Musings of an Urban Mennonite - Latest Comments

Re: Due Penalty for Homosexuality

Kyle Simmons — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:25:42 -0000

I appreciate your thinking process. I was reading Romans this morning and did a search for "due penalty of their error" and came across your post. Upon considering all of this I believe the real "sin" here according to Scripture is how we have God perceived in our hearts and minds. And because we do not have God in His proper place, these other things come. We "open the door". Not worshiping God as God has its own implications and consequences. If we can get people to think properly of God and His Son, and have a right relationship there, then the other "sins" will fall away from their practices.

Re: Due Penalty for Homosexuality

Curious — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:00:32 -0000

Before asking this question I want state I am expressing no opinions here! My question is this: Do you consider murder to be natural? Do you consider man as naturally good or naturally bad?

Re: Chick-Fil-A and Liberal Intolerance

Danny Volk — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 18:29:28 -0000

You can publish it.

I agree with you in that people should not be mean. People should not say mean things about wanting faggots to die. People should says that all people that work at Chick-fil-a are hate-mongers. Being mean is not thoughtful. And I think you and I are trying to have this debate among thoughtful people.

I'd also be interested in discussing such things with you further.

Thanks!
Danny

Re: Chick-Fil-A and Liberal Intolerance

Danny Volk — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 15:25:29 -0000

Dear Ryan,

Fellow Urban Mennonite here. (Chicago) I should say, non-practicing. But you know how that goes. Mennonite gets in the blood and it stays there. (Happily!)

I think this is a really hard issue. I am a gay man. As a junior high school boy (before I got included in the loving embrace of the Mennonite community) I was taunted, threatened, attacked and bullied for being gay. (I say "for being gay" but I should say "for seeming gay" which ended up an accurate assessment anyway.) What this whole Chick-fil-a thing is bringing back are the boys in the locker room holding me by the neck until I say, "I'm a fag." When I see pictures of people holding Chick-fil-a bags and grinning at the camera, or tweeting horrible, hateful things about faggots and HIV, I can't help but shut down again like I did in the locker room of long ago.

Now, this isn't supposed to be a sob story. But I think you have to know that this is not a political issue. This is an intensely personal issue for every gay person who has ever been bullied or hated for being who they are.

Dan Cathy, in his statement, may have "never said he had anything against those who thought otherwise," but he sure did imply that he does not support other "non-biblical" definitions of family. (I put it in quotes because I don't think creating Adam and Eve meant that a) they were married or that b) that is the only God-sanctioned family structure.) What this boils down to, in the real world, are same-sex relationships that are not allowed the same legal privileges as their opposite-sex counterparts. To break it down more, it means people not being able to be at the bed-side of their dying partners, of no financial security for those partner's whose lover has died, etc. Which, to withhold these rights from certain citizens, seems like an adult version of bullying. There is a bit of a double-whammy here when a corporation backs legislation that establishes inequality for the citizens of our country. It becomes capitalism at it's worst. Not because it backs something I disagree with (a one-way view of family), but because it supports something that continues to marginalize and oppress REAL PEOPLE.

That may be a good cause for an uproar.

I see little difference between the images of people holding their Chick-fil-a bags and holding "God Hates Fags" signs. But maybe that symbolism is lost on straight people. But whenever human rights and social justice are on the line, I think we Anabaptists need to step into the shoes of the people whose real lives are being affected and see the world from that perspective. Not a theoretical one.

Re: Arsenokoites

jane58 — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:00:01 -0000

At last, someone accepting that the interpretations of the Bible are just that, interpretations and so open to question.

Re: Is the International House of Prayer a Cult?

