One of my earliest critiques of what I was reading in Piper was that I didn’t hear much to forestall fanaticism. The tone of things- and I don’t mean the content, I mean the tone of the rhetoric- is very interesting to listen to.Ah – the tone! May heaven forbid that our tone is somehow more than merely academic or disinterested, or that we have any sincere passion in our words. Because, you see, this is where such tone leads:
Today, I hear more and more from the back rows of this reformed revolution that sounds like Washer: Revivalistic. Loud. Aggressive. Angry. Wanting a fight. Desiring persecution.Islam, you see, and "a clue" to how the Bible is being used – that's nothing like what Alan at Thinklings said about iMonk and his initial pass-by on the topic of Piper's theology.
There’s something about that level of rhetoric that always makes me think of the zealous rhetoric of Islam, and I have to wonder at what point the tone of things becomes a clue to how the Bible is being used and how Jesus Christ himself is being proclaimed.
For those who missed it, Alan said this:
I mean, just as Jared mentioned, I get that over-emphasizing one doctrine to the detriment of others is a bad thing. But I didn't see anything wrong with what Piper said in that clip, and that's where you said to look. He didn't even discuss God's sovereignty. So what are you resenting, other than the implication you created and I responded to?Which, of course, iMonk called, "making my psychological state the issue and I won’t have that discussion with strangers in comment threads".
Frankly, I think you left your statement vague enough so that you could claim this kind of plausible deniability when anybody called you out, but you either won't really say or don't know what your problem is with Piper.
When Alan does it, it's an offense; when iMonk does it, with overtly inflammatory language, it's rational discourse, objective to the core, with no baggage.
It is. Seriously – anything else I could say would cause much ho-ho-ho.