Actually, what I have a beef with is Paul Washer fanatics, really. Washer is a well-known missionary, and well-respected speaker. He's not a heretic as far as anyone would care to think about it. He's just glum.
On my Facebook yesterday, I said this: "Frank Turk is tired of people tweeting and FB'ing Paul Washer quotes. He's trite and strident, which makes him a little careless."
Here's what I mean by that: there's nothing new in Washer, which of course his fans will say is a mark of his real commitment to being a man of God's word and so on. But there's also very little hopeful in what Washer preaches. You know: when you read the book of Galatians, where Paul is essentailly condemning a whole city of Christians for giving up the Gospel for works, Paul mixes his judgment with encouragement because there is hope in Christ. In fact, the reason why we should not trade the Gospel for works is because there is hope in Christ and not in works. The trajectory of Paul is almost always from our desperate state to hope in Christ because he actually believes in hope and not fear.
Washer rarely gets there -- and it bothers me that his fans enjoy his revivalistic fire and brimstone. It's half the story at best, much like a greeting card. You can get a greeting card with just about any verse of the Bible printed on the inside -- and probably in any English translation you want. But its use of that verse is trite, and sort of tossed off in order to make an emotional appeal. That's how Washer comes across to me -- and frankly, I don't think he means to be that way. I don't think he's trying to be like Finney or any revivalist -- but it turns out that he is. He just ahbors the altar call.
I received a letter from alert reader "LC" (initials only to protect the innocent) with two comments that I thought were cogent and relevant, and I wanted to share them with the rest of you.
 She thought the graphic looked like I had put a bull's eye on Paul Washer's face -- which, since it did look like that, is offensive. I used the same filter I have used on almost everyone I have given the "alien/mutant eye" effect to since time immemorial here at the blog, but this one came across wrong. I have changed the graphic to be sensitive that LC's perceptive insight, and I thank LC for it.
 I think it's important for everyone to read this statement, which I made in the original post:
But (the greeting card) use of that verse is trite, and sort of tossed off in order to make an emotional appeal. That's how Washer comes across to me -- and frankly, I don't think he means to be that way.
I don't think Paul Washer means to be the way I perceive him. But what is really the motivator for my FB entry and this post is that I think many of his fans prefer him that way. That's how they use his preaching, and I think it is not very productive, or as they say on the respectable blogopshere, "helpful".
It is totally possible to preach repentance in such a way that it overlooks the grace which makes the repentance possible. That kind of preaching is revivalistic, and the people who like that kind of thing always use it that way. I think Paul Washer has preached enough that people who like the revivalistic aspects of some of his preaching have embraced that part of his work, and I think we can all do better.
I hope that clarifies what I'm talking about here. There is no other implication of this matter which I care to endorse.