Here are two thoughtful entries on the debate.
First, Phil Johnson. He writes:
Here are some observations about John Piper, Rick Warren, the critics, and the biblical duty of separation—separation both from false teachers (Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 16:22; Galatians 1:8-9; 2 John 7-11), and from deliberately, incorrigibly disobedient brethren (2 Thessalonians 3:14-15; 1 Corinthians 5:11).
Second, Trevin Wax. His main points are:
- Willingness to learn from people you disagree with is not a sign that you’re waffling on your firm convictions. It’s a sign that you’re steadfast.
- You can disagree with Piper’s choice and yet still love Piper.
- When you use the word “heretic” to refer to anyone who disagrees with you, you don’t have a good word to use to refer to someone who actually fits the bill.
- Trajectories go both ways.
- Renewal of evangelicalism will not take place without bridge-building.
- No matter what we think of Piper’s choice, we could all use a good dose of humility.
Though this is not the main point of either post, two things in particular stood out: (1) Phil going after the undiscerning watchbloggers who exhibit unbiblical meanspiritedness; (2) Trevin examining his own heart and warning the Piper defenders not to begin thinking, Thank God I’m not like those grumpy legalists!