My friend Nate Busenitz recently posted these comments at http://faithandpractice.blogspot.com/
"Why was John MacArthur so hard-hitting? And was it valid?
To answer that we have to look at what Brian McLaren is saying. So I put together a brief summary from his book A Generous Orthodoxy. (For the lengthy version of this list from which I’ve drawn these points, along with page numbers and additional explanation, click here.)
Here is a list of McLaren's views in A Generous Orthodoxy:
- McLaren downplays “doctrinal distinctives” as more-or-less worthless. Outside of the essentials of the Apostle’s Creed, which McLaren affirms, other theological arguments (and the divisions caused by such arguments) are in McLaren’s words “nauseating.”
- He encourages all segments of broader Christianity (from Othrodox, to Catholic, to Protestant, and so on) to stop fighting and start celebrating what they have in common. He also contends that Christians should not show disdain for other world religions (such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc.) but should dialogue with them as collaborators.
- His approach is heavily influenced by a postmodern mindset, which is postevangelical, postconservative, and postliberal. He claims that his approach lies beyond absolutism and relativism, and is not found in absolutes but in conversation and interchange.
- McLaren openly admits that his book is not objective, but instead is most harsh towards conservative Protestants (especially Calvinistic Fundamentalists), and most open to groups like Roman Catholics.
- McLaren accuses conservative Protestants of having dethroned Jesus as Lord, and instead promoted the Apostle Paul to the head and teacher of the church. Moreover, according to McLaren, conservative Protestants are guilty of viewing Paul through the eyes of Luther and Calvin, which is why Paul is interpreted to sound so much like a lawyer.
- McLaren accuses conservative Protestant “evangelists” of overemphasizing hell, overemphasizing eternity, and making the gospel sound more like the consumer-driven products of “every company and political party.”
- McLaren compares doctrinal distinctives such as the five points of Calvinsim to cigarettes, because he considers their use to be habit-forming and hazardous.
- He denounces the idea of God’s sovereignty (in terms of God being “all-powerful” and “all-controlling”) because, to use McLaren's words, it reduces human beings to “plastic chessmen.”
- McLaren faults conservative Protestants with viewing the Bible as a modern-day answer book (like an encyclopedia) and for using it simply to fight those with those whom they disagree. He also finds it sadly ironic that such groups would use non-biblical words (like inerrancy and infallibility) to refer to the authority of the Bible.
- McLaren disagrees with the typical sermonizing that passes for preaching in today’s churches. Instead, he argues for something with a lot more drama, artistry, and spontaneity than long speeches that develop expository prose.
- McLaren also downplays any type of systematic theology (referring negatively to systematic theologies as modern cathedrals). Instead, he promotes a narrative theology (specifically that of James McLendon) in which ethics, doctrine (as seen in practice), and mission are emphasized.
- McLaren’s approach to “orthodoxy” is an “emerging” approach characterized by doctrinal humility (as opposed to doctrinal certainty), a willingness to question any theological tradition (especially the Reformed “tradition”), and a worldview that sees life and theology as an unfolding story or journey.
- McLaren concludes A Generous Orthodoxy by embracing and promoting the doctrinal uncertainty and ambiguity that characterizes the emerging approach. He finds joy in the ultimate uncertainty of beauty.
In summary, then, McLaren represents almost everything that Dr. MacArthur and The Master’s Seminary stand against.
So was Dr. MacArthur’s hard-hitting criticism valid?
In my opinion, absolutely (to use a term McLaren would decry).
Why? Well, not only does Dr. MacArthur have a right, as a seminary president, to come out strong against those whom he feels threaten the fundamentals upon which his institution is based. But also because, in this case, I believe his concerns were both biblical and accurate."
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Monday, February 13, 2006
Applying what you know SO well
This past weekend while preparing a future sermon on Jude 5 i came across a great quote by Pastor Matthew Henry. This comment reflects Jude's thought in a fresh way (Jude 1:5 "Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe").
Henry writes, "Preaching is not designed to teach us something new in every sermon, somewhat that we knew nothing of before; but to put us in remembrance, to call to mind things forgotten, to affect our passions, and engage and fix our resolutions, that our lives may be answerable to our faith. Though you know these things, yet you still need to know them better. There are many things which we have known which yet we have unhappily forgotten. Is it of no use or service to be put afresh in remembrance of them?"
Jude asks his audience to dig into their memory banks to recall some important lessons. Mature Christians do this very thing all the time. Most of the people at my current church have probably heard a sermon on just about every Scripture passage in the N.T. They know what I'm going to say before i say it.
May we remember this point and apply it to our ministries: Even mature Christians (yes pastors included) need to be reminded of the truths they know so well. Forgetfulness sometimes leads to non-application. All of us have memorized a passage in Holy Scripture only to find ourselves needing to re-memorize it a few years down the road (for some of us a few weeks down the road is more like it). It's part of our human fallibility. In some ways it keeps us dependent on the Holy Spirit and on the Holy Bible...
