| Author |
Message |
| Kenneth Affleck Member Joined Oct 7, 2008 33 posts Location: New Westminster, BC |
 “Sustaining the mighty oaks” |
Posted Jan 27, 2010; 9:39 pm |
|
I appreciated James Toews’ apt comparison of our seminary to an oak forest. A healthy seminary is critical to the long term health of any denomination. But where James is concerned about the financial health of the seminary, I believe we should be more concerned about its theological health.
Some of the seminary professors deny that Christ bore the penalty for our sins when He died on the cross. This is critical to the gospel. I first became alarmed at the school’s doctrine a few years ago when one of its theologians visited my church and questioned the historicity of the Old Testament narratives. This is critical to the integrity and authority of the Bible for three reasons.
(1) The witness of the New Testament. Its authors consistently treat the Old Testament as historical. Following are Jesus’ references to Old Testament stories: Adam and Eve: Matt 19:3-6, Mark 10:3-9, Cain and Abel: Matt 23:35, Luke 11:51, Noah and the flood: Matt 24:37-39, Luke 17:26-27, Sodom and Gomorrah: Matt 10:15, Luke 17:28-32, Moses and the serpent: John 3:14, Moses and the manna: John 6:31-33,48-49, Miracles of Elijah: Luke 4:25-27, Jonah and the big fish: Matt 12:40-41.
(2) A biblical theology of revelation may comprise three steps. (a) God intervened in human history. (b) God caused that intervention (and all relevant context) to be recorded; He also guaranteed the preservation of that record. (c) God holds us accountable for the content of that record. To deny the historicity of the Old Testament narratives is to lose the foundational step of God’s revelation.
(3) A theology of God—specifically God’s omnipotence. Implicit in the denial of the historicity of the Old Testament narratives is a denial of their miracles, because it is the miracles that are seen as evidence of non-historicity. Implicit in the denial of miracles is the denial that God is all-powerful. |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 568 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| |
Posted Jan 28, 2010; 8:09 am |
|
| Quote: | | Some of the seminary professors deny that Christ bore the penalty for our sins when He died on the cross. |
What is the evidence for the accuracy of this statement? If you are referring to Mark Baker (sp?), a theological committee of my home church looked into a similar concern, and reviewed his writings as well as interviewing him and was satisfied afterward that he was not espousing or teaching heresy.
I am not a trained theologian. nor have I done an in-depth study of the various aspects of the atonement. But from what I have read so far, even those MB seminary teachers who prefer to emphasize various aspects of the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection, such as Christus Victor rather than penal substiution, do not deny that he bore the penalty for our sin. |
|
|
|
| Ryan Member Joined Jul 22, 2008 32 posts Location: Nanaimo, BC |
| |
Posted Jan 28, 2010; 9:27 am |
|
| I would echo lornewel's comments here. I've read Baker's books and find nothing problematic about them. He emphasizes that the cross is about more than just bearing the penalty for our sin, but he certainly does not deny that Christ bore our sin on the cross as a substitute. I attended two conferences over the past year where Baker was presenting his views on the atonement, one in Langley and one in Saskatoon. He very clearly and unambiguously affirmed Article 5 of our MB Confession of Faith in Saskatoon. I spoke personally with him both times and found him simply to be concerned that we emphasize that the cross takes care of our sin as well as the evil of the world for which we are not personally culpable. We are victims of sin as well as perpetrators of sin; the cross addresses both. This is not heresy or evidence of a lack of theological health; it is good news. |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 405 posts |
| |
Posted Jan 28, 2010; 5:44 pm |
|
| I'm very impressed by the process your church engaged in, Lorne. Thanks for sharing that with us- it has a weight of credibility that even the best single testimony can't carry. That's a great example to our community. |
|
|
|
| dwark Member Joined Feb 8, 2008 43 posts Location: Port Coquitlam, BC |
| theological committee |
Posted Jan 28, 2010; 9:48 pm |
|
I, as well, am impressed that a church would have a theological committee and engage in the work of our seminary in that way. I think such engagement is far more fruitful than simply offering labels as some have been prone to do recently.
