The Real Root of Reza Aslan's Worldview and book, Zealot

This interview of Reza Aslan by Jennifer Danielle Crumpton reveals the real underlying worldview and presuppositions of Reza and his book, Zealot.  Jennifer Crumpton got her M. Div. from Union Theological Seminary, no surprise there, and is ordained in the "Christian Church" (Disciples of Christ) denomination.   Jennifer is a Pastoral Associate of Park Avenue Christian Church in Manhattan, New York.  This is one of the most liberal of all mainline churches; along with the United Church of Christ and affiliated denominations.  (Hard to say which one is the most liberal.)

She also says she is a blogger and minister to young people, Gen-Xers and Millennials, etc. a "Femmevangelical" (her web-site), and most of what she writes seems to be similar to other post-moderns and Emergent/Emerging church thinking.  She writes for the Huffington Post and other liberal leaning blogs.   If you look further at her web-site and videos on You Tube, it is obviously she is against the complimentarian position of women's roles in the Bible and church and family, and very negative against Patriarchal society in the Bible.  Unfortunately, the past sins of some men against women are being imputed to God and the Bible itself. (Nothing new there either.)

The scholars who have criticized Reza Aslan's book, Zealot, have focused on the fact that his theory that Jesus was a revolutionary against Rome is not new, but not many of them talk about the roots of his worldview in the book, and the separation of "the Jesus of history" vs. "the Christ of Faith".

A roundup of significant reviews of Zealot:

John Dickson - this one seems to me to be the most devastating to Aslan.  (per Denny Burk's blog)
seems like Denny Burk's blog is being hacked, or having problems sometimes, so below is the direct link:

John Dickson

Justin Taylor at The Gospel Coalition. 

Darrell Bock.

Craig Evans.  (Per Denny Burk again) 

Larry Hurtado  (by way of Ben Witherington III) 

Calvinist International 

The Economist

The Weekly Standard. 

Warning - this link shows Reza Aslan's frequent cursing, dirty language, and bullying on twitter and media outlets, with anyone whom he doesn't agree with. (on the second page)

Aslan is classic liberalism that has come back with a vengence in our society through the Emerging/Emergent church movement and their spokespeople like Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and Rachel Held Evans.

It is the same classic Rudolph Bultmann type stuff I heard in the liberal United Methodist Church that I grew up, in the 1960s and 1970s.   But the ministers never admitted it until the Lord saved me in 1977 as a teenager, and then, later, in 79-81, when I went and asked them specific questions, I learned where they were coming from.  

The biggest problem is that in sound bite media and Reza Aslan's interviews (like on PBS programs and the Daily Show and Huffington Post type blog/video interviews, and this one above; is his views are "baptized" in the general idea that "The Jesus of History" is separate from "The Christ of Faith", and that seems to be overall worldview of most liberal and modern scholars today - John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Bart Ehrman, etc. - they don't allow truth of theology and miracles to be brought into history or historical research. Doubt and skepticism toward the gospels and Bible are the takeaway message in our sound-bite culture.

Most people seeing these things (interviews, media videos and blogs) don't care about Reimarus or S. G. F. Brandon, (Though it is good for thoughtful readers to know about that and that those theories have already been dealt with in earlier times); but what dumbs everything down and the basic message that gets spread, is that Jesus existed and was crucified, but beyond that, we cannot trust anything else, because it is suppossedly out of the realm of the canons of historical research to allow miracles or theology into it.

I am still reading the book Zealot, I have probably read 3/4 of it; but to be honest, it is boring!!  Liberalism is boring to me; and before I cull together specific quotes and specific problems, I thought I would give an overview of the basic worldview first.

See also my earlier post about "Understanding John Dominic Crossan". 

Government use of scientism as power

Below are two videos.  The first one is about the dangers of western secular scientism - and C. S. Lewis' warnings against governments using scientism for power.  The second video is about how Iran allows and helps fund sex change operations and gender re-assignment.

I thought this first one was a very well done video.  This video is very timely in light of many recent effects of President Obama's first term and re-election victory.  The video starts with President Obama's statement in his first inaugural address of "we will restore science to it's rightful place".   Was this a reference beyond "global warming" and renewable energies? Was he  implying other issues related to ObamaCare, like eugenics and euthanasia (mercy killing) and other uses of technology that go beyond moral bounds? - gender re-assignment, sex-change operations - forcing companies to provide insurance for those things also - like the "woman" in prison who got government funds for "her" hormone therapy and sex-change operations?

