Dialogue, Baby, Dialogue (and a short statement of application)

Part 5: Dialoguing with others on the whole Gender debate

As you know, we are all about dialogue around here and I have three people to whom I owe some feedback on the gender issue. I also owe a brief statement on how I apply my understanding in a church context. So without further ado, let's figh... err... dialogue.

Interacting with "Not-nervous-egalitarian" Jim Robinson, part 2

(if you want to read Jim's comments they are found here and here)

Greetings once again Jim,

I appreciate your interaction. I like interacting with people I disagree with. Hopefully this can be helpful for both of us. I am going to disagree with a good deal of what you said. Some of it will be because I think your facts are wrong, some of it will be because I have a different opinion, some of it will be because I don't think you really understand the other side of the issue. It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that you've read Grudem and Piper and assumed that anyone who calls himself a complementarian is a piperite and/or a grudemite. That is simply just not the case. I wouldn't assume you agree with Paul Jewett's take on this issue just because you are both egalitarians (he argues that Paul is wrong and mistaken). On all of these issues there is a wide spectrum.

I think we agree in principle on something but you need to rephrase it. You keep saying that the complementarian position is based in post WWII legalism. Don't say that. The complementarian position has been the default position of the church for two thousand years. People who are complementarians today are complementarians because that is the most straightforward interpretation of the words of Scripture. That doesn't mean its right, but don't you have to at least acknowledge that this is a hermeneutics issue? You keep saying that this is a legalism issue. It's not a legalism issue. It's a hermeneutics issue. Saying that we can't listen to rock music, drink wine, go to movie theaters, or grow facial hair are legalism issues. "Christian" rules that have no biblical basis can rightly be called legalism. A position that has a clear biblical foundation is not being held because of legalistic extra biblical rules. It may be a misunderstanding of the "spirit of the text" but its not legalism. There are complementarians who say that this is an authority of the Bible issue. They would accuse you of not accepting the Bible's authority. Clearly, this is not fair. Its an interpretive issue. To label it as either an authority or legalistic issue is not fair. Let's properly define the debate. Although some legalists may be complementarians, just like there are some egalitarians who believe that the Bible is riddled with errors, does not make it a legalistic position or a legalism issue.

You are absolutely right when you say that the Bible was written in a patriarchal culture. Until recently, we've always had a patriarchal culture. But because the culture is no longer patriarchal does not mean that we should abandon complementarianism. And likewise, as you would fairly argue, just because the culture in Biblical times was patriarchal does not mean it was ideal or God's design. The question at hand is not what the culture is or was but what the Scripture teaches or doesn't teach.

Let me also say that in some aspects of the word I am a feminist (can a man be a feminist?). I am against the abuse and devaluing of women. Although I think that the Bible teaches differing roles for men and women, I am strongly opposed to the abuse of women. If a woman had a husband who was abusing her I wouldn't just tell her to submit (would anyone????) I would have the bum thrown in jail! Neither I nor anyone I know would tell a woman whose husband had an affair and divorced her that she was going to hell. What does that have to do with the issue though? I 100% agree with you about the pay issue (see my last post). As a friend of mine (Nate Duriga) said, "the abuse of the position does not mean that the position is wrong." It seems that you're arguing against the abuse of the issue but have not addressed the issue itself.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you or being unfair. I am trying to be as fair as possible. I know that there are people on both sides of the issue who aren't. Let's not imitate them.

Disagreeing with my own side of the debate: Dialogue with Surls

Because I've already posted several comments on your blog, some of this may be a bit repetitive but I'll try and keep it brief.

For part 1 (Robust Complementarianism from Genesis):

I don't think Genesis offers much in the way of supporting complementarianism, Robust or otherwise. It can be read in light of complementarianism, and then applied assuming the complementarian position, but I don't think it can be used to prove it. I don't think any of your points (man being mentioned first, woman called "helper, etc..) can be used to prove the complementarian position. I think that they are all CONSISTENT with complementarianism, but I don't think Genesis teaches it.

Let me say in support of your point that if God had intended egalitarianism, I would think you would see it taught or implied in Genesis but you don't. The culture assumed a patriarchal society and there is nothing to counteract it. one of the reasons complementarianism is not taught in the Old Testament is that I don't think it needed to be. The instructions in the NT are clearly corrective in light of some issue that needed to be addressed, apparently more than once in more than one context.

Part 2: The Rest of the OT

Yeah I had a lot of beefs with this post and you kind of retreated a bit (at least you said you shouldn't have posted it) so I won't reattack it. I don't think there's really a case there.

