Comments on: We All Have to Make a Choice

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:49:18 +0000

Spencer, I was hoping we could get your feedback. Thanks for stopping by.
“First – this is a literary tool to engage readers.”
I'm not sure what you mean by that…what are you referring to as being a tool?
“Second – when do we

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:17:00 +0000

Amy,
As always your posts encourage ALL of use to look a little deeper, reflect a little longer and listen a little harder.
In response to your observation;
First – this is a literary tool to engage readers.
Second – when do we

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 12:12:17 +0000

Victor and Amy,
Thanks to you both for these links.
I'm working on a series of Sunday School lessons on Gnostic Christianity and the Gnostic gospels, and I was trying to develop points on why such heretical works still need to be taken seriously today.
These links provided me with more information than I could ever use. Very disturbing as well.
All the best,
Mike

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:24:46 +0000

Brian, here's something crucial for you to understand, and I hope you'll hear me out. I'm not offering this as a critique of these men. I could have used any number of examples from all sorts of areas (this isn't an emergent vs. non-emergent post), but this was the example at hand. I'm not asking you to come to a decision on these men, I'm asking you to come to a decision on your view of the Bible. Even, as I said was possible in the original post, if it ends up they have exactly the same view of the Bible that I have (and I've pointed you to another source favorably reporting that they don't), the choice I described is still a choice we have to make, and one on which people fall on both sides. I'm sure you can agree that you've seen people on both sides, and this choice exists. That said, I can appreciate your concern that my using this as an example could unfairly characterize their views. I don't think I have, based on my other interactions with their work, but I don't expect you to take that on faith--neither is that my purpose. Completely suspend judgment on that for now (as I said, it may end up...). What I want you to do with this post is to examine yourself and your beliefs about the Bible and decide where you will stand. If you choose to look into where Burke and Taylor stand on this because the answer is important to you, and you find that their mindset is to begin with what the Bible says in order to conform their ideas to it, I'm certainly open to correction on this. Burke has stopped by before, so maybe he'll clarify how he comes to his decisions.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 18:01:29 +0000

I appreciate your comments, but certainly there are some implications even concerning your use of them as an example. You said “They'll appeal to our common sense….” They will? How do you know that? And more importantly, how am I to know that as one who has not heard them speak (unlike you)?
This is the thing: for a guy like me who has not spent time listening to different speaking engagements of Burke and Taylor, I need to come to a conclusion whether you are fairly citing and critiquing these men. I can't say either way because how am I to know? As you say, its not that you're using published work from them to make your point. You are saying, “I heard them say this” and “I think they will be making these points in their book”, but how am I to know that? How am I to know that you're acurately representing them? I can't. I simply have to believe you are. I have no reason to think you are being malicious towards them, but again, I think that if Doug Pagitt would be doing the same thing, I don't know if it would look so harmless (depending on your point of view, of course).
I guess I'm making a deal about this because I continually hear both Emergents and non-Emergents talk about the level of fairness and grace given in the current debates. I feel that when we can offer signs of good faith, that is always a good thing to do. And I have always believed (and still do) that you folks value that.
Thanks for the dialogue.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:30:58 +0000

(In case anyone here doesn't know what Tim is referring to, he's talking about the ad at the top of theooze.com.)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:26:25 +0000

Brian, as I did explain before, I'm not "blasting the book"--the book is not even the main subject, but instead it's about the two possible approaches we can take. I'm using it as an illustration of a methodology--an example of an idea expressed by their previous works and speaking and by many other people as well. I didn't even blast the methodology! I honestly don't think Burke or Taylor would be upset with anything here. They believe their approach is the right one to take, and they openly describe their findings as "heretical" (i.e., against the traditional biblical views) and don't believe the Bible ought to be taken literally (see here). I've personally heard Burke speak about this floatie story as a way of explaining how he came to his views about salvation, and he simply didn't begin with a study of the Bible to find out what it says about this. Again, I can't imagine he would be insulted by my saying that, since he's doing what he thinks is right. My purpose here was to be descriptive rather than critical and lay the choice out there since I think it's one everybody ultimately has to make. I just want people to be aware that they're making it. I certainly did not make personal comments against the book or Burke and Taylor. I hope that makes this more clear to you.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:25:44 +0000

You touched on this earlier, Amy, but I still must say, I do think there is something wrong with criticizing a book when it isn't even read yet. You said you were basing your statements off the back of the book cover, but still, I don't know how fair that is (don't the publishers come up with the content on the back of the books?).
If some folks in Emergent blasted a book by D.A. Carson before the book was ever read and made estimates about its content due to the argumentation on the back of the book, I'm guessing the A-Team blog would come to the rescue calling such criticism premature and unfair.
I don't know. It just doesn't seem to be all that gracious.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:02:26 +0000

I think it means that they are the real thing for risking persecution for their “sound theological thinking” (as opposed to sound biblical thinking). Jesus was crucified because he opposed the religious establishment. Luther and Galileo were excommunicated because they opposed the religious establishment. It wouldn't surprise me in the least bit if the authors believed that they are opposing the religious establishment, in which case they are truly heroic.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 10:02:32 +0000

Thanks for the clarification, Amy!
“So now I'm back to being thoroughly horrified.”
Sometimes, it's better to be given a roundhouse kick by Chuck Norris.