Jude begs his readers to apply the truth they know so well. Their knowledge is fully adequate. Thus, remember and apply these things.
Those of you, who like me, have grown up in the Church need to take this point to heart. You know the Scripture inside and out, but are you faithfully living them out? Are you applying what you know so well?
It's similar to the inspired words found in 2 Peter 1:12-14, Therefore, I shall always be ready to remind you of these things, even though you already know them, and have been established in the truth which is present with you. And I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder, knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.
My lunch break is almost over-
Take care,
CK
Henry writes, "Preaching is not designed to teach us something new in every sermon, somewhat that we knew nothing of before; but to put us in remembrance, to call to mind things forgotten, to affect our passions, and engage and fix our resolutions, that our lives may be answerable to our faith. Though you know these things, yet you still need to know them better. There are many things which we have known which yet we have unhappily forgotten. Is it of no use or service to be put afresh in remembrance of them?"
Jude asks his audience to dig into their memory banks to recall some important lessons. Mature Christians do this very thing all the time. Most of the people at my current church have probably heard a sermon on just about every Scripture passage in the N.T. They know what I'm going to say before i say it.
May we remember this point and apply it to our ministries: Even mature Christians (yes pastors included) need to be reminded of the truths they know so well. Forgetfulness sometimes leads to non-application. All of us have memorized a passage in Holy Scripture only to find ourselves needing to re-memorize it a few years down the road (for some of us a few weeks down the road is more like it). It's part of our human fallibility. In some ways it keeps us dependent on the Holy Spirit and on the Holy Bible...
Jude begs his readers to apply the truth they know so well. Their knowledge is fully adequate. Thus, remember and apply these things.
Those of you, who like me, have grown up in the Church need to take this point to heart. You know the Scripture inside and out, but are you faithfully living them out? Are you applying what you know so well?
It's similar to the inspired words found in 2 Peter 1:12-14, Therefore, I shall always be ready to remind you of these things, even though you already know them, and have been established in the truth which is present with you. And I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder, knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.
My lunch break is almost over-
Take care,
CK
Monday, February 06, 2006
Titus 1:6 (pt 3)
Faithful Children
There are those who strongly disagree with the arguments presented above for a variety of reasons. The key exegetical issue is the meaning of pista. As mentioned earlier, scholars debate whether this word should be translated in this context as “believing” or “faithful/obedient.” This word’s range of usage throughout Paul’s writings proves that either meaning is a possibility. The word can clearly mean “faithful,” as it does several times in the pastoral epistles, including once with a noun in 2 Timothy 2:2. Barrick adds, “When pistos modifies a noun it is always “faithful” or ‘trustworthy/credible.’ When it is independent (an adjective employed as a substantive) it means ‘believing one’ or ‘believer.’” In this context pistos is clearly modifying a noun (teknon) and therefore is best translated “faithful children.”
According to the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, “pistis occurs 67x in the NT, though in only 16 of these instances with the meaning faithful in the sense of believing. The majority of occurrences thus follow the meaning predominant in non-Christian usage: faithful in the sense of dependable.”
Paul’s focus in Titus 1:6 seems to be on the conduct of the child not on his/her personal faith or belief in the gospel. Those children accused of dissipation and/or bad conduct would prove that they were either unfaithful or unbelieving (perhaps both). Because of this, one must look closely to the parallelism of 1 Timothy 3:4-5. There Paul says, an elder “must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?” Knight shows that is likely that "teknon ekon pista," here in Titus 1:6 is virtually equivalent to te,kna e;conta evn u`potagh/ in 1 Timothy 3:4. He then concludes, “If this is so, then pista here (in Titus 1:6) means “faithful” in the sense of “submissive” or “obedient,” as a servant or steward is regarded as pistos when he carries out the requests of his master (Matthew 24:45f.; 25:21, 23; Luke 12:42f.; 1 Cor. 4:2; cf. Thayer, Lexicon; Cremer, Lexicon).” In these two texts Paul says that having faithful children is important because it reveal a man’s ability (or inability) to manage his home. A good look at a potential elder’s home life will help determine if he is able to provide faithful leadership at church as well as at home.
Theologically, can parents be accountable for their children’s belief or lack of belief in Christ? Strauch wisely points out that,
"Those who interpret this qualification to mean that an elder must have believing, Christian children place an impossible burden upon a father. Even the best Christian fathers cannot guarantee that their children will believe. Salvation is a supernatural act of God. God, not good parents (although they are certainly used of God), ultimately brings salvation (John 1:12, 13)."
