Dr. Kreider's Spot

Dr. Kreider has promised (sort of) to weigh in and help me properly distinguish the significance between dispensationalism and covenant theology. This is his spot...

If he doesn't comment, feel free to post demeaning comments about dispensationalism or the emergent church until he is properly goaded into the conversation. :-)

Roles in Marriage or Not?

My latest thoughts on the whole egalitarian v. complementarian debate has me turning over a new idea:

The debate is broad - from roles in marriage to roles in a church context. Let's set aside the church context issue for now to make things simple and just focus on roles in marriage (i.e. Eph 5:22-33).

Here are basically the two views.

• Complementarian - Each spouse is equal to the other in value but has been assigned differing roles by God. Husbands are to be servant-leaders to their wives and wives are to be helper-lovers to their husbands (i.e. Robert Lewis, Rocking the Roles argues this).

• Egalitarian - God has not set forth specific roles for husband and wife. Both have equal standing before God and each other. Each spouse is to lovingly submit to the other and their needs and submit to God and his direction. Individuals in the relationship may assume different roles depending on context and giftedness.
  

Does that look fair? I think it's a fair portrayal of both stances. However, rather than debate or discuss which side is biblically correct, let's also set aside all questions of which side is right on the issue for the purpose of my thought.

My thought/question/rumination is this: Regardless of which side you take, lately I've been wondering what difference your view - properly applied would make.

I mean, in application, how do these two look different in real life? Properly applied what's the difference between the two approaches in marriage?

Mortor

Again, not on topic, but...

Thanks to Nicholi for posting this very serious take on Lord of the Rings. Click on the image to check it out since blogger doesn't like gif images:

The Nature of Christ

We’re discussing the precise nature of Christ in my History of Doctrine class now. Lot’s of heresies here: Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, etc.

Now I know that defining all this is critical and is certainly important to ministry, but I have a major confession to make here. I just get confused on all this. I understand – sort of. I get it – kind of. But how do I put it together? Now I’m scared to say anything about Christ because I might diminish his human or divine natures….

Relating to this, here’s a question from class: What exactly is Christ saying in the garden when he says, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will" (Mat 26:39)?

Great Demotivator

6.5 Billion People

"The planet's population is projected to reach 6.5 billion at 7:16 p.m. EST Saturday, according to the U.S. Census Bureau and its World Population Clock" - Wired article

So do we still need to be "fruitful and multiply?"

Dispensationalism: Why the big deal?

Now that I'm studying dispensational thought more in depth in my eschatology class and looking at how it differs from Covenant Theology my question is, "what's the biggie?" Particularly between progressive dispensationalism and Covenant Theology I don't see a significant difference. I mean, I don't get why people even care very much about this. I understand that there are a few differences, but them seem minor.

The two big differences I see are 1) premillenial thought for dispensationalists and 2) promises for Israel still awaiting literal fulfillment for Israel in the future. Other than that, they both seem the same. They both talk about God's fulfillment of his covenants through time to his people. They both talk about continuity. They both talk about progressive revelation, etc.

So, going off on a comment Roy made in a past post, why the big deal? The two systems seem to in the big picture be saying the same thing in two different ways. It's only on minor details that they differ.

Or maybe I just don't see it. Feel free to comment and disagree.

The Willow Creek Trip

This week I had one of the most exciting, fun days of my life ("excepting gettting married to your wonderful wife and getting saved" - Desiree adds as she sits next to me drinking some morning coffee and eating her favorite breakfast, grits). :-)

Anyways, on Wednesday I got to tag along on a trip up to Willow Creek church near Chicago. I imagine most of you guys know Willow Creek. In case you don't, it's certainly one of the most influential evangelical churches in the last thirty years or so. They started what's known as the "seeker sensitive movement" and I think are one of the top ten or so largest churches in the US.

I got to spend the day hanging out with a number of the staff there at Willow Creek talking about strategic planning for evangelism in the area. Boy - that was the most intense staff meeting I've ever been at. Bill wasn't there, but even better for me was I got to spend a good bit of time talking with Randy Frazee (used to be here in the Dallas area but is now at Willow). Randy's book, The Connecting Church, was hugely influential in my decision to do Apartment Life three years ago. His challenge to engage in life in the context of geographic community I think is right on the money.

Fun too was getting to tour the church. I even got to walk around on the stage (is that the word?) of their main auditorium. Seven thousand plus seats I think - It was pretty incredible. Looking out at that enormous room, I tried to imagine what it would be like to preach from that platform. Wild.

Classroom Quote

Dr. Hannah:

I think we should study the Bible all of our lives so that we can listen to hear when God has stopped speaking. When God stops speaking, then so should we… then build an alter and worship the incomprehensibility of God.

iPod Flea

It's way too late and nowhere near topic for this site, but I thought it was funny and maybe you will too:

Devotional Reading

It was my turn to be sick yesterday. It wasn't too bad, seemed to be a 24 hour thing. I used some of the time laid up in bed to work on a paper for class.

This morning I was doing some devotional reading and came across this great passage:

2 Cor. 4:16 Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. 17 For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, 18 while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Desiree and I were talking last night about how things eventually get sad in life. People get sick and eventually die. This passage is a great encouragement for me.

DTS in the News

A local weekly paper here in Dallas recently published an article on DTS. At first I felt the author had a pretty good straw man going, but he seemed to nuance himself as he went along - minus a few careless comments.

I didn't finish the article because of time, but what I read (through p. 2) seemed to be largely well done. However, one poor comment in my opinion deserves comment. In the first paragraph the author stated that DTS was, "one of the most conservative institutions of American evangelicalism." Of course, this comment is relative to perspective - i.e. how do you define evangelical and conservative? But I can personally think of LOTS of more conservative institutions in evangelicalism.

Kreider's Comments

Dr. Kreider's comment on my just returned thesis rough draft:

"You have the beginning of an acceptable thesis here."

Spiritual Gifts Are...

A comment in class tonight got me thinking so I thought I’d throw it up here.

What are “spiritual gifts,” exactly?

I ask this because it seems we treat spiritual gifts in the church like skills. We ask where people are skilled and then say they are spiritually gifted in that area. Is this the way we should do it.

Here’s what my prof said: “A spiritual gift is not giftedness, it is the end for which natural giftedness is to be pursued. The difference between the spiritual gift and the natural gift is the end to which it is employed. It is defined by it’s end – not by its function.”