how to lose friends and alienate people
Q: Why are Southern Baptists opposed to pre-marital sex?
A: Because it leads to dancing.
If you are now or have ever been a member of an SBC church (like I was at one time), you’ve probably heard that joke.
Sadly, for some, it’s not a joke, but rather another in a long line of (1) focusing on the wrong thing, (2) elevating opinion/preference to the level of doctrine, and (3) drawing definitive conclusions that have little or no basis in reality.
Such is the case for Mary Kassian in her criticism of William P Young’s The Shack. Now, I am by no means a fan of the book. It contains some (at best) questionable theology, has a troubling back-story, and many of its more strident fans often can’t seem to decide which genre it is in.
If you aren’t familiar with the book, Kassian’s criticism largely revolves around the fact that God the Father appears as a black woman named Papa. Criticisms regarding this issue are numerous and have ranged from concern that Young has crossed a line to emphatic assertion that Young is promoting “goddess worship”.
It is fairly clear that what Young was probably trying to accomplish was to shake up the reader’s image of God, addressing the unfortunate issue that we have often created Him in our image, particularly in Western culture. Unfortunately, Young’s attempt falls flat in that he trades in one humanly recognizable (and ill-conceived) image for another. (Put another way, while it is true that God is not Wilford Brimley, He’s not Aunt Jemima, either.)
Setting aside the myriad negative motives that Kassian ascribes to Young, it would appear that she doesn’t even think that an assertion of goddess worship promotion is strong enough. Alluding to a mid-80s sculpture of a female Christ hanging on a cross, Kassian claims:
If you [don't think that The Shack contains terribly wrong concepts about God], then you’re well on your way to accepting the image of the Christa on the cross. In a few years, you’ll be hanging her up in your church.
No cautions that the wrong concepts could lead to other problems. Rather, absolute and definitive statements of what will, without question, happen. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200. (Somebody call God and tell him that Kassian said He isn’t sovereign anymore.)
The only comment that I’ll make about her very next sentence (”I don’t think I’m overstating the case”) is to allude to gunplay, aquatic creatures, and large cylindrical containers made of wood.
Kassian’s criticism is not only over-the-top, but in some cases, just as theologically bad as — if not worse than — the book she is criticizing. As part of her overall context of examining the imaging of God, she states (emphasis hers):
In the Old Testament, God instructed his people to reject female goddess images and images of God as a bi-sexual or a dual-sexual Baal/Ashtoreth-type collaboration. God hated this imagery so much that he had his people destroy it and all those who promoted it.
Combining these statements with others peppered throughout the article, Kassian comes dangerously close to (if not outright) implying that God’s main problem with Baal/Ashtoreth wasn’t the whole false god thing, but simply that those who worshiped Baal/Ashtoreth had imaged God wrong. This is the same lousy logic that says that the Allah that Muslims worship is the same entity/person as Jehovah.
I have, on numerous occasions, cited my dismay with those that espouse an idea and then search the Scriptures for support of that idea (see also, “cart before the horse”). But at least such eisegesis is only a misapplication of the text. It’s sad that Kassian apparently feels that, in order to criticize the re-imaging of God, she must engage in the re-imaging of His Word.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
263 Comments(+Add)
The site is a reformed theology leaning organization on Biblical manhood and womanhood. I do not receive theological correction from a woman since my Biblical understanding is that doctrinal teachers are to be male elders.
I will never understand how seemingly orthodox preachers are blind to their obvious egalitarian practices. Those who seem so tethered to historical theologians seems so careless to the issues they wish to change. Do these people ever wonder why they do not reference women theologians from the same distant time period?
Oh, times have changed. How post modern.
The Shack may have some extreme imageries, but this woman’s hand wringing warnings are also extreme.
Hmmm….Girls Gone Wise…
Where’s ALL when you need it…
Sorry, Brendt. I shall refrain from any further derailment.
Here are a list of books/movies that have questionable theologies which many conservative believers have enjoyed and even referenced.
The Wizard of Oz
The Christmas Carol
Star Wars
Lord of the Rings
The Lion King
Etc., etc.
So how can believers get so upset with questionable theologies in books like The Shack but vote for politicians who sometimes have no theologies at all?
Jerry, I didn’t see any derailment.
Yeah Jerry… you gotta try harder next time…
She nailed it here. Nuff’ said.
The joke I’ve always heard was:
Q:”Why don’t Baptists approve of sex standing up?
A: “Because it might lead to dancing”
Along those same lines, once heard a judge on a dancing show say “I’ve seen Baptists dance better than that”
That one always cracked me up.
From a historical standpoint, what’s the origin of that kind of superficial restriction on harmless fun?
Just curious.
Well, she is correct. However, that is simply not what happens in the Shack.
So she is right, but her application of her rightness to the Shack is off base.
Kenn,
Depends on who is writing the history
But primarily it came about from a desire to distance themselves from the world. It was a simple matter of surveying the things “worldly” people did (they went to pubs and they danced and they played cards and they watched movies, etc) and then deciding that the best way we can look distinct is to not take part in those activities.
IMO it reduced faith to a set of restrictions, a set of moral don’ts.
If you’ve ever been to a wedding where you’ve seen fundamentalists attempt to dance, you might better understand the restriction.
Or perhaps if you have seen ‘Footloose’ staring my hero, Kevin Bacon.
LOL Phil
PB (#7)
Absent the underpinning assumptions she’s making, I happen to totally agree with this paragraph.
So is your implication that denial of God’s sovereignty and the twisting of Scripture should be ignored, because she got one paragraph right?
Isn’t even “a little leaven” a bad thing? Seems like maybe there’s even a blog by that name.
Was it not God Himself who offered earthly images of Himself which included inanimate objects? A lowly shepherd, a door, a lamb, a bird, a hen, a road, fire, wind, a donkey, and many other things were divine portrayals of the Great God which in reality marred His infinite image, but whcih were meant as tools of learning and communication.
I have not read the book, however, a fictional representation of God has Biblical precident. And the name God gives Himself, Jeovah Shaddai, is actually the “Breasted One” and indicates a mother sustaining her child at her own breast, Stunning, wouldn’t you say?
The Shack is one of the stories that can be overplayed or underplayed. It is a story not a theological treatise. I remember when Left Behind came out and I was substitute teaching. A middle school teacher asked me one day, “I have a student who is reading the Left Behind for teens books, and he is really scared. What should I tell him?” I responded, “Tell him it is fiction; a story.”
We can argue all day long about the theological presentation of God in The Shack. However, we can also argue all day long about the theological presentation of God in Calvin’s Institutes or Luther’s 95 Theses or Wesley’s hyms or George Burns’ ‘God‘ or Jim Carey’s Bruce Almighty or…you get the idea. All theological reflection is inherently flawed. It is only human arrogance that thinks any single theological perspective is without error. But there is nothing in Scripture that prohibits theological reflection even in fictional works. Consider Pilgrim’s Progress.
God, as a real, living being, has made himself available to us and as a real ‘person’ he is open to interpretation within certain boundaries and, also, to be a character in our ’stories.’ I wonder the real reason some people get bent that God in The Shack is, at the beginning, a large, black woman and not the God of Michaelangelo’s Sistine Chapel?
And there is nothing heretical about this at all. Fact is, in The Shack, there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Fact is, in The Shack, the Son was crucified and buried and resurrected. (1 Cor 15). Fact is, many people in the history of earth have claimed that God talked to them (Benny Hinn, Oral Roberts, Jack Coe, Paul, Peter, Joseph Smith, etc) even as the main character in the Shack did–except that they are real people and Mac is a fictional character. Fact is, The Shack is a fictional book working within the bounds of a Trinitarian God who was crucified. If it were offered as the theological book I had to read in Biblical Theology I might have an issue with that because it should be read in Western Literature 101. It’s fiction.
No one has denied it has theological issues. Not even the best and most conservative authors. But, honestly, it is no worse than The Left Behind series of fictional works or Pilgrim’s Progress or Janet Oakly or Frank Perretti.
**SPOILER**
Here’s my albeit brief take on the book’s main point:
Again, reading too much of it or too little of it will undoubtedly cause the downfall of many. But reading a story?
Or, consider Jesus’ parables. God is not really a “father” or a “shepherd” or a woman in search of a lost coin or a farmer or any other number of things.
It is the height of absurdity for anyone to argue for the maleness of God just to avoid female imagery of God. God is both. And God is neither. Deal with it.
You are wrong, Chad. God IS a male, an American male who loves Notre Dame football, and who loves democracy and capitalism. He is a man’s man who loves the outdoors and watches The Patriot and Braveheart at least once a month.
I find delicious irony in the fact that a woman is speaking for God to avoid making God a woman. Am I in bizarro world?
God also goes moose hunting with Palin on the weekends.
Yes, I find it ironic as well. How ironic that I, as a man, am defending female imagery of God to a woman.
Just goes to show how deep the brain-washing has gone.
When Jesus said He wanted to gather the Jews as a hen gathers her chicks, was he misrepresenting the gender of God?
Bonus question: And when He said “but YOU would not” was He mistakenly giving the Jews a free will to say no?
Extra cedit for a correct answer to both questions.
Q1 – No.
Q2- Yes and No.
In light of your answers, Chad, I request a meeting with your parents.
You mean my “parentes”? They keep insisting that I am their “son.”
I can now see where punctuation marks ( ” ” ) can be subtle conduits for non-written communication. In that light:
Chad? is a “brother” in Christ! who has some# disgreements% with me!! on some doctrinal* issue$.
Your “friend”,
Rick !! Frueh !!
On the one hand, I find the Christa Mary referred to as having crossed a line, having gone too far… but I’m not sure why.
I have been in Tribal churches and seen depictions of Christ with “red” skin – I thought that was cool.
last week I say a church building with a mural of Christ on the side wall – he was decidedly “black.”
I find the these ethnocentric portrayals of Christ kinda cool… showing the translatability of Christ.
Yet, somehow, crossing the gender line seems inappropriate – not sure why…
Neil,
Probably because the historical person of Jesus was indeed a male.
However, I think we need to broaden our thinking on this issue. For me, it is more about a justice issue. The pastoral question for me is, “How might seeing a Christa Mary validate women in my congregation who feel less than human because of their gender?”
Also, if I, as a male, am troubled by seeing a female Christ, how do I then think women might have felt for the past many thousands of years with all the male imagery of God? Thinking through questions like these enables me to be more sensitive to those sorts of justice issues.
It is worth noting that while this woman may have some reason to be offended at portraying Christ as a woman on the cross, she probably isn’t offended at portraying Christ as a white man on the cross.
