Remonstrans
Only Because You Asked
05/09/08
Only Because You Asked
This last Wednesday the evangelicals (or some evangelicals anyway) produced a manifesto. They called it a Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment. I don't know what further proof we need that evangelicalism is not a force to be reckoned with.
It's a little sad, really, but evangelicals periodically cobble together some statement of their importance, relevance or existence. i So this would be the manifesto for 2008 in case you are collecting the entire set. You can get a copy here. Actually you can get two copies, the abbreviated six-page embarrassment or the full 20-page humiliation.
On page 14 they want to rethink their place in public life, and to do so they repeat that now widely recognized falsehood that
...fundamentalism was thoroughly world-denying and politically disengaged from its outset, names such as John Jay, John Witherspoon, John Woolman, and Frances Willard in America and William Wilberforce and Lord Shaftesbury in England are a reminder of a different tradition. Evangelicals have made a shining contribution to politics in general, to many of the greatest moral and social reforms in history, such as the abolition of slavery and woman's suffrage, and even to notions crucial in political discussion today, for example, the vital but little known Evangelical contribution to the rise of the voluntary association and, through that, to the understanding of such key notions as civil society and social capital.
Don't I wish fundamentalism was thoroughly world-denying?
So this document intends to a) reaffirm evangelical identity and b) make a public statement of evangelicalism's intention to reform its own behavior which, as is common knowledge, ranks right up there with other equally obnoxious moral lepers in the public eye.
"We confess that we Evangelicals have betrayed our beliefs by our behavior."
You don't say!
They admit to having replaced biblical truths with therapeutic techniques, worship with entertainment, discipleship with growth in human potential, church growth with business entrepreneurialism...and all too often they have "set out clear, high statements of the authority of the Bible, but flouted them with lives and lifestyles that are shaped more by our own sinful preferences and by modern fashions and convenience."
What a pretentious way of admitting not only hypocrisy but abysmal judgment and incompetent leadership, and now they want us to trust them as moral guides.
Yes, last month we lost 46 people up on the mesa, and in March there was that unfortunate incident in the canyon, and before that, it's true, we lost those kindergartners at ChuckE Cheese's....
Just who requires these moral guides, I wonder. Maybe Frank the suicidal Trucker.
"All too often," we read on page 12, "we have prided ourselves on our orthodoxy..." which is a Houdini-class trick because, as we all know, evangelicalism hasn't even produced a consensus let alone an orthodoxy. What could it possibly have been proud of?
Anyway, our readers' knowledge of current events can provide the appropriate backdrop as they read these pompous camera whores.
But before you leave, along with these two pathetic documents there is a third, a Study Guide. Can you believe it?! They have a 20-page remembrance of sins and sighs and a 29-page Study Guide.
Talk about chutzpah.
If we were to discuss this travesty amongst ourselves (which they are inviting us to do), we would do well to think it through at four levels [page 3]:
1. Understanding (What is being said here?)
2. Agreement or dissent (Is what is said here true-most of it, all of it, or none of it? Why?)
3. Implications (What of it? What should this mean for my/our lives?)
4. Action (If I/we embrace this vision, what needed changes and practical next steps will I/we take?)
Ok, since you asked.
1. Nothing is being said here; this is political theater. How dumb do you think we are? How many crooks, addicts and buffoons have we watched cry their way back into the limelight? We learned all about these stunts years ago when we were still playing with our Cheerios.
2. Tough call but I'm guessing you should put me down for dissent.
3. Implications? Be serious, wouldja? One salient implication is that no one believes you anymore, and you have discredited evangelicalism at an astonishingly unpropitious moment in Western history. You are leaving people better than your sorry selves at the mercy of men like Hitchens, Dawkins...
4. Personally, I plan to take no action. I took no notice of you before and I don't anticipate any change in that policy. And if I find others taking notice of you I will warn them off with threat of locust, frogs and blood.
You cannot succeed in simple morality and you want to preach about justice? You wallow in obscene wealth and you wish to speak to us of poverty? This is just me thinking out loud here, but I think you ought to reconsider your place in private life. Very private life.
Secluded life.
Make like Amelia Earhart and never be heard from again.
_______________
i It is important to evangelicals that we capitalize evangelical. It is conspicuously less important to them that they capitalize fundamentalist.
Trackback address for this post:
Comments, Trackbacks, Pingbacks:
1 Comment from: k-wg [Visitor] 
Dear Sir,
When Paul wrote that love is kind, that it is not rude, that it keeps no record of wrongs, do you think he was correct? As one who professes to be a Christian, do you consider your writing on this blog to exemplify that love?
When Paul wrote that love is kind, that it is not rude, that it keeps no record of wrongs, do you think he was correct? As one who professes to be a Christian, do you consider your writing on this blog to exemplify that love?
Permalink
05/10/08 @ 13:20 2 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Do I think Paul was correct? Yes.
As it happens, I do.
And to see how this definition was worked out in the subsequent ministry of St. Paul himself, I direct your attention to Galatians wherein he seems to suggest that certain enemies of the truth be castrated. Paul never suggested that love was indifferent to ongoing sin, unrepentant hypocrisy or open scandals.
Permalink
05/10/08 @ 15:42 3 Comment from: k-wg [Visitor]
Dear Sir,
Neither did I suggest that love is "indifferent to ongoing sin, unrepentant hypocrisy or open scandals." Certainly love is not indifferent.
But Paul did write that love is kind, that it is not rude, that it keeps no record of wrongs. Apparently, we both believe he was correct in writing so.
He did not write that he was always a loving person. He never claimed that wishing men to castrate themselves exemplified love. And so it is not clear to me, exactly, what your point is. Do you mean to imply that we are to take everything that Paul said and did as an example of the love about which he writes in 1 Corinthians 13?
Also, Paul wrote Galatians before he wrote 1 Corinthians, and so directing my attention to the former letter does not clarify how Paul "worked out" the later "definition" of love in his "subsequent" ministry.
Neither did I suggest that love is "indifferent to ongoing sin, unrepentant hypocrisy or open scandals." Certainly love is not indifferent.
But Paul did write that love is kind, that it is not rude, that it keeps no record of wrongs. Apparently, we both believe he was correct in writing so.
He did not write that he was always a loving person. He never claimed that wishing men to castrate themselves exemplified love. And so it is not clear to me, exactly, what your point is. Do you mean to imply that we are to take everything that Paul said and did as an example of the love about which he writes in 1 Corinthians 13?
Also, Paul wrote Galatians before he wrote 1 Corinthians, and so directing my attention to the former letter does not clarify how Paul "worked out" the later "definition" of love in his "subsequent" ministry.