Also in light of the case of our government forcing Hobby Lobby to provide Insurance that provides for abortions and abortifacient drugs, this video is very timely.    ObamaCare is not just economically stupid and a step in socialism; but it is evil coercion by our government; violations of freedom of religion and speech.   It is the result of our culture leaving it's Judeo-Christian roots.   The film quotes C. S. Lewis as writing, "I dread government in the name of science, that is how tyrannies come in."  I tried to find the quote on line or in my own copy of The Abolition of Man, but could not find the exact reference for the quote. This article seems to indicate that the statement is a summary of what Lewis thought.   In that article, it  quotes Lewis again on the problem with Theocracy: (From the context of the 1950s and 1960s, and Lewis as an Englishman, one can discern that "democrat" does not mean what it does today in the USA.)

I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for being a democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of democracy. On the other hand, you may believe fallen men to be so wicked that not one of them can be trusted with any irresponsible power over his fellows. That I believe to be the true ground of democracy. I do not believe that God created an egalitarian world. . . . [S]ince we have sin, we have found, as Lord Acton says, that “all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The only remedy has been to take away the powers and substitute a legal fiction of equality. . . . Theocracy has been rightly abolished not because it is bad that priests should govern ignorant laymen, but because priests are wicked men like the rest of us.  (C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and other Essays, pp. 168-169.)  (pages 113-114 in my copy of an older edition.) 

The second video is also very well produced, but disturbing in the realities it exposes in our fallen world today.  The other danger is when a false religious system is the government and then approves of sex-change operations, helps fund them, and uses technological advances to perform them.  The Sunnis are embarrassed by this phenomenon in Iran.  (Warning: the comment section on the YouTube site is full of inappropriate language.)

Here is a disturbing, shocking, and ironic video documentary of sex-change operations in Iran, a Muslim country where Shiite Sharia Islamic law is supreme.  It is ironic because one would have thought that religious Muslims would view all sex-change operations as wrong and sin.   Homosexuality is illegal in Iran and punishable by death, but if one changes himself or herself first, then it will be ok for that person to fulfill their desires and attractions.  They can then marry the opposite sex or they can, in Shiite Iran, sell themselves for temporary marriage.  (Farsi:  صیغه - pronounced: Seegheh or Siqeh;  Arabic:  مُتعه (mota'eh, or it is usually written in English as Muta. Iranians pronounce Arabic words differently, that is also why you will see "Moslem" - the more Iranian way of pronouncing it; and "Muslim" - the more Arabic way of pronunciation.) (*see  more at bottom) This (the Muta issue) is revealed at the end of the film, after one of the main characters in this documentary changes himself into a woman and then sells "herself" in order to make a living.  Wow.  Very disturbing stuff.  They never explain how they understand the contradiction/tension of Allah creating someone "with the wrong body" is justified.    This issue came up in my own evangelism with Iranians, and discipling and pastoring and counseling former Muslims.  It created doubts and struggles in the minds of some of the other Iranian believers as we taught them apologetic issues and how we as Biblical Christians respond to these realities of our fallen world.  How do believers in Christ respond to the struggles that some people have that we don't have?  We had an Iranian lady visit our church who claimed she was created in the wrong body, and she used Gnosticism and Gnostic writings and material from Elaine Pagels and the DaVinci Code type reasoning to argue her points against me.  She came a dozen or so times to church over several months, and heard the gospel and I was able to explain what the Bible says more in depth to her questions after several church services. (Eventually she never came back.  I pray that the message of the gospel will be haunting her mind and heart, from hearing it clearly in her own language, and that God would draw her to Himself, wherever she is now.  John 6:44; Acts 16:14)

Does Islam believe that creation is fallen? (Genesis 3, Romans 8:21) I honestly don't know how they explain these things.  The Bible explains that after God created all things, that after sin, then corruption and decay entered our world   After the fall - after sin entered the world, came decay, corruption, and death.  Birth defects are part of that corruption.  Creation today is "enslaved to corruption" because of sin.  Islam is adamant in denying original / inherited sin, but it seems that with this, they are agreeing that creation has defects/corruptions in it now.  At one point early in the documentary, the doctor is heard and seen saying to one of his patients, "nature has created you this way."  I wonder how religious this doctor is.  I suppose he could agree that nature has been corrupted from Allah's original design, but I wonder how they explain the corruption - since Adam, in Islamic theology, did not become a sinner by nature, nor pass that sinful nature on to his children.

* You can see a discussion of Muta here, even by Sunnis calling for it to be allowed in the current civil war in Syria and quotes from the Hadith that mention it. )



Another disturbing and evil thing, is that if the liberal / gay agenda keeps advancing, the liberal /big government in the USA will be forcing religious institutions to pay for abortions and sex-change operations, not just contraception and abortifacient drugs.

Comparing Mormonism and theological Liberalism in the Two main candidates Faiths

1.  An excellent summary of the bottom line of the Mormon religion.  It is not Christian, as it at its core denies monotheism and God as the eternal uncaused Creator of all things.

"The Real Issue with Mormonism:  God is an exalted man" by James White
http://americanvision.org/6549/the-real-issue-with-mormonism-god-is-an-exalted-man/

Here is just one excerpt, I encourage everyone to read Dr. White's article and also get his two books on Mormonism, which are mentioned and highlighted in this article at American Vision.

