Daniel Vestal on John Killinger

[Norm]

jerryl: 'Well, CBF encompasses a lot of people with a wide range of theological views. My perception is that John Killinger's views are not mainstream among CBFers, but I won't doubt that among us are some who do share some or many of his views. We have no magisterium or Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to keep track of official CBF teaching so anything I say about the theological positions of CBFers is only my, however educated it may be, view.

But that said we did not host John Killinger to teach theology to attendees to our General Assembly, we hosted the Rev. Dr. Killinger to share his views as a respected and widely published theologian and author from outside our own tradition. His purpose was not to teach us those views, but to help us understand thought in the broader theological world outside of CBF. Many of those who attend CBF General Assemblies hold graduate theological degrees, and probably most who don't have engaged in significant informal theological education. Those who attended Dr. Killinger's seminars are free, and encouraged to, use or not use his views in any way they wish; to inform themselves about thought outside our tradition, to attempt to integrate these thoughts within there own, to attempt to formulate refutations to these views, or to simply ignore them.

Well-done, too, jerryl.

[William Thornton]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

[Mark]

[William Thornton]

[Stephen Fox]

In the 60's, late 60's there was a discussion at the Interpreter's House outside Waynesville, NC (incidentally the setting for Rash's novel, Serena) where in the presence of the great Martin England, the question was on the table of was Christ God or Man.
Marney came down on the side of Man, else there is no Incarnation.

Was Marney a Baptist?
If not there is no such a thing.

I don't speak for Marney but I think he would find laughable this dyspepsia about the Killinger breakout.
Have Killinger back next year with Fisher Humphreys and lets pursue further just how much freedom CBF breakouts will allow.

He had a great line about the SBC, something about a regional Jesus cult designed to enhance provincial potentates.
If he was right, as Anne Coulter said Jesus was a perfected Jew; then I guess Paige Patterson in that sense is the perfected Southern Baptist; if Marney had a clue in the mid 60's.

[KeithE]

[JaneFordA]

::: kicked up::: so I can eventually reply to this thread and not let down Norm whom I promised a reply a few days ago...

[Mark]

Without trying to straddle the fence at all, I think most everybody contributing to this discussion so far has had at least one valid point. (With the possible exception of our otherwise stellar Jane-the-Pain, who should forfeit one week's worth of Cheetos for dissing our friend Daniel Vestal. )

It's always a challenge for non-Fundamentalist Baptists to know when, if ever, to respond to Southern Baptist critics. Not surprisingly, BDiddy once again probably reflects most closely my own theology and viewpoint. Indeed, CBF should (and does) proclaim itself to be a distinctly Christian organization, without apology.

Norm, jerryl, and others likewise have a valid concern. CBF leadership is never out of line to just as strongly declare that from time to time we will unapologetically present provocative speakers, and points of view, from across the spectrum. And that these perspectives, while not necessarily reflecting our own declared orthodoxy, nonetheless serve to challenge both our minds and our faith.

Surely we all agree that context is crucial in such matters. I would have no problem with John Killinger appearing on a panel clearly identified as reflecting a diverse range of opinions. As BDiddy (or somebody) said, that would have probably been the better context.

Years ago, I remember Foy Valentine catching lots of heat for inviting someone from Hustler magazine to appear on a panel during a Christian Life Commission conference dealing with the issue of pornography and the family. But he typically featured such persons alongside other guests who were Christian leaders. He even invited Falwell one year. Thus, context is everything.

That's my two cents. I've enjoyed reading all (well... most) of the other comments before chiming in on this one.

[Stephen Fox]

Topic: Would Marney be outside the bounds of CBF?

Marney was asking a lot of questions along the way. I think he woulda been delighted to have a John Killinger lead a discussion at Interpreter's House.
Unless a complainer can make a case that convinces Glenn Jonas and Curtis Freeman that a presenter at CBF doesn't pass the Marney test, then I say they are welcome.
That is my limit, my litmus test, the plumbline if Thornton needs one

And here is a new twist to this discussion.
Outrigger Bible School, indoctrination, or a Light Unto Little Feet.?