Rick: And the name God gives Himself, Jeovah Shaddai, is actually the “Breasted One” and indicates a mother sustaining her child at her own breast, Stunning, wouldn’t you say?
That is but one of many ** conjectures ** on the origin of the word, not necessarily widely agreed upon and certainly not justified as an emphatic statement.
The “hen” allusion was stated by Jesus, not the Father, who was unquestionably male. Although it is undeniable that there are many references to the various members of the Trinity which use female characteristics to use this allusion a justification for portraying God as a female is unwarranted. It would be like saying “Rick was acting like a mother hen today” and then portraying you as a female in a work of fiction. It’s an untenable stretch, pointless and just plain stupid in my opinion.
Further, as you rightly point out, the Scriptures us many word pictures to depict the “character” of God, but these personality characteristics are not necessarily depictions of His nature. In the truest sense of the word *male* and *female* are sexually based connotations. As God the Father (and the Holy Sprit) are immaterial pure spirit beings the designation of a particular **sex** is not applicable in the strict sense of the definition. But, God has revealed Himself as male in both His primary title, i.e., Father, and in **ALL** 3rd person pronouns (including 3rd person references to the Holy Spirit). That **He** is occasionally referenced as having stereotypically female attributes does not grant anyone a license to portray Him in the female gender.
I don’t understand why people get so pissy when people use the female imagery of God that He provides.
I mean what is the point of #29?
I generally agree. It was my point that the author took some fictional license in order to make some points about God’s character.
I am not a big fan of the Shack, however I cannot say God cannot or will not use it in people’s lives. Godspell uses a hippie looking guy in a Superman shirt to play the role of Jesus. It was written by an unbelieving Jew and was based on the Gospel of Matthew.
God used Godspell to draw me to Him. In the words of Oscar Mammerstein:
“Who can explain it, who can tell you why
Fools give you answers, wise men never try”
Hammerstein.
The most profound misrepresentation of God is applying human attributes to Him. But God Himself used some particulars of His enemies to communicate truth about Himself.
And then there is that Incarnation thing…that revelation of God is much more offensive and incongruous than anything the Shack depicted. The likeness of sinful flesh, not just in a book or movie, but in actual reality, how despicable. Jesus came in the likeness of Manson, Hitler, Mao, Hugh Hefner, and most repugnant of all…me.
Chad, although I find your motivation and demonstration of a true pastor’s heart commendable, respectfully, “justice” and sympathy have nothing to do with the base issue. Jesus incarnated as a male, God is overwhelmingly referred to as a male (i.e., Father) and ALWAYS referenced as “He”, ‘His” or “Him” when referenced in the 3rd person. Justice, sentiment and pastoral care have nothing to do with the issue and does not grant anyone the license to re-image God into a likeness of their own making. “Christa Mary” is a vain idol which exists only in the imagination of some misguided individual. “Christa Mary” cannot save or validate anyone because that entity does not exist., and any self-worth but on such a foundation is a house build on shifting sand.
Further, the *man* Jesus Christ exists today (and for all eternity) in male form. He does not *belong* to you or to me in this sense as some cosmic play-dough we can from and re-make as we see fit. I have no liberty to re-image Him into something of my own imagination just to make myself feel better. He is a real being who is what He is. For example, what right would I have to reimage the Judge Deborah into a Judge Doug just because I am not validated or feel threatened by her story?
If a woman feels disenfranchised because God the Father depicts himself as male (and Jesus is unquestionably male) then she has **other** problems which no such re-imaging can truly address or resolve. Self worth must ultimately be based on the living Christ (who is a male by choice BTW), and not a creature of our own imagining.
Rick, I agree. God is not limited by the failings of man, but for me these “success” stories are a picture of the greatness of God and not a justification of the methodolgy or vehicle. But I too can rejoice that Christ is preached no matter the reason or motivation.
We must be careful not to dismantle the gospel narrative from its ascribed gender revelation. But when we go to be with Christ, there will be no marriage and most likely without gender.
It is my opinion that when God made Adam he had both genders but without them being exposed and divided Adam may have been considered genderless. Perhaps when God removed the female essence from Adam He instituted gender at that point and that is still His will.
We can teach these principles without altering the Person of Christ and the gospel itself. Our limited understandings about God are most safely assessed through the written prisms God has given to us.
John – you are a very reasonable man. How old are you?
I will be 58 nextmonth.
Just one note on the “hen” passage from Jesus – it appears, from textual comparison, that he was actually slightly altering a quote from Eusebius’ “The Trojan Women”. Of course, this, in and of itself (Jesus quoting from a contemporary, pagan drama) is problematic for the ADM crowd, since we know that a sign of godliness is unfamiliarity with pop culture…
Joe,
All males at some point in time demonstrate female traits, but you as a male exist as a real person. Just because you might cry at a viewing of “Marley and Me” does not give anyone the right to write a story where you are a female or alter your photos to make you into a female just because it fits **their** wants and desires.
It’s stupid and arrogant and presumptious. You do not belong to me. I have no right, even if you are a public figure, or example, to remake **you** into my own image into something you are not.
It’s an issue because people’s eternity can be at stake. You cannot believe unto salvation on a “Christa” or a black female God the Mother because that entity does not exist.
Yep, Joe sometimes gets mad like a girl!
Rick, I am 54.
Chris L – Hey thanks. I needed a S-T-R-E-A-T-C-H today!
To call a black woman “Papa” introduces a cognitive dissonance that highlights the ultimate “supra-gendered” character of God.
God reveals God self with accomodations…necessary for the infinite to be intelligibly communicated to the finite.
Given that and granting the cultural context in which the sacred texts were generated I don’t know how much traction one really gets by arguing for the “he” “his”, etc. language that refers to “God” as indicative of something more profound than the wonder of God’s accomodation of a patriarchal culture graciously chosen to be a site of divine revelation.
These guys around here are all infants. Jingle a set of doctrinal keys in front of them and they all coooo!
(I crack myself up sometimes!)
My point is that calling a black woman papa in a story is not this big crisis of theology and eternal soul saving.
It’s just a creative way to illustrate a point about God’s being ‘beyond categories”…
You people would have a point if Young in his personal confessions said that he literally believes in a black woman named “Papa” as the God he worships.
Aunt Jemima seated on the throne, etc. etc. etc.
oy.
**SEMI-SPOILER**
I just read the book last weekend. At first the thought of God portrayed as a woman bothered me, until I realized the intention of the image. After Mack (main character in the book) reevaluated his stereotypical image of what God would look like PLUS after reconciling with his own abusive drunken father, God was relvealed as a man in the book. God could not have gotten through to him as a male figure because of his relationship with his earthly father.
Even though, still didn’t care for the book too much.
nc – Erudite are we today?
Good points, however the Patriarchal system was God’s creation and design that should continue today in the family and the church.
I said “should”.
If in the course of fictional literature we are accepting of the Father being manifested as a person, I don’t see what difference the gender of that person is.
John,
It’s not “Christa Mary” – it’s just “Christa.”
I agree. I just wonder why it’s acceptable to re-image his race, but not his gender. He had/has as much a race as a gender.
Rick,
I’ve got it in me…it’s just sometimes things just don’t merit any kind of substantive response…
Troy,
Good point…the thing people seem to love to overlook about the Shack is that “Papa” does get imaged as a man in another part of the book.
This book is not a rejection of male imagery of God.
I’ve heard this type of argument before, and I tend to think it’s based on a false assumption. It’s not our understand of who God is that saves us. I’m sure we all have some misconceptions. We are only saved by actually knowing Christ through a relationship, not by knowing about Him.
In some ways, I think it’s kind of putting the cart before the horse. Anyone who really knows Christ will know through the guidance of the Spirit and testimony of Scripture which thing can correctly be attributed to Him and which can’t – i.e, if a person is drawn to Christ through the Holy Spirit by reading The Shack, I’m not worried that they would be drawn to the “wrong” Christ.
I think what much of the hoopla over the book does show me is that there are many Christians who simply don’t trust that the Holy Spirit draws people and that for many people, Christianity is simply a head thing.
And the inverse is true as well – any reference to pop-culture is godlessness/worldliness/selling-out/watering down/ blah blah blah
NC. That sounds all good and PC but I think God established the partiarchal culture as His norm:
1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
vs. an accommodation to an existing culture. Nothing to do with worth, just order.
I suppose this argues against the Chronicles of Narnia since Jesus as a lion is also a non-entity… so is the bearded God of Michelangelo for that matter… more depictions of a non-entity.
To follow up on my point, I guess an analogy would be this. Say there was a famous actor musician you read every article about in People magazine or the National Enquirer. Now imagine you got the chance to have dinner with that person, just the two of you. Over dinner you started talking, and after a few minutes, you realized, “wow, this person isn’t anything like what I imagined him to be like from the articles I read. In fact, they totally misrepresented him” (I’m not accusing The Shack of doing this necessarily, btw).
Would the fact that you were misinformed at the beginning negate the fact that you actually had a real encounter with the real person at dinner? No, it would not. What matters is that the real encounter you had enabled you to meet the real person. So, if a person has a real encounter with Christ, I believe that is able to cut through all the wrong information floating around about Him.
I fully agree. Although, I’m not an iconclast I find any depiction of Christ is to be taken for what it is worth – a representation and the more historically accurate the better. However, I don’t feel any depiction should be used to “enhance” or focus prayer or devotion as all such representations are by definition “false” (not that anyone here was advocating that).
Missionaries through the years have used many different metaphors and object lessons derived from the people they desire to reach in order to aid in thier understanding of God, especially when they have no Christian history and in some cases no written language and no words that translate into redemption, repentance, salvation, heaven, cross, resurrection, incarnation, substitution, etc., etc., etc..
But alas, no one can be saved without a Westminster presentation of the gospel.
Absolutely. Such depictions of God the Father in human form are an affront to the omnipresent non-corporeal infiniate God.
Phil. I would agree with the last part of your statement, given it was the true Spirit doing the drawing which would still be in spite of the method.
God has no form. I sometimes imagine that we will have no sight in eternity as we understand it here and now. In the reality tocome, all our current environmental understandings will vanish in the illumination we will receive that we cannot even imagine here and now. In a word:
Surprise!!
Phil #56 – I agree as far as your analogy goes. But God has provided us with an “authorized” biography (and autobiography) when one reads that particular biography it has been vetted by the subject. When one reads that “story” he is reading an accurate and approved description of the story’s subject.
Rick #61 – Amen!