Permalink
05/10/08 @ 16:16 4 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
My point is astoundingly simple: the Apostle who can be trusted to tell us what love is can also be trusted to show us how love acts, in this case with reference to false teachers.
(Sorry, I did a dumb edit. "Subsequent" was in that sentence before it got revised; it shouldn't have survived. I do not think the Corinthian definition contradicts the previously inspired instruction to the Galatians.)
(Sorry, I did a dumb edit. "Subsequent" was in that sentence before it got revised; it shouldn't have survived. I do not think the Corinthian definition contradicts the previously inspired instruction to the Galatians.)
Permalink
05/10/08 @ 16:48 5 Comment from: k-wg [Visitor]
Dear Sir,
If that is your point, it is simple (though I don’t find myself feeling particularly astounded). It is also misleading.
Paul tells the Corinthians that love is kind. He also tells the Galatians that he wishes some false teachers among them would castrate themselves. That remark is kind, or it is not. If you think it’s kind, I’d be interested in hearing your reasons for thinking so. If you do not think that Paul’s wishing men to castrate themselves is kind, then why highlight that comment as an example of loving speech, as if Paul intended that remark to demonstrate how love acts?
I’m interested, still, in knowing whether or not you try to exemplify in this blog that love about which Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13.
If that is your point, it is simple (though I don’t find myself feeling particularly astounded). It is also misleading.
Paul tells the Corinthians that love is kind. He also tells the Galatians that he wishes some false teachers among them would castrate themselves. That remark is kind, or it is not. If you think it’s kind, I’d be interested in hearing your reasons for thinking so. If you do not think that Paul’s wishing men to castrate themselves is kind, then why highlight that comment as an example of loving speech, as if Paul intended that remark to demonstrate how love acts?
I’m interested, still, in knowing whether or not you try to exemplify in this blog that love about which Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13.
Permalink
05/11/08 @ 03:58 6 Comment from: lilrabbi [Visitor]
k-wg,
You assume that everything existing outside of the category of "kindness" is sinful. That's a lot to assume.
And when is it misleading to emulate the Apostle having been told by him to do so?
You assume that everything existing outside of the category of "kindness" is sinful. That's a lot to assume.
And when is it misleading to emulate the Apostle having been told by him to do so?
Permalink
05/11/08 @ 20:01 7 Comment from: lilrabbi [Visitor]
To clarify- not everything falls in the category of kind-unkind. That category is just one way in which love manifests itself.
One thinks that kindness is something shown to the beloved. Just like protection is given to the beloved. Ought one be kind to and protect falsehood?
One thinks that kindness is something shown to the beloved. Just like protection is given to the beloved. Ought one be kind to and protect falsehood?
Permalink
05/11/08 @ 20:12 8 Comment from: k-wg [Visitor]
lilrabbi,
That is "a lot to assume," and I make no such assumption. Nor am I interested in dividing up "everything" into categories of kind/unkind.
Your interpretation of Paul's affirmation, "love is kind," perplexes me. Kindness, you suggest, "is just one way in which love manifests itself." So love is kind sometimes, here and there. At other times (is this what you're meaning to imply?) love can (should?) be quite unkind.
The love about which Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13 simply is kind. I'm interested in knowing whether or not dissidens means to exemplify and practice that love on this blog.
You asked, "Ought one be kind to and protect falsehood?" I wonder if it's even possible to offer kindness and protection to abstract nouns.
You also asked, "And when is it misleading to emulate the Apostle having been told by him to do so?" I have not suggested, nor do I now suggest that emulating the Apostle Paul is misleading. When I used the word "misleading," I was referring to dissiden's simple point: "the Apostle who can be trusted to tell us what love is can also be trusted to show us how love acts, in this case with reference to false teachers." That, I believe, is misleading to the extent that it is based on the assumption that everything Paul said or did was an expression of the love about which he writes in 1 Corinthians 13. I don't believe that assumption is correct.
That is "a lot to assume," and I make no such assumption. Nor am I interested in dividing up "everything" into categories of kind/unkind.
Your interpretation of Paul's affirmation, "love is kind," perplexes me. Kindness, you suggest, "is just one way in which love manifests itself." So love is kind sometimes, here and there. At other times (is this what you're meaning to imply?) love can (should?) be quite unkind.
The love about which Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13 simply is kind. I'm interested in knowing whether or not dissidens means to exemplify and practice that love on this blog.
You asked, "Ought one be kind to and protect falsehood?" I wonder if it's even possible to offer kindness and protection to abstract nouns.
You also asked, "And when is it misleading to emulate the Apostle having been told by him to do so?" I have not suggested, nor do I now suggest that emulating the Apostle Paul is misleading. When I used the word "misleading," I was referring to dissiden's simple point: "the Apostle who can be trusted to tell us what love is can also be trusted to show us how love acts, in this case with reference to false teachers." That, I believe, is misleading to the extent that it is based on the assumption that everything Paul said or did was an expression of the love about which he writes in 1 Corinthians 13. I don't believe that assumption is correct.
Permalink
05/12/08 @ 05:14 9 Comment from: lilrabbi [Visitor]
Yeah, that's what I was trying to clarify. You say you're not interested in dividing up everything into kind or unkind, and then you say those are the only too options at all times.
"Your interpretation of Paul's affirmation, "love is kind," perplexes me. Kindness, you suggest, "is just one way in which love manifests itself." So love is kind sometimes, here and there. At other times (is this what you're meaning to imply?) love can (should?) be quite unkind."
Not at all. I am saying that not every action is necessarily kind or unkind. Am I being unkind or kind by sitting here drinking my morning coffee? I don't think so.
And you are saying one cannot protect Truth? We are very different.
"Your interpretation of Paul's affirmation, "love is kind," perplexes me. Kindness, you suggest, "is just one way in which love manifests itself." So love is kind sometimes, here and there. At other times (is this what you're meaning to imply?) love can (should?) be quite unkind."
Not at all. I am saying that not every action is necessarily kind or unkind. Am I being unkind or kind by sitting here drinking my morning coffee? I don't think so.
And you are saying one cannot protect Truth? We are very different.
Permalink
05/12/08 @ 07:04 10 Comment from: k-wg [Visitor]
lilrabbi,
Perhaps you could let me know, explicitly, which part of what I wrote gives you the impression that I really believe, contrary to my claiming otherwise, that "the only two options at all times" for "everything" are "kind or unkind." You brought the term "unkind" into the conversation. Of course it's possible for an action to be neither kind nor unkind. Logically, though, it is impossible for an action to be neither kind nor not kind.
But I'm not very interested in making generalizations about "every action." Dissidens referred to one particular comment that Paul made in his letter to the Galatians, wishing that some men would castrate themselves. He implied that this was an example of the love about which Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13.
