Tuesday, December 28, 2010

My Plan for Reading the Bible This Year


Yes, very well said, Dr. Burk. Thanks also for the resource/plan. I believe that I am going to do a chronological in 2011. Some other plans for those that might be interested (if it’s alright, Dr. Burk):

Discipleship Journal: http://www.navpress.com/images/pdfs/9781576839744.pdf

One Year Bible Online: http://www.oneyearbibleonline.com/index.html (several plans)

The bible straight through: http://www.heartlight.org/cgi-shl/reading.cgi?plan=straight&ver=NAS

Chronological: http://www.ewordtoday.com/year/49/cjan01.htm (several other plans)

Biblegateway: http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/readingplans/ (several plans)

ESV reading plans: http://www.esv.org/biblereadingplans (several plans)

Microsoft even has a one note template for Bible in a year! http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/templates/TC011487731033.aspx

Read actual comments.

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Is Your Doctor a Believer?

Just a point of clarification, the highlighted finding about end of life is not "taking all steps to preserve the life", but is (from the report) "non-religious were more likely than others to report having given continuous deep sedation until death, having taken decisions they expected or partly intended to end life,". I am too cheap to buy the report, so the findings may flesh out a little more along the former for all I know.

And, RD, you touch on something that occurred to me as I read the report. What is driving the decision? I don't know, but I wonder if expenses are a driving factor. Some of the difficulty does lie with the idea of "terminally ill" and where a line is/should be (for treatment). I would venture that those holding to an expense-based viewpoint would err on the wrong side of life versus money. But that is total speculation and isn't from the report (though it is interesting that the abstract's conclusion does state "Greater acknowledgement of the relationship of doctors' values with clinical decision-making is advocated.").

New Comment
Correction, I read the (very brief) abstract, not the report.

Read actual comments.

Friday, August 27, 2010

Giberson Shows His Hand

I do hesitate to chime into a very well worn debate, but.....
I’ve heard the God deceiving part a few times (not just here, natch). I don’t get that conclusion. In a nutshell, our view of life here is based on a fantastically incomplete set of knowledge and that conclusion (deception) leans towards a reduction of the incredible power of God and an elevation of what we see as well. Dr. Mohler did specifically address this (one of his first points). In a fantastically crude analogy, if I send my sister flowers on her anniversary, she would say that, judging from evidence, her husband sent them (her husband always sends her flowers on their anniversary, he always uses a particular florist, he always sends her favorites). I haven’t deceived her, she made assumptions (well thought out, but still faulty). Furthermore, I sent her a note that said it was I who sent them. She wouldn’t protest saying no, they must be from her husband, nor would she call me a deceiver. Furthermore, what you say tends towards the idea (to me, overtly says) that if science says something should be, then it must always have been that way and always should in all circumstances. This brings a Jeffersonian view to the bible, since miracles would be deceptive (science says people can’t raise from the dead, water doesn’t turn into wine, the sick don’t have demons, water-soaked meat cannot combust, etc.). The view of aging the earth is rife with assumptions on our part. We have an incomplete knowledge. The great liar is there, prodding and saying did indeed he say... Now, all of that said, I’m not saying that this is a proof of YEC, I just think the deception bit is at best a shaky argument.

Read actual comments.

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Another Complementarian Caricature

Another fun one was the Bruce Ware page: http://www.dennyburk.com/bruce-ware%E2%80%99s-complementarian-reading-of-genesis/

but I think the # of comments (or Dr. Burk) killed the comments section.

BTW, does it seem odd that the piece cited as a caricature is addressed with a caricature (again)?

New Comment
Sue (#56):

I consider being a neighbor to my pastor and elders, my police officers, my supervisor, my mayor, my church elders, etc., I would hope you do as well. Yet to each of those I submit. Again, I think that (submission = subjection) is a poor caricature.

Just for fun, I searched Dr. Burk’s site for "love one another":

This is not to say that Dr. Burk’s blog isn’t proportionally given to a subject, mind you, I just thought it was interesting. And, in fairness, this is only one aspect of Dr. Burk’s writing/thinking. See also his book (the best book about Greek infinitives upon which I've ever taken a nap. OK, I don't own the book, but once I did try to buy it and the shop clerk said I wasn't smart enough. Or something like that.).

And, I think the central teaching of scripture is not love one another. That is part of the summation of the law. The central teaching of scripture is God-centered, not me or us-centered. Perhaps that splitting hairs or looking too far into what you wrote, though. I just wanted to point it out because too often we see Christianity as a liberation mechanism (liberation from poverty, law, rules, rough lives, etc.) or an empowering mechanism (you can be happy, healthy, your own boss, rich, etc.) rather than a worship of our Creator. Again, perhaps I misread there.

Also, an interesting read about the 2000 Κεφαλή(s) by (have a seat, Sue ;-)) Dr. Grudem:

New Comment
I added a comment, but it's likely on hold. I mentioned that this blog is only one aspect of Dr. Burk's thinking. I also mentioned his book but meant to also include the Boyce College Blog and his sermons as well (I think there's a link to his podcasts up at the top). I'm sure that there is a wide cross section of topics there.

