Is Your Doctor a Believer?

http://www.dennyburk.com/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.

Giberson Shows His Hand

http://www.dennyburk.com/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.

Another Complementarian Caricature

http://www.dennyburk.com/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":
http://www.dennyburk.com/brothers-let-us-love-with-our-words/

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:
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tj/kephale_grudem.pdf

---

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
Thomas:

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
Don:

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.