Deleted at DefendingContending.com

(It may be helpful to first read the prologue to this post.)

It appears some of my comments have been reinserted into the relevant posts at DefCon. Some remain missing.

I continue with this conversation, because my chief aim – believe it or not – is not to whine about having my comments deleted at DefCon. My chief aim is to expose a real problem in large sections of the conservative, Reformed, heresy-hunting (I don’t use that term derogatorily – heresy needs to be hunted and vanquished) blogosphere.  The problem is slander.  Baseless accusations of heresy, blasphemy and open sin abound at DefCon and elsewhere.

I am not immune to this error. Reading the reactions to Piper and Driscoll regarding this pseudo-controversy at DefCon and elsewhere has opened my eyes to the real danger of slander. I pray that God would use this to guard my own heart against a cold, thoughtless and self-righteous need to constantly tear down every professing Christian and Christian ministry over the most minor of perceived errors.  (I want to emphasize perceived.  Much of this supposed error and sin is nothing of the sort.) And I pray the folks at DefCon and similar blogs (like this one) would take a second look at how they approach this very important work of discernment, for we certainly live in an age that desperately needs it.

——————

On September 25, 2008, Coram (DefCon editor/contributor) posted Would the Real John Piper Please Stand Up?. Coram calls out John Piper for stating Jesus Christ was “damned” upon the cross and for inviting “potty-mouthed prodigy”, Mark Driscoll, to the 2008 Desiring God National Conference. The issue of Christ being “damned” on the cross was initially raised by Steve Camp in his post, THE SCREAM OF THE DAMNED… was Jesus really damned by God for our salvation?.

I commented:

(September 28, 2008 at 1:00 PM)

Steve Camp said in his post on “The Scream of the Damned”:

“The Scream of the Damned seems like language that is meant to provoke thought, solicit listenership, entice questions and entreat discussion rather than expound and exegete Scripture.”

Exactly. So, why have we bunched our undies over this? Christ was FORSAKEN BY GOD, BECAME A CURSE, but He wasn’t “damned”. Aren’t we parsing words, when any reasonable observer, including Mr. Camp, realizes the phrase wasn’t intended to be a precise exegesis of any particular text(s)? I’m not arguing for the phrase as particularly useful or helpful, but, in its context, it certainly isn’t heretical.

This comment was initially deleted or indefinitely held in moderation, because “bunched our undies” was found to be offensive and “Driscoll-esque”. The comment has reappeared, however the substance of my challenge was never addressed. I followed this comment ten minutes later with another:

(September 28, 2008 at 1:10 PM)

And Camp also acknowledged in the comments section that R.C. Sproul also referred to Christ as “damned” in his sermon at the same conference. But apparently that was OK, because he used it “with reservation”.

Hair-splitting can be tedious work.

This comment remains deleted. Apparently, “hair-splitting” was also “Driscoll-esque” and found to be unfit for public viewing. Or perhaps, it remains deleted because Team DefCon is not quite ready to damn Sproul, but would have to in order to remain consistent. I dunno…

Earlier in the comments thread of this post, Desert Pastor, a DefCon editor (contributor), wrote:

(September 27, 2008 at 8:52 AM)

John, it is fully agreed that it is a sad day when something happens to a minister of the gospel. Yet, this is not an isolated incident. This has been on-going with John Piper now for the last couple of years at least. Yes, there are heretics out there which need to be addressed and will continue to do so with the use of blogs like this one.

Piper has been warned and admonished both privately and publicly because he has chosen a path which brings dishonor and shame on the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. He chooses to continue down a path which actually seems to be separating him from the path which was truly contending for the faith.

Sadly, many who claim to be ministers of the gospel (like Driscoll and Tripp) are merely a reproach to the church.

(Emphasis mine.)

(See entire comment here.)

My response to Desert’s above comment:

(September 28, 2008 at 1:23 PM)

DP,

You said, “Piper has been warned and admonished both privately and publicly because he has chosen a path which brings dishonor and shame on the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. He chooses to continue down a path which actually seems to be separating him from the path which was truly contending for the faith.”

Yikes, bro! Are you sure you want to say that kind of thing in public? That’s a pretty vague accusation. What, exactly, was he admonished for? By whom? How is it you became aware of this private admonishment? Who decides when, where and how a particular pastor has “separated from the path which is truly (as you are, I presume) contending for the faith”?

This has been a very sad week for me as well in regards to the Driscoll/Piper hubbub, though for very different reasons.

God Bless

= (

This comment was also initially censored, but has since reappeared.

Desert’s reaction to my request to detail his allegation of Piper’s admonishment:

(September 28, 2008 at 8:59 PM)

My statement was deliberate. It was meant to be said in public otherwise I would not have stated what I shared on this post. I stand by what I have said. As for what he has been admonished for, by whom, and how I was made aware of such private admonishment is really not open for discussion.

