Dang it...

See, now I wish I had spent the 40 bucks and gotten the audio from our critical concerns course with Doug, Mark, Karen and John Burke.

Drew Goodmanson has posted a review by someone who was there that has me wondering if we were in the same room. In fact, I guess I know we weren't...

He pulls out two quotes in particular:

Our second guest was Karen Ward from Church of the Apostles. This was an interesting exercise in nailing Jell-O to the wall. Part of what concerns me about this new form of liberalism is its purposeful vagueness as if it is to be commended that we obfuscate rather than clarify our words and ideas. The disdain for definition is felt immediately when I began to ask questions about what acts as her underlying belief or presupposition for theology or ministry. The word games and semantic shuffle makes you feel like your herding cats with a bubble blower. I realize this form of communication is considered avant garde in our pomo/post-pomo culture, but this is nothing more than repackaged deconstructionism sprinkled with postmodern Christianese to be passed off as deeply intellectual thought.

Another quote:

This session ended with all four of the speakers sitting up front to field questions which were written down for them to answer. Low and behold my question was the first up- “What role does the cross-specifically the aspect of penal substitutionary atonement play in your ministry.” it saddens me that Karen and Doug gave your typical “cross as example” answer and left John and Mark having to explain the significance of the cross of Christ. John did this very politically correct and Mark basically said (and I’m paraphrasing) that if you don’t get the cross, you’re not a Christian. It is what sets Christianity apart from all other beliefs and faiths. Mark then gave a great explanation of the many aspects of the atonement and what Christ accomplished for us on our behalf.

I left a comment (still in the moderation que):

I was in this seminar as well and will attest to a couple of things.

1. There was palpable tension between Doug and Mark

2. Mark was not the hero- everyone was wrestling with certain things, including their personalities. Sometimes it got the better of them, including Mark. In fact, I will say, especially Mark.

3. Karen Ward, with whom I spent much time this week, is not Jello. Unless Jello has a spine of steel. Her theology is exceedingly well-thought out... read the book.

4. Cats are only difficult to people that try to herd them, which is kind of a dumb thing to try and do with cats in the first place.

In fact, Karen gave some very gentle, very effective rebukes to both Doug and Mark during the time. She gave visible testimony to the fact that what your theology does to you, how it makes you treat others, especially those with whom you have friction, is at least as important as the theology itself.

My associate Pastor wrote up his thoughts (on the book and the time together) here

Honestly... if the story that is going to be told of this time, which I have very mixed feelings about overall, is that Mark went in and kicked theological butts right and left, I will feel morally compelled to balance that out, get the audio, and do some commentary.

This could have been a much mre fruitful time... but not without certain people laying down the idea of a theological bingo card and that what represents a good time together is when someone hits all the right squares of "Penal Substitution!" and "The Horror of the Cross!"...

Aye carumba... too early in the morning for this...

Comments

[Rachel]

That line about herding cats was priceless, Bob! Thanks for the report.

I have only had the opportunity to speak to Karen Ward in person once, but she struck me as an unusually serene person without even the tiniest chip on her shoulder. But I can't help but wonder what it is like for her (or any other clergywoman) to be on a panel alongside a minister with the views of Mark Driscoll. It is one thing to have theological disagreements but it is quite another to be in dialogue with a fellow minister who will not even acknowledge your call.

[Mike]

"Penal substitutionary atonement."

So glad that we've had the "correct" answer for all things orthodox finally spelled out. Let's just all be sure that we get the "right answer" on the heavenly scantron sheet. {Remember to bring the #2 pencil as well...]

Anyway, Bob thanks for your thoughts on the seminar. As always, there are much appreciated.

[jason]

I'm struck by the following turn of phrase:

"...nothing more then repackaged deconstructionism sprinkled with postmodern Christianese to be passed off as deeply intellectual thought."

Do they stay up nights working on critiques like these? It's complete sophistry, IMHO.

[ryan]

Hey mike why make a mockery over such an important element of the atonement? Really this is missing the point. Like it or not the issue is hot. Two counterpoints books have been released on it in just the last few months, and it was one of the topics the speakers of "Listening to the Beliefs of the Emergent Church" were asked to respond to. I doubt anyone is making it out that this is important to know for the "after life exam" but it DOES effect our ministry and the way we live. It is worth all of us who are followers of Jesus to deeply consider and study. After all it seemed to be pretty important to Jesus.

