“I did try to found a little heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy.” -GK Chesterton
The Pencil Nebula- Pic of the Day-NASA
On most days, to fulfill our commitment to bringing our readers a birds eye look at developing stories and trends within the faith, I visit a wide variety of news services, websites and blogs. Today I found this item on The Gospel Coalition homepage.The ‘Unbelievable’ Influence of the UnOrthodox by Sarah Flashing of the Center for Women of Faith in Culture link.
What particularly caught my eye was the impressive sounding title "Center for Women of Faith in Culture." Now, how did I overlook such a prestigious sounding organization? I think it is imperative that we understand the underlying core beliefs of any organization which claims to be an institute or center since, of course, that means it is very, very important. Because this center’s post was featured on The Gospel Coalition’s site, one can be assured that this center has a specific belief on gender roles.
The stated goal of this center is "to contribute to the spiritual growth of women through biblical, theological, and worldview education, bringing God’s Word to bear on all areas of life.” Not surprisingly, the following statement appears.
“We desire not to compromise a core belief, that the leadership roles of Senior Pastor and Elder are an office of the church to which only men may serve. Therefore we must be aware that anything written about women will have, as its underlying premise, a restriction of women’s roles in the church.”
I am not entirely sure who the “we” is in this institution since it seems to be run by one woman, Sarah Flashing. This "center" is a one woman operation.
So as not to be outdone, I quickly acted and am proud to say that TWW announces it’s new name, The Wartburg Institute for the Advancement of Gospel Perspectives in the Developing Global Community.
We certainly do not want our readers to feel that they are reading a less prestigious blog and so, just like the SBC, we will have two names. You may continue to call us The Wartburg Watch, known for its warm, light-hearted community or you can impress your friends with our obviously prestigious new name.
All joking aside, however, there is an agenda to this post that is important. Recently, Jared Wilson, a certified blogger of TGC, was at the center of controversy in which he reprinted a patently ridiculous comment by Doug Wilson that blew up into a major controversy. You can read about it here.
Rachel Held Evans covered the controversy which eventually led to a retraction by Jared Wilson (Old Doug, however, continues to swing his rhetoric around). This was an extremely embarrassing episode for Jared Wilson and TGC.
At the time, I predicted that The Gospel Coalition would not let Evans continue to influence evangelical discussion that might affect the “dignity” of the obviously dignified leaders of the TGC. I expected that a subtle attack on Evan’s credibility would ensue. I believe that this post by Sarah Flashing is the opening salvo in the "Rachel Held Evans is a heretic" campaign. They have chosen a woman to lead the attack. Until now, I have not heard of Flashing but it is apparent that she is not enamored of Evans. She spills the beans on the thesis of her post by using the word "unorthodox" in the title. I shall prove her wrong. If not, then TGC has some housecleaning to do.
This is how her article begins.
"A couple of days ago, the UK radio show Unbelievable hosted a discussion with Rachel Evans, Owen Strachan and Adrian Warnock on the ever-debated issue of gender roles."
Just in case you think that there is not a TGC agenda in this article, please note what is said at Premier Radio here about the impetus for this radio discussion. You may listen to the entire broadcast at that link as well.
“A controversial blog post by Jared Wilson, quoting pastor Doug Wilson on the role of men and women in sex, recently reignited the debate between complementarians and egalitarians.”
The first paragraph of Flashing's post is dedicated to the virtues of Owen Strachan, a Gospel Coalition member and SBTS/Boyce College professor. Strachan, in a Mark Driscoll moment, recently caused controversy by implying that stay at home dads are losers. We will discuss this on Wednesday. She also tosses some compliments at Warnock. Except for saying that the discussion was “civil,” she does not compliment Evans.
It is obvious that this post is going in the direction of Evans-very bad; TGC men –very good.
I am not planning a defense of all of the opinions held by Rachel Held Evans. Frankly, she can handle criticism far better than a lot of the thin-skinned Calvinistas out there, thank you very much. I do not agree with all of her theological conclusions just as I know that she would not agree with mine. But I respect her. She is an honest, well written woman who discusses her concerns and conflicts in a refreshingly open manner, often saying aloud what many people think but are afraid to express.
One of the greatest concerns that I have with the Calvinistas is that they are cocksure about everything “theological” and don’t get it when the rest of us struggle with “obviously settled” issues such as:
- If election is true, then how does God choose those He elects?
- By not electing some, isn’t He, in essence, sending them to hell?
- Why did such a great theologian like John Stott believe in annihilationism?
- If it wasn’t clear to him, why should it be clear to the rest of us?
- If the Bible is clearly inerrant, then why do we have so many denominations with all sorts of beliefs on secondary (and even some primary )issues?
- Why didn’t God make some of His mandates clearer so we could figure out exactly what He meant if it was so important to Him and us?
- How does God deal with the eternal fate of the isolated farmer in 12th century China?
- How does one define “unorthodox?”
- Who gets to say what is, and is not, orthodox?
- Is someone going to hell if they believe in an “unorthodox” view?
- Which unorthodox view would cause someone to go to hell? (I am referring to issues not covered in the Nicene Creed ).
I have often joked with Deb that I would like to take a recorder to some of the megachurches (Reformed, SBC, whatever) and ask people to define the Trinity as accurately as possible. I believe that “unorthodox “ views would be in the majority. Yet the Trinity is one of those essential issues.
But, let’s get back to the subject at hand. This post by Flashing appears to be an all out assault on Evans that might be perceived to have the goal of marginalizing her. Flashing attempts to define what all “real” Christians believe. Pay close attention to the last item on the list.
- Inerrancy
- The authority of scripture
- Historical-grammatical hermeneutic
- The nature of sin (we are all sinners)
- The gospel (we all need salvation found only in Christ Jesus),
- In most cases, there is general agreement on the literal view of the creation account.
Then, she begins to build case that Evans is not really one of the “orthodox” Christians. Here is Flashings list of her problems.
- Inerrancy is challenged
- The authority of scripture is in question–seen in the elevation of “science “over scripture (theistic evolution eliminates any Pauline creation order, by the way)
- The biblical account of God’s salvific love–exclusivity–is challenged.
Flashing does not expand on, or discuss, the particulars of the inerrancy accusation. However, she declares that theistic evolution is outside of orthodox Christian thinking. Evans appears to believe in theistic evolution (or evolutionary creationism-my preferred term). I trend that way myself. In one fell swoop; she declares Alister McGrath, a TGC favorite, Francis Collins, and your humble blog queen “unorthodox.”
She then declares, disparagingly, that Evans had a “theo-emotional” reaction to a Muslim woman unjustly executed by the hand of Islam. First of all, what in the world is a theo-emotional reaction? Could Flashing be using a patriarchal put down? Is she truly implying that Evans is acting “all emotional-just like a woman?” Sounds like it to me.This silly sounding, made-up word has no place in a logical discussion. I guess I had a theo-emotional reaction to Flashing-I found it irritating and theologically weak and uncalled for.
Flashing quotes Evans from an interview found on You Tube here. Let’s see what has Flashing so upset that she is willing to say that Evans is outside of the “orthodox” faith.
"I realized in that moment that everything I had been taught growing up, uh, assured me that that woman would spend eternity in hell and I just couldn’t accept that. I just couldn’t anymore and at that moment I just started deconstructing and rethinking everything I had been taught growing up about my faith, about heaven and hell, about Christ, and it was a difficult time of doubt, a dark time of doubt for me. But it started a process of evolution that’s made me the Christian I am today, the follower of Christ I am today which is a little less certain about everything but a lot more faith filled.”
It appears to me that Evans is expressing her difficulty in thinking that a Muslim woman, who may not have ever encountered the Gospel, is now in hell. Evans is expressing a doubt that most Christians have felt at one time or another.
Flashing now lays her cards on the table. She claims that Evans’ theological assumptions are
“outside the camp of historical evangelicalism”
and that should disqualify her for all future discussions on gender roles. In other words, no "real" Christian should be talking to her. She appears to asserts that including someone like Evans in the theological discussions might give her credibility among “Believers” (her caps), obviously placing Evans outside of the "Believer's" camp.
Flashing claims,
“We need to properly steward the intellectual/theological life of the church, so caution needs to be implemented in engaging those whose views fall below biblical standards.”
So, lets make sure we get this straight. Evans’ views and struggles on the eternal abode of a Muslim woman who may have never heard the Gospel, coupled with her belief in theistic evolution, place her outside the camp of historical Christianity, if I understand Flashing correctly.
Let's look at the issue of theistic evolution.
It is important to realize that Alister McGrath is well-loved by those in TGC. He is often written about and quoted. Here is a link to a recent article. So, should McGrath also be denied a place at Flashing’s table because he is a theistic evolutionist? Which of the Gospel Coalition people does she recognize as "orthodox?" Seems like she might have a problem.
Now, let's explore if all orthodox Christians really believe that one can only get to heaven by accepting Jesus Christ as Savior.
Here is a post by another Gospel Coalition writer, Collin Hansen, who is also the editorial director of TGC and therefore in a position to know what is, and is not "orthodox" over at TGC.
In a 2011 post, here, he reviewed the thinking surrounding the question “What about those who haven’t heard?”
It appears that there is some diverse thinking amongst well-respected theologians on this issue. He lists a myriad of positions and some of the theologians who adhere to them.
1. Gospel Exclusivism
This defined by John Piper who answered the following question “Are there devout people in religions other than Christianity who humbly rely on the grace of a God whom they know only through nature or non-Christian religious experience?
“The answer of the New Testament is a clear and earnest No.” (Note:However, I might add that Piper believes that babies who die in infancy go to heaven.)
2. Special Revelation Exclusivism
Timothy George believes in a possibility that God might choose to send unbelievers a special revelation in an extraordinary way—by a direct revelation from the Lord, dream, vision, miracle, or angelic message.
3. Agnosticism (as to the fate of the unevangelized)
This view presupposes that we cannot know for certain the answer to this question. Dennis Okholm and Timothy Phillips refer to two forms of this approach: “pessimistic agnosticism” and “optimistic agnosticism.”
JI Packer is a pessimistic agnostic.
“He stresses that the Fall has rendered us unable to respond to God in faith apart from divine grace, but he remains agnostic concerning the remote possibility that God may save this way.”
John Stott exemplifies the “optimistic” version.
“I believe the most Christian stance is to remain agnostic on this question. . . . The fact that God, alongside the most solemn warnings and about our responsibility to respond to the gospel, has not revealed how he will deal with those who have never heard it. . . . [H]owever, I am imbued with hope. I have never been able to conjure up (as some great evangelical missionaries have) the appalling vision of the millions who are not only perishing but will inevitably perish. On the other hand . . . I am not and cannot be a universalist. Between these extremes I cherish the hope that the majority of the human race will be saved.”
Hoo boy, looks like Stott would not have been invited to one of Flashing's dinner parties!
If Flashing’s only two “proofs” that Evans is not deserving of being included within the ranks of historical Christianity are her belief in theistic evolution and the hope that God might save those outside of traditional exclusivism, then she must necessarily exclude some theologians within TGC. So, when is the ax going to fall over there?
I think Flashing's post was ill-conceived and could be viewed as potential payback for upsetting a Gospel Coalition blogger. But here’s the deal for the TGC. They need more than a woman to argue this point. They need someone who is aware of the theological differences within TGC as well.
In the meantime, I noticed that Flashing has an advisory board made up of three women. One of these women runs a party planning service. If she can serve, so can you. We will soon be opening up applications for the Board of Directors (sounds cooler than advisory board) of “The Wartburg Institute for the Advancement of Gospel Perspectives in the Developing Global Community.” Imagine what such an appointment could do for your resume!
Lydia’s Corner: Exodus 28:1-43 Matthew 25:31-26:13 Psalm 31:9-18 Proverbs 8:12-13
What particularly caught my eye was the impressive sounding title “Center for Women of Faith in Culture.” Now, how did I overlook such a prestigious sounding organization?
Sounds suspiciously like a “People’s Democratic Republic of Tyranny”, where the more adjectives about democracy are in a country’s official name, the nastier a dictatorship it is.
(And you hear similar on the political/radio ad disclaimers these days. “Sponsored by Concerned Citizens(TM)” in a clear voice, then a long list of Big Money PACs and Government Bureaucrat Unions, spoken in a whisper at around ten times normal speed.)
First of all, what in the world is a theo-emotional reaction? Could Flashing be using a patriarchal put down? Is she truly implying that Evans is acting “all emotional-just like a woman?” Sounds like it to me.This silly sounding, made-up word has no place in a logical discussion.
Has a doubleplusduckspeak rhythm rather like Marxspeak or Mao-speak.
If Flashing’s only two “proofs” that Evans is not deserving of being included within the ranks of historical Christianity are her belief in theistic evolution and the hope that God might save those outside of traditional exclusivism, then she must necessarily exclude some theologians within TGC. So, when is the ax going to fall over there?
1) Don’t you know the Last Judgment will be entirely on whether you believed Young Earth Creationism or not? Says so in Left Behind: Volume 12!
2) After the Infidels have all been liquidated, start on the Heretics. Just like the Extreme Islamic saying “First the Saturdays, then the Sundays, then the False Fridays”. And Hypercalvinism and Biblical Literalism have about the same level of internal cohesion (in the absence of the Other) as Islam. What do predators eat after they’ve killed off all the prey?
Eagle
I believe that Stott’s agnosticism applies prior to the advent of the Jesus. If one understands the perspective of the OT pointing ahead to the Savior who would come in the NT, the gospel saves all throughout time. The Word was with God in the beginning or prior to the start of what I call our beginning.
One of the greatest concerns that I have with the Calvinistas is that they are cocksure about everything “theological”…
Theological or Ideological?
(Ideological Purity in the Pol Pot sense.)
When theology becomes ideology, that’s when (in my opinion) people have forgotten 1 Cor 13. As Paul says, “knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (paraphrasing from memory – 1 Cor 8?).
Re the fate of those who never had the opportunity (particularly due to circumstances of time and space), there have been a number of opinions on this in the past 2,000 years. I wonder if Acts covers this when Paul says “the times of ignorance God formerly overlooked”?
We see through a glass darkly at times, indeed.
Eagle
Yep, and I believe in a God of of infinite mercy, love and justice. I believe that just as your man in China in 1000 AD (CE) might be saved by some form of intervention by Jesus, so will your man in the area of China in 2000 BC (or BCE). I have an optimistic agnosticism like Stott. The Word was present in the world at the beginning of time.
Dee –
I have never heard of this woman or her organization. Does she blog for TGC as well?
Bridget
She came out of left field. I think someone in TGC was desperately looking for any female to go after Evans. So, she sounded good, especially with her “center for women.”
I like Wartburg/Mahaney Watch; truth in advertising is important to me.
Jimmy –
You are too much! TWW covers much, much more than just Mahaney. It seems like you are asking for more articles on Mahaney?!?! I’m sure Dee and Deb can oblige you in the near future. YOU want Mahaney front and center at all times don’t you? You certainly seem obsessed with the guy. Maybe you ARE related to him . . .
Maybe Sarah Flashing is secretly miffed because Rachel Held Evans is on the cover of Christianity Today October 2012 as one of “50 Women To Watch, Those Most Shaping The Church And Culture”. Women can be so catty like that ya know.
“I have often joked with Deb that I would like to take a recorder to some of the megachurches (Reformed, SBC, whatever) and ask people to define the Trinity as accurately as possible. I believe that ‘unorthodox’ views would be in the majority. Yet the Trinity is one of those essential issues.”
You are exactly right. Theological illiteracy is a huge problem. This is how we can get examples like my friend, who was raised “right” (Christian homeschooled, went to youth group, went to church retreats, etc.) and yet still INSISTED to me that Jesus did not have any of God’s power when He was on earth. Instead He had to pray for that power and it flowed THROUGH Him, not FROM Him. This makes my friend, in simple terms, a heretic because his position necessarily denies that Jesus was fully God. This grieves me immensely but is undeniable based on his own words. And like you, I suspect that there are a lot of people who hold completely aberrant beliefs like this because they simply haven’t been taught. One would expect them, if they are saved and merely uninformed, to be amenable to the correct doctrine when it is presented to them, but when they start to protest and actively fight it – Houston, we may have a problem.
(This, of course, only applies to core Nicene-level doctrinal issues. It does NOT apply to creation/evolution, sacraments, church government, etc.)
“Flashing does not expand on, or discuss, the particulars of the inerrancy accusation.”
Of course she doesn’t. Inerrancy is a notoriously slippery term with a lot more variation behind it than most people want to admit.
“She then declares, disparagingly, that Evans had a ‘theo-emotional’ reaction to a Muslim woman unjustly executed by the hand of Islam.”
We SHOULD be having a “theo-emotional” reaction to the plight of Muslim women. “Emotional” because we should be grieved by miscarriages of justice; and “theo-” because Muslim theology is inherently misogynistic and we should be trumpeting the alternative. Of course, this is merely my deconstruction of this made-up word – it’s hard to analyze a term that doesn’t actually exist. ; )
One last thing – “historical-grammatical hermeneutic” is often used to imply “almost-literalism” (not “wooden literalism” like those crazy KJVers!) as opposed to those evil “allegorical” or “symbolic” hermeneutics. Now literalism has its place, but since most of these people are Reformed, they’re probably also amillenialist or postmillenialist, two positions which require quite allegorical and symbolic readings of Revelation. (Ask any committed Dispensationalist and you will get an hour-long rant confirming this fact.) So if they’re amillenialists, but they’re using “historical-grammatical” to trash “allegorical” hermeneutics, it’s potentially a little misleading. (I say this as someone who leans in the amillenial direction.)
J Terry –
That’s interesting! Jared Wilson, Doug Wilson, nor anyone from TGC has had that
. . . place anytime recently that I recall.
(post comment button error!)
Eagle-
This is where I am at with your question – it’s one I’ve struggled with my whole life, until I saw this – now I struggle less, but I’m still constructing my beliefs….
I am posting Romans 2:14-16 (Amplified) because they are the pertinent part concerning your question, but I encourage reading the whole chapter for context. I was taught that this chapter was directed at the Sinners (TM)….and it is: that is the ‘sinners’ who think they are righteous. It is a warning against those who religiously point fingers and judge others and are blind to that fact that they do exactly what they accuse others of….
“When Gentiles who have not the [divine] Law do instinctively what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, since they do not have the Law. They show that the essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts and are operating there, with which their consciences (sense of right and wrong) also bear witness; and their [moral] decisions (their arguments of reason, their condemning or approving (thoughts) will accuse or perhaps defend and excuse [them] on that day when, as my Gospel proclaims, God by Jesus Christ will judge men in regard to the things which they conceal (their hidden thoughts).”
What I hear in this is that we will each, regardless of what we ‘know’ technically, will be judged according to what is in our heart.
Reading Sarah Flashing’s article, she either is very naive about the diversity of thought amongst Christians, or she believes many (most?) who claim to be Christian aren’t really Christian. Especially on the question of creation and evolution. While I’m guessing that the majority of US Christians hold to a creationist belief (I’m basing that on statistics I saw a while ago, can’t remember the exact percentages, though), I doubt it holds true in lots of other countries, particularly Western countries. I know that here in Australia there’s much less of a science versus religion debate, at least in the bigger denominations.
Lastly, I’m at work so can’t give you the full discussion now (time zone difference – it’s just after 11am Tuesday here), but someone on Facebook about a week ago posted this Dante quote:
“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality.”
He related it to support for gay marriage. This was the same person who a few weeks ago deleted my comment on his status that his namecalling of other Christians is not godly. I took a screenshot of the discussion this time (didn’t post myself because I knew it would be deleted again) because I thought it’d probably soon be relevant to some discussion here.
your friend should become more informed
“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality”, or a variation on that.
This was stated by John F. Kennedy and attributed by him to Dante [2]. However, in the Divine Comedy those who “non furon ribelli né fur fedeli” — neither rebelled against nor were faithful to God — are located directly inside the gate of Hell, a region neither hot nor cold (Inferno, canto 3); the lowest part of Hell, a frigid lake of ice, was for traitors.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations
Google is a miracle
Jimmy,
You’ve got that right! We are definitely watching Mahaney, now more than ever. I attend a Southern Baptist church, and I am concerned about Mahaney’s influence.
Looking forward to writing future posts. 🙂
“A couple of days ago, the UK radio show Unbelievable hosted a discussion with Rachel Evans, Owen Strachan and Adrian Warnock…”
In the past, Warnock positioned himself as a Driscoll apologist. However, ever since Driscoll’s interview with Justin Brierly, Warnock has not said much.
Is she insinuating that it’s wrong and un-spiritual to feel compassion for a person who is unjustly executed and has never had the opportunity to hear Christ?
Is she insinuating that our gospelly response should be cold and uncaring?
Really, people. Think before you open your mouth.
…outside the camp of historical evangelicalism…
Methinks Flashing needs to do some serious reading on church history, ’cause most of the things she professes to believe don’t come from so-called “historical evangelicalism.”
I wonder if she’s using a pen name…
Numo
I expect your application for our Board of Directors in our offices (that sounds good, doesn’t it?) ASAP!
Dee, I think you’re right. The Gospel Coalition, a group of men who spend a lot of time talking about things Jesus never even discussed, went out and recruited a woman to push Rachel Held Evans out of the Evangelical fold.
I’ve said this before, and I am sure I will say this many more times before I draw my last breath, if the guys at TGC are going to lie to me about something for which we have quite a lot of evidence (that’d be evolution), then why should I believe them when they say they have the way to salvation? The answer is clear: I shouldn’t believe in what they have to say.
As for the exclusivity of God’s salvation, I’m going to be bluntly honest: it makes me physically ill. Again, I’ve said this before and I’m sure I’ll say it again, but if there’s a hell, I’d rather go there than worship the despot in charge of sending people there via his inscrutable fiat. I look at Jesus, the guy who was scorned by the Pharisees for eating with prostitutes, tax collectors and other notorious sinners, and I don’t see a guy who is just willy-nilly consigning people to burn for eternity because they don’t believe or act the right way.
As for Muslim misogyny, I’d only note that Christianity has its own set of misogynistic beliefs. I’m not talking about the Calvinista belief that women are unable to serve as pastors or teachers over men. I’m talking about basic stuff like the Trinity–where God is explicitly defined in male human terms. You know, “Father, Son, He, Him, His, Lord.” For example: I’ll be blunt in stating that the description of the Holy Spirit as “the Lord, the Giver of Life,” arrogates to a defined male figure something that had been a female characteristic, since men can’t give birth. (In fact, the whole “born again” thing is a slap at the first birth from women.) I can’t step into a church which recites the creed anymore, because its blunt exclusion of female imagery from the description of God (as well as the complete omission of everything Jesus said in his life) makes me either cry, get angry or both.
Islamic practice can be very harsh on women, but it’s no worse than the fact that women were considered chattel property, unable to make decisions for ourselves, up until the dawn of the 20th century–and the churches certainly haven’t helped in elevating the legal status of women. Some churches would like to drag us back there. That’d be over my dead body.
Hey, I’m already an abbess – who needs more than that, eh? Unless I could somehow be an Apostolic Abbess. 😉
M – I didn’t know it was a misquote, but I think a week later is a bit too late to go back and correct his error.
I’ve tried to read Dante a couple of times, but it was far too dense for me.
Eagle,
Unfortunately (or fortunately…depending on how successful one is), your question really requires a comprehensive and non-contradictory metaphysical answer. If I’m not mistaken,that is what you are looking for. Quoting the NT, which at its core is a defense of the idea that no one goes to the Father except through Christ may be helpful…but ultimately it won’t satisfy.
What I am trying to do–what is the thrust of all my spiritual endeavors currently–is to create metaphysical solutions to many of the oft-cited “paradoxes”, which, as your question really implies are more likely impossible contradictions, and create a stumbling block to so many who have these very legitimate questions.
With all respect to all the posters who responded to you (please, I do not mean to offend) what their explanations really boil down to is: You need to believe in Jesus, but, no, not really…it kind of depends. This basically non-answer will not, I’m guessing, satisfy you (but I could be wrong).
The sooner we as Christians stop being satisfied with these kinds of explanations, the better we will be at answering questions like Eagle’s.
Again…please, I mean no disrespect to anyone here.
“I have often joked with Deb that I would like to take a recorder to some of the megachurches (Reformed, SBC, whatever) and ask people to define the Trinity as accurately as possible. I believe that “unorthodox “ views would be in the majority. Yet the Trinity is one of those essential issues.”
Boy, isn’t that the sad truth. The Church spent the first half-millennium or so of her existence hammering the issue of the Trinity out, but, you know, who cares, because we’ve gotta make sure no one believes in evolution…
I just love TWW. I didn’t think I’d ever see a post on Sarah Flashing and her Center for Women of Faith in Culture. Not one that I like reading, anyway. Thanks. This is great. Made my day.
Argo-
Okay, I won’t be offended. 🙂
I do want to say that I am not settled on the answer. However, the passage I posted seems to point me in a direction that contradicts the fundamentalist black-and-white paradigm I grew up in. Hmmm…. my theology is still under construction, but I think this passage suggests that God’s methods are not as advertised by the Institution….
This Sarah Flashing….
funny, from reading her comments on Rachel’s blog and then this artical she wrote, she waffles between blood boiling and having ice water in her veins. Not a sound invidivual.
This can’t reflect well on The Gospel Coalition.
Oh my goodness this was a GREAT post Dee! Man, you went straight to the jugular and exposed the motivation behind Ms. Flashy’s article! Dang! I admire your spunk! And you totally undressed her arguments against Rachel Evans. Haha good job. What you said is irrefutable! Not so much for Sarah Flashing. Sorry honey pie. She needs to think twice before her easily offended Theo-emo calvinista brothers call upon her to defend them. She’ll end up with mud on her pretty petticoat, but will we see those guys come to her defense? Heck no! They just used her to defend them so as to avoid bring further exposed as misogynists!
Great job on your research and doing the digging. You knew just what to look for and then where to find it! This is the kind of thing I see God’s hand on. He’s definitely “watching” and so are you. Kudos! And sign me up lol!
“…Flashing is the opening salvo in the “Rachel Held Evans is a heretic” campaign. They have chosen a woman to lead the attack…”
So what if Evans is a heretic? The word (heretic) simply means that one dissents from established views and paradigms. If there were no dissent in Christianity, they’d still be buying and selling blacks in slave markets below the Mason Dixon line.
Thanks, Jeanette. You are very kind. And you are DEFINITELY right about the black and white paradigms being not so black and white as we were led to believe. Calvinistas are confident from the pulpit, but I can tell you, as a former 15 year YRR, they have no time for questions from Eagle, or his likes. They are terrified to admit what you just did: it’s one thing to say Christ alone; it’s another to respond to, “Well, then, how do you explain…”. Believe me, they have no interest in deigning to answer such trivial nonsense (from their perspective). They are no help at all in such matters. Their spear of “authority” is their answer.
There are lots of Bible passages which give us reason to believe that God is saving those who did not live in a time or place where they had access to the Good News, as well as those who “rejected” God in this life!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=2gtanuM-V58&NR=1
RE: Jeannette Altes on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 08:51 PM,
I was wondering when somebody would refer to Romans 2:14-16, thanks for doing so. The way I read it, it pretty much defoliates (like agent orange) the doctrines of original sin and total depravity. How can allegedly unregenerate humans in far flung times & places do the things contained in the Law if they only inherit a sin nature?