Scripture nowhere teaches that a parent can determine the saving faith of their child. A father can only faithful instruct and teach his children in the ways of the Lord, but he can not decide his child’s eternal destiny. A father can (and should) model what genuine Christianity looks and acts like. Ultimately though a child’s acceptance (or belief) in the gospel is determined by the Holy Spirit’s work and the Father’s eternal choice (Eph 1).
In a lesser sense this is also true concerning a child’s life of obedience (faithfulness). Some children are determined to live a rebellious life regardless of there parents faithfulness. Without question the home is training ground for Christian leaders. But commentators like Thomas Lea go way too far when they conclude, “This additional requirement that the elder be capable of influencing his own children to become Christians demonstrates Paul’s conviction that effective spiritual leadership in the home suggests the probability of effective spiritual leadership in the church.” Both belief and faithfulness then ultimately are dependent on God’s sovereign grace! Titus 1:6 (when more accurately understood) teaches that those candidates who have wild and disobedient children are disqualified.
Concluding Remarks
It is possible that when Paul wrote, teknon ekon pista, he could have meant “children who believe.” The word pista was used by Paul in the Pastoral Epistles to mean both “believing” and “faithful.” The parallelism of 1 Timothy 3:4-5 seems to settle and help determine the best meaning of pistos in Titus 1:6 (“faithful”).
Biblical theology does not demand pistos be translated either way. God could require either qualification (“believing” children or “faithful” children) and still be fair and just. Good theological arguments can be made by both sides of the debate so to this author those arguments do not prove much.
Certainly there is an amount of accountability parents have in how they raise their children (Proverbs 22:6). In some sense, parents need to take ownership of there children’s behavior. Christian parents should try their best to live out and preach the gospel of Jesus to their kids on a daily basis. Ultimately though, a father can only lead his children to the water Source (John 4:10-28), but he can not make them drink from it.
I conclude echoing the words of George Knight, “This proposed understanding of the passage goes contrary to a consistent pattern in recent English translations (RSV, NEB, TEV: 'believers'; similarly NASB, NIV), but the considerations cited above seem compelling.”
There are those who strongly disagree with the arguments presented above for a variety of reasons. The key exegetical issue is the meaning of pista. As mentioned earlier, scholars debate whether this word should be translated in this context as “believing” or “faithful/obedient.” This word’s range of usage throughout Paul’s writings proves that either meaning is a possibility. The word can clearly mean “faithful,” as it does several times in the pastoral epistles, including once with a noun in 2 Timothy 2:2. Barrick adds, “When pistos modifies a noun it is always “faithful” or ‘trustworthy/credible.’ When it is independent (an adjective employed as a substantive) it means ‘believing one’ or ‘believer.’” In this context pistos is clearly modifying a noun (teknon) and therefore is best translated “faithful children.”
According to the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, “pistis occurs 67x in the NT, though in only 16 of these instances with the meaning faithful in the sense of believing. The majority of occurrences thus follow the meaning predominant in non-Christian usage: faithful in the sense of dependable.”
Paul’s focus in Titus 1:6 seems to be on the conduct of the child not on his/her personal faith or belief in the gospel. Those children accused of dissipation and/or bad conduct would prove that they were either unfaithful or unbelieving (perhaps both). Because of this, one must look closely to the parallelism of 1 Timothy 3:4-5. There Paul says, an elder “must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?” Knight shows that is likely that "teknon ekon pista," here in Titus 1:6 is virtually equivalent to te,kna e;conta evn u`potagh/ in 1 Timothy 3:4. He then concludes, “If this is so, then pista here (in Titus 1:6) means “faithful” in the sense of “submissive” or “obedient,” as a servant or steward is regarded as pistos when he carries out the requests of his master (Matthew 24:45f.; 25:21, 23; Luke 12:42f.; 1 Cor. 4:2; cf. Thayer, Lexicon; Cremer, Lexicon).” In these two texts Paul says that having faithful children is important because it reveal a man’s ability (or inability) to manage his home. A good look at a potential elder’s home life will help determine if he is able to provide faithful leadership at church as well as at home.
Theologically, can parents be accountable for their children’s belief or lack of belief in Christ? Strauch wisely points out that,
"Those who interpret this qualification to mean that an elder must have believing, Christian children place an impossible burden upon a father. Even the best Christian fathers cannot guarantee that their children will believe. Salvation is a supernatural act of God. God, not good parents (although they are certainly used of God), ultimately brings salvation (John 1:12, 13)."
Scripture nowhere teaches that a parent can determine the saving faith of their child. A father can only faithful instruct and teach his children in the ways of the Lord, but he can not decide his child’s eternal destiny. A father can (and should) model what genuine Christianity looks and acts like. Ultimately though a child’s acceptance (or belief) in the gospel is determined by the Holy Spirit’s work and the Father’s eternal choice (Eph 1).