"We will look more at the evidence supporting this view of Mormonism below, but it must first be insisted that on any meaningful analysis of religious faith, Mormonism is far, far removed from Christianity. In fact, if one takes as one’s starting point the belief of a religion relating to God’s nature and God’s relationship to the universe, Mormonism is about as far removed on the theological spectrum from Christianity as any religion could be. Whether a religious movement believes in monotheism or polytheism is the first indicator of its nature and categorization, and on this point, Joseph Smith separated his followers for all time from Christianity when he made the statement, quoted above, “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.” In refuting this idea, Smith made it possible for me accurately and forthrightly to say today: Islamic theology of Allah is significantly closer to Christianity in its affirmation of God’s uniqueness, creatorship, and eternality, than Mormonism ever could be. This is a fact known to anyone who takes seriously the teachings of the General Authorities of the LDS Church."  Dr. James White

2.  President Obama's Faith - the article here by Denny Burk, linking to an interview that a journalist did with then Senator Barak Obama, shows he doesn't believe in the Bible or the doctrines that would make his "faith" true faith.  Also, he supports radical abortion and infanticide, same sex marriage, and refuses to call Islamic terrorism what it is.  And the Benghazi/Lybia scandal will eventually become worse than the Watergate/Nixon scandal, I think, given enough time.  Unfortunately, the main stream media is not reporting on this very much, and they and Obama's team seem to be trying to avoid it until after the election.  Among many other bad economic and social and defense policies . . .

"President Obama's Christianity" - By Denny Burk
http://www.dennyburk.com/president-obamas-christianity/

When Denny uses the term "liberal Christian" to describe President Obama, he means a theological liberal, which means Obama is not a Christian at all, since theological liberalism denies all the essentials of doctrine that make faith in Christ true faith in the real Christ.  J. Greshem Machen wrote a famous book, Christianity and Liberalism, in 1923, where he shows that theological liberalism using Christian words in main line churches, is not Christianity at all.

Denny Burk February 27, 2012 at 6:14 pm #

When I use the term “liberal Christian,” I mean to denote a theological liberal, which is not a synonym for political liberal. A person can have politically liberal views and still have conservative theological beliefs.

Excerpt: 

In short, though candidate Obama professes to be a Christian, his beliefs are that of a theological liberal. Here’s a summary with some quotes:

• He believes that “there are many paths to the same place,” and he doesn’t believe that God would “consign four-fifths of the world to hell” for not believing the gospel.

• When asked about his belief in the afterlife, he says he doesn’t know if there is one.

• Obama defines “sin” as “being out of alignment with my values.”

• Obama says that one need not embrace “Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and savior” to avoid judgment.

• When asked “Who’s Jesus to you,” what Obama didn’t say is as important as what he did say. He confesses Jesus to be a “historical figure” and “wonderful teacher” but says nothing about Jesus being a Savior, Messiah, or Son of God.

• He confesses that he doesn’t necessarily subscribe to his own church’s “set of doctrines.”

Did God really say? (Part 2)

Another excellent panel discussion - this time on Inerrancy at the T4G (Together for the Gospel) conference back in April of this year.  I don't think I noticed the title of this one, "Inerrancy:  Did God Really Say?" - before I gave the same title to the article on Egalitarianism and Homosexuality and their discussion at T4g.  See Did God Really Say? (Genesis 3:1) (Part 1)

Participants were Mark Dever, Peter Williams, Simon Gathercole, John Piper, Al Mohler, and Ligon Duncan.

They start off by reading from the first 3 articles about what T4G believes about the Bible, under the "Affirmations and Denials" at the web-site.

Mark Dever points out that the phrase "the Bible is the Sole Authority" means
"sole final authority"; "sole ultimate authority"; and Al Mohler says, "We mean sole authority in the sense of the Sola's of the Reformation; it's not a naked authority, but it is the ultimate authority."  I think they should have added, "The Bible is the sole infallible authority", just to be even more clear; and flesh out what other secondary authorities are - ancient creeds, doctrinal statements, confessions of faith, local church, godly and qualified pastors, teachers, elders, seminary professors, good Biblically based books and commentaries - these are secondary authorities that are not infallible.

The names of some who are mentioned in this discussion and yet claim to be evangelical but have abandoned Inerrancy are Kent Sparks and Peter Enns.   Triablogue has written a lot on Enns.   (Go there and do a search for specifics.)   Fuller Theological Seminary was mentioned that it was in 1971 that they took out the word "inerrancy" from their doctrinal statement.  Fuller Seminary has been on a downward slide ever since.

