More than any other criticism of AHA I find this one to be the most serious. Namely, I find AHA's existence and governance outside the authority of the Church to be more than a little disturbing. The attitude in the author’s argument demonstrates a seriously defective ecclesiology. Christ authorizes ministry through His Church and only through His Church. Moreover, godly leaders recognize the significance of formal structure and the importance of humble submission to their spiritual leaders. They do not adopt the typical American cowboy Christian idea that they are just going to go take care of business themselves.
Reminds me of something I read in the Gospels:
And he said to them, “Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well on a Sabbath day, will not wait for permission from his ecclesiastical superiors to pull him out?”
Babies will be torn limb from limb upon the beginning of the business day Monday.
ReplyDeleteTorn, that is, into bloody mangled pieces by hired assassins bought and paid for by their mothers.
Their screams will not be heard. Their agony will not be on display. They will not have a holocaust memorial.
I bet the last thing those babies think about as they are being ripped apart is AHA's "defective ecclesiology."
Steve, I think on this that you are right to point out that passage and apply it here. AHA is to be commended for its no-compromise approach that is centered on the gospel and the root cause of infanticide.
I'll help you folks pull that son or ox out of the well, whether or not ecclesiastical chains of command are willing to bless or sanction it.
If these authorities want AHA and other action groups to submit to ecclesiastical oversight, these leaders need to lead the way.
Like Telemachus did.
I wonder which governing body he asked permission of to launch himself into meaningful action (beyond blog wars, that is. BTW, have these blog wars against AHA been approved by the proper authorities?).
I'm with you on this Steve, and AHA as well.
Comment has been blocked.
That's it? That is the best rebuttal you can come up with Steve? I predicted you would weigh in on this one. I just didn't think your contribution would have so little impact and relatively no value whatever.
DeleteSteve's satire aptly demonstrates the frailty of your artificial piety. Not the literary type, are you?
@Ed Dingess
DeleteI doubt you're a "seasoned, mature godly leader"! For one thing, what sort of a "seasoned, mature godly leader" spends so much of his time hopping from one Christian website or weblog to another attacking other Christians in unfair ways? For example:
1. Here on Triablogue alone you've attacked Steve Hays and Rhology in less than honorable ways. People can search our archives if they're interested.
2. Also this guy doesn't exactly seem too pleased with you.
3. J.P. Holding has an entire page dedicated to some of your escapades here.
4. Another similar thread exists here.
Anyway, the bottom line is you're at best a busybody who begrudges other Christians for whatever reason(s). At worst? I guess that's up to you to decide.
BTW, you never answered if you were or are Dr. Liberal. Let me ask you again: did you ever go by the name Dr. Liberal on this blog?
Considering the fact that Ed teaches at a cowboy seminary, it's strange that he's so hard on cowboy Christians. It's not as if the Veritas School of Theology is under the authority of a Christian denomination. So where's the "formally structured" ecclesiastical accountability?
DeleteComment has been blocked.
That's a dodge. The question is not whether Henebury is a member of a local church, but whether Veritas is formally accountable to an ecclesiastical body. Just measuring you by your own yardstick, Ed. You come up short.
DeleteComment has been blocked.
What sound argument? Nice job poisoning the well. Tell me again how you became a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society?
DeleteYou've written a lot in response to this post, yet you haven't made more than a passing dismissal of its main point. Are you going to address it or can we just expect more sophomoric canting?
Comment has been blocked.
Ed's two posts are a rehash of his stock position on Christian political activism. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. We've already been over that ground with Ed.
DeleteAnd Ed incessantly reminds us of how spiritually mature he is. Do spiritually mature people feel the need to constantly brag about their superior sanctity? Or is all that spiritual preening a mark of overweening pride rather than humility? Sounds more like the self-congratulatory attainments of a 33-degree Freemason.
DeleteTalk about hasty judgments; you don't even know me. Why don't you put down the crystal ball and try following your own advice about "charity" and "interest" in the "truth of the matter." It strains credibility for you to invoke such high-minded ideals while, in the same breath, claiming I don't understand the issue being debated, that I am either "very immature or worse," that I have "far more interest in name-calling and [my] own ego," that my actions demonstrate a severe lack of faith and intelligence, etc., all without a modicum of evidence. Try more arguments and less insults, especially if you have the kind of temperament that can't take direct and personal criticism.
DeleteThe issue is whether you've responded to the satirical point Steve makes here. I'm not aware of where you have done that. If you have, please indicate as much so that I might read it. No one is otherwise interested in your moral posturing.
I also indicated that you engaged in well-poisoning with respect to JP holding's comments about your behavior. Yet you dismiss my observation as "name-calling." Your alleged willingness to submit to Biblical and intellectual scrutiny rings hollow.
Again, how did you become a member of the EPS? They usually require people to have obtained a degree (or several) in philosophy. Maybe I'll contact my thesis adviser, a member of EPS, about your behavior on the Internet. People like you should be drummed out with all due haste.
"What I see from young men like you is a complete lack of charity and no interest at all in actually searching out the truth of the matter."
DeleteWhen they have guys like Ed Dingess to look up for, why would you expect otherwise?
Comment has been blocked.
I've written a series of detailed rebuttals to Ed's ad hoc, unbiblical theories concerning Christian political activism.
DeleteComment has been blocked.
Ed,
DeleteYou take yourself way too seriously. Like Dave Armstrong, you constantly make yourself the central topic. Your imagined sense of slighted honor. You need to get yourself out of the way and make room for Jesus. Unlike you and Armstrong, I don't spend all my time defending my honor. I'm not that important.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Ed, this is not a babysitting service. I'm not here to listen to you talk about yourself and pat yourself on the back. We get enough of that from Dave Armstrong.