Chad Golani — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:42:57 -0000

I know Kirk as well, I met his family too when they were down at IHOP Atlanta some years back on two separate occasions. ZHOP is very similar in structure to IHOP, it uses the unbiblical Harp and Bowl 'model'. They subscribe to the same Kingdom Dominion theology, the Manifest Sons of God theology and other facets of the Latter rain Theology, that the IHOPs teach. All of these are heresy by-the-way, and CANNOT be backed up scripturally. I'll give this young person a "Timothy" here, and not despise your youth, that being said, almost without fail in this country young people, 19 year olds included, do not have enough scripture training to know if something can be backed up biblically. I say this because, I have heard, in person and on CD, Kirk teaching. Some teachings will have a great deal of truth in them, even some very profound things, but then they are still riddled with error, it's like picking sticks and rocks out of hay, a horse can usually navigate around those when eating, but the danger remains of one day choking to death on a stick or getting a blockage from a stone. Error is also easier to receive when mixed in with the truth. Then again, some of Kirk's teaching is complete heresy.
As a former IHOP staff member (years) I know first hand that what she says about IHOP is absolutely true, and it is a cult, and it is dangerous, if you can connect the dots with the kingdom theology they teach. You did not experience in your internships what she did, but you did accept the heresy, I say this because you state it is backed up biblically, when it isn't.
IHOPpers and ZHOPpers are generally good people, sincere and wanting to really experience God ('experiencing' God isn't biblical either, but it sounds good). Unfortunately they are under a strong delusian, and it will lead to destruction.

Re: Myth of a Christian Religion: Losing Your Religion for the Beauty of Revolution

Trudy Metzger — Sat, 26 May 2012 11:51:37 -0000

This is great! Fascinating! Only a moment ago one of my blog followers mentioned Greg Boyd--this books specifically--and then, because of my own background, I googled 'Mennonites blogging' and found your blog! Couldn't believe when the first link I clicked was about Greg Boyd's book! Will definitely check out the book! Thank you for sharing!

Re: Calvinism is Not the Gospel (Neither is Arminianism)

Sinner — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:17:53 -0000

There is only one way in which one can be saved. By believing. For it is by grace (unmerited favor) that you have been saved. Eph2:8-9. Arminianism nor Calvinism are biblical. They are man made doctrines.
All you have to do is believe. Why don't you actually read your bible instead of getting caught up in man's ideas.
Both are wrong and it is very disturbing that people think that these people are even Christians and so called Christians walk around believing we are brothers and sisters when they all believe a different Gospel.
A Calvinist doesn't have to believe anything God does it for him and an Arminiast is confused.
No where in scripture do see either one of these so called doctrines. I read in scripture it is with your heart you believe Romans 10:10 God don't make us believe and he don't believe for us. That Grace is unmerited favor not grace to cause us to believe.

A sinner saved by grace through faith

Re: Joyful Exiles from Mars Hill

Allan Clare — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 05:23:10 -0000

I read Jonna's story and then spent several hours going through the documents on the 'joyful exiles' website yesterday. I was saddened and angry. I'd always been a bit of a fan of Driscoll and think of myself as a Reformed Charismatic. Well, it was an eye opener. I was shocked at his behaviour and the behaviour of the other elders. The only light is that Driscoll resigned a while ago from several ministries, didn't he, and now I understand why he is referring to it as a 'season of pruning'.

My wife and I were heavy shepherded in an independent charismatic church in the summer of 2008. It really, really can take time to recover from the damage to your spirit / psyche. But I now see the Scriptures through a whole new light. At first I thought this 'whole new light' was me throwing out the baby with the bathwater due to my bad experience of church leadership, but four years on I'm moving more and more to a simple church / organic church belief. I'm still working out my polity ('leaders' are mentioned in the NT and I think the heart issue is greater than the importance of a particular polity) but it's like seeing the New Testament 'one anothering' verses afresh. Whatever is the 'true' polity I know it's nothing that enforces a 'clergy/laity' divide, an 'us/them' mentality, a 'leader/non-leader' ethos. We're all in this together. Elders will arise naturally through the Spirit's gifting (and they'll be ELDER men rather than the late 20s to late 30s model of the nuclear/trendy family we often see) and they're the ones, of course, closer to the floor as they wash the feet of the saints. I briefly saw a clip of the Mars Hill pastors being introduced on stage during some massive stadium bash they all had recently. Cheers, and applause, and big smiles, and sharp suits. God may be very pleased with their hearts, as He alone can see them, but the temptations and dangers to fallen man for this sort of public prominence is yet again seen in Driscoll.