New Comment
Don's right that the commands are subordinate (to verse 21), but I don't think parents are called to submit to their children (not offspring, mind you, children) or masters to slaves. It's submitting one to another, not submitting to each other. You are right that Christ is our example, that we should serve (to quote from that portion of scripture, He came to serve, not be served), but I would stay far away from saying Christ submits to me.

Also, 1 Peter 3 does not direct the text to be about non-believing husbands, but is saying that wives should submit. Believers or not. Actually, I believe the "so that" text points more towards being disobedient to the word in all manners (believers or not, and perhaps this is what you meant also). Even taking that narrow of a view, it does not merely mean to be submissive to an unbelieving husband. Verse 7 wouldn't go back to the beginning of 3 but goes back to the start of the "reasoning" which is stated at the end of chapter 2, which is about being called for a purpose. So, just as Christ may have (in flesh) wanted to revile or call out, He didn't. I see that as following Christ's example of not wanting to do what the flesh wants to do, but to be sinless (obedience to the Father). That's not a great explanation, but I am more interested in brevity here.

New Post

When Dr. Grudem visited our church, I had the (very short) opportunity to interact with him. I commented on his book Evangelical Feminism and the resistance to the meaning of "head" by many. He nodded and quickly said how daunting the command to love our wives as Christ loved the church was and that considering that passage is such a heavy passage for him. Am I loving my wife as Christ loved His bride?

New Comment

First, just wanted to say that as much as I disagree with your exegesis, I definitely appreciate your tone. As difficult as that is in comment format.

I think that the chiastic breakdown rips only a portion of it away and disturbs the natural flow. Here is a look at that passage that I thought was well done by a wonderful erudite of the scriptures (I’m paraphrasing to conserve space).

Be careful how you walk:

  • making the most of your time

  • understanding the will of the Lord

  • being filled with the spirit (truly, not getting drunk ;-))

  • speaking psalms

  • singing to the Lord

  • giving thanks

  • submitting one to another

    • Wives to your own husbands (as opposed to all women to all men)

      • But husbands, sacrifice for your wives

    • Children to parents

      • But do not discourage/provoke your children

    • Slaves to masters

      • But masters, be gentle with your slaves, knowing you both have a common master

There are other minor variations on that, I know, and I may be misplacing some of the subordinates, but I do believe that is a structure supported by the verb tenses and writing.

I don’t doubt anyone’s conviction and don’t think that anyone makes whimsical decisions (well, about this). Based on the 400+ comments, though, to reason out what the text says appears to first have a frame of what it should mean, then read the biblical text and interpret.

Teachers may expound and parse out the passage, explaining what it means, but should also be quick to say be concerned with what you are commanded. As Thomas pointed out (and Grudem and Ware point out), that is to love my wife as Christ loved the church.

Read actual comments.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Desktop Extinction

I also wonder how much of a factor the Vista, er, problem has stagnated PC sales.

I enjoy having the freedom of a laptop, but goodness the drawbacks are utterly frustrating (which, for me, keeps me festooned with a desktop).

New Comment
I meant to add on to the first sentence.

And conversely, how much will 7 pick up sales (in what might be a temporary manner).

Read actual comments.

Who is the Bible for?

In a nutshell, I think that we can import our culture too much, but to say that we must understand the bible only if we understand exactly what was in the mind of Paul, Peter, Amos, etc. is dangerous at best. We do use culture, but the bible was authored by God to all, not (to take the example above) authored by Paul to Timothy (highlighting the difference between author and scribe, essentially). To me, to view the bible through our culture first or through (whatever century) Jewish culture first is a gross importation of culture.

In a slightly related link:
Justin Taylor

New Comment

I disagree that you must understand Shammai and Hillel. Christ gives His context (He is the author, after all) to understanding. The fact that Christ says "except" tells us that He is speaking not on the absolute of whether or not, but in a nod toward the "when is it legal". Knowing the culture certainly sheds light on what the Pharisees’ motivations were, but the real question Christ is answering is, well, shown in what He answers.

New Comment

Well said (and James K., too!).

I might not categorize dispensationalism as quite in the category as open theism, egalitarianism and the acceptance of homosexuality, though (taking a plain text and obscuring it or expanding it as Donald does above). But I am not adroit enough to defend either side (not that I am in other categories, either, mind you).

New Comment
I suppose I see act as a Berean means study the scriptures, not culture first, then the scriptures. I see the view of the adding information not originally in the bible as a contradiction of the idea of being a Berean (i.e. eagerly studying the scriptures). And, I suppose, saying culture is what ultimately defines the meaning is flawed since we don’t a) know Christ’s thoughts (to speak specifically to this) and b) we still only have a good idea of Jewish culture. You have to assume what pieces of culture dictate meaning (and, in this case, attempt to peer into the mind of Christ). Over and over God states that we let the scriptures inform us. I guess I just see that God did write them to us to be understood plainly. I don’t think that it means that all scripture is easy, it’s not, but that’s a fractional exception (ha ha, punny), not a rule.