[stephen shields]

bob, is there a way to get the audio for this conversation if you weren't at NPC? I'm interested in ordering it.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Rachel said..."It is one thing to have theological disagreements but it is quite another to be in dialogue with a fellow minister who will not even acknowledge your call."

Let's not be overly sensitive here. There are plenty of orthodox Christians who doubt the validity of women being called to pastoral ministry because their understanding of the testimony of Scripture. (Which has been the majority report for the past 20 centuries. This doesn't necessarily make it right, but it's not like the view comes out of left field.) Just because these Christians, and I count myself among them, don't believe in women called to pastoral ministry doesn't mean that they are unable to love, respect and have a dialogue with someone who believes differently than them.

Truth be told, I probably have more trouble "acknowledging" pastoral calls of certain men than I'd like to admit but that does not mean that I cannot love them and dialogue with them as well. Shoot, I'm not even called to "acknowledge" somebody else's call outside of my own community anyway... I am called to love them.

[Rachel]

"Just because these Christians, and I count myself among them, don't believe in women called to pastoral ministry doesn't mean that they are unable to love, respect and have a dialogue with someone who believes differently than them."

I appreciate that, Rusty. And I am not condemning those who hold to the complementarian view. That is the theological interpretation I held to for most of my life and I recognize that it is based on a sincere understanding of Scripture.

But I don't think it is unreasonable to note that the situation Karen was in could be rather challenging. Through journeying alongside a clergywoman friend, I have come to understand how precious and profound and deeply personal is the call to ministry.

I recognize that those who hold to the complementarian view must maintain the integrity of their convictions. But I am simply noting that to have a fellow minister refuse to acknowledge one's call could be quite painful. And I don't think that it is overly sensitive to make that observation.

[bob]

Stephen...

the audio is available here... http://www.psitapesales.com/pages/npcsandiego2007.html

Now I really want this audio, but $40... sheesh...

There's about 15-20 minutes in the middle of this thing that is really, really important. The rest, not so much... except where Karen gives that nice gentle rebuke to both Mark and Doug... :)

[Mike]

Ryan, I completely appreciate where you are coming from. My concern is actually more in line with what you are thinking. I am concerned that the way the question was posed might actually be clouding the mystery of the atonement, rather than bringing more clarity. The way the question was posed leads me to believe that the issue of penal substitutionary atonement was being used as a "litmus" test of sorts for orthodoxy, which in the end may actually limit the fullness of the atonement. I apologize for the tone of my earlier comment as well, which in hind sight was a bit biting.

What concerns me is the issue of the atonement being reduced to a singular vision and perspective. The Church has held to various visions of what it means for "Jesus to die for us." Penal substitutionary atonement is only one of those classical views. As for the history of the doctrine, it is also interesting to note that this particular vision of the atonement was not in fact the first vision articulated by the Church [Christus Victor was the primary vision for quite some time].

Now before anyone accuse me, or others, of somehow "doing damage to the message of the gospel" - let me say that penal substitutionary atonement is not an inaccurate way of looking at the mystery of what took place on the cross. It is merely one way of articulating the significance of the cross. In think where we find ourselves in dangerous waters is when we claim that it is the only way of seeing what took place on the cross - which is what I percieved as the motivation behind the question posed to the panel.

Sorry if my sarcasm clouded the issue at hand.

[ryan]

Thanks Mike for the response. I can see where you are coming from. The last thing I want to do is throw stones at someone because they do not nail down every last bit of their theology. Truth is we all have quite a bit of mystery in our theology and only see dimly.

[D. Goodmanson]

I wonder if the audio includes the round table discussions/qa where the speakers went table to table. I doubt it, but this would be excellent to listen to as well.

[bob]

It would, but I dont think so... I'm not sure how that would have been possible without four separate recorders, which they didn't have- just the one.

Yeah- It was in those times that Mark and joked around a bit and he said to me "You are being very fair!" in my descriptions of Mars Hill. It was a nice moment- we concluded it, not with a hug, but a simple, firm handshake :)

[Robert Freire]

Just read David Fairchild's summary of the panel discussions and then read yours. It's interesting to get these two very different views. Thanks.

One thing... To say that asking questions of Karen Ward was like trying to nail Jello to the wall is not to say that Karen Ward is Jello. The metaphor doesn't work that way. And to say that talking with her is like trying to herd cats is not to say that it's smart to herd cats. Again, the metaphor doesn't work that way.

Just sayin...

Rob