How formal or diverse was/is this group Lorne?
Oh, and I hope the preacher's aren't too intimidated.  |
|
|
|
| AsstEd Member Joined Aug 8, 2008 31 posts Location: Winnipeg, MB |
| Re: Kenneth Affleck's post |
Posted Jan 29, 2010; 10:45 am |
|
It's a good to research exactly what has been said and written, not trusting second-hand reports, and if you are still troubled after your research, to interact with the BFL or seminary representatives, rather than sounding an alarm at the congregational level, where members may not have adequate information to respond faithfully.
For those who are interested in the atonement issue and the crucial gospel message of Christ's bearing our sins on the cross, the conference engaged with this issue at some length with the study conference, and continues to keep the lines of discussion open.
Audio files and notes from Thomas Yoder Neufeld's eloquent presentations on who Jesus is can be found in the media centre on the conference homepage (www.mbconf.ca) or under the events tab (here), as well as the powerpoint slides from Mark Baker's and Doug Heidebrecht's presentations on models of the atonement. Tim Geddert's article "Thinking about the atonement" in June's Herald is also a helpful resource. |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 568 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| |
Posted Jan 30, 2010; 1:28 pm |
|
In response to dwark Jan 28th above, I am out of town at the moment, so do not have access to the entire makeup of the theological committee. But I recall that the lead pastor and one of our elders who has been a sessional instruction at CBC were two of them. Those were the two at the table when the committee reported back to us at the elder meeting.
We did not "raise an alarm" at the congregational level. As elders, one of our main biblical duties is to protect the flock from false teachers, so we undertook this process to investigate a matter which seems to be troubling the MB churches, and had godly, theologically trained persons look into it and report to us. As a result of their work, we did not feel any reason to raise an alarm. |
|
|
|
| roadrunning Member Joined May 9, 2008 320 posts |
| |
Posted Jan 30, 2010; 5:06 pm |
|
I would like to affirm two aspects related to this discussion. First, I think it is important to engage in thoughtful theological discussions at many levels. Second, I think it is a good idea to involve the teachers, preachers and leaders among us in this discussions, as well as lay people.
I would also like to express a concern however. It could become problematic if each individual church would feel the necessity to form "theological watch' committees to monitor the work of other churches and the church colleges and seminaries.
Is is feasible for individual church committess to scrutinize all the teachings of fellow preachers/pastors as well as seminary and college professors?
Does it seem reasonable that the theological committee of one congregation would get together to listen to the sermons preached in another MB church, find the theological problems in the sermon, and then ask the fellow pastor to come to meet with them to discuss the problems they detected? Would pastors have time to meet with other congregations in this way? Similarly, a college/seminary professor might not have the time to meet with the theological watch committees of various churches, outside of an instructive invitation.
I would think that we would want to treat our pastors the same way that we treat our professors. After all, pastors may have more influence than many professors do. I am assuming that there will be some diversity of theological ideas expressed in pulpits and classrooms even when there is full support for the Confession of Faith.
On the note of feasibility, Lorne, I was wondering how you think your preaching pastor would respond to an invitation to meet with a church committee in Saskatchewan to explain something he said in a Sunday morning sermon that was heard on-line? |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 405 posts |
| |
Posted Jan 30, 2010; 5:50 pm |
|
Hi RR
I think that the difference is that our schools are accountable directly to the community of churches. The pastors of a local church have a responsibility to the larger community but the first responsibility is to their local church. For the teachers in our schools and the leaders in our conference- the whole community is their congregation.
It seems to me that Lorne's church is putting community hermeneutic into practice in fine Anabaptist tradition. I assume that if they had found reason for further concern they would have moved that process forward and brought it to the community of churches- first provincial and then national. |
|
|
|
| roadrunning Member Joined May 9, 2008 320 posts |
| Accountability |
Posted Jan 30, 2010; 10:11 pm |
|
Hello James, I would like to argue that as members of the MB churches we are all accountable to each other and to affirming our communal Confession of Faith. Lorne noted his congregation's biblical concern with 'false teachers'. I am simply putting forward the suggestion that false teaching is as likely to come from a pulpit as it is from a podium or lecturn.