The only way one can have it both ways is if this and other Pauline passages are spun to support previous suppositions and theses. That way, the teacher can always tell the teachee that it doesn’t mean what you think it means because the whole counsel of God can only mean this, never that, and certainly not the other.
Stuff that one could never get away with in proving say, the law of cosines & its extension into the dot product of two vectors, is now fair game and up for grabs. Augustine, Calvin, & Luther did this with verve and elan.
admitting that there are things that we just don’t know would be very good for our souls, i think…
The issue of those who have never heard the Gospel has become more difficult for me as I’ve aged. When I was younger, I held to more of an optimistic special revelation kind of view. That is, that if a person sought God and truly wanted to know Him, then He would make a way. Basically I just left it at that, assuming that it was the individuals responsibility to seek God and if they chose not to seek Him it was basically their own fault.
As I’ve grown older I realize more and more that it simply is not that simple. I think this issue is one of the issues that can be appealing in Calvinism. Since it’s all planned out, there is no need to try to figure this issue out. God has already decreed who will and will not be saved and it just doesn’t really matter. His decisions are necessarily just and right.
But me being inclined a good bit more to the Armenian side of that debate it’s a little more troubling. From where I sit there are just a whole lot of people over time who would have followed God if they’d have just heard the news. It really struck me the last time I was at the Smithsonian. All those cultures, over all that time. Most of them with no direct knowledge of God as we understand Him, not the OT law, not the NT Messiah. It’s a big pill to swallow.
I tend not to think about it too much. I know universalism was rejected very early on. The scriptures are pretty clear on a good bit of this, though there are some elements that are fuzzy (God hardening the hearts of the Jews that in the end all Israel shall be saved, Those without the law who do the law become a law unto themselves etc), but for the most part the exclusivity of the Gospel (I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the father but by me) is a strong part of the teaching of scripture.
At this point I figure there may well be some loopholes. That God knows when a person is trusting in Him for their salvation, that such a person may not need to know Jesus’ name as we do, but may in their hearts be aware of the concept of God providing for them in spite of them not knowing what to call it. But I would not be able to in a clear conscience preach that such loopholes exist for certain. I do know that any soul that calls on the name of Jesus shall be saved, and so I try to focus on that end of things, and leave proclamations about those that have never heard to people with mouths bigger than their brains or their hearts 🙂
Zeta
Numo –
I guess I’m not the only one that wonders why the boy wonders of TGC feel like they know everything about God and have the theologically correct answer for every concern. Scripture helps us know God, but I don’t believe for a second that everything that can be known of God is explained in a book I can hold in my hand. I’m of the belief that the Almighty Creator can’t be contained in such a way.
Dee and Deb,
Tonight I was in our local coffee shop and the 21 year old working started talking to me about church. He eventually asked me if I had heard of Mark Driscoll and I cackled! I said umm yes I have. He asked me what I thought and I said he was disgusting. The boy agreed and then told me about how awful John Piper’s Desiring God was. He told me that he can’t be a Calvinist because it seems that everyone worships at the Calvinist Preacher’s Altar. So, it seems that every where I go someone tells me that they have huge problems with these men and have a hard time believing that if they don’t embrace Calvinism, they will be in hell. This young man took that message from Piper’s book. He said that he feels like they tell people you have to embrace the five points or you are lost. You know, I think this is why TWW is popular because people don’t have to reveal their identities. It is a scary world out their when you tell a Christian you have some doubts about things.
Well, here’s an irony. I listened to that radio debate between Rachel Evans, Owen Strachan and Adrian Warnock, and one of the guys– not sure whether it was Strachan or Warnock– quoted C.S. Lewis as an authority on why masculine leadership and feminine submission were appropriate in the marriage bed. Lewis was very much a man of his generation when it came to traditional male-female roles– though I believe his late-in-life marriage upended a lot of his prior thinking in this area. But be that as it may, it is an established fact that Lewis was both a theistic evolutionist and a believer in the possiblity of salvation for those in other faiths. We need only look at The Last Battle for the latter position; the former was articulated in The Problem of Pain in the chapter entitled “The Fall of Man.” I quote: “For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself.”
I note also that Flashing seems to define Christianity as “historical evangelicalism,” implying that only this form of Christianity is the real thing. In light of all this, what is she going to do with the fact that Strachan (I think it was he) quotes C.S. Lewis as an expert on Christianity? According to Flashing’s tests, Lewis was not a real Christian at all.
Bridget,
“I guess I’m not the only one that wonders why the boy wonders of TGC feel like they know everything about God and have the theologically correct answer for every concern.”
Methinks arrogance due to shortness in years and maturity if not stature contributes.
One must be very careful proof-texting out of Pauline writings, especially Romans. There is literature that analyzes Romans from a lawyer’s perspective (Paul was the lawyer of first century Christianity!) as if it were a legal brief. In it, Paul seems to set up a straw man argument, shoots it down, sets up a second straw man, and shoots it down, and then gets to the real thing. One must be very careful not to proof-text from one of the straw man arguments!
Robin,
Your encounter with that 21 year old must have been providential. I’m sure you were able to help him. I wonder how many other people in their early twenties have gotten turned off by Driscoll, Piper, Mahaney, Mohler, and the other Calvinistas. I believe we are starting to see the fruit (or lack thereof) of their ministries.
Good posts. I particularly agree with Zeta, Numo and Kristen. As Schaeffer (sorry to keep quoting him!) said, the Bible gives us true truth, but it does not give us exhaustive truth. Or as in Deuteronomy 29 (I think), “the hidden things belong to God”.
Eagle said: “Gospel silverware for the table
Gospel toilet paper for the restroom (John Piper approved of course! )
Gospel oil for your car
Gospel charcoal for that backyard grill
Gospel Twinkies for that snack!
Gospel condoms for…well…. ”
I have seen gospel oil, but it was not car oil. My local Christian bookstore (with Gospel in the name) actually sells “anointing oil.” The price is roundabout 100 times as much, per amount, as the price of plain old sunflower or canola oil. I cannot say that I know everything the Bible say of anointing, but I am sure they don’t prescribe the right oil for it. And last time I was in a charismatic church and heard the preacher mention literal anointing, he said that sunflower oil can do the task.
I’ve heard of Christian toiletries – though not toilet paper – too. According to the woman who sell it, the bath oils, body lotions, etc. of major beauty houses are shaken “to let the chi out.” That, she say, opens you to demonic influences if you use it. So she sells products which are, I presume, also shaken to mix the ingredients, but not to let the chi out.
Gospel condoms? Don’t you know that Gospel sex(TM) is to be procreative?
On a more serious note, I once wrote something on the topic of people who never heard of Jesus. I should perhaps translate it sooner or later (it is in Afrikaans), but the bone of it was this: (test for yourself if this is true, this is the best I can do with my current knowledge.)
Salvation is only through Jesus. (1)
Some people who lived before Jesus, for example Abraham, seems to have been saved.(2) Salvation through Jesus seems to be possible for at least some who never knew him.
Jesus admits conversions in Ninevé, even though they never heard of him. (3)
Jesus say it will go better in the day of judgement with Sodom and Gomorrah (who never knew Him) than with some of his Jewish hearers. (4) (Sodom’s people, unlike those in Ninevé, seem lost. . But God is just, and more merciful on them than on those of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum. (5). This seems to give the impression of degrees of punishment in hell.
It seems the Bible do not call all those who never accepted Jesus lost. Jesus calls those who could choose Him, but had no chance to do so, lost. (7) He calls those who chose Him saved. (8) Biblical clues suggest that God can judge justly on the others too.
(1) Joh. 14:6; Acts 4:12
(2) Rom. 4:22, Luk 16:23;
(3) Matt. 12:41
(4) Matt. 10:15; 11:24
(5) Matt. 11:21-23
(7) Matt. 11:23; Joh. 12:48; 2 Cor. 4:3-4;
(8) Rom 1:16-17; Heb 7:25
@Arce – interesting. I learn so much from hanging out at TWW. I might even go so far as to pick up my bible one day. Keep sharing!
What does it say about any “christian” that will use UN-christian practices to marginlize any one?
Kristen, C.S. Lewis also talks about evolution and the possibility for salvation of those in other faiths right in Mere Christianity. Not that I agree with him on either count, but if Lewis could teach that and still be lauded by evangelicals as a brilliant Christian thinker, TGC folk might want to extend their tent stakes a bit.
By the way, Retha, I love your blog which I get in Google Reader. Maybe I saw your link here?
Outside the camp of historical evangelicalism?
Yes, thankyou. Historical evangelicalism is, to a first approximation, about 60 years old. Though the early evangelicals didn’t invent the doctrine of justification by creed, it would certainly place historical evangelicalism outside the camp of relationship with God.
And the Reformers(TM)? Well, they weren’t all bad. But they got rid of the idea of one church, and divided it into lots of little self-contained churches (laying the foundations for multiple denominations and the consequent fragmented and divided nature of the church in most western cities today). Oh, and they shut out the Holy Spirit for good measure.
People come to know the risen Jesus in many settings and from many backgrounds. (And I mean really know him, not just become persuaded to accept certain facts about him). There are many believers in evangelical and/or Reformed TM settings who have the love of God poured out in their hearts, and it shows. They’re not always strong or gifted leaders, of course, and most of them never become famous, but they don’t care in the slightest. Nevertheless, it’s about time some leaders realised that brandishing the labels “Reformed” or “evangelical” (or even “biblical”) does not in itself qualify them to speak on behalf of the Father.
P.S. Sorry – it turns out that the “sup” html tag isn’t supported on this interface. I’d have typed “Reformed (TM)” if I’d known…
Paul Tripp has a decent article at TGC today that is a corrective to immature, proud pastors: http://thegospelcoalition.org/mobile/article/tgc/4-carnival-mirrors-of-ministry
A quote from the Tripp article I just linked: “That said, it is still tempting to listen too much to your own press. It is tempting to think you have arrived because people treat you as if you’re something special. It is tempting to forget who you really are. Public acclaim is often the seed bed for spiritual pride. The question of pastoral maturity cannot be answered by people who appreciate you but frankly don’t really know you at all.”
I saw this article yesterday, and had a similar reaction to yours.
One thing that really jumped out at me was the author’s insistence on calling her “Rachel Evans,” and not “Rachel Held Evans.” That just strikes me as very (unsurprisingly) disrespectful.
Lori
I have to admit I shortened her name in the title. I get complaints all the time that my titles are too long. It was done out of convenience.
As for flashing, she was disrespectiful to Evans and other women in her post. On her site she claims to be open to egalitarians as being Christians (a bit of hubris there) but proceeds to mock, via patriarchal nonsense-“theo-emotional” Evans. We are emotional beings. In fact Scripture said that Jesus was moved with compassion. Guess he was “theol-emotional” as well. Or better yet, He was Logos-emotional.
“One thing that really jumped out at me was the author’s insistence on calling her “Rachel Evans,” and not “Rachel Held Evans.” That just strikes me as very (unsurprisingly) disrespectful.”
Very disrespectful. Labeling- a first step in de-humanizing. You know, like the label–internet nitpickers.
“It is tempting to think you have arrived because people treat you as if you’re something special. It is tempting to forget who you really are. Public acclaim is often the seed bed for spiritual pride.”
It doesn’t help when Mark Dever gushes on in the below video about Matt Chandler’s church (size/rapid growth) and about how it truly is blessed of God, an “Acts” kind of church, bigger than Pentecost, with marriages healed and addictions broken…who wouldn’t want to join after listening to that praise from one of the higher-ups? (Poor Kevin DeYoung received no such praise from Dever.) God is blessing Matt in a “unique way”, according to Dever…like no one else. Dangerous praise.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/09/27/does-church-size-matter/
“According to Flashing’s tests, Lewis was not a real Christian at all.”
Exactly Kristen. But we are not supposed to care about that kind of minor inconsistency because he is CS Lewis…and cutting edge to quote, and Piper, Keller and the Wilsons all admire him. That is enough for us.
Southwestern Discomfort
I can ceratinly understand your discomfort with the all male imagery from Scripture. I believe that it is the Fall that has distorted our understanding of God’s original intent for us. We now “see through a glass dimly.” I often wonder how things would have been had we not strayed from His care. I will give the Calvinistas one point. The Fall has changed everything. Women have endured millenia of abuse from dominant males. You are correct. They were treated like chattel, owned and fully operated by men who enjoyed their “CEO” status.
Although it is claimed that we “good” Christians have changed in this regard, I can only point to all the “good” Christians who supported slavery then Jim Crow. It is despicable that we still have some churches who would refuse to marry an interracial couple.
However, the Bible narrative is the only one that, for me, gives me the most asnwers for the sins I see in the world and the sins that I know exist inside of me. I believe in a God of love and mercy, as well as a God of justice. One day, He will cut through the morass and we shall see fully. Until that time, I will trust in Him,even when it seems difficult.
Something I arrived at with regards to the salvation without Christ topic:
The fall of man came when Adam and Eve understood the Law of Good and Evil. Once they realized that there was a moral law, they lost the pure innocence that God and Christ have (meaning, in themselves, that is God, there is no good or evil, merely God, and TRUTH). As soon as Adman and Eve understood, and ran to cover themselves up, they were owned by the Law. Thus, no matter how much good they did (or we do) we cannot be saved because we can never, in ourselves, return to the place of utter innocence that is required for eternal life with God, who is, by definition, completely removed from the moral law because He IS. This is why I struggle with salvation apart from Christ. Through Adam, we all understand Good and Evil, and are thus bound to be forever defined inexorably by that Law…meaning, that evil gives meaning to any good we do, and vice versa, not God; our existence is defined in terms of temporal morality, not eternal innocence. So, again, I’m not sure how to reconcile the idea that without Jesus, we can return again to the place of utter innocence. The sacrifice of Jesus was so that once again God could look at man “positionally” as innocent. This, as far as I can see, cannot happen without Christ. I think this is also why I believe that the mentally challenged, the unborn, the children, babies, all go to heaven. They retain the innocence of Adam before the fall because they never realize that they are bound to the law of good and evil, thus, they are NOT not bound to it. They have the innocence of Adam prior to his eating the fruit.
Just a thought. Obviously, I do not then believe in original sin (I believe we are born innocent, not condemned), nor do I believe in total depravity (we are born with the innate ability to choose Christ, as this is the only way, once one realizes good and evil, as Adam and Eve did, to regain the lost innocence).
dee, I don’t think you guys were being disrespectful, especially as you used her full name in your post. If they had used her full name even once, I wouldn’t have taken an issue with it. (I have a hyphenated last name, I know it’s long, and it’s fine with me if people just use my husband’s surname for convenience.) But the fact that they never use her full name–the name she uses to identify herself–at all is what strikes me as both very disrespectful and very expected.
I just wanted to say, I don’t think I expressed myself very clearly in my first comment! I just see their non-acknowledgement of her continuing to use her maiden name as part of her name as more of their reductive attempt to force every woman into the same box.
Have you noticed, on the new CBMW website, that every woman on the council has either “homemaker” or “pastor’s wife” listed first when they name what she does? First, it’s ridiculous: I don’t buy for one moment that Mary Kassian or Dorothy Patterson are first and foremost homemakers. Second, it’s just sad; all of the men have different careers, but each woman is forced to primarily identify as one thing.
There’s nothing wrong with being a homemaker. I have three kids, two of whom are really small. I teach a couple of classes part-time, but I spend most of my time at home with my kids, and some semesters I’m home full time. I don’t think there’s anything wrong or unfulfilling about that. But, the idea that every man gets to aspire to do anything, but every woman must aspire to be the same thing, a homemaker, is sad and limiting.
And their deciding what Rachel Held Evan’s name should be seems like yet another attempt by them to force every woman into their mold, whether she wants to be there or fits there or not.
I was also thinking of C.S. Lewis, considered by many to be one of the chief Christian apologists of the twentieth century. Before lambasting Rachel Held Evans for her beliefs, the TGC bloggers (many of whom prize Lewis) should look at Lewis’ thoughts on the afterlife and the inclusivity of God. One need only look at the Last Battle and the Great Divorce. Most theologians of Lewis’ time accepted evolution from what I have read. Struggles over creationism vs. ID vs. theistic evolution are modern issues. The early church, e.g. Augustine certainly did not take Genesis literally. Why women in the church and evolution have become some kind of litmus test for who is a real Christian is completely beyond me. Christianity is based on the resurrection. Anyone who says anything else is selling something.
It doesn’t help when Mark Dever gushes on in the below video about Matt Chandler’s church (size/rapid growth) and about how it truly is blessed of God, an “Acts” kind of church, bigger than Pentecost, with marriages healed and addictions broken…who wouldn’t want to join after listening to that praise from one of the higher-ups? (Poor Kevin DeYoung received no such praise from Dever.) God is blessing Matt in a “unique way”, according to Dever…like no one else. Dangerous praise. — Diane
Like the praise you hear from the Propaganda Ministries of Third-World dictators?
Although it is claimed that we “good” Christians have changed in this regard, I can only point to all the “good” Christians who supported slavery then Jim Crow. — Dee
And still do. Remember that recent defense of a Peculiar Institution regarding certain Animate Property that came out of Moscow, Idaho with “God Saith!” appended?
Isn’t Tim Keller a Theistic Evolutionist?
Well flipping good luck to Flashing, & the Gospel Coalition at taking a pop at Rachel HE…but they would, wouldn’t they, because she is everything they fear, because she is their children…She grew up imbibing evangelicalism with her Mother’s milk, did & was all the ‘right’ things (have you read her book, she’s so zealous it’s hysterical), & yet…and yet. As a very well educated, highly intelligent woman, when the real world bit, partly in the shape of that poor Muslim woman, she discovered that it didn’t have everything stitched up the way she thought…And that is EXACTLY where their children will end up. She is them, or was them, anyway. No wonder they fear her.
And as for that theo-emotional comment? I don’t have words for the chill that sent through me…talk about a compassion bypass. Can anyone really look at that poor Muslim woman & not want to scream to the heavens for her? I have another term too that I’d like to share: theo-lurgy. That’s what all my friends know it as when calvinistic theolgy makes me wish I’d never been born, because it’s hideous, & is only made worse & worse by the human icebergs who embrace that stuff spouting off their reductionistic nonsense about who is in & who is out of the Kingdom. The air squashes out of my lungs when I even think about the smallest chance that what they spout is true.
Jeff S
Keller proposes his own view which is a progressive creationism in which God injected certain animals and eventually man at particular times. It sounds a bit like Hugh Ross’s position but he does not appear to fully support Ross as well. He is far more of theistic evolution side but clearly states that he believes in a literal Adam and Eve, as do I.
The vast majority of literalists are peeved at Keller because he seems to play both ends against the middle.I do know that he is friendly with Francis Collins and respects his work with Biologos.
My guess: Keller does believe in some form of evolutionary creationism and is trying very hard to state it in a way as not to cause offense to the many who are having a cow over his tap dancing.
Keller has also used this approach with complementarianism. He says he is a believer in complementarianism but he functions more like an egalitarian.
BeakerJ
You are correct. She represents their children who are increasingly questioning pat answers. I see two parallel movements within the faith. The NeoCalvinists who have “ALL” the “correct” answers. Then there is the Rachel Held Evans sort of believers who are questioning many of the Neo Cals “answers.” In the meantime, there is, in increasing numbers, actually doubling in about 10 years, a group known as the “nones’ who are believers but have dropped out of the church. They are not seeking. They have found and found out that they don’t like the way the evangelical church is going.
Lori
Dorothy Patterson and many of the women who are on the speaker circuit are not “stay at home” moms in the traditional sense. I saw this phenomenon while living in Dallas. The well to do (and the wanna be well to do) hire full time sitter and housecleaners and then they run to all of their meetings, Biblically based, of course, and then say that they are leading traditional lives.
It’s a bit of smoke and mirrors.
Argo
It is clear that the early followers of God did not understand God’s plan nor what the Messiah would do. That is evident then, in the behavior of the disciples. Yet we do know that Job and Abraham are with God and that is due to their love of God, the promise of the coming Israel, and the promise of a redemptive Messiah-poorly understood by all of them. It is believed that christ’s death and Resurrection saved them as well as us.
Can you imagine today’s heresy hunters interviewing Abraham about the current state of affairs-creationism, complementarianism, an understanding of the Trinity, the death and Resurrection of a Messiah? How much do you think they would get “right?”
I am not a universalist but I have great hope that many will be saved that do not fit our current definition of having “walked the aisle.” In case this is being read by others and they haven’t read the post, I hope they understand that I am merely holding to the thoughts of John Stott and CS Lewis. If they think such men are heretics, then they probably won’t like this blog.
Diane
I have always quoted Lewis and did so because he believed that there was more to God’s plan than we currently understand. It is was his trust in a such a God that molded me as a young woman. These guys, however, quote his “convenient” quotes and overlook the soldier of Tash.
Eagle,
Regarding your question about the people before Christ having access to the Gospel(=”Good News”), Jesus preached to “the spirits in prison” 1 Pet 3:18ff.
The passage specifically indicates people of Noah’s day who had died in disobedience centuries earlier, but based on God’s character (love and longsuffering), I assume any and every spirit in prison heard Jesus preaching the very very GOOD news (“gospel”=”good news”). 🙂
Jesus in Luke 4:18 on His mission:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”
Nick
Well stated.
Arce/Haitch
Arce has been a long time reader of TWW. He supported us when few knew of us. If you look through the years, you will see many great comments by him. I have always loved his advice for resigning from a church. i have given his “we are leaving” letter outline to many people.
“In the meantime, there is, in increasing numbers, actually doubling in about 10 years, a group known as the “nones’ who are believers but have dropped out of the church. They are not seeking. They have found and found out that they don’t like the way the evangelical church is going.”
This is a group in which I would include myself. While I am actually still attending “church,” I am increasingly of the viewpoint that it would be much better for me to be down at the homeless shelter on Sundays than sitting in the pews.
“marriages healed and addictions broken” Yeah right, were’s the proof.I hear this so often with the megas. This reminds me of the Harvest Crusades and when they claim many have come to salvation. Again, were’s the proof. Greg and his celebirty “Christians” who speak and sing at this event have no idea who these people are. And just because someone walks an isle or says a prayer, that is not evidence that they are a Christian.
and when I say “down at the homeless shelter” I mean it to say “volunteering down at the homeless shelter”
As to those who never hear, how sweet to drink at the Wesleyan well.
God is love, and will deal lovingly and justly.
They will be not be responsible for the light they did not have, but for what light they had (nature, etc, see Romans 1).
And God’s prevenient grace can be trusted to deal with all.
Not only that, “marriages healed and addictions broken” this is just a bunch of hype. It’s not even reality.
Lori –
The CBMW site is still being updated (since last Spring). I agree about the silliness if the titles. I did notice there are a few women on the Council, but no women on the Board. Maybe the title should be “Council on Biblical MANHOOD and (h)omakinghood.” I have been in the working world (20 years) and been a stay at home WORKER. Both have pros and cons and stretch you in different ways.
No More Perfect
Thank you for clarifying that you are volunteering at the homeless shelter. It made me smile.
However, TWW would have come to the rescue of you if you were there for any other reason. Never forget “We’ve got you covered.”
I suspect that one of the big reasons TGC is going after R. Held Evans right now is… her Esther series. I mean, how dare she stand up to one of the big calvinistas?!
“These guys, however, quote his “convenient” quotes and overlook the soldier of Tash.”
Thanks…that’s what I was trying to say.
I am no Lewis expert, but I have glanced at some of what he believed. No one’s understanding of the bible is perfect. But I would think that some of Lewis’ views would be enough to cause many a celeb Calvinista heart to pause and flutter…(about what the gospel/bible “clearly” teaches, according to them). Aren’t they concerned that by quoting Lewis it might lead people to read some of his books and steer away from their (Calvinstia’s) clear and biblical teachings on any particual item?
Given how Driscoll has dealt with TGC people this year I don’t think anyone at TGC would care if Evans made Driscoll’s handling of Esther appear idiotic. 🙂
If they’re circling wagons, numo, Wilson would seem to be the person they’re rallying behind.
I read enough blogs by Reformed types that people are declaring that inside a few years Tim Keller’s probably going to ordain women and be off the reservation of good traditional Reformed ecclesiology. There are dozens of angles and perspectives from which people can perceive or interpret what goes on. Here at Wartburg TGC is seen as a hyper-conservative reactionary group butfor people in the Orthodox Presbyterian blogosophere it seems TGC is seen as an entity that’s desperately trying to look like they aren’t selling out to a grow-the-numbers game and Baylys consider Keller some kind of apostate risk for letting women be deacons or even handle other things in church roles. The thing is it’s not a given that these views have to contradict each other.
But then nobody who’s a regular at Wartburg would say that I’m usually guilty of wanting to bottom-line anything or go for the simplest explanation of anything. 🙂
But I’m pretty confident TGC wouldn’t go after Evans to defend Driscoll’s honor after all the junk that has come to light about him in the last year. Don Carson all but called Driscoll an ignorant troll for his remarks on British evangelicalism. Anyabwile wrote not-too-subtly that anyone shaking hands with Jakes as “orthodox” is more committed to sheer numbers and success than a properly trinitarian confession. It’s like anon1 said earlier these last few weeks, that sounds more like “mark who?” then defending Driscoll.
@ Stormy~
“Not only that, “marriages healed and addictions broken” this is just a bunch of hype. It’s not even reality.”
Chandler said marriages were healed and bondages broken in the video. I would have to assume there is some of that taking place.
But the point is the over the top, irresponsible, imo praise, that Dever gave Matt. Dever assuming the rapid growth of TVC was/is a blessing of God. I do not know if it is or isn’t…how does Dever know? Comparing it to an Acts church, etc. Is the size a result of God’s favor/blessing? I felt that Dever implied that. I guess DeYoung is not as special to God as Chandler…
Numo –
Do you think that most of the pastors that belong to TGC are on the same page as MD with regards to his teaching on Esther? I think there are probably many who wish he wasn’t teaching it as he is. Not that they will say anything to him . . . It is a shame if they will only appreciate Rachel if she has the title of “homemaker” or “pastor’s wife.”
As far as I can tell, Rachel has much more training and education in regards to what she is teaching on Esther than MD. MD is bringing his teaching simply as the “authority” to his congregation. Not that it is necessary, but has MD studied at seminary at all? I wonder if MD’s congregants and Rachel’s readers will be/are Bereans who will discern for themselves?
Another question on MD — is he like CJ Mahaney, a self annointed leader who “just started” a group and people followed? Maybe Wenatchee can shed some light on this.
“Marriages healed” gets bandied about so freely it reveals itself to be the kind of catchphrase that shows up in annual reports.
