Hey ya'll, sorry it's been so long since i posted here-i've been in Indiana and what feels like all over the country the past week or two for IV. It's fun, but as i wrote before it kinda stinks working so much and then coming back to campus tired out a week later and realizing that i did almost nothing with the students i love back home. But that's the way the cookie crumbles.
I learned some interesting stuff about some objectives of InterVarsity over the past week. It was stated that one of the greatest contributions of InterVarsity and the publishing company associated with us is that we further the discussion on a lot of controversial issues. This hurts in some ways, because someone might read one IVP book or one article written by an IV staff and think "If IV believes this, then it is evil." InterVarsity may not believe something like that at all, the organization just enjoys almost being an antagonist sometimes in order to further important discussions on important topics.
One example of this is publishing some of Greg Boyd's stuff, as well as Basinger and Rice and a few other open theists. My reactionary response is to think that here is a case in which we should absolutely not "further the discussion," but instead do everything we can to kill it. However, perhaps in not acknowledging some of these works we would fail to see the argument to it's end, but instead only sweep it under the rug. That may not be a good way of dealing with it, either. What should we do? Are there topics with which we should "further the discussion" and other topics which we should not? Should we attempt to create a para-church org that has a purestrain theological system, or should we acknowledge many ways of thinking about things in order to debate them? What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Hey Andy.
Glad to see you haven't abandoned your blog. :)
Anyway, what an interesting question you've raised. Whenever I browse through IVP, I am always reminded of that willingness (or even eagerness) to engage controversial topics. Intervarsity is an interdenominational organization, so I believe there is (and ought to be) room for varying perspectives. My experience with IV cultivated a greater desire and ability to think critically about my beliefs. I think the "discussions" that IVP are furthering contribute to this critical thinking. And to shut the lid on certain topics (even ones that seem preposterous) would be a disservice to students.
Just my two cents. :)
Well when you post on IV I usually enjoy reading and responding.
Here's where I struggle with IV's *antagonistic* goal. It's not edifying. Publishing stuff by Greg Boyd, whose Open Theism tendencies really just stem from Socinianism (which was damned as heresy centuries ago) isn't edifying. Boyd is not only an Open Theist but he propagates Christus Victor and in so doing denies the centrality of penal substitution. When are people going to catch on that this is a denial of the gospel? It's absolute poison and it robs Christ of the honor that is due to him.
Secondly they are presuming on the fact that their readership is educated, and actually searches out the truth. However, is this presumption founded? How many people have read Boyd (or the like) and blindly said, "I do" without reading the rebuttals? I know I did for a number of years. I understand that IV is trying to "help" people, but without truth you cannot help people (it would be different if IVP said "We agree with Boyd therefore we will print him). But to print controversial books just to "provoke" discussion seems not useful. IVP has an obligation, by virtue of who they are and say they are, to help influence people for the sake of the gospel. By printing authors like Boyd they fail at this, and rather stir up controversy. Not to mention they are beating a dead horse. Open Theism has been destroyed 1000 times over.
-kb
Thank you for both your comments. We see both sides of the issue i'm wanting us to keep talking about. I too, have a problem with the publishing of open theism books, because open theism is destructive. However, kb you yourself have a copy of the Catholic catechism, and don't agree with it. Would it be a disservice to students, as dana posits, to not show all the views on something? If nothing else, at least to be able to readily and enthusiastically point out where some have strayed from the truth? Or is that part of "assuming an educated readership?"
Regarding the poster who feels that Boyd's antagonism isn't edifying, I feel that anyone who encourages people to consider their stance rather than just thoughtlessly standing there is definitely edifying - if not directly, then at least indirectly. Because the word "stance" strongly implies a static state of affairs, those who force us to at least think about why we believe what we do help keep Christianity dynamic.
Andy,
I do have a copy of the Catholic Catechism, it was given to me as a gift. But the Vatican Press also isn't out trying to promote truth as much as it is out to promote Catholicism.
