Ed Dingess recently posted a critique of Russell Moore's position on the Zimmerman verdict:
But this generates a dilemma. On the one hand, Dingess is a critic of Abolish Human Abortion. Dingess is an ally of Frank Turk in his opposition to AHA. They seem to share the same (or similar (ecclesiology). They love to quote Heb 13:17 (which they don't bother to contextualize).
On the other hand, Moore is a Baptist elder. An ordained Baptist minister who's pastored several SBC churches.
Suppose a member of AHA was also a member of Highview Baptist Church (which Moore pastored). Suppose the AHA member had a blog in which he did a post supporting the Zimmerman verdict. Suppose Pastor Moore told him to retract it because the post conflicted with Moore's view of the verdict. What should he do? On the one hand, Dingess thinks laymen ought to be in submission to their elders. On the other hand, Dingess is a public critic of Moore's position on this issue. Likewise, what does Turk think the layman ought to do in that hypothetical situation?
Comment has been blocked.
i) Is Ed admitting that in case of conflict, a layman should trust his own judgment rather than the judgment of his pastor?
Deleteii) Is Ed saying a layman should submit to the demands of his pastor and/or elders even if their demands are admittedly mistaken? Or is he conceding that there is no such obligation?
Ed Dingess
Delete"if the elders (session) requested I not blog until I had additional training so as to protect me from publishing error..."
Russell Moore is highly trained, yet Ed doesn't think that protected him from publishing error.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Ed's argument bristles with problems:
Deletei) He assumes that God gave us a plurality of elders as a system of checks and balances. But where does Scripture give that rationale?
ii) The NT bears witness to several churches in doctrinal crisis. Where were the elders? Were they in crisis because there were no elders? If so, then eldership is not a prerequisite for a church. Or were they in crisis despite the elders? If so, then eldership was inadequate to prevent or resolve the crisis. That required outside intervention. It's unclear how either scenario supports Ed's position.
iii) Ed is overlooking self-selection bias. In the nature of the case, denominations select for elders who share the viewpoint of the denomination. So a plurality of elders doesn't render it certain or even probable that doctrinal error is avoided. Take Ed. He's Baptist, not Lutheran. He's premil, not amil. He's YEC, not OEC. Clearly, though, it's easy to come up with sessions or even entire denominations whose views on some issues Ed considers erroneous.
iv) Given Ed's strictures, it's unclear if he thinks a layman would ever be justified in changing his theology. How would a cradle Lutheran layman ever be warranted in becoming a Baptist? Wouldn't that be insubordinate to the counsel of his pastor and elders?
v) Ed chronically divorces authority from true. But submission to error is insubordinate to God, who is the touchstone of truth.
Ed Dingess
Delete"Apples and oranges Steve."
Meaning apple standards for Ed, but orange standards for his opponents. Ed needs to learn that what's applesauce for the goose is applesauce for the gander.
Comment has been blocked.
Ed Dingess
Delete"My issue with Russell Moore's commentary is that he presumed to judge George Zimmerman's motives, which requires knowledge of what is in Zimmerman's heart. This, no man should do."
To the contrary, jurors must often decide the mental state of the accused at the time of the alleged crime. Did he act with criminal intent (e.g. premeditation, malice aforethought)? So Ed's principle is absurd.
Ed Dingess
Delete"1) I never used the expression 'checks and balances.'"
I didn't say he used that expression. However, he said: "No elder worth his salt thinks his judgment impeccable. This is why God gives us a plurality of elders."
What's the point of that claim unless he's suggesting that a plurality of elders acts as a check on the judgement of an individual elder?
"I refer the readers to Acts 20 and the Ephesian commission."
That appeal is too vague to prove anything. What's the point?
"Of course new Churches with new elders under the new covenant are going to struggle with doctrinal issues. They don't even have a NT document yet to provide the standards and guardrails upon which to operate."
Actually, they could run their questions directly by an apostle. Pretty convenient.
"This point is irrelevant. Submission does not equal agreement."
Does Ed think there's an obligation to submit to error?
"I have left Churches for sound reasons."
Why isn't that insubordinate? Rebellious? What if his elders didn't give him permission to leave? Then what?
"Elders derive their authority from Scripture. Abandon basics of the faith, and elders decommission themselves as qualified leaders. See Matthew's gospel 18 on binding and loosing."
A telling example of Ed's spooftexting:
i) To begin with, Mt 18 says nothing about elders or church officers, in distinction to the laity. Ed is importing that into the text out of thin air.
ii) Mt 18 deals with actual sin, not mere accusation. Ed keeps divorcing authority from truth. Where does Mt 18 say the church has the authority to bind and loose even if the accused is actually innocent?
"I reject this characterization. Given Steve's position, authority collapses."
Ed is the flip side of Bryan Cross.
"I have yet to see a positive biblical statement from him on the biblical authority of the local church and a Christian's duty to submit to their elders…"
Actually, I'm exposing internal contradictions in Ed's position. If a layman must submit to his elders, even if he disagrees, then how could a Lutheran layman ever become a practicing Baptist unless his elders gave him permission to change churches?
"…as commanded in Hebrews 13:17."
Unlike Ed, the author of Hebrews doesn't decouple authority from truth. To the contrary Heb 13:17 comes at the tail-end of a very lengthy argument to prove the author's position and disprove the opposing position. Throughout his letter, the author appeals to the authority of Scripture, reasoning from Scripture, to establish his position. He never suggested that his readers should submit to their elders even if their elders are wrong. His whole letter is about correcting doctrinal error.
"Steve seems to be guilty of the same thing that most American Christians are guilty of: emphasizing the radical autonomy of the individual to the utter neglect of the Christian group."
Ed absolutizes autonomous authority, by severing authority from truth.
"I see no way of mimicking the the biblical model of oneness in the body…"
Ed rejects the oneness of the body by bifurcating the church into elders and laymen.
"…with such a high view of the individual's 'rights' to reject their elders almost on a whim."
Ed severs rights from what is right.
That being said, if the elders (session) requested I not blog until I had additional training so as to protect me from publishing error, which is destructive to my soul and the church, I am obligated to submit.
ReplyDeleteSo let's just modify Steve's scenario where Pastor Moore demands the member of AHA and his church retract his article because it conflicts with his view of the verdict because he slaps on the label of "publishing error that's destructive to your soul and the church". What does he do now? Is he obligated to submit even though, according to you, Pastor Moore is wrong?
On the one hand, Dingess says:
ReplyDeleteNowhere have I advocated that we must always agree with our elders on every point in order to "submit" to their authority.
On the other, he says:
if the elders (session) requested I not blog until I had additional training so as to protect me from publishing error, which is destructive to my soul and the church, I am obligated to submit.
I guess I should stop being surprised that obvious things don't matter to Dingess.
Comment has been blocked.
Isn't the ERLC a parachurch ministry?
ReplyDelete