Welcome to the online home of Tim Challies, blogger, author and web designer. My first book, "The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment," is now available everywhere.

Read about the blog or about the author.

Thursday October 5, 2006

Thursday Miscellanea

Every now and then I like to collect a few miscellaneous thoughts and compile them into a post, rather than trying to write an article about each of them. Today is one of those times, so bear with me as I ramble for a few moments.

Roaring?

Yesterday Mark Driscoll posted an email exchange that involved himself and John Piper. At one point Driscoll wrote “As a result of your correction of me there is a bit of a roaring debate as to our relationship in some circles that we both respect as if folks needed to pick your team or mine. I in no way expect you to defend me, but I also do not want the rumor to keep growing that we are somehow at odds. I want the men who are supportive of me to be supportive of you also and in my heart would be very grieved if there was an appearance that somehow we were at odds because it is untrue.” This caused Piper to respond “Good grief. I am glad I don’t read the web very much. I would sin with anger too much. ‘Roaring debate’ !— these people have too much time on their hands.” I went searching for this roaring debate and was really unable to find it. I found a few isolated comments from people wondering about the propriety of Piper publicly (though lovingly) chastising Driscoll without first doing so privately, but certainly nothing that could rightly be termed a “roaring debate.”

Now, I don’t mean to criticize Driscoll here (goodness knows the man takes a lot of criticism already!) but, presuming this roaring debate was actually little more than a few comments on my site and perhaps a few others, I think it points to a concern I have long had with blogs. When reading blogs, it is easy to develop tunnel vision and to assume that something has wider exposure than is actually the case. For example, it is not unusual for me to speak to people who mention an article I wrote about and furor that developed in the comments section afterwards. I can often go back and show the person that, in reality, there were only two or three negative comments and even then they were likely made by only one or two people. Yet these are the comments that are remembered. I saw this most clearly after I posted a certain book review several months ago. Within a short period of time there must have been 150 comments, only a very few of which could be considered in poor taste. Yet people remember the article and the subsequent discussion only in the terms of those commenters.

Similarly, a person can read about a particular subject on two or three blogs and assume that the whole world is discussing that topic. People like to speak of “blog storms,” but to have more than a handful of blogs discussing a single topic at the same time is really quite rare. I think of the recent situation with Ligonier Ministries. Many people questioned why the statements released by Ligonier announcing the withdrawal of the lawsuit were posted only within the blogosphere. The answer, it seems to me, is quite obvious: only bloggers and people who read blogs knew about the lawsuits. There was no need for a wider response because the situation was almost entirely unknown outside the blogosphere.

I say all of this to caution you (and to caution me). Let’s be certain that we keep a rational perspective when we think about blog storms, roaring debates, and the like. Despite all the press given to them, most blogs still have very narrow exposure and very little credibility.

An Interesting Lawsuit

You may remember Phillip Way as a recent King for a Week award recipient. I recently became aware that he is involved in what promises to be an interesting lawsuit. Way is a bi-vocational pastor who not only leads a church, but also works another full time job. He was, until recently, employed by Randall’s Food Markets Inc. According to Texas Lawyer, “filed a religious discrimination suit against the grocery chain for allegedly denying him promotions and terminating him because he could not work on Sundays.”

Way alleges in his petition that Randall’s hired him as a produce clerk at one of its Austin stores in May 2004 with the agreement that he would not be available to work on Sundays because of his religious beliefs.

“Honoring the Sabbath and not working at secular employment on Sundays is part of [Way’s] religious beliefs because he is a Reformed Baptist,” says Fiddler, Way’s lead counsel.

Fiddler says it’s part of Reformed Baptists’ church concession, or statement of beliefs, not to work on Sundays.

Way, who worked as an assistant produce manager, alleges in his petition that the management at three different Randall’s stores told him that he would never be promoted to produce department manager because he was not available to work on Sundays. As alleged in the petition, one store director demoted Way and reduced his hours because he could not work on Sundays and another supervisor gave him a poor performance evaluation to prevent him from getting a raise to “teach Way a lesson.”

Way further alleges that although he requested a transfer to another store when the store where he worked was closing in November 2005, Randall’s did not give him a job.