Part 3: The New Testament

I was surprised at what passages you didn't deal with but it seems that you are focusing more upon the issue as it relates to the marriage relationship and not in the church, so that's probably why you dealt with the material you did. Regardless, I only have good things to say here.
Very good points about the "traditions which I handed to you." There seems to be a universal formula here that Paul and Peter both use. Certainly this is something universal, not merely situational because some wives were subverting things. Right?

And Duriga, with whom I just can't seem to disagree

As I've told you in person Nate, it rather disturbs me that our takes on these issues are so similar, especially considering how similar our backgrounds are (homeschooled, Liberty, NBS). But I really have nothing to disagree with in your post. Even worse, you stole a lot of things I wanted to say. All I can do is highly recommend that everyone who reads my blog and doesn't read his should read his second-to-last post. It is well stated and points out many issues that need to be addressed from our side of the theological fence.

So to finish... here's me doing what I don't want to do....

All right, I admit it. I don't know how to apply my nervous complementarianism yet. That's part of the reason for the 'nervous'. But my uncertainty cannot be an excuse for not applying something. So here is how I would apply my position, but keep in mind, my position is still developing.

-I would not have a woman as a head pastor of a church.
-I would not have a woman preach to the whole church.
-I would have women on staff of a large church. I don't care what their position title is- pastor directer whatever- because pastor isn't really a biblical position (elder is, and though I am in theory a multiple elder guy, but I don't think there's practically a big difference. I don't have a problem biblically with the way it developed). Regardless, a woman on staff should be paid the same as a man would for the same position/work.
-I would allow women to teach at a seminary
-I would allow women to teach certain classes at a church
-I would believe it is my responsibility as the husband to lovingly lead my household. I would discuss and makes decisions jointly with my wife. The only time I would ever "use the submit card" is in an area where I felt strongly convinced biblically about something. Even then I would always try to reach a consensus. There would, I'm sure, be many many times when I would submit to my wishes to my wife's wishes (like what we're doing friday night, what I'm wearing to the Joneses, what house or neighborhood we move into etc...).

Is there something I'm leaving out that I need to address?

This completes the primacy of this issue on my blog. I will continue to interact with Nate and Austin as they deal with the issue. For now, I'm going to continue my work on my "Apology of Hell" and I think I may do some stuff on a theology of animals. Nate and I have discussed some ideas for what we are doing next. More on that later.

Why I'm a Nervous Complementarian (part 2)

(If you have not yet read part one, please do so before reading further)

This issue is not a favorite topic of mine, as you may have already guessed if you've been reading, but it is important and so we all should work and think through it. At the end of this post I will not have thoroughly worked through the issues, I will merely have expressed where I am in the conversation. To work through it, I need yalls help. Conversation and dialogue help us to see and understand these issues from a wider and more complete perspective. Dialogue won't settle the issue, most likely, but it will help all of us make better and more informed theological decisions.

My last post was an explanation of why I am a Nervous Complementarian, with the emphasis obviously on the nervous. This post is why I am a Nervous Complementarian, and the latter aspect of the title will be the focus. I'm going to approach this topic three ways. First, I will explain the reasons that my 'nervousness' is unconvincing, in other words I'm going to try and answer my own objections. Second, I'm going to answer Jim Robinson's (a 'not-nervous egalitarian') comment that he left on an earlier blog post. Thirdly, I'm going to explain the reasons I have for remaining in the (most likely) losing camp.

Nervous but not THAT nervous....

In my previous post, I gave four reasons for being 'nervous' about my complementarianism. The first was my natural preference for complementarianism. Unfortunately for my natural preference, this is no way to choose theological positions. If I had my way, there would be no hell, there would be no sanctification (just instant glorification), there would be no Satan, no curse, and no meticulous predestination issues. Everything would be bright and sunny with singing butterflies, dancing trees, and talking animals. But I do not base my theology on my preference. It is important that we recognize God as God and that we make no attempt to hyper-arrogate ourselves to the point where we are pronouncing right and wrong. Before we talk about "wives submit to your husbands," we have to firmly establish "theologians submit to your God." Submission is first and foremost a requirement of us humans before God. I have to accept things I don't like and/or understand.

