Proverbs 18.8; 26.22
The words of a whisperer are like delicious morsels;
they go down into the inner parts of the body
How do you react to fresh brownies coming out of the oven? Does your mouth water as your nose inhales the aroma of warm baking chocolate?
God’s wisdom says that passing on gossip is every bit as desirable to us. This not only explains most forms of community life in churches and elsewhere, it accounts for easily over half of Evangelical books favoring “doctrine” or promoting “discernment.” My guess is that any honest and objective lexicographer would actually list “gossip” as a definition of “discernment,” if he were writing a glossary of terms as they are used in the Evangelical ghetto.
Ron Gleason has decided recently to continue attacking John Armstrong’s reputation on his blog. He writes,
John MacArthur (The Truth War) cites Armstrong saying, “I have been forced, upon deeper reflection about theological method, to give up what I call epistemological certitude.” Armstrong continues, “If there is a foundation in Christian theology, and I believe that there must be, then it is not found in the Church, Scripture, tradition or culture.” Those are highly interesting and telling statements—not to mention chilling statements. It might be helpful for Armstrong to move away from the via negative and tell us what that foundation is and where it might be found. If it is not to be found in the Church, in Scripture, in the Christian tradition, or the culture, many would be interested where it might be. Since Armstrong has moved his church membership to the long-since liberal Reformed Church in America, surely he cannot expect us to believe that the foundation is there.
It is far beneath Dr. Gleason to be writing this way. John Armstrong, as anyone who reads his writing will see, has over and over again shown that he is firmly loyal to God’s word in Scripture over against human traditions. That is, in fact, the main reason why he attracts criticism from confessional Reformed “discerners.” The above quotation is a statement about epistemological foundationalism, a philosophical theory. That is supposed to be a completely different question than whether the Bible is a “firm foundation,” and it is egregious error for MacArthur to act like they are one and the same. It is even more egregious for a Reformed scholar to simply pass this on with accompanying gossip.
Proverbs 18.7-8
The one who states his case first seems right,
until the other comes and examines him.
The words of a whisperer are like delicious morsels;
they go down into the inner parts of the body
John Armstong’s ministry has published a reply to MacArthur’s hasty generalization (I’m trusting that he was hasty and didn’t intentionally libel Armstrong) here. I highly recommend you read it. There are also interactions on a couple of blogs (here and here).
This all took approximately two seconds to find, thanks to the magic of Google.
As far as Armstrong’s church affiliation, do I even have to point out how stupid it is to judge a man on that sort of basis? We all know that denominations of all sorts have better and even worse congregations. And we all know that there are reasons for leaving one local congregation and moving to another that are extremely important and extremely unrelated to the wider denominational culture of either local body.
Full disclosure. I have personally met John MacArthur when he visited to teach at my alma mater. I like him because I found him to be a teacher with integrity. Afterward, I began sending him some of my writings and he published a couple (here’s one, that I suppose can give opportunities for more hasty generalizations: “Why Not Get Rid of Doctrine?”).
I am certain I don’t agree with everything Armstrong teaches. But that can be handled without passing on gossip about his church attendance in order to smear his character as a Christian utterly committed to God’s Word.