Linkathon 5/5, part 2

You may also like...

No Responses

  1. victorious says:

    Halfway through the interview that Conversations Journal (the complete text version) had with the Willard. I recommend reading and paying close attention to the discussion on the differing theories of the atonement and how to make sense of them in the larger context of the incarnation of the Son.

    Thanks, BrianD!

  2. Eric Hoffman says:

    Here’s one: Driscoll & Warren supporting Muslim Terrorist Group….

    http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=4439

    And I’m helping plant an A29 church….DOH!!!

  3. Jessica Menn says:

    I would think that most of the “ideal family units” probably are not in a position where they need to adopt–they can have biological children, or if they have trouble conceiving they go through fertility treatment. Why not open up adoption to the less than ideal family units who are more likely to need adoption to have children?

  4. Michael says:

    I realize that we have a lot of Dallas Willard fans here…after reading that interview I can assure you that I’m not one of them.

    What a load…

  5. Believe says:

    I grew up in a supposed “ideal family”…son of a pastor and pastor’s wife….and was physically, mentally and spiritually abused in an agonizingly long and painful childhood and young-adulthood….so I’m not sure there is such a thing as a perceived “ideal family unit”.

  6. Another Voice says:

    I posted a comment that awaits moderation at Carole Turner’s site. I won’t repeat it all here, but to note – current Louisiana law allows homosexuals to adopt.

    This bill was to recognize such couples, as well as unmarried heterosexual couples, with the same legal parental rights as a married heterosexual couple. (Click the link)

    Put another way, it is not about the children. If a gay couple wants so badly to adopt and save a child from the system – they can (and should) do so, whether or not the “homophobic” state will give them joint parental rights.

    If they only want an unwanted child on the terms that in doing so the state recognizes them as equal in status with a married couple,…and anything otherwise means the kid stays in the system….well, I will leave my opinion on that to the imagination.

    And I will note here as I did at Turner’s site, I have adopted. That was a big deal for her in order for someone to have an opinion apparently.

  7. DA Armstrong says:

    Michael,

    Willard is definitely a mixed bag. On some stuff he is absolutely great and other stuff rotten to the core. I think his focus on individual discipleship is one of the things the church today needs and would solve an immense amount of problems. His atonement stuff is a mess.

    I still recommend some of his stuff, but not everything. I typically warn people that some of his books are good, some terrible.

    Perhaps on a redemptive note, he has had a significant influence in Academia. I was first introduce to Willard in a philosophy class and only later found out he was a Christian. In that respect, I think he has done a great deal of good as a whole.

  8. Em says:

    who should we “allow” to adopt a child? dunno – but it presents a little problem for the Body of Christ to deal with when it comes time to gather for church… you”ve now sanctioned/welcomed a family unit that is, most likely practicing what God’s Word forbids… “don’t ask, don’t tell,” but still teach? … pray for the child … pray for the children

  9. Josh Hamrick says:

    Hmmm…the adoption thing…geez, I don’t know. That is such a complicated issue. In short, it would seem like any family would be a good family, In the long run, I’m not certain it would be the healthiest of environments. I know, I know…we all come from dysfunction, I’m still not sure that would be the wisest route to take.

  10. beard snolybab says:

    Great article by Dennis Johnson…

  11. Tim says:

    I just read part of the Willard interview in “Conversations.” I concur with Michael. What a load of horse puckey. I had to stop reading at the point Willard says that the Penal Substitution view of the Atonement “gives a terrible picture of God,” whereas the Moral Influence view “is extremely helpful.”

    Give me a break. He couldn’t have been more backwards if he had tried.

  12. Em says:

    Reverend beardsnolybab, i read it, i get it, but it looks like, when it comes to the book of the Revelation, we all have our own truth – just sayin 😉 as i kinda like what the Shoebat guy said on the link back there the other day. – just sayin…

  13. Michael says:

    Amillennialism is as contrived as “Left Behind”.

    I’d like to be one of the cool kids too, but I just can’t buy it.

  14. Michael says:

    Willard has no concept of the wrath of God…it plays no part in His theology at all from what I can see.
    His comments on the atonement were quite simply, lame.

    His comments on hell were lamer.

    He’s not a heretic and I don’t care if he speaks at your conferences…but I wouldn’t walk across the street to listen to him.

  15. DA Armstrong says:

    Michael,

    I’d agree with your assessment of Willard. Willard portrays God to love everyone so much that he would never contain any wrath. You might say, Willard is afraid that God is everything that would make God feared. I think sometimes he has his philosophy affect his theology more than it ought.

  16. Michael says:

    D.A.,

    I think you pegged it…philosophy over exegetical theology.

  17. victorious says:

    Too bad. So dismissive and dishonoring without any direct interaction or specific engagement with Willard in the “context” of what he is saying. 🙁

    I think Willard provides the substance to get at the heart of the main problems behind pastoral abuse and the core of the applied theology that will help the abused capture of a vision of Jesus and discipline of practices that will bring healing, wholeness and abundance to themselves and others.

  18. bryonm says:

    Thanks for the link, Brian.

  19. Josh Hamrick says:

    Reading the Willard interview felt like reading Leonard Sweet. Those guys are extra-wordy.

  20. victorious says:

    Burleson shows some discernment concerning the underlying issue with Rekers.

    “The greatest problem is NOT that Dr. Rekers hired a boy prostitute. The worst problem is NOT that Dr. Rekers may be struggling with homosexuality. The real problem is that Dr. Rekers presents himself as somebody he is not. It’s a credibility issue. He claims to be an expert on how parents ought to raise “Boys to Be Boys” and “Girls to Be Girls” and how “Men Should Love Women” and how Americans should respect “The Sanctity of Christian Marriage” and the “Nuclear Family.” He has made thousands of dollars as “the expert.”

  21. victorious says:

    Burleson should get interviewed for the PP. Burleson gets the big picture isssue and has not lost the true vision.

    “When the icon of celebrity worship in the religious right is shattered, and when we begin to simply go about our business of loving people in need of a Savior, only then will the integrity of our lives match the incredibly powerful content of our message of grace and forgiveness in Jesus Christ. “

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.