This post is about Phil Johnson’s writings on his blog, Pyromaniac. Let me make that clear right up front so no paranoid or narcissistic types will comment or post asking, “Is it me? Is it me?” Sorry, not this time.

What I purpose to do in this post is to look at one of his more recent (most recent, as of this moment) posts and analyze it just a bit. I don’t do this to be unkind - it’s easy to tear apart something - but to try to discern what he is saying and not saying. I must quickly add, however, that there seems to have been a significant shift in the tenor of Phil’s posts for the last couple of months or so: I find him much more reasonable and less aggressive than previously. Perhaps this is due to his becoming more comfortable with blogging, finding his stride, and allowing more of himself to be reflected in his posts. I honestly have no idea, about which I’ll say more later.

By way of introduction, this whole thing started after Phil wrote a post about people who flirt with or consumate taking God’s Name in vain (def., attaching God’s Name, and therefore His Personhood and reputation, to something with which He is not involved or connected). I was very much looking forward to the series because I agree with him on this issue: when people say, “God told me (fill in the blank),” I cringe. I have heard, in my consulting office, those three words followed by “. . . to divorce my wife/husband,” “. . . that it’s OK for me to marry this unbeliever,” and “watching porn is OK as long as I don’t directly lust after the women.” Trust me, I was ready to read what Phil had to write. He called it “a serious problem among charismatics and non-charismatics alike,” to which I say, Amen!

But the important point here is this: Phil didn’t start this fight and tried very hard to avoid it.

But, as is sometimes the case, the jihadist mob hijacked Phil’s post and turned it into an argument over cessationism (regarding the so-called charismatic gifts1) and non-cessationism. And, as we sang in the ’70s, “it only takes a spark to get a fire going” - and soon all those around get scorched as it keeps growing.

Today, rather than begin the cessationism study, Phil takes a shot at Dan and a few others for objecting to the rancor that usually characterizes such debates - which is very perplexing since Phil ends by saying he’d like to discuss the matter without rancor. I don’t see the need for taking a shot at someone with whom you agree, although it does demonstrate what I feared would happen as stated in my previous post: here’s what I wrote, followed by how Phil starts today’s post at Pyro:

(EP:) If this seems like a rant against Reformed bloggers, it’s not meant to be; it’s intended to be a mirror for those few who make the Reformed position look bad. Of course, they’ll never consider the possibility that a non-Reformed person - who is automatically suspect because I will not chant the TULIP mantra - might be right. They’ll just blast away or ignore it.”

(PM:) I’m about to conclude that it’s practically impossible to have an open, candid, rational conversation about cessationism and invite charismatics to participate without finding yourself at the bottom of an angry dogpile of “Spirit-filled” critics, no matter how charitably you try to approach the subject.

Now, in retrospect, I could have made my own point less sarcastically or sardonically. I apologize for that, really. But I still stand by the truth of the statement, and Phil’s post today seems to bear out my unhappy prediction: Phil chooses to attack the messenger (though I be but a fruitfly fluttering around a rhino). Phil continues:

By the way, Dan’s plea was quickly echoed in similarly histrionic tones across the blogosphere, mostly by other non-cessationists who (having taunted me with questions and challenges) now apparently want to see the cessation of any and all debate over this particular issue. And, predictably, there were also some who couldn’t resist using Dan’s post as a club with which to beat “Reformed Theology.”

I am the anonymous “some” to whom Phil refers. What he chooses not to include from the post to which he refers is this:

I don’t think the obnoxious - or just plain noxious - behavior has anything to do with Reformed doctrine; I do think that Reformed doctrine tends to attract angry, rigid, and aggressive individuals who baptize their bad behavior in quotes from Calvin.”

Phil turns it into an attack on Reformed Theology, perhaps in order to avoid the mirror. It is possible that he gave thought to what I had said about holding up a mirror, but there is no evidence of it in his post today. Or maybe he didn’t actually read my post but was told about it from someone else who selectively misrepresented my position. Either way, Phil needs to check his facts, at least in this instance.

I find it curious that Phil labels Dan’s writing as “histrionic,” given the opening paragraph of his own post. Well, I’m familiar with psychological labels, too - although I’m no expert - and could suggest that Phil’s writing gives evidence of an elevated score on the psychopathic-deviate2 scale and denial on the subscales of the MMPI-II. But, as I explain below, it would be ridiculous for me to label the man Phil Johnson as such a person. It’s merely what comes through in his writing at times. Plus, as I said, I’m not an expert on testing.

At the risk of getting ahead of myself in looking at Phil’s post, I’ll jump to his concluding, rhetorical questions - which strike at the heart of his post:

That’s a long explanation of why I have stalled this discussion for the past week, and yet I still wish to pursue it. Can we try again? Can we discuss this issue seriously, without rancor and without all the histrionics?

Although the questions are rhetorical, I understand the doubt which causes Phil to raise them. There’s not a very good history of people respectfully and rationally discussing points of theology and/or practice about which they disagree. I’ll address this momentarily, but first I want to clarify something else.