DeleteHere in this very thread, Ed Dingess states:
Delete"I have never said I was better than you or anyone else."
Here in this very thread, Ed Dingess defames young Christian men in contrast to himself:
"how the Church reacts to it [abortion] should be determined, not by a bunch of young, non-submissive know-it-alls, but by seasoned, mature godly leaders [like Ed Dingess ]"
"The young minions may be too naïve to see [unlike Ed Dingess who is an older, seasoned, mature godly leader]"
Abortion is a serious issue and how the Church reacts to it should be determined, not by a bunch of young, non-submissive know-it-alls, but by seasoned, mature godly leaders which is in keeping the commandments of Scripture.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, if you agree with Ed Dingess, then you've exhibited a mature, submissive, and seasoned character. If you disagree, then you're a young, non-submissive know-it-all. Perhaps you didn't realize you're dialoguing with Steve Hays, a man in his fifties? Seriously, you just can't hold it in, can you? Even when you're dialoguing with someone in the older age-range (no offense Steve), you still have to throw slurs at people younger than you. I don't know what beef you have with young people, but I can't say you're going to make many friends by constantly describing them as naive, rebellious, ignorant, etc.
Yet, you men use the plight of abortion to ignore the clear biblical mandate to ignore God's structure of the Church.
And you care why? Remember, I kept reminding you of what you told Paul Manata.
"mastering how to deliver a succinct presentation of the gospel would serve our purposes far greater than intellectual pugilism."
So what are you doing here? Who cares what Steve or AHA does? Why not spend your time doing something far greater like mastering how to deliver a succinct presentation of the gospel? You couldn't answer the question then, and you can't now. You just go on ignoring it. You keep popping up here, violating your own stated opinion of what's better to do. You're a walking contradiction.
I have to shake my head at how comfortable you are slurring people in a younger age group and yet you continue, even now, to violate your own standard without any particle of caring about your inconsistency. If that's what people are doomed to become when they get old, I'd prefer to die young. You're not beacon of good Christian conduct to young Christians, Ed.
Comment has been blocked.
Ed,
ReplyDelete1. One doesn't have to agree Holding's theology or apologetics to agree with his observations about you. In fact, Holding could be an atheist and secularist and still be right about you.
2. Also, one doesn't have to agree with everything Holding says about you to agree with some of what Holding says about you.
3. However I'm not asking people to agree with Holding's observations about you. I'm just asking for them to examine the evidence themselves. Not just what Holding has written. But also others I've mentioned above. At the very least people can easily do a quick Google search for your name and come up with all sorts of material and useful leads about your online behavior from diverse sources.
4. Actually, even without the testimonies of others regarding your behavior, interested people could simply examine everything you yourself have written on our blog as well as all these other Christian weblogs and websites you comment on. Google something like "site:triablogue.blogspot.com dingess" for starters. People can decide for themselves how you behave based on your own words.
5. Given you say you're an elder at a TMS church, and given you're so adamant about submitting to spiritual authority, I'd be interested in what someone like John MacArthur would say about all your comments on all these various weblogs and websites.
6. BTW, is John MacArthur's church run the way you think churches should be run? Does Phil Johnson or Fred Butler have to run everything they've posted in the past by their fellow elders like MacArthur?
7. You say you're an elder. Would pious and godly Christians say you meet the qualifications (e.g. see here)? Overall are you "above reproach," "temperate," "self-controlled," "prudent," "sensible," "respectable," "able to teach," "not pugnacious," "peaceable," "of good reputation outside the church," "not self-willed," "not quick-tempered," "loving what is good," "just," etc.?
Comment has been blocked.
Ed,
DeleteI don't have the time right now to respond to everything you've said. But I will quickly say the following (and just so we're clear I say this respectfully but firmly as I've been doing in this entire thread):
Why do you scold and all but tongue-lash us "naive young men" so much about the sliver of wood that's in our eyes, but you don't notice the huge 2x4 that's planted squarely in your own eye? Indeed, much of what you've said here about us applies directly to you, but the problem is you don't realize it.
"My blog does not contain insults and ungodly remarks about others. It is respectful."
DeleteEd Dingess with the April Fool's Joke win!
“Both of Steve's responses were disrespectful in that they were absurd and intentionally misrepresented my position. They were the typical straw man responses. To compare my remarks about AHA to someone who wouldn't save an infant running out into a busy intersection is ungodly. That is not the kind of person I am. It paints anyone who disagrees with Steve on the message and methods of AHA as callous and uncaring. To engage in that behavior simply because you don't like what someone blogged is irresponsible and foreign to Christian love and respect. No scholar would agree that we are free to misrepresent views in this fashion. To paint someone this way poisons the well and is simply unacceptable behavior for Christians in the Christian community.”
Deletei) Ed, you need to get over yourself. You suffer from a seriously inflated sense of self-importance. You bristle at a whiff of intellectual criticism. Your reaction is like a parody of an aristocratic honor code. You can complain all you like, but I’m not going to pander to your vanity.
ii) I did two satirical posts which represent a reductio ad absurdum of your position.
iii) It’s an argument from analogy. Just as a toddler who wanders into a busy intersection is endangered, prenatal babies are endangered by abortion. Just as Christian laymen can intervene to rescue a child in traffic without prior approval from their pastor or elders, Christian laymen can intervene to spare babies from the fate of abortion without prior approval from their pastor or elders. You can take care of it yourself.
Same thing with rescuing a son (or even an ox) who’s fallen into a well.
Explain how one requires formal ecclesiastical supervision, but the other does not.