UPDATE (4-21-2010): Several people have asked me for the link to the facebook page. Here is the screen cap/pdf of the page which was also linked to further down.
here is the direct link to the actual facebook page.
*********************************
I just did a search for "alan dale lee" (in quotes) and mugshot
results: 10,900 pages for "alan dale lee" mugshot.
It is not photoshopped, it is indeed the man's real teeth. But that is beside the point. The point is that it has been posted to mock his appearance, not his behavior.
Pretty much all of the search result links are talking about how 'ugly' his mug is. Suppose it were any of you? or someone you love? Forever now you have the honor of the 'ugliest mug' in the world. So now even if you do get saved and stop your life of crime, you're still the ugliest mug in the world.
Phil said, after doing some gymnastics to try and rationalize his posting of it: "And I think it's ironic that some of the very same people who have refused to show Dr. Piper any respect whatsoever in their disagreement with him would pretend to be outraged or hurt about the posting of a criminal's mugshot."
ANY respect whatsoever? By what standard does he make this judgement? Is he speaking to Gayle (another person who objected) too here? If so, can you point to anything she has said that has been rude and insulting to Dr Piper? Or does he just mean me... and/or Ingrid? Phil should please cite specific examples. Broad accusations in a public forum only serve to fan the flames of the problem he is seeking to solve.
He says we are 'pretending' to be outraged. I would like to know how he arrives at that conclusion about our motives.
The other day Phil was on Iron Sharpens Iron
Much of the rest of this post will reference that, so listening and reading the blog post at Sharpens.org would be helpful.
He spends some time in the ISI show talking about how he thinks John Piper should ideally do this mentoring of Rick Warren privately, and be careful not to say anything publicly that might give endorsement to Rick Warren. Does the other way around apply as well? Would he also be careful not to say anything publicly that could denigrate the ministry of a brother or sister in Christ, like agreeing with the categorizing of their behavior as "having to breathe into paper bags"? (a la Doug Wilson)
From Ingrid's show the same day, an example of her (ahem) egregious disrespect.
"I am particularly concerned about the college age young adult age group growing up amidst the smoking ruins of Christian institutions that stood for centuries, Christian doctrine that has been a part of the faith ever since the Bible was given to us, and since Christ walked the earth, is now being attacked and we are seeing so much confusion. Ah we have an uncertain sound coming from trumpets all over from Christian leaders today. And that's why we're doing programs like this. Not just to be ugly or attack other ministries but to say look, there is serious egregious spiritual error. Eternity is at stake, no less than eternity. Biblical truth is our only foundation. And that's why we're talking about this today."I just re-listened to both ISI with Phil and Ingrid's show with Bob DeWaay on this topic. I find no basis for Phil's claim that he seems to have made in the facebook thread that she was disrespectful. (I am assuming he means Ingrid, and me, since we are the ones that showed up to chastise him for posting this picture to ridicule the man, and since he subsequently made a remark to that effect).
Most of the Crosstalk show was talking about the danger of Rick Warren, while there was precious little mentioned about John Piper except the fact that he has invited Rick Warren, as well as Piper's own words defending the decision. That can hardly be considered disrespectful. Bob DeWaay spoke earnestly of how John Piper has been a preacher of the gospel faithfully for years. Online occasionally Ingrid has compared John Piper's actions to lobbing a grenade into the church and walking away. I think that's accurate. It's an analogy of his current behavior, not disrespect to John Piper as a person or his ministry as a whole. I have compared it to dropping a lit match on a puddle of gasoline and walking away. Again I think this is accurate. It has little or nothing to do with my own emotion over this.
If he is referring to my own post wondering "What is John Piper thinking??" well, Phil said something equally snarky when he first heard of it, saying it must be an April Fool's joke.
Speaking of Rick Warren, Ingrid said on her show the other day:
Bob Dewaay said
I have said too that I have found some of his messages to be a blessing (although I don't listen constantly) and that if it had not been a source of comfort and blessing for me and many people, this event would not even be a blip on my radar screen. The level of our alarm is indicative of how much respect we have for the man and his ministry. Scot McKnight endorsed the idea. No surprise there, and no corresponding level of alarm or upset.
