tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post115579723499344846..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Regarding Guilt by AssociationPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-30060764766437039562010-08-11T21:53:20.599-07:002010-08-11T21:53:20.599-07:00Good to read an oldie but goodie...
Thanks.Good to read an oldie but goodie...<br />Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-63951142875547285232009-10-07T10:59:45.834-07:002009-10-07T10:59:45.834-07:00I've been guilty of over-GBA myself, but have ...I've been guilty of over-GBA myself, but have caught myself in the last year or so noticing myself seeing it more clearly on certain blogs, how because someone drove down the same street as "teacher X" they must be in cahoots.<br /><br />Definitely something to be discerning in.~Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01819856178499938127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1156193874819747662006-08-21T13:57:00.000-07:002006-08-21T13:57:00.000-07:00>>>Sadly enough, the common mentality these days i...>>>Sadly enough, the common mentality these days is to assume if an evangelical pastor, teacher, author etc. quotes someone, that is tantamount to an endorsement. OF COURSE that is not necessarily true, but I have personally seen people in the course of my own ministry do this>>><BR/><BR/>This is really the problem. And why possibly the GBA problem has become so prevalent.<BR/><BR/>People are not reading scripture and only studying what is put in front of them at church. Much of it is dubious.<BR/><BR/>I was in a service not too long ago in a conservative church where the pastor said that Bono was saved. Who knows if Bono is saved but I thought it was dangerous for him to make that declaration in light of what we see. Should I question that pastors credibility? Guilt by Association?<BR/><BR/>Also, my former mega sells Osteen, Bell, Joyce Meyer, Dan Miller and all kinds of books in their bookstore. The attitude with attendees is that if it is in there, it must be correct teaching. And, Hybels is quoted in many sermons there. Should I question their teaching...guilt by association?<BR/><BR/>Let's say that Osteen is correct at least 10% of the time. So we quote him. But his other teaching if false. Have we led someone astray by quoting him? Is there Guilt by Association here? <BR/><BR/>I came across something Dallas Willard wrote that appalled me. In this book, he was saying that Christians who focus too much on Atonement are Vampire Christians. And we need to move beyond 'sin management' to Kingdom of God on earth stuff....<BR/><BR/>So if my Sunday School teacher loves Dallas Willard, should I be concerned? Is there guilt by association here? <BR/><BR/>I am just an ignorant person who is wondering where the line is drawn.Lindonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12655601618953971431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1156183880487890982006-08-21T11:11:00.000-07:002006-08-21T11:11:00.000-07:00While I agree with the tenor of your post, the phr...While I agree with the tenor of your post, the phrase, "and laywomen <I>especially</I> disturbed me. I'm not sure where that came from. I've read plenty of male bloggers that do the guilt-by-association thing too.Diane Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02442757505452061995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1156053801089262692006-08-19T23:03:00.000-07:002006-08-19T23:03:00.000-07:00I deleted my posts except for the last one where I...I deleted my posts except for the last one where I had to concede that I was wrong and that Carla was right. I repent for my bad attitude on this thread. Thanks Phil for being gracious.<BR/><BR/>Have a good Lord's Day all<BR/><BR/>ScottSBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10420768244670972014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1156042985076353412006-08-19T20:03:00.000-07:002006-08-19T20:03:00.000-07:00This was an excellent article and I am heartened t...This was an excellent article and I am heartened to see Carla and others open and accepting of it. It shows a true Spirit led humility and willingness to accept good council when they recognize it.<BR/><BR/>However I think Slice was let off far too easily. And I think everyone should take notice and be troubled by their lack of response on this thread or even on their web site.<BR/><BR/>As Christians we must always admonish in Love. And always seek as Paul encouraged, to bring brothers and sisters back into good fellowship. <BR/><BR/>There is a way in which to inform people of the dangers of the Emergent Church that uses Wisdom. And I believe that True Discernment knows Wisdom. It is not wisdom to use degrading, humiliating and down right disrespectful language towards people, no matter how much in error you think they are or how rude they become to you. We are to practice the fruits of the spirit at all times. <BR/><BR/>And in the internet blogging arena it is doubly so more needed. It is easy in this medium to lose all decorum. It gives a certain unrestrained frankness that can destroy a person’s witness.