John – you are absolutely correct, however God can use some amplification using cultural understandings and/or object lessons that incorporate in some way objects or players that seem obtuse, out of place, or somewhat incongruous, at least in the obvious.
A fictional narrative can use some communicative license that would not be helpful in a normal theological teaching.
I’m so very tired of the 6 ways from Sunday that we tear apart books.
Seriously…
Nobody would ever bat an eye at Pilgrims Progress and that book took some pretty big literary license.
Phil, in the **ultimate** analysis of this issue I think you are absolutely correct. Salvation is by the washing and regeration by the Holy Spirit and not our imperfect knowledge of things “about” God. But God does use means (i.e., the Gospel) and there must be a least some kernal of the true Gospel in order to effect said salvation. I guess it is safest to say only God knows “how much” is enough.
Nc, #43 – well said.
Patriarchy is the “norm”? oh please.
If by “norm” you mean for sinful, broken humanity, than I agree.
Leave it to a bunch of middle aged men to talk about how Patriarchy is God’s will for mankind.
And you guys wonder why women might need to see God displayed with feminine attributes. (and John H., to suggest that this is a problem on the woman’s part is kinda ignorant, if you ask me).
Or, I’m so very tired of the 6 ways from Sunday that we take unwarranted liberties with The Book.
Seriously . . .
Of course that assumes a plain understanding of the New Testament.
#67 – Chad, how about an argument from Scripture instead of human reasoning.
“Middle-aged”??? Thanks!!! I thought I was creeping up on the other end of the scale!
Well John at least smarmy is a fruit of the spirit…oh wait.
Young didn’t take any liberties with The Book. Did you actually read the book? If so where did he blaspheme God?
He may have blasphemed a lot of peoples ideas of God but I found nothing unbiblical about “The Shack”
Feminine attributes was never the objection. Displayed **as a female** is the objection.
Focus people!
I suppose it might be equally offensive to imagine what a short, first century, Jewish man might look like too.
What if the author was a sincere believer who wrote a book with some flawed imagery and possibly made a mistake in some of it? Does that warrant a freedy frenzy that reduces him to skin and bones?
Not you, John, but some of the ODMs pounced on him like he was the anti-christ.
Smarmy? I was taking liberties with your quote and rewriting it for my purposes. What? You’re offended? Wow, what right do you have for that?
Rick Frueh?
I think it’s sad that so many people get side-tracked with God being portrayed as a woman in “The Shack” as an alternative to God being male and miss the whole point of the book in that area – to portray God in an example that a father-hurt person could understand and then as the person’s (Mack’s) heart is changed, guide them towards a more Biblically portrayed view of God (a male).
I think the ones who get all up in arms about goddess worship miss the purpose – that broken people sometimes need tending and a heart change rather than straight up theology.
To me, The Shack was about the restoration of the broken father relationship. Rather than cram that veiw down the character’s throat, the personal issue that led to this point are dealt with, in a relationship, with understanding.
Some of us have had issues to deal with on a human level with our fathers before we could understand God as father in loving way.
I don’t know. Maybe? I haven’t read it. Hey but I am currently reading “Who Will be Saved”. I forgot. Who asked us to read that?
“Such depictions of God the Father in human form are an affront to the omnipresent non-corporeal infiniate God.”
I believe teaching that God’s Son did not die for everyone when He did is an affront to the omnipresent non-corporeal infinite God.
* I am 6′5″ and 240 lbs so I probably do not qualify as a short, 1st century Jewish man. I am more suited to play a Roman soldier who crucified Christ, in fiction and reality.
Sorry, that last line should have read:
understand God as a loving father.
I guess I fail to see what the difference is between writing a work of fiction that talks more about one attribute of God than another than writing a song that does the same. There are many worship songs that talk about one attribute above others. I guess I still don’t get what the problem is.
Good comment, Deborah.
John -
Scripture and reason need not be mutually exclusive. I would be happy if you use your reasoning skills when you read Scripture
I don’t have the energy to argue with staunch nostalgics for the good ol’ days of patriarchy. Scripture was written by men to men in a day when women were worth less than slaves and even dogs. But even in that we see in Christ a revolution of thought (reasoning) on this matter, one that I believe the Holy Spirit (who is still revealing the truth of God to the world) is leading us deeper into.
I think as men we are sinning when we assign to God solely male imagery and hide behind scripture to validate our sexism. I think the Gospel (not the scriptures) make this patently clear.
pax en Christa.
#81 – John MacArthur considers “I Wal Through the Garden” as hollow and sueless since it lacks the necessary doctrinal essence. See, some people cannot even enjoy someone’s spiritual expression if it doesn’t meet certain requirements.
When one person sees Scriptures as absolute while another sees it as morphing generationally, there is a disconnect that will restrict understanding.
I think I have recommended it. And you should read it. I just browsed my copy yesterday and saw all the places where I said ‘Amen!’ and all the places where I wrote, ‘No!’ Reading is not a sin, in fact, it is in reading that we most use the spirit of discernment.
I mine books. I don’t swallow them.
Most important book of the year, IMO.
….they are committing idolatry.
#88 – And in a reverse ODM mode all we who hold to the absolute view are idolaters. Interesting that those who confront hyperbole from one source are so willing to use it themselves.
Not offended at all. So again…Did you read the book?
Rick, we all are to some degree or another, so spare us the whoa-is-me routine.
I didn’t call you an “idolater,” you did. To say that would be to subsume your identity into nothing more than a particular action or mistake. You should know me well enough to know I do not do that, or at least try very hard not to.
You are not an idolater but a child of God who, like me, stumbles into idolatry. I thank God I have people whom I trust and respect that call me up and out , to lay down what may become an idol for me. Don’t you?
“Who will be saved?” is sitting on my books shelf calling my name. We’ll see wen I can get to it
and to reiterate, yes, scripture can become an idol just like anything else. The only absolute is God. Period. Scripture is not God. Unless you are a John MacArthur disciple.
I was going to say something along these lines earlier. I trust in Scripture because I know Jesus, not the other way around. Yes, in some sense, Scripture contains objective truth, but that truth is only useful insofar as it reveals Christ. It isn’t necessarily the only way Christ is revealed, though. Meaning, I believe it would be possible for someone to know Christ without knowing a lick of Scripture.
John Hughes (#72):
Not that that was the topic of the original post, either, but whatever ….
Re:91
whoa is me… did Joey Lawrence coin that phrase?
I giggled…
Brendt: Touche!
lol M.G.
Certainly a Joey Lawrence throw back is warranted within a discussion about female imagery, right?
I almost “bit” but then remembered my beliefs regarding God’s grace to infants and the mentally impared (myself included).
Agreed, but let’s reason from scripture not human philosophy.
Chad we obviously have different world views regarding the role of Scripture. Regarding the issue of male leadership, I appeal to Paul and Peter, who’s words (when as recored in Scripture )are the words of God.
Can these words be interpreted incorrectly by men of good faith? Yes. Can there be disagreement on just what they mean by men of good faith? Yes. But I appeal to that authority. (And we are not even addressing the admonition to men regarding loving their wives).
You indicate that the Gospels support your view. I would be interested in your argument from the Gospels, but the Gospels do not trump the epistles. Jesus left no writings. All we know of Him are stories and accounts written by men. If I can’t trust Paul, I can’t trust Luke (who was a devotee and companion of Paul BTW). I am certainly open to your interpretation of the referenced scriptures.
John, the moment you begin to interpret what you are reading in scripture (or anywhere) you are using “human” reasoning and philosophy. It is unavoidable.
I believe scripture points us to Christ, the Word made flesh. I believe scripture is a faithful witness to life lived with God (and sometimes without) and that it invites us to be part of the ongoing drama of God’s life with us.
No. I indicated that the Gospel supports my view. To put it another way, I would say Jesus came proclaiming not scripture but the Gospel. What the Gospel message is in its fullest sense may or may not be recorded in the book we call a Bible. Thus, the Holy Spirit is ever present, teaching us what this means…leading us (not conserving us, or making us remain stagnant, or fixated – but leading). Leading where?
If the Scriptures do not proclaim absolute truth on some level, even if they are not completely inerrant, then there is no absolute truth only a continuum of trading subjective thoughts and perspectives.
In the words of Georg Banks,
“In short you have a ghastly mess!”
And that is indeed heresy. Sorry.
That is ridiculous. That is like saying, “If I am not right on this matter about God than God does not exist.”
The scriptures point us to what is absolute truth, Rick. But they are not in themselves absolute truth.
Maybe, according to the council of Rick.
But you don’t really believe that, otherwise the only book you would own is the Bible and you would count everything outside its pages as irrelevant lies.
Title of the Post: How to Lose Friends and Alienate people.
Answer: Have a theological discussion.
How do we know there ever was a Jesus? Or what He said? Or that there is such a Person as the Holy Spirit? Or there ever was a gospel? How do we know what a life lived with God looks like?
An interpretation of Scripture that says it points us to Christ but may or may not contain the gospel is treating the New Testament as a reference, and elevates your interpretation as truth. It treats the Scriptures as footnotes and not the text itself. If the Holy Spirit is leading us He’s not doing a very good job, if indeed is reflecting His leading and not disobedience to His leading.
That includes the church as well. If this is God’s leading He sure loves a giant mess. I must conclude by prophecy and observation that the world and much of the church have gone opposite of the Spirit’s leading.
And if your perspective is God will work it all out to everyone’s eternal benefit, then your view needs no discussion. Se La Vie!
The Council of Rick is the foundation for all systematic theology. Deal with it!
I serve a risen Savior,
He’s in the world today;
I know that he is living,
Whatever men may say;
I see his hand of mercy,
I hear his voice of cheer,
And just the time I need him
He’s always near.
He lives, He lives,Christ Jesus lives today!
He walks with me and talks with me
along life’s narrow way.
He lives, He lives,Salvation to impart!
You ask me how I know he lives?
He lives within my heart.
What I am saying is that the Gospel is far bigger, grander, far more reaching than even the NT can fully convey. John hints at this when he says that Jesus did so much that the world could not contain the books if it were all written down. The Gospel is what Jesus came to proclaim – we got a whiff of it in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Rick, the Kingdom of God cannot be contained to a set of books or words. Jesus warned those who would search for life in the scriptures. It’t not to be found there but in a Person.
I do not share in your scarcity view of the nature of things. The church is not a “mess” but is Christ’s radiant bride. Despite whatever shape she may presently be in she is cherished. She is the body of Christ, not a “mess.”
Maybe you have inadvertently named much of the problem. Perhaps if we would stop seeing Christ’s bride as a “mess” (and by extension the people who comprise her) we would begin to see what it means when the Gospel truly takes hold of us.
