The Controversy Continues…
From here*:
Another heathen is seemingly endorsed, Hansen says. And this man was known for being a liar, keeping a “kinda skanky” mistress, and drowning in his bath. “Uh, gee: You think alcohol was involved in that?” Hansen asks.
“Dude was hardly a Christian, and espoused things that were antithetical to Christianity, and here we’ve got this respected Christian leader-writer dude, referring to him, without rejecting all the bad stuff the guy believed and did.”
The leader in question, Hansen says, changed his name from “Saul” to “Paul” well before quoting the pagan writers, three in all. Hansen says he’s actually “More than okay with what Paul did,” but notes not all may approve.
*No, I am not Brant writing in disguise. Nor am I stalker (well he is in my RSS feed, so that is kind of stalkerish, just socially acceptable stalking). As to why I’ve posted him multiple times, well, its just good stuff. Except that one thing he did. But we don’t mention that anymore.
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:00 pm
I find it amusing that this passage fom Acts is the most overused (as it is the only example of its kind) proof text for engaging culture, since it was without a doubt the least successful effort of all the evangelization that Paul particpated. Perhaps the message is stick to the Word?
Anyway Acts is scripture. Bell and the other showmen are not writing scripture. God is not giving a tacit endorsement of Greek poets, btw.
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Since the invention of the printing press there may be a difference in an “innocuous” quote and endorsing a book that was written specifically to debunk Christianity.
Paul did not endorse those that denied the resurrection, did he? To those he rebuked. And even those who tried to combine law with Jesus he confonted with “fallen from grace” language. So I believe you are correct about Paul quoting someone who wasn’t a Christian, but would he ever have endorsed someone who was an enemy of the cross and wrote that Jesus’ body was probably eaten by wild dogs?
I say no.
Acts is historical Scripture and should never be used as a proof text about anything.
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Chris P,
I’m not sure why I’m bothering to respond since you’ve become nothing more than a drive-by commenter.
But first, lets stick to the main point. That point being that when McLaren and Bell footnote a book which is heretical and/or blasphemous that isn’t a, how you put it, “tact endorsement” of that book. I’m sure you’ll be busy correcting Ken, and Ingrid and the rest of the gang when they do exactly that in the future.
Nonetheless, its not the only example of its kind. We see it whenever Paul writes. When he writes to greek Christians he uses words like “propitiation” which has its roots in pagan worship. On the other hand when he writes to Jewish Christians he makes references to the law, and circumcision.
In fact, just by the act of selecting where to go to preach Paul is engaging culture. Whether he hits synagogues or Mars Hill there is a deliberate attempt to “engage culture”. The writer of Hebrews was perhaps teh greatest engager of culture. Just check out all the references to the OT written to… you got it Jewish people.
This attitude just stuns me. You are the follower of a God that became a man in order to bring salvation to his creation, and somehow you sit there contemptuous of “engaging culture”. If it wasn’t for God “engaging culture” you’d be in hell now.
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Rick,
Unless those pagan poets he quotes endorsed the resurrection you’re wrong.
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:40 pm
The people of whom I speak are well informed men who openly teach that the Biblical account of the gospel itself is fiction. If you cannot label them as heretics then who can you?
And is it appropriate to endorse Bishop Spong’s writings? You are saying then there are not any men, heretics or not, that we should avoid. And again I ask you to refrain from the footnote issue, these are endorsements not just footnotes.
A pagan who doesn’t believe in the resurrection is somewhat different than a demon possessed man who teaches that the resurrection is a myth and by his writings destroy people’s faith..
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Chris P,
Wrong again…. It is not the only example as Paul did this a few other times…
Titus 1:12 “Even one of their own prophets has said, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.”â€
1 Corinthians 9:20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
Now, also if this is true as you are asserting… that we are NOT to engage culture, then why did Irenaeus write against Gnosticism? It was of the culture…
You see Jude himself quoted from the book of Enoch, which was the equivalent to quoting a best selling novel at the time. Again, this is a cultural reference in order to teach a biblical teaching.
It seems that you again are throwing out the baby with the bathwater…
Be Blessed,
iggy
October 4th, 2007 at 5:08 am
The Scriptures make a distinction between an unbeliever (pagan) and one who is called a brother. If a man claims he is a brother and denies the resurrection he should be warned and after the first admonition he should be refused as a heretic.