In the summer of 2008 I came across the sgmrefuge and sgmsurvivors blogs (after googling 'heavy shepherding'). Having read extensively and daily since almost the start of these blogs it's been saddening seeing the response of Sovereign Grace Ministries to the stories that appeared there. But God won't be mocked and here we are four years later with the whole thing exposed from the rooftops. And SGM are STILL trying damage control!

I was thinking last night about the amazing power of the internet. People can't get away with this now. In this day of scanners in living rooms to copy emails and word processing our testimonies to publish them on our blogs and websites, things can't be done in the dark. It's like the reinvention of the printing press which poured out the Scriptures and tracts and blew apart the might of Rome.

God is doing an amazing thing in His Church. The only name that can be lifted high is JESUS!

Regards,

ATC, Bristol, UK.

Re: TULIP – the Five Points of Reformed Theology

Le — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:55:13 -0000

Thanks for the article.

Who chose first?

Re: John Piper and “Masculine Christianity”

Rachel Ann — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:32:07 -0000

You totally missed the point! John Piper is right! Christianity is EXACTLY like this: http://youtu.be/XUzHrqabDtk. ;)

Re: Gender Hierarchy Makes No Sense

Ryan Robinson — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:09:51 -0000

I approve of everything you just said :) I agree that the heart of Driscoll's problem is that he is ultimately very self-centred. He decided on an interpretation so it must be right. If you look at his and Grace's newest book, there are other things like projecting their sexual struggles and saying that everybody has them, or saying that since Grace was abused every woman has been. One of the great ironies to me is that one of his favourite insults to his parishioners from when I've listened to him do Q&A is that they're selfish and then he uses that to not answer their question. Some days I genuinely feel sorry for him because more than anything else, he simply is not mature enough to be a pastor. I think if he knew how to submit (word chosen purposefully) to the critiques of others, he could mature into one of the greatest leaders of our generation. Instead, he sees critiques of others as more proof that he needs to stick to his guns and that everybody else is wrong. He has the talent, but it has been corrupted.

Another blog I saw recently that mentioned him points out that it is the hardest to see the problems when there is also good there. I think that's often true of him. We celebrate his passion, his speaking ability, his willingness to tackle tough issues, but we don't filter out a lot of the problematic teachings. This is a bad example because I never see it happening in real life, but it's like trying to find a piece of jewellery lost in a couple hundred pounds of manure. There often is something good in there, but is it worth the effort of sifting through all the crap considering you can get that something good from elsewhere? So some like me have given up and stopped listening to him entirely (other than when he makes the news for doing something stupid), but a lot of others keep covering themselves in his crap and take a chunk home and wear it around their metaphorical neck because they can't differentiate it from the occasional good point.

I'm with you on the gender thing, too. There are differences between men and women, some created by evolution and some by culture. But for one, they are tendencies, not rules, as your example pointed out. For another, there is no obvious correlation between tendencies of traits to absolute rules constricting roles. It would be one thing to say that in general men are stronger, but it is another thing to say that all men must lift objects over 20 pounds (even if they seem unable) and no woman is ever allowed to (even if they seem able). That's the illogical jump that's being made when someone tries to use gender tendencies to create absolute rules of permission.

So I don't think I really said anything new there, but I agree.

Re: Due Penalty for Homosexuality

Emily — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:15:04 -0000

Thank you for a powerful, enlightening post!