Just a thought.
I disagree. “Reasoning” is an action. “Philosophy” is a collection of observations. Yes we reason. But we all reason from an authority. We reason from either from the authority of Scripture **or** the authority of human philosophy. To reason from scripture is not the same as reasoning from human philosophy.
That being said, resoning from scripture can be erroneous as we are human. I certainly don’t mean it’s my way or the high way. Futher, my “reasoning” on certain non-essentials has changed over the years. I do not hold to the more extremist ODM view point that we as humans have a “lock” on all things Scripture. And yet there are some absolutes (as Rick has from time to time so elequently listed) that are essential to orthodoxy, but not everything is.
.
Strawmen. No one is denying these things.
.
We report. You decide.
Sorta. However you want to define philosophy you come at scripture with a certain philosophy – or epistemology at least – through which you decipher meaning. There are competing philosophies, as you know.
If you are an American or Westerner than most likely Kant dominates your world view. As such, you may be inclined to read scripture in search of some “absolute truth” or “categorical imperative” – something that is true for all people in all times in all places.
I would argue that Kant is not the best philosophy to approach scripture and, by extension, the world.
Great! So I’m not a heretic?
John, are you suggesting that Jesus is talking about scripture here? Seriously?
Yes.
For starters.
So then we are sanctified not by the Spirit but by scriptures (“Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth”). And Jesus, when saying “your word is truth” meant only the Old Testament, since none of the new was written yet.
Why do you think this is speaking of scripture?
You see a book displayed upon a pedestal. Just under the book, on the face of the pedestal, a plaque reads “The Dictionary”.
So the plaque is truth, but it points to and describes the manifestation of the truth it describes. In short, the desciption is true but it is not what it describes, it is a true description of THE truth displayed on that pedelstal.
The problem with Cahd’s view is that the plaque keeps changing and therefore is not constant and absolute. So the ink on paper that says “Jesus” is not Jesus but is a completely accurate and unchanging representation of Jesus. This is Scripture.
It is not in and of itself God, but it is an absolute written plaque that accurately describes what we now cannot see and must believe by faith. One day we will see what is displayed on the pedestal of eternity, but until then we must be guided by the New Testament plaque.
The plaque must be interpreted and understood in the context of all the plaques, but we have no authority to change the plaques, only genuinely strive to accurately understand and teach what they say. Of course with everything that includes humans, that process is flawed, howver to abandon that process, and to change the plaques to accommodate every generation, makes the plaques irrelevant and subservient to the continuing human narrative.
Plaque you, Rick, for that plaquey description.
The problem with your analogy is this: The dictionary is a book. Jesus is a person.
A better analogy would be to put yourself on a pedestal (I know, a stretch, but work with me) with a plaque underneath it that reads, “Rick.” While the plaque may indeed be true, it most certainly does not capture the full essence of who you are as Rick. If it does, then you certainly shouldn’t be standing on a pedestal.
Another problem with your analogy is that I never said scripture changes (so the plague doesn’t change). What happens though, is that the more I get to know Rick, the more I get to see that the plaque with your name on it does not say enough. IOW, the plaque (scripture) does not change but my understanding of it does.
This comes about through the community God has graced us with (that mess you call the church) via the Holy Spirit. Scripture is our launch pad by which we are led into truth. Yes, it is uncertain. Yes, it should scare the hell out of us. Yes, it should cause us to fall to our knees and pray. Yes, it should make us humble. Yes, it is exhilarating.
I assume if Jesus meant the Holy Spirit He would well have said “Holy Spirit”. However, it is the belief in the contents of the communicated word and the result of that believe, i.e, being saved (regenerated by the Holy Spirit) that ultimately sanctifies. The Word also “washes”, but ultimately it is the Spirit at work on the implanted word that washes. The word is the conduit, the Spirit is the power.
Yes, plus the words **He** gave to the apostles many of which the recording of became the New Testiment Scriptures.
No one is arguing that Jesus in all His glory and divine power and even essence can be captured in human words. But the written revelation that gives us a glimpse is authoritative and transgenerational. So even though incomplete, the finite piece it presents is absolute. If we presume to know what cannot be known we are constructing our own truth.
We know in part, and that part is not only enough, it is absolute for now. The Holy Spirit guides through Scripture, even if making personal applications. There is no prophecy that is private, and if God had left His revealed truth to the word of mouth and the thoughts of men, the redemptive truth of Jesus the Son would have vanished from the earth.
In many corners it already has. I deem it eternall importanat, as John has said, for I firmly believe there are only two eternal dwelling places and that all men will dwell in one of the two. And I believe the Scriptures and Jesus Himself has made it childlike clear that believing on Jesus and His gospel is necessary to inherit eternal life and be with Christ forevermore.
And this redemptive offer is now, not later, and it is in this life, not in the life to come. Any sinner who dies in his sins without having been born again by faith in Jesus Christ is doomed eternally. I openly admit that truth indicts the depth of my walk on many levels, but my walk will never change God’s truth.
OR, you have a faulty understanding of John’s usage of the word “logos.”
hint: logos does not mean scripture.
Chad. Please. Many of the recordings of real time events of God interacting with His creation became Scripture.
The event of God speaking to Moses at the burning bush was not scripture when it happened, but became scripture when it was recorded.
The transfiguration was not scripture when it happened, but became scripture when it was recorded as God saw fit to inspire and authorize certain men to make it so.
The words of Paul were not scripture when first spoken, but some of them were the words of God and became Scripture when God inspired Paul to record them as so.
All Scripture is, by definition, a recording of God’s intervention in real time. The events which were not scripture in and of themselves but divine encounters became Scripture when recorded.
I am really not following your train of thought here.
Chad obviously Jesus as the Logos of God can be read into the use of the word “word” in the Johannine scriptures. I am not denying that, but that is not the exclusive meaning and certainly not the primary meaning in the passage quoted in my opinion. Sorry.
Chad is a star over at another website.
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=10686
Hey Ken!
Do you see now why I said we bring our own philosophies and reasoning to the text? You have just dismissed logos theology based on your own opinion of what the word “word” means. In order to make your argument consistent you have to reject what in fact is the primary meaning of logos in John’s thought. Who is relying on human reason vs. scripture now?
#127 – Ken makes me laugh. Like anyone gives a plaque what Chad Holtz of Marrow’s Chapel thinks. Ken, get a life, seriously.
Millions of people, me included, have been born again simply by the preaching of those Scriptures. There is something divine in them, something that transcends other books and something that transpires in the spirit realm when they are taught.
We cannot know Christ without them, and even missionaries who tell the story to unlearned natives are basing their stories on the Scriptures they have learned. We do not preach truth based upon thoughts and assumptions, and although our interpretations may be found wanting the Scriptures are not.
Philosophy is worthless when it comes to absolute truth since it is a labyrinth of connected questions with no exit. The gospel is completely revealed in the New Testament, and Paul said preachers must be sent, not just farmers or doctors. Redemption comes by faith in Jesus and His redemptive work, that is essential to true salvation.
To create doubt in the Scriptures is to open the door to vain philosophies and the falling away from the true faith. One can say the Scriptures reveal the absolute truth of Christ and yet have some imperfections. One can say the redemptive message of the Scriptures is the unnegotiable core. But we cannot say a fuller revelation of Christ and the scope of His redemption can be known apart from these same Scriptures.
Rick,
Who said anything about “apart” from the scriptures? You are making unwarranted conclusions.
I’m sorry, Rick, but this is a slippery slope to Bibliotary. It is not the scriptures that are divine. I think what are trying to say is that the Spirit speaks through them. How or why I do not know. My hunch is because they are a faithful witness to God’s interaction with us. The Spirit brings the words to life. Without the Spirit they would be nothing but words on a page. And, I would add, without the church they would have little if any authority.
It is not just that Chad Holtz said it, it is also that many are going in that direction. The statement you made was accurately posted at CRN and without any hyperbole or invectives. In fact, Ken rightly identified you as a pastor, Ingrid would have called you a clown or goat herder.
Your statement there and your comments here represent to many of us, even those of us who attempt to be civil and measured, a dangerous path that has led and will continue to lead to gospel confusion.
* That post on CRN is why I draw a strong distinction between how Ken approaches things and how Ingrid approaches things. I may not agree, but I will not deny he is different. (even though at the present he allows her garbage to be posted on his site)
Chad, I am sorry, but I continue to find you very slippery. It may be just me, but I sometimes find your comments saying one thing and then when I address your words your next comment suggests I misunderstood.
I am an old man and my comprehension level is dwindling.
Praise God!
Gospel confusion? According to whom?
This sounds like fear mongering – an attempt to diminish someone’s viewpoint not with facts or reason but by announcing the sky will fall (without warrant). “Kids, if you listen to this sort of talk you’ll go blind!”
Thank you.
Wouldn’t you say the Spirit moves in a similar fashion? Or when Jesus said the Spirit moves when and where it will it was a euphemism for, “You guys can nail this sucker down and have it all figured out when the Bible is canonized!”
I am not sure I can accurately inventory all those strawmen.
Good night, ya’ll. This was fun. Thanks for the interaction.
grace and peace.
Word of God has two possible referents; Jesus or Scripture. Since this passage compares “word of God” with “word of men” it’s talking about Scripture.
I agree the Kingdom is bigger than what’s contained in the books. But the books are truth as well.
Rick, you’re right that Ken uses a better style. But geesh, what’s the point at introducing the emergent church in that post?
Hello Chad, [moderator, please delete my previous comment. I misused the html code]
You said:
However you want to define philosophy you come at scripture with a certain philosophy – or epistemology at least – through which you decipher meaning. There are competing philosophies, as you know.
If you are an American or Westerner than most likely Kant dominates your world view. As such, you may be inclined to read scripture in search of some “absolute truth” or “categorical imperative” – something that is true for all people in all times in all places.
I would argue that Kant is not the best philosophy to approach scripture and, by extension, the world.
>>>First off, since you are an American Westerner, then most likely you are influenced by Kant’s Copernican Revolution as well. You just may not be aware of it. And although you say you argue that Kantian philosophy is not the best approach, your overall philosophic outlook has Kant interwoven throughout.
But since you claim to argue “that Kant is not the best philosophy to approach scripture and, by extension, the world,” may you tell us which philosophy is?
It appears that other than some minor differences in the implications of your philosophy, whatever it is, that you and Kant are identical in your starting points – autonomous man. And because you both begin with autonomy it is no surprise to find that both you and Kant have the same if not very similar leitmotifs: the absolute necessity of human autonomy in all phases of life.
