On February 11 Phil Johnson used a Facebook post to accuse Thabiti Anyabwile of mission drift. The following is a screenshot of Phil’s original post:
For those who are not aware, Phil is the Executive Director of Grace to You (John MacArthur’s resource and media center), and Thabiti is pastor of Anacostia River Church in southeast Washington, D.C.
What followed was a brief interaction between Thabiti and Phil, which can be viewed at the following links:
Thabiti’s initial article replying to Phil
Phil’s article replying to Thabiti’s initial article
Since it appears this topic has not received any attention here at SBC Voices, and since the issue seems to have been resolved, I thought it might be fruitful to see if we can draw some conclusions from their dialogue.
And just so we’re clear, I must say up front that I’m writing this with the assumption that you’ve read the articles linked to above (preferably in order). It is not my aim to debate who was right or wrong, but to see what we can learn from this interaction about how to (and not to) have fruitful dialogue.
Before diving into this I should also say that I have a deep respect for both of these men. They have labored for the gospel in ways that are truly inspiring and I’m thankful for both of them. That said, here are my thoughts now that the dust has settled.
#1
I don’t understand Phil’s strategy/goal behind his initial Facebook post. In his blog article he calls this a “poke.” I think that’s probably a reasonable analogy, but I’m having trouble finding an example of this type of interaction in my Bible. The tones that seem to fit his post do not seem to be embodied by Proverbs 15:1 where we are told that “a soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” I don’t see the Bible encouraging this type of hit-and-run “correction.” Did Phil really think Thabiti had drifted from the gospel mission and would receive this as a word of correction? Or was this just Phil blowing off steam? The brevity of such statements on social media make it virtually impossible to grasp the original intent. I’m very thankful that a more fruitful discussion came out of this “poke,” but we should still ask ourselves if there was a better way that this conversation could have been started.
#2
I also don’t understand how Phil felt justified in making such a serious accusation toward a fellow brother who is also an elder. First Timothy 5:19 is pretty clear: “Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.” Now I realize we need to bear in mind several things when applying this passage to this situation. First, Phil and Thabiti are not in the same church. Second, this passage cannot be used as a prooftext by pastors to avoid legitimate accusations. Third, this passage does not prohibit us from sharpening one another through questioning each other or seeking clarification. However, the underlying principle seems to be that the office of pastor is to be treated with the greatest respect and if you want to accuse a pastor of drifting from his mission of preaching the gospel, then you’d better have your ducks in a row. A very straight row. And you better have at least three ducks. Phil’s initial Facebook post offered no evidence of his accusation.
Now I’m guessing some may think I’m being too nit-picky here, so if that’s the case ask yourself this question: Would Phil Johnson have posted a comment like this about Pastor John MacArthur or one of the other elders at his own church? Of course not! He would’ve gone to him privately and sorted things out. If the same blood that bought Phil also bought Thabiti, and if the same Lord that Phil serves is the same Master that called Thabiti to shepherd his flock, then is it really asking too much for that commonality to be reflected to all the onlookers on Facebook? [See clarification below.] If we are to reflect the character of the Bible to the world around us, then – at a minimum – we need to show respect for those we disagree with by legitimately arguing our case in a Christ-honoring way. I think Phil does that in his blog post where he replied to Thabiti’s first article, so again, I’m thankful these brothers brought it together. But what about the times when things don’t come together? Often things can quickly escalate and get out of control. This is where I believe we can learn a lot from Thabiti’s initial reply.
#3
If we are going to engage in public discussion we must be eager to listen, slow to speak, and we must learn to guard our tongue. Whether you agree with Thabiti’s position or not, I believe his first reply is a great example of earnestly trying to be gracious, honest, and winsome, while still welcoming further clarification from Phil. Similarly, I believe the case that Phil makes in his blog article is done in a respectful manner while still defending his position unapologetically. This is where we need to be careful. We need not apologize for the case we are making, but we should avoid at all cost any unnecessary offense. And while we don’t need to apologize for our case, it might turn out that we need to apologize for our assumptions. We actually see a great example of this in Thabiti’s final article in his point number 9, where he calls himself out for taking things for granted that he shouldn’t have. Props to Thabiti for being honest enough to admit that. That kind of transparency can go a long way in building trust.