New Comment
The challenge is teleporting what the scribes (Paul, Peter, David, etc.) thought. Not only is that not something we can do, I don't think it's wise to try to discern reading between the lines. If we were to apply that thinking, then, as an example, Matthew would be incorrect in citing Isaiah as a prophetic writing about the messiah, Christ would have been wrong to correct the Jewish culture from Moses’ time, etc. In the end, I think that Christ went out of His way to make a grand example and say stop injecting our (self reasoned) ideals and culture (whether 1st Cen AD, BC or 20th cen AD) into His words. Stop making law say what He didn’t say. We do run the risk of teleporting God’s word into a relativistic cultural setting one way or the other. It seems a plain reading would be preferred over an inferential reading if at all possible. Or so go my thoughts.

And, just to make sure it isn’t lost, I think that both of us would pray fervently that we understand and apply what we are reading. Problems can arise in both camps (if this issue is taken as an either or, that is). I certainly don’t claim perfect understanding (as you would avoid as well, I think, well, I sure hope ;-)).

Read actual comments.

Friday, July 16, 2010

Bauer Reviews “In the Land of Believers”

Interesting quote:

...we have to remind ourselves of the ever-present tendency in all of us to judge morality by emotion. The most frequent reason I hear people supporting same-sex marriage is that they know some gay couples or individuals. Empathy is a noble human quality but right or wrong does not depend on who is doing the action or on how I feel about those people, just as judging an action wrong should not depend on disliking someone. This might seem obvious to a right thinking person but I have encountered many well-educated people who do not (or cannot?) make the distinction.

From Dr. Kenneth Howell who is involved in an interesting imbroglio. I do disagree with his final statements about how we make moral conclusions, though.

Matt Kaufman wrote on this story:

And finally, there's something affirming even about the tactics of Howell's assailants. Their eagerness not to refute him, but to silence him, is a reminder of how much the darkness hates the light. Is that how people secure in their convictions act?

New Comment

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. But the crux was not that there is emotion involved, but too many times it is used to establish one's position (that’s the main point). While this does go on both sides, the first place to start in a morality discussion is God’s word. On this issue, it does speak clearly. Just because those homosexuals I know are really nice people doesn’t change what He says on it. More importantly, just because more people accept it as OK doesn’t make it OK, either (I think, you know that).

Coupled with that, though, we do have to realize that our model is still Christ. Which means we really do call sin sin, yet we don’t avoid contact, simply pointing fingers and yelling (that is one thing that Kelly and others rightly identify).

Read actual comments.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Golf vs. Motherhood

1) Just to counter Zusanne’s post, my experience in training and dealing with youth is quite the opposite of Zusanne's (by and large, I don't think either she or I would say one or the other as a blanket statement for all homeschool kiddos), particularly in the area of respect for authority. Perhaps I live in an area that (for some reason) has a strong homeschooling (I am not personally homeschooled, mind you) community. The admonition is well worth keeping in mind, though*!
2) Dr. Mohler had an article this morning about this subject (more or less). His ending quote:

And when it comes to happiness, we must aim for something higher. Christians are called to joy and satisfaction in Christ, and to find joy in the duties and privileges of this earthly life. Every parent will know moments of honest unhappiness, but the Christian parent settles for nothing less than joy.

Why Are Parents So Unhappy? And Who Would Settle for Happiness, Anyway?

* - And our homeschooled brothers and sisters might see post 12 as a tacit condemnation of homeschoolers in general.

Read actual comments.

10th Wedding Anniversary

Happy Anniversary, Dr. Burk. I pray for you to be prophetic in your poem.

Read actual comments.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Russell Moore on NPR


I don’t speak for Dr. Burk, but there is (in my opinion) a massive difference between regulation and ownership/management. I haven’t been able to listen to the NPR, but it sounds like (on the surface) the former is what is championed here versus the latter for government run health care (and many who oppose Obamacare proposed regulations to address costs). It also seems there is an aspect of the latter that involves forcing the rich to pay more and while I’m not in that category (of footing the lion’s share of the bill), I think that is unbiblical (we don’t sin to get others to not sin). There’s more than that, too including much of government run health care not addressing the root problem, just throwing money at it, taking debt in a manner that is unwise, etc. Thoughts, or am I off base?

Aaron also makes a good point, too. I’m interested in reading Anderson’s piece (along with listening to Dr. Moore. I so enjoy him when he speaks!).

Read actual comments.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Are We Making Men the "Bad Guys"?

This is one of those things that simultaneously drives me crazy and (as a daddy) makes me feel a tad safer for the kiddo. I coached a little girls soccer team. One thing that those little sweeties loved was hugs. I couldn't help but be a tad aloof (essentially) at times. The parents were great and I worked hard up front to gain their trust first and foremost. I put lots of precautions in place (never alone with any of the girls ever, etc.), too. It’s sad, but, I think, necessary. There are plenty of stories to say why we are as paranoid as we are, though. As fathers, this is where we work hard to model biblical lives and, when possible, be around other biblical men as well for kids to see (I am so blest that my daughter has been around some wonderful men in my church).