Perhaps you do not see the similarities between you and Kant and therefore would disagree. But until you can establish a formal separation between you and other religious humanists committed to the absolute preservation of human autonomy, then as Led Zepplin said, “The Song Remains The Same.”
It is therefore no wonder that through Kant’s Western-Revolutionizing thought handed down to you through his grandchildren (Fichte > Hegel > Marx > Kierkegaard > Nitzche > Barth > Willimon > et al), that the foundational groundwork set by Kant for 19th century liberalism and beyond – is the very ground upon which you’ve built your house. It is also no wonder why just about every biblical Christian disagrees with you. For the most part they believe and hold that what God has said in Scripture is true even if it makes every man a liar.
A couple of years ago, when we first met, I thought you were a postmodern. That is not the case anymore. There is very little distinction between you and post-Kantian philosophers that followed in developing Kant’s thought. But even that cannot fully describe your thought. Your neo-liberalism (which retains much old liberalism) can be attributed as the effect of your inconsistent application of Kant’s religion: moralistic deism. Your gravitation toward the early Eastern religion is probably an effect of your desire for a connection to something authentic from the ancient past, a common desire found in many younger neo-existential postliberal humanist types.
I hope to have always shown you patience, care, love, and perseverance in our correspondence, and again I stress that it would be unloving of me to withold truth from you. On that basis I proclaim to you with the authority of Jesus the Christ – to repent or perish.
In love,
Harold Cerula
Agreed
Agreed, if you mean how we can apply it… but if you are saying the Bible is an incomplete declaration of the content of the Gospel, I disagree.
For the record – I deleted Harold’s first post as he requested – it was identical to comment 140 save an html tag error… so, for the sake of redundancy I deleted it as he requested.
Wow – Kant>Fichte > Hegel > Marx > Kierkegaard > Nitzche > Barth > Willimon > all in one comment and with a Led Zepplin sighting to boot! Great!!
Welcome Harold, your comment was excellent, at least the parts I could understand. I love a reasoned approach without hyperbole and demeaning erudtion. In the end, I fill in the boxes thusly:
Philosophy [ no ]
Scripture [ yes ]
Re:140
Although each individual sentence makes sense, when they are strung together, I am honestly unable to decipher anything resembling an argument.
Omigosh! Chad agrees with Karl Barth – stop the presses!
Seriously, I don’t agree with Chad on everything, but I don’t see what all this hoopla is about. I don’t think anyone is denying the authority of Scripture. I certainly don’t. I just think that sometimes the way Christians have approached Scripture is like it is some sort of trump card that when pulled will stop any conversation.
I’ve been in many discussions with believers an non-believers and the believer will pull out the ol’ “well the Bible says…” The non-Christian just sort of stares blankly at the point. It’s not because they are struck speechless, it’s just that Scripture doesn’t really mean anything to them apart from the Holy Spirit opening their eyes. You could quote entire books to them, but it would not necessarily change them.
Now, I do also know of people who were reading the Bible on their own, and they prayed, and met Christ. So, yes, the Holy Spirit can definitely work through Scripture in a non-believer.
I guess all in all is that there’s no magic formula, no Romans Road, no ABCs of salvation in how people come to know Christ. There is something that remains unquantifiable in it because it really is Christ speaking either through the Holy Spirit, Scriptures, or the Church that saves people.
M.G. – Let me sort it out for you.
Hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
Philosophy [ no ]
Scripture [ yes ]
Philosophy is more than just fancy ideas, it’s also a set of conceptual tools necessary for human reasoning.
We can’t get away from philosophy any more than we can get away from language or culture.
Phil – I believe you missed the point as I understand it. The discussion centered on the essence of Scripture itself, and if it is absolute or if it the truth it teaches modifies with time. I do not worship Scripture nor do I use it to attack people, however within the church community it must be viewed as foundational for everything we believe spiritually and redemptively.
One doesn’t necessarily have to be rigid as to inerrancy, however the written revelations must be held as direct communication from the Godhead with the purpose of enlightening and revealing God’s redemptive offer. And these Scriptures must have primacy in our journey toward obedience and a deeper relationship with our Lord.
Our witnessing may be in our own words, but our own words must accurately reflect what the Scriptures teach.
And seriously, Ingrid calls Mylie Cyrus an evangelical heavy-hitter?
I reject all philosophies as a waste of time and a circular intellectual journey that leads back to where you began. Philosophies are in essence a “how about this” round table discussion.
I used to do a lot of speed in a former life and we would sit for 3 to 4 days without sleep and talk incessantly about philosophy, religious and non-religious. Without an agreed upon mooring, all philosophy is an exercise in verbal skeet shooting.
Pull!
Hello Rick,
I’m glad to participate. I clicked through from Ken Silva’s post on CRN. When I saw Chad’s name attributed to the comment regarding the rejection of Material Sufficiency I paused in grief then clicked through to read Chad’s comment. Since I have known Chad vicariously through blogs here and there and have interacted rather extensively at times with him, I was compelled to drop in to the discussion and reply to his comment pertaining to Immanuel ([g]od with us) Kant.
Chad is advancing an age old heresy that the early church fathers refuted to apparent death. But since they were not sufficient in their refutation, the remaining life, however little, has sprung up again through the contemporary pagan philosophy that became the spawning ground of theological liberalism. Irenaeus tried as best he could to refute Valentinus’ and Marcion’s gnosticism that remained after their death, but as we can see with Chad’s continuation of it, the heresy does not originate in man and therefore does not disappear with man. Old slew foot has raged for centuries and always plays creditor on the unpaid bills of the church!
As for philosophy no, Scripture yes, yes – if philosophy is taken to mean the worldview according to human tradition, the elemental spirits of the world and not according to Christ. Per Col. 2:8, Chad and all other religious humanists are captives to philosophy and empty deceit. Their captivity implies their bondage and necessitates the proclamation of the truth – which sets trapped captives free (Jn. 8:31-32).
Neil – Ingrid was being her usual sarcastic self which is her want. BTW – her name is “Miley” unless you are attacking her as well!
I guess part of being a good wife as posted on SoL is reading about and attacking the children of others while extolling the spiritual lives of your own.
Harold – a good comment. Your knowledge of the subject is “dizzying” (Princess Bride), and even though I am a poor farm boy I am edified by your overall ascertion.
Chad seems like a nice guy and he and his wife have some lovely children, some from Africa if I remember correctly. I care for him personally but not so much his theological views.
Rick, I stand corrected, misspelling someone’s name is sloppy – my bad.
Wow!
Harold I find it interesting that you find it necessary to write a long winded response to as why Chad is wrong and then at the end
“Repent or Perish”.
If I have to understand the differences between Kant, Barth, Willimon, etc…before I can be saved God help me! Somehow I don’t think it’s that difficult.
“Believe on me”
Dear Chris (155),
I’m afraid you have not understood me. Read this reply to Phil Miller and afterward, if objections remain, we can discuss it.
Phil Miller (145),
I appreciate your desire to bring this to a resolved conclusion. But I’m not sure the solution you’ve offered is best. For example, you said:
“Omigosh! Chad agrees with Karl Barth – stop the presses!
Seriously, I don’t agree with Chad on everything, but I don’t see what all this hoopla is about. I don’t think anyone is denying the authority of Scripture. I certainly don’t. I just think that sometimes the way Christians have approached Scripture is like it is some sort of trump card that when pulled will stop any conversation.”
>>>May I ask, how is it that you can be aware of Chad’s Barthian agreements and yet say that you “don’t think anyone is denying the authority of Scripture?” Chad must either reject Barth or he is denying the authority of Scripture – in the sense you’re using the terms. Karl Barth did not believe that the Bible was God’s revelation to man like in the sense that Jesus, the apostles, and the Reformers did. Chad doesn’t either. That is why Chad says such things (that sound strange prima facie) like “they are a faithful witness to God’s interaction with us.” A la Barth, “revelation is historical, but history is not revelational.” Therefore, even the historical Jesus of Nazareth is not a direct revelation of God! So, Barthians must insist that Scripture (in the sense you’ve used the term) is not revelation since it is historical.
What must be done, is we must reject Barth as a whole. Like Stephen Macasil noted, “Carl F. H. Henry states, ‘Christian revelation is nullified unless the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ belong to the same history that includes the death of Julius Caesar and of Adolf Hitler. The Christian must either believe that the great redemptive events belong to the realm of history or forfeit his faith.’”
Macasil concludes, “If Henry is right, which I contend he is, then Barthians must, on the basis of the truth revealed in Scripture, forfeit their faith! By following Barth and accepting the false distinction of “history” and “superhistory,” Barthian theological liberals of all stripes (including emergents and proBarthian evangelicals) cannot have the assurance from the testimony of God’s own Word, and their “faith is in vain!” (from biblicalthought.com via CRN).
For the most part I agree with this. Since Barth did not teach that the Scriptures are the revelation of God, then he and all his spiritual posterity (which includes Chad) have forfeited the only epistemological basis for true spiritual knowledge. And without an epistemological basis for true spiritual knowledge, all alleged theology constructed by man fails to qualify as theology and is reduced to anthropology since it the result of anthropic inward reflection. Kant viciously ridiculed men who did not courageously interpret all things autonomously. He despised “heteronomy” (intellectual submission to the law of another) and worshipped “autonomy” (intellectual freedom bound by no law but self). Of course it is much more complex than this, but the basic framework is simple and is still in process today.
When man begins with himself and attempts to understand himself, God, the world, and all the interrelationships involved, his conclusion, however sophisticated, is at best, a sophisticated anthropology. But never a theology, for it lacks a basis for any truth about God. And from time to time we find anthropologies that have discovered some truth about God, but that is only because of the truth about God revealed in Scripture. God said it in Scripture, man received it somewhere down the line, rather than crediting God in a spirit of thanksgiving to God they erect a system after their own likeness and even call it their own. Paul alludes to this pagan characteristic in Romans 1 where he notes how they do the same with God’s general revelation. Well, they do it with God’s special revelation too – and it’s time we called them out on it!
Jude 3
I reject Barth’s teachings completely.
Chad, I in no way dismissed the logos theology. It is a perfectly viable interpretation and I said as much. But it is not an either / or. The passage is significantly robust for both, but the context lends itself to be primarily refering to the spoken (written) word, although again, it can definately refer to the Logos of God..
First of all, I’ll let Chad speak for himself. As far as Barth’s conception of Christ, I would say that in a sense you are correct. Historicity wasn’t the main concern for him. He believe Jesus as an eternal being in the Godhead, and as the ultimate revelation of God to man. To him this revelation existed outside the realm of history. Now, I do think this view has some problems, but this is also in response to the forces of liberalism and fundamentalism which pushed him to come to terms with his faith in a way which spoke not only to him, but a whole generation of theologians.