Driscoll’s calling was self-described. He says God appointed him. By himself he couldn’t have gained any tractino, though. He served for a while in some youth ministry capacity at Antioch Bible Church (Ken Hutcherson’s church). I think (if memory serves) that’s where Driscoll met Mike Gunn and around the same time met Lief Moi, who believed in Mark and helped co-found Mars Hill church. Mike was often a better expositor and Lief was considered the heart of MH but Driscoll was the mouth, the spokseperson and visionary. Lief Moi invested a lot of his time and money in getting MH off the ground and keeping it stable but these days it’s just the Driscoll show. To this day there has not been a clear explanation of why Moi got sidelined and got a nearly 40 percent salary cut in2 007 while Bill Clem was given a full salary during the same period. One popular, informal explanation was Moi was uncomfortable with the direction MH was going in (which was true, as a letter Moi wrote that’s been published at Joyful Exiles can attest). But the other half of theories I’ve heard about is that Clem and Noriega were sitting on a piece of real estate Mark Driscoll wanted for ten years and he needed Clem and Noriega to go to bat for him to Doxa. Apparently they did and years later Clem was given control of Ballard and Noriega was appointed co-leader of the Redemption Groups. By that time all references to Mike Gunn and Lief Moi as co-founding elders of Mars Hill had been all but totally erased.
Confessions of a Reformission Rev is probably the last time I can recall where Driscoll made any real references to Mike or Lief as co-founding elders.
Rachel is “daring” to teach/preach and I bet TGC isn’t happy about that.
Though I concede that y’all might be right about their take on MD. 😉
These guys tend to become blurred and confused in my head, if only because they’re so strident – and very much in lockstep.
Maybe someone has already mentioned this but I’ve often thought of the promises of God to Abraham when He said that his children would be more in number than the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore. In other words the amount of people saved through faith is absolutely inestimable!
Ok, I have got to read some CS Lewis and John Stott.
I loved that quote by Stott about his position on hell. I had never heard of him before. Nor have I ever heard of such a position on hell (optimistic agnosticism). Maybe because it isn’t really a position so much as it is a statement of one’s uncertainty. But when I read that quote, it put into words exactly the direction my thoughts have taken on this topic over the summer. I’ve become so uncertain about so many things I thought I knew, yet in that uncertainty is more hope than ever.
Also, if they want to call Rachel Held Evans a heretic, they should be aware that they are seriously diminishing the scariness factor of that label. Lol. Not that I agree with everything she says (I have read quotes by her that I’ve thought were spot on, and others that have made me uncomfortable even though I understand what she’s saying and have wondered the same thing at times).
WTH – thanks!
Any seminary training for MD? (We were answering Numo at the same time.)
The similarity of starts, disappearances of other leaders, and abuse problems are sad between SGM and MH.
Numo –
The funny thing is that I find RHE much easier to read and understand (though I may not always agree) than Mary Kassian.
God will reveal himself to everyone one way or another before he returns again. The Calvinistas like to put God in a box. I take the side of Charles Stanley when he says that he does not know how but God will reveal himself to everyone. It’s one of those things I don’t need to know how it will happen but it will. My God is loving and will not send anyone to hell without giving them a chance to choose life. Before Jesus came, God revealed himself also. Again, I don’t how he did this but I trust him when he says he wishes no one to go to hell.
Take a look at the official “beliefs” statement of the Center for Women of Faith in Culture.
http://www.womenfaithculture.com/index.php/about/beliefs/
She may have left out some essentials in the article, but the carefully worded belief statement should have everything, right? Uh Oh—–Where’s the Love? the Goodness? the Mercy? The Justice? The Faithfulness?
For that matter, where’s the Father, aside from a quick Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Reference in the God section? Jesus and Holy Spirit are separate sections.
Then there’s the final Church section, missing any reference to glorifying God through LOVING HIM, let alone one another, neighbors, or enemies.
Bridget,
Yes, RHE is very easy & a pleasure to read. Unfortunately for Mary Kassian, her job is to promote something that is based on square circles.
@Bridget Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 03:13 PM
This is Mark Driscoll’s bio from his own webpage – speech communications, then exegesis. There’s no hermeneutics it seems, which may explain his reductive view of Esther. I believe his views reflect the state of his own heart and his take on the position of women. Ooh I wish he had a hyphenated surname with Grace’s former surname, then I could drop the Driscoll and refer to him by Grace’s surname. But that’s not going to happen. Obviously.
Bio as stated by MD below.
Pastor Mark received a B.A. in Speech Communication from the Edward R.
Murrow School of Communication at Washington State University, and he holds a masters degree in Exegetical Theology from Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon. He is the author of fifteen books.
Grace Driscoll delights in being a stay at home mom and helping raise the
Driscoll’s three sons and two daughters. She is also a graduate of the Edward R.Murrow School of Communication at Washington State University, where she earned a B.A. in Public Relations.
Haitch –
Thanks for looking that up. Considering what his Masters Degree covered, I’m surprised at his take on Esther. I think you are correct when you say, “his views reflect the state of his own heart.”
“Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines: textual criticism is the investigation into the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds for the author, the text, and the original audience. Other analysis includes classification of the type of literary genres present in the text, and an analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in the text itself.” Wikipedia
I don’t get the impression that Driscoll has come to his conclusions on Esther based in the above process.
Elastigirl –
. . . square circles . . . (Heheheh!)
There’s still the possibility that he loves trolling controversial and indefensible views of biblical texts so he can create a buzz for his new series and then say the opposite of what was said earlier. After all in Real Marriage Vashti was held up as a negative example.
I’m not sure he had that master’s in exegetical theology prior to about 2009.
Hey all
Well, we finally have an explanation for Flashing’s ideas. She is a good friend of the infamous Kamilla-the Brave Lass. link. Kamilla is defending her dear friend over at dear friend’s blog.
If anyone has had the temerity to disagree with Kamilla, your voice is now three octaves higher. As one male reader said, “I barely got out of there intact.” Go over there at your own risk. 🙂
Hey all addendum
She (Kamilla) is one of the few peopel to be banned from Rachel Held Evan’s website. And it makes her upset. She wrote a post on it and calls Evans by some smarmy name.
One of our readers let me know that she has a comment over at Flashing’s site that has not been posted. I think she said she left it around noon today. See, orthodox Christians can hold comments but “unorthodox” people cannot. I have asked the reader to send me her comment that was not posted and will post it in this comment thread if I get it.
As a Joan Didion fan I doubt Kamilla has necessarily gleaned from Didion about the womens movement what Didion was necessarily getting at. Didion would likely view the patriachalist/complementarian movement as no less beholden to the fantasies of children than second wave feminism.
Dee,
I have great hope as well. However, I am no Calvinist…on the contrary I am vigilant in keeping an eye open for things that are ceding their metaphysical presumptions, even if on the face of it, an opinion would be opposed. I think we need to be careful that we do not essentially operate from the other side of the same coin. The Calvinists preach their form of determinism through the doctrine of election. A natural counter move would be to preach that God will save those who don’t know him, or even those who reject Him in this life. That is simply another form of the doctrine of election, except in this case everyone goes to heaven. Sounds nice, but it is not in keeping with Christian faith…the reason is that this idea, like Calvinist election, removes man from the equation. Our will and freedom is destroyed in favor of Gods justice (good or wrath). Both of these views also destroy the purpose or need to preach Jesus to the lost. In this case, everyone is going to heaven, so why bother. And if we say, well, only those who know Jesus and reject Him will be condemned, how long will it take before people decide to stop telling the children or the far corners of the world about Jesus lest they come to know Him but reject Him. Then we’ve just sent them to hell. Better they don’t know, then their salvation is much more likely.
How did you or I get saved? People walked or traveled by horse or boat thousands upon thousands of miles to the ends of Europe, to Asia, across whole oceans then across this country with the message of Jesus Christ. They didn’t presume Gods salvation for the unreached. They were told by Christ to go, and they went.
If we are concerned, lets support missions, or go ourselves. Why move to the same false doctrine of the very reformers we object so deeply to? If Christ is not necessary, then what are we all doing here exactly?
And I love CS Lewis…but I disagree with many great leaders, and with him as well. Sometimes disagreeing with them is how we get better.
Bridget: “It is a shame if they will only appreciate Rachel if she has the title of ‘homemaker’ or ‘pastor’s wife.'”
LOL
One reason why she’s not a part of this line-up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD6EmHqRaf4&feature=share
ah, yet another set of variations on I-V-vi-IV, the chord progression calibrated across Western music to get people misty-eyed.
If you don’t resolve the leading tone in the scale it makes it more mystical and lets you move fewer fingers before making chord changes.
Thanks for the link TedS.
Argo
Please understand. I did not say that Christ was not necessary. He is vitally necessary for the salvation of all who are and will be saved. I am not a universalist. (Repeat 10 times). In fact, there must be justice for the likes of Hitler and the pedophiles, etc.
I am also always discussing the faith with those who do not know Him. We are called to do that and internally I am compelled to do so. I believe that all people who know Jesus feel the need to share the Good News. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. But I am not willing to say that God will not or cannot save those who have no possible way to know of Him. And if there is way, it will be because of Jesus. I cannot prove it. Neither can John Stott but the two of us are optimistic.
Finally, except for the hardcore Calvinistas, most people agree that infants and the mentally challenged will be saved. That means we have already opened to door to some being saved outside of the traditional way. The salvation of those infants and those who are challenged is also a work of Jesus.
Dave AA: you’re not kidding! But, for them, is love the greatest thing? Isn’t doctrinal purity the greatest thing? In fact, isn’t striving to be doctrinally pure the greatest sign of love we can show God? Where is the love indeed. Orthodoxy leads to orthopraxy? If theirs were truly orthodox beliefs the result would be love.
TedS
Ah yes, now the pastors wives are a set aside breed as well. I plan to discuss something along this line tomorrow when i discuss the hypocrisy of Owen Strachan statement on “male fails.” There are some pastors who give themselves a pass on doing things the comp way because they are, of course, pastors. I fully expect to be put on the TGC hit list after tomorrow.
Yes, Dee.
When I saw that title, “Refreshing Pastor’s Wives for Ministry,” I thought it sounded like a feminine hygene ad.
Dee- I’m willing ,out of the goodness of my heart, to make you a bullet proof jacket with the words ‘Full of winsome gospelly goodness’ on it. You’ll be safe then.
” I fully expect to be put on the TGC hit list after tomorrow.”
A post that guarantees ticking off the TGC egos? Awesome. Waiting anxiously . . .
Dee – that link to Kamilia’s blog… hmm.
I notice that she says nothing about women “praying her out of” her prior beliefs/convictions.
Square circles, indeed!
BeakerJ
Is like Kryptonite?Gospel kryptonite?
If the Calvinistas have created a “god” that they worship with characteristics that the rue God rejects as not being Himself, is that not a failure to be worshipers of the true God and therefore, unsaved? Heretic as in worshiping a foreign god, not the God of Abraham, Isaac, . . . Jesus, Peter, Paul . . ..
Argo, those are good points, and I agree with them. People in “Christian” Europe sometimes seem to forget that originally the continent was entirely pagan at the time Paul came to Macedonia. The English in particular owe a debt to the pope who (so the story goes) saw Angle children in the market being sold as slaves and was moved to send missionaries. We owe a great deal to anyone who brought us the Good News.
Poor old Lewis seems to have suffered from an excessively devoted fanbase in the past, and more recently from fundamentalists who have questioned his salvation or even claimed he was doing Satan’s work! I have benefitted a lot from his work, but I had learn justification by faith and perseverance of the saints elsewhere. As J I Packer (himself an admirer of Lewis’ work), Lewis perhaps did not realise how much his Anglo-Catholic background had influenced him.
It’s also interesting that both evolutionists and creationists claim his support. I think the latter do so because of his essays on evolution as a myth (Mary Midgely has covered the same ground more recently in “Evolution As Religion”, which is well worth the read). From my reading, Lewis did not have a problem with evolution as a biological theory, but rather with some of the grandiose claims made for it as an idea which went far beyond the biological sciences.
Numo
I would love you to have a go round with her. I think you could handle her.
Dee – Gack!!! Although I have to admit that there *is* something tempting about it.
I skimmed a couple of her posts, then looked at her Blogger profile. Interesting that she condemns what she considers sexually suggestive dances, etc. on TV but lists at least one author in her profile who writes some pretty steamy stuff! ; )
I *do* know a blogger who could easily take her on – and not be worried about her reactions – but she just started her fall semester classes (she’s also a mom w/3 small children) and her time is definitely at a premium.
Might run it by her, though…
I had a go-round with her on a blog (not hers). All she kept doing was insinuating my naivety as she brought up arguments that weren’t even being discussed. She refused to discuss what was actually being discussed. I didn’t keep at it very long as she wasn’t civil.
Ted S –
I think being in San Diego will be refreshing them more than anything 🙂
Jan said: “I’ve become so uncertain about so many things I thought I knew, yet in that uncertainty is more hope than ever.”
I’ve experienced something similar, Jan. I think this radiant hope I now have results from my finally turning away from the many doctrinal idols neo-Calvinism set up for me to worship, and worshipping God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit instead.
Regarding RHE – I enjoy reading her work even though I hold different opinions than she does on quite a few things. I like her spunk, and she reminds me of my daughter. So, TGC menfolk don’t take too kindly to uppity women like RHE influencing the Christian community and muscling in on their publi$hing territory? And now they’ve sent out one of their Gentleladies of Neo-Calvinism(TM) to attack and discredit RHE rather than attacking her themselves, because they don’t want to look like meany chauvinist pig bullies and prove her point FOR her?
How predictable.
I recommend reading the feature article “50 Women You Should Know” (RHE is one of them!) in this month’s CT magazine. Great profiles on truly inspiring women!
Oh it’s better than kryptonite Dee…it’s christionite, sewn by the fingers of a gospel lovin’ sister.
@Retha: “I cannot say that I know everything the Bible say of anointing, but I am sure they don’t prescribe the right oil for it.”
Actually, the recipe for anointing oil is written out explicitly in the Bible. Exodus 30, 22-33:
“22 Moreover the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 23 “Also take for yourself quality spices—five hundred shekels of liquid myrrh, half as much sweet-smelling cinnamon (two hundred and fifty shekels), two hundred and fifty shekels of sweet-smelling cane, 24 five hundred shekels of cassia, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, and a hin of olive oil. 25 And you shall make from these a holy anointing oil, an ointment compounded according to the art of the perfumer. It shall be a holy anointing oil. 26 With it you shall anoint the tabernacle of meeting and the ark of the Testimony; 27 the table and all its utensils, the lampstand and its utensils, and the altar of incense; 28 the altar of burnt offering with all its utensils, and the laver and its base. 29 You shall consecrate them, that they may be most holy; whatever touches them must be holy.[a] 30 And you shall anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they may minister to Me as priests.
31 “And you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘This shall be a holy anointing oil to Me throughout your generations. 32 It shall not be poured on man’s flesh; nor shall you make any other like it, according to its composition. It is holy, and it shall be holy to you. 33 Whoever compounds any like it, or whoever puts any of it on an outsider, shall be cut off from his people.’”
(Though that’s sorta a different sort of anointing oil.)
Hi Dee,
Well, yes, I firmly believe that infants and the mentally disabled indeed go to Heaven and are not condemned. However, I deny that it has anything to do with Christ’s sacrifice. It has to do with the fact that these people are never condemned by the knowledge of good and evil, thus retain the pre-fall innocence of Adam and Eve. The sin of Adam is the sin of lost innocence. It is this loss Christ’s sacrifice covers for those under the curse of the “Law”. Those who are not under the curse do not need Jesus’s sacrifice. This may seem heretical, but it is the only way to explain why everyone needs Christ (that is, everyone able to know good and evil), even those who might never, theoretically, sin. (I deny that people have no choice but to sin…but I affirm all need Christ. I believe both of these premises are Biblically supported.)
So, my problem is, besides the infants and children and others who have obvious blocks which prevent them from coming to the knowledge of good and evil, who are the supposed innocent ones whom God will somehow save without Christ…or with Christ in some mysterious extra-biblical way a-la John Stott? And how will they know unless someone preaches to them?
I’m not trying to be contentious, I am simply not convinced that it is that easy as hoping for the best and trusting in his love. That to me is a non-answer. People are scattered and people are hindered because nature and creation does what it does. People wander, traditions are lost and forsaken. I don’t get how this absolves any rational person from seeking the Savior. If they are saved, it means what the Bible says: the sought and found Christ, or they heard and believed, and these two things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. That is where our response to Eagle (for example) must start.
Oh for the love of…
Just read this article – http://www.dailylife.com.au/life-and-love/parenting-and-families/raising-boys-that-feminists-hate-20121001-26ui1.html
I’ve never heard of Doug Giles before, but I’m guessing others might have?
Anyway, he’s written some stupid parenting manual about raising boys. My favourite quote the article gives from his book? Where he complains about “the men who have yielded up their private parts to the lesbians”. I think those are going to be some very unhappy men if they’ve given their private parts to lesbians.
Take a look at the official “beliefs” statement of the Center for Women of Faith in Culture.
http://www.womenfaithculture.com/index.php/about/beliefs/
She may have left out some essentials in the article, but the carefully worded belief statement should have everything, right? Uh Oh—–Where’s the Love? the Goodness? the Mercy? The Justice? The Faithfulness? — Dave A A
Perfectly-Parsed Theology has No Need of Those.
But, for them, is love the greatest thing? Isn’t doctrinal purity the greatest thing? In fact, isn’t striving to be doctrinally pure the greatest sign of love we can show God? — BeakerJ
Doctrinally pure or Ideologically Pure?
(Paging Comrade Pol Pot… Paging Comrade Pol Pot…)
Argo
I would never think of you as contentious. In fact, I enjoy reading your comments. They make me think. I tend to get people confused sometimes since we have so many people with original and thoughtful comments. If I remember correctly, you do not hold to the concept of original sin. Is that right?
Also, how do you view Jesus’ statement “I am the Way, the Truth and the Light. No one comes to the Father but by me?”
@ WTH:
“I read enough blogs by Reformed types that people are declaring that inside a few years Tim Keller’s probably going to ordain women and be off the reservation of good traditional Reformed ecclesiology.”
He’ll have to leave the PCA, then. That would cause some serious consternation at my old church. : )
“Here at Wartburg TGC is seen as a hyper-conservative reactionary group but for people in the Orthodox Presbyterian blogosphere it seems TGC is seen as an entity that’s desperately trying to look like they aren’t selling out to a grow-the-numbers game and Baylys consider Keller some kind of apostate risk for letting women be deacons or even handle other things in church roles.”
I assume you are referring to the types who frequent the Puritan Board? Ugh… Even when I self-described as Calvinist I could never stomach that website. It always came off to me as either a bunch of Calvinist men thumping their chests trying to out-Calvinist each other, or a bunch of extreme nerds stayed firmly ensconced in their tiny bubble with no intention of leaving, ever. I imagine it’s the same feeling a non-Trekkie would get upon visiting a Star Trek convention. : ) I know for a fact there was a thread on there wherein they discussed how unimportant it is that R. L. Dabney was a screaming racist because of his excellent grasp of theology otherwise, and how no sensible person should object to him being quoted today because of said otherwise excellent theology.
Are the Baylys PCA? Because if they are, the “checks and balances” I was told existed in that denomination have failed. Completely. Also, if we are to believe Gary North, the OPC is completely sold out for Reconstructionism and the PCA is well on its way…which could explain why OPC folks think Keller is an almost-apostate.
Argo, How can anyone know good from evil if they are totally depraved? Perhaps we should also start there….when eyes were opened in the garden, free will did not stop.
I agree with hyou about original sin concept as it is taught. It is an Augustinian construct that brings in a more philosophical view of man and how the world operates. And it brings in all sorts of bizaree doctrines such as imputed guilt. (We are all guilty for ADAM’s sin). If you think about that one, then that means Jesus Christ swam around in sin juice for 9 months.
I think we really need to think these things through and I so appreciate your comments. Makes me think, too.
“doctrinal purity” is a great concern of Southern Baptists. I really do not know after being a Southern Baptist for 38 years what the term means practically.
Dee & Argo,
The statement Jesus made – “I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by me…”
My walk along this path brought me short a while back with the question: Who am I to dictate what ways are acceptable for Jesus to use in reaching the world he came and died for. I believe he talks to all men in the same way he talks to me – I’m not special that way. And if he speaks and they listen and follow, even if they don’t know his given name, who am I to say he can’t do that?
@ Pam:
“According to Giles, ‘God’s initial earth boy was born to dominate creation and to exercise authority over the planet.’ He implores parents to nurture their ‘natural born leader who will naturally want to control.'”
1. Giles is, simply put, full of it. Adam AND Eve were given dominion over creation, so Mr. Big Man better learn how to share his toys.
2. Why is it that every other Christian author/pastor who is either heretical/painfully wrong is named Doug?
3. I feel inclined to ignore him simply because he penned the phrase “earth boy” in reference to – well, anybody…
“These evil non-male beings — also known as ‘women’ — are hell-bent on turning your sons into well-rounded social beings. Or, as Giles scathingly calls them, ‘nice, placid cooperators.'”
“Placid cooperators” – like Jesus? You can’t get much more pushover cooperative than letting a garrison of Roman soldiers scourge you and nail you to a cross. I guess that means Jesus was gay? I sense a contradiction lurking in the shadows.
“According to his website, Doug’s interests include ‘guns, big game hunting, big game fishing, fine art, cigars, helping wounded warriors, and being a big pain in the butt to people who dislike God and the USA.'”
Because y’all know God = USA! That’s why He’s in the Pledge of Allegiance! : P Also, better be careful with that fine art thing, Doug – there does tend to be a statistically higher number of gay men in the art scene. Prolonged exposure to them may result in your sons preferring ballet to bow hunting. ; )
“Or, more specifically, as Giles writes, ‘The feminists and the men who have yielded up their private parts to the lesbians, I mean feminists, [who] have an organized system of male hatred that they just can’t wait to slap your son with.'”
How have men who don’t agree with Giles “yielded up their private parts to the lesbians”? Are they having sex with them (I thought lesbians weren’t into that)? Or are there secret lesbian hit squads roaming America secretly castrating men? And the old canard about all feminists being lesbians is simply par for the course…
Hi Dee,
I absolutely do not hold to the idea of original sin. The words “original sin” appear nowhere in the Bible, and neither does “pervasive depravity”. If original sin is so self evident, why was God so dismayed that He flooded the earth? It seems plain that men were sinning all on their lonesomes, and that they were utterly culpable. “Original sin” was not offered as an excuse. And if it was a fact, how did Noah manage to avoid it? It seems that he was doing the good others chose freely not to do. Where in the Bible does God declare men unable to NOT sin? I hold original sin a fabrication of Augustinian Christianity mixed with pagan Greek philosophy (Plato and Socrates). For the record, I completely reject all five points of Calvinism (a black tulip flower is my personal Herald/Coat of Arms…I kind of thought that was clever:-))
As for Jesus is the Way…it forms the operative premise of my metaphysics (oh yes, it’s all about that:)). I am a self described Enlightenment Christian. I hold reason to be the first act of man’s ability. Man is seprate from the rest of creation and most like God because he is fundamentally rational at his core. I believe our metaphysics as Christians must then, also be rationale. I deny paradox or contradictions of faith. Where Biblical proclamations seem paradoxical or contradictory, I insist on finding a better interpretation; one that is consistent with the metaphysics of a perfect, just Creator who cannot possess any created thing; a creation that is designed by definition to be what it is, apart from God (for that is the only possible reason for creation to exist…God would not be perfect if He needed anything); one that affirms the inhernent rights of freedom of mind and body, to pursue their affections and talents, of individuals regardless of sex or race (yes…I wholly affirm women pastors, teachers, doctors, bishops, presidents, prime ministers…I’m a rabid feminist), and where any passage of scripture seems to refute the inherent rights and freedoms of individuals, or does not affirm man’s greatest good is to love others as themselves, in such a case, I reject the interpretation and insist a better interpretation must be sought, or a greater command deferred to.
I do not hold the Bible inerrant, and I deny it has “authority”. I hold that no created thing is inerrant, by definition; I believe that authority is to the Holy Spirit alone. I believe the Bible is a revelation from God, and speaks of Gods work so that man may worship Him, not the Bible. I believe that the Bible is for man, not man for the Bible.
In light of all that, do you get a sense of how I view “I am the Way, the Truth…”? 🙂
Thank you, Dee, for putting up with me. You gals rock!
@ Hester
You summed up my own reactions to Doug Giles’ views perfectly.
It got me wondering – has anyone asked these ‘Manly men and boys are to be manly and male and grunt and do manly things like fighting and being manly’ to list the character attributes of Jesus? I know Driscoll said he couldn’t worship a saviour he could beat up or whatever his quote was, but I think there’s some convenient cognitive dissonance going on with these guys, because I can’t think of a single ‘inherently masculine’ characteristic to describe Jesus.
But I just can’t take the word ‘manly’ seriously, because there’s a suburb of Sydney named Manly. And the Catholic boys’ school in that suburb has used the phrase ‘turning Manly boys into Manly men’ on their website and in their advertising. It’s hard to take the word seriously after seeing it used in advertising that way!
Pam, re. “Manly” v. “manly” – LOLZ! 😀 Will try to keep that in mind the next time I see something advocating “manliness.” (Which, not so coincidentally, seems to be a “thing” in at least some niches of the “secular” world here in the US – see http://artofmanliness.com/ )
Anon1,
Great comment. Thanks for your kind words.
Argo,
That’s quite the manifesto. Much of it could have been written by yours truly.
@ Pam & Numo:
“But I just can’t take the word ‘manly’ seriously, because there’s a suburb of Sydney named Manly.”
My family actually knows someone whose first and middle name are Firman Manly. Making it even harder for me to think of “manliness” as a serious virtue…
Speaking of manliness!
I thought this was a joke and then I realized–what was I thinking…of course he’s serious–godly, gritty adventures for gritty Christian manhood.
Introducing Godly, Gritty Adventure Fiction for Boys…Men of Grit
http://www.visionforum.com/news/blogs/doug/2012/09/10371/
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! If all feminists hate men, then I have REALLY screwed the pooch as a feminist, because I married a guy.
Diane –
He’s totally serious – no jokes with that manly man kind.
Argo –
I always appreciate your perspectivee and agree with much of it 😉
The book’s title is “The Boy Colonel”? Sounds like a Liz Lemon joke….
But seriously, it’s no coincidence that they set books like these in the 1830s – no rights for women, the oppression of minorities, men shooting guns…
Is it just me, or is the picture advertising the books one of the most hilariously bad things you’ve seen in a long time? Or maybe I just can’t handle the ‘grittiness’ of the image, given I’m a girl and all.
Also, my goodness, can you say cultural imperialism? The right and proper English soldier up against those odd fellows with funny names who are just utterly unrefined. Other cultures and peoples as just the backdrop to a boy’s own adventure, merely used to show how advanced the hero is compared to those ‘savages’. I also shouldn’t need to point out that neither Siberia nor Peru were unexplored territories in the 1830s. Just because English speakers hadn’t been prominent in those areas doesn’t mean the areas were ‘unexplored’. They both have very rich and very long histories.
The frilly shirt is a nice gritty touch.
Oh–he doesn’t have a name either…”A Soldier Without A Name”…
I’ll call him Dominionmandate Victorious Manlyman the 3rd.
Dominionmandate Victorious Manlyman the 3rd – I love it! Diane, I don’t have any pets, but if I get one, I may just steal that name.
Also, if you click on the link you can download a PDF of the first chapter of each book. I just read The Boy Colonel, it’s terribad. And hilariously so, complete with dodgily-written accents for a French and an Irish character.
How have men who don’t agree with Giles “yielded up their private parts to the lesbians”? Are they having sex with them (I thought lesbians weren’t into that)? Or are there secret lesbian hit squads roaming America secretly castrating men? — Hester
You said the secret woid, Hester!
