My Photo

About Me

« Perspectives on Church Polity | Main | More From The Eugene Peterson Interview »

March 06, 2005



I wish to go off about this quote, but I would like to temper my rage a bit from the outset. If they mean 'we' to be the people involved in their 'conversation', then it is alarming but understandable. If this is the context that this is said, then I think that they are misguided. However, I don't think it wold make sense to go off on something that is meant to shake things up in a 'conversation' that I am not a part of.

If this is meant to be a general comment to others as well, I have a few major problems with it - but I will wrap them all into one. I suppose that I would like Alan to tell me what are these more 'challenging questions of the gospel, etc.'? How exactly do you divorce these things from the church? Roxburgh is certainly not the only one to do this, but I believe that he is putting forth a false dichotomy for absolutely no reason.

If there is a problem with the amount of time and attention being paid to the church and its nature RATHER than the gospel - fine. Do something about it. These guys have the ability to shape the conversation, so why don't they? Not talking about the church will just result in the same mistake that he sees being made now. I would agree with him (at least somewhat) in his comment that we try to 'control and broker' the gospel at times. The answer to this is not to cease speaking of the church, but to work harder on its nature.

Come to think of it, the quotes you have put up from Eugene Peterson are probably the best reactions to this type of statement. If I have misunderstood Roxburgh or Erdman, I do apologize. It just seems to me that what was put forth here is a false dichotomy - a very overused and limited way of argument. How can any questions of the gospel be formulated without including the church?

The comments to this entry are closed.