These paragraphs I think are a good summary:
Again, I’m not saying I would totally agree with Barth on all these points, but I don’t think that agreeing with him and taking Scripture seriously are mutually exclusive.
“According to Barth, the statements of the Bible can be wrong at any point.”
“Barth held the Bible in high esteem.”
One of those statements is not true.
By the way, who wants to start taking bets that part of the excerpt I wrote out will be quoted by Ken Silva tomorrow?
Hi Ken!
RE #54:
Yikes…John Hughes…You quote corinthians to validate patriarchy that pre-dates Jesus and Paul for millenia?
Without regard to the “occasional character” of Paul’s letter to a church addressing issues of order in worship?
Interesting.
Fascinating, actually, but you and I will never agree.
Oh Harold. Good to see you, “professor.”
I have to confess I have not read your comments. Yes, we had interactions in the past and they always start off nicely (and rather long winded) and then digress to you calling me a heretic, admonishing me to repent, and reminding me that God hates some people and loves others and sadly for me I am in the former crowd. It’s a riot, and I have such fun hearing about it, but I’m afraid you will have to peddle it on someone who gives a rip.
Send my love to your rabbi, Dr. Morey.
peace.
Chad
Rick – Barth did indeed hold the Bible in high esteem. Someone is not being level with you.
127:
Congrats, Chad!!!!
What an honor!
One of the best ways I can be confident that someone is probably the best kind of Christ-follower is if they get criticized by an ADM.
Praise God, Chad!
Blessings on your ministry!
157:
I think you’re great, Rick.
There’s no way you could completely reject Barth. There’s just too much he’s written for anyone to be able to do so.
You should read his work on Reconciliation.
Lovely.
Ken –
Thanks for the free press. You doubled my blogs hit count today.
grace and peace.
Barth held that Scripture is the site where “the water flowed”…it’s a beautiful image of how Scripture transmit revelation.
Agreed. I would also recommend his essay entitled, “The Strange New World Within the Bible.” I have it as a PDF file if anyone would like me to email it to them. It’s brilliant.
Dear Chad,
It is with sadness that I read your reply and find it filled with awful lies. I miss the old Chad, the Chad that was actually open to discussion. The new Chad that is intolerant and increasingly exclusive is no longer unique, in that that personality type is accessible anywhere.
What has gotten in to you? Where is the curious childlike inquisitor Chad? Why have you resorted to spreading lies about me, slandering me, and just plain disrespectful? Have I not always treated you in the highest regard?
If not, then please show me where I was anything less than that. I am committed to Jesus. And as His disciple I must obey Him or I do not love Him. I am therefore willing to seek your forgiveness wherever offense has been caused by me.
Again, the truth must be spoken in love. And it is unloving of me to withhold truth. So if you are offended by the truth I merely repeated from Jesus, then can you really have an issue with me?
Let us discuss your philosophical and theological influences. Let us discuss whether or not they are tenable. Let us discuss whether or not mine are tenable.
But let us not resort to such immature behavior. Let us put off falsehood, malice, slander, envy, etc., just like the Bible says. There is no good reason to say that Robert Morey is my rabbi. That is simply, stupid. And it does not provoke good works. It is the same as saying Rob Bell is your mistress. How would that make your wife feel (if she believed it)?
*wonders how Harold learned Rob Bell is my mistress*
sigh. Nothing is sacred anymore.
How would Rob’s wife feel?
nc – I believe part of the original curse was that Eve would answer to her husband. Paul makes mention of Eve being deceived as support for the weaker vessel/submission principle.
There only two understandings of how the family unit formed. It was either the divine will, or it just happened that way.
Joe, don’t you find it ironic that holier-than-thou people like Chris P and Harold always make cracks about others people’s spouses or licentious affairs?
Chad,
Continual slander against me will not reverse the charge that you are violating God’s commands in gross ways. Slander is forbidden in Scripture and by its judgment you stand condemned.
“sigh. Nothing is sacred anymore.”
Does this include the way a pastor is commanded to act and be?
Theological discussion has left the building.
I am sorry Rick,
I am to blame. I should have been more responsible and known that my example of Bell would be the portion of my entire comment that was remembered, while the rest was ignored. It is my fault for not remembering that the digression of rational civilization has left theological discussion forums to a rung below the Jerry Springer show archives.
Part of me expects Chad to act like a pastor more than a teenager. But that part of me is often disappointed.
Harold, you are brilliant. I have read you elsewhere and I think Chad reacts to you in that way because he cannot answer your questions or deal with your arguments. Your IQ is too high
I am always blessed to read your insight on matters and appreciate your no compromise attitude toward Scripture. I wish I had you as a seminary prof.
Re:177
I’m sorry, but that’s some pretty pathetic passive-aggressive bull.
Grow up, Harold. Passive-aggressive behavior may suit our teenagers, but it’s not appropriate for adults, much less adults who claim to be Christians.
M.G.
Please help me understand your psychoanalysis.
Ken and Harold miss that Jesus seemed to agree with Chad’s quote….
So according to Jesus is the Gospel of Life given through the Scripture?
According to the Gospel of John… was everything Jesus did recorded in the Bible?
Ken and Harold error as they do not know the scripture.
iggy
Iggy,
May I show you your hermeneutical errors and logical fallacies? Do you care?
If so, I would be glad to express where I see errors that can easily be fixed.
Harold,
What is your obsession with big words? Do you think it makes you sound smart?
I didn’t ffer psychoanalysis. Not even close.
It’s just psychology 101. When you say things like “I should have known better,” or “I expect Chad to be a pastor, but I’m disappointed,” you’re being passive-aggressive. You sound so mature and wise, but in reality you’re launching another round of attacks.
It’s perfectly normal… for sullen teenagers. When it comes from an adult, it’s just pathetic.
Harold… I just showed you your errors… by quoting Jesus… sooooo…. good luck if you disagree…
peace!
iggy
Harold… do you really believe the Bible or not?
If so, why reject the truth I set out pretty clearly as to what the bible states… how can you twist it to mean that the Jesus and John are not stating the Gospel is fuller than what is written in the Bible.
I quoted Jesus stating that the Scripture does not give one Life only the Son does… for the Life is in the Son…
Apparently you think the Scripture gives life? Wrong…
Again, I quoted John stating not all was written… so the fullness of the Gospel is not recorded and cannot be… for the fullness of the Gospel is not written but lived out in believers… Is you life in the bible? Mine is not… so how is the fullness of the Life of Christ which is the Gospel… all in the bible?
iggy
Thanks M.G.,
Your answer reveals that you have an incorrect understanding of what the psychologists call passive aggressive behavior. At first I was intrigued since you used a clinical term. I thought that perhaps you had actually observed an actual passive-aggressiveness to report. But it seems that you have confused terms and are merely dissatisfied with the way you reacted to my honesty.
FYI, typical passive aggressive behavior is when passively expresses “subconscious” feelings via their behavior. Example, Tom tells Sally to mow the lawn and threatens her that it better be done by the time he gets home or he’ll be angry. Rather than immediately finishing the lawn, Sally procrastinates and makes excuses to Tom when he calls on the phone to check in on her. Etc…
So, you just misunderstood the term.
But what was your real point?
Do you agree or disagree with what I’ve contributed thus far?
Harold,
WHAT?
You cited ONE manifestation of passive-aggressive behavior (non-compliance) and then used that to argue that I misunderstood the term.
Again, WHAT?
There are MULTIPLE ways to express passive-agressive behavior. Including victimization, ambiguity, sulking, etc.
My point was pretty simple. You earlier wrote that you should have known better, you expected Chad to write like a pastor, etc. It was passive-aggressive. It was sulking, “woe is me” type language, that was belied by the fact that you were just being an insulting jerk.
Listen. I’m not stupid. Stop with the condescension. It’s insulting.
Harold….
You did express classic passive aggressive/behavior… Note the “alternates between hostile defiance and contrition.”
Passive:
Aggressive:
So M. G. is right on… though you may not be so afflicted with a “disorder”, your statement was very passive aggressive… “I am to blame” (passive as you take the blame) but “Part of me expects Chad to act like a pastor more than a teenager. But that part of me is often disappointed.” (aggressive as you still tell us Chad is to blame)
iggy
Iggy,
Slow down and let me get a read on you. I’ll take your questions one at a time.
“So according to Jesus is the Gospel of Life given through the Scripture?”
First, what is the Gospel of Life? Why do you use that term? Are you using the Roman Catholic sense of the term? The Gospel is given via propositions (oral or written). The Gospel Propositions are either believed or not. If your question is regarding how men are saved, then my answer is by believing in Jesus Christ as your substitute in death for your sins, that he was buried and raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures, just like the Apostle Paul explained.
“According to the Gospel of John… was everything Jesus did recorded in the Bible?”
Is this a real question? Obviously the answer is no. The text says so itself. But why is this relevant?
Comment 183 you said: “why reject the truth I set out pretty clearly as to what the bible states… how can you twist it to mean that the Jesus and John are not stating the Gospel is fuller than what is written in the Bible.”
Iggy, the context of the passage you’ve cited will not support your application of it to me. It is clear that it is in reference to those rejecting Jesus as the Messiah.
And about what you’ve written so far.
I honestly don’t understand it. It’s drivel. And, again, I’m not stupid. I have an advanced degree in philosophy. So unless you’re a Rhodes scholar or something, I’ll just trust that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
Dear M.G.
Perhaps the term you’ve misunderstood the greatest is “honesty.”
M.G.
What exactly does an advanced degree in philosophy afford you? Surely it cannot bring you less understanding of my contributions here, can it?
Harold,
Your words here speak for themselves. This is not a good use of my time and energy. I wish you all the best. Good evening to you.
Grace and peace.
M.G.
Harold,
Who cares if the application proves anything to you… it is as it is and it is truth… and clearly states what I state it says. It supports itself.
And was it about those who reject Jesus as messiah? Where does it say that? It does not.. it states that some thought wrongly that the scripture gave life and Jesus stated the only He gives life….
Jesus being alive… risen from the grave and being Messiah is the gospel that the disciples preached…. That this Messiah is the King of God’s Kingdom…
The Gospel of Life is that we now can receive the Life of Christ by the Power of the Resurrection.
