. But Phil and his band of brothers repeatedly condemn the conversation itself. The very idea that questions and discussion on some topics would even be allowed is distasteful to him. There’s much to be learned from that.