My second reason for being nervous is that I am unsure of the validity of many (or most) of the complementarian 'proof texts'. This uncertainty remains. But there is not a single egalitarian proof text that makes me doubt my complementarianism. The Galatians 3:28 might be a legit proof text for the essential equality of all humans (although that is even suspect), but it says nothing about roles. Surely there are still apostles and teachers? Surely there are still those who teach and those who do not? Those with spiritual authority and those without? Honestly, I don't think this passage has anything to say to the primary question at hand about the roles of men and women in the church and the home. The other primary proof texts are references to women in perceived places of authority. But not only are these passages descriptive not prescriptive, they are all ambiguous. Junias (Romans 16) is listed as an apostle but with her husband (presumably). Apostle has a semantic range that includes those with apostolic authority and those without. There's too much ambiguity and too little hard data to base doctrine or praxis here. Phoebe was a deacon but I believe in female deacons so I feel no need to address her. Priscilla's taking of Apollos aside does not conflict with what I believe is permissible and, again, is done in conjunction with her husband. There just isn't enough Scriptural basis here to say that Scripture teaches or prescribes egalitarianism.

The third reason (the role of culture in making these decisions) is probably the most difficult for me. As I study church history, it is striking how much the culture of the times influences the theology of the period. This isn't always bad, but it should cause us to be cautious and be sure we do not make theological decisions because our culture "tells us to." Some argue that the Gender Roles issue is basically the same as the slavery or race issue. I disagree. There are several passages in Scripture that seem to appeal to "transcultural principles." I Timothy appeals to Creation. I Corinthians 11:10 appeals to "the angels" (whatever that means). These passages do not appeal to reasons that are culturally based. It remains true that God created man first, this hasn't changed over time. While I do not pretend that this short argument has settled the issue, there are difficult hurdles for egalitarians to jump.

The final reason I gave is my embarrassment brought on by the arguments of some of the louder voices in the complementarian camp. But to be honest, the other side is just as bad, possibly worse. They are just as shrill and unreasonable. They appeal stubbornly to some very poor argumentation. I can't escape association with bad arguments and bad arguers. They are everywhere and on every side.

I don't mean for these answers to be final or conclusive. My point is only that these objections themselves are not final or conclusive. This is a complicated and difficult issue. Those who pretend the issue is simple or are over confident in their position are often not dialoguing, just arguing. Arguing is a waste of time. It entrenches both sides deeper and deeper into their positions as we become more and more invested. Let's stop arguing and start dialoguing!

Dialoguing with Jim

To begin with, I want to thank you Jim for your comment. We seem to agree that this issue is not an essential and that good brothers and sisters can disagree. That's a start anyway.

But I must protest, Jim, that I do not think your analysis of complementarians as a whole is at all fair or accurate. The complementarians I know are complementarians because they really and honestly believe that the Scripture teaches it. And even if we are wrong, it is quite an understandable misunderstanding. There is a passage that says "I do not allow women to teach", there are several that tell wives to submit to their husbands, and there are no passages that clearly institute women as authoritative leaders in the church. I think it is very unfair to attribute the position to legalism instead of "struggling with what the Bible has to say." I'm sure there are some complementarians that are legalistic, but stereotyping and judging everyone to be of the same stripe is radically unfair.

Secondly, I feel compelled to point out that the position has nothing to do with "post WWII culture and legalism." This has almost universally been the practice and teaching of all Christians for the last two thousand years. It has only been recently that it has been challenged. The position may be wrong, but those who hold it are holding the traditional position of the church. You almost seem to imply that it is the other way around.

Thirdly, as relates the relationship between the trinity and egalitarianism/complementarianism, I did not mean to say that these two issues have NO correlation whatsoever, but that such a correlation is not NECESSARY thus it is not legitimate to argue from it. One could reasonably hold to subordination in the Trinity but be an egalitarian. Another could reject subordination within the trinity and be a complementarian. There might be a correlation, there might not be. All I was trying to say is that you can't resolve the gender debate with the trinity debate. Both sides have tried to do this and I do not think it is a fair argument.

Finally, I just want to point out that the fact that people in your church have a problem with the issue does not mean that it shouldn't be an issue. Many people have a problem with hell. There have been times in my life where it really tried and even tortured my faith to accept the doctrine of hell. Today, most people have a real problem with the exclusive nature of Christianity. Even if this issue is on a different level that these issues, we have to teach the "whole counsel of God", whether we like it or not. We can't just tickle ears and tell people what they want to hear. If the complementarian position is correct, we ought to teach it.

Your objection to the designations given to the opposing camps is not completely unjustified. But keep in mind that there are varying degrees of complementarians. Piper and Grudem are further down that line than I am. We should be careful when we give these designations to remember that "one size does not fit all." To assume I agree with everything that Piper and Grudem say is not fair and not true.

I enjoy my friendship with you and your wife and am glad that we all agree that this is not a core belief. I am willing to change my position, as I hope you are, if convinced (thanks Luther) by sound reasoning or the Holy Scriptures. I would enjoy discussing this further with you. I promise not to burn you at the stake if you promise not to burn me!