Read actual comments.

Monday, June 21, 2010

Russ Douthat on Feminism

Just a general smattering of comments.

  1. I don’t think there are many Christian folks who claim divorce (or adultery) to be good and God-pleasing (or, rather, the number is exceedingly small that sees things like no-fault as God-honoring). That is not the same for homosexuality. But maybe that tide is changing as well. Regardless, if there were, you would see vehement outcry, I would think.

  2. I think that complementarianism (don’t know precisely what non-egal is as that could be, technically, anything…also, don’t know what egalism is ;-)) is shown in the garden, pre-fall.

    • Order of creation

    • Commands going to man

    • Naming responsibility, etc., given to man from the beginning.

    • Responsibility of fall going to man indicates the responsibility was there prefall.

    • Pre-fall complementarianism (order) is subsequently affirmed in NT. More of a point of affirmation.

    • The dreaded idea of God making a "helper suitable"

    • Woman created "from man".

    Dr. Ware does a good job of explaining it, if you're willing to listen.

  3. That’s why it is so odd to so many of us that women should not be considered worthy....

    It is a decree from scripture that is not based on worth, value or dignity or ability. Though some do see authority as an amount of worth, sadly.

  4. I agree with MW about Dr. Mohler's assessment. Also, I think Dr. Mohler had grave reservations about Palin because of her familial responsibilities. But I may be mixing my podcasts.

New Comment


Just to make sure I understand correctly, in your sampling ;-), your parents uplift your siblings’ divorce as God-honoring?

Part of the issue is that it isn’t necessarily an apples-to-apples. A divorce is not an on-going thing (necessarily). Many churches do deny marrying unbiblically-divorced people. I know that churches deny membership (often the only potential impact a church body can have) based on someone denying a sinful divorce. The same goes for discipline and turning away by a church. Also, biblically, practicing homosexuality is categorically called sinful. Divorce is something that has “except” attached to it. Additionally, in many cases, homosexuality is something that externalizes itself. Divorce…not so much.

All that doesn’t mean that we don’t improperly take a laisser faire attitude toward divorce. We should be involved in others’ lives and strengthening, sharpening, etc. Too often we do avoid the hard questions. We also may not react properly to those dealing with homosexuality. But it doesn’t mean that the bible is suddenly wrong on either of those.

Read actual comments.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Liberal Dependence on Abortion

I probably should have left this well alone, but killing the innocent to assuage guilt is simply abhorrent. My heart just breaks when I read that. So much of scripture is written to protect the innocent and to make our bellies fat we destroy the most innocent of us all. Goodness. Beware those who call darkness light.

Read actual comments.

Monday, May 3, 2010

Limbaugh vs. Moore

Doc B:

I agree that it is a naturally occurring substance and is somehow processed by our lands/oceans (though I am lacking in scientific education in such), I would say this is outside the realm of natural occurrences. While just as much may be seeping from the earth, isn’t that kind of like saying swallowing 1 quart of water all at once is fine since our bodies produce that much every day. Again, I’m coming from a non-educated (in geography/ecology) viewpoint, so I could be completely misunderstanding.

While I think Rush is very often merely being inflammatory (as opposed to inflammatory with a good point ;-) ), I do wonder if he had more to say about it (well, other than to accuse the left of purposefully doing it). I’m willing to bet the statement can be taken at face value as it sounds like something Rush would say.

Read actual comments.

What about Derek?


And, to follow that, Christ also said if you love me you will follow my commandments. That is why this issue is such a touchstone as scripture is direct on this issue (as opposed to inferential, e.g. consuming alcohol, how to provide for the poor, etc.) and if scripture is from God, that is His command. It’s not a diminutive issue at all.


While I assume you simply happened by, to which statement are you referring? I assume you mean implication in that if someone who claims to know him yet does not keep His commandments, he is then a liar, then I would say I am without defense there.

I forget who it is, but there is a quote that we are more troubled by what is plain in scripture than by what is vague.

Read actual comments.

Friday, April 23, 2010

NFL Draft

I agree with the talk I've heard lately around the water cooler. Most NFL picks are a crap shoot (see Ki-Jana Carter, Ryan Leaf, Byron Leftwich, etc. and Keenan McCardell (sic), Shannone Sharpe, Tom Brady, etc.).

I do slightly disagree about the guts comment. I think that we see the field littered with incredibly talented guys who were a bust (I have a whole theory about that) as well as guys who had "OK" talent but had the tenacity to pursue. Of course, talent will go further since in a lot of cases those guys have physical discipline instilled in them to a certain level.

Given that, I believe that Tebow will excel. But I may eat those words as well.

Judd: No changies! No changies!

