It's been around 48 hours since I attempted to post a comment on this article written by a Robin Meyers, pastor of a highly liberal and gay-friendly church in Oklahoma City, Mayflower Congregational. I got an email confirming it had been submitted for moderation, but it hasn't appeared yet. My guess is that it will not. Edit: Looks like they did publish it, finally. I submitted it 18 June in the morning and they posted it sometime between 23 and 24 June in the morning. Nothing like being prompt! Well, it's just more evidence that, for liberals, "free speech" usually means "speech that I like and that doesn't offend me or challenge my position." Contrast that with my own no-moderation-except-for-obvious-spam policy...
This latest outburst is on -what else?- how mean and nasty other churches are for not being completely gay-friendly like he and his are. What does he want from us? Not only that we not bar entry to our churches to homosexuals (which we, um, don't do anyway), but that we throw our arms and hearts open to the lifestyle, to the behavior, to the actions. He wants us to accept their homosexualITY. It's a common refrain, rather tiresome actually.
Now, my past experience from reading numerous articles from him is that he is little more than an unthinking, knee-jerk, virtually single-issue, liberal agitator, and this post does nothing to diminish my confidence that I've got him dead to rights. Worse still, however, is that he is also a professor of rhetoric (in the philosophy dept, no less!) at Oklahoma City University.
And what new info does he offer? Little. How many times does he misrepresent or simply misunderstand the other side? Numerous. How many times does he cause me to shake my head at OCU's amazing refusal to require that a professor of rhetoric write like one? Countless. Let's take a look.
Gays and lesbians are our sons and daughters. They are a constituent of God’s creation.
How is that relevant to the question of who we allow as members of a church?
David Duke and Phred Felps are also constituents of God's creation. Presumably, however, Mr. Meyers would not allow them membership into Mayflower CC.
Church membership is, biblically, a status for those that are regenerate and are baptised. We help each other, pray for each other, encourage each other, etc. But if someone exhibits a serious sin of which they refuse to repent, we ask them to repent, pray for them, offer all the help we can. If they will not repent, then in the words of the Lord Jesus, "let him be to you as a pagan or tax collector." Ie, we put that person out of church membership.
Of course, if that person refuses to repent of their sin and work towards being free of it, we don't very well offer that person membership, lest church membership mean nothing at all.
None of this means we don't love them. On the contrary, it is MUCH less loving to make them think by our acceptance and negligence that their spirit is right with God by admitting them into the Body of Christ. Rather, it is most loving to ask them to repent and work to be free of that. It is the best for them eternally and also in this life.
We are well-aware that a handful of passages in Leviticus and in the writings of Paul condemn homosexual behavior as unnatural (non-procreative) and idolatrous (replacing the proper object of worship with an improper one
So he is aware and admit that the Bible condemns homosexuality as sinful. OK, we're clear on that.
but we also take Bible study seriously enough to know that the Bible is not infallible.
This is a simple open admission that he doesn't care what the Bible says when it stands opposed to your preferences.
Why even bother with the façade? Why even call Mayflower a "church" and himself a "pastor"?
For anyone interested, this is what a conservative means when he says the Bible is infallible.
few would suggest a return to slavery
As if this is relevant. Numerous condemnations of homosexuality appear in the New Testament as well.
Mr. Meyers shows no sign he is aware of how to interact with the OT in this present time. And he's a "pastor".
women as the inferior property of men
Mr. Meyers would be hard-pressed to cite any passage out of Old or New Testament referring to women as property or as inferior to men.
disease as caused by demon possession requiring an exorcist
Are all diseases in the Bible labeled as demon possession? No. Some are, some aren't. Why not say that?
It is intellectually and spiritually dishonest to wrench a passage of Scripture from its context and pretend that God wrote it.
Mr. Meyers does not show how conservatives have done so, for one thing.
Forget the question of whether God wrote it for a moment. When you are attempting to critique an opposing side, it is the responsibility of the intellectually honest to honestly portray the other side's position in its context.
I don't know if I've ever seen Mr. Meyers do so.
he said that Jesus wrote the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation — every word.
More precisely, the Holy Spirit. So, this pastor was mistaken, though I understand the spirit of his statement. He was careless either in his wording or his learning.