@WTH
You are forgetting about Leif’s numerous tickets which I heard was part of the equation.
i know someone who would probably like that book…
Pingback: Linkathon 10/3 » Phoenix Preacher | Phoenix Preacher
@ Pam & Diane:
1. LOVE LOVE LOVE Dominionmandate Victorious Manlyman the 3rd. Though knowing Doug P. (again with the name Doug…?), it would probably be something more along the lines of Authority Headship Trumpington the 8th (preceded by 7 generations of multigenerational faithfulness, of course – 200-year plan and all that jazz).
2. Why did they need to publish this series in the first place? I thought they already had their boys’ adventure stories covered by R. M. Ballantyne. Unless, of course, their entire customer base has already bought Ballantyne and so now they have to come up with something new to market so they don’t lose money. Maybe the economic hard times have finally caught up even with Vision Forum…
@ Pam:
“I just read The Boy Colonel, it’s terribad. And hilariously so, complete with dodgily-written accents for a French and an Irish character.”
But, most importantly, BLOOD. Gushing and spurting BLOOD. Because if we write about BLOOD, our books will be gritty and exciting and MANLY BOYS will like them because MANLY BOYS like BLOOD. LOTS OF BLOOD.
Seriously, though – yes. Terribly written. The dialogue esp. falls flat on its face.
joe, care to elaborate?
Oh that is all too hilarious- ‘yielded up their private parts to the lesbians’…of course that we all know that as soon as a truly manly man, such as Dominionmandate Victorious Manlyman the 3rd, walks within 10 feet of a lesbian their orientation immediately straightens out & they spontaneously ovulate.
I needed at laugh because at last glance Flashing had failed to post my comment talking about how if we hold uniformity of belief on secondary matters as highly as that of primary matters we may be excluding those Christ loves & dwells with & from whom we have things to learn.
That article about Doug Giles’ new book is hilarious! I love the label, “‘handbag hitsquads!” Too funny!
Hester
You said
“I assume you are referring to the types who frequent the Puritan Board? Ugh… Even when I self-described as Calvinist I could never stomach that website. It always came off to me as either a bunch of Calvinist men thumping their chests trying to out-Calvinist each other, or a bunch of extreme nerds stayed firmly ensconced in their tiny bubble with no intention of leaving”
I have a theory on this based on a long time of obseving this. I contend that some of the extremist try to out do one another because they are unsure of their “election.” Recently, a well respected Calvinist (I forget his name since I have not had enough coffee yet ) converted to Catholicism. The consensus of this crowd was he muxt not have ever been saved in the first place! Well, if a guy like that wasn’t one of the elect, and thought he was, where does that leave the average Calvinist? I believe this underlying fear has them trying to out do one another to “prove” they are elect.
Argo
Thanks for yoru expalantion. Fascinating. Quetion: When does the age of innocence of a child end? Ballpark if possible.
Pam
That comment about the slogan of the Catholic boys school made me laugh!
ScottT
Ah yes, the often overlooked problem of slavery. Good Christian people bouth and sold slaves? Hmmm
Diane
Dominionmandate Victorious Manlyman the 3rd??? Thanks for the laugh. We should make him our mascot if only you could work in the word “gospel.”
HUG
Where do you come up with this stuff??
Re original sin, it is true that the words occur nowhere in the Bible. Is it true that the concept arises from a reading of Romans 5? If so I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the concept.
Also I suspect that men like Augustine and Jonathan Edwards would argue that man’s reason and will are themselves affected by the Fall, so freedom of choice is limited and tends more to the downwards direction.
Pressed to either extreme, these views raise problems. In places the Scriptures imply that we have a choice, and also that children do not die for the sins of their fathers (Ezekiel 18?). On the other hand Genesis 3 and Romans 5 seem to me at least to imply that there is some sort of human commonality with Adam and Eve and that we are all affected by their historic action.
Re the influence of Plato on Augustine, I’m no expert but I think this may be more in the area of human relationships and the downplaying of things such as sexuality, although ironically Plato in his Republic thought that all such relationships should be communal (which surely would have made Augustine’s hair stand on end!). Also perhaps the fact that Augustine had led a, ahem, untrammelled lifestyle before his conversion may have contributed to his views on sex. The influence of Plato was far greater on the eastern half of the Christian church via thinkers such as Origen.
@ Hester~
“…it would probably be something more along the lines of Authority Headship Trumpington the 8th (preceded by 7 generations of multigenerational faithfulness, of course – 200-year plan and all that jazz).”
lol—an appropriate name as well!
@ beakerj~
“Oh that is all too hilarious- ‘yielded up their private parts to the lesbians’…of course that we all know that as soon as a truly manly man, such as Dominionmandate Victorious Manlyman the 3rd, walks within 10 feet of a lesbian their orientation immediately straightens out & they spontaneously ovulate.”
Spitting coffee all over the keyboard…thanks! lol
Also you wrote-
“…if we hold uniformity of belief on secondary matters as highly as that of primary matters we may be excluding those Christ loves & dwells with & from whom we have things to learn.”
It is sad the Chandler “scrunches the door” to his church- so as to not include those who do not pretty much fall in line with those “open hand” issues…which he says he protects almost as much as primary issues.
@ dee
Maybe Dominionmandate Victorious Manlyman the 3rd could have a wife named Winsome Gospellina Complesubmissivemaiden?
A quick admin note.
WordPress is throwing a mild hissy fit behind the scenes just now and we can’t free up any comments held for moderation. So if a comment gets moderated it might be a while before we can free it up. We’re working on it.
Dee – regarding the evangelical-cum-Roman whereof you spaketh – was it Christian Smith? He has published numerous books, of which two have titles worth celebrating here: The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture, and How to Go From Being a Good Evangelical to a Committed Catholic in 95 Difficult Steps. Class. Incidentally, I don’t know whether you’ve come across the phrase “Swimming the Tiber” to describe conversion from Protestantness to Popishness (neither of which is, I admit, a real word).
Your theory on why Calvinistas compete to outdo one another in ideological conservatism is interesting. I wonder whether I might submit a refinement thereof for peer review? Namely, that it may not be their place among the elect that they’re unsure of, so much as their status among Calvinistas.
The reason I say this is that their behaviour mirrors two well-studied human behaviours as far as I can see. Firstly, that of young men striving for peer-group acceptance, and perhaps alpha-male status, by acts of bravado, risk-taking or even crudeness. I was very much like that as a teenager; I wasn’t cool or good-looking, so I tried to attract attention and deflect disdain using shock tactics such as climbing out of the window of a fast-moving minibus and telling sicker jokes than anyone else. (Perhaps I should clarify: I didn’t jump off said fast-moving minibus – even I wasn’t that desperate – I just used the roof-rack as a handhold and climbed back in through a different window.) On sober reflection, I can’t honestly say that my younger self was a particularly good model of eldership.
The second behavioural archetype is that of “apparatchiks” in a totalitarian society, competing for favoured jobs by making an extravagant show of orthodoxy – toeing the party line, admiring Comrade Stalin, or whatever.
This is significant because it usually involves projecting accusations onto others, to turn them into scapegoats who are not as politically sound as oneself. In at least two public settings that I know of, for instance, a well-known Calvinista challenged an opponent to prove their christian credentials by affirming their commitment to the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. The subtle effect of this was, of course, that said Calvinista immediately elevated himself to the status of Judge, with his opponent required to submit under, and answer to, him. In one of the examples, when the opponent stated his support for “PSA”, the Calvinista (on video) said to him, “You sound like a coward when you say that“. In other words, I’m a truer believer than you are, and I’m better than you.
There’s something tragic about that. When a man’s doctrine of the atonement moves him, not to dumbstruck worship, but to self-righteousness and pride, he has obviously not even begun to understand the atonement.
P.S. sorry about the excess of bold type there – I missed a closing html tag out.
“Too clever by half”, as we say over here… 🙁
A quick admin note.
WordPress is throwing a mild hissy fit behind the scenes just now and we can’t free up any comments held for moderation. So if a comment gets moderated it might be a while before we can free it up. We’re working on it.
Bridget,
Thank you. I love reading your comments, and also agree with most everything YOU say. MUCH respect.
Argo,
I agree with you about the autonomy of man. I am wondering what you think of a theory I thought up one day when someone said to me that they couldn’t wait to get to heaven so they ‘couldn’t’ sin anymore.
Maybe it sounds like semantics to some but I think it’s that we ‘won’t’ sin anymore. I do not believe that we will lose our free will in heaven.
Dee,
Short answer (yes…I CAN be short; I know, shocking 😉 ), I think it is when a child can understand good and evil in the metaphysical sense…that is choose to do good or evil in the awareness of a greater, abstract moral standard. So, it isn’t just obeying mommy and daddy because they say so and we trust and depend on them; it’s a deeper awareness that one’s actions are beholden to a standard beyond a human person. That they operate via the abstract concepts of good and bad (evil). In terms of age, it likely varies, but I think it should be apparent…there will be signs of active “reason”. The ability to abstract is pretty much obvious in people, I think, but maybe not.
Kolya,
You are right about Edwards’s views (and probably Augustine too…not as certain). And he is also completely wrong about that. He posits that man’s first “act” is not his own, but of the Creator, thus we are predestined because every subsequent action is predetermined via this first act, which again, is not man’s own.
This opens a Pandora’s box of metaphysical impossibilities and pure theological contradictions, not the least of which is that it makes man just an extension of God, which is both redundant and heretical, especially when considering that some of these “extensions” are going to wind up in hell.
If man is not free to act according to all that his ability allows (ie, reason and understanding of the TRUTH) then he simply cannot exist. Our first act must be of US according to our innate ability to BE rational, self aware, and separate from an external force, utterly, or man is pointless, and God is not God.
I read Edwards’s essay on free will. It was one of the best examples of poor metaphysics and bad Christian exegesis ever published.
First, I’m a guy. Second, I’m on Sarah’s board. (Is it difficult for egalitarians to recognize such distinctions?) Third, I am completing my seminary training this semester and developing apologetic material in the phil. sci. discipline. With 25+ years in IT and now working as a commercial photographer, I have done much more in the world than work as an event planner.
Sarah was not in any recruited by TGC. It was they who picked up on her post. Spreading falsehood by insinuation or by explicit statement is not, by any definition “Christian” behavior. That is apparently acceptable here. (I know egals who would not tolerate such unChristian behavior, esp. in anabaptist/Mennonite circles. Character counts.)
Orthodoxy is not a set of disparate components but a systematic whole. For RHE to deny together both special creation and inerrancy is to remove necessary underpinnings of orthodoxy. Historic evangelicalism relies on these, else one might as well rejoin Rome. The separation of the components shows only a lack of theological education.
Citations of exceptions on soft inclusivism (iirc, even D James Kennedy held to a soft form) is only to say that there are disagreements. There is no proof of error by the elevation of disagreement. and a failure to understand the degrees of inclusivism might lead one to think they are all the same. Such is not the case at all and some training in theology beyond one’s MBA might be helpful.
It is not uncommon in egal circles to find the dialectical approach. “Evans-very bad; TGC men –very good.” It was not Sarah who raised that framework. We hear this type of class-based conflict too much in politics. It has no place in the church. Conflict-based arguments never solve problems.
In the end, all I read here is something very negative. It is the declaration of what is not rather than what is. I find no positive declarations or attempt to actually identify and clarify truth and error.
I wonder what research the author chose to do and chose to neglect.
HUG: thanks for the “Perfectly-Parsed Theology has No Need of Those” and “Paging Pol Pot” summaries. I thought of including a summary in my “Where’s the Love” comment (about Sarah’s official “Beliefs” statement) and then I decided you would come up with a better punch line.
Got to admit I was hoping you might mention Molech. Substitute him for the word “God” in the Perfectly-Parsed Theology and not much changes….
“Orthodoxy is not a set of disparate components but a systematic whole. For RHE to deny together both special creation and inerrancy is to remove necessary underpinnings of orthodoxy.”
Hi Collin,
Which translators throughout history were “inerrant”? King James’? Jerome? Calvin? NT Wright?
There are terms that are used for propaganda purposes to keep people from thinking. Scripture is “Inspired” but to stretch that to “inerrant” brings a whole other set of problems.
‘Historic evangelicalism relies on these, else one might as well rejoin Rome. The separation of the components shows only a lack of theological education.”
ST was invented by man and is man’s attempt to systemize belief. It really has nothing at all to do with the Holy Spirit, Who is our “Best Teacher”. To suggest man made systems are orthodoxy IS to join Rome. But I do realize that ST is all the rage and very fashionable. Who is your ST guru, Collin? Grudem? Berkhof? Van Til? Hodge?
Hi Colin, ” I find no positive declarations or attempt to actually identify and clarify truth and error.”
You can clarify for me– why is any reference to the Benevolence of God lacking in your statement of beliefs? Is God’s nature “positive” and “truth”?
Collin B –
Exactly! TGC picked her up because she serves a purpose. Isn’t that what the title of this post implies?
P.S. The Apostle Paul didn’t try to impress anyone with his background or education 😉
Thanks for introducing yourself, assuming everyone is egalitarians, and having kind words to say about how egals think.
Nick,
Your comment @ Nick Bulbeck on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 09:31 AM
is dead on! Exactly. My many years of interacting up close and personal with this YRR/NC/Patriarchy movement at ground zero has brought me to the exact same conclusions.
It does remind me of another movement in history were young men were motivated in the same way for controlling people and feeling superior.
Hey, Dee and Deb, you guys interested in writing a post about Kent Shaffer, who published a Top 200 blog list of Christian writers that was 93 percent male and white, and then blamed people’s concerned reaction on selfish ambition and womanly emotionalism?
Just a thought, from a flaming angry observer.
Collin
Read very carefully what I said. I have no doubt that she was chosen by TGC for her “expose” of the sins of Rachel Held Evans. I stand by my initial claim.
When one cannot win the argument on substance, one can always use the “you are a bad christian”approach. This is not unlike “you are just being emotional.”
Theistic evolution does not deny special creation. In fact, it upholds “In the beginning, God…” I take it you are familiar with Alister McGrath who could never be accused of denying God’s intervention in life. I am afraid that you are misrepresenting or are not informed of what those who hold to TE believe.
Sarah Flashing most definitely did imply that there is something wrong with one believing in optimistic agnosticism in regards to the salvation of those outside of the faith (the Chinese farmer in 1200 AD, for example). I stand by this claim.
By your criteria, I am outside of “orthodox” Christianity so aren’t you wasting you time over here? I think it might be best to ignore me since you might be inadvertently giving me street cred amongst the true, idiot believers who can’t tell truth from hogwash,
However, you did do me a huge favor by demonstrating your negativity towards my training. I did not realize that if, only I did have a seminary degree, I might understand theology on the obviously higher plain of such graduates such as yourself and Flashing.
MIght I suggest you tweak your apologetics program a bit. Something is getting lost in the translation.
Folks
Please read Collin’s comment above. I think it might illustrate some points we have been making for the last 3 years on this blog. I am very grateful to him for so clearly expressing his sentiments in such an open manner!
sad observer
I know about the top 200 blog list. Yes, he does not think much of women bloggers. He claims he only includes ministry oriented blogs and that is why women are underrepresented.
Oh yes, it is his list and he gets to say what is “ministry oriented.”
Once again, TWW is proud to be “Not one of the Top 200 Christian blogs.”
It does remind me of another movement in history where young men were motivated in the same way for controlling people and feeling superior. — Anon1
Hitlerjugend, Komsomol, Chairman Mao’s Red Guards, or Talibani?
Also perhaps the fact that Augustine had led a, ahem, untrammelled lifestyle before his conversion may have contributed to his views on sex. — Kolya
I have an old web article transcript titled “The Christian Sex Cult” credited to a “Mars Hill” (no info whether this is Bee Jay Driscoll before he went off the cliff) which makes much the same point:
That Monica’s son Auggie was a real horndog in his youth and later in life (after his conversion experience) was a celibate priest and bishop. And how in neither case could he interact with women as people — before they were just sexual conquests and afterwards they were forbidden fruit. And that when Augustine became such an influence on theology, a lot of his baggage on the subject of sex got included.
Oh that is all too hilarious- ‘yielded up their private parts to the lesbians’…of course that we all know that as soon as a truly manly man, such as Dominionmandate Victorious Manlyman the 3rd, walks within 10 feet of a lesbian their orientation immediately straightens out & they spontaneously ovulate. — BeakerJ
Then why do so many DVM3s like to see/watch/read about two Lezbos going at it? (Hawt Lezbo Action is one of the archetype examples of male porn.)
But, most importantly, BLOOD. Gushing and spurting BLOOD. Because if we write about BLOOD, our books will be gritty and exciting and MANLY BOYS will like them because MANLY BOYS like BLOOD. LOTS OF BLOOD. — Hester
Because violence is MANLY. (“I CAN BEAT YOU UP! I CAN BEAT YOU UP!”) Above and beyond the usual Bart Simpson Syndrome where everything gross and/or disgusting and/or bloody is KEWL.
And Violence isn’t Sex. I have found that when it comes to Violence and Sex, you usually find pro- one and anti- the other. You almost never find pro-both or anti-both in the same Activist.
Seriously, though – yes. Terribly written. The dialogue esp. falls flat on its face. — Hester
Which describes a LOT of Conventional Christian Fiction and Bad Fanfic. (And the two have a LOT in common.)
HUG
Where do you come up with this stuff?? — Dee
You want the crazy answer or the serious one, Dee?
The serious one is I was a kid genius and natural-talent speedreader. By the time I was ten, I’d read and absorbed more data than most people do in a lifetime. With NO idea how to fit it all together. (As Steven King put it, “When you’re six years old, most of your bingo-balls are still floating around in the draw tank.”)
Citing Steven King again, “The quiet child (and I was one) is often given tours of interesting tracts of mental landscape.” Add to that being the Omega Male of my school who hid out in the library all the time absorbing more data, and I ended up with this massive database in my head with no good retrieval algorithm. Virtually anything will cause a random linked-list cascade of trivia references. Including My Little Pony music videos about Lesbians.
HUG, My question is how come when Auggie became a believer he bannished his long time concubine and son’s mother. She never saw her son again. She was from the lower classes so he did not marry her even after being saved. I realize we are talking a different era but it seems to me he had to sin against her AGAIN in order to be a good Christian? Boggles the mind.
HUG- DVM3’s only like to see fake lesbo’s together…to use your phrase. If you got genuine lesbian sex to show them they’d run a mile. And surely they only watch as a prelude to the women involved getting the ‘real thing’ when DMV3 joins the show. He’s so manly he can satisfy many women!
Folks, Collins ad hominen approach to legitimate questions of accepted “orthodoxy” is typical. Don’t let it intimidate. It was a non-response. Appeals to orthodoxy as TRUTH is really the only argument they ever have…notice they never want to debate the metaphysics. They just want to tell you that its not possible that you could ever know anything true that isn’t orthodox. That makes orthodoxy=God. Which…that’s a problem for them. Seriously.
Plus, his appeal to reformed orthodoxy as the plumb line for TRUTH shows how little he understands about what Dee and Deb do here. But he doesn’t care. He doesn’t have to understand. His orthodoxy is force, not ideas.
Collin,
Welcome to TWW.
Are you saying that those who hold to a belief in Theistic Evolution do not believe in a “special creation”?
Perhaps you need to investigate Theistic Evolution further before jumping to such a rash conclusion.
Dominionmandate Victorious Manlyman the 3rd
Or Dominate, for short.
Among friends he could be Dominator III.
Hi, Argo.
reading along here…. i’ll go out on a limb here and assume I’m not the only one would enjoy hearing you clarify (in a spelling out sort of way) what you mean by metaphysics, in context. Is it less tangible truth? Mystery in truth?
I’m a sequestered mom of young kids, but consider myself somewhat informed and enlightened…. it has its limits, though.
Collin,
There is a huge debate on whether 6-day creationism is necessary for orthodoxy, and what the word “inerrant” means, and how that definition should apply to scriptural reading.
It sounds like you’re saying that anyone who argues about those two issues has obviously gone outside the fold of orthodoxy, but—that’s the whole argument to begin with. Other intelligent, thoughtful, well-read, scripturally-minded people disagree that those views are necessary for orthodoxy.
So what, exactly, are you arguing? It sounds like you’re just repeating the belief statement for the particular side of the debate that you fall on. Which, of course, there’ nothing wrong with you believing that…I’m just confused, because you seem to see “repeating your belief statement” as “proving to those who disagree that they’re wrong.”
I”m not trying to start an argument, I’m just confused.
I used no ad hominem to defend orthodoxy. Read the church fathers. Every argument against the heretics was done by quoting the Scripture. The absolute authority of the word was always assumed. Same with sola scriptura. “Without error” was always assumed with respect to absolute authority. It is only in recent years that the skeptical, rationalist approach has attempted to deconstruct the content, so the response has been this specific and clear defense.
What is quite clear in both the post and the comments is the dialectical character of the argument. It is claimed that I am using “force” and nothing more. How? I’m more than happy to discuss the metaphysics of the arugement being presented. Modern “evangelical” feminism finds its source (historically) in the 1960s and the rise of popular Marxist thought. It’s not that feminists are Marxists but it is that they are employing the same anarchist methods, following Derrida in dismantling systems into disparate components. Is it not the argument here that the issue is Men v Women and questions of power, authority, and force? Not mine but yours.
“Theistic evolution does not deny special creation.”
It is exactly the opposite. It is a rejection of special creation. The ASA forum is a good place to read this.
“However, you did do me a huge favor by demonstrating your negativity towards my training. I did not realize that if, only I did have a seminary degree, I might understand theology on the obviously higher plain of such graduates such as yourself and Flashing.”
Oddly enough it was you who first denigrated her person. And I suspect that if your agumentation method were sound you would understand the fallacy that disagreement != proof. Yes, you are educated. I acknowledge that. But don’t get in a huff because you made some unfounded accusations and comments and got called on them. Keep lying and the world will see your character.
Now, if you wish to prove your accumen, quit lying. Give evidence of her being used and do more than assert something that *seems* obvious.
“Sarah Flashing most definitely did imply that there is something wrong with one believing in optimistic agnosticism in regards to the salvation of those outside of the faith (the Chinese farmer in 1200 AD, for example). I stand by this claim.”
Yes, because we hold to the exclusivity if Christ’s work. Modern inclusivism is new, per A H Strong in the late 19th and early 20th c. Like your deconstructive argumentation method, it has proven destructive.
Colin,
Please give me a clear definition of “special creation” as I’ve never heard the term in academic circles. I assume you’re referring to a literal, six day creation ex nihilo…
If so, you would be surprised how many of your evangelical counterparts either reject the doctrine or hold it loosely. Either way, it’s certainly not a litmus test of orthodoxy.
Regarding “inerrancy,” I don’t know where to begin. If theologians bothered to study biblical interpretation during the 2nd Temple Period, both in terms of the creativity Jews employed in rewriting sacred scripture & in the employment of pseudepigraphic writing, then they would jettison the term altogether (forgetting for a moment that it is notoriously difficult to get more than 2 people to define the term in the same way). American evangelicals invented the term then doctored their interpretation of the Fathers and historians to get their proof. It’s loaded with baggage, primarily in response to modernisitic influences, and it’s primarily activated to promote socio-cultural agenda, especially feminism and creation wars.
Collin
Therefore you are rejecting Alister McGrath, John Stott and fair number of other Christians,some members of the Gospel Coalition who believe in TE and optimistic agnosticism when it come to salvation.Wow
Also, be very careful in accusing me of being a liar. I still believe TGC used her article as a payback to Evans.Is that a lie or simply a belief based on observation.I may guess wrongly (still believe I am right) but I am no liar-specifically setting out to deceive.
As for the ASA, my husband is a member of that organization and we get their journals. We meet regularly with those who are evolutionary creationists and every single on of them believe that God created the heavens and the earth ex nihilo.All of them also believe that, at one point in time, God breathed the breath of life into man, giving him his immortal soul and making him forever different than the animals. And those two points do qualify for special creation.
You are perfectly welcome to believe what you will about both creation and salvation. One day it will all be made clear. I still believe that you are a Christian. I believe in evolutionary creationism and adhere to optimistic agnosticism when in comes to salvation. I am in no way a universalist. If you judge me outside of the faith, I hope you are really sure about that. It is a heavy burden to know and speak the mind of God.
Are you friends with Kamilla as well? You sound a bit like her. Ah well, back to fomenting anarchism-Workers of the world, Unite!
Colin,
Authority is force, nothing more…thus appealing to YOUR orthodoxy as authority is appealing to force.
The Bible can have no inherent force at all, so again the force is the assumption that your particular orthodoxy wields the only correct interpretation based upon its flawed metaphysics (which, no, you guys never argue…every debate concedes your metaphysical premises almost to a T).
And in addition, you now use a circular argument in addition to ad hominen. Citing the “church fathers” who either you presumptuously assume agree with your interpretation and interpretive methods, or, were creators of the philosophy itself. So, essentially you appeal to yourselves as your defense, not the Bible. For you guys, using the Bible first requires those who disagree with you to cede your interpretive methods and your conclusions about it. That won’t happen on this site, which is why you come over here like a bull in a china shop, shotgunning your intellect around a mad hunter.
I deny inerrancy. That is a metaphysical debate. Citing the bible as proof it is inerrant IS ad hominen.
I believe inerrancy is a straw
man argument. The term itself is useless applied to the Bible. Incapable of error is not a concept that can be practically applied to a book like the Bible at all, really. It’s truth is a function of its application… to claim it, in and of itself is inerrant makes it functionally useless and irrelevant to man.
I ask, how can anything not God be inerrant and infallible, especially without qualification. (And if it needs qualifying, well…it’s not infallible by definition.)
Dee,
A read of Klaus Bockmuehl’s The Challenge of Marxism, A Christian Repsonse might be in order. He did a good job of laying out the issues.
Special creation means unique. Not that mankind is otherwise a primate among and above other primates. “God formed man” separate from the animal kingdom. While it does not entail YEC specifically, it does require a separate act. Breathing the breath of life was subsequent, or perhaps a part of, to that creative act. But here the interpretation makes no allowance for man among animals but man separate from animals.
As you are in ASA (as I was for a while participating, about 4 years ago) there were at that time some lengthy discussions about specific Christian doctrines such as original sin which require a special creative act. In the end the doctrines had to be reinterpreted to such a degree that their meaning was lost.
RHE’s view of inclusivism is so close to universalism that it is difficult to distinguish. It differs greatly from A H Strong and you would do well to compare them and others and so avoid over-generalization.
When it comes to a challenge to “reject” I don’t countenance interrogations and inquisitions. Yes, I would differ *strongly* with them on that point. Some that I have read did so without thinking thoroughly through the issue. Others are quite explicit.
Since your response expresses your capacity to diminish people with character assaults. Such is clear in your post.
When it comes to a specific lie: “It is obvious that this post is going in the direction of Evans-very bad; TGC men –very good.”
You presume motive. You presume a conflict-based assessment and assign your conflict view to her. That is both false and wrong.
Error #2: “‘Believers’ (her caps), obviously placing Evans outside of the ‘Believer’s’ camp.” No. Do not hastily presume such a distinction. Try thinking in terms of RE being set apart in terms of belief system, not internal salvation. In this case I think you just did not give the benefit of the doubt and were not at all generous enough to allow for something that you did not want to see. In the end you misrepresented her position. Again, false and wrong.
