How far is too far?

[Grazer]

Last month I posted a blog on my site which was essentially an interview with an Oxford Christian academic. In it he voiced some fears that the book he co-edited that was about to be published, could very well result in him losing his job. I outlined in my blog why this wasn't paranoia and cited some examples where this had been the case.


But there is a disturbing trend in people being fired for asking the seemingly wrong type of question and now Eric Siebert from Messiah College is in the firing line. He wrote a 3 part series on Peter Enns's blog where he looked at the violence in the Old Testament and the questions this raised. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary didn't take too kindly to this and in a recent panel, discussed Eric Sieberts views. Naturally they didn't agree with Sieberts views; I have no issue with them disagreeing with his views, that's their right but they went further than this. They attacked Sieberts character, demonized him and called for Siebert to be removed (fired) from his post at Messiah College.
Is this where churches are at now? To get people fired because they're asking questions they don't think should be asked? Isn't academic institutions precisely the place where honest open discussion of all views should be taking place? And just who put the Southern Baptist Seminary in a position to judge what is right and wrong and suggest the necessary action? As I commented on Peter Enns FaceBook page; "There's something very odd to me about 4 people sitting around judging others and conspiring to destroy their livelihood, all because he dared to ask honest questions. It makes it worse when they are supposed to be questions. It seems too obvious a question to ask but who gave them this authority and was there a memo?"


Now let me re-state, I have no issues with the Southern Baptist Seminary disagreeing with Sieberts views but they went way beyond that. The message from all this is; "if we don't like what you say, we want you fired!" Historically, this has never ended well.


So how far is too far? Should people be fired from their jobs for asking questions and exploring different views? And who gets to decide which view is the one we should all adhere to?


To see the discussion panel, visit here
To see Peter Enns's comments on it and Eric Sieberts articles he did, visit here

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

But there is a disturbing trend in people being fired for asking the seemingly wrong type of question and now Eric Siebert from Messiah College is in the firing line. He wrote a 3 part series on Peter Enns's blog where he looked at the violence in the Old Testament and the questions this raised. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary didn't take too kindly to this and in a recent panel, discussed Eric Sieberts views. Naturally they didn't agree with Sieberts views; I have no issue with them disagreeing with his views, that's their right but they went further than this. They attacked Sieberts character, demonized him and called for Siebert to be removed (fired) from his post at Messiah College.
Is this where churches are at now? To get people fired because they're asking questions they don't think should be asked?

One, it's "Seibert" not "Siebert" and two, I find it interesting you took the title of this thread from an online article about the exact same issue. Strange you didn't look into other, more critical articles of Seibert's essays. Here I will remind you of what God says about people such as Enns and Seibert.

1 Peter 2 NASB
1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned;
3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;
5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;
6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;
​

For example, in a recent Patheos blog post, Seibert writes that the Bible "has been used to justify warfare, oppress women, condemn gays and lesbians, support slavery, and legitimate colonization, to name just a few of its troubling legacies." It's an old discussion, and Seibert notes that "Most Christians would attribute this misuse of the Bible to faulty interpretations and misguided interpreters." But that's not the only problem, he says. "At times the Bible endorses values we should reject, praises acts we must condemn, and portrays God in ways we cannot accept."

Seibert, educated as he is, obviously does not even understand the book of which he has said, "Not everything in the 'good book' is either good, or good for us." Neither does anyone who agrees with him understand the Bible, because it does not justify war that cannot be justified; it does not oppress women (the women of the Bible are the most liberated of their times, and functioned equally with men, but the critics never manage to look deep enough to see that); it does not condemn gays and lesbians, but their sinful acts; it does not support slavery, as the use of the term in the Bible was not the understanding we have of slavery today, but indentured servitude, which was the only way some could survive and feed their families; and there is no reference in the Bible to "colonization."

As to what people have done with the Bible to justify extreme examples of these acts against others, that isn't the Bible doing it, it is the people who are ignorantly or deliberately misinterpreting God's word in order to continue in their own immoral acts. We do that every day, on a smaller scale, but we seldom condemn ourselves for ignorance or deliberate misinterpretation, even though we should, when we continue in a sin that is our favorite, that we are not willing to let go of, and find an excuse not to do so.

Should people be fired from their jobs for asking questions and exploring different views? No. But when your job is to teach the Bible as a product of God's inspiration, inerrant and literal in meaning and concept, and act against that job description, you should quit, and not force the college to fire you. Seibert isn't what he claimed to be when he joined the faculty, and as such needs to go. Let him find another platform from which to condemn the Bible. A Bible college is not the place for him to do so.

