Phil Johnson AKA Hugh Jass
With great saddness we are told that not only has Phil Johnson deleted Schleuterized his Hugh Jass website, but it seems he has removed it from the internet archives as well. Many will miss Phil Johnson’s Hugh Jass and the whole Hugh Jass family he created… forever gone will be “Omar Gosh” and “Mick Stup”.
We will miss Hugh Jass’s attack against those fighting fundees…
But thank God Phil is not one of them! And now fights against foul mouth people like Mark Driscoll…
I am sure some really will miss Phil Johnson acting as a Hugh Jass
Long live Martin Luther!
I. Todyaso
DJ
donjobson
itodyaso
seymorespurgeon
truthslayer
Will Farel XV
itodyaso.wordpress.com 
I believe the verb that you are looking for here is “schlueter”, which means to delete something (particularly if you created it, and now it embarrasses you) as if it never existed.
I coined the term, but you’re welcome to it.
LikeLike
Maybe he felt it was inappropriate in light of his sermon at the SC. People repent – it’s not always covering tracks…
LikeLike
Douglas, Are you claiming that Phil Johnson is not trying to cover up his Hugh Jass? Personally I would be embarrassed to have a Hugh Jass in my past… I would most definitely do all I could to cover my Hugh Jass… wouldn’t you?
But I sometimes wonder… Is it a sin to have a Hugh Jass? If one does have a Hugh Jass, would God forgive them of that?
If Phil has repented of his Hugh Jass, then really that is a good thing. Yet, if all he is doing is trying to keep it quiet and hide his Hugh Jass, then is he making a Hugh Jass out of all of us?
I do not hold Phil’s Hugh Jass against him, but I do think that Phil needs to come clean about his Hugh Jass and confess that he was a Hugh Jass.
LikeLike
No, I’m saying maybe, just maybe, he thought “This is hardly appropriate and in fact it makes me a hypocrite so I will cut it out once and for all.” Seems to me as though Johnson is obligated to repent publicly and for what reason? Does it really require a song and dance with Web fanfares playing (preferably in MIDI)? He hardly sinned as to require open confession – just demonstrated that weird things which most people suffer from, known as “bad taste”. To be honest, I’m just trying not to pull out “Johnson is evil” from the list of options.
To err is human, esp. when you’re on the Web.
LikeLike
Funny, he didn’t declare to be just “bad taste” when he pointed it out in others.
But forget what I have to say about it. Let’s here from Jesus (emphasis mine):
And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? HYPOCRITE! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
LikeLike
Maybe this is him “removing the plank”. Y’all seem bent on painting him out to be some fundamentalist hypocrite. Rather loving and thinking the best of him, huh?
LikeLike
Douglas,
Here is the thing and I will be as serious as I can, considering this is a parody/satire site.
Phil may have felt bad for his past and “repented”… yet, does removing the plank from your own eye make it right to attack another man’s servant?
Who is Phil to judge Mark about language… Phil hides behind a veil of “nice and approved” language, yet if you really read him… does not seem to really care about the facts.
Is Mark controversial? No one will say he isn’t… yet, Phil states Mark is STILL foul mouthed and seems to not extend the Grace he expects for himself to Mark. Have you ever slipped up and said something that you regretted? Mark is accused of using foul language in his sermons… have you listened to any to prove this is true and factual?
Now, Mark has stated some things about Song of Songs… and really I have heard other teachers state much the same things. Maybe he goes too far… maybe not…
Phil on the other hand as I and many others have interacted with him sees that mischaracterizing others is the same as defending the Truth… it is not… This site only exists to show that some see they are more worthy of God’s grace than others… it is a warning to others that sometimes the way we defend truth is not truthful or right.
Now there is a fundamental issue in the Truth War that Phil is fighting that is wrong. We are not to be out defending Truth… Truth is the Person of Jesus Christ… and Truth is there to defend us. To state one is defending truth, means that God is too weak to defend Himself and Truth is too fragile to be trusted to defend us.