Re: Gender Hierarchy Makes No Sense

anneke — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 06:17:24 -0000

This is a really great post Ryan. I especially like your point about mutual submission - I love Ephesians 5. It's just such an awesome chapter - being dearly loved by God, imitating him, living in light, not in darkness, making the most of every opportunity, worshiping God - so much fabulousness in one chapter. But it is such a shame that Driscoll could spend so much time reading verse 22 (wives submitting to their husbands), but have somehow missed verse 21 - submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

What makes my heart so sad about Mark Driscoll is this: the very thing that hurts so many people is also a wonderful part of his person. He's a pastor. He relates to people (obviously not to everyone... particularly not to female PhD's) because he talks about issues that are on quite a lot of people's hearts in a relevant, passionate and inspiring way. He's a great speaker. And I think that's from God.

But I listened to that interview, and a to few of his other talks. And what I see is a person who has so much potential and some great gifts from God, but has made the easiest mistake for any of us to make: looking down at himself, and said, "Man, I'm really good! Look at *my* results, *my* church, *my* coverts, *my* speaking ability. And whenever we do that - when we stop looking at Christ to look at ourselves - we mess up, each of us in different ways. For Driscoll, I think that's led to some distressing out-of-context misinterpretations of some rich and beautiful passages in the bible.

To be fair, I really don't have a problem with putting men and women in categories. To some extent, we need to categorize things to make sense of the world. As long as we keep in mind that categories are for simplifying the world only - not for making overarching rules, I think they're fine. In a humourous example, Google has used my search queries - primarily "physics", "guitar tabs", and "outdoors" - and used this data to put me in a demographic. Apparently I am an 18-24 year old male. But I can't blame them. They were just doing their best with statistics, and my search queries must have been on the edge of the normal distribution. Mind you, I would have a big problem with Google if had decided to ask them to change my demographic to female, and they replied by telling me that I should get a sex change. That would be another story!

That analogy sums up how I feel about Driscoll. I don't take issue with him and his wife choosing a particular type of relationship. I don't even have trouble with him suggesting this to others in a similar situation - I'm sure there are women and men who find a highly hierarchical relationship fulfilling. But I do take issue with him telling everyone that God says this the only way to have a successful relationship. That's been proven false experimentally in many healthy equal relationships, and more importantly, it's just a dangerous thing to put words in God's mouth.

Re: Gender Hierarchy Makes No Sense

Ryan Robinson — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:39:35 -0000

Rachel, I applaud you for these words. Thank you.

Re: Gender Hierarchy Makes No Sense

Rachel — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:50:09 -0000

Mark Driscoll is nothing more than Mars and Venus all over again.I was hoping we could leave sexist myths about men and women back in the 20th Century but this problem has grown worse within the churches.Now in the US,I'd say over 70 percent of the churches are complimentary where hyper masculine pastprs are ranting about women are this way and men are that way,and men better not show any emotion and women better not show intellect and emotional strength.He is blantantly homophobic and brutily condems anyone not sticking to his narrow gender roles as damned to Hell.

This mentality has made Christianity a very difficult religion for anyone who dare to believe these gender contructs.It is a very diificult religion to deal with,with all the orders and demands from church heads.
If anyone has their own ideas about who they are as a person,they face ridicule since they don't live the Christian gender sterotypes.

If someone is a woman,they don't hear very uplifting things about their gender.We are constantly bombared with women being "gulliable,not as brigtht,non sexual,non visual,not able to handle complex problems so men have to think for us.I'm appauled by this as a woman.The Christian religion is being dumbed down by cave men,it's not a place for any thinking human being.Great article!

Re: The Purity Myth

smile — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:16:21 -0000

i watched the documentary a few weeks back, it terrified me...

Re: Is This What Guys Think About Modesty? (Video)

Drew — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 03:06:22 -0000

Since this was posted so long ago, I would imagine that you might not get to see this comment. I am an atheist. After watching this video, how sad I feel for people like this. I don't mean this in a hurtful way. I was like them once. Every way I turned I saw pits and pain, death and traps. I thought time and again "the devil wants my soul, that's why (insert situation/person/idea/thought) happened". Then I realized that people that don't believe in a god, they have the same experiences. And yet they find ways to deal with their lusts/ideas/situations/thoughts; many in morally sound ways, without hurting others or themselves. They don't say to girls - "you can help or you can hurt my path". They learn to deal with growing up themselves. This video could easily be relabled "Islamic modesty". Censor the girl so that you don't stumble. I understand that this is a side-note of the film but every bit important to recognize. I am so glad that I threw out the god delusion and can now live a guilt free existence; being the nice, loving and caring person that I always was - with or without god.