What is interesting to me is that it was Professor Jack Rogers (along with the book he wrote with Donald McKim against Inerrancy) who was one of the main ones, if not the main one, who took Fuller down that road.  He has in recent years (at least since 2001, maybe earlier) come out for "same sex marriage" and affirmation of homosexuality.  See here in his blog totally given over the abomination of homosexuality and so called "gay marriage" and ordination of homosexuals.  He seems to be one of the driving forces behind the liberalism and ordination of homosexuals in the PCUSA.  He served as the moderator of 213th General Assembly of the PCUSA.  The footnotes point to articles written in 2001.

 James Barr was another liberal scholar who attacked Inerrancy in the 1970s.  Muslims are today still using Barr's book today to attack the Bible.  (especially Paul Bilal Williams)

So, it does seem that there is a subtle connection at least some of the egalitarian movement ( In Did God Really Say? Part 1), the pro-homosexual agenda in liberal churches (not so subtle by Rogers and his web-site), and liberalism and the denial of inerrancy.  They seem to be connected; and they probably started with a subtle denial of inerrancy and grew from there.

Did God really say? (Genesis 3:1)

Egalitarianism and advocating homosexuality - is there a connection?


 

This is an excellent panel discussion of the Biblical view of the roles of men and women, at the recent "T4G" conference, defending the complementary position, that men and women are equal in the sight of God ontologically, but have different roles in the home and in the church; that they complement one another.   John Piper mentions one of the proponents of "egalitarianism" (that women can be elders and pastors; and men are not the leaders or head of their own wife and family) in the late 1970s -  Virginia Mollenkott.  She called the complementary position "obscene", according to Piper, in chapel services at Bethel Seminary when Piper was teaching there in the late 1970s.

See the wikipedia article on her.

It is interesting to note that Mollenkott was married for a while, and had a son, then later was divorced from her husband in 1973.  This seems to indicate she was heterosexual for at least some of that time.  I realize that many homosexuals claim that "they were denying who they really are" by trying to be heterosexual in a marriage.   She later went on to announce or "come out" that she was a lesbian and since that time in her writings has advocated homosexuality, lesbianism, bi-sexuality, and "transgenders"; that these are all defensible Biblically.   The episcopal bishop, Gene Robinson, who is now openly homosexual and divorced his wife and is living with his "gay lover", etc. also seems to have had a similar kind of "evolution", even though he indicated his fears about his sexuality to his wife years before.  He had two children with his wife.

Not all egalitarians advocate that homosexuality is not a sin, but there does seem to be an increase in people who "evolve in those issues".  And there seems to be an increase of people who used to be married in the traditional heterosexual, Biblical way; then got a divorce, and then go on to be homosexual or lesbian.  At least we hear about this more in recent years.  Is there a connection or correlation between the egalitarian position and advocating homosexuality as not sin?  I am just asking the question.    I am sure there are many others who hold the egalitarian position that will be offended by even asking the question.

Rachel Held Evans, caused quite a stir on the internet by her article, "How to win the culture war but loose a generation";  where she basically said that the traditional Evangelical position against "same sex marriage" was wrong and she and the younger generation is tired of the "culture wars", and "tired of fighting" and wanted "to wash the feet" of homosexuals.  She is not a lesbian; but rather is married to Dan, but advocates that there are "LGBT Christians" (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexuals, and Transgender) who can be genuinely Christian and not have to repent of those actions and desires.  By the way, how does a "Bi-sexual person" fulfill his or her desires/orientation?  They would have to advocate for a marriage of 3 people in "loving, committed relationships" - a relationship involving one of the opposite sex and one of the same sex.

It is necessary to again mention basic Scripture that tells us that homosexuality is sin and unnatural and wrong - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Genesis chapter 19.  And we should add to that list Matthew 19:3-6, the words of Jesus the eternal Son of God, while on earth.  The other verses are His word also, as they are "God-breathed". (2 Timothy 3:16)  And it needs to be said again clearly, that the gospel of Jesus Christ is powerful to forgive and save homosexuals and cleanse them and give them new and holy desires and a changed life and hope in the battles against sinful desires!

 It is interesting to study Rachel's other articles at her blog and we find out that she is a very strong advocate of the egalitarian position, that women should be able to be pastors/teachers/elders of a local church.  This, it honestly seems to me, is probably her main issue at her blog and has been for a while.   She has many articles on issues that are about women in the Bible and empowering women to be leaders in the local church.  Some of the things she writes are good and right, but the constant drum beat of wanting women to be elders and pastors over-shadows some of her good points.   In one of the Amazon reviews of her book, "Evolving in Monkey Town", the reviewer points out that Rachel Held Evans admits that she does not like the scripture verse, 1 Timothy 2:12.

See her book and the reviews:
Evolving in Monkey Town 

Brian McLaren of the Emerging/ Emergent church fame endorsed the book, so that should tell you how orthodox it is in doctrinal content.  Rachel Held Evans seems to espouse pretty much the same ideas that the Emerging/Emergent church does.   Brian McLaren started off in his writings as questioning the traditional response of the church to homosexuality in his book, A Generous Orthodoxy, but then later also "evolved" into advocating homosexuality and "same sex marriage" in later writings.   Tony Compolo seems to have followed a similar pattern over the years.