In a lesser sense this is also true concerning a child’s life of obedience (faithfulness). Some children are determined to live a rebellious life regardless of there parents faithfulness. Without question the home is training ground for Christian leaders. But commentators like Thomas Lea go way too far when they conclude, “This additional requirement that the elder be capable of influencing his own children to become Christians demonstrates Paul’s conviction that effective spiritual leadership in the home suggests the probability of effective spiritual leadership in the church.” Both belief and faithfulness then ultimately are dependent on God’s sovereign grace! Titus 1:6 (when more accurately understood) teaches that those candidates who have wild and disobedient children are disqualified.
Concluding Remarks
It is possible that when Paul wrote, teknon ekon pista, he could have meant “children who believe.” The word pista was used by Paul in the Pastoral Epistles to mean both “believing” and “faithful.” The parallelism of 1 Timothy 3:4-5 seems to settle and help determine the best meaning of pistos in Titus 1:6 (“faithful”).
Biblical theology does not demand pistos be translated either way. God could require either qualification (“believing” children or “faithful” children) and still be fair and just. Good theological arguments can be made by both sides of the debate so to this author those arguments do not prove much.
Certainly there is an amount of accountability parents have in how they raise their children (Proverbs 22:6). In some sense, parents need to take ownership of there children’s behavior. Christian parents should try their best to live out and preach the gospel of Jesus to their kids on a daily basis. Ultimately though, a father can only lead his children to the water Source (John 4:10-28), but he can not make them drink from it.
I conclude echoing the words of George Knight, “This proposed understanding of the passage goes contrary to a consistent pattern in recent English translations (RSV, NEB, TEV: 'believers'; similarly NASB, NIV), but the considerations cited above seem compelling.”
Friday, February 03, 2006
Titus 1:6 continued by C Kolstad
Procedure
This post will focus in on only one of the major qualifications for an elder; namely what does Paul mean by the phrase, “having children who believe?”
The following 2 major positions will be carefully evaluated:
1. Paul means that an elder must lead all of his children to Lord, thus all of his family must be “saved” (believing) in order for him to serve as an elder.
2. Paul means that an elder must demonstrate reasonable control over his children, thus all of his family must be “faithful” (obedient) in order for him serve as an elder.
The Controversy
The major disagreement between biblical scholars is whether or not the Greek words, te,kna e;cwn pista, should be translated “children who believe” or if phrase should be rendered “faithful children.” In other words, was Paul saying that in order for a man to serve as an elder his children must be saved; or was he saying that in order to lead an elder must have obedient and respectful children? Is this a contrast between believing and unbelieving children or is it a contrast between obedient (controlled) and rebellious (uncontrolled) children? This is a major issue because one’s interpretation of this passage could possible disqualify many pastors and elders from the office of overseer. Good exegesis and proper hermeneutics must be employed in order to avoid the emotional basis that normally goes into this debate.
Children Who Believe
Robert Saucy holds that the personal belief (faith) and the conduct (life) of an elder’s family should be carefully evaluated to determine if a man is qualified to be an elder. He writes, “His children must be under his control in all dignity to qualify him to lead in church affairs (1 Timothy 3:4-5). They should (also) share the faith of their father and adorn that faith with godly lives (Titus 1:6).” In other words, a perspective elder needs to have brought all his family to the Lord in order to serve in this office.
How exactly does a child’s decision to follow Christ and the pattern of his/her life reflect the leadership of a potential elder? According to MacArthur a man who cannot lead his own family morally and spiritually is not qualified to lead an entire congregation. A qualified elder will shepherd his family in such a way that they will become an example for all people to see and to model. “If you want to know if he is able to lead the unsaved to faith in Christ and to help them grow in obedience and holiness, simply examine the effectiveness of his efforts with his own children.” Those who can not faithfully shepherd and lead there own children to the Lord are not best qualified in leading others to the Lord. One must consider if this line of thinking is consistent theologically; Can (or should) parents be accountable for their children’s belief or unbelief in Christ? Does the genuine salvation of an elder’s child prove he is a faithful spiritual leader at home? Conversely, are those elder’s who have unbelieving children unfaithful spiritual leaders at home?
Those who believe Paul is referring to believing children take the word pista to mean “believing”. This term is what is translated as “believing” in most translations and in its basic form is an adjectival word. In some cases, the word can mean believer or believing one, that is, faithful to God. MacArthur notes, “It is significant that, except for this sometimes disputed text (Titus 1:6), it always is used of people whom the context clearly identifies as believers (e.g., Matthew 25:21, 23; Acts 16:15; 1 Cor. 4:2, 17; Eph 6:21; Col 1:7; 4:7; Rev. 2:10, 13; 17:14).” MacArthur would argue that only the passive form of pistos should be interpreted “faithful”, while actively it means “to believe” as most Bible translations render Titus 1:6.
