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.