Why I, in the end, come down as a complementarian.

This post is already long and I really don't want to be on this topic forever but let me just give the core reason I am in the complementarian camp. And for that I appeal to Blaise Pascal.

Many of you are probably familiar with Pacal's wager. If you don't remember let me refresh your memory with a couple sentences. Blaise Pascal struggled with the existence of God. Did he exist or did he not? In the end he decided that believing in God is better than not believing in God because if you believe in God and are wrong, no big deal. If you reject God and are wrong about his existence, BIG DEAL!!! So he concluded that believing in God is the "safer bet."

What does this have to do with complementarianism? There is no instruction in Scripture to necessitate egalitarianism. The instructions that seem to teach complementarian may be culturally based and may no longer apply. Then again, they may, perhaps, be trans-cultural and are still valid applications today. I'd rather be wrong because I took the Bible too seriously, than to be wrong because I didn't take cultural implications seriously enough. This may seem weak. It is. But because I think that there is more Scriptural warrant for complementarianism and almost no scriptural warrant for egalitarianism, and remain unconvinced that these instructions are only given because of the culture of the day, I will remain a soft complementarian until soundly convinced otherwise. I could go further into proofs and Scriptural interpretation, but most of you have probably heard it all a million times before and I feel no reason to be redundant and irrelevant.

Where to go from here...

I do not consider this issue as firmly settled in my mind. I want to remain in the conversation. I honestly think that this is where we should all be. This conversation is still going on and it is too early to pull out and entrench ourselves confidently on our 'sides'. Let's keep talking, continue learning from each other, and continue to seek to arrive at a better understanding of what Scripture teaches before we "forever make up our minds."

I have probably two posts left on this issue. Next time, I'm going to move towards applying my version of complementarianism in the church and home. My fifth and hopefully final post will be interaction with whatever Nate and Austin end up saying about the topic. I look forward to dialoguing with all of your responses.

"NERVOUS Complementarianism"

I am glad that Austin is so happy about our new topic of conversation. If someone knocks me off, I expect that he'll pay for the funeral, because I am going into this kicking and screaming. I can't possibly win with this debate. If I go one way I am a compromiser, a Judas in the eyes of fundamentalist conservative Christians. If the other, however, I have committed the worst possible crime in 21st century American culture: discrimination (buh buh bummmm...). Even in my initial post, in which I tried to be as noncontroversial as possible, I probably offended somebody. Contrary to common (?- I hope not) belief, I am not looking for controversy, only dialogue. Unfortunately, both sides tend to be polemic and antagonistic to any view contrary to their own. Also unfortunate is the fact that I think my side is losing, and is losing for the wrong reasons. But more on that later.

I don't want this blog to be old hat. Many of my readers are NBS students and this conversation is getting rather tiresome, and one-sided. The classes which address the issue seem to only attack one side of the debate. The students from only one side of the issue actually speak up, the rest of us are afraid to. Austin says he feels like a repressed minority. There are good reasons to feel that way, I certainly do at times. But even if repressed, we are still alive, though some of us may be a little nervous. So let me tell you why I am nervous, why I am a complementarian, and then proceed to address this topic from some rather neglected angles. I don't want to just repeat what everyone else says, many of them say it better than I would. Today the first: why I am a nervous comeplementarian.


Why I am a Nervous Complementarian

To begin, let me say that, without any hesitation, I strongly prefer egalitarianism. I really really want to be one. First, it would be so much easier apologetically. I dread the prospect of girls in my youth group asking me about the subject. If confronted by it when sharing my faith, I would likely hem and haw and try and change the subject. It is counter to the way our culture thinks and believes and offensive to the vast majority of the populace. Secondly, egalitarianism is winning. It's time to wake up and smell the Zeitgeist! The numbers of women pastors, elders, and deacons are on the rise and the male population in churches are dropping. This trend is in no way about to reverse itself. It will likely continue to gain momentum. In liberal seminaries, women strongly outnumber men. I would not be surprised at all if this is true of conservative seminaries in my lifetime. As men are becoming less and less important in society, so they are in churches as well. There is a strong temptation to jump into the bandwagon lest I be hewn down later for my opposition. Lastly, and most significantly, I don't think of women as inferior to men at all. In looking for a wife, I am NOT looking for a pretty wallflower to keep house, have babies, and sit before me wide eyed for instructions and instruction. I want someone who will challenge me, make me think, force me to be better, someone who I can help grow, but who will also help me. I want an equal, not a servant-housewife. But unfortunately, what I prefer to be, has no relevance with what is. But again, more on that later.