Argo,
I deny inerrancy. That is a metaphysical debate. Citing the bible as proof it is inerrant IS ad hominen.
Huh? It might be circular (as is in *some* instances) but not ad hominem. Get a dictionary.
Argo,
“That won’t happen on this site, which is why you come over here like a bull in a china shop, shotgunning your intellect around a mad hunter.”
Well, Dee did call me a woman. She called me over here.
Ignorance is not a virtue.
joe, feel free to elaborate at any time.
Colin,
Okay…Colin, I don’t want a fight here. Please, and I mean this sincerely, please put away the presumption and attitude that makes all you Calvinist posters sound like the same person.
Ad hominen means appealing to emotion rather than logic or reason. When you appeal to your presumption of “faith” or “bible” or “orthodoxy” as proof of its own truth, what else are you doing but appealing to emotion? Hope over reason; authority over defensible ideas…that is ad hominen.
You may have a dictionary, but do you have progression of rational thought, Colin? Are you able to see facts and draw logical conclusions from those facts?
Collin
So you believe, as do the Mormons, that human special creation means two arms and two legs? I doubt it. The reason that we are separate is due to our immortal soul, something that distinguishes us from all of creation.I believe that the special creation has quite a bit to do with immortality when it comes to humans.
We are friendly with some of those in the ASA and I can tell you that you are wrong about their intent. Do you really believe that they are monolithic? I am quickly beginning to see that there are some differences in those in the Gospel Coalition.
Are you really saying that people like McGrath did not thoroughly think through their beliefs? If only they did as you did they would never believe such a thing? Oh good night! Or am I lying, false, wrong etc.
I have always enjoyed being called guilty of character assassination.(Note to Deb: remmeber the last person who did that had a rather public meltdown)? Once again, it is tool to obfuscate legitimate differences.
However, I will apologize for thinking you were a female. The ad had a nice feminine touch so I made an assumption. By the way, I do not think a feminine touch is a “male fail.” I know a man who is the best floral arranger that I have ever met.
You are certainly sure of yourself and me: false, wrong, etc. We will be adding your list of names to our famous list “What the world is saying about The Wartburg Watch.” I so want someone to call us Amalekites.(We have been called Philistines- a personal favorite). They had a king named Agag and there is so much that I could do with that. Could you please oblige us?
Collin,
Forgive me for misspelling your name consistently. That was not meant as a slight.
Collin,
If one reads the Chicago statement on inerrancy, one finds that only the “original autographs” can be considered “inerrant”. Since we do not have those, but only what are clearly scribed copies of scribed copies of scribed copies . . .. And there is clear evidence of some scribes adding to and deleting from the books that became the canon. Thus the claim of inerrancy is nothing useful, for we do not know what portions of scripture are scribal inserts, what was deleted by scribal editing, etc. There is good evidence that the I and II Corinthians is composed of fragments of up to four letters, not all of them written by Paul or perhaps scribed for Paul from his dictation by different scribes.
Secondly, most of the OT was put in writing in Babylon during the exile, from memory, from oral tradition, etc. So events that a YEC would say occurred in 4000 BC were put in writing ca 500 BC. Oral tradition is a serious problem, because it tends to elide and to elaborate over time, leaving out and substituting in.
So, drop the inerrancy issue here. It is intellectually weak and of no consequence to the question of HOW God created man and what the specific defining act that made the animal body a spirit in God’s image.
I believe in and serve Jesus, also known as the Messiah and, in other language, the Christ. One person of the Trinity in which I also believe, and which I serve. It is of no import to me, nor to my eternal well-bing, how the earth and the creatures here were created, but that God did it. Similarly, it is of no import to me, nor to my eternal well-being, how the animal known as humankind, came to have a soul, but that God did it.
To me, it demeans and denies Christ to say that women are relegated to roles defined by tradition and that men are privileged to have superior authority. The sum of all teaching by Jesus is toward freedom and equality. Proof-texting is a weak substitute for an in-depth study for years, of the Bible, including using the earliest available Greek and Hebrew texts, as well as an in-depth study of the cultures and societies of the times. Jesus did not treat women as chattel property, but Christians did for 19 centuries, just as they did minorities for 18, and some still do.
Masculinist hierarchical authoritarianism results in abuse of women and children, and thus is a “but-for” cause of their destruction either literally or spiritually. Jesus put a price on that destruction, the one time he advocated a death penalty. I would not wish to meet my Maker having advocated for the hyper-Calvinist partriarchal model of human relationships; I think many will be surprised by His judgment.
Seriously… I don’t think *anyone* here is using deconstructionist arguments, let alone appealing to Derrida! (Or Karl Marx, come to that.)
This has gotten silly.
I’m still confused on how “inerrant” means that every issue in scripture is clearly spelled out with no room for disagreement. I”m no scholar, but I’ve been reading the Bible my whole life, and I see things that seem to support a black-and-white reading of “no one gets in apart from Christ” and things that seem to support “God’s workings, through Christ, toward those who haven’t been evangelized, is a mystery, his business and not ours.” I’m not denying the Bible’s authority or truthfulness, yet I don’t have all the answers, either, and I can see how reasonable, faithful people would disagree on it.
Therefore, I have trouble understanding why people are arguing about the Bible’s inerrancy and authority as if that will somehow solve the debate. The Bible can be perfect truth without being clear in all instances, and we can think we have the truth of interpretation but actually come to change our minds later.
And whatever Marxist tactics feminism did or didn’t adopt, it began long before the 60s and the egalitarian movement began in the 1800s in the church.
@ Collin:
“Special creation means unique. Not that mankind is otherwise a primate among and above other primates. ‘God formed man’ separate from the animal kingdom. While it does not entail YEC specifically, it does require a separate act. Breathing the breath of life was subsequent, or perhaps a part of, to that creative act. But here the interpretation makes no allowance for man among animals but man separate from animals.”
I’m not going to get in the middle of this besides pointing out this one thing. What you have basically done here is denied that humans are animals. Problem is, even the most hardcore YEC literalists (i.e., Ken Ham, etc.) believe that humans ARE animals. It is pretty much an undeniable biological/taxonomical fact. If we aren’t animals (spec. mammals), then why do we have a spinal cord? Organs? Mammary glands? The term “animal” in a taxonomic sense is not a derogatory term, just a term used to describe certain organisms that fit the criteria for Kingdom Animalia – as opposed to others that fit the criteria for Kingdoms Plantae, Monera, Fungi, etc.
Since we all believe that God is omnipotent, what would prevent Him from fashioning a creature out of “the dust of the ground” that just so happened to be physically similar to some of the other creatures He’d already made? That’s all taxonomy is about – classifying organisms based on their physical/genetic differences. There’s no value judgment involved, merely observation and sorting. So I fail to see how it is un-Christian to admit that humans have physical similarities to primates. We quite obviously do, on multiple levels, and the creation/evolution debate and the image of God really have nothing to do with it.
@ HUG:
“Which describes a LOT of Conventional Christian Fiction and Bad Fanfic. (And the two have a LOT in common.)”
Oh, yeah. I think we’ve all read our fair share of Bad Fanfic. I wonder what Bad Christian Fanfic would look like…
@ Pam:
“Maybe Dominionmandate Victorious Manlyman the 3rd could have a wife named Winsome Gospellina Complesubmissivemaiden?”
Well, I’m pretty sure Authority Headship Trumpington the 8th’s wife’s name would be Obedience Submission Trumpington…
RE: Dee on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 11:42 AM,
“…I am not a universalist but I have great hope that many will be saved that do not fit our current definition of having “walked the aisle…”
I hope you’re right Dee, because if you’re not, you will not see old Muff in heaven along with Elvis & Johnny of whom you are so fond. As you know, I reject the doctrines of original sin and penal substitution as odious and contrary to the character of the Almighty as I perceive him.
If the above mentioned doctrines require a conscious acquiescence and affirmation from an individual as part of the required entrance package into heaven, there’ll be no Muff Potter on the roll sheet when it’s called up yonder.
Muff…well, I’ll be keeping you company, so…I’ll bring the keg. You pump. 🙂
I forgot to add that I too heartily deny penal substitution. Thanks for the reminder.
Muff/Argo
As I have said, I am optimistic, in many things!
Argo,
Ad Hominem, from Merriam Webster:
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
Why is an appeal to a presupposition the same as an appeal to a feeling? You’re reading into my statement instead of from it. But I seriously doubt you know the difference.
Dee,
I look forward to your answering the assessment of your clearly documented falsehoods. But even in my case, character assassination seems the rule of the day. I don’t have to call names. You’ve done that quite well on your own.
Sad observer
“I’m still confused on how “inerrant” means that every issue in scripture is clearly spelled out with no room for disagreement.”
Nobody made that claim. Instead we give the word absolute authority as God’s inspired word. Interpretations vary, but the authority goes with the Book and we submit to it whether we agree or not. That’s why, as a dispensationalist and Calvinist, I have Arminian, postmill, and amill friends.
There are doctrines that are fundamental: Inspiration of the entire word. If it is all inspired then it must all be, in the original autographs, then it must all be without error. There are several alternatives which all lie outside of orthodoxy. Barth is there, as are the liberals and post-evangelicals.
Arce,
“To me, it demeans and denies Christ to say that women are relegated to roles defined by tradition and that men are privileged to have superior authority.”
There are more than two options. Many of us take the typological approach of Eph. 5 and speak of the home and culture being designed to reflect Christ and the church. It’s not merely tradition or culture — it’s better than that.
And if my disbelief in Eternal Conscious Torment (because it is against the very character of God) means I’m a heretic, I’ll be sharing that keg with Muff and Argo.
Collin,
I’ll leave it to others to continue discussing the specific issues of inerrancy and special creation. For me, the issue is a much simpler one. The implication in Flashing’s post was that Rachel Held Evans and those who share her beliefs on those issues (and the role of women) were lesser Christians – or maybe not Christians at all. That is, to be very blunt, grossly offensive. I’m not sure if you’ve ever had anyone question your salvation because of your beliefs on secondary and tertiary issues before, but I have, and it’s incredibly hurtful. Fortunately, my friends who I’ve had such arguments before willingly agreed to a truce, and while we’re still pretty stubborn in our disagreement, we accept that such disagreements are okay and don’t take away from the fact that we’re all brothers and sisters in Christ. Likewise, my Orthodox friends do fasts and other things in their churches that are very different to my church, but I know that despite those differences, we’re brothers and sisters in Christ. Those differences are the window dressing. Christ crucified is the unifier. Flashing seems to be focusing on the window dressing, rather than seeing that we’re united on the inside. That is what we’re taking issue with here.
Friends, let’s all keep it charitable on here!
I agree with Hester’s post concerning the status of man considered from a zoological point of view. It is worth noting that the binomial classification of creatures (both animals and plants) was invented by Carole Linnaeus a century before Darwin. Linnaeus did not express any evolutionary views but simply classified organisms based on their shared characteristics.
I do not know any theistic evolutionist who has a problem with the idea that man is made in God’s image, and many still believe in a literal Adam and Eve.
Argo, thanks for the note re Edwards. I read his “Notes on Surprising Conversions” and “Distinguishing Marks” which I thought were quite reasonable, but I confess to not having read “Freedom of the Will”.
Collin,
I would love to compare resumes…I have a professional doctorate, have lived in three separate countries, and speak two languages. Your anger is obvious…your spite is your argument’s appeal. These are emotions. I suppose I was a devoted Calvinist longer than you, and I know ad hominem when I hear it. My use of the term was correct. Your problem is that you presume your feelings are ideas, your anger, orthodoxy. You don’t understand your own platform, nor does your theology permit you to really understand anything real, which is why you ascribe evil motives and ignorance to those who refuse to accept your poor doctrine. Honestly…vocab lessons from a theology that forms its premises by inventing nonsensical and metaphysically impossible concepts and meanings. You can’t even get inerrant and infallible right!
“…It is only in recent years that the skeptical, rationalist approach has attempted to deconstruct the content, so the response has been this specific and clear defense…”
Not so Collin. This approach has been around since the 18th cent. (even longer if one counts Erasmus) Thomas Paine’s writings are famous for articulating the rights of man in opposition to the divine right of kings. In fact they provided much of the impetus for organized rebellion against the authority of the British Crown, hardly a “scripture only” enterprise when one considers St. Paul’s dogmatism in Romans 13.
It’s good to know though that when my time in this life is at an end and I am consigned to flames of woe, I’ll be in good company with some of my friends here at TWW and many of the founders of our Nation.
Koya,
I’d like to read distinguishing marks.
The people with the problems are those who only want one atonement theory rather than all of them. There isn’t a single atonement theory that, taken on its own, doesn’t have some kind of significant conceptual flaw but who ever said there had to be just one? Atonement theory isn’t like the Highlander, is it?
Okay, general question so I can understand this discussion better – are penal substitution and substitutionary atonement the same thing? I was under the impression they were not.
Muff
There may be some who are consigning us to the fiery depths who might be feeling a bit of heat as well. There will be surprises in heaven, and hell!
WTH
🙂
Well, not all substitutions are penal substitution. It’d be hard to say that the more ancient form of ransom theory fits that, but PSA could be seen as understanding the ransom to be paid to God and not Satan or death since God would be considered sovereign and not needing to pay ransoms to others. I admit that’s a bit dashed off and perhaps too short and un-nuanced but that’s what I’ve got right now.
Collin,
You first post from “orthodoxy” to “education” was ad hominem. According to both interpretations of the term you cited. You appeal to your prejudices and the assumptions about what everyone assumes is “orthodoxy” which is really Calvinism, and then you accused Dee of being ignorant (again, on the assumption that orthodoxy is how you and your comrades see it). I’m still struggling to see how you don’t get it. All I can come up with is that you suffer from a typical reformed affliction of a life utterly lost in the translations of your invented jargon.
@ WTH:
It was my understanding (based on only cursory research) that Christus Victor was a form of substitutionary atonement, but the ransom theory was not. Therefore someone who denies penal substitution is not necessarily denying substitutionary atonement, but it could SOUND like they are because penal substitution has been the more popular view in the Western church for several centuries (?). I could be totally wrong here.
Hester – as I understand it, penal substitution is not the same thing as substitutionary atonement per se. So, while I believe that Christ died for us, I do NOT believe that there was some sort of “penal” aspect to it.
I’m with Argo, Muff, Arce, Leila and whoever else re. not believing in eternal conscious torment, or original sin (at least as it is understood by many in the West), etc. etc. And i actually think there’s plenty of room for divergences there.
I’ll also confess to being very much of the opinion that we do NOT know everything there is to know concerning death and the afterlife, and I can no longer accept the pretty hideous notion of God not allowing people in his presence who either had never heard of Christ and/or who were “evangelized” in a bad way. (in other words, I’m slipping pretty close to the border of universalism, though not the kind that’s part and parcel of Unitarian Universalism – see Robin Parry, among others, for a recent xtian view on universalism.)
I also cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can accept “limited atonement” as xtian doctrine. Either Christ died for all, or else his death is for nothing.
And I plead the Fifth on so-called inerrancy (at least, in the way that Collin talked about it earlier).
Collin, I’m guessing that you’re young. Your views might well change as you live and experience losses, to death, to failed relationship(s), whatever. I can only tell you my personal take, which is that I thought I knew everything when I was in my 20s. Life – and inevitable losses, grappling with illness, etc. – have changed that.
*
Paradoxes: Don’t make me uncomfortable per se, although the kinds of paradoxes posed by 5-point Calvinism are a whole different topic. (They make me feel like my hair’s on fire!)
numo, Driscoll actually punted on the scope of the atonement by saying that Jesus’ death bought all of humanity/creation even if it is only EFFECTIVE for the elect. Of course for the hard-core super-Reformed this means he’s a doctrinal traitor.
for those who advocate limited atonement the concern is that if Jesus died for all and any manage to not be saved then it’s still for nothing. Unbelievers would suggest the impasse would be much simpler if we were all simply atheists who ignored the viability of a concept like sin. 🙂
WTH – I grew up Lutheran and am a revert.
Calvinism pretty much doesn’t make sense to me. 😉
Argo, Sadly what you are seeing is indoctrination from “seminary” instead of education. It is epidemic.
@ Collin:
Sorry – I said I would stay out of this, but after watching this thread develop a little more, it turns out I did have something to say.
1) Whether or not your posts so far have contained “ad hominem” attacks on Dee. After reading and rereading both your comments, Dee’s comments, the original article AND Flashing’s article, I am inclined to agree with Argo on this one. Your own definition of “ad hominem” was as follows:
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
In your comments you have said the following about Dee (emphasis mine):
“Spreading falsehood by insinuation or by explicit statement is not, by any definition ‘Christian’ behavior. That is apparently acceptable here. (I know egals who would not tolerate such unChristian behavior, esp. in anabaptist/Mennonite circles. CHARACTER counts.)”
“But don’t get in a huff because you made some unfounded accusations and comments and got called on them. Keep LYING and the world will see your CHARACTER. Now, if you wish to prove your acumen, quit LYING.”
According to your own definition, then, you did indeed make some ad hominem attacks on Dee because you impugned her character. You even used the exact word “character.” They were not the only things you said, but you did make them. And BTW, Dee is right that “lying” has to be with intent to deceive, a motive which you cannot prove she has; ergo, it is overstepping for you to call her a liar so confidently. This is especially interesting in light of the fact that you complained at 3:41 that she had “presumed motive” where she had no proof of said motive.
2) Whether Sarah Flashing was “recruited” by TGC. “Recruit” is a scary word that conjures up images of mob bosses, shady backroom deals and cigar smoke, but (at least that I read) Dee never used that word in her original post. She said, “They have chosen a woman to lead the attack.” Bridget said it best:
“Exactly! TGC picked her up because she serves a purpose. Isn’t that what the title of this post implies?”
This is different from active “recruitment.” This is merely finding an article by someone and choosing to share it because it says something you agree with and want to stand behind – something you admitted TGC had done at 10:41 (“it was they who picked up on her post”). So if Dee had actually alleged “recruitment,” yes, she might have a problem. But she didn’t. She merely said that they “chose.” Vast difference.
3) Whether Flashing’s article sets up an “us vs. them” scenario. You said:
“It is not uncommon in egal circles to find the dialectical approach. ‘Evans-very bad; TGC men –very good.’ It was not Sarah who raised that framework.”
I’m sorry, but I must respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree. After reading Flashing’s original article, it is quite obvious that she is trying to place RHE outside the camp of trustworthy voices at the comp-egal table. From the article:
“Little is accomplished by debating what are typically in-house concerns with those whose theological assumptions place them well outside the camp of historical evangelicalism because there is no getting past the hidden presuppositions.”
“Consider whether you might be willing to have a friendly discussion on church governance with a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. You wouldn’t be very likely to sit down and discuss the roles and responsibilities of Church elders over a cup of coffee–or in front of a congregation–as if there is common ground in other core theological areas.”
“The bottom line is, Evans’ emphasis on biblical womanhood should not cause her to be seen simply as another persuasive voice in an ongoing in-house discussion. Her voice at the table on this issue risks orthodoxy by presenting her to a community of believers as someone needs to be heard. We need to properly steward the intellectual/theological life of the church, so caution needs to be implemented in engaging those whose views fall below biblical standards.”
In these three excerpts, Flashing:
– says RHE is “outside the camp of historical evangelicalism”
– compares RHE to a Jehovah’s Witness (widely agreed to be an unorthodox cult)
– claims there is no “common ground in other core theological areas”
– says RHE does not “need to be heard”
– claims RHE is a risk to orthodoxy
– says her “views fall below Biblical standards”
– says that we must “steward” the church against people like RHE
This is as obvious as it can get. She is telling us that RHE is either not a Christian or, at best, a highly defective one, and that we should stop listening to what she has to say about gender roles because it’s like arguing over the color of the firefighter’s jacket while the house is burning down. (The comparison to Jehovah’s Witnesses is especially non-subtle.) She may not have framed it exactly as TGC vs. RHE, but she did frame it in an “us vs. them” way – the “us” being “orthodoxy” and the “them” being RHE. Thus, you cannot sustain an accusation that Dee was the one who introduced “us vs. them” into this discussion, and Dee’s assessment that the post was heading toward “TGC good, RHE bad” was essentially correct (unless, of course, TGC doesn’t consider themselves part of “orthodoxy”?).
I am sure I will only add fuel to this already hotly burning fire with this comment…but I felt these things needed to be said.
If there is one thing I have learned from interacting with the YRR/NC crowd is that their doctrine does not hold up in a free debate. This completely disarms them once out of the protective Reformed bubble and the only recourse is ad hominem. It always degenerates into: You just don’t believe God is Sovereign. Or you are not orthodox.
Calvinism just does not hold up which is why they must appeal to authority as in early church fathers and the councils interpreting the Word for us instead of the indwelling Holy Spirit interpreting the word for us. That is not permitted. Too much freedom and impossible to control people with soul freedom in Christ.
I do get a kick out of the thinking that the suffragettes were Marxists for wanting the vote. That is the “feminist” movement.
@ Kolya:
Thank you!!! I loved taxonomy/animal classification in biology and studied it to death, plus I ate the YEC stuff up when I was a tween/teen which played right into it too. Also, is it true that Linnaeus was a Christian? Because that would put a whole new spin on this topic. I honestly never thought I’d get to use the word “Monera” on a theology blog. : )
If I’d had my Apologia (YEC) high school biology textbook handy, I would also have quoted Jay Wile’s defense of humans being classified with animals. Can’t get much more YEC and “special creation” than Jay Wile!
Collin,
I think I’m getting a clearer picture of your thinking—thank you.
I don’t think that any part of the Bible isn’t inspired or authoritative. However, the argument over inspiration isn’t the thing we’re disagreeing on, is it? Didn’t this begin as an argument over whether one can be faithful to the scriptures but still believe that the un-evangelized may be saved somehow, or that 6-day creation might not be literal?
I only bring up the scriptural authority line because it sounded like you were saying that people who believe in salvation outside evangelization, or 6-day creationism, can’t be taking the authority of scripture seriously. My point is that you can believe in scriptural authority, and its truthfulness, but still come to a place that some Christians will strongly disagree with. That’s not a statement on who’s right and who’s wrong, just saying—let’s not confuse a *liberal interpretation* of scripture with the *refusal to believe all scripture is inspired.* They’re not always the same thing.
For me, honestly the jury is still out on hell. I’ve not quite examined the metaphysics of it…but, that’s really all I’m about now. I know I beat that term to death, but really, for me anyway, there has to a rational philosophical explanation for anything God does or deems, otherwise, as far as I can tell, it simply takes away from His perfection and His utter TRUTH.
The big metaphysical truth I’ve come to wholeheartedly accept is that the point of any created thing is to exist according its own ability to do what it can do, and that includes man, completely APART from God. For example: obvious reality shows that man functions in a sequence of cause and effect action, and that this is how all of his “works” are realized, even mentally. It is this fact that creates an environment conducive to man’s ability to abstract, predict, conceptualize…etc. God command “rule and subdue” depends on the consistency of this reality. Thus, I naturally deny the idea of a “future” that exists apart from man’s effective cause and effect reality…I thus refute the doctrine of predestination(however, I reconcile God’s knowledge and omnipotence with man’s created function of cause and effect existence, but I won’t torture with the details of that now 🙂 ). So, most of my theological beliefs rest upon the premise of the obvious: that creation does what it does. I deny that God is in direct control of His creation (though, through separate acts of his power to create, He can of course intervene; He is omnipotent)…and that to suppose this constitutes a God who is hypocritical and redundant, and thus cannot be God. God will not create something in order to do something He can better do Himself. And since this is EVERYTHING, it is impossible that the function of creation is to be controlled by God. So with this in mind, I filter all my theology through it.
This leads me to the concept of Hell. I believe that man’s ability cannot be rendered unable, so, without going into too much detail here, I believe that all humans will experience an eternal existence. I do not accept annihilation-ism because I believe that this effectively means that (some) people were created by God to be uncreated. I do not find this metaphysically consistent, so I cannot accept it. However, I have absolutely no problem with re-examining the idea of what hell is (torment, fire, separation from God or…something else). On the contrary, examining all these issues, removed from the shackles and mind-prison of Calvinism and other offshoots of neo-reformed thought are extremely healthy for believers.
I recently started a website (in the larval stage): http://www.unreformingtheology.com. (I hope it’s okay, Dee and Deb that I plugged that), where I will go into extremely nit-picky detail 🙂 about my metaphysical ideas with regards to our faith, with, of course, a primary goal of dismantling the faulty philosophical assumptions, and tyrannical premises of Calvinism.
Also, it’s very frightening for Flashing to imply that gender roles are so important to faith that someone with an egalitarian view shouldn’t even be allowed to have a wide voice in Christendom. The Bible spends so little time talking about gender roles in the big scheme of things, so it’s disturbing to me that it’s being turned into the thing that determines if someone is orthodox or not.
Also, marriages were not designed to reflect the relationship of Christ and church. Paul used the example of Christ and the church to explain marriage, but I don’t believe he ever claimed that marriages were designed specifically to reflect this to the world. That’s reading way too much into it, though I know that’s a popular view.
Anon1,
Yep. I agree. Calvinist apologetics is essentially propaganda. And I mean that literally. We are in dire straits if these folks ever get power of civil government. Is fascism worse than Marxism? I’m not sure it is.
I only realized recently that limited atonement is generally taught as sufficient for all but efficient for some. This actually fits nicely with scripture (since sometimes it seems to say Christ died for some and other times it says all), but I feel like it becomes a kind of meaningless doctrine at that point. In RC Sproul’s book on essential doctrines he flat out states (wrongly) that no one believes Christ’s sacrifice was only sufficient for some. In saying so, he makes it pretty clear that the “sufficient for all, efficient for some” is a mainstream view of limited atonement. I doubt too many people are going to view Driscoll as “punting”. Besides, there are plenty of more tangible errors to get upset with Driscoll over.
It’s also with noting that Calvin never said anything about limited atonement.
In full disclosure I would consider myself a Calvinist and I feel like the doctrine gets misconstrued a lot. Piper, Driscoll, and company teach a soteriology that I think is right, but I hate they way they use it as a litmus test for faith and seem to puff up with pride at who has the highest regard for PSA. If the notion of predestination doesn’t yield humility, you’re doing it wrong.
I realize Calvinism isn’t popular around here, but it’s what I believe having read the scripture. That being said, while I think PSA is how it works, I don’t think understanding it is “the Gospel” or necessary for salvation. Basically, it’s hard for me to think anything not in Peter’s first sermon in Acts is required for salvation as far as doctrine goes.
Finally, on the subject of those who haven’t heard the Gospel- my thoughts are that I don’t believe anyone goes to Hell for lack of time or information. What I know is true is that everyone who ends up in heaven is there because of Jesus Christ crucified and I’ll let God handle the details of how that works. For my part, I’ve heard enough truth to know that I must repent and follow Jesus, so my responsibility is quite clear.
Jeff B –
“I realize Calvinism isn’t popular around here, but it’s what I believe having read the scripture.”
With all sincerity, why do we have to label ourselves as anything besides believers that read and believe the scr
. . . the scripture. Even your simple statement above seems to im
With a Ph.D. with a major emphasis on epistemology (how we “know” what we “know”) in social contexts, and a J.D., with much study in the differences among truth, fact, and evidence, I can say that theology is NOT the study of God, it is the study of the writings of people who have thought about God. And for most Christians, that seems to start with a study of the Bible, in a context of what they have been taught the Bible says and is, much of which the Bible does not say or claim for itself.
