Chris's Clarification

I haven't heard anything back from Chris since I wrote him five days ago, so I'm going to assume he's standing by his original rejection of my offer.  As a result, I'm going to post what he'd written to me after I asked for details on what parts of his position I'd misrepresented, plus my response to it, and unless I hear something more, I'll move on; I have other things to write about as time permits.

I've emailed this to Chris as well.



Here is the content of Chris's response to my email:

Here my position.

1. I haven't claimed that Ingrid said Michael Horton is a heretic.

2. My issues with her is that she is 'warning' the church about him because she's taken it upon herself to deem him to be a Bridger. And the ONLY evidence cited to prove he's a Bridger is an out of context photo of Warren and Horton that when put back into context it becomes clear that Horton wasn't endorsing or giving credibility to Warren but was instead taking Warren's ideas and methologies to task AT SADDLEBACK.

3. The category known as "Bridger" is not a Biblical category or Biblical doctrine but is the product of Ingrid's mind. It isn't even synonymous with the historic definition of Secondary Separation but is a new category unto itself because it is nothing more that the logical fallacy of "guilt by association" with a new name slapped on it.

4. The result of Ingrid deeming Horton a Bridger is that a true defender and proclaimer of the Biblical Gospel and outspoken critic of the Purpose-Driven movement has been irresponsibly treated as if he is a potential enemy of the faith and unwitting dupe of Satan and Rick Warren. This is a position that turns our allies into enemies and our friends into agents of the devil.

Hope that helps.

Chris, here is what I claimed you said:

Chris characterizes Ingrid's argument as a clear statement that Mike Horton has compromised to the point of making the word Reformed meaningless and says her only supplied evidence is a photo of Horton with Dr. Warren, with a claim that "a picture says it all." Chris argues that Dr. Horton is orthodox and completely unwilling to compromise the gospel and that he gave a strong witness at Saddleback, including a critique of the roots of the seeker-sensitivity Dr. Warren promotes.

Chris claims that since his defense of Horton refutes Ingrid's claim and since her own argumentation is so flawed, she's essentially lied about the man (repeatedly, since there have been follow-up postings) and needs to repent and basically get out of the discernment business due to incompetence (my paraphrase).

I don't see how anything I said is contradicted by your statements, so I don't appreciate or understand your charge that I misrepresented your position.

I will grant I could have added two points:

1. I believe I implied you didn't make the heretic claim in how I said you characterized Ingrid's argument, but your statement is far more explicit than what I said.
2. I did not include your understanding of the term "bridger" or your reason for rejecting it.

I will update my initial post with a link to this response, for completeness.

Now, I want to respond briefly to those two clarifying points.

First, as I said in my post, your initial radio response to Ingrid stressed Dr. Horton's orthodoxy and clear witness at Saddleback as a refutation of her claims; it seems reasonable to infer you thought she'd said he was unorthodox, at a minimum. Further, in your emails, you demanded Ingrid defend her claim that Horton was "theologically compromised" and "drifting into apostasy," an "enem[y] of the Cross" who had renounced "cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith."

I'll admit I'm not certain of your particular definition of heretic, but a heretic must be a bad man indeed, if you did not believe Ingrid called Dr. Horton one after saying what you claim she did!

Second, you are correct that, as Ingrid defines it, bridger is not synonymous with the doctrine of Secondary Separation. You still have not demonstrated you can articulate what she actually means by the term, however, and since my critique is based on the idea you hold a faulty understanding Ingrid's position, I continue to stand by what I've said.