“Even so, among other things the Lord has been pleased to raise Apprising Ministries up as a leading critic of Rob Bell” - Ken Silva
enough said
** ironically, this quote comes from an article about how God is really angry. Apparently it applies to everyone but Ken Silva.
Please forgive the page space this will take, but I thought it was worth the view…
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
Part VII
Part VIII
NOTE: This isn’t to suggest that Bono is the greatest theologian of our times - or that he has it all right. But to show evidence of someone trying to use their talents for the kingdom - which exists here and now - not just someday & somewhere.
When Chris L. asked if I would write on this blog, I was highly reluctant. For one thing, all the writers here were male, and I was not naive enough to think that my lack of theological education would not become an issue to some of the commenters that frequent here. My response was fairly direct:
You know I don’t have a “official” theology training [...] and that most of the time you and all the other people on that site could wipe up the floor with me when it comes to things like interpretation, context, theology…
Which leads me to something that has bothered me from both writers and commenters in many posts, including the comments to two posts I previously submitted here (Are women human; The soul of wit): are we in love with “papered qualifications” in western Christianity?
Do we require external, extra qualifications before a person can be heard, or considered viable, in a discussion or an argument? If a person with a dissenting opinion or a simple question can’t offer a “very qualified”1 rebuttal, but still a valid point, is that opinion of less value or any less true? Is anything written by a less-”qualified” Christian automatically less in weight?
If we truly believe that the Bible is inspired, and that the Spirit reveals truth to us as we read it, why would a person who doesn’t have a theology-based degree, understanding of Greek, or even a full understanding of the huge lexicon of theological terms like exegete, hermeneutics, et. al. be subtly (and not so subtly) called to the carpet for lacking “sufficient” qualifications to enter the discussion? Who requires these extra qualifications, man or God? Does, or does not, the Spirit reveal to all who believe as they read the Word, or does he dole out a little extra to those with a paper framed on the wall and a masters or doctorate on the way?
Head knowledge, and an unnecessary reliance or trust upon those with papered qualifications, is a huge stumbling block to not only hearing an unusual idea or unorthodox take on a topic, but also in creating those associative barriers that lock minds in a loop. The people who heard and believed Jesus were not always the highly educated; some of the most theologically trained were the least able to hear what Jesus had to say.
Well-thought opinions, on-topic responses, and logical answers are not only reserved for those with a degree. In fact, too often the more “qualified”, the more wordy, confusing, obfuscating, and prideful a person can be. One aspect of many ODM blogs and those who put great faith in the writers is in their man-made qualifications. Is the Reverend Ken Silva any more lucid for his “qualifications”?
It is an incredible annoyance to try to make a point in a discussion only to have some supposed non-existent qualifications thrown up as a red herring, making any further comments impossible since my lack of “qualifications” will never be rectified in any meaningful sense of discussion-time.
And so ends my unlearned, art-major, lived-out-in life, lay-person-qualified, opinion. I apologize for not being able to exegete and contextually apply scripture in quality and quantity to everyone’s satisfaction. I should think in the world of hair splitters, split-infinitive correcters, and book thumpers that a fresh voice not based in the usual jargon and ways of thinking would be seen as yet another way to learn. And possibly be more “qualified.”
————
1 Clearly’s comment on “The soul of wit“, December 1, 2007, 4:54 pm
I offer this without much comment, understanding that many will see irony in posting it here.
In his anti-Wright book, Piper says:
“Faithful Christians do not love controversy; they love peace. They love their brothers and sisters who disagree with them. They long for a common mind for the cause of Christ. But for this very reason they are bound by their conscience and by the Word of God to try to persuade the church concerning the fullness of the truth and beauty of God’s Word†(31-32).
I simply don’t believe that most polemicists love their opponents in any way, desire peace or want a common mind. They want and need to fight. I think they have a psychological need to right, and will divide from anyone in order to establish that game and win it. They redefine love and discipleship so that arguing and the various tools for winning arguments become “loving.†This may not be true for all, but it’s true enough to make Piper’s statement absurd in many cases.
