I just do not know how to feel when I earnestly see a deconstruction of the faith that saved me 34 years ago. The emotions are across the board and I find almost any approach changes no one. Everyone arrives at the forum with views intact and use all sorts of communication styles to defend what they already believe, and they reject any unearthing of anything dangerous.

I think this kind of strikes at the heart of the issue, really. I’ve noticed this same type of thinking in other Christians I’ve met who’ve had pretty intense conversion experiences around the time of the Jesus Movement. I think in some ways they have a desire for everyone to have the same experience they had, but I’ve found that’s it’s just not the case that it’s normative for everyone.

I guess I don’t understand why you can assume that everyone has to have the same understanding as you on this particular issue. It seems to me that as long as a person knows that Jesus saved them by dying on the cross, that the mechanisms behind that are secondary. You don’t have to understand how an engine works to drive a car. In fact, you could have a pretty messed up understanding and still get to where you’re going to.

I suppose it’s also a matter of purpose. We (and you) have taken to blogging and commenting about the manner in which the ADM distort, twist, etc… so we offer rebuttals.

Every once in a while someone will post a post that is not in response to some ADM offense… but that is the exception not the rule.

As far as Rollins is concerned, I’d like to know just what he means by the jury being out when it comes to substitution atonement. Is he denying it outright? Is he questioning the metaphor? Is he exploring the nuances and doesn’t want to comment yet?

What does that make me in your eyes Chris?

Incredibly lucky…

A man very dear to my heart, Dr. Tim Brown, who is the president of a Calvinist seminary,

A very great man, excellent preacher, and an amazing theologian. Plus the president of the seminary I am now enrolled at. What does that make me in your eyes Chris?

I do believe you guys are selective and somewhat indifferent to substantive research concerning anyone emergent.

I realize the mission here is to confront attacks from within, however there are other attacks from within that do not emanate from the ODMs. [...]

I still vehemently contend that the issue of the teachings of Rollins and others are worthy of at least one major post, even if the theme is a defense of Rollins. Again, I do not forsee that in the future.

Rick, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I’ve only posted a few (pretty thin) articles since returning from Ireland. My research capacity these days is a on the thin side… I hope to rectify that in the near future, but it is what it is.

So, I’ve got very little interest in Rollins, particularly since his “influence” is that he’s on a speakers list for a two day conference in Michigan. Like most pure philosophers I know, he seems more than a tad flaky to me, but flaky does not a heretic make. And even so, it’s not like Mars Hill has put him on their board of elders.

My understanding is that, when you’re given a speaking slot at something MHBC-sponsored, you’re given a topic, some bounds around that topic, and a trajectory for the desired outcome of the talk you’re giving. As such, it’s not like you’re given carte blanche to speak on whatever you so desire, nor are you given an endorsement of everything you are and/or believe.

Example: A man very dear to my heart, Dr. Tim Brown, who is the president of a Calvinist seminary, has spoken twice at MHBC this year. He even quoted Calvin in one of the sermons (the underlying text was from Lamentations, BtW). I would have no qualms inviting Dr. Brown to come to my church to speak on a variety of topics, as well. Even so, I rather roundly reject Calvinist theology – and I’m pretty sure that MHBC is not a Calvinist institution, either.

GBA holds very little weight with me, so I have very little interest in; a) defending Rollins (though I have no problem with him holding to Christus Victor and doubting PSA); or b) defending MHBC for having him speak at a conference.

I cannot know your heart, Neil, but those comments accurately reveal my observations concerning the direct issue I was referencing. I consider that specific issue important to me, and I believe I have engaged for over two years on the issues you guys felt were important.

I acknowledge this is not my blog, so I can accept that.

I can only speak for myself, but unless I’m writing off the top of my head, I’m not much for writing these past few (and probably next few) weeks. My biorhythms, work cycles and personal time aren’t converging on much “research”, and the one page you linked me to on Rollins gave me headaches just trying to decipher what the guy (Cecil something-or-other) was talking about (and the couple of quotes/comments I Googled came back a bit different, in context, than what the Cecil guy painted them to be).

If I get a transcript of Rollins from MHBC and he says something really off-base, I’ll likely be willing to comment (since MHBC is “on my beat”, but every ECM church across the world is not). Why? Because I can be much more sure that I can trust the source/transcript, and I will know the context.

It is most disheartning when no one seems willing to even entertain the thought that some teachings have strayed from Biblical faith. I have no explanation other than the attachment to certain men or certain movements. Dinosaurs like me will soon pass off the scene (me more quickly than most) and all the discussions will be much different, and thorns like me will no longer agitate.

Rick – I can only speak for myself, but it is an issue of time and lack of “fire in the belly” on most topics (I didn’t even think I’d engage on the eschatology question until ignorant insults were tossed my way after what appeared to be honest questions about interpretation).

Witness yesterday’s minor spat/comment-string on Obama. I can’t stand the guy and hope he completely, utterly, totally fails in his office w/o screwing up the USA too much in the process. I also hope nobody assassinates him, because the only thing more insufferable than a clueless blowhard is one who’s been made into a martyr. It’s best that, a la Jimmy Carter, they’re shown to be the incompetent boobs and attention-whores they are. That attitude’s not going to change any time soon, but I’ve got no energy to debate it. It’s also not a very Christ-like attitude, so while I hope it will soften/change over time, I’m not going to defend it.

I’m sorry I have no interest in Rollins. Like I say, if he says something dumb at MHBC, I’m sure the ODMs will be on it like tapeworms in a hoglot. If that happens, I will be much more willing to say something. Otherwise, he’s just a speaker at a conference I have no money to attend, during a vacation in which I have free lodging up in the mountains.

Sorry.

It is most disheartning when no one seems willing to even entertain the thought that some teachings have strayed from Biblical faith. I have no explanation other than the attachment to certain men or certain movements. Dinosaurs like me will soon pass off the scene (me more quickly than most) and all the discussions will be much different, and thorns like me will no longer agitate.

I am most convinced I have no power to convince anyone even about discussions, so I guess I will just be creative commentor who provides some humor or benign banter that displays some limited linguistic resourcefulness, but little else.

I see things significantly different than do you.

I cannot know your heart, Neil, but those comments accurately reveal my observations concerning the direct issue I was referencing. I consider that specific issue important to me, and I believe I have engaged for over two years on the issues you guys felt were important.

I acknowledge this is not my blog, so I can accept that.