There was important propositional content in the way God introduced himself to Maggie, there was important propositional content in the way he guided Rich Stearns and there was important and recognizable propositional content in the way he encouraged Glenn Morton.
And yet, …
I can’t avoid thinking that a Penner-ian desire to dialogue and edify will be one of several targets of Van Til-ian Presuppositional Theonomists and I suspect that somebody’s going to get hurt, but it won’t be the latter. [The basis for my “fear” comes from Jeff Durbin Confronts The Woke Church - Oct 5, 2020. I don’t recommend watching if you’re adverse to “Rowdy Christians”. They aren’t numerous, but they sure are “Rowdy”.]
Terry, I don’t know what half of your reply to Merv means.
Went to the video. Muted for privacy, while sitting in the kitchen. Dude with beard and all the tattoos at the mic was interesting. Oh! I see, he’s the pastor of a church called Apologia, where all the staff wears burleyman beards, guages and tatoos except the guy in the suit, who seems there for debates with the more suave folks like Dawkins wannabes? None of these guys remind me of pastors I’ve known, studious, thoughtful, wise and humble. Don’t think I want to hear rowdy Christians loudly misunderstanding thoughtful people.
In spite of my lack of familiarity with the landscape you mentioned, I agree that that words like dialogue and edify are definitely going to get some dander up. Churches I have known always tend to keep a separatist feel. Unfortunately the underlying thought is that (almost) no one else has anything of value to say to us. One reason I am a strong supporter of (secular) public education k-PhD.
1 Like
All I’m doing is responding to what you actually wrote, Dale. It’s all I can do since I’m not a mind reader.
So when you avoid Penner’s main points about Luther’s alleged speech and instead focus on the “alleged” part - I assume that your concern was about … that … since that’s what you wrote.
And regarding edification … I’m responding to your …
I understood that to mean that only Christians can benefit from what your more narrow definition of edification “in a Christian sense” (your qualifier still notwithstanding). It still sounds like a limitation to me! But I suppose you can define it down to where only self-identified Christians can be recognized as beneficiaries.
But this is all arguing over who said what - which isn’t productive. If you meant something other than what I responded to - then I will accept your corrections. You are the authority on what you mean!
Regarding the last point (something I apparently missed) … I gather that was your point about the Gideon Bible conversions?
Okay - sure! I’m not contesting that the Spirit will move however the spirit will, and use all sorts of tools, and Bibles surely qualify as an eminent tool of witness for many. People have probably also had (what may have grown into genuine) conversions from much lesser things as well - like having listened to a charlatan preacher or having seen some Madonna pattern in a tortilla or stuff like that. I’m not saying that Bible reading should be equated with spurious and whimsical stuff; I’m only claiming that we have no business or capacity to limit God on how God can reach in and initially grab a person’s spirit. The searching shepherd will probably spare no effort or creativity to reach a lost sheep on whatever strange crag it happens to be perched.
That’s okay, I prefer not being understood to being misunderstood. Reflecting on the issue(s) that concern me, I think I need to take them directly to Penner.
1 Like
Yeah - and I forgot to mention to @Dale that this was too much hyperbole on my part. …Like I’m such an “authority” on Penner that I can declare chapter 4 to be any sort of ‘pinnacle’ of his labors. I certainly didn’t mean to come across that way. Take it as an expression of my enthusiasm for what he says (and how he says it) in chapter 4.
Meanwhile, like Kendel, I didn’t really understand much of what you wrote either beyond that I took it to be your confidence that some of these other ‘more rowdy’ folks would take Penner out behind the woodshed - I don’t doubt that for a moment. (And I also vote for Penner as being the most likely party to be ‘turning the other cheek’ to his enemies with whatever transpired behind that woodshed.) I entertain no illusions whatsoever that Penner’s thesis really ticks off a lot of Christians (those who even know about it), beyond even just a few at the ‘rowdy’ margins that you note. But as it all turns out, after listening to and reading from so many on this subject, it’s not so much Penner’s faith and discipleship that I’m having doubts about, so much as the wider western culture at whom Penner’s critique is aimed. Turns out that Penner might be more the true disciple in wanting to emulate the guy getting nailed to the cross, rather than joining with the rest of ‘Christian’ society as it chooses to admire the ones wielding the hammers instead.
2 Likes
I did.
I didn’t write much, and you got an important part of it.
- I don’t see Penner aiming at “the wider western culture” as much as I see him aiming at “part of the Church”, … part of the same Church that he’s in.
- The “Rowdy Christians” may look and sound like Atilla’s Huns but they’re not. They’re Hardcore Reformed Calvinists to the core, and they have their Apologetics script down pat with Bible references.
2 Likes
I wonder if he would continue pitching pearls to the porcine, the hardcore atheist having insinuated himself disingenuously while pushing his agenda of god belief as an abstraction to point away from the God of reality in every other sentence, meanwhile garnering likes from the gullible.
Exactly!
They are like the team all in clean uniforms, training regimen all complete, drills and instructions fresh in their minds ready to “play ball”, and then Penner shows up … “game? …Oh… that game? I don’t play that one any more.” And he leaves the shocked team standing there mystified, looking at all their equipment, helmets, and polished gear.
3 Likes
Whether swine, or lost sheep, or found sheep, … I think that for any given person - any one of us, those are very fluid categories, all three. Christ referred to such categories, even by name; but I don’t think he tolerated the permanent banishment of any class of people to being just one of those things.
I fear you may be lumping me in with the industrial apologist, but how many of them do you hear talking about objective evidence for God’s interventions?
I try not to be too much of a lumper; so if I write things that seem to lump you in where you don’t belong, call my attention to it.
Why make any distinction if there is no distinction to be made?
- Minor modification: “fresh in their minds ready to play ball” > “fresh in their minds ready to fight” (Jeff Durbin’s first words to the crowd, in the video.)
That’ll work, I suppose, as long the two teams don’t share the same property.
1 Like
Oh yeah! - It is quite a distinction to be sure, whether I am in a given moment in the role of a found sheep, a lost sheep, or even a swine! What doesn’t seem kosher, though, is to permanently assign groups of people one of those labels - or even one person that you happen to not like. They might be behaving like a swine and need to be called out. Or then again, depending on my own attitude or the spirit by which I’m presuming to call somebody else out - maybe it’s me being the swine! As I said … fluid categories, which doesn’t make them any less real.
Sheep, lost or found, can be pretty insensitive.
That is true! The prophets, the apostles, … Christ himself - none of them are known for giving us any very flattering looks at ourselves.
1 Like
I already mentioned one synonym: gullible.
Would “casting seeds onto rocky ground” be a better metaphor/parable?
1 Like
It’s not alliterative. ; - )