sidebars are a wonderful thing

Posted: April 25, 2013 in general

One of my favorite things about Frank Turk — and I say this with all sincerity — is his self-deprecation. So when he writes about a blog contribution of his being “a stunning post”, it makes me smile. It’s obvious that he’s being facetious — no one outside the media is that narcissistic. While I disagree with Reformed theology, Frank has the “total depravity” thing down cold, and even presents it in a humorous light when applying the concept to himself.

I point this out so that the beginning of the following quote doesn’t get misconstrued by those who don’t know Frank as well. In a recent post, he started off with this sidebar, before getting on to his actual post.

When I sat down this weekend to come up with a stunning post for today, I had maybe a dozen ideas, including lampooning this utterly-awful post from Mark Driscoll which, in my view, demonstrates what sort of fellow he is — and not in a good way. Maybe we’ll get back to it eventually because it would be worth thinking about what sort of fellow writes that post when he’s got so much to actively and publicly apologize for to the other fellow who helped him go mainstream.

If you haven’t read the Driscoll article yet, go read it — it’s brief, encouraging, and in no way awful.

So, “in [Frank’s] view”, what’s the take-away from a tribute to a good man and how God has used him?

  • John’s faithfulness to serve God all these years? No.
  • John’s care and grace to attempt to mentor Mark (and many other younger leaders)? No.
  • John’s care and grace to attempt to share what he has learned with others? No.

How strong of a dislike for Mark does one have to have to nullify the good deeds of an admirable man?

But let’s kick it up a notch. Here are some more possible take-aways that Frank rejects:

  • God’s power to teach Mark through John’s life? No.
  • God’s power to use John? No.
  • God’s faithfulness in the lives of both men? No.

How strong of a dislike for Mark does one have to have to totally obliterate the glory of God?

The important thing (in Frank’s view) is not God’s glory; it’s Mark’s sin. Surely, though, Frank doesn’t actually think that the latter is greater than the former.

  1. frankturk says:

    I do think that sin in a person self-selecting as God’s prophet because he heard God’s audible voice call him to ministry is actually an affront to God’s glory. In the exact same way David’s sin was, and Solomon’s sin was, and the sin of King Saul was, and the sins of Peter.

    Since I didn’t actually say any of the things you are saying I did, maybe your sin of false witness ought to come up for review. If, you know, sin matters.

    • avbitw says:

      Sigh. Nowhere in my post did I say that Mark did not sin, so I’m not really seeing the point of your further detailing of his transgressions, except to bolster my point that by your words, you place a higher priority on Mark’s sin than anything else in this scenario. If that is what you were trying to do, then thank you.

      It should also be noted that the only thing that I said that you said was the direct quote. Everything else is merely a logical conclusion from the text. So your accusation of false witness is invalid. You are certainly welcome to disabuse me of my conclusions, though between the original quote and your continued rambling on a near non sequitur, it would take a great deal to convince me.