In seeking to apply this verse the Council of Carthage stated that all bishops, elders, and deacons would not be ordained to office until they first made all in their own households members of the Catholic Church. Hendrickson plainly puts it this way, “A man whose children are still pagans or behave as pagans must not be appointed elder (Eph. 5:18).”
J. Harold Greenlee points out that this does not mean elders must have children, only if the do that they must be saved. One could assume the majority of candidates would be married and Paul may have even preferred married men because of their experience in shepherding and leading a family unit (1 Timothy 3:5). This of course did not disqualify a married man with no children or even a single man.
If Titus 1:6 is to be understood as believing children, does this verse apply only to those children still under the authority of the home? Does Titus 1:6 also pertain to adult children who have grown up and no longer live under their parent’s authority? John MacArthur distinguishes Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:4 by indicating that the former observes older children while the latter looks at young children in the home. Paul refers to Titus (a grown man), as his “true child” (te,kna) in the faith (Titus 1:4). If this is the case then this passage may indeed extend to older children outside the home. In the Greek, the term, te,kna, can refer to a child of any age and not just a younger child.
It would appear the following reference to dissipation and rebellion (avswti,aj h' avnupo,takta) would better characterize an older child. The Greek word (avswti,aj) is used of the prodigal son in Luke 15:13. It carries the idea of profligacy and even of rioting (as the KJV translates this word). The word avnupo,takta carries many negative connotations including insubordination and personal rebellion. In this context the word clearly portrays the idea of a child rebelling against his parental authority. This behavior would be more consistent with that of a older, unbelieving child.
Ellicott summarizes all this claiming Christian elders “were not to have heathen, Judaizing, or merely nominally-believing children.” Many bible scholars and commentators believe that te,kna e;cwn pista, should be carefully translated “children who believe.” Those candidates who have (older) unbelieving children are considered disqualified.
This post will focus in on only one of the major qualifications for an elder; namely what does Paul mean by the phrase, “having children who believe?”
The following 2 major positions will be carefully evaluated:
1. Paul means that an elder must lead all of his children to Lord, thus all of his family must be “saved” (believing) in order for him to serve as an elder.
2. Paul means that an elder must demonstrate reasonable control over his children, thus all of his family must be “faithful” (obedient) in order for him serve as an elder.
The Controversy
The major disagreement between biblical scholars is whether or not the Greek words, te,kna e;cwn pista, should be translated “children who believe” or if phrase should be rendered “faithful children.” In other words, was Paul saying that in order for a man to serve as an elder his children must be saved; or was he saying that in order to lead an elder must have obedient and respectful children? Is this a contrast between believing and unbelieving children or is it a contrast between obedient (controlled) and rebellious (uncontrolled) children? This is a major issue because one’s interpretation of this passage could possible disqualify many pastors and elders from the office of overseer. Good exegesis and proper hermeneutics must be employed in order to avoid the emotional basis that normally goes into this debate.
Children Who Believe
Robert Saucy holds that the personal belief (faith) and the conduct (life) of an elder’s family should be carefully evaluated to determine if a man is qualified to be an elder. He writes, “His children must be under his control in all dignity to qualify him to lead in church affairs (1 Timothy 3:4-5). They should (also) share the faith of their father and adorn that faith with godly lives (Titus 1:6).” In other words, a perspective elder needs to have brought all his family to the Lord in order to serve in this office.
How exactly does a child’s decision to follow Christ and the pattern of his/her life reflect the leadership of a potential elder? According to MacArthur a man who cannot lead his own family morally and spiritually is not qualified to lead an entire congregation. A qualified elder will shepherd his family in such a way that they will become an example for all people to see and to model. “If you want to know if he is able to lead the unsaved to faith in Christ and to help them grow in obedience and holiness, simply examine the effectiveness of his efforts with his own children.” Those who can not faithfully shepherd and lead there own children to the Lord are not best qualified in leading others to the Lord. One must consider if this line of thinking is consistent theologically; Can (or should) parents be accountable for their children’s belief or unbelief in Christ? Does the genuine salvation of an elder’s child prove he is a faithful spiritual leader at home? Conversely, are those elder’s who have unbelieving children unfaithful spiritual leaders at home?
Those who believe Paul is referring to believing children take the word pista to mean “believing”. This term is what is translated as “believing” in most translations and in its basic form is an adjectival word. In some cases, the word can mean believer or believing one, that is, faithful to God. MacArthur notes, “It is significant that, except for this sometimes disputed text (Titus 1:6), it always is used of people whom the context clearly identifies as believers (e.g., Matthew 25:21, 23; Acts 16:15; 1 Cor. 4:2, 17; Eph 6:21; Col 1:7; 4:7; Rev. 2:10, 13; 17:14).” MacArthur would argue that only the passive form of pistos should be interpreted “faithful”, while actively it means “to believe” as most Bible translations render Titus 1:6.