I was stunned, having never heard this claim made by anyone, Bible scholar or layperson alike.
Amazingly, Mr. Meyers openly admits he's never interacted with the other side. Nor has ever "heard this claim made by" the Apostle Paul himself.
Is he unfamiliar with 2 Timothy 3:16, which states (in Greek) (one wonders whether Mr. Meyers realises the NT was written in Greek) that all Scripture is theopneustos, or "breathed out" by God?
(Jesus) says not a single word about homosexuality.
1) Jesus repeatedly affirmed that the OT Law was good, holy, and righteous, and that He came not to destroy but to fulfill it.
2) Thus He reiterated the OT attitude towards homosexuality.
3) Jesus never said anythg about raping little children either. Or sex with vultures, water buffaloes, or plasma screen TVs.
4) What is Mr. Meyers' argument for why the words of Jesus:
-are more correct
-have been more correctly transmitted textually thru history
-carry more authority
than the rest of the Bible?
If one’s sexual orientation constitutes a greater threat to America than terrorists or cancer, as Kern asserts, then surely her Lord and savior would have something to say about it!
Did Mr. Meyers even read Kern's speech in its context?
And wasn't he just lecturing us on the importance thereof?
We have Job, aka Jesus, cursing the day he was born
Mr. Meyers again shows his blinding ignorance of the doctrine of Scripture.
Mr. Meyers, please, do yourself a favor. Read the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. You might even throw in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics while you're at it. You *are* a prof of rhetoric, after all. Isn't one supposed to know at minimum the basics of the other side's position before engaging in forensics?
No one claims the Bible was dictated by the Holy Spirit mechanically. The Holy Spirit worked THRU the author. Job himself spoke in Job, and the Holy Spirit also spoke thru him.
Equal rights (including the right to marry)
No one is arguing gay people don't have the right to marry. They have the same rights I do - to marry someone of the opposite gender.
What is Mr. Meyers' argument for fundamentally changing the institution known as marriage? Based on what we've seen in this article, can we dare to hope it will even approach compelling?
imago dei — we are all made in the image and likeness of God.
And does Mr. Meyers take into account the doctrine of the Fall of Man as well?
On what basis does Mr. Meyers pick and choose doctrines out of the Bible according to his liking, reject others he doesn't like, and then pretend the Bible should have some sort of bearing on our beliefs?
All in all, Mr. Meyers is attempting to cash in on emotional rhetoric and empty bloviation. It fits his pattern well.
24 comments:
I shan't venture to opine on these matters, Rhology, but I am curious.
Q: Is Robin Meyers a Christian?
I think he is.
What do you think?
No, he is not.
"(Jesus) says not a single word about homosexuality."
Ah, but He does mention the destruction and still-impending judgement of those in Sodom and Gomorrah (HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE), which was condemned for its inhabitants going after "strange flesh".
What a goober.
John said in the previous thread:
I submit that it is seriously at variance with reality.
You're jumping to conclusions. You haven't even asked how "Christian" is to be defined. You've asserted it, but I don't know why one should accept an atheist's definition of the word over a Christian's.
A "Christian", biblically, is one who has been born again, transformed, by God upon repenting of his sin and possessing saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Meyers denies much of, if not most of, the category of "sin" as defined biblically. He doesn't even get past the first step on the road, which is understanding that he's lost.
Whether he believes the historical definition of the identity of the Lord Jesus is doubtful as well.
Liberalism is a different religion. He's an excellent example of a liberal. He's just a poor example of a Christian, let alone a Christian pastor, or a professor of rhetoric.
God known in Jesus, the Christ
This is highly suspect wording.
Robin himself "received a Master
All I can do is go by what the man says. I'm trying to treat him with the respect of taking what he says as what he means as opposed to reassigning the value of his statements.
I can assure you with almost 100% certainty that he would vigorously reject a definition of the essentials of Christianity as I would define them. He doesn't want to be on my side any more than I want to be on his.
We trace our roots to the Pilgrims and Puritans
And the Roman Church asserts that it traces its roots to Christ and the Apostles. Big deal. What do they teach TODAY?
the minister of United Church of Christ is not a Christian. That can't be good for you.
Why not?