#4
Now, I know I said I wasn’t going to take sides, and so in one sense, I’m holding to that. But this last observation depends on the fact that I believe Thabiti has defended himself well enough to dispel Phil’s allegations. My final observation is that when we feel compelled to confront a brother over something we believe is out of step with the gospel, then we should endeavor to believe the best about that brother rather than jump to the worst of conclusions. When we resort to strawman arguments and nasty name-calling we have put our lamp under a basket and instead have taken up the scheme of Satan. May God help us to recover a love for one another that helps us guard our hearts against such tactics. When we must address or even rebuke a fellow brother, we can prepare ourselves for the disappointment if our fears are confirmed, but we should be earnestly hoping that there is a simple misunderstanding, even if it means we might be the ones who look foolish. This type of character should be natural for Christians who have been shown grace upon grace by a God who had every right to sentence us to eternal damnation.
I pray this helps us all think about how to engage in open discussions most effectively for the sake of Christ’s Kingdom and God’s glory. Grace and peace.
Clarification:
Based on some of the discussion in the comments I have realized I was not as clear as I should have been in point #2. I unintentionally made it sound like I was saying that Phil should have contacted Thabiti privately before posting anything publicly. Obviously if I believed that then I never would have posted this article without contacting Phil Johnson. If you re-read point #2 you’ll notice I never actually said that, but I understand why someone could take it that way. What I did say was, “If the same blood that bought Phil also bought Thabiti, and if the same Lord that Phil serves is the same Master that called Thabiti to shepherd his flock, then is it really asking too much for that commonality [i.e., their unity in Christ] to be reflected to all the onlookers on Facebook?” That last part was my clue that I have no problem with Phil having a public discussion. My point in referring to how Phil would approach one of his fellow elders was simply to highlight the respect owed to the office, not to make a one-to-one prescription. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused for the readers, and I hope this clears things up.
Bob, interesting little scuffle that I had not even heard about. It was good to see both guys try to steer the conversation to the light. I love both men, and the work they do in the kingdom. They are both “big boys”, and its good to see them not shy away from defending their somewhat public proclamations. Its always good to get more clarification and definition. In our world of “two words, a few letters, and a smily” texting culture, sometimes its hard to get a word in edgewise…
I’ve been a little disappointed in Johnson online presence in the last couple years, especially with his endorsement of some bloggers who could probably use more rebuke from guys like Johnson rather than endorsements.
But I am glad he ended this conversation well. I think the way it ended showed some maturity on both sides.
Bob, you ask and answer: “Would Phil Johnson have posted a comment like this about Pastor John MacArthur or one of the other elders at his own church? Of course not! He would’ve gone to him privately and sorted things out.”
I think you are correct — that he would not have Facebook post, but have gone to them. First, I think that a short Facebook would be almost always inadvisable in such a situation. Second, if Phil Johnson knows Thabiti Anyabwile, a private discussion would be the best place to start (whether in person, e-mail, phone, etc.).
All that said, I don’t think that public calling out of public error is wrong. Paul called out Peter on the issue of eating with Gentiles (this was within the church, not out in the general public). We are in this thread publicly discussing what was a public discussion (though many may not have known about it, it is accessible to the public). Finally, for example, I don’t have any problem publicly calling out the many errors of Benny Hinn that he is preaching publicly. But if it is someone with whom I have a relationship, it seems the first logical step is to seek clarification with that person.
Thanks for the comment Robert. I totally agree about the right to call folks out publicly. One difference I see right off though is that Benny Hinn is a certifiable heretic whereas Thabiti is a fellow brother and a pastor. I mean, I looked back and he and John MacArthur both spoke at T4G 2010.
I’m also not sure we’re being totally fair with the reference to Paul opposing Peter. Paul doesn’t say exactly who was present when he opposed Peter. It could have been in a large group with lots of believers and unbelievers. But the text seems to leave room for it being more of an internal matter among followers of Christ (even if some of them needed correcting). Therefore, I don’t want to jump too quickly to use that as a prooftext for calling people out on Facebook where the whole world can watch us have arguments that might be better suited for a believers-only context.
