*Update2* Inigo Montoya and Fighting For The Faith

(Update2: I was asked to reconcile my representation of Ingrid's comments with her recent statements to people that she never said Dr. Horton was a bridger.  I spoke with Ingrid last night; I'm working on my clarification now and hope to have it up by noon CST 3 Mar 2011. I'll add a link here when I publish.)


(Edit2: Ingrid's taken her site down, so the link I used is dead.  Here is a repost of the original material.  Bear in mind that it does not contain the updates and comments that were part of my analysis.  I have a later cache which contains those, but I'm not planning at this time to put it up.  If someone wants it for reference, let me know.)


(Update: I got some feedback from Chris on this post, so I wanted to add a bit, so that I'm as clear as possible. It's at the end.)

(Edit: I've decided to split this post into two, in order to allow each one to have a clearer focus. The same content from the original post will be available, just organized differently, with some minor tweaking for flow and clarity. This first post is about my more pressing concern: Chris's behavior.  I had prepared the second part, which contained my own thoughts about Ingrid's post, for publication a week after this post came out.  Since then, much has happened, and I've decided against publishing.  My reasons are here.)

A few weeks ago I reluctantly sent Chris Rosebrough a note letting him know that things had gotten to the point where I couldn't give my implicit consent to his behavior by continuing to interact with him. I intended to leave things at that, praying that he'd see what he was doing, repent, and hopefully return to being a resource I could point people to in good conscience.

But yesterday I heard that Chris was going to take Ingrid Schleuter to task in a "Misadventures in Dubious Discernment" segment for a blog post she'd made. A post on his blog made the direction of his critique pretty clear, and his show that evening followed through in the same vein.

I'll summarize the positions, but I'd suggest you read both posts and listen to the first half hour of Chris's podcast once it's posted. Pay special attention to determining the context each speaker establishes and understanding their arguments.

What Ingrid said

Ingrid's main assertion is that Reformed Christianity, like evangelicalism before it, has been infiltrated by the problems/heresies of the seeker-sensitive teachers like Rick Warren. She provided three supports:

1. Steve Camp's turnaround regarding Dr. Warren's orthodoxy
2. Dr. Piper's embracing of Warren (this is in the updated post at least; I didn't see the original)
3. Dr. Horton's friendliness with Warren and appearing at discussion events at Saddleback

She also claims there seems to be a political motivation to tolerate false teaching with Reformed scholarship rather than expose it.

(In the comment thread for the post, Ingrid clarifies that she isn't claiming Horton has been seduced away from orthodoxy by Warren et al, but that she sees Horton being used by these folks as a bridger, to give Reformed credibility to their false teaching. That's how she defines a bridger: someone who is theologically orthodox but is being used, perhaps unknowingly, to advance heretical concepts to the Body. By the way, her comments were made early yesterday morning, so they were available to anyone seeking to be fair in understanding her statements.)

What Chris 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).

Discernment: I do not think it means what Chris thinks it means

You keep using that word...

Chris didn't articulate or respond to Ingrid's actual position, so I must doubt whether he understands it. That's a pattern I've seen each time he's gone after her "discernment" in the past few months; he misstates her position, then lays waste to the straw man he's constructed. This is especially troubling since the substance of his critique is that Ingrid is using poor argumentation and faulty logic. That's the pot pointing at a salt shaker, claiming it's a kettle, and then calling it black.

The question was never whether Dr. Horton is orthodox, so Chris's defenses of him in that regard are meaningless. Ingrid's concern was how Horton's attendance and generally friendly statements about Dr. Warren could confuse those who aren't well-informed, and how that confusion could be used by those who are not orthodox to inject their ideas into the Reformed arena (something Chris agrees is being attempted). Ingrid didn't claim Dr. Horton compromised the gospel at Saddleback; she only says that his presence there spoke louder than anything he actually said and gave a different message.

Chris's harping on the idea that a "picture says it all" is also misguided, though more subtly. Chris is correct that context is important when interpreting a photograph. But since he hasn't correctly stated what Ingrid's reason was for using the picture as evidence, his refutation is flawed. Even if I granted that she stated her position using sensational language (which I don't grant), that wouldn't disqualify her point or support Chris's mis-characterization of it. Chris, of all people, should be willing to grant a lot of slack in the use of hyperbolic language to state a case.

The problem of Chris's behavior

There's being wrong, and there's acting wrongly.

I've detailed why I don't think Chris has made a useful or valid critique, but what I've found a lot more troubling is how he's chosen to speak to and about Ingrid as he's made it. There is no justification for the lack of respect and grace he's been demonstrating.

I've seen the emails that he has been sending to Ingrid, and their tone is inexcusably rude. His public statements, while faulty, have generally avoided as churlish a tone, but in private he's taking the pirate metaphor an ocean too far; the best construction I could put on it is "bullying." I'd encourage anyone seeking to make an informed judgement on the whole of this matter to ask for these documents, if they aren't soon made public by one of the parties.

Why write anything?

I don't imagine what I've said will make an impact on Mr. Rosebrough; this post is more about defending a wronged sister than about calling Chris to account. I've already spoken to him and let him know my opinion.  In the past, he's mentioned having men to whom he's accountable, and I pray they are able to do their work in this, and that he will listen to them.

I really don't understand Chris's actions the past few months. He's a bright guy with more training than I have; I'm baffled as to why he's begun to do this. The man has many gifts and I personally owe him a debt for many of the things he's taught or broadcast. I've tried to keep my emotions in check and my criticisms substantive. Whatever happens, I'll continue to pray for him.

---

Update

In an early draft of this post, I stated that Ingrid's original post on its own was somewhat unclear, and I felt one could reasonably interpret it to claim that Dr. Horton's actions were equivalent to Steve Camp's, i.e. that Dr. Horton had endorsed the orthodoxy of Warren. Somehow that got stripped out at some point. I wouldn't say that's the only decent interpretation, based on the post's comments, but I would defend it as reasonable based on the original post alone.

In the past, I've written to Chris saying that if a person's public statements are unclear (or clear, but do not reflect the actual intent of the speaker), that one cannot be faulted for making reasonable inferences based upon those statements.

I stand by that statement.  But I also stand by my characterization of Ingrid's blog post and my analysis of Chris's argument as off-topic. I'll admit that may seem inconsistent, so I'll try to clarify.

I realize that Chris stated this week on his show that he doesn't think comments are a part of the context of a post, but I disagree; they are just as public, so if the post's author comments, his or her words should be considered. I used some of the comments on Ingrid's post to allow me to better understand her position. Since Ingrid's comments were available well before Chris's initial show addressing the blog post, his interpretation of her words, even if it had been initially valid, ceased to be relevant because the context had changed and Chris had time to know it before his broadcast. I stand by my critique that his argument didn't speak to Ingrid's real argument.

I also stand by my condemnation of the way that Chris has been speaking to Ingrid, and I want to be crystal-clear about it. Let's grant for the sake of argument that Chris's initial interpretation was not only justified, it was correct.  Let's imagine that Ingrid actually meant to say that Mike Horton had embraced heresy. I would still insist the language he used, even in his initial email before Ingrid's clarifying comments, was beyond the pale, and not worthy of a civilized pagan, let alone a Christian claiming moral high ground in calling another Christian to accountability. He was way out of line, and frankly, someone with more of his ear than I have should be telling him so.