Piper has chosen a path which is slippery and only leads away from what he has seemed to stand for over the past number of years.

(See entire comment here.)

My response:

(Unknown time stamp – comment remains deleted.)

DP,

You said, “As for what he has been admonished for, by whom, and how I was made aware of such private admonishment is really not open for discussion.” But it IS open for public proclamation? So we are to take your word that Piper has been admonished for SOMETHING?! But you won’t tell us for what? Or by whom?

Repent, brother.

Oh wait, am I not allowed to call for repentance here? Is that the sole domain of the DefCon team? I guess we’ll find out.

[Indeed, we did find out - the comment was deleted.]

CD,

I just re-listened to the offending Piper sermon. Piper does say, “Jesus Christ perfectly righteous and perfectly damned on the cross in our place.” I guess you’ll have to explain why this is “BLASPHEMY!” and why Piper is a “LIAR!” Was he not merely stating that Christ perfectly became a curse and sin? That He was perfectly forsaken by God? That He perfectly absorbed the wrath of God that rightly abided upon you and I?

Again, I think the DefCon problem is that y’all passionately slime people with very… dare I say… Driscoll-esque labels, and leave it at that. You actually have to demonstrate that these things are true. Your mere proclamation doesn’t make the case.

With that in mind, why is this particular word – “damned” – sinfully and blasphemously distinctive from “cursed”, “forsaken by God”, “made sin”, etc.?

I would restate my plea to Desert: Repent, brother! You cannot publicly claim that a minister of the word has been publicly and privately admonished, and then refuse to back that up! Admonished for what? Admonished by whom? And I remain dumbfounded at how exactly Desert became aware of this supposed private admonishment! To intentionally leave this kind of vague accusation floating around the Internet, to refuse elaboration, is definitionally slander.

And I have yet to see any of the DefCon boys explain why “damn” is blasphemously distinct from “forsaken by God”, “cursed”, “made sin”, etc.

After my comment from September 28, 2008 at 1:23 PM (above), Coram replied:

(September 28, 2008 at 1:29 PM)

Jim B.

Please read DefCon’s Rules of Engagement to gain a clear understanding of why some of your comments haven’t (and never will) see the light of day on this blog.

While you may freely employ vitriolic ad hominem attacks and belittling rants at your own blog, you may not do so here. Conduct yourself as a mature adult and you’ll be treated as one, likewise conduct yourself as an angry, frustrated child and you’ll be treated as one. As a professing believer in the Lord Jesus Christ the standard for civil behavior is set higher, not lower than the visitors we regularly received from the world.

In Christ,
CD

[Emphasis mine.]

Remember, the comments containing these supposed offenses had been removed (or at least indefinitely suspended). So, no one would ever know if I had actually employed “vitriolic ad hominem attacks” or “belittling rants”, or whether I had comported myself as an “angry, frustrated child”.

(For the record, I am both angry and frustrated at the baseless slander being almost daily tossed from Team DefCon in the direction of my pastor and other godly ministers of the Word.)

My response:

(September 28, 2008 at 2:13 PM)

CD,

This is to you, because I doubt this will make it through the DC filter. I have NEVER been deleted from a blog. And (probably to my shame) I comment on a LOT of blogs. Charismatic blogs. Mormon blogs. Leftist blogs. Etc. This is a first.

I’d be curious to know exactly how I violated your Rules. I’ve read and reread my comments and can’t figure it out. The only rational explanation I can conjure is that, contrary to your preamble [see Rules of Engagement link above], you are afraid of dissent. My email is posted on my blog if you don’t care to interact further on this public medium.

God Bless

P.S. You know, I could consider your above comment an ad hominem. You’ve publicly stated that I’ve been vitriolic, belittling, ranting, immature, childish, angry, frustrated and uncivil. You and I both know neither of my brief comments would have engendered such a reaction from anyone but you. To insinuate otherwise, in the absence of my comments, is essentially… ad hominem – attacking the man, not the argument. (In case you were unaware, “ad hominem” is not merely a synonym for “mean”.)

(Allow me to state here that my gripe with DefCon is not their criticism of me or my comments, here or at their blog. I’m a big boy and my feathers don’t easily ruffle. My concern is with the willingness of Team DefCon to denounce my commentary as offensive whilst simultaneously and baselessly slandering men like Piper and Driscoll on this most public of forums.)

Coram’s response:

(September 28, 2008 at 3:13 PM)

Your record stands because none of your comments have been deleted, some have merely been held in moderation. [NOT TRUE]

Furthermore I’m sorry if you can’t see that your moderated comments ending in accusations of “hair-splitting” and “bunched undies” were at best unproductive and at worse gratuitous swipes. Maybe this is a blind spot for you, I’m not sure.

(See entire comment here.)

Coram also said at the end of this comment, “Your Driscoll-esque comments are simply not going to be permitted at this blog, especially in this particular forum.”