That’s just my quick 2 cents at this point. I definitely want to chew on that some more as that passage is most certainly relevant to the discussion.
Bob, let me clarify that I didn’t mean the Peter-Paul situation as a “prooftext” for Phil’s Facebook post. I thought I had made it clear that I thought Facebooking something like this would be almost always — if not always — a bad idea. But what I think we can take away from that incident with Peter and Paul is that something that involves more than two people doesn’t have to be resolved in private between just two people. Paul brought it up before all who were involved (Gal. 2:14; but not before the whole world).
I am not saying that I agree with Johnson in this specific situation. I assume he knows Anyabwile and could have started with talking to him personally. Nevertheless, I think the Bible provides, in principle, the option that bad/false teaching and bad/false practice can be called out before all those who are receiving that bad/false teaching and/or seeing bad/false practice.
At present I don’t know enough about this “debate” to have an opinion that Thabiti Anyabwile was saying or doing anything particularly wrong — and I’m not inclined to dig into it. I thought we were more looking at what principles this might drive us to learn.
Hey Robert, thanks for responding and sorry for just now getting back to you – it’s been crazy the last few days.
Not much to say here except I think we’re saying the same thing. I totally agree with your last comment. Hopefully my clarification that I added to the article will also help folks understand my position better.
Grace and peace.
From a reader’s reply to Phil’s blogged reply:
“Reading these points and counter points leaves me feeling a little dirty, like I’m an intruder listening in on a private family conversation. I keep finding myself asking: Why wasn’t this all done privately–the rebuke, the response, the clarification, etc? Why rebuke him publicly if you hadn’t shared your concerns with him privately first?”
Isn’t this the Biblical way? Go first, person to person. Then take two or three. Then to the church as a whole.
Whether Phil is right or wrong about his complaint, he was wrong in the way he went about communicating his problem with Thabiti.
I’m not sure he was entirely wrong. The issue that he had with Thabiti is over Thabiti’s public statements, not a personal grievance. He wasn’t necessarily addressing a sin per se, but a political position that represents a demonstration of how a Bible teacher applies what he understands the Bible to teach. As such, it was an instructive and somewhat clarifying exchange of ideas.
I would second that Jim. And I think if Phil had opened the discussion more graciously, then I believe nobody would have had any problem with it. The key thing to remember is that the freedom to engage with each other’s ideas publicly does not give us the freedom to be nasty about it.
I think we are largely in agreement. Dave made a very appropriate reference to speaking the truth in love from Eph 4:15. The context of that verse marries this article substantively to the unity article from yesterday. Eph 4 seems to indicate by the list in verse 11 that “speaking the truth in love” comes in as many different forms as there are gifts of leadership to the Church. I think we often interpret it more narrowly than it warrants. There are accounts from Scripture where the example of Jesus and the Apostles speaking the truth in love sometimes seems pretty harsh to modern sensibilities. Reading down the chapter, sometimes speaking the truth in love means being angry without sinning (verse 26). In all this, there is something to be said from verse 15 that we all need to “grow up in every way”. I’m included in that, so I’m not accusing anyone out of hand.
Thanks for the further insight. I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. My main point about Phil contacting his own pastors privately was not to say that he should’ve done the exact same thing with Thabiti, but to highlight the high level of respect that is owed to the office of pastor – and I believe that respect is due to other pastors outside your local church. I’m guessing that may not have been as clear to the readers as it was in my head, and that’s my bad.
“Isn’t this the Biblical way?”
parsonsmike, I believe it is a biblical way — and perhaps the way this could have been handled between acquaintances — but Matthew 18 is most directly about a private offense, not a public one. Rather than type out a lot of explanation at this point, I refer you to a little more detail I wrote on it a couple of years ago, HERE.
I only mention this as Matthew 18 not being the blanket way to handle all matters of “offense”. I’m not all that familiar with the situation between Johnson & Anyabwile (had not heard of it until reading this blog post) and would reserve the right to think about it and, if necessary, change my mind in regards to this specific case.
Robert,
Thanks for that link. I agree with that post.
But what public sin was done?