Read actual comments.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Jennifer Knapp is NOT worthless

To his credit, I think Don meant focusing, not correction as a whole. And, to that extent, I think that is Nathan’s point as well (though I am interested to hear what church says that being prideful, etc. is OK and it is loving to embrace being prideful).
I think we should be cautious when discussing such a deep, impactful (sic) sin. But it’s still that. And calling sin good and calling darkness light is something that is (imho WELL) beyond disobedience. A difference between embracing and celebrating versus committing and turning back again.

Read actual comments.

Friday, April 9, 2010

McLaren Doesn’t Want To Hurt Anybody?

Also, all the groups mentioned would agree on the same foundational beliefs (we are separated from God by our sinfulness, Christ was offered in our place, He rose. Scriptures are God’s word, etc.). This is where McLaren is so far gone. Darius and I may disagree on divorce allowed, but not on what is the tenet of salvation. Don and I may disagree on women in the church, but not on what Christ did for us. See Mohler on theological triage.

And yes, even with that in mind, we still do quarrel because of the passions within us (God did foresee our fallen nature, see James).

I agree, too, that, as a very good friend of mine put it, sometimes you just have to get downwind of yourself. Especially in a web-forum, harshness can come across easily. But also, disagreements on the 2nd tiers doesn’t mean relegating to eternal punishment.

Read actual comments.

Friday, March 5, 2010

A Make-believe Christian Infiltrates Thomas Road Baptist Church


Yah, that brings an interesting question to mind. A while back, there was a girl championed for going into a clinic posing as a pregnant 15 year old, exposing the atrocities of PP, etc. (I don’t think any here did, mind you). I do have a pause with these. On the one hand, I have to say that I applaud exposing frauds for what they are (PP or professing but non believing/living-it-out Christians). But the deception is something that churns me. It’s like so much else that we do. We try to rely on our own strength, wisdom and savvy and try to leave God out of it. I.e. in the end, I, too find it sinful as it is.

I can understand if a Christian brother or sister sees a problem with this, but why anyone outside of the church? That’s completely subjective.

New Comment
Actually, David, while we will disagree on it, I would say it unfathomable to hide from someone what would destroy them. In a physical sense, I tell my children that if you don’t learn how to tread water, you will die. In a spiritual sense, it should be no different.

As far as the homeless example, it might be. Living among a group can be done without active deception, I suppose. But yes, you’re right, it could be the same.

Read actual comments.

Friday, February 19, 2010

Did I get married too young?

Well said, Charlie! The man I would consider my spiritual father always said “get yourself together so you can give yourself away”.

In my view, I think that we’ve put too much emphasis on man-based marriages. Today, it seems all about “finding the right one”. There is too much of a reliance on personality, predilection, and, well, feelings. While those things impact a marriage, marriages should be rooted in God first. Getting that right can overcome anything else. NOTE: Neither am I saying that we should ignore all personality traits and/or perceived compatibility. But as your marriage grows, even some of those original signs of compatibility will likely wane or disappear.

And Larry, if you are pointing to the replacement of biblical counseling with pop psychology and personality tests, I have to say what a dangerous proposition that is (at best). I agree that one or two sessions with a pastor or a day seminar isn’t it. Get a good mentoring couple. Seek out the greybeards in your church. Find godly people to pour into you, don’t go and drink the sewage of current culture and what’s currently fashionable. Psychologists can often get the symptoms right, but a solution divorced from God is doomed to failure*. And that, I think, is where the church has often failed. From the replacing of biblical counsel with current psych trends to a jettisoning of discipleship and any semblance of church authority, the church has fostered the undermining of marriage (and, in turn, family).

* - i.e. there are godly psychologists who marry the tools of analysis available with God’s word, but they are few, at least based on my experience and anecdotally speaking.

Read actual comments.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

He Loves Jesus but Hates God


I agree that we read in light of the at-the-time culture, but must also maintain a healthy dose of the fact that God authored the words to be transcendent (in one way or another). Taking the at-the-time culturally relative-izing approach to reading scripture (particularly when it comes to prescriptive versus descriptive) is equally damaging as porting every concept to 20th century America without regard to the original culture. The culturally static approach you seem to posit is dangerous at best. But I could also be completely misunderstanding how you mean to apply it.

Read actual comments.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

CBMW disagrees with the founding basis of Intervarsity


To be fair, you did mix two articles there. Robinson is pointing out that complementarian thought is singled out as counter IV (by those in IV) while open theism is being allowed in (and embraced by some there). Stiles is saying that IV is leaving it’s fundamental gospel-centric roots. As a matter of fact, with the sole exception of the following line:

An egalitarian stand on women in ministry is so sacrosanct that complementarians are unwelcome in IV.

Stiles’ article is devoid of egalitarian/complentarian comparison and focuses solely on IV’s (beginning of a) departure from "follow[ing] the outline of God, Man, Christ, Response."

I have to say that it’s disappointing to see such a miscommunication on your part. It seems that you are trying to discredit someone fallaciously.