The second reason I am nervous (the first being my preference for egalitarianism), is the uncertainty I feel towards the interpretation of many of the 'complementarian proof texts'. Austin's first post argued for complementarianism from Genesis. I'm uncomfortable doing so. If I read it as the original audience would have, I'm not sure I would get complementarianism from it. Maybe I would, I've never been a Jew and I've never lived in ancient Israel or wandered in the wilderness with Moses, but I'm not very optimistic that I would see "male leadership" leap up at me from the scroll and slap me in the face. The most famous proof text (I Timothy 2), is a very difficult and complex passage and does not warrant hasty or overconfident interpretation. The "wives submit to your husbands" passages are accompanied by "slaves obey your masters" passages. Most of us would quickly and without hesitation condemn slavery. But what about... hmmm.... well....

The third reason I am nervous is the ambiguity surrounding my own understanding of what role culture had in the original composition of Scripture and has today in the application of Scripture. The absence of any real condemnation upon Slavery? The role of Women in society? Head coverings? The role of fornication in idolatry? What about Homosexuality? How do we apply teachings to issues that are radically changed since the composition of the Old and New Testament autographs? It's not very easy.

The final reason I am nervous is that I am often embarrassed at the arguments of other complementarians. Many use bad argumentation, especially ad hominem and slippery slope arguments. Some refuse to dialogue. Some refuse to acknowledge the validity of others' arguments and the insufficiency of their own. Some refuse to acknowledge the complexities of the issues. Some are pugnacious and rude. I don't want to be associated with many of my position.

It would be very easy for me to switch over. I would like that very much. Unfortunately for what I would like to do, there are other issues to deal with. Next time, Why I am a Nervous Complementarian.

As something of a postscript...

Jim, thanks for your comment. If you're still reading, I plan on responding to you in my next blog post. Long time no see by the way.

nervous man image

Further and Future Dialogue

This post has two primary purposes and both are reflected in the title, though neither can probably be discovered therein. The first is to further our dialogue on The Shack. If nothing else, this book has encouraged a great deal of dialogue and for that I am very grateful. I am going to respond to my good friend Austin and his thoughts on the Shack, as well as my sister's thoughts and reflections. Both make good contributions to the conversation. This dialogue would be worthless if it did not help us better shape and nuance our views and I hope this post will indicate some movement in my own thoughts and evaluations about this now almost notorious work of fiction. We'll see how long this is a big deal though. Sometimes these fads fade so quickly that you look back three months later embarrassed at how big a deal you thought some temporary fad was going to become. But dialogue, especially theologically focused dialogue, is never a waste of time so I will not fear that we are wasting out time.

The second part of this post will concern the future topics of conversation for trinity of bloggers. Obviously there are others who read and interact with out blogs, and for all of you we are very grateful, and we read and interact with other blogs, but Austin, Nate, and I have formed a little trinity in which we read and interact with each others thoughts and questions. I have some proposals for where to go from here. More on that later.

Talking about The Shack... part two

Responding to Crista,

First of all let me just say how much I love and appreciate my little sister. It may, and probably does, seem like this is said out of obligation but it most emphatically is not. My sister has grown and blossomed into not only a great writer, but a very good thinker. I appreciate her thoughts on the Shack and her obvious commitment to staying true to the truth of God's word. If you wish to read her thoughts they are found here. Do not fear, she is nowhere near as longwinded as I am.

I think one of our major disagreements, as we look at the book, will stem from the way we see words. Remember that it is the gospel that is the stumbling block, not an outdated vocabulary. Trying to witness to someone in greek or latin or hebrew will certainly be a stumbling block but there is absolutely nothing wrong with removing that stumbling block! So it is with many words that we, as Christians use. The word Christian is loaded with connotations that are offensive, many of which have nothing to do with Christianity. Our decision to use or not use the word should take into account the response and perceived meaning of our listeners or readers. Same with Institution, Church, religion etc.... Unfortunately we often replace these words with words that imply other unintended meanings (relationship, follower of Jesus, etc...), or are different but don't really help solve the problem. Nate, Austin, and I have talked a lot about the religion/relationship question and I think we have come to a consensus that neither term is sufficient by itself. Another kind of example is the church that I go to. Our name is "Prairie Baptist Fellowship", substituting fellowship for church. This is good because fellowship does a better job communicating what a church should be. This is very insufficient however, because, outside of our Christian bubble I do not think we use that word anymore. It doesn't actually communicate what we want it to communicate with the audience with which we want to communicate. It might do better than 'church', but it doesn't quite do it. If nothing else, I just want to indicate how very hard, difficult, and complicated all of this is. Don't take this wrongly, but I'm not sure you've had enough interaction with people outside of the Christian community to understand how much we live in a postchristian society. We must reevaluate our language and means through which we communicate if we are ever going to be able to reach people. I want ot make sure you understand that I am not advocating changing the message- we ought to remain committed to the gospel- but changing the language and means through which we communicate that same message. I think that Young's intended audience is not average Christians who go to church every Sunday, but disillusioned people who have either been "hurt" by the church or suspicious towards organized religion. I think he understands these people well and is able to speak their language. But will his book be read by these people? I have no idea.