<BR/><BR/>I have found that Slice seems to consider itself above reproof. And this is a very dangerous place to be. None of us are above reproof. It seems to think that its job of "discernment" has to be above reproof. And this is downright wrong.<BR/><BR/>For this reason I do not believe that they have been unjustly criticized, or too heavily criticized by others. <BR/><BR/>To give an example, they had the horrible lack of wisdom to use the word Pedophile as part of a title in one of their articles. Do they not know how explosive that word is in today’s society and what it insinuates. This is not wisdom. This is arrogance.<BR/><BR/>Additionally they treat anyone who questions anything on their site as at the very least of being an unknowing sympathizer of the Emergent Church Movement.<BR/><BR/>Discernment with Wisdom should always lean towards Compassion. <BR/><BR/>Our Legal system was based on the assumption that it was better to let a guilty person go free rather than have one innocent person convicted. This was based on Christian albeit Enlightenment principles.<BR/><BR/>Shouldn’t Discernment Web Sites abide by this principle?<BR/><BR/><BR/>God Bless you Carla and DJP, you have recognized that God should always be given the glory and you have recognized when writings were moving away from doing that. humbled yourselves and repointed everyone to him.That man will not look towards men but towards Jesus!https://www.blogger.com/profile/15075494734530788029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1156017015301944382006-08-19T12:50:00.000-07:002006-08-19T12:50:00.000-07:00Brad:The first four paragraphs of my previous comm...<B>Brad:</B><BR/><BR/>The first four paragraphs of my previous comment were an answer to your comment.<BR/><BR/>The remaining two paragraphs, addressed rather amorphously to "someone" and "anyone else," was a general comment to everyone in general and no one in particluar. I was attempting to get the comment-thread back on topic and end what seemed to me to be a steady and growing stream of remarks (by no means all of them coming from you), using the meta here to discuss recent transgressions that people feel occurred on another blog.<BR/><BR/>I was trying to make it clear for about the tenth time that I have already said what I intend to say about Slice, and that even though I haven't said everything I might say about the subject, it's NOT the subject of this post, and what I <I>did</I> say was sufficiently clear.<BR/><BR/>After I've said that same thing so many times and the same question keeps coming up anyway, that sure feels like taunting to me.<BR/><BR/>However, I did not accuse you or anyone of doing that. In fact, I actually said that <I><B>"anyone else"</B></I> inclined to criticize Slice ought to take it to them directly and not post such complaints in the meta here, because to keep complaining about them or to fish for complaints from <I>me</I> about them here "implicitly violates the principle I wrote this post about."<BR/><BR/>I stand by that. I rather suspect if you hadn't immediately applied it to yourself (which was not <I>my</I> intention), you would have agreed with it, too.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155998488147933492006-08-19T07:41:00.000-07:002006-08-19T07:41:00.000-07:00Phil,This will be my last comment submitted to Pyr...Phil,<BR/><BR/>This will be my last comment submitted to Pyromaniacs so if you'd suffer me for a bit of brief clarification....<BR/><BR/><B>My link to Slice and my comments above also don't oblige me to do a detailed autopsy of Ingrid's post...</B><BR/><BR/>I never said that they should.<BR/><BR/><B>The fact that I have a link to Slice in my blogroll does not mean I have to agree with everything they say...</B><BR/><BR/>Why would you think I would adovocate this? Have you ever seen my blogroll? I link to folks I vehemently disagree with me all the time - so I can certainly appreciate this stance as it would be hypocritical for me to say otherwise.<BR/><BR/>But I never even insinuated this at all, I was just referring to one instance where the said instance related so very well (in my opinion, obviously) to what was wrote here. But I get it, Phil, we don't agree.<BR/><BR/><B>....not to mention taunting me to complain about them here</B><BR/><BR/>This is way out bounds here, Phil. I didn't taunt you and after reading my comment over several times, you had to read in and presume this intent into my words. I was hoping you'd see my point with a little background as to my thinking on the subject, but yes, I acknowledge that you don't agree at all so I considered the matter dropped.<BR/><BR/>Your comments about me expressing my opinions here as to Slice's tone is noted, and for that I apologize as well as for any unintended offense. <BR/><BR/>BradBrad Hustonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034379100231079992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155992659650374342006-08-19T06:04:00.000-07:002006-08-19T06:04:00.000-07:00Steve Sensenig: I'm glad you decided to post this ...<I>Steve Sensenig: I'm glad you decided to post this question here.