In seeking to apply this verse the Council of Carthage stated that all bishops, elders, and deacons would not be ordained to office until they first made all in their own households members of the Catholic Church. Hendrickson plainly puts it this way, “A man whose children are still pagans or behave as pagans must not be appointed elder (Eph. 5:18).”
J. Harold Greenlee points out that this does not mean elders must have children, only if the do that they must be saved. One could assume the majority of candidates would be married and Paul may have even preferred married men because of their experience in shepherding and leading a family unit (1 Timothy 3:5). This of course did not disqualify a married man with no children or even a single man.
If Titus 1:6 is to be understood as believing children, does this verse apply only to those children still under the authority of the home? Does Titus 1:6 also pertain to adult children who have grown up and no longer live under their parent’s authority? John MacArthur distinguishes Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:4 by indicating that the former observes older children while the latter looks at young children in the home. Paul refers to Titus (a grown man), as his “true child” (te,kna) in the faith (Titus 1:4). If this is the case then this passage may indeed extend to older children outside the home. In the Greek, the term, te,kna, can refer to a child of any age and not just a younger child.
It would appear the following reference to dissipation and rebellion (avswti,aj h' avnupo,takta) would better characterize an older child. The Greek word (avswti,aj) is used of the prodigal son in Luke 15:13. It carries the idea of profligacy and even of rioting (as the KJV translates this word). The word avnupo,takta carries many negative connotations including insubordination and personal rebellion. In this context the word clearly portrays the idea of a child rebelling against his parental authority. This behavior would be more consistent with that of a older, unbelieving child.
Ellicott summarizes all this claiming Christian elders “were not to have heathen, Judaizing, or merely nominally-believing children.” Many bible scholars and commentators believe that te,kna e;cwn pista, should be carefully translated “children who believe.” Those candidates who have (older) unbelieving children are considered disqualified.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Acts 29/the Emerging church/and John Piper
Please go to the following website for the entire article by Carla
http://emergentno.blogspot.com/
2006 DG Conference Speakers
Sometime in the last couple of weeks, a friend mentioned to me who this years Desiring God conference speakers would be. I made a mental note of it and set it aside.
I've had a bit of time to give this some thought since then.
This year's theme is "Above All Earthly Powers: The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World". Of course this is an interesting and very timely topic, considering the broad scope of tolerance, to acceptance that postmodernism (in various flavors) has found it's way into local churches.
Here are the speakers & their topics:
David Wells: "The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World"
D.A. Carson: "The Supremacy of Christ and Love in a Postmodern World"
Timothy Keller: "The Supremacy of Christ and the Gospel in a Postmodern World"
Mark Driscoll: "The Supremacy of Christ and the Church in a Postmodern World"
Voddie Baucham: "The Supremacy of Christ and Truth in a Postmodern World"
John Piper: "The Supremacy of Christ and Joy in a Postmodern World"
This is an unusual group of men to me, for a variety of reasons. Two of them I know through their works to be quite staunch on sound Biblical doctrine. That would be Wells and Carson. One I've never read anything from, and that would be Baucham. One has stirred more than a little controversy lately with his position on baptism and church membership, and that of course would be Pastor John Piper.
This of course leaves Driscoll and Keller.
Mark Driscoll has created quite a stir in not only the blogosphere lately, but also the evangelical world as well. Why? Well, he's come out a bit louder these days about how he's no longer "emergent", and in so doing he's also levelled quite a scathing response to EMC figurehead Brian McLaren, regarding McLaren't position on homosexuality. (read that "rant" here)
Christianity Today's Leadership blog called Out of Ur introduces Driscoll's comment this way "As one of the 50 most influential pastors in America" and an outspoken critic of the emergent movement, we thought others would like to read Driscoll's comments."
Before I address Driscoll's statement to McLaren, let's go into a little background on Driscoll.
The reference to the 50 most influential pastors in America comes from the July 2005 Church Report that lists Driscoll and Mars Hill at #23. Andrew Jones aka "Tall Skinny Kiwi" commented at his blog on this: "Great to see some emerging church pastors there (Mark Driscoll, Rob Bell, Erwin McManus - congrats you guys!!!!!!!)" (source).
For the entire article go to http://emergentno.blogspot.com/ Jan 31st post.
http://emergentno.blogspot.com/
2006 DG Conference Speakers
Sometime in the last couple of weeks, a friend mentioned to me who this years Desiring God conference speakers would be. I made a mental note of it and set it aside.
I've had a bit of time to give this some thought since then.
This year's theme is "Above All Earthly Powers: The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World". Of course this is an interesting and very timely topic, considering the broad scope of tolerance, to acceptance that postmodernism (in various flavors) has found it's way into local churches.