I primarily agree with what you say about the tameness of God. I think the main problem is his view of submission and authority. He is overtly egalitarian, in every single relationship.

I think the biggest problem with my review, as long as it was, was that I did not interact with Young on the church. He was far too harsh on the church and did not properly focus upon the need we, as human beings, have for the church body, or the obligation we should have to it. Thanks for pointing that out.

As far as the whole thing about the Bible, I understand what you are saying, I think, but I don't have as big a problem with it as you do. You have to understand that one of his purposes was to correct the 'putting of God into a Bible-sized box'. This is very offensive to those of us who place so much importance on the Bible, and rightly so, but it is a fair critique in many ways. Often we think of our own personal Bible reading as the only way we can know and grow in our relationship with God. He wants to remind us of the importance knowing God in other ways, especially prayer. Unfortunately, and this goes back to my previous point, he misses one of the most important sources, the church family. This is unfortunate.

I don't intend this to be a last word between us about the topic. I would appreciate your further thoughts if you have the time and inclination.

Responding to Austin Surls

Secondly, I would like to interact with Austin's thoughts (though not really a review of) on The Shack. I so wholeheartedly sympathize with Austin's lament about Systematic Theologies and Commentaries, but I am short on solutions to the problem. I also want to express my appreciation for Austin's background research on the author and the provision of various links to his blog, defenses of the book, and explanations of some of the controversial aspects of the book. Unfortunately for Austin's newly discovered love of controversy, I have no beefs with his thoughts and have almost nothing else to say.

I will give short responses to his four questions however. I sincerely hope this will make him happy.

Is it okay if people are being deeply affected positively by a book other than the Bible? If that is okay, why is it okay?

Of course! For books written by Christians, is this not a role of the body of Christ? To encourage and help each other? If this comes in book form, so what? If from a nonChristian source, discretion should be used (although this is also true of Christian sources) but I do not believe that they are devoid of any benefit for a believer. In some sense, all truth is God's truth. Human beings, lost or redeemed, still bear God's image and are capable of reflecting that image through their writings, paintings, and poetry. We need to be careful, but with wisdom, we can derive benefit from a great breadth of sources.

Is the Church as bad as Young makes it out to be?

No. The church is not perfect, but it is not as bad as either Young or most of our generation makes it out to be. The church, for all of its faults, is beautiful and we ought ot be extremely grateful for it.

Is it possible to over-emphasize the relational aspect of Christian faith?

Yes, but with so many words spilled about this topic on our blogs already I'm not going to add to them here and now.

What do we do with the Old Testament descriptions of judgment? Does that square with God as presented in the New Testament?

Good question. I think it does square with the God of the New Testament. Remember two things: the wrath of God and Jesus on the Cross, and the book of Revelation. God's wrath does not go away in the NT and His love and mercy are not absent in the OT. This question may warrant further conversation.


Future Dialogue Proposals

Austin Surls wants controversy. Unfortunately we have had a difficult time finding areas with which we all disagree. This is frustrating the poor boy. I may have a solution. Dr. Willsey handed out a list of current controversial trends in theology. It is full of good ideas for future blogging conversations. Austin has the handout, Nate has seen the handout, but here are a few of them that interest me. Let me know (the rest of you too) which interest/excite you the most.

Annihilationism
Openness Theology
Emergent Church Movement
Evangelicals and Catholics Together
Divine Immutability
New Perspective on Paul
Gender Roles
Personal and Ecclesiastical Separation
Bioethics
Theology of Worship and Music

I would be willing to go into any of these, and I imagine that there will be good chance for some benefit and controversy along the way. Let me know what yall think.

Continuing the Conversation: Response Blog

Art: Eduardo Bertone y Martin Boccicchio





As you know if you follow this blog, I occasionally dedicate a blog post to respond to Austin Surls and Nate Duriga and their respective blogs, and they do so for me and each other as well. Due to Christmas break, there was a general slowdown in the "blogging production" but it would appear that things have begun to pick back up and so here we go again. Apologies to my readers for the two monstrously long posts consecutively. I hope I didn't lose anybody because of it.