</I><BR/><BR/>Carla,<BR/><BR/>No problem. Your correction of me on the other blog was quite warranted and fair, and I was more than willing to respond to that in this way.Steve Sensenighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04366847574145407186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155990362999000122006-08-19T05:26:00.000-07:002006-08-19T05:26:00.000-07:00fair enough Carla-I contacted Denise-and asked for...fair enough Carla-I contacted Denise-and asked for her email to speak with her privately.<BR/>I agree with your point. Please forgive me for my condescending tone, Carla-I do belive that both you and Denise are headed in a new direction.<BR/><BR/>ScottSBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10420768244670972014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155986566754175262006-08-19T04:22:00.000-07:002006-08-19T04:22:00.000-07:00In light of Dan's post (above this one) I'm not su...In light of Dan's post (above this one) I'm not sure if this is dead-horse-beating, but I would just like to respond to a couple of things:<BR/><BR/>• Steve Sensenig: I'm glad you decided to post this question here. <BR/><BR/>• scottyB:<I> "I'm glad there is a new direction at ENo and posts and comments like these will be repented of."</I> <BR/><BR/>You seem to be making my apology at ENo into something that it wasn't. I publicly apologized for times that I may have gone over the line in what I believe to be mockery of those I disagree with – <B>and</B> – those times when I might not have been as careful as I could have been when communicating to readers who is influencing who, in evangelical circles. This has at times, been misread as GBA, and that is not the message I ever intended to send at all. As Phil said earlier, we (especially women) need to be very careful with how we address these things publicly, and that has been a conviction of mine for quite some time now.<BR/><BR/>If you have issue with what my co-contributor at ENo, posts at other blogs, then I’d suggest you address her, at the blog she posted at – rather than make it look like this is an "ENo" issue, or a Carla issue (Phil made it perfectly clear in his initial post that this was not about ENo or Slice and yet this general admonition certainly does apply to each and every one of us). <BR/><BR/>I really got a lot out of <A HREF="http://desiringgod.org/library/fresh_words/2006/080906.html" REL="nofollow">John Piper's post</A> that Phil linked to, and I would encourage everyone to go read it, if they haven't yet.<BR/><BR/>• Phil: I greatly appreciate your courtesy in letting this be discussed here - and I hope it's of some benefit to the readers as far as clearing the air goes. Clear air is good. <BR/><BR/>I also appreciate your honesty about these things, even when you don't agree with those of us you link to. It's good to get these things out on the table rather than let speculation run amok.<BR/><BR/>SDG,<BR/>CarlaCarla Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09395062089776262435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155977498179147172006-08-19T01:51:00.000-07:002006-08-19T01:51:00.000-07:00Phil - Thanks for your kind words above. Answer th...Phil - Thanks for your kind words above. <BR/><BR/>Answer the phone - Thanks for the MacArthur quote. I think he's so full of it. (Ha ha, just seeing if anyone was really reading this). No, I agree enthusiastically with MacArthur, and I think the Acts reference (Acts 13:2) I mentioned above accords with his teaching here. I think fasting is always to be auxiliary to prayer, and is necessary when the saint is in a time of great need or distress or anxiety. <BR/><BR/>My main point was that a lot of evangelicals, when you say 'fast' will immediately bring out the legalism card or the Pelagianism card or the monastic/Catholic card. And this, I think, is unfortunate. I have benefited very, very much by incorporating this discipline into my spiritual life at the appropriate times -- so much so that I have been compelled to 'spread the fasting gospel' to other Christians who still think like I did before I knew anything about it. <BR/><BR/>Of course it's not the meat and potatoes of the Christian life -- but it's an important side dish (to use an unusual and ironic metaphor)! <BR/><BR/>Thanks again for your comments. God bless.Chris Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08832290458905110111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155968544250234202006-08-18T23:22:00.000-07:002006-08-18T23:22:00.000-07:00Brad: "I've also noted that the tone at Slice come...<B>Brad:</B> <I>"I've also noted that the tone at Slice comes across as overtly suspicious and harsh. Maybe it's just me, but the choice of lanuage used over there doesn't always necessary lend to projecting things like patience, gentleness and forebearance in the course of admonishments."</I><BR/><BR/>My point about Slice was twofold but fairly simple: 1) <I>My</I> post wasn't targeting Slice or Ingrid Schlueter in particular; and 2) I didn't think Ingrid's clown post was as egregious as the reaction at Thinklings indicated. I've seen <I>lots</I> worse examples of GBA abuse on <I><B>both</B></I> sides of the fundamentalist/post-evangelical divide.<BR/><BR/>Now, that doesn't oblige me to defend every aspect of the tone or content of Ingrid's post. I <I>did</I> say I think Bill Hybels should have been left out of it. However, once more: my post and my subsequent comments were not just about that post or that blog, but about a principle that applies to all of us.