It's far worse for the UCC than it is for me. Doesn't affect me in the slightest.
by Romanism you mean Roman Catholics
Why do you continue to make category errors like that? You're no dummy - just take a little more care.
By RomanISM I mean what most people call Roman CatholicISM.
A Romanist = a Roman "Catholic".
if Rhology doesn't consider Roman Catholics or Protestants as Christians, that indicates an denial mechanism is at work.
Now John attacks a strawman.
He himself refers to the "schismatic history of Christianity and its unbelievably fragmented nature" and then less than an hour later makes a statement that is highly inconsistent with it.
"Protestantism" IS fragmented. Some fragments are Christian, some are liberal, some are Other, God knows what they are. UCC is by and large liberal, which is a different religion. Mayflower is part of the rule; no exception, that church!
And again, I am taking great care to refer to the -ISM, not the -IST. The -ISM can be tracked down, exegeted, analysed. The tens of millions of -ISTS, not so much. I will not be so careless in my words.
Paul C said:
Really, guys, if you can't decide internally who is Christian or not, how on earth do you expect anybody else to?
Christianity, just like whatever you call yourself, reserves the right to define itself.
The Bible expects, indeed foretells, that people will come out FROM within the midst of true Christians, that the pig will go back to wallowing in the mud, that the dog will return to its vomit, that there are tares among the wheat, that church discipline aka excommunication will be necessary. When people stop believing that which makes Christianity Christianity, I respect them enough to let them have their way. You, an outsider, use them for your own rhetorical purposes.
if somebody says they're Christian, they're Christian.
Like I said before, I'm a Muslim.
Now, do you really believe I'm a Muslim, Paul?
If not, why not, and how is that consistent with this quoted statement?
Peace,
Rhology
I had said in another thread that I was going to leave you alone, but since you addressed a question directly to me, I suppose I should answer.
I don't know why one should accept an atheist's definition of the word over a Christian's.
And I don't know why anybody should accept one Christian's word over another's. Can't you just sort it out amongst yourselves and get back to us?
Christianity, just like whatever you call yourself, reserves the right to define itself.
And you, Rhology, are not Christianity, so you're hardly in a position to define it for us.
Like I said before, I'm a Muslim. Now, do you really believe I'm a Muslim, Paul? If not, why not, and how is that consistent with this quoted statement?
In fact I don't believe that you're Muslim, because you won't shut up about how only you're a Real Christian and everybody who disagrees with you is a Fake Christian. You've self-ascribed yourself consistently as a Christian, so I'm basing my call on that - but if you've recently converted, then hamdulillah!
Sorry, what was your point again?
No need to leave me alone, Paul, but whatever you want to do.
No, apparently "we" can't sort it out, sorry. You have the choice to attack strawmen all the time or to actually respond to my positions on things. Your choice.
BTW, can't "you" in the Darwinian camp sort out whether it's gradual descent or punctuated equilibrium, whether you're dualists or not, how you define "species", whether string or Big Bang or other theory? Seriously? You guys haven't gotten all that stuff taken care of yet? Huh.
Who would you prefer to define "Christianity"? Wikipedia? Apparently John prefers it.
But if you want to respond to ME, then respond to me.
But you know, do what you want.
OK, so I'm NOT a Muslim just b/c I say I am. You can't keep straight what you think, apparently.
Doesn't that blow up your earlier statement to the effect of "anyone's a Christian who says he is"? If not, why not?
No, apparently "we" can't sort it out, sorry. You have the choice to attack strawmen all the time or to actually respond to my positions on things.
I always respond to your position on things, and I'm responding to your position on things now. Your position is that we should accept your definition of Christian. That's nice for you, but not really very useful for me unless you can give me a good reason why I should privilege you above every other Christian I've ever met.
BTW, can't "you" in the Darwinian camp sort out whether it's gradual descent or punctuated equilibrium, whether you're dualists or not, how you define "species", whether string or Big Bang or other theory? Seriously? You guys haven't gotten all that stuff taken care of yet? Huh.
What's "the Darwinian camp"?
