I always find it an “interesting” situation – often revealing in character – of watching the players in a debate whenever the shoe is placed on the other foot. 

In politics, it is no secret that I lean to the right.  As such, I am sometimes disappointed with my party for its inconsistencies which depend on whether or not power is held at the time (for instance, arguing for or against the use of filibuster).  I also find myself somewhat comforted that – in general – the GOP tends to treat moral failings of its own members in the same manner that they expect their Democratic opponents to handle theirs, and that the Democrats are consistently hypocritical when it comes to their moral expectations of themselves vs. their expectations of their opponents (which is even more humorously displayed when it’s Teddy Kennedy doing the whining/condemning).

But I digress, this post isn’t about politics, it’s about religion.  Specifically, it’s about double-standards and a bit of an ongoing cautionary tale about the ‘discernment ministry’ industry (today’s Witch Hunters).

Exhibit 1: Rob Bell and the ‘Emergent’ Label

I have already spilled enough digital ink on this topic to fill a small novel, so I will try to make it brief:

Rob Bell is an excellent minister, pastoring the 10,000+ member Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, MI.  (Mars Hill’s weekly podcast is frequently the #1 downloaded Christian podcast in iTunes, with between 50,000 – 100,000 subscribers).  I like Rob because of his high view of scripture, a desire to know it in its original context, and to do more than just talk about its application.

The Emergent/Emerging Church is a postmodern movement within multiple denominations (and non-denominations) to make the living out of the gospel message accessible to a post-modern culture.  Parts of the movement which are more liberal (those that typically use the ‘Emergent’ label), tend to take too low a view of God’s Word, and try to substitute orthopraxy for orthodoxy (much like the mainline denominations from which they sprung).  Conservative churches in this movement (which often use the ‘Emerging’ and/or ‘Missional’ labels), tend to take a high view of God’s Word and emphasize a healthy balance of -praxy and -doxy – though they (fortunately) do not tend to be 5-point Calvinist (with a few notable exceptions).  While I value the Missional focus of the ECM, and I see it as a force for balance in the church, I would never label myself as ‘Emerging’ (or ‘Emergent’).

Rob Bell has repeatedly distanced himself from the movement, and has point-blank eschewed every attempt to label himself or the church he pastors as a part of the ECM.  Interestingly, as well, some important voices within the ECM do not claim Bell or Mars Hill Bible Church, either – for a number of factors (one being the ‘megachurch’ model and feel of Mars Hill – something the ECM does not espouse – another being the overly expositional emphasis in the preaching at Mars Hill).

However, a number of voices within the “Heretic Hunting”/”discernment”/”Totally Reformed” (the only “true” Christians – just ask them…) continually (even after DOZENS of corrections) look for the foibles within the ‘Emergent’ church and then use these to broad-brush attack all ECM brothers and sisters, as well as folks like Rob Bell and Erwin McManus – both of whom are not Emergent OR Emerging. [Note: I am purposefully NOT linking to these Heretic-Hunting lunatics...  They don't need my help].

Exhibit ‘B’ – John Piper:

John Piper, the lead pastor of the Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, MN, was criticized by corners of the blogosphere last year for such heinous things as ‘quoting Dallas Willard‘ and inviting Emerging Church pastor, Mark Driscoll (pastor of the Mars Hill Church in Seattle which is not affiliated in any way with Mars Hill Bible Church in Michigan), to speak at his Desiring God ‘06 conference. 

For these sins (among others, like not sounding like a true 5-pointer), John Piper was thrown under the bus by much of the hyper-God-blogosphere last year.  While some folks within the Heretic Hunting crowd will still speak well of Dr. Piper, it is still twinged with the tentativeness you have leaving your child with Uncle Bud who you just found out is a reformed alcoholic.  One gets the sense that Piper hasn’t been given a pass, so much as a yellow light which will likely go to red if he doesn’t ’shape up’ and stop looking like a heretic to the guilt-by-association crowd…

Exhibit ‘C’ – John MacArthur:

First, just to be transparent, I have about as much use for MacArthur’s writing and teaching as I do with Joel Osteen’s – that is to say, not a whole lot once you get past the basics.  The bare basics.  While his early writing seemed to be much more coherent, John’s latter work has been a wedding of isogetical myopia and armchair research for the purpose of dividing who’s ‘in’ from who’s ‘out’.  Having read parts of his Biblical commentaries whilst standing in the bookstore (No way I’d pay $5 for them, let alone $40+), I also disagree with a large number of his interpretations of scripture, as well.

