In Phil Johnson: Thoughts on Effeminate Evangelicalism over at Slice of Laodicea Sam Guzman, also a contributor here at CRN, quotes from a Johnson article at Pyromaniacs called Some More Thoughts on Effeminate Evangelicalism, which is itself a follow up to Johnson’s Manly Men post. 

Apparently it hit too close to home for Rick Warren apologist Richard Abanes who last night commented upon “watchblogger” Phil Johnson’s “deep-seated pathology”:

I’m sorry to say this, but I think we have a deep-seated pathology going on in some of these watch-bloggers….given what seems to be an incessant (dare I say, obsessive) referencing in their posts to sex, sexuality, nudity, lust, homosexuality, effeminate behavior, charges of being sissies, homo-phobic-like rhetoric, etc.

“Methinks thou dost protest too much.”

RAbanes
P.S. Johnson’s article, predictably, is now being referenced by Sam Guzman over at SOL.

Well, it seems that Richard Abanes wasn’t finished with his attack upon Phil Johnson as today he says:

Okay, here comes my Sunday morning rant regarding Johnson sexist hit piece. I read it again this morning, much to my regret….and I noticed a few more things.

First, if we are to listen to Johnson’s take on what a real manly man is like, then it seems a plethora of biblical figures are rather effeminate based on some descriptions we have…

Johnson’s whole article is thick with archaic, sexist, narrow-minded, Western-influenced, culturally-based, and decidedly unbiblical images/stereotypes of what is (and what is not) masculine — then he links that to subjective ideas about the proper and appropriate way to deliver the Gospel or a Bible-centered message from the pulpit.

It’s tragic and pathetic that his kind of thinking is still alive and well not just in America, but in the church…

Apparently there’s a marked difference between the man-centered effete evangelicalism as represented by Richard Abanes and the Biblical preaching of men like Phil Johnson.