Only joking, I know what you mean really. What does string theory have to do with the theory of evolution? What does dualism have to do with evolution? Or dualism with the Big Bang? And aren't there some Christians in the "Darwinian camp"? Oh yes, so there are. But I suppose they're not Real Christians (TM), are they, Rhology?
p.s. It looks like the theory of evolution has got a bit further in 150-odd years than you have in the last 2000 in terms of describing how things actually are, so I wouldn't go knocking it too much.
Who would you prefer to define "Christianity"?
I want Christians to define Christianity. Unfortunately there seem to be quite a few variations on the theme, so the only measure I've got is whether somebody claims to be Christian - as I've already said. I suppose that at a push I'll fall back on the Nicene Creed, since that appears to be the last time everybody agreed - but now you're telling me that's not good enough either!
OK, so I'm NOT a Muslim just b/c I say I am. You can't keep straight what you think, apparently.
I can keep what I think perfectly straight, thanks. I've explained my position - it seems decidedly unlikely that you've decided to become a Muslim in the middle of an apologetic rant, doesn't it? Your entire reply here is an attempt to defend the version of Christianity that you subscribe to, and the sentence "I'm a Muslim" is just bait.
On the other hand, if you have converted, as I said previously - hamdulillah!
Hmph indeed.
HmmmMMM ppppphhhh.
Sixstrung: It's not at all obvious what you're trying to argue, can you explain more clearly?
Rhology: can you provide a reason why we should take Triablogue's word - or anybody they cite - about who's a Real Christian above the word of anybody else who claims to be a Christian? Because until you can come up with a clear definition, there's no reason why we nonbelievers should reject anybody who claims to be a Christian.
"can you provide a reason why we should take Triablogue's word - or anybody they cite - about who's a Real Christian above the word of anybody else who claims to be a Christian?"
Paul,
Would you take Jesus' word about who is a Christ-ian?
Go on then, wheel him out.
What's "the Darwinian camp"?
What's "Christianity"? Who gets to define it?
Is it similar to how Darwinians define who's in and who's out of their group?
Here's an example. Behe claims he's doing good science in his ID studies. Dick Dawk disagrees.
Along I come and claim that Behe DOES DO good science and, since ID is bunk, science in general sucks.
But of course Dick Dawk will claim "Wait, that's not good science; don't judge us based on this person with whom we have fundamental disagreements! Judge us based on what WE do!"
But if I'm like Paul C, poor Dick Dawk's cries fall on deaf ears, b/c I, like Paul C, refuse to allow Dick Dawk to define his own position. I will define it FOR him and then stamp out the demon of my own creation. Ah, that was easy!
I want Christians to define Christianity.
Begging the question. Who are Christians?
Does it pose some sort of threat to you to respond to ME rather than to the bogeyman?
the only measure I've got is whether somebody claims to be Christian - as I've already said.
Here you're just lying. This is manifestly NOT the measure you use, b/c I claim to be a Muslim and you told me I don't get to do that.
There's sthg else going on here. Why not man up and actually say it?
and the sentence "I'm a Muslim" is just bait.
No it's not. I *AM* a Muslim. Deal with it!
can you provide a reason why we should take Triablogue's word - or anybody they cite - about who's a Real Christian above the word of anybody else who claims to be a Christian?
What, do you want me to paste the entire text of those two posts here in this combox? Read the arguments!
Go on then, wheel him (Jesus) out.
How about looking at what He said?
Peace,
Rhology
Paul C,
Sure thing: the logical fallacies to which I linked (dicto simpliciter and false attribution) seem to be ones which you are most anxious to invoke.
Actually, man, the problem with your argument is that you'd readily agree that you're NOT actually a Muslim, whereas the pastor at Mayflower insists that he IS actually a Christian.
So no one could take your claim seriously, while some (though certainly not I) could and do take a self-professed Christian's seriously.
Just my $0.02.
I'd agree with what you're saying except that I AM a Muslim.
After all, Paul C said that all that's required for him to call someone an X is for them to SAY they're X.
He needs to either regard me as a Muslim and look ridiculous, withdraw his ridiculous position, or engage in special pleading. I can only go by what Paul says; no idea whether his position is refined further than he stated.
Is it similar to how Darwinians define who's in and who's out of their group?
I'd be interested to see a single example of somebody in the "Darwinian camp" who claims that somebody else who claims to be in the "Darwinian camp" is not in fact in the "Darwinian camp".