If there is an idol to which the TR’s bow down (outside of Charles Haddock Sturgeon), it has been Johnnie Mac – right down to his dislike/distrust of worship music written since his grandfather’s birth, and the instruments used to play it.  As I’ve watched this MacCult chug onward, I’ve always wondered what would happen if he ever stopped towing the line.  Well, that day’s arrived, and the responses have been interesting, to say the least. 

It seems that a couple weeks back, John spoke at a conference at his own church and opened with a talk entitled ‘Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Pre-Millennialist‘ – and went on to pretty much do what the topic suggests (further making ‘Pre-Millennialist’, some suggest, into a ‘Dispensational Pre-Millennialist’). [I am staunchly Pan-Millennialist - I'm sure it will pan out the way God has planned it - but aside from that, I'd say my view on eschatology mostly fits with a partial-preterist view - with a view of a double eschaton.]  Apparently, this view outraged some of those present (or virtual), and has created a minor blogstorm.  Following the pattern established by himself, and emulated by his ‘watch-doggies’, MacArthur built, through isogesis and mischaracterization, some huge straw-men, and then proceeded to burn them down and declare himself the Man with the Plan.  [For the humor-impaired (you probably don't know who you are, but the rest of us do), parts of the last couple of paragraphs were hyperbolic.]

The response in the hyper-fundie blogosphere has fallen into two categories:

1) Prepare to Throw John Under the Bus (or, at least, start the engine): A number of folks have gone after John as (gasp) no longer being ‘Reformed’ (but hey, you don’t have to be ‘Reformed’ to be a Christian, unless, of course, you walk in these circles) at worst, and divisive, at best.  This, in some ways, is a correct response.  Yes, John’s strident and shrill position was wrongheaded, strident and shrill.  What is interesting, though, is that Johnnie is such an icon, that some these folks – who are frequently found on the wrong side of Exhibit A – are far more willing to give John a pass than they are (or would be) of Bell, McManus and Driscoll.  You can sense, though, that Johnnie Mac may have been shifted from his pedestal beside Spurgeon onto the ‘waiting to see if he’s a heretic’ list…

2) Circle the Wagons: Phil Johnson at Team Pyro (who, to be fair, works for the Mac-man), has issued the claim, echoed by Slice 2.0, that (lo and behold) Johnnie Mac has never claimed to be ‘Reformed’!

Moreover, in all the years I have known John MacArthur, he has never pretended to be “Reformed” in the technical sense of the word. He does say that his perspective on soteriology is essentially Reformed and Calvinistic, because that’s a fact. He might even say he thinks many who call themselves capital-R “Reformed” aren’t (small-r) reformed enough in some of their opinions.

Others who are circling the wagons go a long way to try and stretch their defense of him, but it all seems like futile back-pedaling and dissembling, especially when the long-dead Calvinist icons get wheeled out of cold storage. The folks who seem to fall into this camp include some of the very same folks who scream and whine about Rob Bell and the Emergent Church (as one topic – not two), even though he distances himself from that movement, and has never (like MacArthur and ‘Reformed’ labels) claimed to be associated with it.  Apparently, what is good for the goose is no good for the gander.  Hypocrites all (and no links for them, either – they know who they are).

So What?

A comment on one of the sites pretty much summed up my whole issue with this minor blogstorm (and the TR blogosphere, in general):

As an online discussion on theology grows longer, the probability of a comment implying that those on the other side of the argument are not really Christians approaches one.

I often find myself puzzled over the whole systematic argument over who is ‘Truly Reformed’ (which is the equivalent, in many of these discussions of who is ‘Truly Christian’).  Newsflash, people

‘Reformed’ ≠ ‘Christian’

Yes, there are many people who claim to be ‘Reformed’ who are Christian, but not all people who are Christian claim to be (or even desire to be) ‘Reformed’.  John MacArthur, John Piper, Rob Bell, Erwin McManus and many others are upstanding Christian men.  It is one thing to disagree with a brother, but it is an entirely different thing to make disagreement = judgement & condemnation: There’s a whole different threshold involved, and I’ve seen no evidence that it has been passed for humans to judge – with any of these men.

It’s time for just a little bit of Christian charity, and a time for a lot less trying to be God in separating wheat from chaff…