I personally see Phil as a hypocrite and quite frankly often not honest in how he characterizes others. He paints a picture that he is the standard and other he attacks do not hold to his standard… really he is holding his standard out instead of God’s which we all fail in.
We are all sinners saved by Grace through faith. Yet, this does not seem enough to Phil as he takes other to task…
We are not judging him for having a past… it is that though he has a past, he still sees fit to cast stones at others.
It is like this… A woman is brought to Jesus who was caught in adultery… Jesus states, “He without sin casts the first stone.” Phil was the guy that was with the woman, but instead of walking away… or admitting his own sin… he picks a stone up and throws it at the woman. So, instead of forgiveness and looking at his own sin… he tries to still get the focus on others.
Do I see his former website or alias as a sin? Personally no… Yet, if Phil’s standard is that Mark is wrong for being crude… then Phil needs to remember that one time he was also. And instead of attacking Mark… try to gently restore him as the bible states.
Here we are just having fun with the insanity that is out there in the ODM world… we only hope to poke fun at the stupidity of the things that happen.
Again, we are not condemning Phil… Phil condemns himself.
Our hope is that these people that are out attacking others will come to understand what they are doing and we pray they will stop and love forgive and extend mercy and grace to others.
We have hope for the best for those that see themselves more worthy of God’s grace than those they attack.
iggy
LikeLike
Douglas,
I will add a couple of more thoughts.
1. What gives Phil the right to rebuke Mark if they are not even in the same denomination or church?
2. Why do you think Phil is right in dragging this all out in public instead of just doing it quietly and gently in private?
Even if Mark does not respond as Phil desires, Phil does not have any right to drag this out into the public arena. Mark’s church should have the say as to if Mark is out of line or not. Phil has overstepped his boundaries in that he has no authority over Mark or Mark’s church. Meaning… that Phil should mind his own business and not stick his nose into Marks business.
What is truly sad is that Phil deemed himself an authority over Mark… who gave him that privilege. If you are a pastor… do I have the right to attack you in public over something as trivial as this? If I heard you swear somewhere I may send you an email or call with my concerns, but why would I want to do a sermon or publish articles on how crude and perverted you are?
Now if Mark is sleeping with another woman than his wife… or is gay… or is stealing money… or is whatever that is one thing… yet, again, Mark’s congregation should have the say in whether Mark is out of line or not.
Again…Phil cast accusations without actual facts to back them up… he has Donald Miller’s book, a few things that Mark stated early on and said he was sorry for… and a couple of slip ups after that… but as far as Phil is stating, Mark cusses, makes sex jokes and does other crude things in every sermon… where is the proof of this…
I challenge you do go to Marks podcast and download a bunch of random sermons (not just the ones on sex) and check out the facts for yourself. I am sure you will be surprised Mark is not as bad as all the press makes him out to be. In fact I think that you will find that most of the time Mark does not talk about sex or is crude.
iggy
LikeLike
I take your points on board, and trust me, I am not trying to defend Johnson on this. I am listening to Driscoll’s series on 1-2 Peter and am loving it! I loved his series on Religion Saves and Nine Other Myths. Even went to hear Driscoll when he was in London last May. Personally, I think Driscoll is a great guy for the audience to which he speaks, much like Johnson or MacArthur are to theirs. Mind you, I didn’t care much for the Peasant Princess series beyond the first sermon. Just not what I need to be listening to as an 18-year-old guy battling with lust and emotional issues…
That said, I agree – Johnson needs to come up to date with Driscoll (I get the feeling he doesn’t care to, which as a bright guy, is to his discredit) That said, I don’t see why we should throw Johnson under the bus in place of Driscoll…when we can throw facts and not people under the bus. Maybe it’s my idealistic leanings showing, but if Johnson is sinning against Driscoll, which I happen to believe he is by misrepresenting him, don’t we need to lovingly call our brother to a higher standard rather than parodying him? It’s not as though he is virulently out to attack the Christian faith – he’s simply “zealous but without knowledge” when it comes to contextualization (which I am completely for, as a kid living in a urban area of London), to Driscoll (who, despite occasional disagreements with, I am for) and generally with everything which isn’t American Reformed.