I suggested that Paul's wishing men to be castrated is either kind or not. Is this what concerns you? Would you like to propose a third possibility? It's not kind, and it's not not kind, it's... ?
Perhaps you could let me know, explicitly, which part of what I wrote gives you the impression that I really believe, contrary to my claiming otherwise, that "the only two options at all times" for "everything" are "kind or unkind." You brought the term "unkind" into the conversation. Of course it's possible for an action to be neither kind nor unkind. Logically, though, it is impossible for an action to be neither kind nor not kind.
But I'm not very interested in making generalizations about "every action." Dissidens referred to one particular comment that Paul made in his letter to the Galatians, wishing that some men would castrate themselves. He implied that this was an example of the love about which Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13.
I suggested that Paul's wishing men to be castrated is either kind or not. Is this what concerns you? Would you like to propose a third possibility? It's not kind, and it's not not kind, it's... ?
Permalink
05/12/08 @ 10:02 11 Comment from: k-wg [Visitor]
lilrabbi,
I just looked back and realized that I didn't answer your question about protecting truth. Sorry. It would help me if you could say a bit more about what you mean by that--protecting truth. What would that look like? Similarly, what do you have in mind when you speak of being kind to "falsehood"?
I just looked back and realized that I didn't answer your question about protecting truth. Sorry. It would help me if you could say a bit more about what you mean by that--protecting truth. What would that look like? Similarly, what do you have in mind when you speak of being kind to "falsehood"?
Permalink
05/12/08 @ 10:33 12 Comment from: Chris [Visitor]
k-wg:
If you were a shepherd and a wolf was chasing one of your sheep (presumably attempting to "converse" with it), wouldn't you shoot the wolf to protect the sheep? Would not that be an act of love and duty in keeping with your calling? Simplistic as it is, there are some acts of kindness which are targeted in such a way that they are profoundly unkind to others. God has laid out the proper priorities for handling false teachers in scripture. Go find them.
Consider the fact that if false teachers did kindly castrate themselves, they would not breed little false teachers, a wonderful benefit for true believers everywhere.
If you were a shepherd and a wolf was chasing one of your sheep (presumably attempting to "converse" with it), wouldn't you shoot the wolf to protect the sheep? Would not that be an act of love and duty in keeping with your calling? Simplistic as it is, there are some acts of kindness which are targeted in such a way that they are profoundly unkind to others. God has laid out the proper priorities for handling false teachers in scripture. Go find them.
Consider the fact that if false teachers did kindly castrate themselves, they would not breed little false teachers, a wonderful benefit for true believers everywhere.
Permalink
05/12/08 @ 10:42 13 Comment from: k-wg [Visitor]
Chris,
While I'm going to find God's "proper priorities for handling false teachers" (I wonder, will "Treat them with scorn and spite!" be near the top of the list?) go study genetics, and please let me know when you find the gene(s) which determines false teaching.
While I'm going to find God's "proper priorities for handling false teachers" (I wonder, will "Treat them with scorn and spite!" be near the top of the list?) go study genetics, and please let me know when you find the gene(s) which determines false teaching.
Permalink
05/12/08 @ 11:58 14 Comment from: David [Member]
I always found giving them a big hug, a large donation, and telling them to pay no attention to those mean people who try to treat them without some mishy-squashy loooove, a good approach.
I try not to do what the Holy Spirit spake by Paul, that their mouths must be stopped, because they subvert entire households, as one would undoubtably have to depart from being all huggly-snuggly. One might even have to *gasp* call them a brood of vipers....owwww, that hurts my ears.
gag
Behave like men.
I try not to do what the Holy Spirit spake by Paul, that their mouths must be stopped, because they subvert entire households, as one would undoubtably have to depart from being all huggly-snuggly. One might even have to *gasp* call them a brood of vipers....owwww, that hurts my ears.
gag
Behave like men.
Permalink
05/12/08 @ 12:47 15 Comment from: k-wg [Visitor]
David,
While you mock whatever belief it is you imagine I hold, I'll try to understand your position. When, in Galatians, Paul wishes that some men would castrate themselves, are we to take that as an example of the love about which he speaks in 1 Corinthians 13?
While you mock whatever belief it is you imagine I hold, I'll try to understand your position. When, in Galatians, Paul wishes that some men would castrate themselves, are we to take that as an example of the love about which he speaks in 1 Corinthians 13?
Permalink
05/12/08 @ 13:36 16 Comment from: chris [Visitor]
k-wg:
You win: I am curious. Do you think that the fault lies with Paul's reasoning (is he inconsistent between these two letters), our interpretation of Paul's reasoning, or with Christianity in general (it is a flawed system that needs amending)?
Second question: If you were to happen across someone who, whether by intuition or by logical deduction, you were convinced was a false teacher, what example would you set that others could follow in addressing the situation? For sake of concreteness, we'll agree that this hypothetical teacher has been hired by your church to teach in the children's ministry.
You win: I am curious. Do you think that the fault lies with Paul's reasoning (is he inconsistent between these two letters), our interpretation of Paul's reasoning, or with Christianity in general (it is a flawed system that needs amending)?
Second question: If you were to happen across someone who, whether by intuition or by logical deduction, you were convinced was a false teacher, what example would you set that others could follow in addressing the situation? For sake of concreteness, we'll agree that this hypothetical teacher has been hired by your church to teach in the children's ministry.
Permalink
05/12/08 @ 14:50 17 Comment from: k-wg [Visitor]
Chris,
1. It just isn't obvious to me that we are meant to take everything Paul said and did as an expression of the love about which he writes in 1 Corinthians 13. So, this is a question of interpretation (the second option you gave me).
2. Of course, we would try not to hire someone who intentionally (or unwittingly, yet regularly) teaches heresy. If I found that our church, despite our best intentions, had made such a mistake, some elders and I would have a conversation with the person. If he remained unwilling to change the content of his teaching, we would relieve him of his position, wish him well, and then empty his scrotum, ever so kindly and lovingly. :)
1. It just isn't obvious to me that we are meant to take everything Paul said and did as an expression of the love about which he writes in 1 Corinthians 13. So, this is a question of interpretation (the second option you gave me).
2. Of course, we would try not to hire someone who intentionally (or unwittingly, yet regularly) teaches heresy. If I found that our church, despite our best intentions, had made such a mistake, some elders and I would have a conversation with the person. If he remained unwilling to change the content of his teaching, we would relieve him of his position, wish him well, and then empty his scrotum, ever so kindly and lovingly. :)
Permalink
05/12/08 @ 15:25 18 Comment from: David [Member]
Well, two things.
1) I find it amusing that many people think Paul was talking castration, while I greatly suspect the cutting off was of a spiritual nature, either from the body of Christ, and/or from any protection from Satan.