Responding to Nate Duriga

Nate has several posts to which I have yet to respond, but I will try to say something about all of them. Some responses will be more full than others however.

In a response of sorts to Austin's impertinent questions about the word 'spiritual', Nate quotes Johnathon Edwards concerning the relationship between our spirituality and the Holy Spirit. Being spiritual is related to the Holy Spirit and His works. He rightly warns us to be sure that this is clearly defined when we use the term, as others may easily misunderstand us as their definition may be very different than ours. As I reminded a guy in my youth group today, communication goes two ways: intended meaning and received meaning (I'm sure there are technical terms but...). If we are to be teachers and/or preachers, communication will be very central to our profession and we must take responsibility to communicate in such a way that the intended meaning is conveyed successfully. So my question is, should we use words like spiritual, which are so easily misunderstood, from the pulpit or in the classroom? Or should we begin to use "substitution words/phrases" that people will more readily understand?

To make Austin happy if for no other reason I'm going to disagree with Nate a little bit on his evaluation of postmodernism. I don't there is so much in conflict between postmodern thinking and everyday life. I think that the difference is between science and postmodernism. Postmodernism has drenched philosophy, the humanities, ethics, and theology, but it has not had much, if any, effect upon science. Science and the scientific establishment is still not much doubted. I'm curious to see if this changes. Where the uncertainty lies is not in the findings and declarations of science or the scientific community but what they mean. Similarly I don't think that the findings and 'hard facts' of history are wholly doubted, just the significance of these findings. Global Warming, or Climate Change as they now call it, has been presented as a scientific fact. We haven't gotten to the place where people doubt science... yet.

I liked Nate's Christmas post and I share his frustrations concerning the 'Christmas Spirit' and whatever that means. As I said in the comment section, I think when the world at large speaks of the 'holiday spirit' it generally means feeling good about oneself through the celebration of whatever tradition or belief system you prefer. As for what the Christian Christmas Spirit should be I agree with Nate. Philippians 2 baby!

I don't really have much to say about Nate's latest two posts. I liked the poem he posted and I liked the book he reviewed. In our culture of tolerance, it has become way too easy to wink at sin. It is hard to take sin seriously. Our society has the attitude of "everybody messes up - its no big deal- just deal with it man... don't have a cow... chill out... don't feel guilty or bad about yourself... you have to feel good about yourself." As Christians we ought to reflect God's attitude towards sin. We should hate sin but be merciful, graceful, and forgiving towards sinners. We ought also to be humble because we are ourselves very far from perfect. Loving the sinner and hating the sin are not opposite ideas that are held in tension. We should hate sin because we love the sinner. Sin not only is offensive to and rebellion against God. It is not only harmful and destructive towards other humans. It destroys the sinner. It pushes them further from God, further from what God created them to be. Even those who sin in their own 'self interest' are deceived. In the end sin destroys. My sin is a cause of pain, struggle, and sorrow in my life. I don't think I can think of any sin in my past that I now rejoice in. Loving people should and must include hating sin. Sorry for the rant.

Responding to Austin Surls

I won't respond to Austin's Shack stuff yet. I'll wait for his promised thoughts that are yet coming.

That leaves me to respond to his three posts on postmodernism. I'm beginning to tire of the word. Maybe I'll become a postpostmodernist so we can debate that instead... if I'm ever able to understand it that is. Anyway...

I appreciated Austin's survey of postmodernism. It was helpful and fun to read. I also liked his 'positives about postmodernism' and fairly well agreed wholeheartedly with what he said. I said some things in the comments but otherwise I'll leave that as that.