A pagan who does not believe in the resurrection should be invited over for dinner. But both of their writings might be read by an elder for some information about what people are believing, but they should never recommend those writings to the sheep.
October 4th, 2007 at 7:31 am
hmmmm…all good…
I do know that Letters From Camp Crusty is one of my favorite blogs.
other than that…hmmmm
Sometimes when I preach, I quote secular music or movies. Am I okay?
October 4th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Yes, Nathaneal, in certain contexts. But if you quote “Imagine” from Lennon and say it is an insightful piece of theology then you crossed a major line.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Which line is that pray tell? Imagine is a piece of stunning Theology. We are all theologians, the hard core anarchist to Ken Silva-ish person. Truth can be found in anything; even things from pagans written to “disprove” truth.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Oh yea, I forgot. No lines of fellowship, no lines of light and darkness, no avoiding heretics, we are all theologians in a great big friendly pot of stew. Truth can be found in anything, the truth that they are wrong.
The difference is there is ONLY truth in God’s Word without a mixture of error. I know, a little exclusive.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Theology - derived from theo (God) and logos (word) - or “words about God”.
So technically, anyone who talks about God, be they right or wrong, is a theologian. It is funny that you mentioned the song ‘Imagine’, as I used that in a conversation with a non-Christian friend once who said he believed in heaven and hell, but didn’t know which religion led there, or if all of them did. That song had just played on a boom-box (this was back in the ’80’s - I’m dated, so my kids tell me) and I said “have you ever really listened to that song?”, and took parts of it to its logical conclusion, leading back a discussion on the One true God.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Chris - That would be a little different than implying that those thoughts are part of the truth experience. I’ve used Jethro Tull’s Passion Play to show the hopeless search of man for eternal meaning.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Rick,
While your statement “there is only truth in God’s word” sounds nice and holy it’s not true. It’s not complete. There is truth that can be found outside of God’s word. The Dr. who examined my dog yesterday after somebody with a God loves you sticker tried to run her over did not need to read her Bible at all in order to treat my dog. The information she read was and is truth. Do I believe that the Bible is truth? Yes. But there is truth out there that is found in other areas. I’m not saying that anything that contradicts the Bible is truth, what I am saying is we know there are truthful things out there that can be found in many places.
A pagan neighbor can tell me something about love that is absolute 100% truth. Same neighbor can say something about the interaction of God with His/Her creation and it can be 100% truth. Perhaps, this is what one of the early Biblical writers meant when he said something to the effect that no man is without excuse because even creation testifies about God.
Just my thoughts.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:32 am
I did not say that truth could only be found in Scripture, I said Scripture was ONLY truth and no error. Which means extra Biblical souces about truth must be sifted when they deal with spiritual “truths”.
And when an extra Biblical source suggests that the resurrection was wishful thing, well, I need not read any further and neither should anyone else. Just my pre-modern thoughts.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:33 am
The statement that truth is only in God’s word is anti-biblical.
I don’t know if it’s heresy, but it’s anti-biblical. The Bible itself testifies against that idea, repeatedly, in both the O.T. and N.T. Nature itself reveals truths about God.
So, now, what are we to do when someone teaches falsely about the Bible? I say we all keep gently correcting each other, but not everyone’s on board with that. Rick, you call for “outrage” in your blog, and even say we should avoid Mark Driscoll, because he is “friends with heretics”.
As I mentioned, Paul did not, in fact quote one, but three (Menander, Aratus, and Epimenides) in his writings, without adding once the familiar, “While I don’t agree with everything this guy, says, I…”
(Whomever claimed he only did it once is teaching inaccuracies about the Bible. I hope people still hang out with him. I mess stuff up, too.)
Paul quoted pagans with anti-Christian ideas, and he didn’t make clear all that he disagreed with. That would, in fact, bring howls of protest today.
Oh: Paul also, point-blank, said to “get rid of all…anger”. All of it. He doesn’t call for “outrage”. He says to get rid of all anger. Period. And a good idea, too, because whomever you are angry with? You’re just as guilty.
I hope, in this country in liberalizing times, we can still take the Bible seriously.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Joe~
Hope your dog is alright.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Rick — I now see your clarification, though you may see why it was confusing. You followed “there is ONLY truth in God’s word” with “I know, a little exclusive.”
