A Rebuttal of Chip MacGregor’s Opinion

Edited April, 2008. This post and its follow-up continue to get hits nearly two years after the fact. I’ve been tempted to delete the post but decided instead to write an addendum. About six months ago, Chip MacGregor (who is once again an agent, not an editor) wrote a semi-public apology for his use of humor at the expense of others. I say “semi-public” because his fairly long confession was posted to a writers’ email loop, one with guidelines restricting us from passing along posts without permission.

I thought perhaps Chip would post the essence of his apology on his own blog, but he has chosen not to. I respect that. I only mention this here now because I don’t want the portion of this old post about his manner of writing, and especially the comments that follow, to damage anyone’s opinion of him. He has proved to be a normal Christian—one who makes mistakes, repents, and changes. He’s also a knowledgeable professional. As to his view of Scripture, I have no further insights.

– – –

I can only hope I am not committing professional suicide with this post. I mean, writers know how editors talk: Oh, she‘s the one who said an editor was wrong. Publicly, no less. Now when Chip MacGregor was an agent, he was more or less fair game, but as an editor? I know I should be lining up with others to tell him how honest he was in his Novel Journey Interview (July 17, 2006). Honest and truthful.

The fact is, I found Chip’s comments to be opinionated, not honest—unless of course most authors, editors, and agents are in the habit of saying what they do not believe. If that were true, then Chip saying what he actually believes might come across as honest.

I am not in a position to speak for most authors or editors, and I am not now, nor have I been, an agent, so I can only postulate why others found him to be honest.

First, Chip is a master propagandist, couching his opinions in either-or statements. Either you agree with his line of thinking or with the stupid people who don’t know what end is up. That’s enough to give me pause.

Then, too, he says things that are humorous, though sometimes mean and offensive, not something heard often in Christian circles unless a flame war is going, so in a nice interview on a writer’s blog, these statements produce the shock value he undoubtedly hopes to generate.

I will say also, as so often is the case, much of Chip’s opinion seems true. Therefore, I think his statements that are wrong may slid through our cerebral cracks.

Which statements? I’ll focus on the one I found to be egregious:

A couple years ago I was invited to become a Visiting Member of the Senior Commons Room of Regents Park College at Oxford University, where I hung out with VERY smart people. Even though I was raised Presbyterian, my theology tends toward grace, so I get to do things like use the words “damn” and “hell” and drink a fair bit of Guinness without feeling terribly guilty about it all. My ministries have included teaching English to new immigrants, serving as an executive pastor at a couple churches, volunteering at an AIDS hospice and a soup kitchen, and teaching church history to pastors in former communist countries. I think most evangelicals are more concerned with doctrinal correctness than life in the Spirit, worship Scripture more than they do God, and are more concerned with appearances than matters of the heart, so they’ve become exclusive and rigid. If Christ came back, He’d be hanging out with gays and homeless people, not with the blue-denim-jumper-with-hair-in-a-bun set. But what do I know?]

I could comment on his inference that VERY smart people say words like “damn” and “hell” and drink Guinness, or that this only made him feel somewhat guilty, not terribly guilty. I could comment on the offense I feel for the most godly woman I know who happens to wear her hair in a bun, but those things are connected to Chip’s opinion, and wouldn’t technically qualify as “wrong.” Neither are they egregious.

The wrong part is the implication that belief in the Bible (what he calls “worship”) can somehow supercede worship of Jesus. Any evangelical Christian who is Bible-believing, who holds to the propositions, the teaching, the historical examples written in the pages of Scripture, knows that NOTHING and NO ONE can take first place except the triune God. At the same time, it is Scripture that reveals Him to us.

Therefore, the Bible must be clung to as a lifeline, for that is precisely what it is. From Romans 10:

How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? … So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

From the context of Chip’s use of “grace,” I surmise he is contrasting his views with a legalistic approach that believes the letter of the law.

Setting aside the fact that Jesus believed in the letter of the law (Matthew 5:18—”For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished”), I wonder that Chip has not learned there is another option—not a disregard for Biblical standards nor legalistic obedience because of duty or to avoid guilty feelings.

This would be obedience because of love. Love for God that makes a person want to please Him above all else, even above thirst for another Guinness.