New Comment

I said nothing about you focusing on one sole issue. I don’t find it offensive even though you might (although at that point, you might ask yourself your own question from a couple of comments ago). What I was trying to point out is that you state in your ending paragraph:

Stiles appears to forget that the roots of InterVarsity in North America were always egalitarian.

But nowhere does Stiles argue that the roots of IV are not egalitarian. His whole essay was that the roots of IV are rooted in the gospel and that they have tracked away from that. You took the “roots” information from the CBMW article and then erringly attached the CMBW article (and, I suppose, argument) to Stiles. You indicate with the connecting line that Stile’s article is saying that IV is leaning egalitarian now, leaving its roots. The thing is that nowhere in his essay does Stiles argue that IV’s roots are not egalitarian. His whole argument is that IV’s roots are in the Gospel and given their inclusion of Roman Catholics, a mantra of “deeds not creeds” and embracing McClaren, Bell, Chalke, etc.

You make a fallacious claim because you set up with an article by a different author who argues that IV should allow complentarian views to be represented and end with Stiles’ ending paragraph about IV’s abandoning its gospel-centric roots, but saying that Stiles denies IV’s egalitarian roots. Stiles’ argument had nothing to do with the CBMW article or its argument.

New Comment

I agree mostly, actually (‘cept I’m on the other side of the egal/comp line). But many to most would argue that since it is a non-salvific issue, it is a “tier 2” issue that should be dealt with in the church (sorry for the dangling prep), not in a parachurch ministry. I think that is Robinson’s argument. Plus, if one stakes a claim on comp/egal being a delineation that IV holds as not salvation-oriented, but just a tick below and would therefore be dangerous, it would stand to reason that open theism (Pinnock and Boyd) and trajectory hermeneutics (Webb) would fall in that same category, given they are at odds with a biblical view of God and the claims of the bible itself (or so I would see it).

Of course, that is a tad at odds with IVP’s publisher Bob Fryling:
"A great step forward on this would be to not vilify the opposing position as being unbiblical but in humility to recognize that different, very mature believers come to different convictions that should be discussed in an atmosphere of mutual respect for each other and the Word of God."

In the end, I do agree with Robinson in that a parachurch organization should be less inclined to elevate any tier two church issue to tier one (which, in the end, it sounds like IV does…..though I have very little experience with IV at all outside of anecdotal).

Compared with Stiles’ argument that there is confusion over the gospel, a “deeds not creeds” mentality (social gospel), that ”all the while IVP cranks out books that promote the same theology loved by my old religion department and chip away at the very foundation on which IV's mission stands…. books on open theism and postmodern contextualization.

New Comment

You said:

…in that one gender can prevent another gender from using their God given talents to preach, lead, teach, to expand the Kingdom of God.

I would say that isn’t true (I know, you’re shocked ;-). Just to cut to the chase, women aren’t barred from preaching, teaching or expanding the Kingdom of God in a complentarian view. Within the church? Yes, there are limitations God placed. And I know you don’t agree, but just because one doesn’t get to use her (or his) gifts the way she (or he) desires doesn’t mean it is a prevention of the expansion of the Kingdom of God nor does it mean that it is an offensive prohibition.

I know you see it as a human-derived……nay, a man-derived (ha ha) argument, but complentarity is biblically-based, i.e. God can prevent. As in God can prevent me from being an elder, God can prevent the Israelites from choosing a priest from any clan, God can prevent me from marrying a non-believer, etc.

New Comment


I appreciate the surrejoinder in the post after this one. Just to make sure that I didn't draw attention from the point of my rejoinder (though, I suppose, I cannot technically make a rejoinder), I thought I would revisit it here. You accuse Stiles of being ignorant of the founding egalitarian climate of IV and is somehow tying his argument to CBMW and/or complementarianism. Given your language (I find it astonishing that he could have worked for.....), it appears you are trying to simply discredit Stiles' in an attempt to then render his argument invalid. That is what I would say is a fallacious evaluation on your part given he makes no argument whatsoever that denies an egalitarian root.

If you hold to Open Theism or Traj. Herm., that's fine, state so and engage those points. In fact, you began to engage his argument in your recent post (though you are still trying to combine the two arguments). Your claim against him here (that he is claiming the roots of IV are not egal) is simply false.

New Comment

Yes, it is an extremely important issue (I agree with Robinson that it reflects one’s view of Christ to us). And the parachurch must allow or not allow women in ministry (thus thrusting their core view to the center). As a parachurch, though, IV is, in essence, calling themselves a denominational ministry (i.e. taking a sacrosanct view of egalitarianism to the exclusion of other bible-based views…….all the while affirming, in a way, open theism). That seems at odds with IV (the way I understand it wants to function) as a parachurch organization that doesn’t espouse one view and demonizing another. I agree on a level with Sue’s connection (though tenuous) between allowing women in leadership positions and complementarian teaching. Meaning allowing complementarian teaching would strain IV’s egalitarian stance (and possibly cause confusion). Or that’s how I understand it. Great stuff, Blake!