The defendants failed to reasonably accommodate Way’s religious practices and beliefs and his religious practices and beliefs were a motivating factor in the discriminatory treatment, according to the petition.

Way, who demanded a jury trial, is seeking unspecified damages for past and future lost wages and benefits, mental anguish and emotional distress. Way also seeks punitive damages, alleging that the defendants acted with malice or reckless indifference to his federally protected rights.

You can find the actual lawsuit here.

A Family Moment

In recent weeks my family has been memorizing Romans 12. The children are learning it as part of their Wednesday evening classes at the church and Aileen and I are learning it by default as we go over it with the children. A couple of weeks ago they memorized verse 12 which says, “Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.”

Yesterday was picture day at my daughter’s school. She wanted to look her prettiest, so chose her favorite dress and blouse. She also wanted her hair to be curled, so Aileen took her up to the bathroom and began to curl her hair. As always, my daughter, whose mouth never stops moving, was chatting throughout. Their conversation went something like this:

“Are we done yet?”

“No, not yet.”

“Will we be done soon?”

“It will be a few more minutes.”

“Mommy, I’m being patient in tribulation, right?”

I’m not exactly sure that this was the kind of tribulation Paul was writing about, but I guess it is as big a tribulation as a three year old can imagine. At least it shows that she understands what the verse is about!

Comments (27) »


1. candyinsierras
October 5, 2006
10:21 AM

Perhaps “roaring debate” had more to do with content of comments rather than quantity of comments. It did seem to be the focus for a few people.


2. John Lee
October 5, 2006
10:41 AM

Just a brief comment on the Piper/Driscoll fiasco. First, I believe that the email communication does put to rest this whole issue. Kudos to both for not only doing so, but doing so in a public arena to douse certain fires beginning to ignite. I have to admit, though, Driscoll comes off a lot better (honest, forthright, vulnerable), while Piper comes off a little defensive and - importantly - he never does apologize for speaking negatively behind a person’s back.

Second, you mention the dangers of becoming tunnel-visioned in blogs. I fail to see your point. If you have a gem in a sack of chafe, is it our fault that our attention is focused on the gem? If we become fixated on another grain of chafe, then I agree with you on the danger of being tunnel-visioned. But in this case, what was picked out was a legitimate concern, a gem as it were. (Also: think about how many headline political controversies arose because of an offhand comment made in blogosphere).

In addition, the Piper/Driscoll controversy was one that was creating a life of its own outside the internet world. People still talk; and Driscoll himself didn’t stumble upon it in the internet world. Somebody told him (as per his blog).

One last thing. In his last email, Piper states that he is a little hesitant in inviting Driscoll back to the conference. That is the literal (ESV) interpretation of the Piper text.


(the last paragraph, while literally true, is a joke. so calm down)


3. Gregory Pittman
October 5, 2006
10:50 AM

I thoroughly enjoy reading Pastor Way’s blog. I have linked to him in my Worth Reading list at IsaiahSix. But when I read your post detailing his lawsuit against his employer, I kind of shivered a little bit. I’m just not sure that suing someone is in the best interest of the Kingdom.

About two years ago, my wife, who was pregnant at the time with our third child, slipped on a badly placed and badly maintained walking stone outside a local business (a beauty salon). She fell and landed on her stomach, after which the baby didn’t move for about an hour. But that was a very scary hour. She spent the night in the hospital. The shop owner admitted the stone was in a bad place and that it should have been installed better. Basically, it was a clear case of negligence. By all societal rights, we could have sued and we would have won the case hands down. But, out of conviction, we chose not to. We covered the medical bills in the thousands of dollars (well, our insurance did). My wife did get a free haricut out of it, though.

I understand the difference in the two cases here. Pastor Way’s deals with alleged violation of rights and religious discrimination. Ours did not. But should we be suing for our rights as Christians? Isn’t this kind of what Jesus said would happen to His followers? Shouldn’t Pastor Way look on this as a good thing?

Am I off on this one? Please feel free to say I am if you think so.


4. Renee Teate
October 5, 2006
10:58 AM

I love the snippet about your daughter being patient in tribulation. You might have to have daughters or better yet be a girl yourself to understand. Standing still to have your hair curled for picture day is all about being patient. Three years old is a most precious age.