See 15 Reasons I left church.  by Rachel Held Evans

"1. I left the church because I’m better at planning Bible studies than baby showers...but they only wanted me to plan baby showers. "

See also her article "15 Reasons Why I Returned to the church", linked to a the end of her article on why she left the church.

From what I can gather, in reading some of her articles, Rachel also has problems with the necessity of evangelism and missions for people to be saved.  This seems to be one of the first issues historically that cause people to drift toward theological liberalism.  She also questions the doctrine of eternal hell.  She has a big problem with young earth creationism, and questions other doctrinal issues and historical narrative of the Bible.

Now Rachel seems very nice and intelligent and is married to Dan Evans, and I hope anyone reading this would understand I have nothing personal against her.  Rachel is very articulate, smart, witty, an excellent writer, and she admits that she is competitive and she asks lots of questions.  She is challenging.  I want to be clear that there is nothing wrong with a woman who asks questions and challenges men to think.  She questions the difficult passages in the OT where God commanded the Israelites to make war against the Canaanites and Amalekites.  I understand those honest questions and struggles.  (Understanding Genesis 15:13-16 really helped me on that one.  "until the iniquity of the Amorite is complete." )  She has made some excellent criticisms of certain sins and wrongs done in the church.  (hypocrisy, judgmentalism, legalism, neglecting issues of poverty and injustice, of Mark Driscoll as a "bully", etc., even though she seems to apply those sins wrongly to standing against sin and actually doing church discipline.)

Rachel Held Evans' famous recent article seemed, in my opinion, very disrespectful toward the middle aged Christians and elders generation - anyone over 35 or 40 - because she seemed to be saying that we "older" folks need to "get with the program" and surrender our minds and opinions to the 16-29 year olds. (I turned 51 a few weeks ago.)  It is not enough that that age demographic already controls the music and movie industries, the cell phone industry, clothing styles, TV shows, iPods, etc.  It seems many young people are frustrated that they cannot have their own way and force their parents to think the way they think.  They seem to have an underlying distain for those that have been married and raised children and have built businesses, and have some experience in life.

Triablogue had several responses to Rachel's article, I will point to just two of them -  here, (the photograph of Arlington cemetery is enough to give oneself a sobering perspective, and visiting it for a day is overwhelming with scenes of that photograph multiplied 100 times over, maybe); and here.

Yes,we have seen that there is a lot of wisdom in the young folks involved in the "Occupy Wallstreet" movement, right?   Does Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Sean Penn, and Charlie Sheen have a lot of wisdom for life?  Does Miley Cyrus, and Carrie Underwood have much real wisdom, given that they have recently spoken out in favor of homosexual marriage??

Rachel Held Evans based a lot of her argument on the opinions of what she found among the younger generation of ages 16-29.  I mean, really, Rachel, let's start with a section of that group, the  16-22 year olds - high schoolers and college/University students.  They do not have enough experience in life yet, are mostly not married, have not done the hard work of raising children, and most don't have steady full time jobs yet for some significant years, and yet, you seem to think that they have more wisdom than all the 10,000 (+/-) years of recorded human history, the Bible, and most of her elders, who disagree with her.

Rachel said she was "tired of the culture wars".  Well, it seems to me that it is the homosexuals and the left wing political agenda that started the culture war by demanding that we have to approve of their sin and allow them to get married.  Homosexuals should have never been allowed to adopt children.  By nature, it is wrong, no matter how "nice" they are.  They are the ones who are attacking society and decency by their demanding that we think they are normal and that homosexuality is a good and positive thing.  They want to shut us down and tell us that we cannot say things like "love the sinner, but hate the sin" or to call for repentance from the homosexual lifestyle.  I am sure that some people who struggle with same sex attraction were treated wrong and overly harsh by some churches, but Rachel should not label all conservative churches as "too judgmental" or "responding to homosexuality wrong."

There is a great difference between two issues that people conflate when discussing homosexuality.  In witnessing situations, the person who advocates homosexuality will say things like, "you Christians need to have more mercy and compassion and not be so judgmental".  That is a different issue that the larger "culture war" that some homosexuals are taking to the court of public opinion by seeking to change culture and shut down churches from speaking and preaching that homosexuality is sin and must be repented of.  Most Christians can and do have lots of mercy on someone who is humble and knows it's wrong, yet confesses their inner struggle, and is not a "gay activist".   One on one ministry to the humble demands a different response than to those activists who demand that we all approve of their lifestyle.  I disagree with Rachel that churches have responded wrongly to homosexuality.  Biblical churches minister to homosexuals with compassion, mercy, and biblical counseling that does not compromise, with those who are honest and humble and confess that is is sin and are willing to repent of their same sex desires and walk the road of holiness and abstain from all homosexual behavior.  But churches are also obligated to contend for the faith and defend the biblical understanding of marriage as between a man a woman, as Jesus did in Matthew 19:3-6 - "have you not read from the beginning how God created them male and female and said, "the two shall become one" ?

