The purpose-driven dust-up

There is, at present, a dust-up going on between Phil Johnson and Richard Albanes over John MacArthur’s critique of Rick Warren’s theology on a CNN segment.

I’ve never read Warren’s Purpose Driven Church. It’s not the sort of book I ordinarily read. So I have no opinion on that score. But I do have an opinion on a couple of Albanes own comments, since I have read those:

***QUOTE****

[M]aking wild accusations against a fellow Christian to the point of calling him (or her) a liar, a non-Christian, a false teacher, a deceiver, or a New Ager is quite another thing. It is sin—plain and simple.

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=12723103&postID=112279036242398306

***END-QUOTE***

i) It may be sinful to falsely accuse a fellow Christian of being a false teacher—although even it that case there may also be room for an honest mistake or an honest difference of opinion.

ii) Whether MacArthur is guilty of sin presupposes that he has falsely accused Warren of being a false teacher. But, of course, that’s the very issue in dispute. So Albanes’ allegation begs the question.

iii) It is quite possible for a fellow Christian to fall into grave error. In addition, false teaching of a certain stripe can also raises questions about a man’s state of grace. It’s not as though we should always give a preacher the benefit of the doubt.

Frankly, it should be unnecessary to first render a preliminary judgment on a man’s Christian character before we render a judgment on his teaching, and calibrate our judgment on his teaching to exactly match up with our judgment on his Christian character. This is a non-sequitur. You just judge the teaching on its own merits, or lack thereof--and that's that. It will either stand or fall on its own two feet--regardless of the personalities involved.

Christians should never become so self-important that they take umbrage at the mere fact that someone “dared” to judge their teaching harshly. We ought not take ourselves that seriously in the first place.

***QUOTE***

Wrong. I was saying that MacArthur was obliged to clear his FACTS with Warren—i.e., he needed to verify if what he was going to say about Warren's teachings was indeed true. He didn't do this. And I demonstrate that what MacArthur ended up saying about Warren on CNN was NOT true. Yet he could have verified exactly what Warren taught on such issues, but he failed to do so. THAT is what I am saying.

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=12723103&postID=112279036242398306

***END-QUOTE***

i) This is really rather absurd. Why was MacArthur “obliged to clear his facts with Warren?” Since most folks are not in a position to dial up Rick Warren in order to verify their interpretation, does this not assume that it’s possible to get the facts straight from a simple reading of Warren’s opus?

ii) I happened to see the CNN segment. I always make allowance for the fact that, in such a venue, you won’t get the whole story since the TV producers are going to engage in selective editing. And that applies to all parties interviewed for this particular segment, does it not? So just as I would not judge Warren on that basis alone, neither would I judge MacArthur on that basis alone. Any astute TV viewer has to take these things with a grain of salt. Surely we’ve all seen enough TV by now to have a modicum of media savvy, do we not?

iii) I also recall that there were some catty comments directed MacArthur as well, to the effect that this was sour grapes on his part--professional rivalry and envy because Warren was more successful than MacArthur. Clearly the TV producers were trying to smear MacArthur in the process and make both men look bad. That’s what we expect of the liberal media. If the CNN segment was a hit-piece, it was an equal opportunity hit-piece, doing a hatchet job on both men.

I’d add that over decades of faithful ministry, MacArthur has built up an impressive line of credit. So he brings a certain credibility to the podium before he ever speaks. By contrast, Pastor Warren lacks the same cache, and it remains to be seen whether he has the same staying power.