Mike,
I intended to approach this from principles involved and that we could learn, rather than specifics between Phil and Thabiti. As I mentioned to Bob, I’m not really inclined to dig into the depths of this situation but was more trying to look at principles. As far as I know this situation involves no public sin. My point, though, was the difference — if it is legitimate — is over public teaching and practice and not a private offense.
I will add that I do believe that we can consider public false teaching as a sort of public sin (again not saying this case, but in principle).
I hope this will help clear up what I meant, but if not, please seek more clarification — which I’ll be glad to try to give, but sometimes am not that good at while trying to be brief! 🙂
Robert,
Thanks for your reply.
I understand the principle, let me put it into my words, to make sure:
Public sin should bring public rebuke.
For if everyone knows [relatively speaking], it is no longer a private matter.
But what if it is just a disagreement or a possible misunderstanding? Shouldn’t the first step be to open up a dialogue and seek clarification including what the problem is, as you see it?
Its one thing if its outright sin or heresy. But when its a bit murkier, I think clarification is the first step. The goal is not to bring down a brother but to restore him, if he has strayed. IF.
So here is what I think. The first step would be to open up a dialogue and discuss the problem you are having with your brother. Public or private. Public is fine, if the problem [possible] is already in the public eye. The second step, if the first results were not satisfactory, would be to go to others you both respect and bring them onboard. They might disagree with you, but if they agree, then they go the brother. Finally, if you and the respected brothers do determine a problem that is not be resolved, you all go to the greater community.
Every step is to be done with humility.
I think Phil, right or wrong in his own estimate, did not approach his disagreement in a right way.
Mike, thanks for the continued dialog. Hopefully we can understand each other’s thinking on this.
I think I would follow the same route as you up to a point, and then possibly diverge from it. I mentioned Benny Hinn in my first reply to Bob. With him I would not bother to try to seek clarification or dialogue, since there is well known public teaching and obvious major disagreement. I would just point out the heresy. But in the case of someone I know and consider orthodox, yes, a good first step is to seek clarification in the matter. We might be saying the same thing and not have sense enough to know it! I remember two brothers in the same church arguing (somewhat heatedly) about the details of babies being sinners, until a third party who was in on the conversation wisely pointed out they were actually saying the same thing in different ways.
Concerning doctrinal and fellowship errors, Paul says an heretic after the first and second admonition reject (Titus 3:10). I don’t see any reason this necessitates these warnings being private, though, if the thing being warned for is not private.
So, no, seeking clarification does not violate the spirit of the principles of warnings. But we often keep trying to tie such things back to Matthew 18 in an unnecessarily restrictive manner which is not required — if the errors are already public (and if they are errors).
Phil could have sought private clarification, and that would have been good (and we would then have no thread to discuss it!). But from my continued reading on this, I think we should not just think that his Facebook post was a bolt of lightning out of the blue. It appears to me now more likely that it was spoken into an already ongoing discussion. (In saying that I am not going back on my initial statement that Facebook is not a good way to handle something like this.)
Robert,
Phil could have asked for public clarification, and at the same time expressed his concerns of how it seemed to him.
No disagreement with you there.
Since I have experience with Phil Johnson and his “methods” its probably best for me not to comment on the particulars.
Some fail to speak the truth. Others make little effort at love. Finding that balance of speaking the truth in love is tricky.
I’ve been preaching through Jonah recently. In Jonah 4, he basically rebuked God because God wasn’t tough enough on Nineveh. We serve a God who defaults to mercy and seeks repentance and restoration. We would do well to always seek to default to grace ourselves.
Yep Dave, Phil has been know to have “methods” for quite some time. I think he means well for the most part though.
“We would do well to always seek to default to grace ourselves.”
My hermeneutics prof would be proud Dave. That pretty much captures my main point. 🙂
FYI: self-labeled “polemicist” & “discernment blogger” JD has called out his henchmen (including a 16 year old kid) against you. Expect a handful of comments in moderation – the extent of his influence.
against whom?
Thanks for the heads up.
