Update: Phil Johnson's controversial message has now been uploaded to YouTube. You can watch it HERE.While both of these brothers are the subject of these posts, Phil Johnson has received more attention. This is because Phil is the only one speaking out right now. Driscoll has been very quiet. I can imagine how hard it would be to remain silent, especially after a large public criticism. I do hope, however, that he speaks to the issue. But from all my research, I cannot find any formal response from Driscoll, to date. Meanwhile, Phil is getting more a more questions on his side. Today on his blog, Phil answers a second wave of questions which came to his email. One quite provocative question asked to Phil was,
"I have heard you use expressions like, "damnable heresy" and "pompous ass". How is that different from the strong language you condemn?"
To which Phil responds,
1. I don't condemn "strong language" per se. On the contrary, I like robust, vivid language. What I deplore is profane, filthy, lewd, or irreverent talk. 2. Words such as damned and damnable are inappropriate when employed as casual curses, but such words are fitting and proper when we're speaking of literal damnation. 3. Can I justify calling someone a "pompous ass"? In most instances, probably not. But that's not because it's a profane expression. It is not. In that context (as well as all 90 times the word ass appears in the KJV), the term is a reference to a braying donkey. (source)
So, some interesting thoughts back and forth from Driscoll and Johnson regarding their choice of language in the pulpit. But as we carry this conversation forward, you may be interested to know that Paul Tripp has spoken out on this very issue: What Makes Language Bad?
It is ironic to me that what is being criticised here is the use of language; yet as I read some of the content on this subject in the blogasphere, it surprises me how sharp some of that language is, in both directions. Certainly, each of these men are brothers in Christ, and we must strive to honor God in how we speak about them. In my next post, I will be sharing some very interesting thoughts from Mark about his speech. Stay tuned.
6 comments:
Robert, now that you mention that I can see that it is missing. What are your thoughts on this? What did he say during this time. I will still look for it. In the mean time, how can you help us here?
I wonder if the issue in this debate does not center on the difference between Reformed fundamentalism and simply Reformed? I am weighing this out at the moment.
We may be seeing a division in the Reformed world between those who are historically Fundamentalists and Reformed and those who are not. Time will tell.
I have sent Bob G my response to Phil J's enquiry and will await developments. I will keep you posted, no pun intended.
That's interesting stuff my friend. There is no doubt that there are various sub-camps within the broader Reformed label. Some of these groups and very strong and insistent on what it means to be Reformed as you know.
This an issue I am very interested in also and would like to do some writing on with you and Bob. I have talked to Dr. B.G. and he has done some good thinking here as you probably know. I would like to hear more of your thoughts on these lines as well. Thanks for all your interest brother.
May God help us all as we live around cross and pursue humility together.
I am interested in this discussion as well. Robert, your observation is an interesting one. The question of what it means to be "really reformed" is an interesting one, especially since it is not a Biblical term.
I had no small conversation about this recently with a dear brother whom I love. He is a pastor but has taken quite a narrow view of what it means to be Reformed.
On this very subject, Dr. Bob Gonzales has defended the broader use of what it means to be Reformed. You can find that helpful article entitled, "Young, Restless, Reformed: “Hip, Hip, Hurrah!” or “Bah Humbug!”?
I have sought to have Bob G post my response to Phil J. Phil seems to believe I am impugning his motives in some way with my comment.
I trust in posting my response it will be clear that this was not my intention at all.
Regarding an issue that may be influencing this whole controversy, is the differences between Reformed Fundamentalism and Reformed Contemporary ( cannot think of something better just yet).
There is a Reformed Fundamentalist wing and a Reformed Contemporary wing in today's Reformed world. This controversy between Johnston and Driscoll highlights it I believe.
It touches on issues like methodology, contextualisation, style, philosophy of ministry, ecclesiology and even hermeneutics.
I believe that we need to realise this and work through the issues in as biblical a manner as we can.
Reformed Baptists have largely been Reformed Fundamentalists but are now evaluating and embracing Reformed Contemporary perspectives in many ways. This is why this whole present issue between Johnston and Driscoll hits us as it does, yes Phil but.....mmmmmmm
Post a Comment