As regular readers of this blog will remember, early last year I made several posts in the midst of the controversy over Mark Driscoll that had ensued after Baptist Press published an article that was critical of certain aspects of Driscoll’s ministry.
With the exception of some admittedly overheated and perhaps hasty blog comments that I posted at the outset, for a number of reasons I have kept my distance from the current Caner controversy. However, as I have observed it from afar, it seems to me that the way the Baptist Identity bloggers are defending Ergun Caner is quite similar to how the Southern Baptist “young leaders” and other bloggers defended Mark Driscoll early last year.
Here are some of the similarities:
1. Those attacking our man have an agenda, are simply out to get him and are opposed to what we stand for. Questions and concerns are deflected by pointing out the perceived agenda and evil motives of the critics. The substance of the concerns as well as the substantiating evidence are often never acknowledged at all.
2. Our man has apologized, so shut up already. The other side notes that the apology was vague and insufficient.
Thus these two camps or movements, which have been sparring with each other in the blogosphere for several years, pretty much operate in the same way when one of their own is being criticized. There is no doubt that at times such criticism is indeed agenda driven, but that doesn’t necessarily render it completely invalid.
Several years ago I heard an old preacher warn against being carried away by movements after having seen their effect on his ministry and that of others. His main concern was that too often a ministry will ride a hobby horse and will focus on one narrow spectrum of truth to the exclusion of the whole counsel of God. A related problem that we see in this case is that when a leader that is greatly admired by a particular group and is considered to be integral to (if not the embodiment of) the movement is accused of some wrongdoing, there is the tendency to react as I have enumerated above.
Yesterday Mark (hereiblog) posted the Vindication of popular ministers. I commend the entire post to your reading, but I wish to quote some relevant excerpts here:
It seems we all must be careful in defending someone for their namesake instead of for Christ’s namesake. Men fall. This can be read all throughout the Bible. It can be seen through the past and in the present. When we defend our favorite preachers without question we may be doing them more harm than good if they are in unrepentant sin.
It can be difficult to objectively address the sin of people we respect or have some sort of relationship with. In the same manner it can be difficult to objectively address our own sin. We find excuses to let our own sin go such as pointing to someone else’s sin or even actions we don’t like. Someone may even sinfully point out our own sin, yet that does not give us a right to ignore personal repentance. Just as one popular minister does not get a pass on sin because another popular (or even unpopular) minister points it out in a manner some find unkind. In other words, one sin does not excuse another regardless of who you are.
Of course, the greater the popularity the greater responsibility. The more someone promotes and markets themselves the more scrutiny they will come under. When someone seeks attention and is successful they will surely get both positive and negative reactions. People often get back a bit of what they dish out too.