<BR/><BR/>In fact, the principle applies this way, too: The fact that I have a link to Slice in my blogroll does not mean I have to agree with everything they say, nor does it morally obligate me to post a critique or disclaimer every time Ingrid or her team post something I disagree with—any more than my link to Thinklings puts me under the duty of voicing my disapproval every time <I>they</I> post something that offends me.<BR/><BR/>My link to Slice and my comments above <I>also</I> don't oblige me to do a detailed autopsy of Ingrid's post on demand for others who might have been more offended than I was by it.<BR/><BR/>In fact, if someone imagines that my refusal to make a detailed critique of Ingrid's post automatically makes me complicit in whatever breach of charity people see in that post, it seems to me <I>that attitude</I> involves its own kind of GBA fallacy.<BR/><BR/>If anyone else wants to criticize Slice, please go there and do it. Complaining about them at my blog (not to mention taunting me to complain about them here) implicitly violates the principle I wrote this post about.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155954427280697252006-08-18T19:27:00.000-07:002006-08-18T19:27:00.000-07:00Everyone mind if I throw in a bit of sober reflect...Everyone mind if I throw in a bit of sober reflection here? This business about the "clown service" bugs me viscerally and I'll try to explain why. This is more "impression" than anything well thought out, so I hope it makes sense. <BR/><BR/>As I read Scripture and think about worship of our holy God, and then look at what is passing for worship in some circles these days, I am amazed that there isn't more trepidation. Mercy, the Lord struck people dead for not entering the Holy of Holies properly. God did not allow Moses to enter the Promised Land because he didn't "treat Me as holy" before the people. We can only enter the presence of the Lord because Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose again from the dead for our justification. Paul warns us that if people partake of the Lord's Supper in a wrong way, they are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. <BR/><BR/>There is much more I could say here from Scripture. And some defend services with clown suits? <BR/><BR/>Yes, there is great joy in the Lord. Yes, I even believe God has a sense of humor. However, like all things, there is a time and place for it. Worship to me doesn't seem to be the appropriate time or place for fun and games. I don't think I am being a legalist to raise that caution, either.Solameaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869424956571944997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155944476248795272006-08-18T16:41:00.000-07:002006-08-18T16:41:00.000-07:00Phil,As always, you're patience with me and the ti...Phil,<BR/><BR/>As always, you're patience with me and the time you have taken to answer my questions is deeply appreciated. <BR/><BR/>As an aside, I've just finished listening to your dismantle of Dave Hunt's book, "What Love is This?" and was both encouraged and impressed by how well and thoughtfully you handled that situation some years ago.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, back to my annoying self...<BR/><BR/><B>I'm hardly "look[ing] the other way." Devoted friends of Slice no doubt will think I'm making a federal case out of something their critics had misconstrued in the first place.</B><BR/><BR/>I think you're reading that in here and have nothing to worry about since you've been very careful to claim otherwise concerning Slice. The only way that they could do this is to dishonestly rip snippets from their context, rather than consider the whole body of work and the subsequent comments you've made.<BR/><BR/><B>I'm not sure the issue here is really all about "logic."</B><BR/><BR/>Well...Ingrid was pretty clear (in jsut the title of the offending post and it's conclusion no less) as to what she was getting at:<BR/><BR/>"Clown-Led Worship Compliments of Willow Creek Association"<BR/><BR/>"We can thank Bill Hybels for including this apostate body in his Willow Creek Association."<BR/><BR/><BR/>I suppose you could ask Ingrid for clarification, but it seems clear and plain that she believes that the whole clown thing was endorsed by Hybels on the sole basis that they belong to Hybels' association - an association that shares resources and is not a governing body. It would have been far different if Ingrid had <I>called</I> for Hybles to take action. Instead, she just went to publication with insinuations that couldn't possibly be true at face value according to what she knows -unless she actually did contact Bill for comment/clarification/admonishment and that somehow went missing from this post.<BR/><BR/>I agree with you that Hybels probably won't speak out about this nonsense but this is a far cry from endorsing it (i.e. "...including it in his Willow Creed Association") and that he is promoting it (i.e. ..."Compliments of Willow Creek Association").<BR/><BR/>The more I read this excerpt(ironically, as small as it is) the more I think Jared might have more of a point than you realize.