Peace.

Re: The Ordinary Radicals

Jamie Moffett — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 17:51:30 -0000

Thanks for the shout out! Hope you enjoy the film

Re: The Biblical Arguments for Open Theism

Ryan Robinson — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 03:17:17 -0000

Reading the passage in the most straightforward way, God changed his mind because Saul changed his mind. Alternatively, you could say that God didn't change his mind in the sense that it was always a conditional promise - the condition was always part of "his mind". God isn't a tricky god, making a promise he wasn't going to keep, but that's not the same thing as saying that he doesn't work with our choices. The story does make it clear that he did make a conditional promise of blessing. A conditional promise implies that there is some opportunity for Saul to take one path or another, and that God's actions are done in partnership with which condition we choose.

Re: The Biblical Arguments for Open Theism

Christian — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:49:25 -0000

Thanks for this list. I, also, am not an open theist but was writing a speech about the immutability of God. I used Saul as an example and was just wanting to make sure that open theism used this in defense of their view of God. I don't know why you would though. First of all, God didn't change his mind about Saul - Saul changed his mind about obeying God. Second, The unchanging nature of God is declared in 1 Samuel 15 - the passage where Saul is rejected.

1 Samuel 15:29 “He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.”

Re: The 180 Movie

Ryan Robinson — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 21:21:24 -0000

Great summary, Mac. I hadn't quite seen it in those simplistic of terms, but it is completely right.

Here's another great comment that I received via Google Plus when I posted this there:

Thanks for sharing Ryan - it's a complex topic for sure. The movie certainly distresses me in the way it fails to reach the most important audience - the woman who is considering an abortion. Women in such circumstances can't be compared to Hitler - they aren't seeking world domination, and they aren't evil people. They're often young teens, with little to no support from home, in way over their heads making incredibly difficult decisions no one should have to make - let alone make such decisions alone. This movie fails to address an issue that is much more challenging than deciding if abortion is right or wrong - the issue of how to provide young girls at risk with the support structure and teaching to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and giving them the support and options they need so that they can see a good future for their child if they chose to give him/her life.

Re: The 180 Movie

Mac — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 00:26:52 -0000

I watched the whole thing, as angry as I got watching it (my dad walked into me yelling at the computer and thought I was losing a video game). Let me summarize Ray Comfort's position:
Hitler kills 11 million people. Moral alignment: Evil
Democrats pass laws that allow the abortion of 51 million people. Moral alignment: Evil
God tortures, I would say at least a billion people in Hell for eternity without the possibility of death. Moral alignment: Good
Kinda skewed morality there (and as you said, how many actual human lives have Republicans killed in war, let alone how many lives the big businesses that they support have ruined).

Re: Objections to Open Theism

Ryan Robinson — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 01:37:42 -0000

I'll admit I haven't directly read a lot other than Greg Boyd, with God of the Possible being the one completely devoted to it. There's also a section on it in Across the Spectrum, but that probably won't add much new on top of God of the Possible. I think it's Boyd that is in the Doctrine of God: Four Views that you mentioned as well, although can't remember for sure. He's definitely gotten the reputation as being the most vocal advocate recently. Beyond that I can't recommend much other than what I've seen by generally Googling the topic, but it sounds like you've done that already yourself.

Re: Objections to Open Theism

The Seeking Disciple — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 01:39:54 -0000

What books do you recommend for studying open theism? I am doing some study on the subject and have a few already such as Greg Boyd's book The God of the Possible and his book Is God To Blame? I also have a book that features an open theist in the study in the book The Doctrine of God: Four Views.