[*] Open House

Doug Wilson, before scooting off to the Auburn Ave. Conference (and I think it's somewhat stingy of him not to blog from the AA summit as it would prolly be insightful and good reporting), made this post about the problem of lies, falsehood, and really the matter of justice and mercy inside the church. It's an interesting post because it undescores something that has come out in his blog which I think requires some thinking about.

Pastor Wilson has been reproaching Brian McLaren's goofy views for a couple of weeks in a chapter-by-chapter review of A Generous Orthodoxy. The book is a coupla years old at this point, so not for nothin' but it's about time -- and Pastor Wilson is not the first to take this book out for a spin. But because he is who he is, Doug Wilson has made quite a sport of this review -- and in the process has, in my opinion (that's IMO for those who have forgotten the English language), pretty much explained why McLaren's view is post modern, and why post modern is not any better than "modern", and why Christian philosophy is superior, and finally why McLaren's views are not Christian.

And you know what? Through that point, I'm with him. Apologetics! D00D! It's better than coffee with a fresh, hot cinnamon roll. Maybe better than a steak cooked on a wood fire -- and I use the word "cooked" to mean "brown on the outside and hot but red on the inside".

But here's where the fur starts to stand up: in the link above, Pastor Wilson antes up the argument that even if McLaren (as a particular example) does provide a palpable falsehood in his views on Christianity, it is logically possible that McLaren is not aware that he is spreading a falsehood. In that, McLaren cannot be called a "liar" because there's an ecclesiastical aspect to calling him a "liar": a teacher who is a "liar" ought to be subject to some kind of church justice (my words). For example, without an ecclesiastical decision about McLaren's doctrinal turpitude, we ought to willingly sit at the Lord's table with him -- we are obliged to be in liturgical fellowship with him even if we do not see eye-to-eye on the matter, for example, of the "one-and-onliness" of Christ.

BAPTISTS?!

And in that, of course I have a problem. But rather than exercise my personal problem, I'm going to change the example but not the subject. There's a very nice young woman in the field of Christian media by the name of Juanita Bynum. Honestly: she's a nice lady with a nice husband who is promoting good social values under the umbrella of Christian living.

Here's what her web site says about her in the first sentence of her bio:

Juanita Bynum is an internationally acclaimed Bible teacher, prophet, psalmist, and media personality.

"Prophet" and "psalmist".

I'd like to see the application of the argument Pastor Wilson has made to (when you shake it all out) the bad ideas of Brian McLaren to the practice of calling anyone -- but we have this particular example by which to draw particular information, so please use it as necessary -- a "prophet" or "psalmist". Should we fellowship with someone who calls himself (or herself) a "prophet" or "psalmist" when they are nothing of the sort?