We are not saved by the death of Christ… only forgiven…we are saved (as Paul writes it) by the life of Christ… be that RCC or whatever it is Biblical…
The point is that according to the bible, Chad’s quote is not unbiblical but to say one is against the quote denies these clear passages of scripture…
iggy
Harold… OK I see where you get that it is addressed to those who rejected Jesus… missed that one verse, yet that does not negate my argument or mean I am using scripture wrong in my point.
Though the bulk of the text is not about those who reject Jesus, but the truth of who Jesus was and His relationship with his Father. Those that rejected Jesus for healing on the Sabbath are rebuked but more taught that Jesus’ relationship with his Father is as such that what the Father does Jesus must do… even heal on the Sabbath… yet more, that as I am saying, if one thinks they can have life by the Scripture they cannot according to Jesus… Jesus then states that one must come to Him for Life… so the Gospel is not all in the Bible… it is not all that is written…it is also in the Living Word who is Jesus… It is He that give the bible any authority… for without Jesus the bible means nothing as Jesus points out… Its purpose is to point to Jesus.
So Ken is wrong and your assertions that all the Gospel is in the Bible is wrong as to state this negates that Jesus now lives His life in and through us and we now incarnate the Gospel… and it is more than just “written” but now alive by the resurrected Christ in us sustaining us and ever guiding us in a living relationship.
iggy
Iggy,
“Who cares if the application proves anything to you…”
You applied that passage to me, one who does not reject Jesus as Messiah and continues to look to the OT scrolls and Moses for life.
“And was it about those who reject Jesus as messiah? Where does it say that? It does not.. it states that some thought wrongly that the scripture gave life and Jesus stated the only He gives life….”
Oh, Iggy. Let me show you where:
for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. (v. 38)
yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. (v. 40)
you do not receive me. (v. 43)
here is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. (v. 45)
Is this clear?
Regarding the Scriptures giving life? “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his (Moses) writings, how will you believe my words?” (v. 46-47)
Iggy,
I think we were posting ’round the same time.
You said: “your assertions that all the Gospel is in the Bible is wrong.”
Please tell me which post # I asserted this in. It would help. I don’t recall saying that.
Dear M.G.,
“Your words here speak for themselves. This is not a good use of my time and energy. I wish you all the best. Good evening to you.”
Are you now returning to your passive aggressiv-ity?
P.S. A Bachelor’s degree would not be considered “advanced” in philosophy…
I know you are but what am I?
Harold, your last post was at 1:39 am. Isn’t that way past your curfew at Jonestown, er, I mean, Biblicalthought.com?
In all seriousness, friends, Harold is a master (after his Rabbi Morey) at false piety, self-righteousness, arrogance and condescension. Those of you who know me well know I do not say what I am about to say ever at all nor do I say it flippantly, but the “gang” Harold hangs around are filled with one of the more evil spirits I have ever seen in the blogosphere. If it weren’t for the fact that they parade the name of Jesus before them they would be a joke. They make the likes of Ingrid, Chris R and Ken and PB look like Pollyanna. I’ve written about them on my blog about 2 years ago and was convinced then (as I am now) that they are nothing more than a cult. Period.
This is why I will not engage Harold nor any of the crew over there (Stephen Macasil, Jean Cauvin, etc). It is like wrestling with a pig.
Harold, if Morey tries to tell you that his cup runneth over for you be sure to let him sip it first.
Harold – after a benign entrence into the word of crninfo you seem to have wandered off your original tone and are now systematically revealing more and more of the underbelly of your personality and perspective. For the record, your education and erudite rhetoric are unimpressive in the context of Biblical thought, and your “On that basis I proclaim to you with the authority of Jesus the Christ – to repent or perish” quip is nothing more than a self serving condescention that in effect attempts to elevate you to prophet status.
The philosophers and philosophies about which you seem to be so conversant, are worthless expressions of fallen men, and being literate in their different persuasions is meaningless and unprofitable as it pertains to productive Biblical understandings. “Those that seemed somewhat in conference added nothing to me”. (Paul and Rick)
You seem to have increasingly taken on a self righteous spirit. This statement:
“What exactly does an advanced degree in philosophy afford you? Surely it cannot bring you less understanding of my contributions here, can it?”
is an especially nice touch since it suggests increased education is necessary to comprehend your “contributions”. From Chad’s statement I am led to believe you are a Calvinist in some form or another, but I recognize the spirit in which you operate. Dialogue is an opportunity to showcase your intellectual prowess and disseminate the residual effects of your institutionally gained knowledge.
And just to make you aware of the profound grace I am exhibiting to you presently, the depth and extent of my personal intellectual condescention that is at work just to communicate effectively to you is actually physiologically painful and emotionally draining. But I am happy to be of service.
On that basis I proclaim to you with the authority of Rick Frueh – come down off your perch or be quiet.
Rick Frueh circa A.D. 2009
Rick, well said
That sums it up pretty well.
#200 – Sometimes I love being me.
Many other times not so much.
One need only to watch this video by their leader to get an idea of the spirit behind them:
Does God Love Everyone?
Creeeeeepy
Wow. Intellectual idolatry in the extreme. That man exudes self righteousness and mockery toward others. That is a pristine example of how the self righteous mind of man can take the Scriptures and make them seem to say the thought he desires it to say.
Not only does he systematically suggests God loves some and hates others, he is observably effervescent about it. His exegesis is shallow and flawed, and his hubris is palpable.
Other than that he’s OK.
I must commend him, though, on his extensive knowledge of all the “ists”.
Creepy indeed!
He is clearly ignorant about the Fruehists!
As I was watching that video, I was suddenly transported back to “Tales from the Crypt”. I’m not sure why…
Now if that’s not idolatry I’m not sure what is.
CREEPY!!!!
“Harold, you are brilliant.”
Actually, and with all due respect, I find his intellect rather pedestrian. I am impressed with how much he has been able to achieve given his limited serotonin reservoir.
(All are welcome to come along for the ride)
NC. To Rick’s point did patriarchy happen by accident? Is it wrong, not God’s original design? And if it is wrong why did Paul and Peter reinforce it and not denounce it? Why did Jesus not choose female apostles? Etc. Etc. The Scriptures are not silent on the issue. It is assumed in the Old Covenant and reinforced in the New.
Biblical male leadership does not equal “bad”.
Love your wife . . . care for your wife as you care for your own body. Ick! bad stuff this!
To deny the overt Biblical teachings of male leadership in the divine design is confounding. To suggest that because a woman feels subservient and worthless is directly caused by a patriarchal system is to miss the point.
It may be directly related to men who abuse the patriarchal system.
Well He may not have had female apostles, He certainly had female disciples – women who learned from Him and traveled with Him. He certainly did a lot that would go completely against the grain of the Jewish world.
Just look at the story of Mary and Martha. While Martha was busying herself preparing the meal – the typical “women’s work”, Mary was sitting at the feet of Jesus. Now, typically people use this as a story against busyness, but that’s kind of missing some of the point. Yes, Mary chose to be with Jesus rather than make herself busy preparing food, but she wasn’t just chillin’. She was sitting at His feet – the typical posture of a student in Near Eastern cultures. So it was actually something quite shocking, and it explains why Martha complained so. Mary wasn’t playing her culturally given role! She was doing what a man would typically do, not a woman.
Phil – and with those narrative particulars you suggest a woman can be the head of the family over the husband? I am not sure what your point was concerning the Biblical teachings in the epistles concerning gender specific roles.
The point is that when Jesus came up against a gender role, he typically went against it. He wasn’t bound by it. The gospel narratives are full of such instances. Even the fact the first recorded witnesses to the resurrection are women is quite astounding.
I believe what Paul was doing when he mentioned gender roles in the epistles was writing to a specific people with need for specific guidance. It’s not like these people could just come visit Paul in his office if they needed pastoral advice, so he’s doing what was available to him. Writing to tell them how to live at that time.
Certainly I think marriage is about mutual respect and submission, so I guess I’m not that interested in putting a whole lot of effort defining who the “head” is. I’ve found that even in case where men claim they are, they really aren’t. Their wives just like to let them think they are.
Chad,
I really wish you hadn’t linked to that video. I cannot even put into words how unbelievably disturbing that ‘man’ is. And that is some of the most convoluted theology I have ever seen.
“For God so loved the world.” That’s in there.
jerry
That ‘guy’ reminds me of Tim Gunn from Project Runway.
Phil – to suggest that teachings like that are cultural and not transcultural truths, is to ignore verses like this:
I Tim.2:11-13 – But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not decieved, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Paul makes the creation chronology somewhat important as it pertains to gender leadership distinctions. It’s pretty obvious. To culturally handcuff these types of Biblical teachings is counter productive to truth, and in the end if you suggest that marriage has a dual head, you must then suggest that the overwhelming number of patriarchal cultures arrived as such by a Darwinian construct.
Harold.
You asserted this in 151 when you stated how Chad was promoting heresy.
Now, the bible is sufficient… but you are making the word sufficient mean much more than it does… it does not mean “completely contained in”. Meaning that there is enough (sufficient) material in the bible that presents the Gospel, BUT not all the Gospel is present in the bible… as I stated, the Gospel must be lived out by each believer in Christ… Jesus now lives in each believer.
What is written is a representative of the reality that is Jesus… the writing or words on the page are not THE reality… Reality must be lived out…
So you are adding to the meaning of sufficient and are somewhat confused as to what the who idea means and in that denying the reality of Christ in us….
iggy
Phil,
Most in this argument conveniently forget Peter who used even stronger language than Paul.
Indirect inferences (most easily subject to personal interpretation) drawn from the Gospels do not trump specific commands given in the Epistles.
Harold
I applied the scripture to the discussion and if you reject it and not believe it… it is still truth whether you apply it to yourself or not… unfortunately you seem to not want to in the case of the discussion and have created a straw man that is not even part of the discussion…
My point since you seem to miss it is that Jesus is stating to people that claimed the bible was sufficient to give LIFE… it is NOT SUFFIECENT… which negates your case that it is as you are defining sufficient… which also is wrong.
So again, whether you apply it to yourself does not make it untrue… it means you are rejecting Jesus words on the matter, function and purpose of scriptures…
Really Harold… try to stay on point with the discussion… it will help a lot…
iggy
OK – since we’re all circling about various and unsundry topics:
RE: Karl Barth – In 1934 Barth was interviewed by Donald Barnhouse, here are a few excerpts:
(pretend I have included quotations marks)
DB: You believe then, in the deity of Christ?
KB: Jesus Christ is eternally God, the Logos.
DB: But do you believe that Jesus who was on earth was God?
KB: I believe that he is God. He lives.
DB: Then you believe in the bodily resurrection of our Lord; that the third day he war raised physically?