Since you mentioned J. D. Hall, I looked at his post at ‘Pulpit and Pen’. He makes a very good point that I didn’t get from Bob’s post, stating, “Social media was abuzz with talk of Anyabwile’s surprising and stunning comments that were shocking even to his friends.” If Johnson spoke this into a context that was already “abuzz” about Anyabwile’s views, that’s quite a different thing from popping in a contrary comment out of nowhere into the blue.
Hey Robert,
That is a fair point – sort of. The problem is that the reason social media was abuzz is that it was twisting what Thabiti meant and ignoring the context. As I said in the original post, I think Phil did a good job of expressing his thoughts in article form, and I deeply appreciate him coming out of blogging retirement to write it (I regret not giving props to Phil for that – my bad). However, his initial Facebook post does not reflect a great deal of effort to effectively and graciously engage Thabiti on this issue and it appears that Phil may have also been taking Thabiti out of context (though I am speculating there). We’re just fortunate that Thabiti did not respond in a similar fashion or else we probably wouldn’t have gotten anything useful from it.
I think it a fair point worth noting, even if we don’t think Phil Johnson should have posted what he did on Facebook. I can see a difference in coming out of nowhere to slam someone on Facebook as opposed to speaking into a conversation that was already going on — even if one didn’t do it well. Wouldn’t you?
Yes, I do agree with that. And like I’ve said, my purpose wasn’t to slam Phil, but to just take an honest look at how both of them engaged. I think a lot of the problem is it’s just really hard for the reader to apply the right tone/context to such short Facebook or Twitter posts, and our sinful nature tends to make us lean toward hearing a really angry one. Thus, I think it behooves Christians, and especially pastors, to speak extra carefully and compassionately in those contexts so that they show due respect to the person they’re trying to critique or engage.
Yes. Tone is even a problem for longer blog posts and discussion board posts. Some of this is our not engaging the difference between written and oral communication. But I wonder if some of it isn’t electronic media itself. Seems like we did better with pen & ink and typewriter communications. But maybe that’s just me.
For anyone wondering if I am the essence of hypocrisy for posting this article, please read my recent clarification at the end of the article.
Grace and peace.
Honestly,
This blog was very respectful and noteworthy. I get it if there is disagreement and what not, but some of the backlash (from very few people who are just noisy, I might add) surprised me in their rhetoric….or perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised.
Thanks for that encouragement Tyler. It was definitely not my intent to be disrespectful to anyone. I’m glad most folks didn’t take it the wrong way.
I have a question what you all might think of this. It has been suggested numerous times in this thread that Phil Johnson should not have used a Facebook post to accuse Thabiti Anyabwile of “mission drift”. In addition some have stated that he violated scriptural principle in not going first privately to Anyabwile. Unless I missed it, I don’t think anyone has suggested that Thabiti Anyabwile should not have publicly addressed Phil Johnson in his blog but rather should have reached out to him privately first. If you think it would have been wise for Phil to have contacted Thabiti privately before posting on Facebook, do you also think it would have been wise for Thabiti to have contacted Phil privately before posting on his blog?
Thanks.
Yes.
I don’t think Phil should have addressed Thabiti at all on this issue. But Phil did it publicly, Thabiti should have addressed it publicly, which he did.
The thing I glean from this whole exchange is that we conservatives are a bit too monolithic. We want everyone to agree with us on every single issue, and if they don’t, then we characterize them as having drifted into liberalism.
I am a firm conservative, but I differ with most of my brethren on immigration, the Syrian refugees, and on social justice. My friend, Dwight McKissic has opened my eyes to different ways that sincere people of faith look at these things.
John- I don’t know if I agree with that completely.
In this case thabiti preached a message at T4G – and make comments during the question-and-answer session following that message –that was biblically faithful, astutely accurate, and conveyed a healthy reality of “race relations” that stand firmly against some of the things he is saying more recently. It seems emotional events have captured his attention and pulled him away from some of the messages he once conveyed. If he no longer stands by that sermon and the comments he made in the question-and-answer afterwards – but instead has embraced The “black lives matter” rhetoric –then he should just say that, IMO. But it seems holding on to both is inherently contradictory.
I think questioning him on that is fair game since both were done in a very public manner.
Questioning the mode of how one addresses it is also fair game.