2) If I were to happen across a false teacher, it would depend upon serveral things.
a) My postion authoritatively in relation to said person.
b) His position..ie...is he merely a blogger spewing his false teachings, or is he in my Church (God forbid), or etc.
c) Hopefully, some leading of the Holy Spirit as to how to deal with such an one in those particular circumstances.
1) I find it amusing that many people think Paul was talking castration, while I greatly suspect the cutting off was of a spiritual nature, either from the body of Christ, and/or from any protection from Satan.
2) If I were to happen across a false teacher, it would depend upon serveral things.
a) My postion authoritatively in relation to said person.
b) His position..ie...is he merely a blogger spewing his false teachings, or is he in my Church (God forbid), or etc.
c) Hopefully, some leading of the Holy Spirit as to how to deal with such an one in those particular circumstances.
Permalink
05/12/08 @ 15:29 19 Comment from: chris [Visitor]
Follow up: What would you do if he healed up and got a job at a like-minded church up the road? Would you warn the pastor that he has a heretic on his hands? I know you would want to spare your own flock from any scandal, but would you make an attempt to spare your brother's flock from the spiritual disasters that Paul warned Timothy about, that John and Jude warned of, and that the Lord Jesus rebuked in Rev. 2-3?
Permalink
05/12/08 @ 19:06 20 Comment from: exlibris [Visitor]
Well, Mr. k-wg:
Let me ask you this - If love is kind, what do you love? How do you order competing loves?
You see, I don't think that it's exactly the nature of love that is at issue here. It is the object of love. It may even be the order of certain proper objects of love. Now, you may wish to use 1 Cor. 13:4 as the univocal interpretational crux for the entire Bible; but you would find it necessary to take an X-acto knife to excise a significant bunch of Scripture (done before by Thomas Jefferson with respect to supernatural phenomenon recorded in the Bible).
In my personal opinion, while it may at sometimes be imperfect, there's a whole lot-a-luvin' goin' on here - a love for God, a love for truth, a love for the brethren, a love for the church. But, then again, I know who writes this blog; and I know the kindness he has shown towards those who have been ever so undeserving of that kindness. I know of late night hospital calls, desperate marital situations, disobedient brethren, unbelievable generosity with time, talent, and finances. He has had his own fellowship of suffering.
Perhaps, your complaint ought to be directed against the venue. When old fundamentalists used to name false teachers from their pulpits, some people didn't like that either. Then again these preachers and dissidens stand in a long tradition of this sort of "love."
For some are in the habit of carrying about the name [of Jesus Christ] in wicked guile, while yet they practise things unworthy of God, whom you must flee as you would wild beasts. For they are ravening dogs, who bite secretly, against whom you must be on your guard, inasmuch as they are men who can scarcely be cured. There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible,— even Jesus Christ our Lord. Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians 7
No names - perhaps their was no need, everyone knew of whom he spoke, and the names changed constantly in the slow moving pace of communication. Are you prepared to tell me that Ignatius was unloving? Did he die in the Colosseum in bitterness?
I'll not argue for dissiden's perfection, just as I would not argue for yours or mine. But, there is 1 Cor. 13 here. Perhaps the confusion lies in the determination of the proper object of love.
Let me ask you this - If love is kind, what do you love? How do you order competing loves?
You see, I don't think that it's exactly the nature of love that is at issue here. It is the object of love. It may even be the order of certain proper objects of love. Now, you may wish to use 1 Cor. 13:4 as the univocal interpretational crux for the entire Bible; but you would find it necessary to take an X-acto knife to excise a significant bunch of Scripture (done before by Thomas Jefferson with respect to supernatural phenomenon recorded in the Bible).
In my personal opinion, while it may at sometimes be imperfect, there's a whole lot-a-luvin' goin' on here - a love for God, a love for truth, a love for the brethren, a love for the church. But, then again, I know who writes this blog; and I know the kindness he has shown towards those who have been ever so undeserving of that kindness. I know of late night hospital calls, desperate marital situations, disobedient brethren, unbelievable generosity with time, talent, and finances. He has had his own fellowship of suffering.
Perhaps, your complaint ought to be directed against the venue. When old fundamentalists used to name false teachers from their pulpits, some people didn't like that either. Then again these preachers and dissidens stand in a long tradition of this sort of "love."
For some are in the habit of carrying about the name [of Jesus Christ] in wicked guile, while yet they practise things unworthy of God, whom you must flee as you would wild beasts. For they are ravening dogs, who bite secretly, against whom you must be on your guard, inasmuch as they are men who can scarcely be cured. There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible,— even Jesus Christ our Lord. Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians 7
No names - perhaps their was no need, everyone knew of whom he spoke, and the names changed constantly in the slow moving pace of communication. Are you prepared to tell me that Ignatius was unloving? Did he die in the Colosseum in bitterness?
I'll not argue for dissiden's perfection, just as I would not argue for yours or mine. But, there is 1 Cor. 13 here. Perhaps the confusion lies in the determination of the proper object of love.
Permalink
05/12/08 @ 19:16 21 Comment from: k-wg [Visitor]
Chris:
Sure.
exlibris:
Thanks for your comment. I'm willing to believe that, away from this blog, dissidens is an extremely kind, loving, generous fellow.
Still, I wonder if the attitude of scorn, contempt, mockery, condescension, and spite, so freely exhibited by him on this blog, is really consistent with (or an expressions of) biblical, Christian love.
An argument that it is would require much more than mention of historical examples of faithful Christians who occasionally wrote with such scorn and spite. Alone, such examples only beg the question.
Sure.
exlibris:
Thanks for your comment. I'm willing to believe that, away from this blog, dissidens is an extremely kind, loving, generous fellow.
Still, I wonder if the attitude of scorn, contempt, mockery, condescension, and spite, so freely exhibited by him on this blog, is really consistent with (or an expressions of) biblical, Christian love.
An argument that it is would require much more than mention of historical examples of faithful Christians who occasionally wrote with such scorn and spite. Alone, such examples only beg the question.
Permalink
05/13/08 @ 06:11 22 Comment from: danofsteel [Member]
So, false teachers should be the object of the love described in 1 Cor. 13?
Biblical shows us otherwise. But, dissidens covered that already.
Biblical shows us otherwise. But, dissidens covered that already.
Permalink
05/13/08 @ 08:25 23 Comment from: k-wg [Visitor]
danofsteel,
The love described in 1 Corinthians 13 is the only love there is. Should people who teach heresy be objects of love? Yes, as we are to love even our enemies. Please clarify what you mean when you say: "Biblical shows us otherwise" (??) and "dissidens covered that already."