Again, I don’t really have a problem with these accusations per se.  I did come strong against Team DefCon, because I feel very strongly about their public slander.  My gripe is with their hypocrisy.  I just cannot understand how my comments are out of bounds, yet their incessant, and very strongly worded, slanders emanate daily from their blog.  If you’re going to dish it out, you really ought to learn how to take it.

——————

On September 28, 2008, Coram posted John Piper – Desiring What?. Coram again attacks Piper for inviting Driscoll and fellow “potty-mouth”, Paul Tripp. At issue with Tripp is his use of the “s-word” in a Desiring God video.  Coram here refers to Driscoll and Tripp as ” the spiritual equivalents of “Beavis & Butthead”" and rips Piper for giving both a “platform from which to spew their filth”.  Again, it supposedly is not Team DefCon that has a problem with language, but Driscoll & Tripp (and me, I guess).

My response:

(September 29, 2008 at 6:13 AM)

CD,

I just re-watched the Tripp video. Is your sole complaint the use of the s-word? Instead of sliming Tripp with words like “potty-mouth”, “smut”, “Beavis & Butthead”, “filth”, etc. (and you have a problem with MY language?), why don’t you interact with the content of his argument? Do you believe ALL language is objectively sinful or holy? Do you believe ANY language is culturally subjective and defined? Do you not believe some words are merely impolite? Do you not believe the use of language (outside obviously sexually vulgar or damning language) is a matter of the heart and may bend and flow given the particulars of circumstance?

If you disagree with any of the above points – made explicit in Tripp’s video commentary – why don’t you interact with those, instead of emptily proclaiming him a “potty-mouth”?

The very next comment is from Ingrid Schlueter, rushing headlong to defend Team DefCon and join in their slander:

(September 29, 2008 at 8:56 AM)

Stop making excuses for sin. Scripture says let no corrupt communication come out of our mouths. References to human excrement as humor, (Mr. Tripp thought it was hilarious) is corrupt. Putting this out on YouTube for purposes of promoting a conference with John-DesiringGod-Piper is corrupt.  …Christians in general, and minsters in particular, need to get their mouths washed out by the cleansing of the blood of Christ or need to stop talking about holiness altogether.

(See entire comment here.)

Again, Ingrid and Team DefCon are content to digitally decree what is and what is not sinful language, without actually making a case.  And not having made an intelligible argument that this or that word is necessarily off-limits and sinful, they nevertheless continue to publicly accuse men like Piper of “corruption” and even suggest they cease from speaking to issues of holiness altogether.

My response to Ingrid:

(September 29, 2008 at 11:01 AM)

Ingrid,

Where in Scripture (you know, our sole rule of faith and practice…) is the s-word prohibited? Are you OK with “feces”? “Excrement”? What about “poop”? “Poopie”? I use the latter two fairly regularly with a 1 and 3 year old at home. Should I repent of these? If not, what distinguishes them from the s-word, other than a subjective culture?

I’m not arguing for the s-word, and neither was Tripp. He was simply wrestling with an issue most Christians have at one time or another wrestled with: Why is some language offensive and other (similar) language not offensive? You’ve completely missed the point of Tripp’s argument. He states at the end that he would use the s-word with a brother if he believed it would edify and encourage him, and bring glory to Christ. I think he would agree that this would likely be a rare occasion.

I would challenge you (or anyone here) to demonstrate from Scripture exactly how and why Tripp sinned in using the s-word in the context in which he used it. You can’t just proclaim from on high that it is sin without using Scripture to support it.

Or you can all enjoy your echo chamber here and (again) delete my comment. (BTW – I’m keeping copies of my deleted comments. I feel I have no choice but to post them on my blog since you’ve repeatedly accused me of acting uncharitably and violating your rules. Since no one else can see the comments, I’ll have to post them and let those who care to judge for themselves.)

[I'm a man of my word.  ]

Censorship in the absence of clear vulgarity or incivility is cowardice. But, whatever. It’s your echo chamber.

Ingrid never responded.  She’s busy with her own slice of slander.

——————

I could go on and on – and realize that I already have.  Nevertheless, to briefly illustrate my point further, check out some of Team DefCons recent work:

Mark Driscoll Rejects McLaren But Embraces Contemplative (No, he doesn’t.)

Mark Driscoll Mocks the Sinlessness of Jesus Christ (Nope.)

Pied Piper? (Ugh… This was taken from Steve Camp’s blog here.  While I think Mr. Camp walks the line of graceless slander pretty tight at times (a line across which Team DefCon has taken permanent residence), at least Camp attempts to extend Piper a little grace and offers some contrary evidence.)

——————

God, I am prone to this kind of error.  Keep me from it!  Never let me become so sure of my flawless orthodoxy that I become cold and hard, unwilling to extend the smallest mercies and graces to those with whom I have even the smallest disagreements!