Here are the speakers & their topics:
David Wells: "The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World"
D.A. Carson: "The Supremacy of Christ and Love in a Postmodern World"
Timothy Keller: "The Supremacy of Christ and the Gospel in a Postmodern World"
Mark Driscoll: "The Supremacy of Christ and the Church in a Postmodern World"
Voddie Baucham: "The Supremacy of Christ and Truth in a Postmodern World"
John Piper: "The Supremacy of Christ and Joy in a Postmodern World"
This is an unusual group of men to me, for a variety of reasons. Two of them I know through their works to be quite staunch on sound Biblical doctrine. That would be Wells and Carson. One I've never read anything from, and that would be Baucham. One has stirred more than a little controversy lately with his position on baptism and church membership, and that of course would be Pastor John Piper.
This of course leaves Driscoll and Keller.
Mark Driscoll has created quite a stir in not only the blogosphere lately, but also the evangelical world as well. Why? Well, he's come out a bit louder these days about how he's no longer "emergent", and in so doing he's also levelled quite a scathing response to EMC figurehead Brian McLaren, regarding McLaren't position on homosexuality. (read that "rant" here)
Christianity Today's Leadership blog called Out of Ur introduces Driscoll's comment this way "As one of the 50 most influential pastors in America" and an outspoken critic of the emergent movement, we thought others would like to read Driscoll's comments."
Before I address Driscoll's statement to McLaren, let's go into a little background on Driscoll.
The reference to the 50 most influential pastors in America comes from the July 2005 Church Report that lists Driscoll and Mars Hill at #23. Andrew Jones aka "Tall Skinny Kiwi" commented at his blog on this: "Great to see some emerging church pastors there (Mark Driscoll, Rob Bell, Erwin McManus - congrats you guys!!!!!!!)" (source).
For the entire article go to http://emergentno.blogspot.com/ Jan 31st post.
Driscoll and McLaren (CT)
From Christianity Today go to link below
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o_2.html
Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question 3: A Prologue and Rant by Mark Driscoll
Hundreds of readers have posted comments about Brian McLaren's article on forming a pastoral response to the "homosexual question." One such reader was Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. As "one of the 50 most influential pastors in America" and an outspoken critic of the emergent movement, we thought others would like to read Driscoll's comments.
Well, it seems that Brian McLaren and the Emergent crowd are emerging into homo-evangelicals.
Before I begin my rant, let me first defend myself. First, the guy who was among the first to share the gospel with me was a gay guy who was a friend. Second, I planted a church in my 20s in one of America’s least churched cities where the gay pride parade is much bigger than the march for Jesus. Third, my church is filled with people struggling with same sex attraction and gay couples do attend and we tell them about the transforming power of Jesus. Fourth, I am not a religious right wingnut. In fact, when James Dobson came to town to hold the anti-gay rally, we took a lot of heat for being among the biggest churches in the state, the largest evangelical church in our city, and not promoting the event in our church because we felt it would come off as unloving to the gay community. The men who hosted the event are all godly men and good friends and I’ve taken a few blows for not standing with them on this issue. Fifth, I am myself a devoted heterosexual male lesbian who has been in a monogamous marriage with my high school sweetheart since I was 21 and personally know the pain of being a marginalized sexual minority as a male lesbian.
And now the rant.
For me, the concern started when McLaren in the February 7, 2005 issue of Time Magazine said, “Asked at a conference last spring what he thought about gay marriage, Brian McLaren replied, ‘You know what, the thing that breaks my heart is that there's no way I can answer it without hurting someone on either side.’” Sadly, by failing to answer, McLaren was unwilling to say what the Bible says and in so doing really hurt God’s feelings and broke his heart.
Then, Brian’s Tonto Doug Pagitt, an old acquaintance of mine, wrote the following in a book he and I both contributed to called Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches edited by Robert Webber and due out this spring:
“The question of humanity is inexorably link to sexuality and gender. Issues of sexuality can be among the most complex and convoluted we need to deal with. It seems to me that the theology of our history does not deal sufficiently with these issues for our day. I do not mean this a critique, but as an acknowledgement that our times are different. I do not mean that we are a more or less sexual culture, but one that knows more about the genetic, social and cultural issues surrounding sexuality and gender than any previous culture. Christianity will be impotent to lead a conversation on sexuality and gender if we do not boldly integrate our current understandings of humanity with our theology. This will require us to not only draw new conclusions about sexuality but will force to consider new ways of being sexual.”
And on January 23rd McLaren wrote an article for Leadership that is posted on this blog. In it he argues that because the religious right is mean to gays we should not make any decision on the gay issue for 5-10 years.
As the pastor of a church of nearly 5000 in one of America’s least churched cities filled with young horny people this really bummed me out. Just this week a young man who claims to be a Christian and knows his Bible pretty well asked if he could have anal sex with lots of young men because he liked the orgasms. Had I known McLaren was issuing a Brokeback injunction I would have scheduled an appointment with him somewhere between 2011-2016.