The love described in 1 Corinthians 13 is the only love there is. Should people who teach heresy be objects of love? Yes, as we are to love even our enemies. Please clarify what you mean when you say: "Biblical shows us otherwise" (??) and "dissidens covered that already."
Permalink
05/13/08 @ 10:15 24 Comment from: danofsteel [Member]
Read comment #2.
Permalink
05/13/08 @ 11:31 25 Comment from: k-wg [Visitor]
dansofsteel,
Comment #2 is precisely where dissidens does not (adequately) "cover" the question of whether or not it is loving to mock, insult, and heap scorn upon false teachers. He reminds us that Paul wished some men to be castrated. But why think that's an example of the love about which Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13? At this point, merely asserting that it is an example of love will not advance the conversation.
Comment #2 is precisely where dissidens does not (adequately) "cover" the question of whether or not it is loving to mock, insult, and heap scorn upon false teachers. He reminds us that Paul wished some men to be castrated. But why think that's an example of the love about which Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13? At this point, merely asserting that it is an example of love will not advance the conversation.
Permalink
05/13/08 @ 12:19 26 Comment from: anon [Visitor]
Umm...my understanding of inspiration leaves me baffled at the suggestion that Paul would record a sentiment in holy writ that he later judged to be inappropriate. Maybe there was a change in dispensations from Galatians to Corinthians - before it was okay to scorn heretics and jeer their folly, but now we must coddle them.
Doubtless Paul, being but a man, failed to act lovingly at times in his ministry, and perhaps even in some of his writings. But are you suggesting he was he unloving in the writings we have preserved for us in the New Testament? Yikes...
Doubtless Paul, being but a man, failed to act lovingly at times in his ministry, and perhaps even in some of his writings. But are you suggesting he was he unloving in the writings we have preserved for us in the New Testament? Yikes...
Permalink
05/13/08 @ 21:13 27 Comment from: k-wg [Visitor]
This exchange baffles me. You see, I would have thought that when God's word says: "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs..."--that minimally, this rules out love's being scornful, arrogant, spiteful, insulting, impatient, condescending. If I'm understanding you all, you disagree. Of course, maybe I've failed to understand you. If you do disagree, though, please explain to me how treating people with scorn, spite, and contempt exemplifies the love described by God's Word.
Permalink
05/14/08 @ 07:54 28 Comment from: greg linscott [Member]
This exchange baffles me. You see, I would have thought that when God's word says: "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs..."--that minimally, this rules out love's being scornful, arrogant, spiteful, insulting, impatient, condescending. If I'm understanding you all, you disagree.
k-wg-
You seem to be assuming that if in the aforementioned Galatians passage ("cut off") Paul is wishing for castration for the false teachers, he is doing so in some way that is other than loving, and is therefore not in conformity with 1 Cor 13. Is that correct?
I am also wondering what you would do with the words of the Lord Jesus recorded in the Gospel accounts, where he refers to various parties as "whited sepulchers," "vipers," "dogs," "Satan," and so on. Would you argue that Jesus Himself was guilty of being unloving?
Consider: Is it possible that acts of love might be considered abrasive and unpleasant to those experiencing them? Does a loving God ever deal with His children in ways that may not immediately seem "kind" to us?
Permalink
05/14/08 @ 08:50 29 Comment from: k-wg [Visitor]
Greg,
If you'll go back and read comment #1, you'll see that my primary concern is the lack of love that dissidens displays in his writing. dissidens never answered my second question regarding whether or not he thinks his writing on this blog does exemplify love. Instead, apparently in order to justify his use of scornful, spiteful, condescending, insulting language, dissidens pointed out that Paul once wished some men to castrate themselves.
At this point I'm wondering, is that it? Because Paul once said something that sounds kind of rude, that authorizes all Christians after him regularly to scorn, mock, and insult those with whom we disagree? Really?
If you are suggesting that Christian love is in fact, here and there, not kind--that it is rather, here and there, quite rude, insulting, spiteful and harsh--I wonder how you make sense of 1 Corinthians 13. What do you take Paul to mean in those verses?
If you'll go back and read comment #1, you'll see that my primary concern is the lack of love that dissidens displays in his writing. dissidens never answered my second question regarding whether or not he thinks his writing on this blog does exemplify love. Instead, apparently in order to justify his use of scornful, spiteful, condescending, insulting language, dissidens pointed out that Paul once wished some men to castrate themselves.
At this point I'm wondering, is that it? Because Paul once said something that sounds kind of rude, that authorizes all Christians after him regularly to scorn, mock, and insult those with whom we disagree? Really?
If you are suggesting that Christian love is in fact, here and there, not kind--that it is rather, here and there, quite rude, insulting, spiteful and harsh--I wonder how you make sense of 1 Corinthians 13. What do you take Paul to mean in those verses?
Permalink
05/14/08 @ 11:52 30 Comment from: k-wg [Visitor]
Greg,
You asked direct questions which I neglected to answer. Here goes:
1. You are correct about my assumption. I think it's other than loving to wish that false teachers be castrated.
2. I would not argue that Jesus "was guilty of being unloving."
3. You ask: "Is it possible that acts of love might be considered abrasive and unpleasant to those experiencing them?"
Yes, it's possible. But at some point, I think, the one receiving love ought to be able to recognize and affirm the action as loving. At what point should one affirm being insulted and scorned is actually being love?
4. You asked: "Does a loving God ever deal with His children in ways that may not immediately seem "kind" to us?"
Yes, but again, at some point, His children begin to recognize that God's dealings with them are in fact kind. At what point should I begin to recognize that dissiden's scornful, spiteful, condescending language is in fact quite kind?
You asked direct questions which I neglected to answer. Here goes:
1. You are correct about my assumption. I think it's other than loving to wish that false teachers be castrated.
2. I would not argue that Jesus "was guilty of being unloving."
3. You ask: "Is it possible that acts of love might be considered abrasive and unpleasant to those experiencing them?"
Yes, it's possible. But at some point, I think, the one receiving love ought to be able to recognize and affirm the action as loving. At what point should one affirm being insulted and scorned is actually being love?
4. You asked: "Does a loving God ever deal with His children in ways that may not immediately seem "kind" to us?"
Yes, but again, at some point, His children begin to recognize that God's dealings with them are in fact kind. At what point should I begin to recognize that dissiden's scornful, spiteful, condescending language is in fact quite kind?
Permalink
05/14/08 @ 12:12 31 Comment from: greg linscott [Member]
Again, my counter-point to your question- what do you do with the words of the Christ? He is the standard by which we judge what love is, and yet, he was percieved by some of those he spoke with to be "quite rude, insulting, spiteful and harsh," I would imagine.