“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, ⁵ and said, ‘ For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? ⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

This shows that Jesus did say something about homosexuality, by His quoting from Genesis and teaching that the true nature of marriage is rooted in creation and God as creator of male and female.  Marriage is God's idea, and man has no right to change that.  "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is still true and we are not afraid to say that.  

If anything, Evangelicals have had more and more mercy and compassion on homosexuals in recent years, not less.  Many have spoken of the need to minister to those who are humble and know that their own homosexuality is sin and yet confess that their struggle of same sex attractions and desires.  Below are some good examples of compassionate and at the same time no compromise teaching on the issue of homosexuality.  Sam Williams' lecture was very compassionate toward those who struggle with same sex attraction, and yet did not compromise on what the Bible teaches.

Sam Williams - a very compassionate lecture on the issue of people who struggle with same sex attractions, but Professor Williams does not compromise what the Bible teaches.

Matt Chandler

Robert Gagnon

James White - refuted Matthew Vines argumentation.

Fred Butler - excellent compilation of articles.

Rachel seems to think that she would be a good Bible teacher - but since she doesn't want to "fight the good fight of faith" and "content for the faith" and rebuke false doctrine, then, Rachel, I am sorry, but you are not qualified to be a Bible teacher, as that is one of the main duties of elders/pastors/teachers/overseers - (Titus 1:9; 1 Timothy chapters 1 and 3, Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-5; Titus chapter 1, 2 Timothy 4:1-7; 2 Timothy 2:24-26)  You could have been a teacher of women, but your jettison of basic Biblical truths makes you unqualified. Maybe that is one of the reasons why God does not allow women to be pastors/elders/teachers of the church, (1 Timothy 2:12) because you don't want to fight.   Remember when the actress Sally Field, at an award ceremony, said, "If women were in charge there would be no G ... D. . .  wars!"   I always enjoyed many of Sally Field's movies - but I was very disappointed in her political rant there.  There would be no defense or police or chivalry or standing up against bullies and dictators or rapists and injustice either, if she had her way.  I don't think she really thought through her statement.

Rachel, your desire to "not fight" -  That actually indicates that you are a true woman - not wanting to be out front and fight. Think about that.  Men are called to fight.  Men are called to fight against evil -both physical and spiritual and moral -  and men are to defend the truth in the office of pastor-teacher/elder/overseer. You left the church for a while, and your number 1 reason for leaving the church was because you said you were better at organizing a Bible study than organizing a baby shower, but the church only wanted you to organize a baby shower.  But if you don't want to defend Bible doctrine, then you are not qualified to be a Bible teacher in a local church, even among women.

Rachel said she wanted to "wash the feet" of the homosexuals.  That's a good thing, in itself, provided there is repentance and conversion first; but I think she needs to study that passage deeper.  Jesus in John 13:9-13 is indicating that our feet need washing because after we take a bath, and then go out into the world, walking around, our feet get dirty.  There is sin in the world, and it affects us; but the passage assumes that one has truly been "cleansed"/converted first (John 13:10; cf. John 15:3; Acts 15:9; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11) and Jesus is indicating that we are to help each other grow in holiness, by washing each other's feet. It is not just bare service, but it is a sanctifying service of cleansing from sin and growing in holiness.   There is no washing/cleansing without confession of sin and repentance.  The disciples had taken a bath - verse 10 - "he who has taken a bath needs only to have his feet washed"  - repented and trusted in Christ - "cleansing their hearts by faith" - Acts 15:9.  The foot washing indicates the ongoing cleansing that we need after we are justified in order to grow in sanctification and holiness.  This seems to point to confession of sin (1 John 1:5-10) and repentance (Proverbs 28:13; Psalm 51; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10)

Jesus answered him, “ If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” 

<sup>A person must let Jesus Christ cleanse them by His grace and work for us; one must surrender to Jesus - repent of their sins and trust in Christ alone to save them.  And a person must allow Christ to continue wash them and sanctify them.  To refuse to repent of homosexuality is to refuse to let Jesus or the church "wash their feet".  Matthew Vines and other "Gay Christians" are saying "never shall you wash my feet" by their refusal to repent of their sin.  In fact, they are refusing the sanctifying/justifying bath of conversion.  (1 Corinthians 1:30) 

John 13:9-15
9</sup> Simon Peter *said to Him, “Lord,then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.” ¹⁰ Jesus *said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” ¹¹ For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, “Not all of you are clean.”

¹² So when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you? ¹³ You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. ¹⁴ If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. ¹⁵ For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. 

