Phil Johnson misapprehends

Phil Johnson over at Team Pyro has chosen Good Friday of all days to post a very misleading article on Dan Kimball.
An excerpt:

In a recent symposium on the Emerging Church movement (Mark Driscoll [et al.] Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: Five Perspectives [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007]) Dan Kimball says the only doctrines he is really sure about these days are a short list of credos generally agreed upon by Christians and spelled out in the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds.
See if you don't think Kimball's perspective contains a classic echo of the kind of thinking I am suggesting colors the typical postmodern mind. He writes:

"When we move beyond what the Nicene Creed discusses, I feel that it is not as easy to be saying so confidently that we have things all figured out. I wonder quite often if, beyond the Nicene Creed, we end up shaping some theology or even choosing what theology we believe because of personality and temperament" (p. 92).

The position Kimball has staked out for himself is frankly hard to understand, because the Nicene Creed, in 325 AD, actually marked the start of several volleys of controversy about the person of Christ. In fact, the worst of the Arian controversy came after Nicea. And it wasn't until the council of Chalcedon, 126 years later, that a creedal statement was written which explained in simple terms the hypostatic union of Christ's two natures. That's what finally helped end a more than 200-year-long parade of heresies about the person of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity.

So it would actually be much easier to understand Kimball's position if he said he thought the Council of Chalcedon marked the final plank of vital orthodoxy. I would still disagree with him, but his position would make a lot more sense.

But he is definite about setting the boundaries of his certainty at Nicea. And the point Dan Kimball is making about this is not just an obscure, offhanded remark that I dug out of his chapter in order to have an easy target for criticism. It is virtually the main point of his chapter. It's also the one point he makes in his rebuttal to Mark Driscoll's chapter.

In short, Kimball gives the distinct impression that he thinks any doctrine not settled by the time of the first ecumenical council is not really worth fighting over.

Everything beyond that, he suggests, is negotiable—or at least he dismisses all differences on such matters as consequences of a person's genetic predisposition, personality quirks, or whatever.

Consider the implications of that: If that's really Dan Kimball's position, then he has in effect repudiated the Protestant Reformation, not to mention Augustine's refutation of Pelagius and the Council of Carthage's condemnation of Pelagianism (which occurred nearly a hundred years after the Nicene Council)."

I can't say I'm surprised by this... this is the kind of stuff that seems to have become de rigeur in critique of emerging church thought.
Here's how you do it.

1. Take a sentence.

2. Make some inferences from said sentence (the more outrageous the better)

3. Attack those inferences (Don't test whether inferences actually bear any correlation to author's original intent)

4. Condemn author

5. Repeat.

I'm so tired of this kind of stuff, but coming from the Tonto to John MacArthur's Lone Ranger, I don't expect a whole lot else.

No- scratch that. I do expect a whole lot else. A whole, WHOLE lot else. We can start with a sense of fairness and move on from there.

I spent some time typing out a comment on the post, only to notice when finally wading through the entire thread that Dan Kimball himself had shown up and made much the same points...
Did Phil acknowledge his mis-deeds of slander (yeah... I'm just going to call it that (and no you don't need to tell me the difference between slander and libel. One is legal, the other biblical)), even when directly confronted by the offended party?

Nope.

He fell back and regrouped. He insisted he had not misunderstood or taken Dan out of context. He insisted he was simply trying to get at whether Dan believed in salvation by grace alone.

Really...

In the face of Dan Kimball appearing on his blog and completely contradicting Phil's assertion that "he really doesn't want to be bothered with doctrine" Phil allows that statement to stand in the original post. No retraction, no apology.

But when someone makes an inference he disagrees with from something he's said? He's quick to correct that!

I don't see the "contradiction" you're claiming is there. "Ever-diminishing" doesn't mean "non-existent." Why do you act as if it does?

I appreciate Phil's mind, but he really can be a blow hard. And yeah, I know he'll read that. And no it's not the nicest thing I've ever said, but honestly- this guy is playing dirty pool here, and more and more, like on the old Slice, allowing his commenters to do the REALLY dirty work with comments like "I think Dan is a master of subtle deception and is often given a platform for this subtle deception... I think its a real stretch to call anyone a brother or sister in the Lord who promotes rituals like the labyrinth."

In the words of Gob Bluth:

"Oh, COME ON!"

So, here's what I was going to say... points still stand. I may end up posting something, but fact is I've already wasted too much time on this garbage and have better, more important things to do.

"Phil- you infer from Dan what he clearly did not mean to imply- and you do him injustice.

He said: "When we move beyond what the Nicene Creed discusses, I feel that it is not as easy to be saying so confidently that we have things all figured out."

You infer from that: "he thinks any doctrine not settled by the time of the first ecumenical council is not really worth fighting over."
and
"Everything beyond that, he suggests, is negotiable—or at least he dismisses all differences on such matters as consequences of a person's genetic predisposition, personality quirks, or whatever."

What he actually said was "IT IS NOT AS EASY." You assert someone hearing you say "ever-diminishing" and taking away "non-existent" is misrepresenting you.
I say you quoting Dan saying "It is not as easy" and then acting as though he said "It is impossible" is doing the same exact thing. "It is not as easy to be saying so confidently" does not mean "there is simply no basis for doctrine or assertive beliefs or the Protestant Reformation, not to mention Augustine's refutation of Pelagius and the Council of Carthage's condemnation of Pelagianism."

Why do you act as if it does?

Let's be clear and let's be fair- Dan BELIEVES plenty of things. In searching for a sense of humble orthodoxy he is tying to get Christians to major on the majors- all things that coming from anyone not associated with the emerging church many would be applauding.

Please take more care, brother. When you say things like "Everything beyond that, he suggests, is negotiable—or at least he dismisses all differences on such matters as consequences of a person's genetic predisposition, personality quirks, or whatever" you do damage needlessly to the reputation of a pastor who loves Jesus and preaches the Gospel. I have some other names for that kind of thing, but I'll let it be...

It's a simple thing- Dan is (unlike many others) very accesible. Email him. Ask him point blank "I infer from your comment on page 92 that you believe everything is negotiable. Are you, in fact, dismissing all differences on doctrinal matters as consequences of a person's genetic predisposition or personality quirks?"

How much do you want to bet he'd say "no" and be happy to correct your misapprehensions?

And please don't blame this on vague communication on his part. You took a clear statement "it is not as easy" and ran with it to places Kimball clearly did not mean to go.

I know this, that is to say I, an emerging church pastor assert this as truth, because you left out this important piece (page 94): "Please understand, [he's looking at you, Phil]... it doesn't mean I don't believe you can't come to solid conclusions about many things in addition to the Nicene Creed. There are many things not mentioned in the Nicene Creed that I believe are clear, such as Jesus' teaching about marriage, the authority of the Bible itself, the role of the Spirit in sanctification, etc...
I believe doctrine is important."

I'm at a complete loss as to how you could actually read the above words from Kimball's own hand and then actually say something like: " Frankly, the message that comes across in that chapter is that he really doesn't want to be bothered with doctrine."

In fact, I think you owe Dan an apology."