Interaction with Doug Pagitt...

Dustin Bagby, one of our elders at Evergreen, has posted an interaction with Doug's A Christianity Worth Believing, particularly with Doug's view of sin and separation. Worth a read!

Comments

[todd]

Wait what is that? Is it Bob indirectly calling out DP for all his crazy heresy? I am not sure but your bias shows through so strongly on your blog Bob.

You will call out Driscoll for one example of bad exegetical work (which it was). And publicly state he needs to stop the "crazy monkey talk," and let the comment section run wild with people thinking he should be forced to resign and no longer pastor. But DP can repeatedly PUBLISH heresy and well lets just keep that under wraps. Way to be objective Bob.

[Dustin]

Hey Todd,

Calm down man, Bob has had many discussions with Doug about this issue, on his blog and in person.

The fact that people are writing all kinds of negative stuff in the comment section about Mark simply shows you who is reading Bob's blog but it doesn't say anything about Bob.

The fact is, most of the readers here (as you are probably aware) are more of the Emerging church crowd, so it would probably make sense that when Bob interacts with Doug's teaching or as you say "calls him out", the comments section are a little more friendly towards Doug because of the crowd reading, right?

[Dustin]

and besides Todd, since we can actually interact with Doug (unlike Mark, whose co-authors don't even know his phone number or how to get in touch with him), we'd rather honestly interact with the material (which Bob has also done) and not just call someone labels (like heretic) and pretend like that proves anything. Doug is a very bright and intelligent individual and deserves to be interacted with in an intelligent way. (Not saying Mark isn't intelligent, but since he's as far removed as the moon, there's not a whole lot of interaction that can happen).

[todd]

Ohh I see Dustin, our principles and convictions are measured out by our relationships. Granted there is a certain element of being kind to those you have relationships but no the extent where you let them spew heresy. I am not of the fundamentalist persuasion, but the stuff pagitt says is downright dangerous and wrong. Much more dangerous than a stupid comment about "stay at home dads."

My whole point was that if you really want to have a "conversation" you should call a spade a spade, and not just when it is someone who you do not have a personal relationship with. It hypocritical to think Driscoll's "crazy monkey talk" is damaging to the church and make it into a mountain, and ignore ongoing heretical teachings as if they were a mole hill. Look, I am not even a Driscoll fan but its crazy to think we are being primarily faithful to the Bible when we claim, lets be nicer to Doug because he is part of our emergent conversational ghetto. You can do better than that Dustin. I know because I read your review and you did so there.

[Dustin]

"Granted there is a certain element of being kind to those you have relationships but no the extent where you let them spew heresy. I am not of the fundamentalist persuasion, but the stuff pagitt says is downright dangerous and wrong."

---Again, it is much easier to throw around words like heresy while doing no work or putting no thought into proving that.

"Look, I am not even a Driscoll fan but its crazy to think we are being primarily faithful to the Bible when we claim, lets be nicer to Doug because he is part of our emergent conversational ghetto."

---I'm not saying, let's be nicer to Doug than Mark. What I'm saying is, we can actually talk to Doug so we're going to say things differently so that we can be heard and responded to. If I was going to do an actual critique of Mark's theology of stay at home dad's for instance, knowing that Mark is going to read it and consider what I have to say, I would write it differently then if I'm just posting a crazy video of a dude talking that will never read my blog.

[matt]

"The fact that people are writing all kinds of negative stuff in the comment section about Mark simply shows you who is reading Bob's blog but it doesn't say anything about Bob."

The wisest words I've ever read on a blog comment!

It makes a lot of sense to hear you clarify the approach that you and Bob take in dealing with a wolves in sheep's (oopps), I mean hereti (oopps), I mean "bright and intelligent individual and deserves to be interacted with in an intelligent way."

It's absolutely great that God has given you and Bob (and Chris etc.) the chance to interact with these wolves in sheep's (oopps), I mean hereti (oopps), I mean "bright and intelligent individual and deserves to be interacted with in an intelligent way." (sorry slipped again). I especially liked the way Bob was transparent in dealing with Spencer Burke's and Frank Viola's books.

But, let's be honest: you guys (until now) have given Doug a free pass.

And even more, Paul was clear to say that if even he preached a different gospel then he was to be "accursed." So while it is great that you think Doug is a "very bright and intelligent individual and deserves to be interacted with in an intelligent way." He is also preaching a different gospel and is a HERETIC. For the sake of your readers and their embrace of the gospel, call it like it is across the board. Even if they are your friends.

[Dustin]

Giving him a free pass? Did you read my critique???

[Bob]

Good times. Maybe Doug will prove to be the kind of blog comment/stats goldmine that Driscoll has thus far been!

So- for the sake of my blog readers, I should call Doug a heretic to balance out calling Mark silly?

Two questions and then I'm back to work...

1. With whom do I (Bob) have more relationship/influence, Mark and the New Young'n'Reformed tribe he runs with or Doug and the emerging church?

2. Why might that be?

[matt]

Dustin,

I said "until now." Your review was as good as Bill Wolf's worship music is wonderful.

Bob: you should call Doug a heretic to balance out Driscoll posts (which aren't attacking at all). You should call him a heretic because he is a heretic.

[matt]

I meant to say, "You shouldn't call Doug a heretic to balance out Driscoll posts"

SHOULDN'T. Damn.

[Dustin]

Hey Matt,

I guess it depends on your definition of heretic. If you go with a dictionary definition: "a dissenter from established religious dogma", I think Doug would gladly say, Yes, that describes me. What do you think?