So, I think it is clear that Rachel misunderstands Jesus' teaching and example here in John 13.  Later, after Judas leaves, Jesus tells the other 11 disciples who are truly converted, "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken." (John 15:3; see the clear connection with John 13:10-11)  The branches that "hang out" around Jesus but bear no fruit are like Judas, who was externally around Jesus and the other 11, who will become the church, but had no true internal conversion or change.  (John 15:2, 6  - those that bear no fruit were never born again and will be burned up in hell.)

But back to the sub-title idea of the post, "Does Egalitarianism tend to advocate homosexuality? Not necessarily, and I would like to study this issue more as whether there is a possible connection and correlation; but there does seem to be many who  evolve from the Egalitarian position and later also advocate homosexuality as not a sin.  Or is that just the general way theological liberalism is by nature?  When one starts out with the devil's way of thinking, "Did God really say that?" (Genesis 3:1), then I think we can at least agree that we need to be very careful about what and how we question things in the Scriptures; and we should be careful about how we question our elders, our parents, and those that lead in the church.

Whom to believe?

Catholic Nick said:

You said: "Irenaeus was clearly wrong when he said that Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome." According to who? Liberal scholars (who want to discredit the Christian faith and Bible as much as possible) or traditional minded (faithful) Catholic scholars and historical appeals to Irenaeus by Catholic documents? 

I could toss liberal Protestant Scholars at you who discredit the Bible and claim "factual errors" on your part.
In other words, the liberals are so sneaky that they discredit any given doctrine in any way they can while still "believing" in the doctrine so as to attempt to avoid guilt. The Raymond Brown quote above is a beautiful example of this, where he attempted to smear and discredit the traditional Christian notion that St Paul wrote Ephesians, and he did so with the overall goal of smearing the Bible as likely tampered with.

Nick,

Why are these "liberal Catholic scholars" Catholic? If they're scholars and they write and get read by churchmen and aren't roundly refuted by the RCC, then why shouldn't I put a lot more faith in them than in you, anonymous blogger layman? Who the heck are you, exactly?


the liberals are so sneaky that they discredit any given doctrine in any way they can while still "believing" in the doctrine so as to attempt to avoid guilt

And isn't the Magisterium shrewd enough to figger that out? Why not do sthg about it? Why does the task fall to you? Who the heck are you, again?


The Raymond Brown quote above is a beautiful example of this

"St. Anthony Messenger Press Publisher Jeremy Harrington, O.F.M., said, "Raymond Brown reached scholars, religious educators and clergy with his academic books, but in his zeal he wanted to reach more: the people in the pew who hungered for a greater understanding of the Bible. We were honored that a scholar of his stature would write for a popular audience.

"Brown once commented that Catholic Update and St. Anthony Messenger reached hundreds of thousands, more than his books. He also reached that wider audience through Scripture From Scratch and the paperback books that he wrote for St. Anthony Messenger Press. He was a joy to work with. Some authors resist any suggestions, but Brown was open to ideas and editing. He was a gracious man and a brilliant scholar who knew the fruits of his labor were for everyone."

Brown, a Sulpician priest, was Auburn Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary, New York. He was twice appointed a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, by Pope Paul VI in 1972 and by Pope John Paul II in 1996. He wrote extensively on the Bible. In addition to his books, he was a frequent contributor to Catholic Update, St. Anthony Messenger magazine and Scripture From Scratch (all publications of St. Anthony Messenger Press)." (Source)

And then...on the other side...there's Nick. Ah yes, Nick, who has been appointed a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission...zero times. Is an INfrequent contributor to Catholic Update. Is NOT a priest. Is NOT a professor of Biblical Studies, at any university or seminary. Has written...zero books.
Hmm, whom to believe?


I've yet to see any Protestant around here appeal to any given Church Father as "one of their own"

Ah true. FAR better to express fantastically incorrect views about a CF than to hold a realistic view that actually fits the evidence! How silly of me!
You didn't read the "where I put it all together" post, did you? Please do, and don't come back till you do.

Eastern errancy

I'd like to respond to this comment on my blog about the inerrancy of the Scripture and harmonisation from my Eastern Orthodox friend David Bryan, and as always, to ask him please to correct any misconceptions I've incorporated about EOC. I understand whenever you have to cut this off; moving cross-country is no easy task. But I think the problem for your position is deeper than you realise, I really do.

Men wrote the thing, yes, but "men carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21). Don't you believe that your church is guided by the Holy Spirit? Why can't someone turn the same objection back on your church? I mean, it's made up of MEN.
What's really funny to me is that it's your church that believes in theosis, faithful believers' partaking in the divine nature. These 4 Evangelists were, I'm sure you'd agree, much, much farther along in their being conformed to the image of Christ than you or I will ever be (until we die). Thus they would have been much closer to God, better, deeper partakers of the divine nature than you or I. And yet, here you are
1) correcting them according to your far-removed, 21st-century perspective.
-The irony here is that EO-dox are usually the ones criticising Reformed believers for looking at early writers and the Scr from a far-removed, future perspective.
2) making a powerful distinction between man and God.
-The irony here is that EO-dox are usually the ones who, from a Reformed perspective, shrinks and blurs the distinction between man and God.