5. Tim Challies
October 5, 2006
11:16 AM

Gregory - I don’t think there is necessarily anything wrong with suing in this case. After all, the laws of the land exist to protect people—even Christians. The argument you take could easily be extended to all kinds of crimes. The fact is the Way’s employer violated the nation’s laws and deserves to be punished accordingly.


6. James K
October 5, 2006
11:18 AM

Tim,

To your first part, which I agree with overall, I would offer that your blog seems to have unique and growing influence. Particularly from live-blogging these prominent conferences- T4G, DG, Worship God, etc. (which is how I came to know your site and have stuck around) I’d guess you have quite a contingent that comes here regularly. It would seem challies.com is serving as one of the hubs for the reformed friendship that is picking up steam. You’re humility is evident…but the fact that many of the Mark Driscoll’s and Justin Taylor’s and Josh Harris’ of the world are reading/posting here (think of their numerical influence from west to east) indicates to me your site no longer fits in the “narrow exposure” category.

With appreciation and respect,

James K


7. donsands
October 5, 2006
12:01 PM

Mark Driscoll is a reactionary kind of guy. May the Lord conyinue to shape his heart into the image of Himself. And may the Father continue to prune him, as well as the rest of us. Amen.

Loved the quotes from your little girl.


8. Frank Martens
October 5, 2006
12:07 PM

When reading blogs, it is easy to develop tunnel vision and to assume that something has wider exposure than is actually the case. For example, it is not unusual for me to speak to people who mention an article I wrote about and furor that developed in the comments section afterwards.

This is why I included a second comment in your post “Desiring God Reflections”. Lord knows I love these two guys, I would never want to destroy their ministry.


9. Scott
October 5, 2006
12:28 PM

Maybe this confused Driscoll-it sure seemed like a bit of a roaring debate-and maybe he didnt have time to read all 76 additonal comments either-btw your review of Confessions of a Reformission Rev-spawned another three hundred or so more comments in other places-I hope you’re not having tunnel vision? :

A COMMENT BY Steve Camp

For anyone who was at the conference:

1. What did Piper say that was an admonishment to Driscoll;

2. And to follow up on a previous comment, why didn’t Piper do it in front of Mark?

3. Does anyone know if Piper shared it with Mark prior to his departure and told him he was going to share it publicly as well? Did John make any reference to this in his admonition to Mark?

Many of us who were concerned about Piper having Driscoll in at this conference, it now sounds like those concerns were justified…

One thing is for certain, the emerging church and its proponents are never boring.

Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
Reader Steve Camp
Date October 2, 2006 1:17 PM
78.
A COMMENT BY Tim Challies

This discussion is getting really long and I don’t know that much is going to come of it. Being as sick as I am, I don’t have time to read through it now and try to keep it on track. I am going to shut it down.
Reader Tim Challies
Date October 2, 2006 1:33 PM


10. Phillip M. Way
October 5, 2006
12:51 PM

Just a quick answer to the question about why I have filed a lawsuit against my former employer:

After a 180 day investigation, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a “right to sue” based upon the charge of religious discrimination according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Both federal and state laws have been broken.

So after praying through this and talking with a group of pastors and friends, one of whom is a pastor and an attorney, we decided to apply the law.

Think of it in terms of Paul appealing to Caesar. He used the law of the land and his rights as a Roman citizen a number of times in order to accomplish God’s higher purposes.

~pastorway


11. Gregory Pittman
October 5, 2006
1:19 PM

Pastor Way,

I pray you don’t think I was trying demean you personally or your ministry. That certainly wasn’t my aim. In hindset, I should have kept my comment to myself. I’m very glad to hear that you prayed through this matter not only on your own but with a group of other believers. Quite honeslty, based on my reading your blog and the spiritual depth to be found there, I never doubted that you had given the matter much prayer. I’m sure it was a weighty decision to make and I can’t truthfully say I wouldn’t have done the same thing in your situation.

The situation we faced was much different from yours. Our rights weren’t violated and technically no laws were broken.

You are in my prayers.