My "biggest" problem with IVP is that they state they want to serve the university by, "publishing resources that equip and encourage people to follow Jesus as Savior and Lord in all of Life." Yet they willing, and gladly (I'm sure the profit is worth it) publish books which are contrary to this very stance, they themselves don't agree with some of what they publish. See any inconsistency? Granted IVP is free to publish whatever they want, I don't think they are under a moral obligation to print only Reformed books, but at least be consistent with your aim and goal.
Also you said, "Would it be a disservice to students, as dana posits, to not show all the views on something?" No it wouldn't. I think something we need to recognize is that everyone is entitled to "defend" the faith, but not everyone is capable of defending the faith. To throw heretical books in the hands of students (note IVP exists to serve the university) who may be quite ignorant and unable to discern is a very dangerous thing and not being a good steward of the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints. We need to be more cautious in the things we put forward for other's consideration. There are reasons I stay away from Barth, Schleirmacher, Aulen, Tillich, etc (I mean really, how many college students do you know who can expose the deep seated heresies of such men, or point out why Schliermacher's demythologizing was dangerous, or refute German Higher Criticism? It's not easy, it's tricky and should be dealt with at proper levels). Until I get a foundation and basis for solid truth I don't want to tempt my mind with tasty heresies. I think it is a greater service to students to provide them with solid teaching, give them milk before you throw them solid food. It would be like a church selling books like Blue Like Jazz, Velvet Elvis, and Sex God all for the purpose of encouraging parishoners to "look at all sides." It's an unnecessary thing. Some of what is advocated in Christian books is just pure evil (Boyd's slander against penal substitution is such an evil), and I don't think Paul was kidding when he said we should be "infants to evil."
@ Calvin's Daddy (cute name :-) )
There is one severe flaw in what you said. You are assuming Boyd is "encouraging people to consider their stance." Granted Boyd himself may state this, but there is a deeper more fundamental problem, Boyd is attacking the gospel. Really, should the uneducated entertain the ideas of Socinius or Arius just because they challenge our thinking? There are vitals of religion that are not to be crossed and Boyd does so.
I guess what I am trying to advocate in all of this is a sense of humility. We ought not think of ourselves or esteem ourselves greater than we really are. As much as their is a simplicity to the gospel, there are also deep consequences and mind boggling truths. Just because we can read and English bible and a few books doesn't give us a right to be "great defenders of the faith." IVP, it seems to me, needs to realize this and the local Church needs to instruct and equip the saints for the defense of the gospel (another thing which is lacking in a lot of evangelicalism).
Grace.
As a quick PS to that last comment, I recently heard of a church that is not doing well because someone told their high school students that God hates sinners. This has caused a fuss in the church because "God loves everyone."
Now let me pose the question, do you really think students like this are ready to go and digest (and discern) the writings of Boyd or NT Wright (both IVP authors).
I'm not saying IVP is the *worst* publisher, but really, how do you get Leon Morris and Bill Hybels to go together? I find that they are inconsistent with themselves.
Grace.
This is super interesting! I guess there are a lot of different ways this discussion could go, but it seems like it may come down to an issue of "gatekeeping". Should IVP have gatekeepers that keep certain things out? If so, who should be those gatekeepers? How should they decide what to let in and what to keep out? It's easy to draw lines when talking about someone as controversial as Boyd. But couldn't it trickle down to issues like infant baptism or something? What if the "gatekeeper" decided infant baptism is not "true enough" to the Bible? Then any author who believed or supported infant baptism would be kept out. And we would lose some really valuable voices.
So I guess what I'm saying is: How would IVP be able to do this without losing its characteristic of being interdenominational? And the other question: Whose responsibility is it if readers are not well-versed in doctrinal topics? Should the possibility that a reader might not understand a text keep IVP from making it available?? That seems...crazy.
Good thoughts Dana. I think an easy remedy is to guard the "vitals of religion." Baptism has long been considered a "non-vital" or a "peripheral" doctrine. This is not to degrade it's importance, but believing in paedo or credo does not strike at the vitals of religion. Questioning penal substitution does. Advocating pragmatism (I don't know if any others from IVP do, also does this). NT Wright's stuff on justification undermines the gospel.