All that to say, in this line of reasoning, you are acting like a liberal Protestant. That's not a good thing, but unfortunately it's not the only area in which EO-dox do so.

Maybe it's not as apparent to you for another reason. I've asked both you and Anastasios about the role that evangelism and apologetics play in the life of the semi-serious and serious EO layman, and you've told me that the former is inadequate and the latter is barely existent. Anastasios in particular let me know that he'd never heard of an EO apologist engaging, say, an atheist in public debate. I could be wrong, but I'm not at all sure you have encountered many atheists or skeptics and really talked turkey with them about stuff like this. So let me come at it from another angle.

You're talking to Joe American Skeptic. You tell him you believe that Jesus Christ instituted a church while He was walking the Earth, and entrusted it to His disciples, and His disciples spread the good news of Jesus all around the world and appointed other people to take their places when they died in the churches and to celebrate the sacraments of Christ, like baptism and the Eucharist. So, this church has come down to us through the years with successions of bishops, which is kind of like what you'd call "pastors".

You tell him you believe the Bible, that you believe what the Bible says and also what the church has always believed down through the centuries. You know, b/c the guys who were handed down the tradition of the church from the apostles and then on down through their successors, they all taught the same things.

So he wonders if it is true? For example, what would you say the sign above Christ on the Cross actually said, in its entirety? Each gospel account stated something explicitly regarding what the sign said, when in reality only one of the four was actually right, at best, and the other three (or all four) were (in some cases drastically) in error as to what the sign actually said after all, right? (He hadn't read Seth's comment, which clears up the misunderstanding.)

You'd say you're fine with one gospel saying one inscription and another saying sthg else, because men wrote the thing. Inspiration doesn't necessarily produce airtight, factual data synchronization. There's still far and away enough agreement as to the major events (Nativity, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, Pentecost) that Scripture very strongly stands as a faithful witness to the Advent of Christ and the reality of His Church.

He wonders if inspiration doesn't necessarily produce factual data, how do you know that the Resurrection, for example, actually, factually happened?
You'd answer that you have the faithful witness of the church down thru the centuries. It's a lot of people.

Here's where it gets sticky. He thought that "a lot of people" is what caused the problem in the first place - multiple ppl write these varied accts of what was written above the Cross. But suddenly more people is a good thing?

So, what will you say? That you have a succession of people who heard from the teachings of the apostles themselves, no?

But hadn't the Gospel writers also heard from them? Weren't at least a couple of them eyewitnesses? Why do you rely on early church writers when the earliest ones are untrustworthy?
Or do you trust them for SPIRITUAL truth but not other kinds of truth? How do you make the distinction when the truth in question is not only spiritual in nature, such as
1) the Crucifixion
2) the Resurrection
3) the promised Parousia
4) the new Heaven and the new Earth
5) the theosis of the faithful
etc.

On what basis do you assert that those are indeed faithfully transmitted, while other things, such as the Cross inscription, were not? Is it just b/c you don't understand how the Cross inscription accts could fit together (even though Seth explained how)? Why is it better to ascribe error to a production of the Holy Spirit rather than to admit that you don't understand how it could all work together, but God knows and, while often He does make that knowledge and understanding available to humans, sometimes He just doesn't. You talk about mystery an awful lot in EOC; why do you abandon it in this arena? Where does the Bible itself distinguish between "OK, here's some spiritual truth, so this is really the real truth, for real," and "Here's some other stuff about, you know, the physical surroundings, the historical narrative. This isn't really a big deal. In fact, you could probably skip over it, b/c 21st-century archæologists will be able to totally reconstruct the whole thing WAY better than I'll be able to tell it here. So yeah, just fuggedaboudit (2 Maccabees 15:38-39)"?

The same questions go for early church authors. Only, there were alot more of them! You think the 4 accts are irreconcilable, but 40 different early church authors all saying different things is a better situation? Will you retreat to "oh, well, ____ was just speaking as an individual, private theologian, and the church's reaction to it over time bore out that he was mistaken"? But when all the church fathers hold the Scr in highest regard and ascribe no error to it thru hundreds and hundreds of years and thousands of pages, somehow *you* know better, with your 21st-century wisdom and insight?

Is this where following EO tradition leads someone? Is it really that far out of the vein of EOC tradition to hold to the inerrancy of the Bible?
And of course, we must ask, if it is, how would anyone know for sure? After all, if God-breathed Scripture is errant, what hope have non-theopneustos writings from men who were *not* "carried along by the Holy Spirit"?






(cross-posted at my blog)