Thread by @DrAaronNew

I have been a vocal critic of how Heath Lambert conducts himself, primarily in the counseling world, but periodically in the SBC world. Both of those are of interest and important to me.

I’m not interested in offering a criticism of everything Heath says or does. But he published an article today that is a prime example of his modus operandi when he speaks of people he disagrees with.

I thought it might be helpful to see this m.o. at work in a context outside of counseling. Take a look at this article: fbcjax.com/first-thoughts…

It appears Heath cannot even fathom the possibility of someone arriving at an egalitarian position in a good-faith effort of being true to Scripture and trying to follow Jesus well. It appears he cannot give anyone the benefit of any doubt at all.

For the record, I think I’m probably a soft complementarian. Here’s where I stand today – I think women should be deacons and ministers and are likely excluded only from the role of lead or senior pastor.

Could I be mistaken in either direction? Of course. Is it an important issue? Of course. And I continue to think, study, and pray about it. But I don’t think it is a first-tier issue and I’m not willing to break fellowship over it.

For as much as Heath wants to insist that he opposes reckless and irresponsible arguments, I think he does it all the time. For as much as he insists that we must avoid misrepresentation and mischaracterization, I think he does it all the time. From a different article of his:

He certainly does it – over and over and over – in this most recent article. He doesn’t seem capable of fighting fairly. See these excerpts:

This feels unfair because it assumes or implies those he disagrees with don’t really want to be faithful to Scripture like he does.

Why change from “frustrated” to “exasperated?” This feels unfair because it implies those he disagrees with consider Scripture only “ancient notions” from just “a text written thousands of years ago.”

“There is no honest way to read Scripture…” He is unfairly calling those he disagrees with "dishonest."
They are not just interpreting Scripture *differently,* they are *dishonest.*

It is patently unfair to make this claim. There *are* people who are egalitarian precisely because they genuinely want to be faithful to Scripture.

Again, he falsely and unfairly implies that all egalitarians are “opposing faithfulness to God’s word.” He cannot fathom an egalitarian perspective to be someone’s legitimate attempt at faithfulness.

Just categorically false. Wow.

Again. Categorically false. Wow.

He just cannot tone down his rhetoric.
He cannot have a good-faith argument or fight fair.
He cannot assume the best of others who disagree with him.
And I cannot – for now – just let it go.

I'll say it again. I think this is how to build and maintain an empire, if that's your goal.

But this is not the way to treat your brothers and sisters in Christ. /end

@threadreaderapp unroll