Dr. Blomberg on speech-codes

CRAIG BLOMBERG SAID:

“Steve, you obviously haven't read our document in its entirety or at all carefully or you are basing your information on inaccurate second-hand material.”

I quoted verbatim from the handbook and gave the url.

“We all use the appropriate pronoun (he for men, she for women) when referring to specific people. Quotations of others' works must preserve their exact wording.”

I quoted from the section on “Writing with Gender-Neutral Language” (pp11-13). Where does that section make allowance for gender-specific singular usage?

“Faculty are not required to be egalitarian--about 40% of us are not.”

Then why does your seminary impose an egalitarian speech-code on the student body?

“If asking students to change a sentence like ‘Each student must bring his Bible to class’ to ‘All students must bring their Bibles to class’ is some horrible theological or literary infringement in someone's mind, they probably need a larger view of contemporary realities. Which is more important--to stop perpetuating the myth that keeps some people from becoming Christian, namely, that evangelicals are hopelessly sexist in their language or to ask mature believers to apply 1 Corinthians 9:19-23?”

Of course, that’s a false dichotomy. Instead of capitulating to the pansexual standards of the power elite, we should use their offended reaction as an opportunity to explain to them the Christian worldview, including the Biblical doctrine of creation.

“Yes, being a Christian does involve putting others' concerns above self (Phil 2:4, rightly translated in the TNIV as over against the NIV), but I don't hear any of that in this post.”

i) Once again, that’s a tendentious way to frame the issue. It’s not as if a Christian who has a principled reason to use gender-specific language has anything personally to gain from such usage.

ii) We also need to distinguish between the genuine concerns of others and artificial concerns which are driven by a value-system that is diametrically opposed to the Christian worldview.

iii) Apropos (ii), the better part of putting someone else’s interests ahead of our own is to properly diagnose their true interests in the first place, and deal with their actual needs. Catering to liberal prejudice is hardly the best way to minister to a lost world.

“If this tiny restriction for the sake of the gospel is to be labelled political correctness run amuck, it's time for the authors of such labels to turn their computers off and join the real world of the rest of us trying to reach lost and dying people for Christ!”

Among other issues, that’s a terribly provincial and ethnocentric view of the lost world. Many traditional cultures would be offended by unisex language. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t both appeal to cross-cultural evangelism and also impose an egalitarian speech-code on patriarchal cultures.

“Why is it that every time my attention is drawn to Triablogue it's because it is being critical of a fellow Christian, usually unnecessarily, usually with a carping tone, and without any sense that people have actually tried to understand where the person being criticized is coming from or to give them the benefit of the doubt that they might be well-intentioned. It's time for this blogsite to make a 180 degree U-turn in substance and in tone, or just stop posting. The Bible calls it ‘repentance’.”

i) Just to set the record straight–your otherwise admirable seminary is the institution guilty of discriminating against fellow Christians. So I think it would behoove you to emulate the same tolerance towards your student body that you’re so quick to urge on others.

ii) I’d add that giving people the benefit of the doubt that they might be well-intentioned is a two-way street. I don’t see you putting that into practice where Triablogue is concerned.

iii) In case you’re also alluding to my comments on your Molinist post, Jeremy Pierce said much the same thing:

http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2009/07/calminianism.html

Do you think that he should either repent or stop posting?

Dr. Blomberg. You’re a great ornament to the evangelical church. You’ve done wonderful work in the field of inerrancy and the historical Jesus. You’ve authored or coauthored some fine commentaries, as well as a great 2-volume intro to the NT. Not to mention a lot of other useful stuff.

It would behoove you not to stake so much personal capital on this particular issue.

I’m a bit puzzled by your hair-trigger reaction, especially since I said nothing about you in my post. Perhaps this is, in part, a holdover from the grief you took for your published debate with Stephen Robinson. I happen to think the criticism of your participation and performance was generally unfair.