[Michael Walcher]

Hahaha, funny story... I met Doug once, when he was in Seattle for the Seeds of Compassion event (He told me he was going down to Portland to hang out with you, Bob, afterward, which is how I eventually heard of you and your blog and Evergreen...).

We met at a coffee shop (We didn't stay, because he had to do some shopping, which was really awkward), and he asked me how I had heard of him.

"I dunno, a lot of people have called you a heretic"

"Yeah I get that a lot"

...it was a good afternoon.

[Bob]

Two questions and then I'm off to sleep...

1. With whom do I (Bob) have more relationship/influence, Mark and the New Young'n'Reformed tribe he runs with or Doug and the emerging church tribe?

2. Why might that be?

[Victor Minetola]

Dustin:

I thought that it was a very interesting - and important - read. I noticed a couple of typos. And please, please throw some CSS on that bad boy to make it easier on the eyes ;-)

That said, while I found Driscoll's comments from a couple weeks ago disturbing and hurtful (and I know a thing or two about spiritual abuse), I think that Pagitt's writings you addressed are far more dangerous in their theology. Also note that I have not read the book - only your paper on this.

If you take out the transactional nature of Jesus' work on the cross, you remove so much out of the entire scriptures. And a Greek concept? From Genesis on, there is a transactional nature to our relationship with God because of our sin - that is the beauty of the Crucifixion. That the Prophet, Priest, and King offers Himself as the once-and-for-all perfect Paschal Lamb, passing the priesthood to all believers so we can all enter the Holy of Holies.

If Jesus was JUST an example on how to live the God life, it make s the crucifixion a needless dramatic act at best. And, like you said, none of us can attain Jesus' example on our own without the work of the Holy Spirit.

Let Driscoll tell me I'm a disgrace and a namby pamby because my wife is a doctor and the main breadwinner. But allowing Pagitt to spread this "new gospel" I believe is dangerous indeed.

[ted]

Bob I am afraid you might be asking the wrong questions. Does it really matter who you have more influence with? Your call as a pastor is to be faithful to the Bible and the truths the Holy Spirit has illuminated for you. Not that this is Fox News but it just seems unbalanced to lambaste one guy for minor issues and then sweep under the rug teachings of another that are damning to people's soul. Regardless of how much you personally like them and think they are smart.

Look I really do not like either the young reformed crowd, or emergent crowd. So I have no horse in this race. But I think we need to move away from this notion of calling people hertics as a bad thing. We always associate it with witch hunts, inquisitions, and stake burning. This is unbiblical. Rather sometimes labeling something or someone as heretical is loving and kind, hoping the rebuke will lead to repentance and contrition. I am concerned by any movement (emergent) which thinks there is no room for guarding doctrine or lovingly rebuking bad theology, as this is what Paul did in so many of his epistles. False teachers and heretics where and are not just an early church problem, pastors must be prepared to deal with them today.

Once again this does not mean we throw rocks at them or hate them, but for the sake of the Gospel and following Paul's clear instruction we must be willing to call people out who preach "another gospel."

[Bob]

Thanks for your concern Ted- but I'm not asking the wrong questions.

As of now, and with a couple notable exceptions, my interactions with and within the emerging church are governed by 2 Tim 2:25.

I'll let you guys know when I choose to take a different approach, but for now, can we drop the argument as to whether I should call Doug a heretic or not? I hear what you are saying and I am choosing a different tack.

[ted]

And I take Mark Driscoll is not falling under your 2 Timothy 2:25 approach? Just looking for a little consistency...

[Bob]

No, he doesn't.
It's a different category.

I treat Mark and Doug differently for my own reason, mainly owing to the level of influence I feel I have with them as well as how I see them interact with others.

[Aaron Stewart]

I like how no one is really taking the time to actually read Dustin's critique.

[matt]

Aaron,

What critique?

[matt]

Bob,

I really appreciate you taking that approach with the far left side of the emerging church.

But, when critiquing it, it helps to mention not just 2 Tim. 2:25, but also verse 26. Mentioning the danger and the poison to readers can be done without being harsh.

I won't attempt to critique or assume I know the kinds of conversations you and Doug have had, but I am sure it very much resembles 2 Tim. 2:25.

[Bob]

"it helps to mention not just 2 Tim. 2:25, but also verse 26.Mentioning the danger and the poison to readers can be done without being harsh."

Matt... and thus my linking to Dustin's critique of the book.

See?

[ryan]

Hey Dustin great review! I read Pagitt's latest book as well and began a write up of it, but kept feeling my blood pressure rise like whenever I watch Sean Hannity.

[Dan Brown]

Disclaimer: I haven't read the book, only Dustin's critique. But I believe "damning to people's soul[s]" overstates the case by a long shot. I perceive Pagitt's main point to be that although we can rebel against God, he never writes us off as a loss while we still have breath (think of the Prodigal son), even when we are "enemies" (think of David and Absalom). I do question his understanding of the Atonement — though frankly it bothers me less than the Calvinist doctrine — but I don't see anyone being damned for being wrong on that point. Otherwise, I see little that is outside the mainstream of orthodox Arminian theology (and no, that is not a contradiction in terms).

[matt]

Bob,

I completely agree that you publishing Dustin's review was doing that. I would just push back this tiny bit - didn't you write your own review of the book? Weren't the issues Dustin raised only briefly eluded to in that review?

And as a disclaimer. I consider my reading of this blog and interactions with people of the like to be one of the main influences in making me a more generous theologian (that is in no way an endorsement of Generous Orthodoxy). I appreciate you guys and how you dialogue. I learn a ton and grow a ton from it.