My commitment to Jesus Christ is based on personal experience, and only limitedly does it involve the Bible. I would point out that most first century Christians did not have any of the New Testament, and very few had the OT. Yet they were convinced of the divinity of Jesus Christ and willingly died rather than renounce their belief. If your belief in Christ is only based on reading the Bible, and not based on the Spirit moving within you and revealing God to you, I wounder about the depth of your belief.
Jesus Christ offers us a great gift, the adoption as a child of God, a sibling of the Christ. To complete the gift, we must accept it and that requires first confession and repentence (no more doing it MY way), the acknowledgement that Jesus was and is who he claimed to be, and the commitment to His reign in our life. Whether the cross represents penal substitution or something else is not particularly necessary for one to understand. The gift of adoption is offered, we must accept it as replacing our attempts to do it on our own.
The scripture can be best read as the offer of grace and adoption is made to all mankind, “whosoever”, but only some accept. Some reject, and there is a penalty of some sort for that. (“Sheol” meaning grave, gets translated as “hell” and presumed to be the “lake of fire”!) But many have too little knowledge to reject, and that conundrum is where many Christians have disagreement with the “walk the aisle or go to hell” approach.
In law, most criminal statutes require a “mens rea”, an intent to do harm or evil or to violate a law (e.g., to possess the contraband). If human law requires an intent to justify punishment, then surely a great and gracious God will make a distinction between those who chose to reject, and those who did not. What that looks like, I do not know. The Bible is rather silent on many such issues, and what we believe tends to have its basis in medieval philosophers, writers and poets, rather than in the Bible per se.
So, let us let others believe as they choose on issues not related to whether they believe in God, who sent a sinless Jesus, who died and was raised, and bids all who will to come and follow Him, and who have chosen to be a disciple of the risen Christ. Every thing else is of lesser importance and is not necessary for salvation. Proper doctrine does not save. Jesus Christ does.
. . . the Scripture. Even your simple statement above seems to imply that (C)alvinism is the outcome of (s)cripture. I’m not thinking that the purpose of Scripture was to produce Calvinism (or any denominational bent for that matter) but to help produce Christ-likeness in those who believe in Jesus Christ and are indwelled with the Holy Spirit.
My comment was to Jeff S and I’m sorry it got so mutilated 🙁
Arce –
Thank you! I think mine was the short response to what you stated so eloquently 🙂
Arce – – That was beautifully written. Thank you!
Bridget, I’m not sure why you are uncomfortable with me identifying with a set of beliefs under a label. I don’t believe scripture leads to Calvinism, but that Calvinism describes the teaching of scripture in a unified way that makes sense to me. That’s what we are all trying to do with the Bible, right? Understand scripture and apply it to our lives?
I think substitutionary attonement is pretty clear from scripture. Now if you don’t agree, fine- its just my take. I’m more hesitant in the “Penal” part- I kind of accept it, but I do wonder if we’d have PSA if Calvin was a doctor instead of a lawyer.
I DO think the definitions of predestination and total depravity I see people discussing on this site are not the definitions Reformed theologians use, so I get frustrated some times- I’d rather he disagreed with on the basis of what I actually believe than in a flawed system no one could accept. But it seems this site is a refuge for a lot of people abused by Reformed churches so I can’t say the hostility us unearned. It just really saddens me that a theology that should breed humility (and this humility I see in Paul’s writings) instead is used to clobber people over the head (and by that, I mean the neoCals who clobber people).
PS, as for the capitalization of words, my browser automatically uppercases “Calvinism”- I certainly do not hold any set of beliefs higher than scripture if that’s what you were intending to imply.
Well, TWW Queens, I’ve had a blast reading this post and the comments above, though I must admit that much of it was Greek to me — until I got to Wenatachee’s chord progression, which made everything perfectly clear.
Although my intellect is definitely not up-to-snuff for this blog, I freely volunteer my time and attendance as part of your Board, and will be in charge of commandeering a table at Panera for meetings. I, too, can hold my own as a former stay-at-home-mom and professional board member — sort of the evangelical variation of the tennis mom.
Good grief. The list of women who claim to be “homemakers” but are really out making $ on the book and lecture circuit gets longer every time a pastor-hubby gets promoted to celebrity status. Honestly, some women who work full-time jobs spend more time at home than these gals — and I don’t really care if they’re not at home, they just ought to be honest about it!
And someone quoting Keller as being a functional egalitarian that believes in complementarianism. I nearly spilled my coffee, because I thought I was the only person who ever said out loud that many Christian marriages may claim complementarian in belief, but egalitarian in practice.
I like the way you stick up for people who are being bullied.
Collin: ” (Dee:“Theistic evolution does not deny special creation.”)
It is exactly the opposite. It is a rejection of special creation. The ASA forum is a good place to read this.”
If you take ‘special creation’ to mean “All life is created as it is now”, then yes theistic evolution denies it. If you mean simply that God created all that there is and is involved with creation from its beginning till now, then it does not.
The doctrine of ‘special creation’ as you define it is not a historic test of orthodoxy – though there are many in the present age that would like to make it one. That God is creator IS an issue of orthodoxy. But no Christian I know that accepts an evolutionary process as God’s method denies God as creator, and most do not deny God’s ongoing involvement in the creation itself (otherwise one would tend to be more deist than Christian).
The truth is, prior to Darwin’s theory, and more importantly, the advances in biological, geological, and astronomical understanding that have defined this last 100 years, there really wasn’t much of a need to make any subtle distinctions on this issue. Any more than before Galileo’s discovery, there wasn’t much need to ask at what level of detail was Joshua’s account of the long day written.
But we are not living in the past, but in the present. And our ability to rest in naivete no longer exists. God is creator – yes. But God’s methods are not what we came to expect reading the text of Genesis ‘sola scriptura’. So be it. God is God. He has no obligation to live up to our expectations if our expectations are themselves flawed.
The witness of the natural creation on this issue do not leave certain aspects of this issue open to interpretation. Just as the phases of Venus implied it and the Earth orbit the Sun, the fossils and geological formations and the starlight we observe at night all imply directly that a literal, presumptive derivation of the age of the earth and cosmos from certain assumptions concerning the length of time associated with the ‘days’ of creation and their proximity to the genealogies or the OT is flawed.
Likewise assumptions about what it meant for God to create life from the Earth, or man from the dust of the Earth.
We must simply trust when our assumptions are challenged by reality, that God is still God, and that there is an answer – most likely found is revisiting our own assumptions. There is no truth in scripture that is truly challenged by an old Earth or even Evolution – if we but continue to recognize God’s hand in them.
But there are many assumptions men have made about what God was telling us in scripture about creation that are challenged by an Old Earth and the Theory of Evolution.
The trick is not to yield to the materialistic/naturalistic assumption that if we can find a causal path from A to B, that God is not involved in taking A to B. God is always involved. The scriptures tell us that without God, nothing that is could exist, even for an instant. The very natural laws that exist that allow us to understand creation only exist because God continually upholds them and sustains them. They are perfectly planned by Him to produce this universe as He deigned it to be. If there are elements in this universe that are left free to be outside His direct control (e.g. our ability to reject Him), it is because He chose for it to be that way.
Zeta
Jeff S – While I agree that the definitions you’re talking about are generally looked at differently by what i might call the “classical” Reformed crowd, the thing is… there are SO many combinations (and re-combinations) of Calvinist beliefs out there, it’s not funny.
I’ve run into some weird permutations, combined with charismatic/3d Wave “strategic level spiritual warfare” (and at that point, I actually think we’re talking about another religion altogether, sort of a strange mashup of Zoroastrian-ish dualism and extreme superstition of all sorts), along with a Presby. overlay.
am hoping that you do see that “cavinistas” does not equal Calvinism, necessarily, at least, not on this blog.
But I do see how it’s very possible to make broad, unqualified generalizations about many things – and I’ve been guilty of that at times, in comments here.
Cool? 8)
To the legendary contributors on the TWW – can someone please help me out with the acronym PSA? Everytime I see it I think prostate cancer…
Haitch – with apologies in advance if several of us end up posting at the same time (the server shows 4:04 am for your post, but I believe that would be 10:04 am here in Bonnie Scotland, and I’ve no idea what time it is down where you are since Oz covers several time-zones!).
PSA is penal substitutionary atonement. As somebody somewhere pointed out, it sounds like cosmetic surgery for a particularly vain and insecure man, but let’s not go there…
The theological term as been around for a while, of course, and I think it’s only relatively recently that it’s been assigned a TLA (Three-Letter Abbreviation, without which nothing is cool these days). It refers to the belief that Jesus’ death atoned for our sins by his taking our place and being punished as if he were us.
Adherence to PSA (TM) has lately become something of a shibboleth test for orthodoxy and therefore, by implication, of whether you are a Proper Saved Christian or not. Mark Driscoll is on written and/or video record at least twice (and probably more often) challenging opponents to declare their allegiance to it, in one case in response to the opponent (Justin Brierley, a columnist with Christianity Magazine) questioning Driscoll himself.
As with any theological position, there various shades of meaning attributed to it, and differing schools of thought on it. There are, of course, differing levels of mutual love and respect between those schools of thought.
There are also differing views as to its importance. It’s a vital part of the traditional “sinner’s prayer”, for instance, but the sinner’s prayer is not mandated in scripture. Personally, I’m not sure how many of the people to whom Jesus said “your faith as saved you” were avowed adherents to PSA. {Ironic humour} Presumably he challenged them on it to make sure that their “salvation” was genuine and their healing was not actually mediated by the power of satan, but unfortunately none of those conversations is recorded for us in scripture.{/Ironic humour}
Sorry – I meant to quote Jesus as saying “your faith has saved you”. Should’ve proof-read that. 🙁
uh ha, thanks for that explanation. I have learnt SO much from these posts. Bring it on ! TWW apologetics, love it. The time here btw is just after 8pm.
Numo, we are definitely cool. I’m here because I’m in general agreement with the questions that are being asked about behavior today’s church, which I think is infinitely more important that our understanding of the schematics of atonement. I’m not saying it doesn’t matter at all what we believe, but Driscoll doesn’t upset me for his soteriology; he upsets me because he appears to be an unrepentant abusive man who is teaching others to be like him. If your ministry is not characterized by love, adherence to PSA or anything else doesn’t matter. With Driscoll I am NOT cool. I don’t attribute his behavior to his Calvinism though, and often (especially in secular media) this appears to be the link people make.
It is also worth noting in the discussion about “special creation” that Piper and Driscoll both accept an Old Earth where God prepared for his special creation of humans in Adam and Eve. I don’t really see how this is different from a Theistic Evolutionary position. Once you’ve accepted a non literal six days and death in the world pre fall, you’ve basically dealt with the objections to theistic evolution.
And RC Sproul (who I think of as an old school reformed theologian- he doesn’t seem to pop up very often in the spotlight the neoCals love) says he believes in a literal six days but isn’t really “taking a stand” and he “doesn’t know” how old the earth is (on a related note, he also “doesn’t know” how the world will end either). He also says that the type of literature that Genesis is is difficult to translate properly.
So I real fail to see how “special creation” is a watershed issue when you have a lot of guys that are accepted within the circle of orthodoxy who are at least taking some form of non-wodden interpretation of the Genesis account. Unless by “special creation” we mean that God created human beings in a special way differently from everything else (which is what I always thought it meant) and in that case theistic evolutionists who believe in a literal Adam and Eve are right there with everyone else.
Evidently we’re 5 hours ahead of TWW WordPress here. You’re either 14 hours ahead (which would be more than halfway round the world) or 10 hours behind – is it still yesterday where you are, then?
Well, obviously it’s not yesterday where you are, but today would be yesterday where I am, which is tomorrow. I trust this is clear.
(Er – I’ll get my coat.)
Regarding PSA, I don’t see how we can make its understanding a salvation issue, because no one really taught it for the first thousand years of the church, and really not in it’s current form until the Reformation. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true, but it does mean understanding it is not the key to salvation.
Again, my view is to look at what Peter preached in the first sermon after Pentacost. This was the first great evangelistic effort and it was quite successful. Whatever he preached, then, should be our pattern for evangelism today, IMO, and anything he left out cannot be required understanding for salvation.
@ Collin:
Also, are you aware that J. Gresham Machen, founder of the OPC and Westminster Theological Seminary, did not hold to a literalist interpretation of Genesis? Quote below:
“It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each. We may think of them rather as very long periods of time.”
Machen was hardly a flaming liberal and I’m sure many members of TGC hold him in very high regard. It’s also been pointed out here that C. S. Lewis, widely quoted by TGC members, was hardly YEC and may have been open to salvation outside of Christ in some way (see The Last Battle).
@ Sad Observer:
“Also, it’s very frightening for Flashing to imply that gender roles are so important to faith that someone with an egalitarian view shouldn’t even be allowed to have a wide voice in Christendom.”
To be fair to Flashing, that’s isn’t why she said RHE shouldn’t have a wide influence. She said she shouldn’t have a wide influence because she disagrees about inerrancy and the possibility of salvation outside of Christ. Whether these charges are justified or not, I don’t know, as I really haven’t read much RHE (at least not on those topics); but I am pretty sure that there is a little more wiggle room on those issues than many seem to want to admit.
Evidently we’re 5 hours ahead of TWW WordPress here. You’re either 14 hours ahead (which would be more than halfway round the world) or 10 hours behind – is it still yesterday where you are, then?
Well, obviously it’s not yesterday where you are, but today would be yesterday where I am, which is tomorrow. I trust this is clear.
(Er – I’ll get my coat.)
Sorry to go on about this, except that I seem to have been caught out by the order-of-posting problem. My attempt at time-zone related humour was, of course, addressed to Haitch.
Hester,
And even more than Machen, the prophecy teacher that the fundamentalists loved in the late 60s, Wilbur M. Smith, also held to something other than YEC. But that’s different that TE.
I documented Dee’s behavior. It is what it is.
And
“In these three excerpts, Flashing:
– says RHE is “outside the camp of historical evangelicalism”
– compares RHE to a Jehovah’s Witness (widely agreed to be an unorthodox cult)
– claims there is no “common ground in other core theological areas”
– says RHE does not “need to be heard”
– claims RHE is a risk to orthodoxy
– says her “views fall below Biblical standards”
– says that we must “steward” the church against people like RHE
This is as obvious as it can get. She is telling us that RHE is either not a Christian or, at best, a highly defective one”
Take the “at best” route for the proper interpretation. This is about her belief system and her teaching. It is not about her heart. Her words do not deserve a hearing. That’s all Sarah said.
Re: Collin @ 7:39 am
1. Your claim against Dee is false (and ridiculous) and makes you what you claim Dee to be. Get real, repent of making false charges against a servant of Christ.
2. Flashing is guilty of the same. RHE is not outside mainstream Christianity. She is just not a Calvinista, and does not go beyond the scripture as do the Calvinistas.
Insulting your host is a most inappropriate, grade-school level behavior. Please grow up.
And who made Sarah – or yourself – the arbiter of who should or shouldn’t be heard, Collin? That’s heading to dangerous thought police territory.
Good posts by many on here – thanks esp Hester, Argo and Jeff S.
I don’t think Collin was claiming 6-day creation in the literal sense, if I have understood his posts.
Re Rachel Held Evans, I am not well acquainted enough with her views to pass comment on them. If people hold to the creeds and are unorthodox in other positions to a point that I think is inconsistent with Scripture, I accept them as a brother or sister but probably would not look for common agreement with them in that contentious area. Groups like the JWs which do not adhere to the creeds and whose Christology has crossed the line into what is technically known as heresy I would not look for common agreement with, nor would I accept their claim to be called Christian (not that I think they claim that anyway, do they?).
Argo, if you go to the Wikipedia article on Jonathan Edwards there are some links in the Bibliography to other sites – perhaps they carry full online versions of the texts. I got my edition in a Banner of Truth Trust publication, “Jonathan Edwards on Revival”, which includes “Narrative of Surprising Conversions”, “Distinguishing Marks” and “Account of Revival of Religion in Northampton 1740-1742”. It’s probably out of print now (I bought this nearly 30 years ago!) but the ISBN number is ISBN 0 85151 431 6.
Re Calvinism, this is still such a source of controversy. I can see both its strengths and its weaknesses. All I can say is that there are Calvinists both past and present whom I respect from their writings (inc. B B Warfield and J I Packer, if he be included in that camp), while being aware of some of the bad things done by people espousing the title.
Peace 🙂
Collin
I am sorry but your comment is baloney and shows the extremely judgmental and narrow nature of your belief system.
“This is about her belief system and her teaching. It is not about her heart. Her words do not deserve a hearing.”
She doesn’t deserve a hearing? You sound just like Ken Ham who says anyone that does not kowtow to his extremely narrow viewpoint is outside the realm of orthodoxy.You sound like the Calvinistas who tell others to shut up and listen because they hold the keys to the kingdom.
Your criteria judges Alister McGrath, a theistic evolutionist and John Stott an agnostic optimistic when it comes to salvation and consequently indicts me who believe in both. Both of these men are beloved by many Calvinists.
You are judge and jury for who deserves to the at the table. And not only do I stand by my post, I shout it from the mountaintops that Flashing, and you, represent many things that I fight against on this blog. There is little love in what you say, merely arrogant self assurance that you know all things “right.”
Well, why bother with this blog? Obviously I do not deserve a place at your table. You might be legitimizing me in the eyes of true believers and you wouldn’t want to do that, would you?
This blog is a place for those who understand that there “A” and “B” issues as well as those who are questioning the faith and even atheists. We welcome everyone to this table and hope that they will see that some Christians actually give a darn about what they think.
I kind of like Jesus’ example. You probably would not. He reclined at table with all sorts of people.He listened to their words and loved them. LOVE an underused word these days.
So, go on back to your nice, safe and theologically “perfect” table and feel real good about your truth. It must be nice to be the one who determines who is “in” and who is “out.”
Koyla,
Thanks for the reference! I will check it out.
Kolya
Collin, and Flashing, have pointed out that RHE believe in theistic evolution and that is not allowed by them.
They also pointed out that she questions whether everyone who has not heard the word of God is condemned to an eternity in hell. That, to them, is outside of orthodoxy.
They throw out the inerrant card on her as well. Inerrancy is very difficult because, as Arce has said, most groups agree that the Scriptures are inerrant in the original documents. We do not have those original documents.
Here is the point. I like RHE. I disagree with her on a few points, a couple of them a quite problematic for me. But, I am not willing to say she is outside the faith. In fact, I think people really need to listen to her, in spite of their disagreements. She is saying things that church needs to hear,
Also, we tend to shoot our own. If you were to have known me 25 years ago, you might have had some concerns with me. I combined faith with politics all the time. I equated conservative politics with being a good Christian.I did not understand the ins and outs of many theological points and probably bordered on heresy with my view on the Trinity.
But, I was and am still a Christian. I am a woman in transition. There are days that I wish I could have been at this point of understanding many years ago.
I believe we need to be very, very careful when we say someone does not belong at the table. Jesus spent many days at the table with people who did not know TE from biblical inerrancy. My guess is that the disciples knew nothing of TE or YE and the intricacies of the argument.
They were too busy sharing the Gospel and being martyred.
Today we have the luxury of staring at our navels and judging one another for a myriad of doctrinal issues. Heck, we can’t even agree on modes of baptism although just about everyone believe that they, and they alone, with likeminded churches, are doing it right.
If we don’t like what someone is saying, discuss it, confront it but don’t we shouldn’t marginalize people who are in transition.
I know that you do not, Kolya. I am just emoting a bit.
Who is “in” and who is “out” gets pretty crazy. A dear friend of mine believes that Christ died for her sins, and she accepts his gift of salvation. She also believes that Christ’s sacrifice was so powerful and so all-encompassing that all will eventually be saved, regardless of whether or not they accept Christ in this life. She’s believes in what’s called Universal Reconciliation. And yet, she has had Calvinistas tell her that despite the fact the she personally believes in Christ’s death and resurrection, she will go to hell … because she believes the scope of salvation to be far wider than they do. She does have the “right doctrine.” It really really gets absurd.
Missed a few days here and so I’m late to the party on some of the best religious discussions around. Just a couple of my thoughts.
I have a hard time believing in PSA. We sin, God’s pissed, God needs this wrath appeased, so he sends his son to die in our place to satisfy this wrath. What’s wrong with this picture? It lets us off the hook – we sin, God sends his son to pay off God, we’re off the hook for what we’ve done. But doesn’t grace cover this? God forgives our sins through his grace so why would God need his son to die to pay for sins that have been forgiven through grace? I tend to agree with Steve Chalke that the whole PSA thing smacks of cosmic child abuse.
So much of Calvinism is based on their interpretation of Paul and very little on the words of Christ. As far as teaching goes, I tend to think Calvinists have ripped Jesus out of the Trinity and replaced him with Paul.
“Take the “at best” route for the proper interpretation. This is about her belief system and her teaching. It is not about her heart. Her words do not deserve a hearing. That’s all Sarah said.”
Right….
Because nothing but good can come from censoring opposing viewpoints. The strongest faith can be found in those who never read or hear anything that challenges what they believe, but just passively accept what is spoon fed to them by those in authority over them.
I’m literally laughing out loud. “That’s all Sarah said.” Hilarious!
Searching
They really believe that they said nothing wrong. Marginalize and declare who “deserves” their attention.I contend that Jesus spent more time at the table with those who didn’t understand than with those who were cocksure about their theology.
Collin,
Are you Sarah Flashing’s brother? Or another relative?
Then why would they not be immortal?
(I wouldn’t call it “condemnation” since it is swallowed up in victory by Jesus) but the judgement for eating the fruit of the TOKOGAE (Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) is death.
The people you consider as in a pre-fall adamic condition… they are subject to death, unlike the first couple before eating TOKOGAE. Why?
Jeff
I am enjoying listening to the debate about penal substitution. I believe in the concept due to my perspective on the treatment of sin in the Old Testament. Blood sacrifice appeared to be important in the forgiveness of sins in the OT. Jesus was to be the once and for all perfect sacrifice.
I admit that I do not understand the consequences of sin on an eternal scale. Apparently God believes it is of a serious nature, so serious that it demands such sacrifice.
It also makes sense to me that, as sin entered the world through one man; it was dealt with by another-the Son of Man.
There is a consistency on both counts that is hard for me to overlook.
I have heard the cosmic child abuse discussion over at ExChristians. In true child abuse (I did chid abuse and neglect followup), the child has not choice. The abuser holds all the keys to power and they abuse that power in a despicable manner.
When dealing with Trinity, we see unity of purpose. Jesus was “down with the plan” from before the beginning of time. He voluntarily endured this abuse and agreed with need for the abuse.
As Jesus died on the Cross, He hung there willingly. He could have escaped and punished those who treated Him so shamefully. But He didn’t. He exerted His infinite free will by dying.
Try as I might, I cannot view it any other way. I understand the differences on this issue and appreciate the discussion.
Collin,
Does anyone else work at the Kerygma Institute besides you? I went to the website and could not find one single name. Not even yours.
I was taught age 20 based on Numbers 32:11.
…and Numbers 14:29
@ Dee
I too appreciate the discussion and your comments. There is a fair amount of support in the NT for the concept of PSA, but it’s one of those I wrestle with because I have a hard time seeing some sort of cosmic ledger that must be balanced out, particularly by someone who wasn’t involved in creating the imbalance in the first place. At any rate, I’m grateful for the discussions triggered on this forum by so many thoughtful people such as yourself.
– Nice to see ole CJ didn’t exactly pack ’em in
– Also nice to see cbmw.org is still ‘under construction’, hopefully a sign that not many people are will to support a website dedicated to oppression
Hi Charis,
Yeah, but we have to take into account the life span of those at the time. If Moses lived to 120 yrs., 20 would seem like a child I imagine.
Was kinda surprised to read this on cbmw site:
Husbands serve wives. Wives serve husbands. Children serve parents. Parents serve children. Pastors serve churches. Churches serve pastors.
http://jezebel.com/5947780/a-foolproof-guide-to-a-happy-marriage?popular=true
Jeff S –
No insinuations. I just see labels doing more dividing than creating unity. I see people who want to rule others and shut people up with their “right/correct/holy/orthodox” doctrines be it Reformed, Baptist, Catholic, etc. We tend to want to get in our church clubs and feel good about ourselves, yet in the process we seem to have to belittle and dismiss others and claim we have the “correct” way (those like Collin, Sarah, Piper, Wilson x2). It bothers me when I see the words “Calvin, Orthodox, Reformed, even Paul” more than the name of Jesus.
Hi Dee,
Thanks for your remarks. I did not take your words as aimed at me!
I am also with you on the PSA issue, although I agree that there have been other views on the subject. A reading of the Early Church Fathers seems to me to indicate that they spent some time discussing this matter.
Although I like Steve Chalke I have to say that I disagree with him on this issue. Also it is worth pointing out (as I think you already have) that Jesus in Gethsemane was in great turmoil approaching the crucifixion, yet still went forward in submission to the Father’s will. The passages about the cup passing from Him if possible seem to me to suggest that He had a choice, even if at the end of the day it was no choice, or at least one that would have gone against what the Trinity foreknew/predestined (exact wording depending on your metaphysical views!).
Packer has drawn a striking contrast between the last hours of Jesus and of Socrates, showing that Jesus was fully aware of the enormity of what he had to deal with.
Bridget,
Amen. Good post.
Charis,
Good question. I’m fleshing out my response. Thanks.
Jeff
CS Lewis’ space trilogy was fascinating. The second book, Perelandra, deals with a recreation of the Adam and Eve story on Venus. I plan to reread it soon since it deals with the issues of sin in the beginning.
I am not criticizing you for your thoughts. In fact, what you say makes logical sense. I think part of the problem is that we are not yet able to see both sides of the ledger. But we are promised that one day all will work out in a way that we will understand.
Re the place of Paul in theological discussions, it is true that the Pauline epistles seem to feature prominently in Augustinian and Calvinist theology. However that may simply be a logical consequence of him having written the greater part of the New Testament. Of course it is galling when people only, ever, preach from Pauline epistles, just as it does the Old Testament less than justice if people stick to the Books of Moses or the Psalms and ignore the rest.
I think we should be careful though not to divide the Biblical writers, as if one said one thing and another said something completely opposite. Of course different writers may qualify one another’s words, just as James points out that faith is not mere mental assent or knowledge in case you hadn’t picked that up from Paul. Different books of the Bible may deal with different histories or different issues – as Francis Schaeffer once said in his booklet on art, God spoke to humanity through 64 different books rather than through one volume.
I also remember a very old and wise Christian friend, an ex-missionary, who helped me when I was young. In response to some of my concerns then, he encouraged me with the advice about “the whole counsel of Scripture”, meaning that we shouldn’t let any one part of it get too out of hand or exalted at the expense of the rest.
Collin, It’s people like you who drive people away from Christ. To bad you and others like yourself can’t see this. I don’t see any love in your posts but only arrogance. You just don’t get it…
Koyla not t4 but 66!