<BR/><BR/>I've also noted that the tone at Slice comes across as overtly suspicious and harsh. Maybe it's just me, but the choice of lanuage used over there doesn't always necessary lend to projecting things like patience, gentleness and forebearance in the course of admonishments.<BR/><BR/>BradBrad Hustonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034379100231079992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155940787481218792006-08-18T15:39:00.000-07:002006-08-18T15:39:00.000-07:00Phil, I've been out all day, so I'm just now seein...<B>Phil</B>, I've been out all day, so I'm just now seeing your response. Thank you for your gracious response.<BR/><BR/><B>Cent</B>, thanks for...oh, wait. Let me stick the sock in before I respond to you.<BR/><BR/>mmph mmmmph phhmmmmmph mmmmmmmphmSteve Sensenighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04366847574145407186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155934474141603252006-08-18T13:54:00.000-07:002006-08-18T13:54:00.000-07:00H. C. "It's unfortunate when unsuspecting evangeli...<B>H. C.</B> <I>"It's unfortunate when unsuspecting evangelicals get involved in hooey like you mention, but it's also unfortunate when evangelicals ignore 2000 years of tradition + the biblical witness because of unnecessary prejudices and misconceptions. Like I said, my interest is to help the believing church discern the baby in the midst of the bath-water."</I><BR/><BR/>My sentiments exactly. It's not healthy to devote oneself so much to the full-time study and refutation of a single wrong doctrine (whether it be "contemplative spirituality" or Arminianism) and neglect to master the full scope of biblical doctrine and spiritual devotion; church history; and above all, Scripture itself (speaking here about the Whole Counsel of God—not just the bits of the Bible that refute the teachings of Renovare).Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155933910108981502006-08-18T13:45:00.000-07:002006-08-18T13:45:00.000-07:00Brad: "Willow Creek has their fair share of eyebro...<B>Brad:</B> <I>"Willow Creek has their fair share of eyebrow raisers, no question, but to string them up for what this contributing chruch did is the very thing your post seems to be driving at - unless your limiting your arguments to mere quote citations. <BR/><BR/>"I don't understand why you seem to be giving the appearance of going out of your way to carefully explain why you are willing to look the other way when it comes to Slice. Do you approve of the logic Slice used in this case?"</I><BR/><BR/>Where shall I start?<BR/><BR/>1. I'm hardly "look[ing] the other way." Devoted friends of Slice no doubt will think I'm making a federal case out of something their critics had misconstrued in the first place.<BR/><BR/>2. I'm not sure the issue here is really all about "logic." (And in any case, I'd want to hear Ingrid's own response to her critics about the clown post before rendering an opinion on how "logical" her position is.) But I'm more inclined to see it as a less-than-meticulous ellipsis in the connection she drew between the clown-led service and the policies of the Willow Creek Association.<BR/><BR/>3. As I was trying to say in my opening comments to the original post, I'm not <I>absolutely</I> certain those who insist Bill Hybels should be totally exempt from criticism for clown-led church services really have any more grounds for their position than Ingrid has for hers.<BR/><BR/>4. In other words, would Bill Hybels or the Willow Creek Association officially discourage, encourage, or be indifferent to a clown-led church service? I don't actually know, but let's be honest: it's kind of hard to imagine Hybels speaking out <I>against</I> the idea. And personally, I don't really see where it's out of sync with things I know he <I>has</I> done at Willow Creek. (Apparently, <A HREF="http://www.chagy.com/background.htm" REL="nofollow">Chagy the Clown had a part in Willow Creek's recent outreach somehow or another.</A>)<BR/><BR/>5. But since I don't actually know whether Hybels would actually have approved the idea of a clown officiating at the Lord's Table, I personally would have left Hybels' name out of it unless I could quote him on the issue. On the other hand, perhaps Ingrid <I>does</I> know something about Hybels stance on clown worship that I don't know, and she simply neglected to post all the details she knew.<BR/><BR/>6. And, further, perhaps Jared wrote directly to Ingrid, or thoroughly researched Hybels' views on clown ministry for himself, and thus Jared actually verified that Ingrid had nothing more than a GBA argument for blasting Hybels. If so, <I>he</I> did not say so before blasting Ingrid. So it seemed to me <I>on both sides</I> that harsh blasts were used when (in this case, at least) more reasoned arguments and better information might have served both sides better.<BR/><BR/>7. As for your main question, here are the chief reasons I bent over backward not to suggest that Slice is more guilty of using careless or invalid arguments than their post-evangelical critics are: a) Because I really, truly don't believe they are; and b) Because I figured some of Slice's usual gang of critics would indulge in childish displays of triumphalism and virtual high-fiving the moment they read my post. (I was absolutely right about point b), BTW.)