Jeff Burns
Puritan Board Freshman
I think that Thabiti's question here really highlights why this conference and the speakers have created such a firestorm. It's making people rethink associations... He says:
"For me, it tests the bounds of cooperation. I’m no Fundamentalist with well-established separation doctrines. But as one attempting to draw lines–cardinal biblical lines, mind you!–in a community flooded with heresy, this is no easy relationship to balance. Can I really endorse or remain quiet on an event that features a heretic I’m committed to opposing in writing? I don’t think so. That decision is easy for me. More difficult: Can I really endorse or support a brother who willingly associates with such a heretic and extends them a platform? Painful. Sobering."
It's easy to decry the event itself, but what do we do with the folks putting it on? That's, as Thabiti says, painful and sobering. (And don't think this isn't one degree of separation away from happening in your circles and mine. It is. Might as well learn from this now while we can.)
And some more from Carl Trueman:
"To be blunt: why so much noise about Jakes when Furtick and Noble have already apparently been established in this Elephant Room circle for some time? Frankly, they hardly seem any closer to Paul's description of what an elder or overseer should be than the Bishop....Surely it is the same horse, just a different jockey, as one former colleague of mine used to say? Are people really surprised that someone comfortable with Furtick has no problem with Jakes? If they are, they should give me a call: I could do them a really good deal on the Brooklyn Bridge."
That's the real humdinger here. Why is everyone suddenly coming out of the woodwork to denounce the invitation of Jakes but not Furtick and Noble. Both men are clowns, goat-herders, sheep beaters, etc. etc. etc. And yet they get a pass from broader evangelicalism and are defended by MacDonald and invited to speak in his church. Shameful.
"For me, it tests the bounds of cooperation. I’m no Fundamentalist with well-established separation doctrines. But as one attempting to draw lines–cardinal biblical lines, mind you!–in a community flooded with heresy, this is no easy relationship to balance. Can I really endorse or remain quiet on an event that features a heretic I’m committed to opposing in writing? I don’t think so. That decision is easy for me. More difficult: Can I really endorse or support a brother who willingly associates with such a heretic and extends them a platform? Painful. Sobering."
It's easy to decry the event itself, but what do we do with the folks putting it on? That's, as Thabiti says, painful and sobering. (And don't think this isn't one degree of separation away from happening in your circles and mine. It is. Might as well learn from this now while we can.)
And some more from Carl Trueman:
"To be blunt: why so much noise about Jakes when Furtick and Noble have already apparently been established in this Elephant Room circle for some time? Frankly, they hardly seem any closer to Paul's description of what an elder or overseer should be than the Bishop....Surely it is the same horse, just a different jockey, as one former colleague of mine used to say? Are people really surprised that someone comfortable with Furtick has no problem with Jakes? If they are, they should give me a call: I could do them a really good deal on the Brooklyn Bridge."
That's the real humdinger here. Why is everyone suddenly coming out of the woodwork to denounce the invitation of Jakes but not Furtick and Noble. Both men are clowns, goat-herders, sheep beaters, etc. etc. etc. And yet they get a pass from broader evangelicalism and are defended by MacDonald and invited to speak in his church. Shameful.