 

[jasoncran]

sorry, he should be made to leave.that is too much. if he was allowed to stay the the sbc would be allowing its seminaries to become dens of liberal theology.

 

[P31Woman]

Last month I posted a blog on my site which was essentially an interview with an Oxford Christian academic. In it he voiced some fears that the book he co-edited that was about to be published, could very well result in him losing his job. I outlined in my blog why this wasn't paranoia and cited some examples where this had been the case.


But there is a disturbing trend in people being fired for asking the seemingly wrong type of question and now Eric Siebert from Messiah College is in the firing line. He wrote a 3 part series on Peter Enns's blog where he looked at the violence in the Old Testament and the questions this raised. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary didn't take too kindly to this and in a recent panel, discussed Eric Sieberts views. Naturally they didn't agree with Sieberts views; I have no issue with them disagreeing with his views, that's their right but they went further than this. They attacked Sieberts character, demonized him and called for Siebert to be removed (fired) from his post at Messiah College.
Is this where churches are at now? To get people fired because they're asking questions they don't think should be asked? Isn't academic institutions precisely the place where honest open discussion of all views should be taking place? And just who put the Southern Baptist Seminary in a position to judge what is right and wrong and suggest the necessary action? As I commented on Peter Enns FaceBook page; "There's something very odd to me about 4 people sitting around judging others and conspiring to destroy their livelihood, all because he dared to ask honest questions. It makes it worse when they are supposed to be questions. It seems too obvious a question to ask but who gave them this authority and was there a memo?"


Now let me re-state, I have no issues with the Southern Baptist Seminary disagreeing with Sieberts views but they went way beyond that. The message from all this is; "if we don't like what you say, we want you fired!" Historically, this has never ended well.


So how far is too far? Should people be fired from their jobs for asking questions and exploring different views? And who gets to decide which view is the one we should all adhere to?


To see the discussion panel, visit here
To see Peter Enns's comments on it and Eric Sieberts articles he did, visit here

See the part in bold. Simple answer: the ones who provide the jobs. In this particular case it's the Southern Baptist and it's really no one elses business.

To answer the OP how far is too far? Telling a religious group who they must hire or keep employed. And if they don't do what others want calling them a bully.

 

[Grazer]

sorry, he should be made to leave.that is too much. if he was allowed to stay the the sbc would be allowing its seminaries to become dens of liberal theology.

But this issue has nothing to do with SBC, that's the whole point. As Peter Enns has commented;

but the issue here isn't whether a school should set it guidelines and hire/fire according to them. It's whether Owen Strachan, with apparently the full support of his superiors, should insinuate himself into a schools process and try force/embarrass a school into firing someone because Strachan seems to think he deserves it. This is sinister.

Far from driving me away from Eric Sieberts work, the fuss the SBC has raised has led to me Eric Sieberts works and I intend getting them to read them.

As for "dens of liberal theology" I'm more worried about seminaries becoming "dens of fundamentalism"

 

[P31Woman]

But this issue has nothing to do with SBC, that's the whole point. As Peter Enns has commented;

but the issue here isn't whether a school should set it guidelines and hire/fire according to them. It's whether Owen Strachan, with apparently the full support of his superiors, should insinuate himself into a schools process and try force/embarrass a school into firing someone because Strachan seems to think he deserves it. This is sinister.

Far from driving me away from Eric Sieberts work, the fuss the SBC has raised has led to me Eric Sieberts works and I intend getting them to read them.

As for "dens of liberal theology" I'm more worried about seminaries becoming "dens of fundamentalism"

Let me refresh your memory. This is from your OP;

Now let me re-state, I have no issues with the Southern Baptist
Seminary disagreeing with Sieberts views but they went way beyond that. The
message from all this is; "if we don't like what you say, we want you fired!"
Historically, this has never ended well.








So how far is too far? Should people be fired from their jobs for asking
questions and exploring different views? And who gets to decide which view is
the one we should all adhere to?

BTW, that den of liberal theology your are not concerned about, ends up without a bodily resurrected Christ. But hey that's what liberal theology is all about anyway!------- Taking God off the throne and replacing him with self.

 

[P31Woman]

But this issue has nothing to do with SBC, that's the whole point. As Peter
Enns has commented;

but the issue here isn't whether a school should
set it guidelines and hire/fire according to them. It's whether Owen Strachan,
with apparently the full support of his superiors, should insinuate himself into
a schools process and try force/embarrass a school into firing someone because
Strachan seems to think he deserves it. This is sinister.