There's an important difference between making fun of the appearance of a human being created in the image of God, and being upset over a respectable man of God calling a false teacher and abuser of the flock "theological and doctrinal and sound" and "rock solid Biblically."
Phil, has been respectful of Dr Piper, yes. Totally agree there. He's also seemed to minimize the chaos Piper has caused many people by inviting RW. People who do look up to him and have been blessed by him. He has impugned a lot of people who are justifiably hurt by this and those who would defend them for their righteous indignation.
However, that disagreement won't be resolved by Phil getting up and saying "You're blowing it out of proportion!" or me saying "You're not making it important enough!" The details of what has been said must be dealt with as well. For example:
In Iron Sharpens Iron (as well as in the twitter conversation I posted, but we'll deal with ISI for now) Phil pretty plainly misrepresented the 'extremes' that he find himself at odds with. This was most clearly expressed on ISI yesterday when he said this:
How about posting a picture of an overweight lady to mock her for her sin of gluttony? That appearance would at least be more directly applicable to her sin. Unless of course it is caused by a hormone imbalance and not gluttony.
ISI also claims, on their page about the show, that Phil is concerned at people who are claiming John Piper is a heretic or not even a Christian. Who is saying that about John Piper? I haven't seen it, so if he can provide sources that would be helpful. They should be posted right alongside ISI's claim. Otherwise it becomes a distortion of the facts. If it's just a few comments on a blog, that hardly is unusual. It seems rather strange of Phil to be going around trying to control every little blog comment. If there is such egregious error of this sort out there that Phil has to spend time blogging and interviewing about it, it should be pretty obvious.
Phil also said that "some" people aren't even attempting to understand this. Well that may be, but I have to wonder what prompts him to make that statement. For example, I have watched all of what John Piper has said on this subject multiple times. And yet I still feel like he is accusing me of not making any effort to understand this. In fact trying to understand is all I have been doing since the story surfaced. All day long, pretty much, and I don't seem to be making any headway. Am I only being labeled 'emotional' because I see more worth being alarmed about? What other effort should I be making? And how will Phil know if I, or any other person, have made it, in order that we should gain his approval?
Phil deplores people being emotional in their zeal for the truth, and "I don't want to be associated with it."
So it seems to me that emotional people are the new lepers. Must we all be like Michael Horton or Tim Challies, to receive any compassion or consideration? That might cost me a lot of money for a brain transplant. And if that's the case, then Phil shouldn't be saying anything either. Team Pyro has made a name for itself on snark. (I actually appreciate it when it is applied to false teaching or hypocrisy or bad behavior in the name of Christ).
Todd Friel, the master of snark (I say that very affectionately) when addressing this on his show at least had the heart to spend some time expressing sympathy for people who have felt sucker punched by all this, people who have fled or been disciplined out of purpose driven churches and found refuge in ministries like John Piper's. I was alarmed that Todd endorsed Rick Warren's membership covenants, but I have to think he's doing that out of ignorance of what Rick Warren's membership covenant REALLY means.
It's a bit like this: Let's say a girl has been traumatized by a bully at school. You as a teacher finally feel sorry for her enough to do what you can to separate them from each other so she is no longer being publicly humiliated. Then someone else in your faculty decides to be magnanimous toward the bully (who hasn't changed one iota) and forces her (or even another susceptible young girl) to work on a project with him. She is upset at the teacher who did this because it is no secret how she was abused by this Bully. All her fears come rushing back at her. She is anxious for the girl who is going to be forced to deal with the same thing she was subjected to. You turn around and blame her and publicly shame her for her emotive reacting, and tell her you don't want to be associated with that. That really helps her "get over it" I am sure, and helps her to trust you even more.
The thought crosses my mind, is this how Phil deals with the people of his church, as a pastor, when they have emotional moments?
So let me get this straight... emotive reactions (e.g. us emotional wimmin folk) are "deplorable," but on the other hand ... John Piper's decision, and his out and out saying Rick Warren is "rock solid biblically" (video starting at 1:23)" is just poor judgement that Phil disagrees with. This makes it seem like it is just a matter of opinion and that Scripture leaves it up to our discretion whether or not to promote false teachers. So does Scripture even speak to John Piper's behavior? (2 John 9-11)? I didn't hear you invoke much of it yesterday. I just re-listened. Scripture was entirely missing if it was there at all. But I was getting a headache from all this (and related) chaos, so maybe I missed it.