LikeLike
Douglas,
I really like your spirit… I do… and to a point I agree… but I see that this site helps qualm the anger that is out there. Also, no one is throwing Phil under the bus… Phil is throwing himself under the bus and we are just poking fun at the ludicrous and stupidity of it all. We poke fun at everyone and have even taken shots at Mark Driscoll ourselves… and it is all in fun, though some see it not so… Like Ken Silva who seems to miss this is parody. We hope to just show that this whole “Truth War” is stupid and in a way… is a war on Truth itself by those who declared it…
iggy
LikeLike
(Sorry to stink up the joint with so much seriousness, iggy. Not so sorry that I won’t continue it in this thread, though. I’ll throw in a pun to help lighten it up.) 😉
Douglas, first of all, let me echo iggy’s sentiment about liking your spirit.
When I first read about PJ’s Hugh Jass, I thought that — given the context in which others raised the issue — he lost it after the Shepherd’s Conference. In hindsight (pun very much intended), perhaps that was not so. But if he had it for even one day after the first time (of many, many times) that he criticized Driscoll for violating the standard that he was violating, then he was being disobedient to the Scripture I quoted. The first word after my highlighted word is “first”.
But let’s assume the best and assume that PJ lost his Hugh Jass before he ever said anything about Driscoll. While it may not have been sinful, I think it was certainly wrong to cover up his past violations of that standard. David committed adultery with a married woman, knocked her up, and had her husband whacked to try to cover up the whole mess. And he didn’t ever have to go public — all he had to do was silence Nathan and a few of Bathsheba’s friends and family. It would’ve been quite easy for a king.
But he went public with it, and not merely that. John Piper observed about Psalm 51:13:
David is not content to be forgiven. He’s not content to be clean. He’s not content to be elect. He’s not content to have a right spirit. He’s not content to be happy by himself. He will not be content until his brokenness heals others.
How utterly stunning would it have been if PJ had started his sermon, not with a critique of Driscoll, but with an admission of his own past? Not to just help himself feel better, or to do some kind of Fail Safe move, but in a genuine desire to have his brokenness bring healing to others. Instead he chose to cover up his past and then even cover up the covering up when someone called him on it. Kinda like sending Nathan on an extended vacation.
LikeLike
your post is confusing for several reasons:
the page is still there the internet archive and was there when you wrote this. did you look it up?
the dates in the archive prove that the page was erased from the actual site sometime between june 09 2004 and nov 02 2006, not recently like some commenters here have said.
the pictures on the page make clear that character’s name referred to a donkey rather than what your post implies.
are you absolutely certain you know who made that page, and do you have proof?
LikeLike
Mark,
Yes I did check the archive and numerous people have in fact I had to go to it to link to it… so what a silly person you are for saying such a thing… and it was gone. Now new events are happening… Phil Johnson seems to be revealing his Hugh Jass once again! What a glorious day it is that Phil can share with all his Hugh Jass! I have personally never been so excited about Phil Johnson’s Hugh Jass as I am now.
Also thanks for pointing out that most of the pages have been erased. And yes, between 2004 and 2006 which is after Mark Driscoll was declared the cussing pastor… so it seems that Phil was using crude and inappropriate humor about the same time that he is attacking Mark for doing his! We of course do not like crude humor unless it is from one of our own who get a free ticket to be as crude,lewd and worldly as can be, yet Mark Driscoll was part of the emerging church so we cannot ever forgive him for that.
We will soon be doing another article on Phil Johnson and the return of his Hugh Jass and most of his Hugh Jass family!
I. Todyaso
LikeLike
[…] Discernmentalist math skills […]
LikeLike
[…] truth of graceless Discernment ministries like Phil’s mighty Pyromaniacs. We hope we never lose our Hugh Jass or his. All Discernmentalists are required to expose their Hugh Jass. In fact we must humbly thank this […]
LikeLike