How Far is Too Far?

Peter Enns going too far by trying to imposing himself on the SBC.

There are about 16 million of us in the SBC. We don't want or need is outside opinion. Owen Strachan is a member of the SBC and we do want his voice to be heard.

 

[P31Woman]

One, it's "Seibert" not "Siebert" and two, I find it interesting you took the title of this thread from an online article about the exact same issue. Strange you didn't look into other, more critical articles of Seibert's essays. Here I will remind you of what God says about people such as Enns and Seibert.

1 Peter 2 NASB
1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned;
3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;
5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;
6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;
​

For example, in a recent Patheos blog post, Seibert writes that the Bible "has been used to justify warfare, oppress women, condemn gays and lesbians, support slavery, and legitimate colonization, to name just a few of its troubling legacies." It's an old discussion, and Seibert notes that "Most Christians would attribute this misuse of the Bible to faulty interpretations and misguided interpreters." But that's not the only problem, he says. "At times the Bible endorses values we should reject, praises acts we must condemn, and portrays God in ways we cannot accept."

Seibert, educated as he is, obviously does not even understand the book of which he has said, "Not everything in the 'good book' is either good, or good for us." Neither does anyone who agrees with him understand the Bible, because it does not justify war that cannot be justified; it does not oppress women (the women of the Bible are the most liberated of their times, and functioned equally with men, but the critics never manage to look deep enough to see that); it does not condemn gays and lesbians, but their sinful acts; it does not support slavery, as the use of the term in the Bible was not the understanding we have of slavery today, but indentured servitude, which was the only way some could survive and feed their families; and there is no reference in the Bible to "colonization."

As to what people have done with the Bible to justify extreme examples of these acts against others, that isn't the Bible doing it, it is the people who are ignorantly or deliberately misinterpreting God's word in order to continue in their own immoral acts. We do that every day, on a smaller scale, but we seldom condemn ourselves for ignorance or deliberate misinterpretation, even though we should, when we continue in a sin that is our favorite, that we are not willing to let go of, and find an excuse not to do so.

Should people be fired from their jobs for asking questions and exploring different views? No. But when your job is to teach the Bible as a product of God's inspiration, inerrant and literal in meaning and concept, and act against that job description, you should quit, and not force the college to fire you. Seibert isn't what he claimed to be when he joined the faculty, and as such needs to go. Let him find another platform from which to condemn the Bible. A Bible college is not the place for him to do so.

Thanks for telling us the truth. This quote blew me out of the water!

Seibert, "At times the Bible endorses values we should reject, praises acts we must condemn, and portrays God in ways we cannot accept."

That's what Black Liberation Theolgy does! Rejects the God of scripture and imposes on God their own values, beliefs and desires. James Cones the father of BLT in his book, A Black Theology of Liberation;

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the Black community. If God is not for us and against White people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of Black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the Black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of Black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."

 

[jasoncran]

im sorry grazer, I do have a calling to teach the bible.with knowledge comes expectation. I was told that years ago and now when the Lord wills I will do that. Yet, despite that since im ami and my church premil I cant teach my views there. so im either going to have to leave or agree to premil doctrine. I would like to go through the bible. but I can easily do the tanach only or wherever the lord uses me and study. im doing that for a new believer with Leviticus already.I told him if you read that right you should see the Lord in it. he asked questions and I showed him where the levites partook of the offerings and that is direct image of Christ!

 

[P31Woman]

To see the discussion panel, visit here

Does anyone know how I can find the rest of the discussion? After 55 minutes my went off. It's very interesting.

You know you can only sharpen iron with iron. Not with rubber. This is a group of iron!

It appears Eric Seibert wants us to interpet scripture from a non-violence stance. Seibert believes non-violence is the reality we are to judge all things. As one member of the panel said that does not jive with Hebrews 11 or John 3 that discusses numbers 21 nor Genesis 3. Very good stuff!


I would appreciate any help finding the rest of this discussion. Thanks

 

[P31Woman]

im sorry grazer, I do have a calling to teach the bible.with knowledge comes expectation. I was told that years ago and now when the Lord wills I will do that. Yet, despite that since im ami and my church premil I cant teach my views there. so im either going to have to leave or agree to premil doctrine. I would like to go through the bible. but I can easily do the tanach only or wherever the lord uses me and study. im doing that for a new believer with Leviticus already.I told him if you read that right you should see the Lord in it. he asked questions and I showed him where the levites partook of the offerings and that is direct image of Christ!