“And who made Sarah – or yourself – the arbiter of who should or shouldn’t be heard, Collin? That’s heading to dangerous thought police territory'”
Thank YOu! This is where it always leads with the Reformed and Patriarchy camps. I always wonder how folks can make such a statement and live in America. Scares me for our future. This is part of what Argo was trying to explain about “force”. Another part of that force is using insulting, demeaning language to marginalize one who disagrees. The goal is to shut them up. That way ideas and different views never have to be considered. Never mind that pesky Holy Spirit who dwells in hearts. You don’t need Him, you have the authoritarian leaders and their lemmings to guide you and tell you what to believe.
\
Hi Hester,
Such a shame you don’t live in the UK – we could have had long and profitable discussions! LOL
But seriously, re Linnaeus’s beliefs, I was looking for these last night. Some sources which I didn’t have time to seriously chase through suggest that his belief was in natural theology (however you wish to define it). There is nothing else in what I have read about him that suggests he was anything other than orthodox, although his mother was apparently disappointed that he did not enter the ministry. I stand open to correction here, but I wonder if it would be fair to say that his life’s calling was science and his religious views did not much enter into the debate at the time, Sweden being still a largely if not wholly Lutheran society in that era.
Another interesting man, definitely a Christian, is Conrad Gesner of the Swiss Reformation, who wrote Historiae animalium, considered one of the first works of modern zoology. Gesner was also a theologian, botanist and bibliographer. The Frenchman Georges Cuvier was also a Protestant, unusually for that society in the 18th-19th C, although I think he marred his copybook a bit with some of his writings on the different races of man which had a most unfortunate influence.
Hi Arce, sorry, yes! LOL I knew it was one or the other but was too lazy to check – a lesson to all of us!
“these people are never condemned by the knowledge of good and evil, thus retain the pre-fall innocence of Adam and Eve.” -Argo
Then why would they not be immortal?”
The main consequence of the fall is eventual death. Everything dies, us, trees, animals, etc.
It is just that they are not JUDGED for their sins because they have no cognative ability to know they sinnned. How could they “repent” which is a criteria for salvation.
David seemed to instinctively know this about his baby son who died.
‘Was kinda surprised to read this on cbmw site:
Husbands serve wives. Wives serve husbands. Children serve parents. Parents serve children. Pastors serve churches. Churches serve pastors.
http://jezebel.com/5947780/a-foolproof-guide-to-a-happy-marriage?popular=true
”
Victorious,
Here is my take living at ground zero where CBMW is housed. They are “rebranding” themselves, They were leaking like a seive as money was drying up and they are no longer relevant in a world that demands two income families. They had to get real. The only families that can afford for the mom to stay home are the ones writing this stuff. Ministry can be a nice income especially when they are paid speakers, writing books, etc. They do very well for themselves.
I don’t think they have changed their beliefs at all. I think they are being more careful how they present them. It is no longer the 80’s and quite frankly most comp marriages operate as egal marriages. I think it is more bait and switch just like the word “complementarian”. It worked for a long time. Until the internet exploded. It is a new day. They are going to have to be much more clever and deceptive to push the woman roles doctrines.
Victorious,
I tend to go even higher on AOA based on the idea that some people are genuinely “emotionally arrested” and never really grow up…
God is the only one who knows for a fact the heart motives, the maturity, or lack thereof.
I try to follow this admonition of Paul’s “Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.” 1 Cor 4:5
Dee
No problem and I appreciate the differing views, in fact, I know that my own views on PSA are in the minority among Christians of all stripes, nor have I figured it all out at any rate.
On Lewis, I’ve got to read the space trilogy, heard a lot of good things about those books.
Bridget, “Calvinism” has never been used in my world of personal experience to divide or show superiority. I went to a Baptist university for my undergraduate degree, and in those circles to be a Calvinist was something of a novelty. As I studied scripture and read books by authors I trusted I found that the consistent theology that made the most sense to me was Calvinistic. This was before the rise of Piper, Driscoll, and it all being “cool”. Or at least, in my world it never was. I’ve always felt kind of like an outsider with a different view around most Christians, but I just figured it was all good because the thing we agreed on is Christ crucified and the goals of faith. I’ve rarely been cast as an outsider for my beliefs and I don’t think I’ve marginalized anyone else because of them.
And the reason I used the label for myself here is because the labels of “Calvinist” and “Reformed” are thrown around this blog’s comments quite a bit in a negative light, mostly judged by either stating the doctrines in a way that I don’t believe or by pointing out how adherents to these approaches to scripture are majorly messing up the face of Christianity in a very public way. I wanted to point out that there are Calvinists here who do not agree with the behavior of those standing in the current spotlight. I do believe that God chose to save me not according to my own good works. That does not lead me to want to step into the spotlight or condemn others- it makes me want to be thankful, humble, and accepting of others because we all have fallen short and need a Savior in Christ.
The labels are really just shorthand to communicate a whole set of believes that are derived from scripture. It all comes back to the work and life of Jesus.
As for Paul vs Jesus, I’m pretty sure they were on the same page. Paul’s writing is more doctrinal exposition about the meaning of the life and death of Christ, but it’s all about Jesus always.
Anon 1
Appreciate your views on CBMW. I agree. Their whole effort is trying to put lipstick on a theological pig and most people aren’t buying it.
Kolya –
It seems to me that all the writings of the NT should stem from, and be able to be traced back to, Jesus’ words and teachings. The writers of the NT were either telling us about the life of Jesus Christ, and/or helping the early believers with a different and new way to think due to their new life in Christ. Jesus told his disciples that the Holy Spirit would be sent as their Helper. Much of the church today seems to want to rely on the Scripture as if it IS a replacement for the Holy Spirit. I see the Scripture replacing the relationship between the believer and Jesus Christ. Scripture can then become a rule book (as with the Pharisees) instead of a vehicle which points us to the One who is the Truth and who gives life to all who come to Him.
Anon1 (12:26)
Do you think some of the people of adult age and intact intelligence could be “blind” in a biblical sense?
1 John 3:2
Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.
1 John 3:6
Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.
Rev 1:7
Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.
Luke 4:18
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,[a]
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed; [Jesus speaking]
Bridget —
After my time in-country in the Evangelical Circus, I cannot hear the word “Scripture(TM)” without thinking “The Party Line(TM)”.
“And who made Sarah – or yourself – the arbiter of who should or shouldn’t be heard, Collin? That’s heading to dangerous thought police territory’”
Thank YOu! This is where it always leads with the Reformed and Patriarchy camps. — Anon1
Where the only difference between Calvinista and Communist is which Party Line is being quoted verbatim.
doubleplusgoodthink INGSOC,
doubleplusbellyfeel INGSOC,
doubleplusduckspeak INGSOC.
….Their whole effort is trying to put lipstick on a theological pig and most people aren’t buying it.
Jeff, love it! Perfect analogy!
Jeff S –
We were posting at the same time. I think my experiences have been much different than yours. If I had trusted in men more than God, I doubt I would consider myself a believer today. We do seem to have the same beliefs on the importance of looking at Jesus Christ’s life and words 😉
Yes Bridget, I think we are not too far off. I also don’t always tow the party line- I don’t believe anything that doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve found that a lot of men I’ve trusted have let me down, but God never has.
HUG –
What would you propose we call the writings that tell us of God and the life of Jesus? Is “The Bible” better? Just interested in your thoughts on that . . . I just prefer Scripture over Bible is all.
Paul
I believe Paul is essential to understanding Jesus. It is simply fascinating to me that Paul does not spend any time on the miracles of Jesus, of which there were many. He is laser focused on one thing and that is the Cross. He views Jesus’ ministry through the lens of hindsight.
I have seen plays and movies which use this device. Currently the television show Revenge-a sort of modern day retelling of the Count of Monte Cristo. We see through the narrators eyes both future and past events. She tells us the philosophy behind what one is observing-always focusing on the push and pull of revenge.
Paul is telling us-let’s look at Jesus. Let’s see where he was going. Think about what He said in light of the Cross which is the purpose of His trip to our planet. Paul clarifies Jesus, and in many instances, the OT for us, constantly pushing us to see the narrative of the past leading to the CRoss and the narrative of that which is coming, again because of the Cross.
I get most frustrated when people put Paul into some box as a Super Pharisee-simply writing rule after rule for behavior. That was not his main purpose and his emphasis gets lost in the game of gender politics and patriarchy. Paul was no patriarch. In fact, Paul led such an unusual life, most churches would not allow him to be an elder since he was not the husband of one wife and seemed to have a bit of a problem which he called the thorn in his flesh. Definiteley not prime elder meat!
I think of much of Paul’s writing as him being the first century church organizer and consultant, helping start churches and then advising them when they have problems. His major treatise is Romans, and it includes passages where he sets of a straw man (law and rules) and then shows the better way, much as a lawyer does in writing a brief for a court — always have to cite and shoot down the best arguments on the other side. Makes proof-testing dangerous!!!!
But in the other letters attributed to him (some of which seem to have been written by someone else, perhaps at Paul’s direction), he is addressing problems in a particular church or group of churches in a local area, in terms of the culture and witness in that area, so his dicta are rarely generalizable to 19-20 centuries later, since we don’t have some of the same problems and definitely a different culture.
I also think that sometimes Paul is writing in a way to show the church the ridiculous implications of their behavior. My favorite has to do with hair length and head covering. Why should head covering be important when circumcision is not??!! This is addressing a local custom of head shaved prostitutes and how the church was responding to that.
Arce
Great comment!
Dee and Arce:
I am truly grateful for your last two comments on Paul. I have run the gamut on emotions with that guy: growing up as a child in a reformed church, Paul was worshipped, without so many words; then I was disturbed by his seeming misogyny when I left patriarchy; the past couple of years, I just went complete wishy-washy with the guy, not knowing what to make of him. Your comments helped to solidify what I have come to make of him!
Collin
I was wondering if you can help – since you say – “I’m on Sarah’s board.”
Tried posting this on – “The ‘Unbelievable’ Influence of the UnOrthodox”
A. Amos Love on October 2, 2012 at 11:30 am.
And – Today it is still awaiting moderation.
I also sent a private email Oct 3rd – asking why – or what I did wrong. Still NO reply.
————
A. Amos Love on October 2, 2012 at 11:30 am said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Sarah
Was wondering…
Who, or what, determines if someone is Orthodox or Un-Orthodox?
You seem to imply The Bible is to be our guide, because, in the last line you say…
“caution needs to be implemented in engaging those whose views fall below biblical standards.”
Comps and Egals talk about gender roles and “church leadership” – a lot. And, IMO, both “views fall below biblical standards.” The debate seems to be about who gets to be the “Leader” with the – Power – Profit – Prestige – Recognition – Reputation, that comes with the ‘Title/Position” “Pastor/Leader.” Of course No Christian, comp or egal, would state it that way. They always say stuff like – We want to be biblical.
Don’t know if you ever checked or not – but –
In the Bible – How many of His Disciples – Are “Called” – Pastor/Leader?
In the Bible – How many of His Disciples – “Call themself” – Pastor/Leader?
In the Bible – How many of His Disciples – Have the “Title” – Pastor/Leader?
In the Bible – How many of His Disciples – Are Hired or Fired – as a – Pastor/Leader?
And – every pastor/leader I’ve met – Had the “Title” – Reverend.
In the Bible – Does anyone have the “Title – Reverend?
If these “Titles/Positions” “Pastor/Leader/Reverend” are NOT in the Bible…
Doesn’t that mean – If we’re talking to someone who calls themself – “Pastor/Leader/Reverend”
“caution needs to be implemented in engaging those whose views fall below biblical standards.”
What is popular is NOT always “Truth.”
What is “Truth” is NOT always popular.
—————
Sarah
Maybe you can help?
A comment on your blog…
“The ‘Unbelievable’ Influence of the UnOrthodox”
Is still awaiting moderation. Did I do, or say, something wrong?
A. Amos Love on October 2, 2012 at 11:30 am said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I’m in agreement when you write – at the end of the first paragraph…
“If we’re going to be defenders of the faith, no pertinent issue should be ignored.”
The comment “awaiting moderation” talks about
Gender roles, Church leadership, Biblical standards.
These topics are also mentioned in your article.
And I think you’ll agree, these are “pertinent issues” for defenders of the faith.
Thank you
A. Amos Love
—————–
Thank you for your intervention in this matter.
This seems to happen often on blogs that promote “Reformed Theology” and “Calvinisim.”
Do you know why that is?
I think it’s worth reading Paul’s letters in “The Message”- it reads a lot more like real letters and captures the flavor and spirit of his writing really well. I think it’s easy to read Paul and not realize just how darn excited he was to be preaching the Gospel.
Arce – yes! I think we need to be especially careful not to proof-text from Romans (including the 1st several chapters, where a *huge* straw man argument is set up, seemingly meant to wake up the Jewish church members in Rome…).
A. Amos Love,
I also tried posting a question in the comments section for “The Unbelievable Influence of the UnOrthodox” about 8 hours ago and I’m also still awaiting moderation.
Caleb W on October 4, 2012 at 6:45 am said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Sarah,
I would be interested to see your response to Craig’s point that Tim Keller gets a pass on his views on evolution, while Held Evans does not. I personally think that this argument applies much of conservative Christianity as definitions of ‘orthodox’ or ‘biblical’ Christianity narrow in the current political climate, but I haven’t seen anyone answer the accusation.
I would also like to ask for more civility in Christian blog comments. I am rather dismayed by the snarky and defensive tone that is immediately used here. Sarah, rather than telling Scottie that he ‘may need to reread the post’, why not simply reply with your second sentence: ‘Never did I claim…etc.” And I do not intend that request for Sarah alone. Far too many commenters on Christian blogs (and blogs generally) use dismissive or insulting language to preface their remarks. Why can’t we present our points of view/arguments and agree or disagree without insulting or mocking our opponents?
Jeff S, good post on Calvinism. I think the problem is that it is in danger of becoming a debased word that can mean almost anything (rather as “Christian” and indeed “gospel” are in danger of! – re recent discussions on these forums). Catholicism and Anglicanism have similarly problems – re Catholicism, do you mean liberal Catholicism, post-Vatican II Catholicism or medieval Catholicism? Re Anglicanism, do you mean liberal Anglicanism, Anglo-Catholic Anglicanism, Broad Church Anglicanism or evangelical Anglicanism? I could go on….
Dee, good post on Paul. I think we have to be careful not to place him on the same level as Jesus, nor even to give the impression that we do. Paul himself would be horrified at any such thing. As you say, his main focus is on Christ’s work on the cross and the relation of that to ourselves. When read correctly I think Paul’s writings are actually tremendously refreshing in that he shows we are freed from religious legalism (circumcision, performing certain rites etc), or being slaves to a philosophy or system (as in Colossians 2).
I understand why some posters here might be tired of hearing the word “Scripture”. I’m not, but when I see people in churches trying to use the Bible as a sort of complete encyclopaedia of rules, regulations and case law, I tend to feel the same way – what should be a joy becomes a burden. Also the accusation has been made that in some circles the Holy Spirit is almost replaced by the Scriptures. I agree with the Scriptures, but I do feel uneasy about singing songs like “How sure the Scriptures are” – we treasure the Scriptures, but we do not worship them.
Anon1,
That was a good explanation, and was essentially my answer. Innocence has always been of the spirit, not the flesh. Adams body was formed, then God breathed life into him. Also, I always operate from the premise that creation does what it does…not that God cannot intervene-I am not a diest-it’s just that God does not possess creation. (The belief that God directly controls creation leads to the idea that God must certainly be capricious…for nature and circumstance is nothing if not unpredictable and fickle, however, there is much peace when we realize that the reason stuff happens is because in order for creation to exist, it MUST be free to do what it does on its own; God is no longer to blame for every bridge collapse or hurricane…these things happen because creation must be free to act according to its ability…there is no “mystery” of God’s impetuos will). Certainly He upholds it by his very existence (how could creation exist without God?). The point of creation then is freedom to be itself, wholly, according to its ability.
Man’s ability needs a body to be realized…and in this life, the biology of the body does what it does, which is decay, according to its ability. That’s why they are not immortal. They don’t need to be. They, like all of us will be given a new body on the day of the resurrection.
@ Collin:
1. “I documented Dee’s behavior. It is what it is.”
Let’s review your comments thus far.
10:41: “Sarah was not in any recruited by TGC. It was they who picked up on her post. Spreading falsehood by insinuation or by explicit statement is not, by any definition ‘Christian’ behavior. That is apparently acceptable here. (I know egals who would not tolerate such unChristian behavior, esp. in anabaptist/Mennonite circles. Character counts.)”
2:24: “Oddly enough it was you who first denigrated her person. … But don’t get in a huff because you made some unfounded accusations and comments and got called on them. Keep lying and the world will see your character. Now, if you wish to prove your acumen, quit lying. Give evidence of her being used and do more than assert something that *seems* obvious.”
3:41: “When it comes to a specific lie: ‘It is obvious that this post is going in the direction of Evans-very bad; TGC men –very good.’ You presume motive. You presume a conflict-based assessment and assign your conflict view to her. That is both false and wrong.”
8:19: “I look forward to your answering the assessment of your clearly documented falsehoods. But even in my case, character assassination seems the rule of the day. I don’t have to call names. You’ve done that quite well on your own.”
So at 10:41, you accused Dee of lying by saying Flashing was “recruited” by TGC, and at 3:41, you accused her of lying by saying that the article promoted TGC’s views over RHE’s. I can only assume that these are the “falsehoods” you are referring to.
I want to repeat here what the standard for “lying” is. Lying requires that a person intentionally make false statements IN SPITE OF their prior knowledge of the truth. In other words, they KNOW what they are saying is false and are deciding to present a falsehood anyway for whatever reason. This eliminates statements made without all the information, incorrect predictions, and (often) incautiously worded statements. Lying is out-and-out DECEPTION and the standard is quite high.
Earlier today, I read Dee’s article to my mother (someone with no stake at all in this discussion), without having read her any of the comments. I then asked her if she would have concluded from Dee’s words that Flashing had been “recruited” by TGC to run down RHE. She said definitely not! So while YOU understood Dee to be insinuating that Flashing had been “recruited,” apparently not everyone who read the article did. Thus, different people have been coming to different conclusions about what Dee actually MEANT in the article.
So I repeat, the standard for lying is DELIBERATE DECEPTION. This would require Dee to know FOR A FACT that TGC had NOT “recruited” Flashing, but then claim that they did (and not everyone agrees that she claimed that). Sorry, but with that many question marks and different interpretations hanging over the meaning of Dee’s words, you have not met the standard for “proving” deception on Dee’s part. Merely reasserting your opinion that she lied hardly qualifies as “documentation.” So, to use your phrase: Please give HARD evidence that Dee lied and do more than assert something that SEEMS obvious to you.
(Also, I read Dee’s article and I have yet to see where she “denigrated” Flashing’s “person.” She did not call her a moron, floozy, airhead, idiot, ugly or any other derogatory terms.)
2. “Take the ‘at best’ route for the proper interpretation. This is about her belief system and her teaching. It is not about her heart. Her words do not deserve a hearing. That’s all Sarah said.”
If it is not about RHE’s salvation, then what happened at the end of the paragraph in which Flashing compares RHE to a Jehovah’s Witness?
“A discussion about church leadership might serve as a pathway to discussing the more serious issues, but you’d never do it in way that gives them credibility among Believers. You’d be more careful with the Gospel and the doctrine of the Trinity. You’d also be concerned about their eternity.”
Flashing compares RHE to a Jehovah’s Witness and then states that we should worry about the “eternity” (i.e., salvation) of a Jehovah’s Witness. Implication? We should worry about the “eternity” of RHE too! – since her errors are, according to Flashing’s own analogy, approaching the JW level of wrong-headedness. Yes, Flashing was talking about doctrine, but doctrine that’s apparently so bad that it warrants a comparison to blatantly heretical cult members whose “eternity” is in question! That’s not how you talk about a “defective” Christian (not unless we’re now going to refer to Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons as merely “defective Christians”). That’s how you talk about an unconverted false teacher. If Flashing didn’t intend to judge RHE’s salvation, then she should remove the Jehovah’s Witness paragraph from the article entirely. It only confuses her point.
Also, how can you claim that the post was NOT going in the direction of “Evans = very bad” when Flashing’s whole point is that RHE is so dangerous to the health of the church that she doesn’t deserve to be heard? If Flashing said that KFC was dangerous to the health of your arteries, what would we say? “KFC is BAD and you shouldn’t eat it!” Which is the exact same conclusion Flashing comes to per “consumption” and promotion of RHE’s writings/doctrine. Sounds a lot like “Evans = very bad” to me.
And if Flashing did not mean to say TGC was “good” while RHE was “bad,” then who are we going to listen to if we’re not supposed to listen to RHE? Presumably TGC and other orthodox organizations/teachers. So it was at least saying “RHE = bad/less good, TGC/orthodox = better than RHE.” There’s not really a way around that.
3. “Spreading falsehood by insinuation or by explicit statement is not, by any definition ‘Christian’ behavior. That is apparently acceptable here.”
One last note about the ad hominems. I hope that when you wrote the above sentence, you did not mean to denigrate the character of every person in the comments section (since “here” is a phrase covering the entire blog). This had not occurred to me before and it would, indeed, have been one whopper of an ad hominem and grossly uncalled for, if that’s what you intended to say. I will, however, give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were talking only about Dee here.
BTW, just for full disclosure – I have read very little of RHE’s writings and know very little about her position on anything except gender roles. I am merely saying that it is hard to say that Flashing was not subtly calling her unsaved when she compared her to members of an obviously heretical cult that denies the Trinity and the divinity of Christ.
A A L and Caleb W,
The most charitable take on your moderated comments to Sarah is that she’s having the same issues as TWW, with things stuck. She may have many emails to answer or be be busy.Time will tell.
At the same time, she says in the article, “Her (RHE’s) voice at the table on this issue risks orthodoxy”.
Seems the defense of orthodoxy from risk is a high priority. Eliminate risk by keeping risky voices at arms length. Don’t discuss gender roles with risky voices on the radio. Only talk to them about their need for the *gospel*. As you would a JW, or a church “disciplinee”. Your voices risk orthodoxy.
Possibly, this is the explanation. I hope not.
Argo,
Very much looking forward to getting a chance to view your website! A lot of what you say is over my head, to be honest, but the things I am able to grasp and process pretty much blow my mind… 🙂
@Dee Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:22 AM
“I kind of like Jesus’ example. You probably would not. He reclined at table with all sorts of people. He listened to their words and loved them. LOVE an underused word these days”.
Dee – YES ! This is an incredibly powerful statement. Thank you. This is why I hang out at TWW.
@Nick Bulbeck Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:45 AM
Re: Dr Who and Tardis time zone explanations – clear as mud! Then there’s Samoa, right next to the international date line, who changed back from American Samoa time at the end of last year to the day of the west side of the Asia-Pacific. It would be fabulous to blog one day from Samoa, the next day from American Samoa. Or would that be the other way around? It’s enough to make you choke on your Weetbix (or is that Weeties?). And it’s now after 6.45am Friday on the eastern seaboard of Australia – but I didn’t mention daylight savings? Too confusing. I’ll stop now.
This will be posted at my site…hopefully soon 🙂 Sorry. It’s long and wordy.
On the Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible:
When we try to fit the commands, or the truths of the Bible into a context where it doesn’t belong, then by definition, the truth stops being the truth. Or better said, the truth loses its practical relevancy, and it becomes moot. In the context where the command or truth is applied is where the truth reveals itself as being true. When applied wrongly-in the wrong context-the truth becomes useless; for in that circumstance, the truth malfunctions, and the outcome is disaster. “Inerrant” implies that regardless of where and how applied, the truth will always be seen to be true…that is, regardless of context, the truth will be realized (e.g. God Himself, can exist utterly without context, in only Himself, and His truth will ever be realized by the one to whom it ultimately matters…God; I would also add to this very short list of things able to be realized in and of themselves, outside of any context, man’s “ability”). Any truth or command that depends on application in proper context for its realization as “true” or “right” is NOT inerrant, for the application of it is subjective to man and the Holy Spirit, who enlightens man as to how and where to apply God’s truths and commands. Again, applied in the wrong context, the truth becomes fallacy for practical purposes. This can never be said of any “inerrant thing”…if a thing needs qualification in order to be declared inerrant or infallible, it is, by definition, not inerrant or infallible (applying the command “do not work on the Sabbath” to healing a sick human being, or “do not steal” to a man starving to death, is improper context, and makes a mockery of the command). An inerrant truth never becomes folly; thus, it can never be subject to context.
All commands in the Bible then, and truths, are subservient to man and his context, through the knowledge and power of the Holy Spirit; and ultimately subject to the greatest command and truth “love God”, which is, of course, the cornerstone of man realizing his utter freedom according to his innate ability. For God loves Himself before anything else, and so should we…for this is freedom; this is being perfect.
From this it logically follows that everything in creation is subject, not to the Bible, or to God’s commands or truths, but to God Himself. God is the first thing sought (and the result is the next greatest command “love your neighbor”, which is how we practically apply the first greatest command), because He is truly the only inerrant and infallible thing…and creates, by definition, the context by which His commands are applied. He is never context Himself…He is I AM. So everything is subject to Him, even His own commands and truths are subject to Him…meaning, is subject the greatest command: Love God. Anything that is NOT God is subject to Him. The commands of Christ/God are subservient to Himself. So, again, the commands of God and the truths of God are not inerrant because of two things: 1. They are subservient to Him; which means they are subservient to the greatest command of loving God, and 2. They are only realized in MAN’S context.
So, we need to redefine how the commands and truths of the Bible look and how they apply to our context, which will be inherently different from people who lived 2000 years ago or more. Any command that needs to be re-interpreted for the context of man implies that the command is FOR man, not man for the command (which, of course, completely alters the nature of the command; though, on its face it may look like mere semantics). Meaning, man applies the command or truth to his life in a way where the command is most efficaciously realized…which means, truths and commands are tools of man, and thus cannot be inerrant or infallible, but are subjective to the application in man’s particular, individual context. The infallibility comes in in the form of the Spirit, who guides man in interpreting the command in Spirit and Truth so that the result is that this truth is actively realized, and faith in GOD (not the truth, necessarily) is strengthened. So, once again, we see that the commands or truths of the Bible (incidentally, it is important to realize that the commands of God are NOT God Himself; this is a metaphysical truth with HUGE implications, obviously) are only realized within the confines of certain man-made contexts, and thus, it becomes obvious that any command or truth which must operate thus is not, then, infallible, because infallible in the metaphysical sense means that the infallible thing derives its truth only from itself, never from the context of the fallible.
The infallible thing can be of no practical use to man because the infallible thing must force everything to conform to IT, regardless of who, what, where, or when, and as this is by definition, impossible for the fallible thing to do (which, is of course, everything that is not the infallible thing). So, if this is in fact the idea behind the commands and truths of God, there is no way creation can even exist; if its purpose is to conform to the infallible, the it is impossible for creation to BE (this is a good time to express another metaphysical truth: the fallible can and must only be a creation of the infallible). So, if the idea of creation is that it has to conform to an infallible thing, God could never have created it. Thus, the Bible cannot be infallible. If it is, then it is of no more practical use to man, in and of ITSELF, than God is. The reason the Bible is useful is precisely because it is NOT infallible or inerrant, but is ultimately subject to man for its purpose and usefulness. If the Bible is infallible, then man’s existence is contradicted. We would do well to remember that the basis of tyranny, as we see in the Bible where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for their lack of love when it came to healing on the Sabbath, is to make man for the command instead of the command for man.