Lastly, for the next 5-10 years you are hereby required to white out 1 Peter 3:15 which says “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” from your Bible until further notice from McLaren because the religious right forget the gentleness and respect part and the religious left forgot the answer the question part. Subsequently, a task force will be commissioned to have a conversation about all of this at a labyrinth to be named later. Once consensus is reached a finger painting will be commissioned on the Emergent web site as the official doctrinal position.
In conclusion, this is all just gay.
-Pastor Mark Driscoll
[AN EDITORIAL NOTE FROM UrL: As some have noted, one sentence has been edited from Mark Driscoll's post above. As the moderator of the discussions on this blog, I will, from time to time, edit comments and posts to keep the conversation focused and on topic. It was clear from comments rolling in that the sentence in question was causing the conversation to veer away from Brian McLaren and the "homosexuality question." This is why it was removed.]
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o_2.html
Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question 3: A Prologue and Rant by Mark Driscoll
Hundreds of readers have posted comments about Brian McLaren's article on forming a pastoral response to the "homosexual question." One such reader was Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. As "one of the 50 most influential pastors in America" and an outspoken critic of the emergent movement, we thought others would like to read Driscoll's comments.
Well, it seems that Brian McLaren and the Emergent crowd are emerging into homo-evangelicals.
Before I begin my rant, let me first defend myself. First, the guy who was among the first to share the gospel with me was a gay guy who was a friend. Second, I planted a church in my 20s in one of America’s least churched cities where the gay pride parade is much bigger than the march for Jesus. Third, my church is filled with people struggling with same sex attraction and gay couples do attend and we tell them about the transforming power of Jesus. Fourth, I am not a religious right wingnut. In fact, when James Dobson came to town to hold the anti-gay rally, we took a lot of heat for being among the biggest churches in the state, the largest evangelical church in our city, and not promoting the event in our church because we felt it would come off as unloving to the gay community. The men who hosted the event are all godly men and good friends and I’ve taken a few blows for not standing with them on this issue. Fifth, I am myself a devoted heterosexual male lesbian who has been in a monogamous marriage with my high school sweetheart since I was 21 and personally know the pain of being a marginalized sexual minority as a male lesbian.
And now the rant.
For me, the concern started when McLaren in the February 7, 2005 issue of Time Magazine said, “Asked at a conference last spring what he thought about gay marriage, Brian McLaren replied, ‘You know what, the thing that breaks my heart is that there's no way I can answer it without hurting someone on either side.’” Sadly, by failing to answer, McLaren was unwilling to say what the Bible says and in so doing really hurt God’s feelings and broke his heart.
Then, Brian’s Tonto Doug Pagitt, an old acquaintance of mine, wrote the following in a book he and I both contributed to called Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches edited by Robert Webber and due out this spring:
“The question of humanity is inexorably link to sexuality and gender. Issues of sexuality can be among the most complex and convoluted we need to deal with. It seems to me that the theology of our history does not deal sufficiently with these issues for our day. I do not mean this a critique, but as an acknowledgement that our times are different. I do not mean that we are a more or less sexual culture, but one that knows more about the genetic, social and cultural issues surrounding sexuality and gender than any previous culture. Christianity will be impotent to lead a conversation on sexuality and gender if we do not boldly integrate our current understandings of humanity with our theology. This will require us to not only draw new conclusions about sexuality but will force to consider new ways of being sexual.”
And on January 23rd McLaren wrote an article for Leadership that is posted on this blog. In it he argues that because the religious right is mean to gays we should not make any decision on the gay issue for 5-10 years.
As the pastor of a church of nearly 5000 in one of America’s least churched cities filled with young horny people this really bummed me out. Just this week a young man who claims to be a Christian and knows his Bible pretty well asked if he could have anal sex with lots of young men because he liked the orgasms. Had I known McLaren was issuing a Brokeback injunction I would have scheduled an appointment with him somewhere between 2011-2016.
Lastly, for the next 5-10 years you are hereby required to white out 1 Peter 3:15 which says “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” from your Bible until further notice from McLaren because the religious right forget the gentleness and respect part and the religious left forgot the answer the question part. Subsequently, a task force will be commissioned to have a conversation about all of this at a labyrinth to be named later. Once consensus is reached a finger painting will be commissioned on the Emergent web site as the official doctrinal position.
In conclusion, this is all just gay.
-Pastor Mark Driscoll
[AN EDITORIAL NOTE FROM UrL: As some have noted, one sentence has been edited from Mark Driscoll's post above. As the moderator of the discussions on this blog, I will, from time to time, edit comments and posts to keep the conversation focused and on topic. It was clear from comments rolling in that the sentence in question was causing the conversation to veer away from Brian McLaren and the "homosexuality question." This is why it was removed.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)