Now to be fair, I will stick up for the other side. On the other side of the argument, you characterize the pro-John Piper/Rick Warren side:
On being respectful and not insulting:
I'm still confused on where the line is....perhaps Phil should ask Dr Macarthur what he thinks of his own posting this man's mug shot, along with the ensuing comments? While he's at it perhaps he could take a look at the Frank Turk attitude problem?
As I said to Phil on twitter I am beginning to think no one can disagree with him (especially us emotive wimmin folk) without sinning, by his standard. But then I see him violating his own standard of basic human respect toward people, and I just have to throw up my hands and look elsewhere.
Speaking of Rick Warren, Ingrid said on her show the other day:
"[Rick Warren] is a false teacher and we need to be alert. And that's why when John Piper comes out and invites him and gives him this credibility we need to step back and say wait, let's analyze this in the light of Scripture."Is that disrespectful?
Bob Dewaay said
"We're not just trying to be alarmist here, the problem is to the very heart of the gospel itself and Rick Warren's approach to this has pushed the gospel out of thousands and thousands of churches"to which Ingrid replied "Amen."
I have said too that I have found some of his messages to be a blessing (although I don't listen constantly) and that if it had not been a source of comfort and blessing for me and many people, this event would not even be a blip on my radar screen. The level of our alarm is indicative of how much respect we have for the man and his ministry. Scot McKnight endorsed the idea. No surprise there, and no corresponding level of alarm or upset.
There's an important difference between making fun of the appearance of a human being created in the image of God, and being upset over a respectable man of God calling a false teacher and abuser of the flock "theological and doctrinal and sound" and "rock solid Biblically."
Phil, has been respectful of Dr Piper, yes. Totally agree there. He's also seemed to minimize the chaos Piper has caused many people by inviting RW. People who do look up to him and have been blessed by him. He has impugned a lot of people who are justifiably hurt by this and those who would defend them for their righteous indignation.
However, that disagreement won't be resolved by Phil getting up and saying "You're blowing it out of proportion!" or me saying "You're not making it important enough!" The details of what has been said must be dealt with as well. For example:
In Iron Sharpens Iron (as well as in the twitter conversation I posted, but we'll deal with ISI for now) Phil pretty plainly misrepresented the 'extremes' that he find himself at odds with. This was most clearly expressed on ISI yesterday when he said this:
"I think some of the people who have been most critical of John Piper's decision online have been unnecessarily insulting and rude to Dr Piper and not showing him a proper degree of respect, and not really even attempting to understand what he's saying or give a rational reason why they disagree with it. It's just an emotive reacting and I deplore that and I don't want to be associated with it."Now, considering he then thought it good and acceptable to post a mug shot of an individual he considers shocking in appearance or funny looking, the idea of your standard of what constitutes 'insulting' or 'disrespectful' is rather suspect.
How about posting a picture of an overweight lady to mock her for her sin of gluttony? That appearance would at least be more directly applicable to her sin. Unless of course it is caused by a hormone imbalance and not gluttony.
ISI also claims, on their page about the show, that Phil is concerned at people who are claiming John Piper is a heretic or not even a Christian. Who is saying that about John Piper? I haven't seen it, so if he can provide sources that would be helpful. They should be posted right alongside ISI's claim. Otherwise it becomes a distortion of the facts. If it's just a few comments on a blog, that hardly is unusual. It seems rather strange of Phil to be going around trying to control every little blog comment. If there is such egregious error of this sort out there that Phil has to spend time blogging and interviewing about it, it should be pretty obvious.
Phil also said that "some" people aren't even attempting to understand this. Well that may be, but I have to wonder what prompts him to make that statement. For example, I have watched all of what John Piper has said on this subject multiple times. And yet I still feel like he is accusing me of not making any effort to understand this. In fact trying to understand is all I have been doing since the story surfaced. All day long, pretty much, and I don't seem to be making any headway. Am I only being labeled 'emotional' because I see more worth being alarmed about? What other effort should I be making? And how will Phil know if I, or any other person, have made it, in order that we should gain his approval?