Re: Behe. It would probably help if you gave an example from the real world like I did, rather than one you just made up to try to prove your point.
Begging the question. Who are Christians?
Anybody who claims to be Christian. How is it begging the question to say that I want Christians to define Christianity, and that I'll accept the word of anybody who claims to be a Christian? That's exactly the argument that you're making! (The difference being that you're defining Christian as "anybody who agrees with my specific theology" - I don't have any theology, so I have to accept all claims.)
Does it pose some sort of threat to you to respond to ME rather than to the bogeyman?
I am responding to you. I've offered to stop responding to you, but you keep asking me questions.
Here you're just lying. This is manifestly NOT the measure you use, b/c I claim to be a Muslim and you told me I don't get to do that.
How am I lying, exactly? As far as I can tell, you appear to be the only one who's lying - where exactly did I tell you that you "don't get" to claim to be a Muslim?
Oh, that's right - I didn't. Once again, you're making something up to try and prove your point.
I *AM* a Muslim. Deal with it!
I already did deal with it. Hamdidullah!
He needs to either regard me as a Muslim and look ridiculous, withdraw his ridiculous position, or engage in special pleading.
How do I look ridiculous, exactly? I regard you as a Muslim, and we can continue this discussion from there. Off you go.
p.s. Lies told by Rhology in this answer: 2, possibly 3. Apparently lying is okay if you're a Real Christian (TM)!
Sixstrung: I fail to see any connection between those fallaciesand the points that I have made. Pretend I'm as stupid as Rhology thinks I am, and please explain.
Paul C,
Gladly. First, it should be noted that my comment was actually a response to JM's (apparent) accusation that Rho was committing the No True Scot fallacy. The lack of clarification in my response (as well as the links to Wikipedia) were merely intended to match JM's style.
Moving on...let's use hypothesis testing as a contextual background for framing this. JM's (apparent) accusation of the No True Scot fallacy equates to an accusation of a Type II error (or false negative). That is, Robin Meyers and/or Arthur Shelton really are Christians and Rho or I deny that fact.
What I was in turn accusing you and JM of was the logical fallacy of false attribution, which correlates to a Type I error (or false positive). That is, Robin Meyers and/or Arthur Shelton really aren't Christians but you claim that they are. The reference to logical fallacy of dicto simpliciter (more commonly referred to as a sweeping generalization) was merely a reference to the mechanism which you employ to make this Type I error.
It might be worthwhile to clarify something here, because I feel that I managed to unintentionally sidetrack an entire post: I am not claiming that Christians cannot sin (i.e., are perfect). Is it possible for a Christian to commit the heinous act of Arthur Shelton? Yes, just as it would be possible for an atheist to commit the same act. However, that act is clearly condemned by The Bible, and I gave you ample scriptural references by which you could verify this. The reason I chose to tackle the subject of whether or not Arthur Shelton was a Christian is because the information that JM provided never even established that link, outside of Arthur calling himself a Christian. In reality, there were several indications that he was not a Christian: he didn't speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15)(in fact, we don't know that he ever presented him with The Gospel), when he found that his fellow Boy Scout was not a believer, he didn't shake the dust off his feet and move on (Matt 10:14). Instead, he claimed that the Devil was in him. If he truly believed that, then physically challenging the Devil is a strategy you certainly won't find in The Bible, as the archangel Michael didn't dare to even rebuke the Devil (much less try to kill him), but rather called on The Lord to do so (Jude 1:9).
As for the case of Robin Meyers, you can take that up with Rho (though I clearly side with him). Does that help out?
sixstrung took the words right outta my mouth. Someday I'll get him back for that.
Paul C, OTOH, didn't. Let's see how his words fare.
example of somebody in the "Darwinian camp" who claims that somebody else who claims to be in the "Darwinian camp" is not in fact in the "Darwinian camp".
Deal with the point in principle, then. This is a smokescreen.
Re: Behe. It would probably help if you gave an example from the real world like I did, rather than one you just made up to try to prove your point.
I'm sure you're capable of dealing with the slightly-more abstract. Please, proceed.
How is it begging the question to say that I want Christians to define Christianity, and that I'll accept the word of anybody who claims to be a Christian?