What I am suggesting, k (may I call you k?), is perhaps you are assuming there is a lack of love where they may not be one. Strong language may not be, in this case, evidence of lack of love. Whether or not one would agree with the observations of our blog host, one could charitably observe that for 2-3 years now, he has been patiently noting detriments and problems that need to be addressed in American Christianity. He believes them to be matters that are problematic and require attention and correction- which, whether you agree with him or not, would be good to be aware of if he indeed was correct in his observations. The word rendered "kind" in 1 Cor 13 can also be translated as "good."
My point is that what we think of as "kind" may not match up to what the intentions of Scripture were. Any cursory reading of Scripture will demonstrate that many times in the Bible, harsh language and metaphorical images are used. And yet, would we contradict the Scriptures and say that in these passages, God ceases to love... to be Love?
Lest I be misunderstood, I am not attaining divine status to Dissidens (like some others are rumored to have- the stories of firstborn sons being left on the doorstep continue to circulate). I am saying, however, that harsh language is not necessarily incompatible with a demonstration of love, or loving speech.
What I am suggesting, k (may I call you k?), is perhaps you are assuming there is a lack of love where they may not be one. Strong language may not be, in this case, evidence of lack of love. Whether or not one would agree with the observations of our blog host, one could charitably observe that for 2-3 years now, he has been patiently noting detriments and problems that need to be addressed in American Christianity. He believes them to be matters that are problematic and require attention and correction- which, whether you agree with him or not, would be good to be aware of if he indeed was correct in his observations. The word rendered "kind" in 1 Cor 13 can also be translated as "good."
My point is that what we think of as "kind" may not match up to what the intentions of Scripture were. Any cursory reading of Scripture will demonstrate that many times in the Bible, harsh language and metaphorical images are used. And yet, would we contradict the Scriptures and say that in these passages, God ceases to love... to be Love?
Lest I be misunderstood, I am not attaining divine status to Dissidens (like some others are rumored to have- the stories of firstborn sons being left on the doorstep continue to circulate). I am saying, however, that harsh language is not necessarily incompatible with a demonstration of love, or loving speech.
Permalink
05/14/08 @ 12:15 32 Comment from: Uncultured One [Visitor]
I could be mistaken, but I wonder if some of the talk isn't going past one another because there are two issues on the table and they are being mixed into one conversation. The most important question, it seems, is whether it is inherently contradictory to 1 Cor 13 to say something like what Paul said in Galatians 5. From what I can see, only k-wg is arguing in the affirmative, and some, quite rightly in my mind, are very troubled by this because of its implications regarding the Scriptures, our Lord, and our approach to the Scriptures (seemingly exalted our sensibilities over it rather than letting it shape our sensibilities).
On the other hand, it seems that k-wg's point is really more focused on Dissidens than Paul. Although k-wg has not granted the point, it seems like he could argue that Paul was right to do what he did, and should be properly accorded the benefit of the doubt because of his apostleship, but are his words in Galatians 5 really of the same cloth as those regularly expressed here? Are they directed toward the same category of people in both cases?
Now, I am inclined to think both that Dissidens could answer this effectively and that he really doesn't feel the need to answer it all. Personally, I think I'd probably agree with his answer, but differ with him as to the use of these kinds of replies. That godly people in Scripture and our Savior used scorn, etc. does not grant carte blanche for its use by us. Like with anger, there is a fine line between the righteous and unrighteous expressions of it.
As with most matters of biblical ethics, there is a fine balance that must be maintained. I seldom get it right, but pray I won't be blind to my failures or excessive in my critique of others given them.
On the other hand, it seems that k-wg's point is really more focused on Dissidens than Paul. Although k-wg has not granted the point, it seems like he could argue that Paul was right to do what he did, and should be properly accorded the benefit of the doubt because of his apostleship, but are his words in Galatians 5 really of the same cloth as those regularly expressed here? Are they directed toward the same category of people in both cases?
Now, I am inclined to think both that Dissidens could answer this effectively and that he really doesn't feel the need to answer it all. Personally, I think I'd probably agree with his answer, but differ with him as to the use of these kinds of replies. That godly people in Scripture and our Savior used scorn, etc. does not grant carte blanche for its use by us. Like with anger, there is a fine line between the righteous and unrighteous expressions of it.
As with most matters of biblical ethics, there is a fine balance that must be maintained. I seldom get it right, but pray I won't be blind to my failures or excessive in my critique of others given them.
Permalink
05/14/08 @ 14:02 33 Comment from: k-wg [Visitor]
Greg: You can call me k. I agree with you when you write, "harsh language is not necessarily incompatible with a demonstration of love, or loving speech."
Uncultured One: I remain unconvinced that every remark made by a NT author is a positive example of love, which Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 13. Scripture itself never tells us that this is the case. What, exactly, are the implications that trouble you about this?
In any case, you are correct when you discern that my complaint is with dissiden's behavior, not Paul's.
Uncultured One: I remain unconvinced that every remark made by a NT author is a positive example of love, which Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 13. Scripture itself never tells us that this is the case. What, exactly, are the implications that trouble you about this?
In any case, you are correct when you discern that my complaint is with dissiden's behavior, not Paul's.
Permalink
05/14/08 @ 15:34 34 Comment from: greg linscott [Member]
Yes, it's possible. But at some point, I think, the one receiving love ought to be able to recognize and affirm the action as loving. At what point should one affirm being insulted and scorned is actually being love?
Yes, but again, at some point, His children begin to recognize that God's dealings with them are in fact kind. At what point should I begin to recognize that dissiden's scornful, spiteful, condescending language is in fact quite kind?
You make an assumption that one ought to be able to discern when one is being loved. I say, "Perhaps." The rebellious teenager may not understand the parameters his parents set for him as "loving" for many, many years- and if he continues in rebellion, perhaps not at all (Proverbs 19:26, for example). Some may never get it. Perhaps many in American Evangelicalism fall into that category.
As far as when you might recognize it with our friend Diss- well, that's hard to say. I, for one, see his detest with the current status quo rooted in a love for God. I see his distaste for those who contribute to His defamation. I may not share all of his views, but I am not convinced his scorn and spite are rooted in a reactionary, "wrath of man" (James 1:20) response. Rather, I am persuaded that our friend is striving to emulate James 1:19, and being "swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath." Whether he is doing that perfectly is not for me to say, but I believe he is attempting this.
I also believe that part of what mars the sensitivity and judgment of these characteristics to those of us in America is our propensity to use flattering speech. Whatever else our brother might be faulted in, I can say with a great degree of certainty that Diss is not inclined to stumble in this area.
