Archive for February 29th, 2008

Here’s another perspective from the National Pastor’s Convention in San Diego.  This is an article that Greg Boyd wrote describing a debate/discussion he had at the convention with Shane Claiborne and Chuck Colson.

Now, this gathering of people the ODMs deem heretical is probably enough to make their collective head explode, but I think it raises some good and necessary questions.  What is the role of faith in politics?  How much can Christians disagree on political issues?  Can we serve both God and country?

Just some food for thought and discussion.  By the way, I find Claiborne’s description of the assassination attempt on Hitler by Bonhoeffer and others quite interesting.  Even when we are sure we are operating out of the right motives, we don’t know all the implications of what we do.  Compelling stuff…

  • Share/Bookmark

It is, admittedly, fall-out-of-your-chair hilarious that Ingrid would speak negatively about a blogger deleting comments. And Tim Reed owes me a new monitor because he didn’t warn me to swallow my drink before I read his recent post.

But I have some stronger impressions about the situation than what was in that post. Ya see, Steve Camp (whose comments were deleted from Tim Challies’ blog — the focus of Ingrid’s complaint) wrote about the situation himself, and his admissions are both disturbing and revealing.

From Camp’s own analysis (emphasis his):

But here is what only a handful of bloggers knew before I posted my comment: It was a test; a set up. I had contacted some bloggers and told them ahead of time what my intentions were and it was this: I wondered if I use some of the same direct speech and inflated nomenclature that Driscoll uses, but direct it towards him, will his supporters be angry with me and thus reveal a double standard, or will they accept it as being edgy, straightforward and honest? Sure enough, my experiment worked. I was comment 47, and within minutes the Driscolletes were offended and outraged against me. My comment (as well as others) were deleted a short time later.

It was perfect; I couldn’t have scripted it any better if I wanted to.

I do apologize for anyone who took the bait (including Tim) but it had to be done. I don’t mind taking the heat to get to the truth.

It strikes me that Camp’s test was very clever. And I choose that word deliberately.

In the fall of 2006, Driscoll spoke at a conference hosted by John Piper’s church. Camp and many others were outraged that Piper was opening his pulpit to Driscoll. Of course, this was phrased in holy terms such as “concerned”, but the point was made nonetheless. In a Q&A during the conference, Piper admonished Driscoll of the danger of trying to be too clever. Camp took this and ran with it, seeing Piper’s statement as a total validation of his “concern”. Never mind that someone pointed out to Piper later that he also needs to be aware of trying to be clever in his own way (to which Piper confessed accuracy). Never mind that when Piper heard that others were taking his comment as validation of criticism of Driscoll, he said:

I would not have .001 seconds hesitation in having Mark Driscoll come back tomorrow to our church or our conference.

Nope, what Piper said was gospel. One should not try to be too clever. Unless you want to prove a point. Then all bets are off.

But there’s something much more disturbing than exceeding cleverness. Camp is on record numerous times for saying that Driscoll’s approach is sinful, unbiblical, etc. So Camp willfully, with pre-meditation, engaged in (what he very clearly defines as) sin just to “get to the truth”. It “had to be done”. (Maybe I’ll try that line with God the next time that I feel that I need to confess something.)

Oh, and it’s not “sin” when Camp does it — it’s just presenting “bait”. I hope there weren’t any little ones around.

It’s also frightening that none of his “friends” (to whom he brazenly announced his intention to sin) called him on it, either. I’d be interested to know who those people were, just so I’d know who not to seek counsel from.

So what’s the lesson to be learned here? Apparently, the ends does justify the means after all, as long as you are trying to “get to the truth”.

But, wait a minute. Isn’t the knock on Driscoll often that the ends does not justify the means, that his methods are what are important and that his goals are (at best) secondary?

I won’t use the “h” word. It’s too obvious.

  • Share/Bookmark