<BR/><BR/>8. Yeah, yeah, I know: on one or two rather memorable occasions, I myself have issued harsh blasts when more fact-filled, reasonable arguments might have served better. I'm not justifying it. And I'm not trying to suggest that either Ingrid or Jared is any more prone to that fault than I am. I'm just saying it's the wrong way for anyone to criticize anyone, no matter who is on the giving or receiving end.<BR/><BR/>9. However, my admonition <I>does</I> apply to all of us: we sometimes need to be more careful in our fact-gathering; we often need to be more tempered in our criticisms; and we <I>always</I> ought to hold off GBA-based criticisms of this or that individual until we know and can demonstrate reasonably and conclusively what that person's actual convictions are.<BR/><BR/>10. I'm sure someone will cut and paste this whole thing someday when they figure I deserve to have it flung back at me. Have at it. Indulge yourself. Make the most of it.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155933883002680072006-08-18T13:44:00.000-07:002006-08-18T13:44:00.000-07:00Taliesin,No doubt it can be a tough call sometimes...Taliesin,<BR/><BR/>No doubt it can be a tough call sometimes. Posting something here at a blog where there is relatively free-wheeling discussion is one thing. But if I am writing a book and use a quote that might buttress something I am saying, if the person I am quoting has really dubious theology I would need to at least make that known, and that I do not endorse the theology. Or better yet, a sermon. I could well say that Sun Myung Moon had something astute to say regarding politics, but I'd have to say "let no one make the mistake of assuming that I endorse Moon's theology." I probably would be better off making my point without the quote. <BR/><BR/>I think this is a good example of how teachers fall under stricter judgment. I don't think we need get overly paranoid about it. Just use caution and have some awareness of who our audience is. <BR/><BR/>In general, I think Bible-believing theological conservatives should avoid using false teachers to glean quotes. Too many potential landmines. We have plenty of Scripture to quote. The cynic in me wonders if some people use quotes to show the rest of us how well read they are. Then my charitable side kicks in to rebuke the cynic in me. <BR/><BR/>It's no fun being a Solameanie.Solameaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869424956571944997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155932157126272932006-08-18T13:15:00.000-07:002006-08-18T13:15:00.000-07:00'Answer the phone',Thanks for the candid testimony...'Answer the phone',<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the candid testimony. It sounds like your experience must have been very frustrating and dis-heartening. I have 3-year old and 1-year old sons, and I'm just beginning to understand the jealous protectiveness of fatherhood. I'm sorry you and your son had to go through what you did. <BR/><BR/>I suppose there is a lot of mumbo-jumbo connected with 'contemplative spirituality'. I think the challenge for all of us is to pick out the gold from the, well,'skubula'.<BR/><BR/>I'm working on a degree in church history, as I mentioned, mostly reading stuff from the 16th century. One of my ultimate goals is to help the church pick out the 'gold' teaching from Protestant and pre-Reformation traditions, and apply it today. I believe most evangelicals would benefit if they made things like fasting and BIBLICAL meditation a part of their spiritual lives, as these were the norms in OT and NT times and in most of the history of the church. We 21st-century Western evangelicals are the exception in shying away from these.<BR/><BR/>If we had time, I would comment on the things you mention on a case-by-case basis. For instance, I don't see any value in praying the stations of the Cross, though I could see where Protestants focusing attention on the passion account in a concentrated way, like for a weekend retreat, would be beneficial. But many of the things you mentioned sound to me as off-the-wall and heretical as they obviously sound to you: the Bible as 'gray', equating faith and doubt, repetitive, mantra-like music and prayers, etc. <BR/><BR/>It's unfortunate when unsuspecting evangelicals get involved in hooey like you mention, but it's also unfortunate when evangelicals ignore 2000 years of tradition + the biblical witness because of unnecessary prejudices and misconceptions. Like I said, my interest is to help the believing church discern the baby in the midst of the bath-water. <BR/><BR/>Consider just three Scriptures (in defense of biblical meditation and fasting) for instance: <BR/><BR/>1. Psalm 1 says the blessed man meditates on God's Word day and night. (Psalm 1:2)<BR/><BR/>2. Paul lkewise told the Philippians to think about and reflect on whatever things are true, noble, just etc. (Philippians 4:8)<BR/><BR/>3. And the church in Antioch prayed AND FASTED before sending Paul and Barnabas out on their missionary journey. (Acts 13:2) <BR/><BR/>Those are just the tip of the iceberg. I gre up in a dispensational-leaning Bible church, and I did't hear one thing about fasting, or receive any indication that as a Christian I ought to consider making it a part of my life, until I was in college and some charismatic Methodist friends told me they did it. I think that's kind of indicative of the neglect of some of the these legitimate, biblical spiritual disciplines one finds among evangelicals nowadays.