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=10774

I think I am conflating here, would like to know from Haruo if I am getting better at it.

[jerryl]

[Mark]

[Haruo]

If Falwell shared a venue with Larry Flynt, that pretty well seals it.

Haruo

PS Was it Mrs. Lotz who evangelized Flynt and got him to put out a Christian pornzine?

[Haruo]

No, somebody else... a relative of Carter's?

[JaneFordA]

[KeithE]

[Norm]

Thanks, KeithE. I don't know if Killinger thinks of himself as a baptist, but he represents the best of what it means to be a baptist. Had there been him and more like him in the SBC the ministerial preparation that many of us received would have been deeper and richer and our congregations would have been the better for it. The opportunity to do just that (i.e., deeper and enriched ministerial preparation) with CBF presented itself and what did we do, for a second time those of us nurtured in SBC turned our back to him and surely grieved God's Spirit with our behavior. How many times does it take God to send these individuals to us saying, listen, before we have the ears to hear and the eyes to see. I don't know, but in this instance we were found quite senseless and acted in said manner, too. Before we suggest that it is John who is on the outside, we might reconsider the fourth chapter of Mark. And when we do, we will not like the answer.

[William Thornton]

Well, good for you KeithE in getting an email from Killinger.

You asked him, "So do you in fact "deny the deity of Christ"? And if you answer, do I have permission to post your answer to the Baptist Life forum? Perhaps you could register and answer yourself."

I didn't see an answer in his reply to you nor did I see much that would assuage Vestal and the others.

CBF lays an egg on this item.

[KeithE]

[Jim]

In his reply, Killinger completely answered the question about divinity. Killinger: As well as I can recall, though, my remarks were in the context of answering a question about biblical literalism and how most Christians have now grown up enough to understand that the Jesus of the synoptic Gospels is different (humbler, less divine, certainly not transcendent) from the Jesus of the Gospel of John, who is clearly pre-existent, omniscient, and transcendent.

First, Killinger, as do all elitists, establishes the fact that Christians other than him (his "most Christians" meaning mostly just him) have not yet matured to the point that they can understand anything deeper than how to make peanut butter. He then explains that he's discovered that Jesus is less divine than those who contemplate on whether or not to eat gravel or broccoli think he is. This introduces the notion of degrees of divinity, the elitists among us believing Jesus to be something in between God and the deep blue sea…maybe still evolving toward divinity-hood, just not there yet, while the ignorant among us believe in some absolutes, in this case that Jesus either was or was not divine, with no Mr. In-between.

Transcend: to rise above or go beyond the limits of; to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of: OVERCOME. Killinger answered the question of transcendence, to wit, that Christ did not overcome sin/death through the crucifixion/resurrection and certainly did not ascend into heaven. By his lights, then, neither may we. As for Killinger's allusion to Jesus's lack of humbleness noted by John, Killinger simply ignores the synoptics' description of Jesus driving the scoundrels from the temple, using physical force, as well as Luke's account in which Jesus told the disciples to arm themselves with swords, apparently with the intent of using them for self-defense...sorta bloody.

Killinger, like many others, attempts to place Christ on the same level as human beings, thus explaining that, actually, "anything goes," since that's only human and certainly not "completely divine," as Jesus was not completely divine, doncha know, and thus places an "okay" on any behavior, aberrant and otherwise. In other words, there are no absolutes. Killinger, whether he knows it or not (being perhaps too much of an intellectual to use common sense), would approve of the notion that everything is relative. This leads to anarchy, of course, but that's just something for the immature to engage, not the deep thinkers.

Perhaps it's good to have folks like Killinger come forth and hold seminars. Baptists invite Buddhists, Muslims, Confucius-folks, and those of other persuasions to enlighten their memberships, so why not get the Jesus-as-not humble…not divine…non-transcendent intellects to shower the great unwashed with wisdom? Why all the furor over a silly seminar? It's suggested that all who read this make a judgment as to the level of divinity upon which Jesus is operating at any given time and therefore decide the best time to pray in his name. Maybe a poll is in order.

[Norm]

[Norm]