12. Bibliomaniac
October 5, 2006
1:36 PM

On lawsuits…the specific injunction in 1 Corinthians 6 is that believers not sue other believers. Way’s lawsuit, being against a food market, doesn’t violate that. Laws exist to protect us, and when they’re broken, the legal system offers us a legitimate venue for correction.


13. donsands
October 5, 2006
1:41 PM

Pator Way,

Thanks for sharing that. I was just reading and studying where Paul was kept from being scouraged, because of his mentioning he was a Roman Citizen. We need to be “wise as serpents”.
Also it got a smack in the face from the religious leaders as well. We need to be “harmless as doves”.

May the Lord glorfy His name in all you have to contend with. Amen.


14. Justin Taylor
October 5, 2006
2:23 PM

Tim:

I think it’s justifiable to see it as a “roar” when one person labeled Piper as an irresponsible coward covering his “hind parts” and making light of sin, while another said that Piper is really just jealous of Driscoll, his praching style is unattractive, his actions were junior-high level, and that if he had just 1/10 of Driscoll’s “stage presence” he’d have a bigger church.

I don’t think we can just count the small number of comments and pass it off as just a couple of cranks with too much time on their hands. In some ways, the impersonal nature of internet forums can actually create the impression that this sort of slander is just no big deal.

But imagine a couple of these guys raising these issues before a crowd at a potluck in the local church within earshot of the pastors they were critiquing (but not directed to those pastors personally). I think it’d be fair to label that a “roar”—and a pretty ugly one at that.

JT


15. Brian Thornton
October 5, 2006
2:23 PM

It seems that we sometimes have ‘tunnel vision’ with respect to what we can and cannot not do as a believer based upon what Scripture says (or does not say) in one particular part of the Bible. I think - this is my opinion - that some take 1 Cor. 6 a little too narrowly when trying to justify the filing of a law suit by a believer.

We are quick to say, “a believer should NOT sue another believer…but it is okay to sue an unbeliever because 1 Cor. 6 is in the context of believer vs. believer.” Or, some will say, “it is okay for a Christian ministry to sue an individual because 1 Cor. 6 is referring to individuals suing individuals, and does not prohibit an entity from suing an individual.”

I think we sometimes rationalize our actions by interpreting certain texts a little too narrowly, as in the case of 1 Cor. 6.

Paul asks in 1 Cor. 6:7, “Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?” Should we really apply those questions ONLY in the context of believers, while having the mentality that if our suit is against an unbeliever then it is okay?

What about when Jesus says in Matt. 5:40-41, “And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.”?

Are we to interpret this so narrowly that it allows for us to initiate a legal action, but just that we are not to counter sue someone who has initiated action against us?

I think John Gill says it best regarding law suits and taking action against others: “It is more advisable to a believer to suffer wrong than to go to law with any man, and especially with a brother.”

I think Gill captures the essence of what our moral duty is to be as a Christian when it comes to taking legal action against someone else, whether they be a brother in Christ or not.


16. John Steinhausen
October 5, 2006
2:49 PM

“Many people questioned why the statements released by Ligonier announcing the withdrawal of the lawsuit were posted only within the blogosphere. The answer, it seems to me, is quite obvious: only bloggers and people who read blogs knew about the lawsuits. There was no need for a wider response because the situation was almost entirely unknown outside the blogosphere.”

Just one problem with your version of the story Tim. It’s not accurate. You seem to be forgetting the original article in the Orlando Sentinel. Now of course Ligonier’s lawsuit is also mentioned as part of a front page story in USA Today. Tim I think you’re misleading your readers into believing this is something insignificant that no one but a few obscure bloggers care about.


17. Tim Challies
October 5, 2006
3:08 PM

“Just one problem with your version of the story Tim. It’s not accurate. You seem to be forgetting the original article in the Orlando Sentinel. Now of course Ligonier’s lawsuit is also mentioned as part of a front page story in USA Today. Tim I think you’re misleading your readers into believing this is something insignificant that no one but a few obscure bloggers care about.”

I do not want this to become a place to discuss the lawsuit, but I do think that very few people know about it. This may change, but to this point I’d say only a very narrow slice of people outside the blogosphere would know about it.