KB: I believe that absolutely.
DB: Do you believe that man is saved only by the supernatural work of regeneration, the implanting of new life in answer to our faith in Jesus Christ?
KB: Certainly. I found mt theology in St. Paul, especially in the book of Romans. This new birth is the work of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is a Person. True Christianity is not to be understood outside the deity of the trinity.
Barnhouse concludes: ..I received the impressions of a man who has been redeemed by faith in the blood of jesis Christ as his divine substitute, who is seeking to learn from him and from him alone, and looking forward to a time when Christ shall return to complete the work he has begun.
John H – the first preacher on Easter is a woman.
Gonna go on a weekend retreat with my wife.
Jesus loves you all
peace.
John H – the first
preacherwitness on Easter is a woman.There fixed.
“Go and tell the disciples and Peter (the designated leaders).
BTW totally non-germaine to the argument and to make it clear, I am in no way diminishing the status or worth of “female” by taking a literalist stance regarding male headship as taught by the apostles.
Hey, have a great time on the retreat.
Well as I read it, it appears that women, from your view have no value in the kingdom unless married.
But that could just be me.
And a follow up…
The Samaritan woman at the well did “testify” about all that Jesus had told her and people believed on her testimony. Sounds like preaching to me.
Liberal
John H –
What is preaching if not reporting what you have seen and heard? “I have seen the Lord” is a far more powerful sermon than most tripe these days. Jesus didn’t care that it was a woman who carried the first sermon.
Now I am out of here! Enjoy your weekend.
If female preaching (in the pastoral sense) is acceptable – what do you do with the biblical prohibitions against it?
Neil
Change or ignore them.
I am actually. Liberal in the sense that I find the whole “woman should not talk in church” thing to be more a Paulinian thought than the teaching of Jesus.
Now if discussing “headship” I believe that speaks more to a marital status than that of a societal status.
If a married woman is the pastor, is she her husbands spiritual leader at church and he is her spiritual leader at home?
I know we’ve been down the whole egalitarian/complementarian road before, so I don’t really find much value in going over it again, but I guess it’s hard for to see why we are willing to accept so many admonitions in the epistles as culturally and eschatologically conditioned, but this one issue is different. It seems to me that both Jesus and Paul worked with women in leadership roles of some sort. So it seems to me that when Paul says something that contradicts this fact, it must be that there’s a specific reason he’s saying it.
As far the thing about a female pastor’s husband, I’ll say this. Most of the women who are pastors that I know are either single or have spouses who are pastors as well. There are a few instances where the woman is a pastor, and the husband works a “secular” job. I don’t know that I’ve noticed it causing a problem. I think so much of the tension comes from our society’s messed up view of leadership. Biblical leadership isn’t bossing someone around. It’s based in serving those you’re leading, and being willing to put their interest before your own. So in that sense, it seems that if both parties in a marriage are doing their best to serve each other, the questions of “who’s the boss” become secondary, if not moot.
I’m hesitant of driving a wedge between Paul and Jesus… or giving the red letters a higher statusn than the black
I agree, I believe the biblical roles as defined are for the home and church.
Really Rick is a liberal in his view… I have a friend who takes it so literal the church he attends does not allow their wives to speak at all during a service… if they have a question they are to ask their husbands… they may not speak in the sanctuary during serivce… as Paul stated it was shameful for a woman to speak in church (1 Cor 14:35)
So if Rick allows his wife to speak… in any form then Rick would be a liberal according to this guy… BTW he has not found a church he likes yet…
iggy
My very quote you reprinted indicates the exact opposite of your statement. I have in no way denegrated the role of women in the church. I believe that the only limit Scripture places on women as far as ministry is that they cannot be teaching a elder in authority over men. This means they **can** be a minister to 3/4s of the earth’s population (i.e., other women and children). Further, they can witness and evangelize to 100% of the earth’s population. I would call that a fertile field of opportunity within which to exercise their spiritual gifts and calling.
I suppose according to the logic of some God the Father is a tyrant because God the Son is subordinate to Him in function though equal to Him in essence/being.
Well, I’ve said it before…
I might actually repent of my egalitarianism and return to hard complementarianism in light of the “fruit” of the “ministry” at SoL and other paranoid blogger moms who drink deeply from the cyber-toilet of ADM-dumb…oops, I mean ADM-dom.
I mean really…some of the ladies that shriek in hysterics in the comments at blogs that shall remain un-named really make me wish they had husbands who worked independently from home just to regulate their internet use.
And with that statement I officially welcome nc into the egalitarianism club for men, otherwise known as:
We Believe the Bible, LLC.
Scratch that, the complentarianism club for men. These women have me crazy!!
And of course Ingrid is all riled up with the Miss Ameica contestant who said she believed in traditional marriage. Why oh why do we care what a beaty queen has to say?
And Ingrid graciously picks apart her response with her usual self righteous aplomb. I want to know one thing, why does Ingrid own a television?? I am so amused by what passes for true discernment when you are left with an exegesis of a beaty contestant’s off the cuff remarks.
That, my friends, is being a real doctrinal warrioress!
Maybe we should just let her continue her public selfrighteous selfgratification in her little corner of the internet and don’t continue linking to her blog.
The more I stop by that pile of rubbish Ingrid planted over at SoL the more I simply grow sick and tired of it and I’m slowly coming to the point of view that it’s simply not worth getting riled up about her getting riled up.
I admit it’s hard to not become cynical when one reads her “news”. But she needs prayer and rebuke. Not sarcasm.
For me it’s usually some convoluted recreation. There are times where it gets serious for me.
It’s like reading an internet Mad Magazine!
Ingrid is upset that Miss America is AGAINST gay marriage?
Good grief… here is someone standing for what Ingrid believes and she still must “attack” that person…
Really Ingrid you are ill and need some serious help.
iggy
oh no, Igs…
that’s what discernment looks like.
A believer who dresses innappropriately?
Unwise.
A believer who castigates and demeans other people relentlessly?
Despicable.
#240 Poor Miss USA can’t get it right with the non christians and christians. If they had burned Miss USA at the stake on stage for her answer someone would be compaining that she had her bathing suit on when it was happening. Never mind that it took courage for her to answer the question the way she did. Should professing christian women dress moderately, yes. A lot of times that comes with maturing in the faith and being in the word and obeying what is written. I remember David Cloud asking the men on his email list about how women should dress to keep men from lusting. By the time I read through all the answers I got the impression that women should just be invisible or at least wear a burka to church. I think Steve Camp has a gracious article about this whole story on his blog.
Whoops I meant Miss California. She’s not Miss USA since she didn’t win the title probably because of her answer. Must be a judgement for the bathing suit and evening dress she was wearing.
The issue of women’s dress can be addressed at a later time. We should not dismiss a believer who got a hot potato question and in the end said the answer that Scripture would support as correct. Perhaps she is a young believer or we can leave it to God to teach her other things.
In the end we should not dismiss small victories in a sister’s life. What we should not do is pounce upon her inperfect behavior and dismantle her response as if we are the Accuser, as Ingrid did at SoL..
I agree Rick. That was what I meant but said it imperfectly. I was on Steve Camps blog and read the comment section and the subject of her being a christian and dressing inappropriately on some comments seemed to be the focus. And then she was casitgated because she didn’t give a full gospel message and I believe her salvation was questioned on one comment. I believe the dressing comment was a distraction from her correct views on marriage and I think Slice mentioned that as well. I haven’t been able to access Ingrid’s blog this morning so I can’t go back to read everything that was written there. If I remember it correctly it was if the bathing suit issue was so BIG and important it dismissed everything else. I was actually upset when I read the article. So that is why I went with the dressing issue. Frankly I’m on burnout with the discernment blogs. Today I just want to stick my thumb in my mouth and crawl into my Saviors arms.
I hear you, gal. Here is how Ingrid self righteously dissects the woman’s comment. Ingrid’s comments are in black:
Ingrid as always is the epitome of a self righteous kibitzer. This paragraph is an exerpt from “Ingrid’s Treasury of the Scriptures”, volume III. Please note how deep doctrinally one must be to tear apart a comment from a beauty pageant contestant. It requires you to be a doctrinal “heavy hitter”!!
Come to think of it, it doesn’t take much doctrinal depthy to dissect Ingrid’s written offerrings either. I guess that deflates me as well!!
Will I lose friends and alienate people with this?
ncgal…
be careful…it sounds like you’re joining in on the “online gang rape” of Ingrid…
You don’t want to be accused of cyber-rape and cyber-lesbianism too.
Trust me, she’d find a way….
I think you miss the point totally on Peter Rollins stories… much like how PB misses the point on Rob Bell… maybe not the same motivation or reason… but same results.
It is not undermining to ask questions or tell stories that might shake someone… as in the recent case I did a twisted version of the good Samaritan… call the good christian in which the good christian is so focused on getting the beat up guy saved… he lets him die.
In the end the good christian is no better than anyone else even with the Gospel…
That is not to undermine the gospel, but to ask people to press deeper into the Gospel to start living it on a deeper level than superficial witnessing…
Peter does that sort of thing in his parables and questions…
iggy
On the Monday morning quarterbacking of the statement by Miss CA on Ingrid’s blog it is yes, NOT COMPLETELY TRUE! Imagine that. She was on at least 2 interview shows that I saw where she says she started to give the PC answer but God convicted her of it right then and there and she changed course immediately in her answer and said the right thing Biblically. But alas, she did not use the Four Spiritual Steps to Salvation in the 7 seconds allotted to her so her answer was clearly meaningless. Oh brother.
We can assume that everything Ingrid says and writes has first been approved by heaven and comes out Biblically inerrant. But of course, as in the past, when she quotes some secular source which later is proven innaccurate Ingrid blames the source.
I don’t think a believer should participate in those events however I give that young woman credit for speaking the truth at her own expense.
I guess some can’t ever imagine God using imperfect vessels to speak truth… I mean that would be atrocious!
There you all go again, gang raping away….
You need to leave that woman alone. She is a wife and a mother who is working at being a homemaker in all quietness and submission…and…
oh.
wait.
forget it…
just stop the cyber-raping.
http://theparish.typepad.com/parish/2008/02/ingrid-schluete.html
Ingrid Schlueter
Ingrid had a post that linked to this blog. Now it is gone. Why?
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/women/2009/04/the_other_miss_california_cont.html
Ingrid Schlueter
nc – I knew which blog it was, but Ingrid had a post about it on SoL and it vanished. I suspect that she found out something about that other blog that she disapproved of.
Lots of words.
Not much said.
Add 6 more.