Permalink
05/14/08 @ 20:09 35 Comment from: chris [Visitor]
Just out of curiosity mixed with Philistine pig-ignorance, are there any examples of Christ, apostles, God, prophets, or any other protagonist in Scripture using kind words with or toward false teachers? This may be a good place to start developing a Biblical rubric for handling these situations as they come up.
Of course I am assuming that we are in essential agreement concerning the danger of false teachers.
Of course I am assuming that we are in essential agreement concerning the danger of false teachers.
Permalink
05/14/08 @ 21:06 36 Comment from: lilrabbi [Visitor]
You assume a lot, Chris!
Permalink
05/14/08 @ 22:01 37 Comment from: k-wg [Visitor]
Greg,
You're right. There are situations in which people receiving love will never recognize that love. That's possible.
The question I continue to have is whether or not dissidens is trying to be loving on this blog. I asked him that directly, and he did not answer.
You write: "I am persuaded that our friend is striving to emulate James 1:19, and being "swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath." Whether he is doing that perfectly is not for me to say, but I believe he is attempting this." I'd like to hear from dissidens about whether or not he's attempting to do this. If he is, I suggest his attempts are failing, that he should try harder.
As we carry out this exchange, dissidens continues to mock, insult, and scorn those with whom he disagrees. As I asked on another post, when did Jesus, Paul, or any other New Testament author behave like this? Where does the New Testament urge us to behave like this? This is love?
You're right. There are situations in which people receiving love will never recognize that love. That's possible.
The question I continue to have is whether or not dissidens is trying to be loving on this blog. I asked him that directly, and he did not answer.
You write: "I am persuaded that our friend is striving to emulate James 1:19, and being "swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath." Whether he is doing that perfectly is not for me to say, but I believe he is attempting this." I'd like to hear from dissidens about whether or not he's attempting to do this. If he is, I suggest his attempts are failing, that he should try harder.
As we carry out this exchange, dissidens continues to mock, insult, and scorn those with whom he disagrees. As I asked on another post, when did Jesus, Paul, or any other New Testament author behave like this? Where does the New Testament urge us to behave like this? This is love?
Permalink
05/15/08 @ 04:47 38 Comment from: Uncultured One [Visitor]
Where did they use scorn?
John the Baptist, e.g., Matt 3:7
Jesus, e.g., Matt 23.
Paul, e.g., Gal 5:12; Phil 3:2, 18-19; 1 Tim 4:7a; Titus 1:12-13
Peter, e.g., 2 Peter 2 is loaded with it
Jude, e.g., v. 12
The question, "Where does the NT urge us to behave like this?" is really a twisted question that includes a presumption against a positive answer. But, since Paul told us to follow his example (Phil 3:17), then I feel comfortable in claiming that his scorn for those who would harm the church is part of that example. Also, he explicitly told us that such people were to be reproved severely (Titus 1:13), and that immediately following the Cretan comment in reference above.
As to my concern about the implications of your view, it's simply that you seem to be arguing that the use of scorn is unkind and, therefore, unloving. Since it is obvious that the Lord used scorn, you seem obligated to conclude that He was unkind and unloving. Shouldn't that kind of argument trouble me?
Oh well, there comes a point where people just disagree and we've reached it. I don't agree with the standard approach around here, but I'd take it over the 'never say an unkind word' mindset that is killing the contemporary church.
John the Baptist, e.g., Matt 3:7
Jesus, e.g., Matt 23.
Paul, e.g., Gal 5:12; Phil 3:2, 18-19; 1 Tim 4:7a; Titus 1:12-13
Peter, e.g., 2 Peter 2 is loaded with it
Jude, e.g., v. 12
The question, "Where does the NT urge us to behave like this?" is really a twisted question that includes a presumption against a positive answer. But, since Paul told us to follow his example (Phil 3:17), then I feel comfortable in claiming that his scorn for those who would harm the church is part of that example. Also, he explicitly told us that such people were to be reproved severely (Titus 1:13), and that immediately following the Cretan comment in reference above.
As to my concern about the implications of your view, it's simply that you seem to be arguing that the use of scorn is unkind and, therefore, unloving. Since it is obvious that the Lord used scorn, you seem obligated to conclude that He was unkind and unloving. Shouldn't that kind of argument trouble me?
Oh well, there comes a point where people just disagree and we've reached it. I don't agree with the standard approach around here, but I'd take it over the 'never say an unkind word' mindset that is killing the contemporary church.
Permalink
05/15/08 @ 05:58 39 Comment from: chris [Visitor]
lilrabbi:
*wink*
*wink*
Permalink
05/15/08 @ 06:45 40 Comment from: k-wg [Visitor]
Uncultured One,
My question was not, where did they use scorn?, but rather, where did they so regularly and consistently mock and insult those with whom they disagree--where did they behave as dissidens does? I don't find anything in the verses you cite, especially when they are taken in their context (as they should be!), that quite attains the deplorable quality of Christian love exhibited here.
When Paul invites the Philippians to imitate him, that, too, should be taken in context--not as an exhortation to wish false teachers castrated, but rather as an exhortation to follow Christ unswervingly.
You and I agree, in seems, in our distaste for dissiden's modus operandi. I'm not sure that you were suggesting otherwise, but the options for discourse really aren't limited to:
1. condescending, insulting, scornful ridicule
or
2. mushy, gushy, flattering kindness
Are Christians becoming so afraid of #2 that they think #1 the only alternative?
My question was not, where did they use scorn?, but rather, where did they so regularly and consistently mock and insult those with whom they disagree--where did they behave as dissidens does? I don't find anything in the verses you cite, especially when they are taken in their context (as they should be!), that quite attains the deplorable quality of Christian love exhibited here.
When Paul invites the Philippians to imitate him, that, too, should be taken in context--not as an exhortation to wish false teachers castrated, but rather as an exhortation to follow Christ unswervingly.
You and I agree, in seems, in our distaste for dissiden's modus operandi. I'm not sure that you were suggesting otherwise, but the options for discourse really aren't limited to:
1. condescending, insulting, scornful ridicule
or
2. mushy, gushy, flattering kindness
Are Christians becoming so afraid of #2 that they think #1 the only alternative?
Permalink
05/15/08 @ 07:31 41 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Well, I suppose now is as good a time as any to reassert myself in the “conversation”. I’ve withdrawn for several reasons, the first being the more interesting.
The first reason has to do with the nature of the attack upon my humble person. [It’s ok, really, I just consider it another star in the crown to be bestowed upon me in that disembodied place in the great by-and-by. I can take it. sniffle-sniffle]
But seriously, the question was asked if I thought I was being loving here on Remonstrans. I’m sure all good men can imagine my shock upon hearing these words. So I responded by offering an Apostolic example, one which I thought bested—or worsted—my remark on several counts. The response was interesting: it was simply rejected. No discussion, no lexical clarification, no exegesis, and no sensitivity whatsoever to semantic plasticity…nothing. I offer Text A which you must find binding; you offer Text B which I attribute to error: Paul didn’t say it, or if he did, he didn’t mean it, or if he did mean it, he shouldn’t have.