<BR/><BR/>But I'm going too long and this isn't the place. God bless you. Please feel free to email me for further discussion!Chris Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08832290458905110111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155929074097561922006-08-18T12:24:00.000-07:002006-08-18T12:24:00.000-07:00They probably receive more abuse from their critic...<B>They probably receive more abuse from their critics than they deserve, and I think on the whole, they receive exponentially more unfair criticism than they hand out.</B><BR/><BR/>Phil, but as you have pointed out this doesn't excuse an admonishment when deserved. <BR/><BR/><B>In fact, for the reasons I gave at the start of my post, I think the Slice item that prompted Jared's outrage was nowhere near as outrageous as his post suggested.</B><BR/><BR/>Phil, this is probably the most perplexing part of all this because the Slice article that started this whole affair was the perfect example of what you were driving at in your post. Willow Creek has their fair share of eyebrow raisers, no question, but to string them up for what this contributing chruch did is the very thing your post seems to be driving at - unless your limiting your arguments to mere quote citations. <BR/><BR/>I don't understand why you seem to be giving the appearance of going out of your way to carefully explain why you are willing to look the other way when it comes to Slice. Do you approve of the logic Slice used in this case?<BR/><BR/><BR/>BradBrad Hustonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034379100231079992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155926760330084342006-08-18T11:46:00.000-07:002006-08-18T11:46:00.000-07:00'Answer the phone',Thanks for the comment. In my e...'Answer the phone',<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the comment. In my experience, 98% of the stuff talked about and advocated by late-medieval monastics, Counter-Reformation writers and even folks like Willard is nothing that could be considered 'mystical'. That's a very ambiguous term anyway. <BR/><BR/>There have been advocates of mystical, Eastern-ish, 'apophatic'(emptying of the mind rather than filling it with truth) approaches within Christendom, but they have not been as popular or prevalent, even within medieval Catholicism, as some would think.<BR/><BR/>Having said all that, I will say there seem to be quite a lot of Protestants unreflectively embracing all kinds of unusual methods that may be mildly helpful at best but downright dangerous at worst. I don't want to start any new debate here, but labyrinth-walking is one example that comes to mind. <BR/><BR/>My ultimate concern is whether a means/discipline/exercise jives with Scripture, and secondarily, whether it jives with the witness of faithful figures in the church's history.Chris Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08832290458905110111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155921417086356042006-08-18T10:16:00.001-07:002006-08-18T10:16:00.001-07:00'Answer the phone',Thank you very much for the lin...'Answer the phone',<BR/><BR/>Thank you very much for the link to the articles on Willard. I read the first one (http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue91.htm) ). While I understand DeWaay's concerns, I think he presents a caricature of Willard and of contemplative spirituality. What I perceive, not only in DeWaay's article but in the wider Protestant community, is a lot of miscommunication and misunderstanding resulting from a knee-jerk reaction to anything with any association with Roman Cath'm. <BR/><BR/>Here's a quote from DeWaay:<BR/><BR/>"Even though decrying some of the excesses of monasticism, Willard is fond of the monastics and thinks that the Reformation left us with no practical means of spiritual growth. He says, “It [Protestantism] precluded ‘works’ and Catholicism’s ecclesiastical sacraments as essential for salvation, but it continued to lack any adequate account for what human beings do to become, by the grace of God, the kind of people Jesus obviously calls them to be.”43 This is simply false. Luther believed in MEANS OF GRACE that God has provided all true believers that they might grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord.44 The difference is that MEANS OF GRACE are what God has provided for all Christians for all ages and they are determined by God, not man. These are revealed in the Bible. SPIRITUAL DISCIPLINES are man-made, amorphous, and not revealed in the Bible; they assume that one is saved by grace and perfected by works."