I was originally going to title it "Frank Turk begins to doubt Rick Warren" but this guy's idea is far superior. I hope he won't mind me swiping it. (smile) Thanks man, you're brilliant.
Anyway, Frank Turk posted this morning:
An Open Letter to Chris Rosebrough
Another friend (yes, this time a woman, for shame!) said, with the implication that because Frank has pronounced it so: "Rick Warren is officially aberrant now."
So this kind of behavior from Warren/Macdonald is a new revelation to him? These guys and all their fawning followers, who are the first to play the pharisee card if you should question their beloved leaders, have been doing this for as long as I have been watching, at least 7 years.
What rock has he been living under? Will he repent now for attacking all of us (especially the snarky nasty WOMEN bloggers that, according to Phil Johnson and Todd Friel (from Oct 10, 2011, last 5 minutes of hour 2), seem to be SO much more prevalent than the snarky nasty male bloggers - cough cough) for seeing earlier what he now is starting to see? I won't hold my breath. Call me a pessimist, especially regarding human behavior.
(oh, sorry, was that too snarky? I repent!)
I rejoice that Frank is starting to see the light. I pray that it continues. I will still address a few comments on some things that didn't make sense to me:
You know: I see Rick Warren as, in many ways, the average SBC pastor"
Wow, what a slam against the SBC. Even so, he's probably right.
"So when he fibs a bit in public because he wants to be a gracious guest in whatever circle he is in, I can offer good will and read that as polite manners and not wobbly doctrine. "Ok so...Wouldn't wobbly doctrine tell you it's ok to fib if it gets you a social reaction that you want? Isn't that always the motivation to fib? Did Dr Macarthur fib about the gospel or anything else to Larry King even though Larry didn't like the truth? And where did that get Dr Macarthur? Replaced on Larry King by someone who would gladly fib... Joel Osteen. Would that more people would follow Dr Macarthur's lead and shoot straight about unpleasant truths.
"I can offer good will and chalk that up to baptist populist homiletics, for good and ill."
Why is that good will?
" I have a history of giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying he definitely means well."
You surely do. But Saul meant well when he was persecuting the church. MOST, if not all, false teachers and enemies of the church mean well. They think they are serving God. Why is this a new idea for him?
"His willingness to actually trade in good will is here exposed as fraudulent"
Again, why is this news to him? Is it just HERE that it is exposed as fraudulent? How far back in time does this fraud go?
Again let me say I am glad Frank is beginning to get it.
But my concern here is that this article looks to me like "well Warren has attacked a really NICE guy, so obviously Warren has been wrong all along." His conclusion seems based on the fact that he likes Anyabwile (personality/style of communication), even more than what Anyabwile said (truth vs error). This seems tenuous at best, because now all we have to do is have Warren issue a nice smarmy apology to Anyabwile and Frank just may have no idea what to do.