Phil points out that “all the surliness and sarcasm came from the charismatic side of the aisle, not from ‘Reformed’ commenters.” I assume this to be true: I tend to stay away from most comments once I discover they’re just another rant or wild attack from the lunatic fringe. If Phil says the ugliness was on the charismatic side, I believe him.

But, there are three things to note:

    1. Many charismatics describe themselves as “Reformed Charismatics,” so pointing the finger at the charismatics doesn’t necessarily absolve the Reformed camp.

    2. I didn’t refer to any of the comments in my earlier post. Here’s what I said:

Maybe this just reflects the blogs that I have frequented most often in the past, but it seems to me that the blog wars tend to be between Reformed individuals. Phil and Turk go after iMonk, the barroom brawlers respond in their typical style, the Reformed cessationists argue with the Reformed charismatics - it strikes me that some of the more prolific Reformed bloggers are also the most pugnacious: they’ve never met a fight they didn’t like, and they’ve never retreated so much as an inch.”

    3. Phil did not consider or discuss that my observation might be correct, i.e., that much of the time it is Reformed vs. Reformed in the blogwars.

To finally get around to addressing the rhetorical questions Phil posed, let me say this:

I believe Phil went to Moody Bible Institute and undoubtedly received a good education there. I see no record of him having gone to seminary, but that doesn’t mean anything at all: sometimes a seminary degree is just a union card, i.e., it opens doors that otherwise would be shut. That Phil has risen to the position he occupies is a credit to his devotion and study.

I suspect (but don’t know) that Phil learned at Moody at least one of the things I learned at Denver Seminary about discussing theological issues: make sure that you have fairly and clearly explained - as much as you are able - the position(s) with which you disagree before explaining why you disagree and then present your own position. For a practical demonstration of this, watch some of the lessons available at The Theology Program of Stonebriar Church. One of its guiding and fundamental principles is to accurately represent the “opponent” before explaining its own belief.

Too often online, when there is any meaningful exegesis or theology involved, it takes the shape of a polemic. This all but assures that those who disagree will quickly have their defenses up and will have a hard time hearing what is being said. It is wiser, it seems to me, to first demonstrate to them that you do have some understanding of their position and represent it accurately and respectfully. Then, when you disagree and present your own case, it won’t appear to be just a blind attack.

A lot of work? Absolutely, but if there is to be meaningful dialogue amongst bloggers of different flavors, it may be vital. Then the labeling, name-calling, and fruitless blogwars will be greatly reduced in frequency and/or vitriol. Are our brothers and sisters in Christ worth the effort? Each of us will have to answer that for ourselves, and it will be reflected in our blogs.

Regarding a related but different matter, I want to state the following:

I don’t know Phil Johnson: I’ve never met him, heard him speak, spoken with him, or talked with anybody who knows him personally. I don’t know if I would like him or not, although I would of course hope for the former. I think I would like him, though, because he seems like a guy - for an explanation of what makes a guy a guy, read this excellent book by Dave Barry. It should answer all your questions.

I respect what Phil has done professionally through the ministry given to him and do not doubt his sincerity about the things of God at all. His blog is the second one I read everyday (after Tim and just before David): while I usually agree with him doctrinally (as in this case, since I am a cessationist), I don’t find his writing style to be kind - I was going to say “generous” but that word seems to be going the way of the formerly joyful term “gay” - at all times. Or maybe it’s that he tends to be abrasive at times and doesn’t realize it. I don’t know the answer. Were I a smoldering wick or a battered reed, however, I would not read his blog.

But that doesn’t mean, if I were a struggling wick or reed, that I wouldn’t seek him out if I knew him personally. As I said, I don’t know him; if I did know him personally, he might be the first person I would seek out when darkness began creeping into my life. I don’t know Phil and neither do any others whose only exposure is through his blog.

The Pyromaniac, I suspect, struggles just like everyone else. Like me, he has good days and bad days with his wife. He worries about his children at times. He thinks about whether or not worldliness is slowly eating away at the fringes of his sanctification. He hates having to shave every morning. He goofs off sometimes when he should be working; he works sometimes when he should be goofing off. He laughs alot. He loves people. In other words, Phil is a man just like me; he is a believer in Christ Jesus just like most who read his blog.

What Phil Johnson is is a fellow believer; what Phil Johnson is not is the enemy. Period. And neither am I and, hopefully, neither are you. The wounds of a friend may be faithful (Pr 27.6), but we’d better make sure the other person knows we are a friend before we start wounding. Otherwise, we’re scorching one another with our words (Pr 16.27).

__________

    1There is a distinction to be maintained between charismatic gifts (grace gifts) and pneumatikos gifts (spiritual gifts). For further reading, see any of the standard evangelical dictionaries and/or encyclopedias on the subject of spiritual gifts.
    2The pd scale on the MMPI does not mean someone is a psychopath; rather, it means that this person is more likely than others to swim against the tide and to be iconoclastic. At least, I hope that’s what it means since my own pd score was elevated.


2 Cor 1.13