<BR/>[Emphasis by CAPS mine]<BR/><BR/>The bottom line is, though, 'spiritual disciplines' and 'means of grace' overlap conceptually. Here is Willard's list of spiritual disciplines:<BR/><BR/>"Willard lists the following: voluntary exile, night vigil of rejecting sleep, journaling, OT Sabbath keeping, physical labor, solitude, fasting, study, and prayer.37 Willard then lists “disciplines of abstinence” (solitude, silence, fasting, frugality, chastity, secrecy, sacrifice) and “disciplines of engagement” (study, worship, celebration, service, prayer, fellowship, confession, submission).38"<BR/><BR/>And here's a typical list of Puritan 'means of grace':<BR/><BR/>private and corporate prayer, meditation, watchfulness, Bible study, fasting, fellowship, taking Communion, hearing the Word preached, self-examination.<BR/><BR/>DeWaay alleges Willard's (and medieval Rome's) 'spiritual disciplines' are not biblical, or at least that some of them aren't. I would agree that maybe a small handful are not biblical, but almost all ARE biblical if one looks not just at direct biblical prescription, but also at biblical DEscription, ie, what is done in Scripture by saints of that time. <BR/><BR/>I could say much more, and I appreciate the links. I'll read more and continue to check Willard and others out. I would just urge folks to look deeper before reacting against contemplative spirituality. I think Protestantism could learn a lot from it. In this sentiment I am right behind people like Don Whitney (http://www.spiritualdisciplines.org/).Chris Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08832290458905110111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155921374641368972006-08-18T10:16:00.000-07:002006-08-18T10:16:00.000-07:00Sola,My question is where do you draw that line. I...Sola,<BR/><BR/>My question is where do you draw that line. If I post favorably here should I make a disclaimer I don't agree with pre-tribulationalism? If I reference Ligon Duncan, should I state I disagree with him over paedobaptism?<BR/><BR/>What about CJ Mahaney's views on the gifts of the spirit, should I make a disclaimer about that? What about John Stott's views on eternal state of unbelievers? What about citing C.S. Lewis?<BR/><BR/>Calvin frequently quoted Bernard of Clairvaux. I don't assume that means we should embrace every aspect of Bernard's theology (or even every aspect of Calvin's theology).<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure I have a complete solution, and sometime's I will qualify my references, but the better approach, it seems to me, is to work on teaching those who hear us to be more discerning. After all, someone may pick up a book at a Christian bookstore without anyone's recommendation and they need to be able to evaluate it fairly.Taliesinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06250806687440204400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155918322669042212006-08-18T09:25:00.000-07:002006-08-18T09:25:00.000-07:00I think there is a deeper issue at hand here beyon...I think there is a deeper issue at hand here beyond just the simple "guilt by association" concern. I agree totally with Phil and colleagues in the concerns they have raised. However, we also need to look at our society as it is and the lack of discernment that is prevalent. <BR/><BR/>Sadly enough, the common mentality these days is to assume if an evangelical pastor, teacher, author etc. quotes someone, that is tantamount to an endorsement. OF COURSE that is not necessarily true, but I have personally seen people in the course of my own ministry do this. Here's how it can happen for illustration:<BR/><BR/>Let's say I mention Watchman Nee in a sermon or article, and my hearer/reader goes out and begins reading Nee based on what they THINK is my approval. Then, when they encounter someone from the Local Church cult, they find that Witness Lee was an associate of Watchman Nee's. Hmm. That must mean Witness Lee was pretty solid, right? <BR/><BR/>See what I mean? People can jump the gun so easily. I appreciate what Phil said regarding Constance Cumbey. She really did a lot of good work researching the New Age, but after a while it seemed like she saw a New Ager under every rock, and she fired the blunderbuss at some people that didn't deserve it. Perhaps the blunderbuss wouldn't have been fired if more care had been exercised in quoting. <BR/><BR/>The Apostle Paul quoted pagan authors, but I think we all know Paul didn't endorse the theology of the pagan authors. But we can't assume that people in our society today can make that distinction. It is wrong to paint someone as a heretic merely because they QUOTE a heretic. However, those who choose to quote a heretic need to make it clear why they are doing so, and to point out that they don't endorse the heretic's overall theology, even though said heretic might have had a salient point on a given subject. Yes, it's a pain but I think necessary to avoid controversies such as this. <BR/><BR/>Finally, I think those who are well known, solid evangelical authors/teachers need to be more discerning in writing forwards or blurbs for books. For instance, if I am aware that there are serious problems with Brian McLaren's theology, then I am not going to hook my wagon to McLaren by writing seemingly positive forwards or blurbs.Solameaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869424956571944997noreply@blogger.com