18. Bibliomaniac
October 5, 2006
6:23 PM

Brian Thornton said: Paul asks in 1 Cor. 6:7, “Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?” Should we really apply those questions ONLY in the context of believers, while having the mentality that if our suit is against an unbeliever then it is okay?

Brian, I appreciate the spirit in which you write. Christians are not to be a vindictive people. Yet you cannot say, “I think we sometimes rationalize our actions by interpreting certain texts a little too narrowly, as in the case of 1 Cor. 6.” Take a close look at the passage—verses 5, 6, 7, and 8. In every single one of those four verses, the context is clearly “brethren,” “brother goeth to law with brother,” “among you, becaue ye go to law one with another,” and “your brethren.” At minimum, you’ve got four consecutive verses setting the context that it’s foolish for believers to sue one another, particularly “before the unbelievers” (verse 6). In other words, such suing among brethren is a bad witness before unbelievers.

Given Paul’s repetitiveness, no, it’s NOT too narrow to say 1 Corinthians 6 applies to believers. And as I said earlier, the legal system DOES exist to correct wrong—Paul appealed to the legal system (justifiably so) as a Roman citizen.

If what you say is true, then you would have to be in disagreement with The Rutherford Institute standing up for the right of that seventh-grade girl in Maryland who was told she couldn’t read her Bible during lunch hour on school premises. The Rutherford Institute has taken action to defend what the girl did—and rightfully so, for the U.S. Department of Education’s 2003 guidelines under the No Child Left Behind Act permits students the right to read Bibles during lunch hour and other non-instructional times.

By your standard, Brian, you would be saying no one should take a stand for that seventh-grade girl.


19. Phillip M. Way
October 5, 2006
6:37 PM

Gregory,

I did not feel slighted in the least by your comment and after working through this over the last year and a half, trust me, I understand the many questions surrounding this situation.

I do ask that you all keep us in your prayers through this process, especially that God is glorified and the gospel proclaimed!!

~pastorway


20. Steve Camp
October 5, 2006
7:11 PM

Tim:

Well said brother. I appreciate your candor and honest appraisal here.

I also want to thank the Lord for Justin Taylor and the excellent job he did in directing the panel discussions at the DGM conference. It added a depth to the discussions that is somewhat difficult to do in those circumstances. Well done.

Grace and peace to you both,

Steve
Col. 1:9-14


21. Brian L.
October 5, 2006
7:19 PM

What ever happenned to having fun? Too many Christians take life soooooooooo seriously. Especially in the blog world. Jesus came to give us life and life more abundantly. Let’s take him up on that offer and relax a bit.

~B


22. Craig
October 5, 2006
7:48 PM

I do not want this to become a place to discuss the lawsuit…

Good call Tim, it has already had far more oxygen than it deserves…


23. Brian at VoiceoftheSheep
October 5, 2006
11:09 PM

Biblio,

You are correct that the immediate context of 1 Cor. 6 is believer vs. believer…Paul doesn’t even mention anything in that passage regarding suing an unbeliever. So, does that make it okay, since it is not mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor. 6? Was Paul intending to leave open a loop hole for believers to sue unbelievers? What about Matthew 5:40-41?

I noticed you addressed 1 Cor. 6, but not the Matthew passage. What are your thoughts on Jesus’ admonition to actually give away more than what you are being sued for, rather than fighting the suit? He says, “And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.”

Was Jesus saying here that it is okay to initiate a lawsuit, but just not a countersuit?

I understand the desire to bring up an emotional example (the girl you mentioned), but I would prefer to stay with the Scripture and engage it first. I would be interested to know what your take of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5 is. Was he prohibiting countersuits but allowing initial action, or first strike?

Thanks.


24. mosaic
October 6, 2006
9:42 AM

“I do not want this to become a place to discuss the lawsuit, but I do think that very few people know about it. This may change, but to this point I’d say only a very narrow slice of people outside the blogosphere would know about it.”

Since the lawsuit has been mentioned in the Orlando Sentinel and USA Today, I’m thinking more than a few know about it now. Many friends of mine who don’t blog know about it and have asked me about it. My mom, who has no access to the Internet and is not a Christian, asked me about it. So saying a “narrow slice of people” know about it is not only unprovable, it seems unlikely at this point.