If you’re weren’t saying the Bible was the only source of truth, the second sentence doesn’t add up so easily, at least for me. My apologies for misunderstanding you.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:40 am
If we cannot be outraged that a pastor endorses a book that calls the resurrection “wishful thinking” and says that the Lord’s body was probably eaten by wild dogs then what can we be outraged (different than fleshly anger) about? We are outraged about Ken and Ingid’s behavior, but not about writers (called brothers) who deny the gospel and then are endorsed by pastors in a favorable light?
Don’t worry, my kind is dying out.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Joe - Is your dog OK?
Rick - my condolences on your loss of Chopper. I had to take our Weimer to the vet several years ago to have him put to sleep, and I was surprised how much I cried that day.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Maybe I misunderstood Driscoll, but I didn’t think that the comment/conclusion about the resurrection was in the book quoted by MacLaren. Rather, I thought that the person quoted was part of the Jesus Seminar, which had those conclusions. I pretty much disagree with 95% of what I’ve read from the JS, but does that mean I can/should never quote someone involved with it on a topic completely unrelated?
October 4th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Thanks, Chris.
We loved our dog, my wife still cries. I have transferred some of my emotions to Rudy.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Chris - you can quote Hitler in proving a point. My contention is that MacLaren quotes them in a favorable light and endorses their writings without actually saying he agrees with them. That is not sounding a clear sound. And MacLaren attempts to place Borg in a favorable light by making a distinction between him and Sprong. That’s like saying that Manson wasn’t as bad as Hitler.
October 4th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Does anyone have the quote in which McClaren quotes Borg?
That would be helpful.
October 4th, 2007 at 10:24 am
I have it and it will be in my post about MacLaren. Does that mean if he did say that then it makes a difference? Keep watching, it will be at least a month, I want to be extensive.
October 4th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Potentially. I’ve quoted secularists, atheists, agnostics, satanists, etc… when speaking to students. Contextually it was always to illustrate a viewpoint that was contradictory or ambigious to the Gospel of Christ.
So again “context”.
October 4th, 2007 at 10:36 am
A review of “The Last Week” by Marcus Borg and John Crossan.
“[...] Borg and Crossan show one of the most careful and insightful readings of the Bible I’ve ever come across.”
— Brian McLaren, author of
A New Kind of Christian
That is the book that calls the resurrection “wishful thinking” and suggests the Lord’s body was eaten by dogs. I think the context is obvious.
October 4th, 2007 at 10:40 am
I want to be teachable, regardless of the source.
Truth is truth.
I don’t want to be Pliable (from “Pilgrim’s Progress”) where I am swayed or knocked off course by the currents of the culture. But I have learned a lot about the heart of my God through people who don’t follow Jesus, who hate Christians.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Rick,
Did you go back and edit your comment that was misunderstood?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:29 am
My dog’s good. She has a slight limp today and she favors her front leg some but she’s good. Thanks all for asking.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:47 am
For those interested in Borgs take on Christ (his story about his faith journey) you can check is Autobiography out.
I still hold that a reference or comment about “insightfulness” is neither an approval or condemnation of a referenced work.
Rick per the quote “[…] Borg and Crossan show one of the most careful and insightful readings of the Bible I’ve ever come across.â€
I would love to know what the ellypsis represents?
October 4th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
I found someone else who footnotes Crossan.
http://www.craigaevans.com/Burial_Traditions.pdf.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
You are correct Chris, however Crossan is used as a customs source but as the author’s piece suggests he and Crossan view the gospel very differently.
I will attempt to find the expanded version of MacLaren’s review, Borg said it coulb be found in the homoletics online interview which I read but could not find it. Let’s face it though, when you get to Borg and Crossan you’re a long way from home!
One of many, many quotes from Borg:
“But if we forget that it’s retrospective and begin to see this as intentional and purposeful, then it really says something horrible about God — that God demands a death — and it betrays the passion for which Jesus was willing to risk his life.”
Borg makes MacLaren look like Whitefield. I think…
October 4th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Rick based on the autobiography Borg is a far way from gospel understanding/belief. He summarizes his spiritual life as “a community in which to live, it feels like home”. However his spiritual journey reads like a flight log for a helium balloon.