Today has been a weird day for me in the bloggosphere. After my former favorite blog chose to go chomping on my current favorite blog, I was left with a very foul taste in my mouth. In every letter, blog post, or piece of prose of any stripe, there is an intended audience and then there is a wider audience. I have been discovering this truth for myself as I take up this blog writing habit. It is with great frustration that I will write a piece and then receive responses that were not from the intended target that go off on a tangent. I can see how this particular problem has taken a toll on Dan Phillips and Frank Turk. It was their reaction to posters, particularly that of Dan, that sent me away from their posts. I still read Phil from time to time, but I just cannot be bothered to read teachers who have so little regard for the people they supposedly intend to enlighten, and are so quick to brandish the label of "unteachable."
And so I come to the last two days on the two blogs in question. Yesterday, Frank Turk wrote an open letter to Michael Horton. The letter itself was reasonably respectful...for Frank. The tone of the meta was typical Pyromaniacs with Dan being his usually caustic self. The impression I have of Frank's letter is that he completely fails to see the audience of the White Horse Inn in the same way that the WHI foursome sees their audience. They have a very clear mission statement and they have stuck to it. Astutely, Frank points out that he at least envisions that their church ministries might have a more rounded presentation than the WHI format. As well he should, since at least Kim Riddlebarger posts his sermons on the web, and from the evidence I've heard, he practices what he preaches (or preaches what he says he should preach.)
(There is clearly a point of departure from any one source of learning for all students. That is actually the point of bibliographies IMHO. I am one of those who actually purchases and reads the recommended books and select items from bibliographies. One does this to broaden your foundation in the direction of your interest or line of study.)
(There is clearly a point of departure from any one source of learning for all students. That is actually the point of bibliographies IMHO. I am one of those who actually purchases and reads the recommended books and select items from bibliographies. One does this to broaden your foundation in the direction of your interest or line of study.)
Frank does not seem to understand the audience for WHI. Horton's comments today seem out of place. I wish that he had not chosen to respond at all. Frank will read them and state dogmatically that Mike didn't answer his questions, as if his questions were so profound as to demand answers. Mike responds in character and on point as you would expect from him, and yet in a tone that is almost sad. He implies that several friends, readers or students asked him to respond and he finds the exercise...almost dirty.
Rereading Dr. Horton's piece, it is clear that the early thrust of his short essay is in opposition to the perpetual straw man argument of Wesleyan thinkers concerning antinomianism in the Reformed. His inclusion of Pyromaniacs is indeed almost an afterthought. I doubt he would have responded at all had it not been for the timing of the Christianity Today piece being on the same day. It is amazing that Wesleyan thinkers can continue to throw up the straw man rather than address the real issues. I guess it is easier to distract than face the Biblical problems with your own theology.
ReplyDeleteFrank is coming from an entirely different direction, to be fair. His argument is more of an *antinomian light* accusation, not specifically to Mike or the WHI guys, but directed to the fall out of their teaching. I think Frank has much to offer in drawing attention to problems within the church. But here, his objection is much more of an in-house issue with a brother. By Frank's own admission in his first paragraph, the mere context of his open letters implies a tone that is not warranted towards the WHI or Mike Horton in particular. Perhaps, Frank feels that only by this avenue he can engage Mike in debate. I would prefer the Pyro guys stick to truly reprobate targets who use the church tent to do real damage. Mike Horton and the WHI is not such a wolf and did not deserve this treatment.
Well, Frank read Mike's response and, to be fair to Frank, I think he was reasonable. I find myself in the number of readers for both of these guys, and since Frank thinks both he and Mike are responsible in some way for the tripe that I type, I can see his point.
ReplyDeleteFrank was far more gracious today than on Wednesday and has closed the comments. This was wise as it keeps the reasonable and contrite follow up untarnished. Frank was probably not aware of the egregious nature of the Christianity Today piece and unaware of the unfortunate timing of his open letter with that other article. Well done, Frank, in recovering some decorum while still making an interesting point.
I am completely in awe as to how far this thing is going on the Pyromaniacs website, as Frank has posted again, this time in response to a poor defender of Mike Horton and WHI. I am not going to attempt to dig through the blogosphere to find all of the lines of debate on this topic. I will post that it is my wish that this should end.
ReplyDeleteFrank, if you happen upon this minor league cesspool of a blog, please stop. You are not advancing the cause. Of the WHI four, probably Kim is the easiest to email and expect that he will read it. I'm not sure he would engage you in a debate, but he might. At least it would be out of the realm of the public discourse. One of your "open letters," no matter how careful you tried to be, was over the top for this particular issue.