25. ron
October 6, 2006
9:47 AM

Brian L.,

There are times I’m torn between taking life too seriously, and Christians just having fun. In this discussion I think it’s proper to be serious. Suing people or organizations is a big deal. The Scriptures do speak to us on this matter. I’ve always thought that it is wrong for Christians to sue anyone (even if a girl is forbidden to read the Bible in school, or have job discrimination), but I’m not 100% sure what I think right now, and serious discussion is part of what helps me form an opinion.

I appreciate your comment though, because it’s often worth pondering whether a subject should be taken so seriously or not.


26. Jerry M
October 6, 2006
1:22 PM

This is the classic ‘doormat’ issue in dealing with lawsuits. If we obey Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount - i.e. turning the other cheek, give to him who asks, etc. - won’t that turn us into doormats who inevitably are taken advantage of by others? Or worse yet, will we be enabling sinful patterns in others?

i.e. - you steal from me - I do nothing - so you steal again.

It’s not a simple issue.

Martin Luther: ‘Certainly we are not compelled or obliged to let every insolent person run rampant all over the place and to take it silently without doing anything about it … we must not sanction a wrong but testify to the truth. In opposition to violence and malice, we certainly may appeal to the law.’ [Works vol. 21, p. 112]

Paul calls the government, ‘a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.’ [Rom. 13:4]

i.e. I think we misunderstand Jesus’ words if we think He is saying, don’t ever make an appeal for justice - don’t get the police involved when your neighbor is stealing out of your garage.

He is not saying to the wife who gets beat by her husband to just ‘take it’ and turn the other cheek.

She has recourse and should use lawful means to seek justice

However - we are not to take justice into our own hands and return evil for evil.

There is a lot to be said on this issue.

I think Jackie Robinson [first black in baseball] modeled the way this works in real life - taking all the insults and being spit upon - constantly turning the other cheek. He eventually won out by turning the other cheek.

In general though - the view that a Christian should never use the courts would be similar to pacifist positions that a Christian should never fight in a war either


27. Brendt
October 7, 2006
11:15 AM

Re: roaring. To one extent or another, others have stated most of this, but I still feel compelled to thrown in my USD 0.02

I appreciate the fact that the caution included yourself, but I still have to wonder if you know how big and influential challies.com is. To state that you didn’t find discussion of the controversy-that-wasn’t on other blogs doesn’t mean much. Like it or not, this blog is THE place for a lot of folks. But, no pressure. ;-)

I occasionally link from my blog to an entry here that I think is particularly good. But if I linked to every entry here that I liked, people would be convinced that you were paying me to add to your traffic. Plus, 95% of my readers who I feel would benefit from a given post of yours are already readers here anyway, so I’m probably “wasting” my time (not that I’m gonna stop).

Add to that the myriads of comments that you didn’t get because someone else had already said it better, and/or simply because there are a lot of readers-not-writers out there. You may get 25 comments on a topic, but in reality, there are probably 500 people that’d chime in if these other factors didn’t prevent them.

Add to that the fact that some of your commenters are very influential and/or respected people, and our human tendency to take what they say/write as gold (or conversely, if we often don’t agree with them, as dross).

Add to that indirect references to the topic at hand. If a commenter on your blog has written stuff on his blog that (while not about this specific topic) is disparaging of one of the two parties, that adds to the perception that the reader has of the backstory of what the commentor might have been thinking, but dialed it back some when commenting on your blog.

Add to that the fact that even with technology, things are still often slow. Witness how slowly the whole Chad Allen/End of the Spear mess rolled out even with you, Jason Janz, and Dr Mohler talking about it. Had Piper and Driscoll not put out the fire so quickly, I’m certain the dead horse would still be being beaten in December.

Add to that those who don’t read this blog, but converse with those who do.

That all adds up to “roaring” to me. Specific to this topic, it is not a wild imagination that could see the “I am of Paul; I am of Apollos” ranks forming.

Wow, having read all that, I’m kinda glad that I don’t have a whole lot of readers. ;-)