I would also add that the concept of “inerrant” is irrelevant when applied to the Bible. It is a word which serves no purpose and is meaningless in the context of discussing the Bible. It is a non-concept…really, a tool of despots. I submit that when speaking of the Bible, we cannot even make this term mean anything rational. What are we saying, exactly, when we declare the Bible inerrant. We are really saying nothing. The idea of inerrancy does not affect faith in any way, but, again, is only useful for men bound and determined to declare their views and interpretations of what is “orthodoxy” as being infallible TRUTH, and thus on par with God Himself. Imagine the power this gives man if his followers are convinced thus.
What does it mean to filter our life through the Bible? (I’ve heard this several times in the past.) If all the answers to life’s questions and complications are found in the Bible, where exactly does God come in? If the Bible is inerrant, what do we need God for? The truth is either so obviously self-evident, or so beyond our ability to understand and apply that God would become a non-entity in our lives(we have the Bible, he’d say…what do you need Me for?) From the idea of just filtering our lives through the Bible, it would seem clear that all we need to do is read the Bible and do it. Well, this kind of thinking may be useful when building a cabinet or a swing set, but comprehensive world philosophies simply cannot function this way, and I’m surprised at how many people view the Bible like a talisman this way. Man becomes an extension of an inanimate object…a book by which he must filter himself, his very wants, needs, talents, ideas, essence, and SOUL through.
However, the truth is closer to the other way around. The Bible is filtered through man and man’s God (Holy Spirit). God’s linguistic revelation to man does not necessitate the enactment of the logical and metaphysical fallacy of the revelation being inerrant. The truths and commands of the Bible must conform to the greater moral truth that is God’s love and man’s life and will. Man’s free will cannot be trumped by the Bible when that will is being applied in service to the greater moral truth of man’s utter inalienable right, as evidenced by his very creation, to LIVE and to BE himself, according to all his ability, when that will does not violate the two greatest commandments, which imply and apply moral restrictions on the larceny of another human being. One does not have the right to force another person into bondage, or to curtail their right to own themselves or be themselves in service to some command or truth of the Bible when that person is in no way violating the physical and spiritual/emotional property of another human being (which is the root of the two greatest commands). The Bible is helpful instruction, and the Holy Spirit will and does convict individuals of Biblical points according to their unique circumstances or needs. But “authority” in regards to controlling or owning another in service to some scriptural command or truth or interpretive method or understanding or opinion is simply not Biblical; it is a lie. For this larceny and oppression, Jesus had much to say. The Bible is NOT a club to bludgeon people with. PEOPLE are more important than the Bible and all the revelations and commands therein. And if this is true, then the Bible was never intended nor implied in itself to be infallible or inerrant. No, God first; then man. That is Christianity. The Bible is just a book. A great, helpful, inspired book…but loving God and human beings is more important than dogmatic adherence to any Biblical command or truth. Not that obedience is not important…it is just fundamentally less important than your fellow man.
“I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”
-God
Jan,
Thanks!!
Haitch, This is why I hang out here, as well. I reviewed that comment from Dee, and was reminded of something. Collin said “It is not about her heart.” and “Character counts.” I’ve only read RHE’s blog a few times, but recently read her take on Driscoll’s Esther series. She goes out of her way to give Driscoll the total benefit of the doubt– while disagreeing with his interpretation, she’s full of graciousness. She even takes issue with commenters who think she’s being too nice. Character counts.
Oh, nothing like a segue, going back to an earlier post I made about Turing (10/8), he’s back in the news. Gotta love some of the Guardian commenters. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/04/alan-turing-uk-cybercrime
I’m someone who is strongly for national apologies and statements of regret…
I am pleased that TWW gives liberty to dissenters from the Established Church, the Established Orthodoxy, the Christian Establishment, what ever that may be for the individual. I am also pleased that TWW commenter’s such as Eagle, and Argo feel comfortable with sharing some of their beliefs with Wartburg Watch readers. I have found this climate and environment most helpful. Thank you Dee, and Deb for providing such a unique experience; one of mutual respect and grace. I am eternally gratefully. I am also most pleased with the many questions that appear here. The more, it seems, the better the “thought” challenge.
The world is a better place for it.
With kind regards,
IronClad
Amen, IronClad!
Argo, Love your comments. Basically a tenant of cultic thinking is doctrine over people. That is how we see the Bible abused with that thinking. An example I was thinking of when reading your comment was divorce for abuse. Does God hate divorce more than abuse of His children? The bible is often used as a club to control people. In fact, some will even try to define what is real abuse to make appeasing the abuser righteous. This is even more insidious when the abuser is a professing believer and the pastor is telling the wife to stay and pray more. Piper advocates this as did Paige Patterson. As if the wife must sacrifce herself and the children for the salvation of the abuser. It is bizarre when you really think about it.
The spirit not the letter.
Haitch,
Wheaties – Breakfast of Champions! 😉
Haitch – re. the commenters on The Guardian article, oh…. very, very sad.
Anon1,
Thanks!
Ironclad,
Great post. I totally agree.
Anon1,
Oh yes…I would agree that “requiring” a woman to stay in an abusive relationship would be contrary to the spirit of our faith, and to the overall theme of love. I could not agree more with you. I cannot be convinced that when Jesus declares that people can divorce for no reason other than “unfaithfulness” it included the idea that, yes, that means being punched by her husband, or emotionally abused,is no reason to terminate the relationship. This is where proof-texting really shows its fallacy. Context MUST be considered. Abuse of a human being trumps the command, I would say. In such a case, love dictates that the woman is free to leave that situation, and frankly, should be encouraged to do so, in my opinion. The whole situation is terrible and complicated, we should not compound it with unnecessary and un-empathetic guilt-trips based on “orthodoxy”.
Argo –
It’s possible that unfaithful means more than just sexually. I would consider my husband “unfaithful” to our relationship if he took to abusing me in any way!
In the context of the discussion it is clear that the unfaithfulness in view was adultery. The reason this is clear is because the question he was asked was about a first centry debate between liberals and conservatives over a certain type of divorce. The debate (and this is all documented in David Instone-Brewer’s thorough book “Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible”) was over an OT text that the liberals took to mean a man could divorce his wife for “any cause” where the conservative side understood it to mean for adultery. He was siding with the conservatives.
However, both sides agreed that divorce was permissible for “neglect” (which would include abuse)- there was no controversy on that point and Jesus was not asked about it.
David Instone-Brewer’s research on this topic is not weak speculation or proof texting- he is a well respected scholar and his evidence is far greater than anything else on the subject. If you ever want to read a book that shows how scripture is really impressively unified on a topic where it seems the scripture is contradictory (as Jesus, the OT, and Paul all seem to be different standards for divorce when proof texting), this is it.
Oh, and in case it wasn’t clear, I was meaning to say that the language Jesus used made it clear his prohibition of remarriage was not for all types of divorces, but only the “any cause” divorce. We have every reason to believe he would accept divorce for neglect/abuse.
There’s also evidence that Paul would as well, in fact; however, I’ll leave that to Instone-Brewer to explain.
Jeffs, I have also delved into Instone Brewers research and it is really good. Piper took him on, of course because Instone Brewer was upsetting their apple cart of control and giving abused women too much power over their own lives and safety. And yes, abuse is neglect. They completely ignore that point.
Has Collin tucked his tail under his hindquarters and left the field? Couldn’t take the truth, Collin???? At least the blog will now smell better without that variety of cat spraying his stuff around.
OK. I’ve now gotten to the point where all the theologizing is about to overwhelm me. Not because I don’t understand it (or its implications) but because I DO understand it and I remember all too well how much anxiety it provoked in me.
That said, I am going to zero in on one thing. Dee and Deb, you have permission to delete this post if you think it steps over the line, but one of your commenters has stepped on my last nerve and I have to say something about it.
Collin Brendemuehl dropped the following into one of his comments:
“Special creation means unique. Not that mankind is otherwise a primate among and above other primates. ‘God formed man’ separate from the animal kingdom. While it does not entail YEC specifically, it does require a separate act. Breathing the breath of life was subsequent, or perhaps a part of, to that creative act. But here the interpretation makes no allowance for man among animals but man separate from animals.”
Let me be blunt: There is NO evidence for your proposition that there was a special creation of human beings separate from the animals. I’d also note that your assertion doesn’t require a belief in YEC, but it does require faith.
The problem for me is that it’s not merely an issue of faith for which there is no evidence, but a situation for which there is tons of evidence to the contrary. What I am saying is that there is plenty of scientific evidence for evolution, but there is NO evidence for YEC or your brand of “special creationism.”
Not to put too fine of a point on it: You’re lying in the face of reams of evidence about evolution and the age of the universe. Let me repeat that: YOU ARE LYING. Not only are you lying, but you’re promoting ongoing lies. And you’re not the only one and these aren’t the only lies being told.
It’s the same deal with things like Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). One would think, going to many churches, that this was the only way to explain Jesus’ death. It’s not, but suggesting otherwise will get you branded a heretic. This opens up into the larger world of “what church members are taught over the pulpit” versus “what historians, scholars of religion and seminarians know.” PSA is just the tip of the iceberg, and it touches on other Evangelical bugaboos such as the “inerrancy of Scripture” (which I will not get into here).
I personally resent that my life in Christianity was filled with all of these lies, more lies than I can list here and many of which I told myself to keep myself within the fold. It eventually became too much and I had to dump the entire heavy, rickety edifice I’d built to hold up my “faith” before it crushed me. It was NOT an overnight thing–it took years before I could admit to myself that I didn’t believe any more, and then I cried about it. I still do, when I think about it. But I can’t go back into a worldview where I had to lie to myself.
Yesterday, I was telling someone that one of the top 10 most important discoveries in science in my lifetime was the discovery that a small asteroid had slammed into the planet ~65 million years ago (MYA) and likely led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. (Likely = there’s still disagreement on it, but scientists aren’t kicking other scientists out of the scientific fraternity because there’s a disagreement. They’re just looking for more evidence to finally decide the case.)
Just writing that sentence is a denial of YEC in so many ways, but, to state again, there is more evidence that an asteroid slammed into the Yucatan Peninsula 65 MYA than there is for YEC or Collin’s version of “special creation.”
I’d also note it’s entirely too precious to me when someone starts yanking out the Marxist card. *rolls eyes* It’s just a more pretentious version of namedropping.
And finally, Collin, you really ought to pay attention to Dee and Deb–they’ve got the number of The Gospel Coalition and TGC’s stalking horse Sarah Flashing. As someone who is very much outside the Christian ambit, it’s obvious to me TGC and Flashing want to shove Rachel Held Evans out of the fold. It’s really disgusting to watch (and yet another reason I departed from the fold as well, before I got pushed). I can’t see Jesus doing that.
Anon1, the IB article that Piper responded to was not convincing to me due to its brevity (once I read IB’s book though I had NO doubt), but Piper’s response really disturbed me. I read his position paper and it is completely unconvincing. Even worse, though, was his labeling of IB’s position that neglect/abuse were allowable as “tragic”. If anything, if you just feel intellectual integrity means you cannot accept divorce for the abused, I would expct this is a position held with regret. Calling the exodus of women out of abusive marriages “tragic” is nauseating.
Quite frankly, after reading IB’s book the “taking on” that Piper did seems like an ant trying to defeat an elephant. His position paper is almost laughable by comparison.
Bridget,
Totally agree. What I am also saying is that we do not need to do any theological gymnastics to try to fit what we KNOW is right into some jelly jar of reformed, European, medieval “orthodoxy”. It is fine to argue that one could define marital unfaithfulness as abuse (and I certainly, wholeheartedly agree that this is an utter form of unfaithfulness…anyone who suggests otherwise is not living in reality, and cares more about “doctrine” than human beings), but, there is no need for that. All of the Bible is subservient to the well-being of PEOPLE. One sacrifices “doctrine” in the name of love, period. As I stated before, people are more important than scripture. I understand this offends people, and it is hard to get our heads around, especially in this age of Church Discipline and Excommunication and pastoral “authority” covering up blackmail and sexual abuse, and appeals to narcissistic pastoral “authority”, and authoritarian tyrants like Al Mohler proclaiming that BELIEVERS have no right to leave their church in accordance with their conscience and the conviction of the Holy Spirit… but if we see what Jesus meant when He healed over and over again and constantly rebuked the Pharisees for their lack of empathy, and blatantly broke Jewish tradition (picking grain on the sabbath, healing, not washing before a meal, eating with gentiles, etc., etc.) it becomes obvious that the bible is for man, NOT man for the bible. If we are EVER putting doctrine ahead of what we know is in accordance with the LOVE of God, we are not obeying God. We must understand that we are here to manifest God’s love to others; and sometimes, YES, it does mean that we will not necessarily adhere to the letter of the “law”. If a woman is being abused by her husband, the OBVIOUS right thing to do is to GET HER OUT. That IS love. If a child is being abused in a church, or school, or university you call the police! You put abusers in JAIL. These are ideas that even the “unsaved” understand. It is no wonder why Paul exhorts the gentiles who act according to the law from their consciences, and rebukes the Jews who claimed righteousness through the Torah and Abraham.
“proper doctrine does not save” The thief on the cross didn’t know any “doctrine” yet Christ accepted him into the kingdom because he believed in who He was.
Argo, I guess I’m just different than you but for me I want to “get it”. It’s not about mental gymnastics- when something seems off in scripture, to me that’s an indication we should dig deeper. Once we do, we see that there is a whole lot more than we realized (and all of it good).
I learned so much about God through looking into this stuff and getting to the heart of scripture, and some of it not even about divorce. I confess I really didn’t “get” the metaphore running all thought the OT prophets of Gods divor e of Israel before I read IB’s book.
A perspective I have where I think we can agree is that Paul and Jesus both say that the law is summed up by loving our neighbor. So if any scripture appears to say we are to act in an unloving way, we are not understanding it correctly- we have to go deeper. And we don’t want to redefine “loving” such that it loses any reasonable meaning in order to satisfy what appear to be contradictions.
Stormy –
I totally agree . . . 🙂 and that is all Jesus asked of him. Dare we ask more?
Jeff, I have always wondered why these great men of God as “pastors” do not offer to take the abuse for the abused spouse they know and teach that to other young pastors they love to charge for conferences to learn from them. That would be the most Christlike thing to do. Hit me instead of her. Instead they take the cowards way out for the mere sake of their position as “men” and the “head” of the woman, (as they interpret that wrongly, btw)
Argo, I have been reading what little there is concerning the early Christians before all the councils on heresy started. First and second century stuff. Some sources are even non Christians describing Christians. They were NOT worried about correct doctrine at all. They were concerned about living out their faith. producing good fruit. Looking like followers of Christ.
When the doctrinal councils started, the wars began and we ended up with a church state. It became about man and power with the rally cry being doctrine. It is bizarre in a way. How could one who has the indwelling Holy Spirit think it right to kill someone because their doctrine is wrong?
Appealing to church history for truth is madness.
Hi JeffS,
Yes…I see what you are saying. That certainly makes sense. We are all here basically saying the same thing: that it isn’t a sin to engage our brains, and that to fully grasp the faith, we need to THINK. When there seems to be a dissonance between our Spirit’s conviction and our “orthodox” understanding based on some theological assumption or interpretive method or appeals to “church fathers” or whatever, that it is always better to investigate until we can comfortably satisfy the apparent inconsistencies, and always err on the side of loving our neighbor (and it isn’t loving to bludgeon them with our theological opinions on the greater good served in following proper doctrine, and stick to your submissive role for the sake of the “gospel” and blah, blah blah; and further, I don’t mean taking whatever you Pastor tells you at face value…particularly if that Pastor believes in a theology that lends itself to authority/submission power constructs).
WTH-
Parking Tickets.
Anon1, I think there are two things going in with the church mishandling of abuse situations. The first is that some pastors are wolves in sheep’s clothing- they side with abusers and become co-abusers themselves. The position of pastor attracts many abusive man- the sense of entitlement and control is strong in the abuser and what could satisfy this more than taking the highest position known to man- God’s anointed leader?
But the second is simple ignorance. You have a lot of middle class white men coming from a place of privilege who just really don’t get it. They make assumptions about what women desire and need, assume they are right because in their comfortable world conflict doesn’t happen that much, and they just go with it. It’s the pragmatic spirit of the age. Whatever works in their world is transferable to everyone everywhere, as ridiculous as that sounds. The problem is, people believe them.
I mean, do we honestly think Piper can say a women should consent to withstand domestic violence for a night and really understand what he’s asking? If he does- if he gets it, then that makes him a monster. I really don’t think he’s a monster, as much as I don’t care for a lot of the things he teaches. My heart tells me he’s misinformed and has underestimated the evil that is in this world, and most likely in his congregation.
“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn’t exist”
-The Usual Suspects
Maybe these pastors spend so much time thinking about the wrath of God they forget about evil that exists in the world. Evil does exist and hearts of many people are wicked. It’s in fashion at the moment to go around degrading ourselves as sinners (“I’m the worst, no I’M the worst”) while REAL evil goes unchecked. The apostles may have acknowledged their sin, but they pulled no punches when it came to real evil like Diotrephes and Alexander the Coppersmith.
So my answer is they don’t step in and take one for the team because they don’t really understand that it hurts.
Thanks, joe. If you would, elaborate a teensy bit more. After all “parking tickets” adds a word to “tickets” but still isn’t elaborating much.
“Who” with a “what” without a “when”, a “where”, or a “why” is not quite sufficient. The provenance of what you hear (or read) would help bolster your statements. How can readers at TWW be certain your information is reliable and honest? They already see you as a defender of MH and may not trust the credibility of your information? You’re an anonymous joe, after all.
Oh, one more point on “Does God hate divorce more than abuse of His children?”- the translation of “God hates divorce” is questionable. For example, here’s Malachi 2:16 in the ESV:
“For the man who hates and divorces, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”
Anon1
When Piper said that women should endure abuse for one night, I wondered. If a man broke into his house and started beating him, would he endure it for one night or would he try to get out? I believe that many of these men are weenies. For Owen to compare his job at the seminary to Adam tilling the hard ground without modern implements is just plain weird.
Re appealing to church history, I agree that not everything that was said in the past even by the greatest thinkers of the Church was correct, any more than everything historically great scientists claimed was correct (Cuvier rashly claimed in 1812 that no large animals remained to be discovered, a few years before people began bringing dinosaurs to light!).
On the other hand church history can give us an insight into the past, into how controversies have historically been handled and how trains of thought and events have led us to where we are. At the very least, as someone once said, “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”.
Those who attempt to rewrite history, without understanding it (such as those in the comp camp that rewrite the history of social relationships) are repeatedly doomed by it.
I don’t have much to add, I just wanted to say that I’m very much enjoying the conversations that are ongoing in this thread. Fascinating stuff, thank you! 🙂
Bummer Dude: “Grapes Of Wrath?” Christianity 101
Question: The Soul That Sins Shall Die?
hmmm…
…But the free gift of God brings eternal life?
What?
–
Bible 101, Part 1:
When God created man in the garden, there was no death.
Disobedience to God’s law in the garden was declared by God to bring death.
Adam disobeyed God’s law in the garden.
Adam experienced spiritual separation from His creator in the garden when he disobeyed God’s law.
Adam died.
Adam brought death to the human race.
Adam brought spiritual separation from the creator to all his descendants.
All are therefore experiencing spiritual separation from the creator.
All are spiritually dead.
All will physically die.
All will face “the judgement”.
Bummer, huh?
Bible 101, Part 2:
Christ is the way, the truth, the life.
The soul apart from Christ has no life.
Christ is God’s answer for man’s condition.
Christ came to impart life.
Apart from Christ there is no life.
Christ gives living water.
Christ makes alive all those that accept him, and what he has done.
Christ brings spiritual life.
Christ asks us to accept what he offers. He says that it brings life to a dead condition. Christ says that he can give us eternal life and make us alive.
Christ gives us the ability to live with God in heaven.
Christ gives us “a choice” to accept living water.
hmmm….
I’ze verrrrrrry thirsty,
…I’ze gonna get me some of dat!
mmmmmmmmmm!
(grin)
hahahahahahaha
Jesus, Joy of Man’s Desiring?
hmmm…could b.
S“㋡”py
___
Bonus: Johann Sebastian Bach, “Sonata II BWV 1003, Fuga”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olW6-jhSgMg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Poor old Collin….he obviously didn’t realise that he was going to meet people on this page (he would also run into the same thing over at iMonk & a few other places) who once believed what he believes now & have rejected it WITHOUT REJECTING CHRIST. No-one in Reformed bubbles will have prepared him for this eventuality…that you can chuck the bath water & keep the baby….
@ Argo, I’ve really enjoyed reading what you’ve been saying – did you give an address for your blog? I’d love to read along.
@Nick I’m waving at you from the other end of the Island *waves* I am waaaay down South but delighted to have you here!
Beaker: I’d just like to say that I did not “reject Christ.” I merely learned that the Jesus of the Church is only one type of construct (or version) of Jesus.
When you have evidence (not faith, EVIDENCE) substantiating your construct of Jesus, please let me know, because I’m all ears. And, no, “Evidence Which Demands A Verdict” does NOT count.
not everyone agrees that in the Garden there was no death, actually.
Arce, good point.
WTH
“not everyone agrees that in the Garden there was no death, actually.” You are correct. I have long argued that the death referred to with Adam and Eve was the death of a being that was not supposed to die. Humans were given the immortal soul at one point in time. God told them not to eat of the fruit of the tree for, if they did “On that day you shall surely die.” Well, they didn’t die on that day, did they? Could it be that the death to which he was referring was something else? I have no trouble with animals dying before the Fall, except for dogs which I think got a special dispensation. 🙂
Yo Beakerj – waving back.
We’re in Alva, near Stirling, to be exact. We visited friends at Buryan, 3 miles from Land’s End, during the summer. It was weird; it was late June, but it got dark at night! I suppose that’s what happens near the equator, though. Presumably in late December the sun sets after 3pm too.
Are you that far south, btw, or just London south?
Southern Discomfort – I absolutely most definitely did not say you rejected Christ, rather the opposite. I firmly believe you can reject Collin’s brand of theology without rejecting Christ 🙂
Hi Nick – I’m 50 miles south of London! Just outside of Petersfield.
I just read your comment about Mark Driscoll using the Bible as a sock puppet that always agrees with him – beautifully put. Keep on!
Southwestern Discomfort,
HowDee,
hmmm…
I ask da Lord if he was real when I was nineteen, he moved twenty-five feet of the Pacific Ocean out of the way. I walked on dry sand. …Dat was good enough for me!
hum, hum, hum…Jesus loves me this I’ze know…
(grin)
Sopy
P.S. Josh is wonderful. Love his books too!
RE: Argo on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 04:49 PM,
Thanks for articulating what I have long felt internally but could never quite output onto paper. Let those of us who are interested know when you get your site operational!
WTH-
Honestly I think we are the only people at TWW in this conversation since the post is about another subject. An anonymous Joe is still more telling then a Hatchet from Wenatchee.
This type of info comes through relationship, not hard copy. I have a mutual friend of Leif who told me this years ago when Leif left MH. I’m sure I am not the first person to tell you this.
Joe
Do you go to a Mars Hill type of church? Pastors sure seem to come and go at Mars Hill. Why the high turnover?
Too many great comments to mention but thank you everyone!
“Could it be that the death to which he was referring was something else?” – dee
Maybe mankind’s banishment from access to the Tree of Life was the loss of the soul’s immortality and it is regained through Christ?
It is always refreshing to come across conservative scholars who courageously went against the flow on various points: John Stott, F.F.Bruce, John Wenham etc.
The late John Wenham, a conservative British theologian, believed in Conditional Immortality.
Muff Potter and BeakerJ,
Thanks for your kind words and interest! The site is up…
unreformingtheology
BTW, I suppose I could have stated my lengthy post on biblical inerrancy simply like this: take away mankind, and you take away the Bible.
MM
It’s comments like yours that make me love blogging. I did not know anything about conditional immortality. For others like myself, here is a quick definition from Wikipedia.
” Conditionalism or conditional immortality is a concept of special salvation in which the gift of immortality is attached to (conditional upon) belief in Jesus Christ. This doctrine is based in part upon another theological argument, that if the human soul is naturally mortal, immortality (“eternal life“) is therefore granted by God as a gift. This viewpoint stands in contrast to the more popular doctrine of the “natural immortality” of the soul. It is usually paired with mortalism and annihilationism“
What a fascinating thought. I shall do some reading.
I think there’s a lot of useful thought in there. Consider, also, that God stated to Adam: Dust you are; to dust you shall return. Then stationed an angel with a lightsabre to guard the Tree of Life, in case Adam should eat from it and live forever. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had not eaten from the Tree of Life and could not, therefore, live forever. It is this, not some sentimental belief that God Is Only Ever Nice, that underpins my belief that any destruction of humans in hell is permanent, but not perpetual. (Educated theologians would, I think, prefer to say that I believe in annihilation.)
There’s something else that interests me, though, which is: why didn’t they eat from the Tree of Life? (The rest of this post is speculation, of course, and I have no serious pedagogical intent in sharing it! I humbly ask that it be judged as such.)
We know that the Other Tree was pleasing to the eye, good for food, etc. Genesis tells us nothing explicit about what the T of L looked like. Is it possible that the T of L was not pleasing to the eye? The T of L is mentioned at the other end of the Bible, of course, in Rev 22; we’re told that its leaves are for the healing of the nations. (It’s also briefly mentioned in Rev 2:7.) There is another tree which figures very prominently in scripture, that brings life and healing: I refer, of course, to the cross. I can’t help wondering whether there is some link between the two. There are several other possible trains of thought here, but I want to keep this post brief!
I don’t think it’s speculative to state that Jesus alone – fully God and fully man – was worthy to reconcile God and humanity (actually, Col 1:20 hints that the cross achieved even more than that). Whatever the relationship between the T of L as mentioned in Genesis, the T of L as mentioned in Revelation, and the cross (spiritual if not physical), evidently it would have been disastrous for fallen Adam to eat from the T of L. I suspect that this is because Adam could not reconcile himself to God; therefore, were he to live forever, he would live forever at enmity with God. It may be that the Flaming Sword Angel was stationed precisely to prevent the eternal conscious torment of the wicked in hell.
Nick
Interesting speculation and exegesis. More scriptural and theologically sound than patriarchy! I like the idea of the cross as the “tree of life”. It surely is the “tree of Salvation”!
Nick
What a wonderful comment. You would enjoy my Sunday dinners with some friends. We have discussed issues like this and I plan to bring it up wiht them tomorrow. I think it is imperative that those who would put limits on the some wooden literlism of Genesis wrestle with questions like this. Spending time in such contemplation has been humbling for me because i realize that there is much, much more than is clearly spelled out in Genesis.
Nick –
Like that! Have heard something similar taught. Now think about how Jesus speaks of himself as the T of L and the vine with branches. It adds even more to the picture.
Hey Dee,
No, mega-churches like MH are in a league in their own on many things, including staff changes.
anonymous joe, you’re inviting more questions about the credibility and provenance of your claims that you keep making on the internet. Just letting you know.
If Driscoll keeps up his shtick with Esther Rachel Held Evans could come out the other side of this looking like a hero for actually taking the narrative of Esther seriously.