That leaves his 'postmodernism is dangerous' post. I agree that postmodernism is both good and bad, depending upon which aspects of the system we are discussing. I'm not sure I appreciate Johnny Mac's pugnaciousness at all. I grew up in a pastor's home and I still very much appreciate and love my father, his life, and his ministry. Unfortunately as much as I like Dr. Macarthur and love my dad, they both, as is characteristic of many of their generation, have a propensity towards pugnaciousness and a closeminded 'I've already made up my mind' theology. I respect my father. I respect Dr. MacArthur. But their approach to theological dialogue is unhelpful (notice I did not say their approach to theology... but their approach to theological dialogue). Their approach is either ignorant of church history or arrogant in regard to their own ability to 'figure everything out'. Hard foundationalism ignores the fact that the theological system one holds to did not exist (completely) five hundred, two hundred, even one hundred years ago. Theological dialogue is essential to doing and understanding theology. Too often conservative theologians are too defensive of their own theological system to dialogue with those with whom they disagree. They do not read others to understand or learn from them but to debate and defend themselves. When you refuse to learn from certain sectors of the theological spectrum, you tragically limit challenges to your thinking, which, consequently, limits your ability to actually think about what you believe, Defensive theology allows no room for correction and does not lend itself to real dialogue. Let's always defend the truth of the gospel, but be open to the possibility that we have made mistakes along the way. As our own theology would remind us, we are fallible sinful beings and do make mistakes... a lot of mistakes! That being said, I do want to emphasize that I appreciate many things about Dr. Macarthur. I will echo his confidence in the core of the gospel. But let's be gracious and humble while we dialogue with and learn from each other, even those with whom we strongly disagree, and refrain from judging the genuineness of their faith. That's God's job and He does it better than we do.

Responses, Explanations, and Apologies

Preliminary Stuff (you don't really have to read this)
I really like the dialogue that Nate, Austin, and I have going on our blogs. It's very helpful to be able to interact with others' ideas and receive feedback for your own. I also appreciate the feedback I received from others. Thanks Brenda for your comments. They were helpful. Thanks for those of you who emailed me reactions to my novel attempt at a novel. According to my facebook blog network, I have twenty something readers. If there are really over twenty people reading this thing, shame on most of you! The purpose of this blog is conversation. I want to learn from our interactions. If you read my blog without giving me feedback you're cheating!!! But I'll forgive you, for now.

A quick and unnecessary apology
My 'Hell-pful Answers' to my 'Hellish Questions' were completely unhelpful. I know this. These are some questions that I am intending on considering in the near future. I just began by trying to raise some questions to get us thinking. My one sentence 'answers' were not intended to settle the question or explain the issue.

Brenda and Keith,
I have tried to subscribe to your blogs but for some reason I get an error message every time I try. I don't know why that is. Any ideas?
All right enough of that....

Engaging with my Blogging Buddies, you have to read this...
Nate's blog has two new posts since my last interaction with it. His first is a reflection upon the Mystery of God. The book of Job, which he mentions, has rocked my view of God. The essence of God's reply to Job is 'who are you puny little man to question me?' God is so much greater, so much wiser, so beyond our understanding that any attempt to fully comprehend Him is doomed to failure. The universe is not only beautiful and glorious, but complex and so huge that we will probably never know how big it really is. How many stars are there? The puniness of man is indeed a humbling thought. Yet God wants us puny humans to know Him. Eternally growing in our knowledge of God will indeed be a highlight of the eternal state.

Puniness brings me to Nate's second post. Most all of us will be very small players on this world's stage. I may sometimes dream of greatness, but in all likelihood, the vast majority of people on this planet will never even know I existed. The willingness to be a small player in God's plan requires a lot of humility. But humility is the most important attitude for us as we approach God. The proud may be applauded and praised by this world, but God delights to use puny and insignificant people. The willingness to submit to this is vital if we truly want to be used by God.

Austin's blog asked for more definitions! May he be thirsty in battle!!! What does spiritual mean? C'mon SURLSY!!! You're killing me man! It means whatever you want it to mean! Haven't you been paying attention? We're postmoderns now! Tell me what it means to you and I'll tell you what it means to me. This interchange is not for the purpose of debate. Whatever works for you is fine, just respect my truth please.
Okay just joking - kind of. If you are talking to an average joe, I think you'll find that they mean different things by 'spiritual' than the Bible means or we seminarians mean. I haven't seen the negative connotation that Heather and Drew are talking about (see comments under Surls' post). I think that spiritual usually relates to one's 'inner self'. Someone who is spiritual is someone who is in touch with himself, nature, God, or whatever. Someone who is spiritual is someone who believes in things besides what you can see. I think it has very little relation to objective truth. It's not truth that you can see but truth that you feel. It's not truth that you persuade others to, you just experience it for yourself. Its not something that can be proved, only felt and experienced.
I do not think we should use the word 'spiritual' without making sure that others know what we mean. I think that the concept is very confusing and murky to most people.
Scriptural definition? Too difficult for me to do quickly. How's this? Spirit is immaterial substance. God is nonphysical. Spiritual is that related to the nonphysical or to the Holy Spirit. But we must not divorce the spiritual and the physical worlds. What we do in the body physically is related to our 'spiritual lives'. This is crappy but I think its the general idea. What do you think Surlsy?

The picture by the way is postmodern art. Tell me what it means to you....