Brilliant.
What a genius I am for contriving to lay out for display such a fine example of “conversation”. Aside from the serious questions of Revelation already alluded to, there is simply nothing to add. It’s not that this couldn’t make for an interesting seminarian’s midnight revel, it’s just that it doesn’t matter. I shall continue to assert Text B as dispositive and k-wg, with that naïve earnestness, continues to assert Text A is dispositive.
Who loses in this game? People committed to engagement or people suspicious of its abuse?
Uncultured One replied with a string of examples encompassing J the B (a personal favorite), several Apostles, and Christ himself. I would think that is sufficient to be getting on with, but No. Apparently not.
Take a look at that one in Titus [1:13], the word is apotomos. By it Sophocles meant relentless or severe. Take a look at the context: the Apostle warns Titus to “correct them rigorously”. The word is used again in II Cor. 13… [’ina] “that I may not have to deal sharply”. One would reasonably conclude that absent an Apostle to step in and deal sharply, the rigorousness in correction would be even more urgent today.
Clearly an experienced reader would like to know exactly what all is intended by the word apotomos, and he would not be wasting his time to see this relentlessness or severity exampled in Scripture.
This is all very interesting in this context, because far from the setting forth dismissive examples of fundamentalist excesses, this goes right to the crisis of the moment. We aren’t arguing here about how short the hair should be or how many lashes one deserves for having a Simon & Garfunkel cassette. We are talking about how one contends with doctrinal corruption in the church…and to remind everyone again, we are talking about people who think, say, and publish that the perfect church is a place where people say whatever they want. This is engagement?!
We are talking here about the most simple-minded people aggressively imposing heterodoxy on the church.
It is amazing that in this Evangelical Manifesto the signatories admit their own moral failures and go on at length to plead for a hearing. In fact the New Testament makes undeniably clear that these moral failures are the reliable marks of false teachers.
Why don’t you guys just admit it: your problem is not with me or Carson or MacArthur or Mohler; your problem is with anyone who won’t lie down and accept your heresies. Just admit it. C, Mac and M have been loving toward you, even when your numbnuts get on national television to defend a church’s use of yoga.
Face it, guys, there is no argument here. There is no discussion, there is only whining. Tony Jones cannot defend his doctrine, he’s admitted it in print. It may be years before he knows how wrong he is. There is no compelling connection between postmodernism and the church such as you describe, we know that.
You seem to be the last to be finding out. And there is no tone you’ll find acceptable because you simply won’t be corrected. You won’t even be corrected by nasty-mouth Driscoll.
How sad is that?
The first reason has to do with the nature of the attack upon my humble person. [It’s ok, really, I just consider it another star in the crown to be bestowed upon me in that disembodied place in the great by-and-by. I can take it. sniffle-sniffle]
But seriously, the question was asked if I thought I was being loving here on Remonstrans. I’m sure all good men can imagine my shock upon hearing these words. So I responded by offering an Apostolic example, one which I thought bested—or worsted—my remark on several counts. The response was interesting: it was simply rejected. No discussion, no lexical clarification, no exegesis, and no sensitivity whatsoever to semantic plasticity…nothing. I offer Text A which you must find binding; you offer Text B which I attribute to error: Paul didn’t say it, or if he did, he didn’t mean it, or if he did mean it, he shouldn’t have.
Brilliant.
What a genius I am for contriving to lay out for display such a fine example of “conversation”. Aside from the serious questions of Revelation already alluded to, there is simply nothing to add. It’s not that this couldn’t make for an interesting seminarian’s midnight revel, it’s just that it doesn’t matter. I shall continue to assert Text B as dispositive and k-wg, with that naïve earnestness, continues to assert Text A is dispositive.
Who loses in this game? People committed to engagement or people suspicious of its abuse?
Uncultured One replied with a string of examples encompassing J the B (a personal favorite), several Apostles, and Christ himself. I would think that is sufficient to be getting on with, but No. Apparently not.
Take a look at that one in Titus [1:13], the word is apotomos. By it Sophocles meant relentless or severe. Take a look at the context: the Apostle warns Titus to “correct them rigorously”. The word is used again in II Cor. 13… [’ina] “that I may not have to deal sharply”. One would reasonably conclude that absent an Apostle to step in and deal sharply, the rigorousness in correction would be even more urgent today.
Clearly an experienced reader would like to know exactly what all is intended by the word apotomos, and he would not be wasting his time to see this relentlessness or severity exampled in Scripture.
This is all very interesting in this context, because far from the setting forth dismissive examples of fundamentalist excesses, this goes right to the crisis of the moment. We aren’t arguing here about how short the hair should be or how many lashes one deserves for having a Simon & Garfunkel cassette. We are talking about how one contends with doctrinal corruption in the church…and to remind everyone again, we are talking about people who think, say, and publish that the perfect church is a place where people say whatever they want. This is engagement?!
We are talking here about the most simple-minded people aggressively imposing heterodoxy on the church.
It is amazing that in this Evangelical Manifesto the signatories admit their own moral failures and go on at length to plead for a hearing. In fact the New Testament makes undeniably clear that these moral failures are the reliable marks of false teachers.
Why don’t you guys just admit it: your problem is not with me or Carson or MacArthur or Mohler; your problem is with anyone who won’t lie down and accept your heresies. Just admit it. C, Mac and M have been loving toward you, even when your numbnuts get on national television to defend a church’s use of yoga.
Face it, guys, there is no argument here. There is no discussion, there is only whining. Tony Jones cannot defend his doctrine, he’s admitted it in print. It may be years before he knows how wrong he is. There is no compelling connection between postmodernism and the church such as you describe, we know that.
You seem to be the last to be finding out. And there is no tone you’ll find acceptable because you simply won’t be corrected. You won’t even be corrected by nasty-mouth Driscoll.
How sad is that?
Permalink
05/15/08 @ 08:20 Leave a comment:
Remonstrans
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| << < | > >> | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Misc
Archives
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- In Reply To Kevin Corcoran
- Trucker Frank, Webisode 2
- Couch Potatoes
- The Ethos Of Emergence
- Ben Stein Talks With Monsters
- Rich And Layered
- The Heart Of Darkness
- In Reply To Billybob And His Many Friends
- Lighting up Frank
- The Remonstrans Billboard
- My Journey
- Take Me Out Of The Ballgame
- Beaks And Talons
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007