Perhaps our community hermeneutic is as necessary to settle theological differences between individual MB pastors and the congregations they lead and influence. I am not sure it is reasonable to assume that only teachers can be influential in negative ways. From historical experience we can see that often pastors and conference leaders have more influence and power than educators do when it comes to making theological and policy decisions for the conference. The Anabaptist/Mennonite ideal of lay involvement has not been usurped even though it is overlaid with a bureaucratic polity structure. |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 405 posts |
| A Conference of Churches |
Posted Jan 31, 2010; 5:35 pm |
|
Hi RR
I completely agree that pastors of MB churches should be held accountable by the larger conference and even other churches but there are 2 things that I believe distinguish teachers or other employees of the conference-
1. We are a conference of churches. This means that the local church is accountable to the conference and the members of the local church are accountable to their church. [That distinguishes us from denominations who call the denomination "the church."] This does not preclude other accountability but it sets up an order.
2. Related to the above the teachers and leaders of conference are accountable directly to the full conference- and the first vehicle for addressing concerns is via the local church.
I think that Lorne's church acted as they should in this matter. There is of course the challenge that smaller churches would not have the same resources available to them- but I think that they still could do the same thing on a appropriate levels. It used to be that at conventions the delegates from the various attending churches would bring concerns or suggestions on behalf of their congregations. |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 568 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| Verification? |
Posted Feb 2, 2010; 10:04 am |
|
I am still waiting for verification of this statement:
| Quote: | | Some of the seminary professors deny that Christ bore the penalty for our sins when He died on the cross |
.
Ken? Anybody? |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 405 posts |
| Accountability |
Posted Feb 6, 2010; 10:49 pm |
|
| Am I correct to interpret the silence on the Forum as a response to the call for accountability? I hope I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| on the Forum being quiet |
Posted Feb 7, 2010; 4:32 pm |
|
James,
The thought that the “call for accountability” might have something to do with the Forum being quiet had not entered my mind. You could be correct; however, that’s not where I am at. Yes the Forum has been quiet lately, but it tends to run in spurts – sometimes active other times no so active.
I know I’ve been very busy both in my work and personal life (my 87-yr old father isn’t well). At times it’s all I can do to skim a post. And then Len posted something which had a reading component as a prerequisite to engage one of his Threads 
And it terms of the present ‘Sustaining Mighty Oaks’ Thread, it seems to me that Ken puts up a provocative post and doesn’t engage in dialogue. Much like a person might write a letter to a newspaper. That was something I noticed about a previous topic he started. Nothing wrong with that of course but he doesn’t seem to stick around to engage and respond. This may be at least one factor in the silence on this Thread. |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 405 posts |
| Accountability |
Posted Feb 7, 2010; 6:02 pm |
|
I’m sorry to hear about you father, WCFOM. Our prayers are with you.
I began thinking about accountability this week when I received a letter that our seminary and Mark Bakker have given in response to the controversy Kenneth raised. [It was sent to all MB churches in BC and is a public document].
Even though avenues were given to examine Mark face to face, and in spite of assessments like those of Lorne’s church- he and the seminary felt compelled to make statements of regrets.
I will not comment on whether or not that was warranted- but what is called for is an apology or evidence, from those who have made very strong statements vilifying Mark and MBBS [such as Kenneth's]. Either those statements must be justified- or retractions and apologies must be made.
I am all for holding our leaders and teachers to account- but as a community we cannot countenance our leaders being accused without evidence. “Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.” 1 Timothy 5:19
To give Kenneth credit- he signed his name to his statements and put them in a context where a public response can be made. Nonetheless, Biblically I don’t think it is correct to just leave it when leaders are impugned. |
|
|
|