Read actual comments.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

John Piper and Inter Varsity

Perhaps I am missing something (I often am), but where does Piper condemn women leadership outside the church (parachurch)?

New Comment
Interesting, that would be an interesting read. Suzanne, do you have a reference?

Read actual comments.

Monday, January 25, 2010

Lesson on Repentance from The Tragedy in Haiti (Luke 13)

Great charge at the end! J.D. Greear (don't know who that is) had a great quote many probably saw on Twitter (not that I even have a Twitter account, mind you).
"'Preach the gospel; if necessary use words' is like saying 'Tell me your phone number; if necessary use digits'"

Read actual comments.

Roe v. Wade is 37 Today

Dr. Denny Burk had a couple of great posts, too.
Support Abortion Alternatives
Very Sad Picture from March for Life

The second really highlights the convoluted (or lack of) thinking on the part of those supporting abortion. Also, if you have a chance, go and check out the story from American Idol on Maddy Curtis. BTW, I don't watch Idol, just caught the link from boundless.

Read actual comments.

Saturday, January 23, 2010

A La Carte (1/22)

Expected and yet still startling stuff from Osteen........

"I don’t believe it’s just money — money is a part of it — but prosper is to give you a good life, meaning good relationships, and give you health," Osteen said, explaining the "prosper" phrase comes from the Book of Jeremiah. It’s to "give you a good job and money to pay your bills and do other things, but you know I encourage people to have a prosperous mindset." Osteen said......."It starts...with the vision that you have to believe that God can help you to get out of debt to fulfill your dreams," Osteen said. "I don’t think anything is going to happen if you don’t believe, so I think that’s where you start."

Read actual comments.

Children in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage

Interesting, Dawn. While being on opposite ends of the spectrum on God would make a discussion of homosexuality an impasse, a comparison of the vitriol on your linked site (presumably yours) demonstrates hate to be clearly falling in your camp (insult masquerading as being “painfully honest”).

While I also vehemently disagree with Nathan (one of them, anyway), he has a modicum of decency.

New Comment
So, just curious, but speaking out against (or praying for repentance of a sin) is hateful? I guess I don’t quite make the leap of logic from "let us pray that gay marriage won’t be legalized" to "hate". I love my uncle who abuses alcohol yet I pray fervently for him to repent. I love my buddy who think it’s OK to pilfer product from his deliveries, but I pray for him to repent. I love my family members who are gay very dearly, but I also pray fervently for their repentance. In every single case, I love each one of those but I vehemently disagree with (and pray for repentance of) their sin. In fact, I hate the sin and love the sinner.

Saying Dr. Burk or Christians "hate" because they disagree seems more of a canard to invoke the emotional card than a logical connection.

New Comment
Well, as far as harm to society, the health and vitality of society seems impacted given the lack of procreation. Studies have also shown marked increases in suicide and lower educational scores among children of homosexual parents and actively homosexual people are less mentally healthy. Additionally, disease-wise, children of homosexual are more sexually active and at an earlier age. There is also the reduction of gender recognition in children of homosexual homes. Something that also has little investigation but seems that we’ve seen associated with mental and social instability. The other interesting thing was the concept of committed and monogamous relationships in the gay community. It seems to be an open relationship, seen as long, but still temporary not a committed relationship. The problem is that I think that is simply the outworking of the destruction of families. Increasingly, most see relationships that way. Very sad. And very deleterious.

One challenge is (to both sides of this argument) that there isn’t a glut of information on it. Only a handful of studies (many studies cited to support traditional family values point to studies on fatherless homes) are completed. To ask the question, if there was a broad, long-range study (both sides wag fingers at the other’s studies right now…..rightly in many cases) that showed instability, increased violence, etc., in or against children of homosexual homes, would that suddenly be an argument for traditional marriage advocates in the political sphere or otherwise (in your opinion)?

Also, since rules can be put in place for polygamy, could there simply be laws drafted to allow survivor/health benefits, etc.? Is it about the legal benefits of marriage? Or is it more than that?

New Comment
promiscuity – Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.

Education – Sotirios Sarantakos, “Children in three contexts: Family, education and social development,” Children Australia, Vol. 21, No. 3, (1996), 23.

mental illness and suicide rates: Archives of General Psychiatry, Oct. 1999, Vol. 56, No. 10

Gender confusion: That was one from the news that homosexual activists were championing, I didn’t catch the citation.

I’ve never been accused of using $5 words (I typically limit my word spending to the dollar store). If you want a .02 ridden post of vitriol, check out Dawn.

Read actual comments.

Sunday, January 17, 2010

California’s Same-Sex-Marriage Trial

Darius is right that within a biblical framework, homosexual acts are perverse. Outside of a biblical framework, the definition gets more slippery, but currently it still would fall under “perverse”:
Obstinate in opposing what is right, reasonable or accepted

Right and reasonable are utterly arbitrary and wind up collapsing into accepted anyway. So, for now, given the public speaking on homosexual marriage, it is not seen as accepted (or right or reasonable). Hence, calling it “perverse” would, currently, be correct.