Should IVP be responsible? With their current "vision," yes. They want to equip university students to follow Jesus-those are their words. So as long as that remains their mission I think they have a responsibility to the readership. If they want to change their vision statement to "Publishing books across the spectrum, good and bad" then like I said, I don't think they are under a moral obligation to print *only* good books. A little bit of consistency would be nice.
I think it's a shame to see what IVP started as and where they have come throughout the years.
Any thoughts?
Grace.
Just a note, InterVarsity Press is not the same as InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, but we use them as a great resource. Also, to throw another bone out there; IVP has come out with a statement that they will never publish anything that reeks of complimentarianism. How does that fit in with what we are talking about? It may not be a "vital" of Christianity, but it certainly is not being fair to that view.
Kyle,
I see your point about consistency. And you're probably right. A little re-vamping of the vision statement would likely solve a lot of problems. But I'm wondering...is what you're saying about the responsibility to the readers and equipping students to follow Jesus based on the assumption that reading something that is "bad" or "not right" will hinder someone following Jesus? Does that question make sense? Like, isn't it possible that reading something that isn't right will have the opposite effect of strengthening you in what you know to be right? And if these ideas are out there, shouldn't we want people to be knowledgeable about them, even if only for apologetic reasons? I mean, I'm not being facetious. These aren't rhetorical questions. I'm really asking. And again, the issue of gatekeeping comes up. Who gets to decide what is vital or what is "good", and how are they making that decision?
Andy,
Wow. I'm surprised by that thing about complimentarianism. That isn't fair. And it's inconsistent.
@ Andy,
What is the affiliation between IVP and IV? Isn't IVP a branch of IV?
Also, if you talk to the Together for the Gospel guys complimentariansim "IS" part of the gospel (see their statement of faith). Denying complimentarianism is, in the mind of some, denying the gospel. After all, marriage is a most sacred representation of gospel love.
Just some thoughts.
@Dana,
You said, "Like, isn't it possible that reading something that isn't right will have the opposite effect of strengthening you in what you know to be right?" How does this, do you think, mesh with Paul's commands that we be infants to evil (1 Corinthians 14:22) and when he commands that we have nothing to do with wayward brothers (2 Thess 3:14, 1 Timothy 4:7, 2 Timothy 2:23, Titus 3:10)?
Grace.
Yeah, I don't know. I don't know how those things mesh. But that raises other questions for me. Can knowing about something evil be considered evil? I hate to use this example, but I will. So, there are pro-anorexia websites on the web. If I were to read through these websites, would that mean that I endorse that view or will be convinced to endorse it? No. It would just be me gaining knowledge. Or, like I have friends who believe drinking alcohol is sinful and absolutely wrong. I don't think that's Biblical, but it's certainly not evil. Can something be unBiblical and simultaneously un-evil? If not, then should I have nothing to do with those friends? Am I making sense?
Wow. I feel like I am making a mess of this topic. My apologies! But what do you think?
it seems that a lot of the comments are assuming that the "uneducated" christian who shouldn't bother with solid food before learning to drink milk is doing so alone. what about mature christians mentoring or discipling immature christians? isn't it the responsibility of the strong to help guide the weak? it seems that it is assumed that a weak Christian will fall victim to bad teaching because they simply read a book. I think it is a deeper process than that.
i think of this in the context of raising a child. my daughter is going to be exposed to things that contradict scripture, but at the same time i will be there to guide her and teach her what scripture really teaches about those inconsistencies.
I recognize the dissonance in the "mission statement" of IVP and their actions. While I do not appreciate (or condone) them printing unbiblical teaching, I also realize I have a choice of what I purchase and read. I stick to what I know to be solid, and then branch out from there. If Piper mention's another theologian positively, I'll take the risk to look into that person. At the same time, I can not walk blindly into assuming, "Piper said he was solid, so I can agree with all that is in this book."
While we answer to God as individuals, our faith is not a result of our own work. Each person has had various influence and guidance. Look at the relationship of Paul and Timothy as an example.
Just some thoughts.
Post a Comment