Um, b/c you have already implicitly identified "Christians" in that comment.
Maybe I should take back what I said about you and abstract reasoning...
The difference being that you're defining Christian as "anybody who agrees with my specific theology"
You've been answered here, again.
You're apparently a bit of a slow learner.
I am responding to you.
If "responding to a strawman that bears you no resemblance" is "responding to you" in your world, one wonders what else there is to say.
Of course, you've already told us that fundamentally you can be sure of nothing, so again one wonders why I'm such a glutton for punishment to even discuss with you.
"Here you're just lying."
How am I lying?
You said this:
the only measure I've got is whether somebody claims to be Christian - as I've already said.
And yet this is manifestly NOT the measure you use, b/c I claim to be a Muslim and you told me I don't get to do that.
I regard you as a Muslim, and we can continue this discussion from there. Off you go.
Good deal.
But which one is it? I don't get the feeling that you're really convinced even though I've SAID multiple times that I'm a Muslim even though I don't hold any of Islam's core beliefs.
So, now (I'm trying to go slow here for you), is there any correlation to Meyers' case?
ME: I claim to be a Muslim. That is, I use the self-appellatory word "Muslim".
MEYERS: Claims to be a Christian. That is, he uses the self-appellatory word "Christian".
ME: I in reality reject many of the core, fundamental doctrines of Islam.
MEYERS: In reality rejects many of the core, fundamental doctrines of Christianity.
Thus, is it fair in either case to label me a Muslim or him a Christian? Just b/c we say a few magick words? I thought you didn't believe in magick...
Peace,
Rhology
I continue to comment on the more recent thread linked above by Rhology. However I would like to note that - contra what Rhology claims - I am not responding to any "strawman arguments", but to exactly the arguments that he and Sixstrung are making.
Rhology is the one that is dealing in strawmen, which he freely admits when he acknowledges that there in fact no "Darwinians" taking the position that he claims they hold - and then commands me to Deal with the point in principle, then.
You are specifically accusing other people who claim to be Christians of not being Christians. As far as I'm aware of, there are no "Darwinians" (and I'm going to stop using that brain-dead phrase immediately after this sentence) accusing other people who claim to be "Darwinians" of not being "Darwinians". You're asking me to defend an imaginary position that not only do I not hold, but that (as far as I can tell) nobody holds. I can't think of a single reason why I should do that.
I am not responding to any "strawman arguments"
Maybe, maybe not. But you are trying to replace my position with a strawman of our devising when you try to define what is and is not Christian and Christianity. It's a prerequisite for knocking down the strawman.
which he freely admits when he acknowledges that there in fact no "Darwinians" taking the position that he claims they hold - and then commands me to Deal with the point in principle, then.
You're getting less and less coherent. There may be, there may not be. ****IF THERE WERE****, WOULD it be fair to say that which I put down as an example above?
Let the reader judge - I don't think they're as dense as you make them out to be. Hypotheticals and simple correlative scenarios are not beyond most people's grasp.
You are specifically accusing other people who claim to be Christians of not being Christians.
And you accused me, who claim to be a Muslim, of not being a Muslim.
Maybe the point of that whole "Muslim" shtick is this (since you're being impossibly obtuse): Just saying you're ____ doesn't make you a ____ if you bear no resemblance to the essential nature of what makes a ____ a ____.
Is that better?
"Darwinians" (and I'm going to stop using that brain-dead phrase immediately after this sentence
Dick Dawk himself uses that verbiage of himself in The Selfish Gene. I'm sure he'd be pleased to know you think of him as brain-dead. I happen to mostly agree, but I'm surprised you'd say it too.
Peace,
Rhology
Rho:
Let the reader judge - I don't think they're as dense as you make them out to be.
Typical Rho tactic, insinuate that another poster has insulted the intelligence of the reader. He's used this tactic before.
Rho:
And you accused me, who claim to be a Muslim, of not being a Muslim.
So, Robin Meyers claiming to be a Christian is like Rho claiming to be a Muslim? Now who's insulting the intelligence of the reader?
So, Robin Meyers claiming to be a Christian is like Rho claiming to be a Muslim? Now who's insulting the intelligence of the reader?
Better said, who's answering whom on whose own terms?
Post a Comment