6 comments so far
“I?m sure that Dr Piper would have the same attitude…”
Dr. Piper has said exactly that during his radio preaching program–that we need to take his words and test them against the Bible and not just accept them blindly [my paraphrase of his words.]
Well said. May I suggest a fourth? It’s sort of a counterpart to your first “wrong way.” It’s this: the patronizing attitude towards those supposedly “less informed,” we poor unwashed, ignorant sheep who need their excellencies to protect us. Utterly ridiculous. Such unapologetic paternalism might be understandable in an age (a) when very few people were literate and (b) when information-gathering required weeks and months instead of minutes and hours. Along with the ever-expanding Index Librorum Prohibitorum it would be helpful to have a Discerned! imprimatur for pastors and authors that have measured up. That would save all us morons a lot of time.
Also well said. (And your original essay — which I linked to yesterday — was brilliant)
I think I missed this one because patronization from that crowd is so over-obvious. Forest for the trees, and all that.
It occurs to me that the imprimatur (for the other ignoramuses out there, I had to look it up too) would need constant revision. I would imagine that a year ago, Piper would have been approved. But between quoting Willard and supping with Driscoll, there’s no way he’d be approved now.
Thanks, Brendt. As for revision, this is where the Lords of Discernment could help themselves by adopting the Catholic model. The censor takes the first pass with the author to get to the point where she can stamp the work Nihil obstat (”nothing stands in the way”). The bishop then gives the final clear signal for the work to be printed, Imprimatur (”let it be printed”). (I’m hearing Captain Picard in my head at the moment…I don’t know why.)
It should be pointed out that Imprimatur does not mean the authorities approve of the author’s work. They can be revoked. So, yes, under the right system, Piper could be struck off the guest list.
What the Catholics have going for them that the Lords of Discernment do not, however, is the admission that this is all man-made authority designed to regulate religious teaching. The LoDs do not recognize such ecclesiastical structures. Instead it’s just them, their KJV and the Holy Ghost. Much easier to make a very lengthy Index Librorum Prohibitorum (guilt by association is a real time-saver!). One’s threshold for odium theologicum can be set very low indeed.
Are you implying that the Lords of Discernment actually believe in the Holy Ghost?
You hear Captain Picard. I hear Petra’s “Witch Hunt“.

[...] Phil doesn’t cite the watcher who was guilty of ridiculous GBA charges or her first victim, but a lot of it smells like the Slice of Piper incident (and even if this isn’t the case, it’s just as applicable). [...]
[...] that same post, Camp then bolsters his “point” with an article written by Carla “Slice of Piper” Rolfe. Tags: Steve Camp, Mark Driscoll, John Piper, D.A. Carson, C.J. Mahaney, Mark Dever [...]