Phil deplores people being emotional in their zeal for the truth, and "I don't want to be associated with it."
So it seems to me that emotional people are the new lepers. Must we all be like Michael Horton or Tim Challies, to receive any compassion or consideration? That might cost me a lot of money for a brain transplant. And if that's the case, then Phil shouldn't be saying anything either. Team Pyro has made a name for itself on snark. (I actually appreciate it when it is applied to false teaching or hypocrisy or bad behavior in the name of Christ).
Todd Friel, the master of snark (I say that very affectionately) when addressing this on his show at least had the heart to spend some time expressing sympathy for people who have felt sucker punched by all this, people who have fled or been disciplined out of purpose driven churches and found refuge in ministries like John Piper's. I was alarmed that Todd endorsed Rick Warren's membership covenants, but I have to think he's doing that out of ignorance of what Rick Warren's membership covenant REALLY means.
It's a bit like this: Let's say a girl has been traumatized by a bully at school. You as a teacher finally feel sorry for her enough to do what you can to separate them from each other so she is no longer being publicly humiliated. Then someone else in your faculty decides to be magnanimous toward the bully (who hasn't changed one iota) and forces her (or even another susceptible young girl) to work on a project with him. She is upset at the teacher who did this because it is no secret how she was abused by this Bully. All her fears come rushing back at her. She is anxious for the girl who is going to be forced to deal with the same thing she was subjected to. You turn around and blame her and publicly shame her for her emotive reacting, and tell her you don't want to be associated with that. That really helps her "get over it" I am sure, and helps her to trust you even more.
The thought crosses my mind, is this how Phil deals with the people of his church, as a pastor, when they have emotional moments?
So let me get this straight... emotive reactions (e.g. us emotional wimmin folk) are "deplorable," but on the other hand ... John Piper's decision, and his out and out saying Rick Warren is "rock solid biblically" (video starting at 1:23)" is just poor judgement that Phil disagrees with. This makes it seem like it is just a matter of opinion and that Scripture leaves it up to our discretion whether or not to promote false teachers. So does Scripture even speak to John Piper's behavior? (2 John 9-11)? I didn't hear you invoke much of it yesterday. I just re-listened. Scripture was entirely missing if it was there at all. But I was getting a headache from all this (and related) chaos, so maybe I missed it.
Now to be fair, I will stick up for the other side. On the other side of the argument, you characterize the pro-John Piper/Rick Warren side:
"what you're gonna see is some guys who've sort of warmed up to Piper are gonna say well this is great because anything he does is great and how dare you criticize it?"Is that really what they are saying? Especially as he ascribes this to the sort that have 'warmed up to Piper' vs those who are very gung-ho about Piper? Now as adamant as I am against their side, I have not seen ANYONE post to that effect, at least not to that extreme. I have seen people say things like "I trust Piper's judgement" and "Piper has a lot of wisdom, let's wait and see." So is that also not a misrepresentation or exaggeration of their point of view, making it "worse that it really is" (something he accused the anti-RW side of doing on ISI).
On being respectful and not insulting:
"I see that falling apart on all sides, and so I'm troubled by both sides in this controversy, frankly."That is about all Phil says about the 'other side' of the argument, but spend lots of time condemning the anti-Warren side where he thinks they've gone too far. This leaves me thinking that the nastiness worth condemning is pretty much all on the anti-Rick Warren side. It also leaves the line totally up to the discretion of the reader, which does nothing to solve the problem he is seeing. Justin Taylor also represented the argument this way. However he also provided some rather mild examples and called it out of bounds, and Phil agreed with him. (see my previous post with the twitter feed) However all the examples he gave were anti-warren, when the WORST examples were a couple of pro warren comments, which categorized those of us who are concerned as chickens running around flapping in a panic and cackling meaninglessly.
I'm still confused on where the line is....perhaps Phil should ask Dr Macarthur what he thinks of his own posting this man's mug shot, along with the ensuing comments? While he's at it perhaps he could take a look at the Frank Turk attitude problem?
As I said to Phil on twitter I am beginning to think no one can disagree with him (especially us emotive wimmin folk) without sinning, by his standard. But then I see him violating his own standard of basic human respect toward people, and I just have to throw up my hands and look elsewhere.