Now, with time, I think that will change. But that’s the catch. It’s just time, it’s just the winds of public. Without an absolute standard, everything falls to whatever and whoever can “OK” what they want. Or, might makes right. From a non-Christian stance, it’s just a changing time that will, I think (to the detriment of the culture) succumb to the immorality and sin of homosexuality. I find that heartbreaking, but men love the darkness.

From a Christian perspective, we can speak on what is asked of us from a biblical construct. Our true reasoning should always fall upon what gives God glory. In this case, we can’t support something that is expressly condemned in the bible. Even using medical reasoning against one sin or another will eventually fail (e.g. STD’s may be an argument to remain chaste in your marriage, but eventually medical science may come up with treatments or cures). Using statistics will fail as time has shown that statistics can be had to support nearly anything (eventually).

New Comment
Sue, your approach seems to be to drink deeply of the cistern of culture and go with our feelings, our heart, our emotions and reason based on anecdotal experience/evidence. That’s very counter to what the bible teaches.

New Comment
Interesting Sue. Very enlightening, too. So, then, with your second line, you are saying that you stereotype anyone who doesn’t fit your existential there is no truth construct. Fair enough.

I don’t know how the manhood question came into play on this. We were discussing homosexuality and the very specific condemnation in the bible. Just so that I’m not returning talking past you, I was referring to your apparent rejection of biblical condemnation of homosexuality (which has nothing to do with manhood or sports, but that’s a different story):

I live in a place where there is same sex marriage. This has been a huge shift in thinking for me.

Also based on your comments in previous notes, I made the (perhaps incorrect) connection that you support homosexuality (just to be inclusive here, man or woman) as an act/lifestyle/etc. that lines up with God’s word. If I am mistaken, let me know.

Regarding culture, TV, sports and twitter, that’s not the only aspects of culture (BTW, I don’t twitter, rarely watch TV/movies, but do play sports….when my knee is healthy, that is…). Culture is what informs you. So, as an example, your view on homosexuality is shaped by the environment (culture) around you: I actually know couples who are more stable, and happier than the married couples I know. That has nothing to do with Hollywood, etc. (though, indirectly, the way those around us are informed and swayed by the winds of culture wind up swaying and informing us when we are drifting along aimlessly without a bible-centric view).

New Comment
I am very saddened by the low view of marriage (and apparent abandoning of gender) but it truly breaks my heart to think of what caused such bitterness and resentment. My prayers go out for you and for those who hurt you. Not that these black and white words on a digital screen offer anything remotely leaning towards solace, mind you, I know. Only Christ gives that kind of peace. But my heart weeps with and for you.

Read actual comments.

The White Messiah Fable


I have thought it paralleled Pocohantas as well (not to say DWW isn’t there as well).

I agree with one comment made in the myriad of maelstrom over this and that is that the CG in the movie was really cool, but after a few minutes of “WOW!” the movie just didn’t have anything to sustain it at all. All plots are reused nowadays (hey, we’re even coming out with a film version of The A Team…….without Mr. T!), but at least many of those films make a narrow attempt at changing concepts or complications or….something. For me, I had immediate trouble getting over the laughability (sic) of using “unobtainum” as a serious part of the plot (seriously, come up with at least a tiny crack at a serious science term, not the butt of a plethora of engineering jokes) and the tree falling in the wrong direction, etc.. I also don’t often enjoy the pure evil you must hate him bad guy or really cheesy lines. But that’s all personal stuff. There are folks who enjoy that kind of a movie and so be it. But even outside of that, there seems to be some line of over-politicalization and religiousization that was crossed that really made me wince. And that’s why I wish I had read reviews prior and won’t be going again (and believe me, the movie studios are now cringing!). Again, so be it. Cameron has every right to make what I think is a poor movie with fantastic effects a less than stale plot overly politically correct film. He can even name the tribe leader Sal Jore, the General Jorge Whoosh and call the giant bombs Grapalm. He can even not care one wit that I have this opinion (I have a sneaky suspicion that is the case ;-) ). Oh, well. But it seems there is a add backlash against not liking this film that seems puzzling. To that, too, I suppose, I should say “oh, well.” So, Oh, well.

Read actual comments.

Howling about Hume not Hitchens

Christianity is first and foremost a faith of humility (Christ was lower than the angels for a time). What Hume spoke was not a conjuring of man, for to claim an elevated position over another’s words without anything outside of one’s self would be prideful. But this is God’s characterizing of himself. Hume was elevating not himself, but God. As Paul said, my boast is in the Lord. As far as Hume recovering as a person, I would say that being persecuted for the sake of righteousness might be what happens.

The fear of the LORD is the instruction for wisdom, and before honor comes humility.

serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials

with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love,

When you are cast down, you will speak with confidence and the humble person He will save.

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;

So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience;

1 Peter

Read actual comments.