Daniel Zylstra

I hear what you're saying, Andrew. My problem is that I think that both sides of this discussion often engage in shoddy theology. I read through Dr. Cooper's paper, and while I agree with the criticisms he levels against the GRE report, I have to acknowledge that I have often heard/read papers on the other side of the ledger that are just as bad.

To me it still comes down to wrestling with the Biblical text using a truly reformed hermeneutic and not finding it to be quite as cut-and-dried as many of us have previously thought. I don't KNOW what I believe on this issue, because, while some arguments from both sides are illogical and anti-biblical, other arguments from both sides seem to me to be legitimate from a biblical standpoint.

As to your comments regarding where the discussion has gone and how easy it would be to argue that "fluidity in biological sex, gender expression and gender identity is Biblical"--I agree. It's very possible that the hermeneutics out there would lead that way. But I say two things to that:

1) That might be because the hermeneutics are flawed, just like Dr. Cooper says. If so, it is important that we struggle and strive to correct those errors. Karl Barth said (to paraphrase) that theology is the task of the church constantly examining herself in the light of the revelation of scripture. Healthy theological discussion is a significant part of the "iron sharpening iron" that we read about in the scriptures, IMHO.

2) Not that I want us to go there (I really don't know where I stand--I'm still thinking, and pondering and praying and reading and researching ant talking)--but what would happen if we said that "fluidity in biological sex, gender expression and gender identity is Biblical"? What would that do to the Gospel? Would it mean that Jesus is no longer Lord? Would it mean that Jesus is no longer the only way to salvation? Would it cancel out the witness of the gospel? What would happen to our faith if we came to believe that the Bible's teaching on sexuality is actually more nuanced and differs from what we've thought for a long time?

It feels to me like nothing would really happen that would be negative to the gospel. Jesus would still be Lord. He would still be the way, the truth and the life. Scriptures would still be valid.

It would be just like the debates on the other topics mentioned in this thread: six-twenty-four-hour-day creationism, baptism, hymns vs. psalms only, gravity, etc. None of those things killed the witness of the gospel, and this won't either, I don't think.

And last, but not least I wonder about your statement that "A communion that wishes to have meaningful unity must share basic rules for interpreting the Bible." I have two questions about that too:

1) Why? What does it matter? We have a great deal of diversity already in the way we interpret scripture within our denomination. We have people who believe that women should not serve in ecclesiastical office and we have those who think that this is perfectly fine. Obviously, they are interpreting scripture differently according to different rules. This seems to be working out okay in the long run (though clearly it has been a difficult thing, and continues to be a struggle--but who says that's bad?). So why would we need to all interpret the scripture the same way here?

2) Further, if we did agree that there need to be some "basic rules for interpreting the Bible" as you suggest, then where would you draw the line? How do you know that your rules are better than mine or someone else's? Does everyone have to interpret ALL of the scriptures exactly the same way? Even Paul seems to argue against that when he says that "one person will honor one day above the others, and another will honor all days the same--as long as they do so to the Lord [it's okay]" (badly paraphrased, but that the sense of it). In there he also asks us why we argue about debatable matters and encourages us to be generous to one another (Ro. 14). Why can't we be generous to one another here too? Hasn't the debate on this shown us that this may well be one of the "debatable matters" that Paul is indirectly alluding too? 

Thanks so much for your encouragement and comments, Len. I would certainly agree that it would be good to focus more on baptism and what it means in our theological understanding. It is a beautiful and powerful understanding of what God does in/through/for/with us in the life, death and resurrection of Christ in our lives.

I should have stated that this is all a "work in progress", and I really appreciate the feedback...maybe what you're saying here will make it into the v. 2.0 of this presentation/blog posting!

EXCELLENT point, John! However, I think you're mistaken identifying Deists as being people who just worship who God is as opposed to what He has done. The true definition of a deist (as I understand it) is someone who believes that God set stuff in motion in the beginning, but now allows things to progress on their own without interfering. If I am correct in that, then there are two more problems that arise: 1) A Deist could (theoretically) worship God for "what Has done" just as easily as a person worshipping Yahweh--it just so happens that the "things" that God has done have occurred much further in the past and have ceased occurring. 2) The issue of whether it is difficult to talk about someone without thinking about what they have done is very different from whether it is right to love/worship (in the case of God) that person/being for who they are vs. what they have done. 

I guess I just feel that sometimes we exclude who God is from our consideration when we're thinking about our gratitude and/or our love for Him. God certainly does not love us for what we have done: He loved/loves us "even while we were still enemies." This is the model: God loves us "just as we are" (not "just as we have done"). In a like manner, I think we are called, ultimately, to love Him not for what He has done, but for who He is.

Again, don't get me wrong: what God has done/is doing/will do for us is beyond comprehension, and we should be infinitely thankful for it. But, as Timothy Keller points out in "The Prodigal God"--both sons don't love the father for who he is, but rather only want to get stuff (aka what the father can do for them). We, if we are to fulfill the question left hanging at the end of the parable of the Two Lost Sons, must learn to love the Father simply for who he is.

Lastly, John, some speculative questions for you. I ask myself: would God be worthy of our Love even if we didn't know Him, or what He had done for us? Of course! Silly question: it ultimately doesn't matter (theologically speaking) whether we know about what God has done, or even if we know Him at all--He's still worthy of our praise/worship/love/adoration, etc. Further, then, should those who are condemned eternally love and worship Him? Of course! Even those who are condemned will "bow the knee" and worship Him--and they should love Him too. What about if Jesus had not come to save us? Should we love God still? Of course: all the people of the Old Testament who loved Him, loved Him before they had seen Jesus face-to-face, and many of them seem to have had no idea about Jesus, and they loved Him still. You can go back and back in this question, until (I believe) you are left with the underlying truth that even if God had done nothing for you and I, He would still be worthy of our love simply because of who He is. If that is the case, then shouldn't we embrace that reality a bit more in our worship, devotion, words and deeds?

I don't think we should stop praising God for what He has done! By no means! I just think we need to be a bit more proactive in recognizing that ultimately healthy love between people and other beings is not based on what they have done, but simply on who they are.

Thanks for your comment, Bev. The original book was written for just the kind of scenario you suggest: elders, deacons, and other church volunteers. I think it'd be really good to implement in our churches, but what do you think about trying this kind of strategy in the workplace?

Great to hear from you, Keith! I'm really glad for the experiences that you've had with Christian business owners. I think that yes, indeed, the Church could learn a lot from these businesses that you mention. I think that too many times we treat finding church volunteers and staff as either "just business" and utilize a very "secular" model for hiring/recruiting, OR we use the "warm body" procedure of just putting in place whomever we can find who is willing, regardless of qualifications, job description, fit with the rest of the team of even regardless of God's will!

I think this too is a really valuable comment, Keith. Though I don't know any millionaires or billionaires myself (that I'm aware of), I've heard the same thing about the loneliness. I wonder, with regards to church-volunteerism and the wealthy, whether there's an assumption that if you're wealthy, you must be extremely busy (else how could you have gotten wealthy, perhaps?). 

While perhaps not an always true assumption, it does point to a mistake that we often make when recruiting staff/volunteers: we either decide for the people whom we might ask that they are too busy before we even ask ("Oh, she's a single-mom. She would be too busy to do this.), OR we recklessly pressure people who may actually be too busy into doing stuff that they really would rather not. 

If we were to engage in the kind of process outlined above, perhaps that would be another pitfall we could avoid (at least to a greater degree). The more we allow the Spirit to speak into these decisions through all of us, the more likely we are to "get it right."