Good post Jason! Thumbs up.

 

[Grazer]

im sorry grazer, I do have a calling to teach the bible.with knowledge comes expectation. I was told that years ago and now when the Lord wills I will do that. Yet, despite that since im ami and my church premil I cant teach my views there. so im either going to have to leave or agree to premil doctrine. I would like to go through the bible. but I can easily do the tanach only or wherever the lord uses me and study. im doing that for a new believer with Leviticus already.I told him if you read that right you should see the Lord in it. he asked questions and I showed him where the levites partook of the offerings and that is direct image of Christ!

Great testimony but I fail to see what any of it has to do with one group calling for someone to be fired from an academic institution they have nothing to do with. Whether you or I agree with Eric Siebert is beside the point, whether Eric Siebert has broken his contract with messiah college is beside the point. This is about the conduct of Southern Baptist Seminary and their treatment of Eric Siebert.

 

[P31Woman]

Great testimony but I fail to see what any of it has to do with one group calling for someone to be fired from an academic institution they have nothing to do with. Whether you or I agree with Eric Siebert is beside the point, whether Eric Siebert has broken his contract with messiah college is beside the point. This is about the conduct of Southern Baptist Seminary and their treatment of Eric Siebert.

The Southern Baptist Seminary has done nothing wrong. You have falied to make a case against them.

Now will you please post the link so we can hear the rest of the panel discussion and not just the first hour.

Enns is crying becaue he was called out for his false teaching too while he was teaching in a conservative christian college. If they want to teach their liberal garbage they should apply for a job in one of the many liberal colleges that are in existance.

 

[jasoncran]

im sorry, its about defending the truth. if and when any seminary does allow him to teach then they are anathema. meaning they are teaching another doctrine aside from the idea of what the gospel and that is what seibert is pushing. the bible is in err, jesus may not have died for us all.


that is the problem. would you dare hesistate the firing of any man or women at secular college whom believed in hitler?

 

[Grazer]

im sorry, its about defending the truth. if and when any seminary does allow him to teach then they are anathema. meaning they are teaching another doctrine aside from the idea of what the gospel and that is what seibert is pushing. the bible is in err, jesus may not have died for us all.


that is the problem. would you dare hesistate the firing of any man or women at secular college whom believed in hitler?

That's your theological position, one that many disagree with and others have questions about. That's why open discussion is necessary, to talk about these things, to have reasonable discourse on it. What Messiah College do has nothing to do with Southern Baptist Seminary, that's been the point from post one.

As for your Hitler point; first off is going to extremes the best you can do? 2nd; believe in Hitler? What do you mean by that? I believe in him in that existed, your question makes no sense.

There are some here that believe Jesus didn't die for us all. Should they be banned from forums? There are some on here who have called for me to stop leading discussions with youth because they disagree with some of my theology. But theology is more than Look! Book/chapter/verse says this! I'm right! Heck being is about more than this

 

[P31Woman]

That's your theological position, that's why open discussion is necessary, to talk about these things, to have reasonable discourse on it. What Messiah College do has nothing to do with Southern Baptist Seminary, that's been the point from post one.

As for your Hitler point; first off is going to extremes the best you can do? 2nd; believe in Hitler? What do you mean by that? I believe in him in that existed, your question makes no sense.

There are some here that believe Jesus didn't die for us all. Should they be banned from forums? There are some on here who have called for me to stop leading discussions with youth.

As long as they claim to hold certain beliefs and accept Southern Baptist Students into their program it IS the business of southern bapitst to call out those who contradict what they claim to teach and believe! This is not just limited to southern baptist either. This is a job for all conservative Christians.

Liberals have no right to try and bring their evil doctrines into our colleges or churches.

 

[jasoncran]

if they are teaching doctrine they shouldn't be allowed, we have done that here. I remember blocking members for that here. wtee used to have rules on Trinitarian only.its not that extreme. from a jewish site

http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=305814

teaching, its what he did. I have an elder in my church whom has several ma's in divinity, theology and ba in psychology. so imagine the damage he could do in my church if was that man. its one thing to discuss it but another to have it taught. that man was paid to teach. not to come visit and debate ie like atheism vs theism.

that man did that. he only that did with students to make their apologetics better. ie he would have debates on the bible and its truth. he said how does our word compare to this idea from the hindus and quote the hindus scripture which is similar to psalm 23 and why is our bible the truth. he is in nowise saying nor teaching Hinduism.

According to Messiah College professor and author Eric Seibert, misuse of the Bible is not just Christians' fault. Rather, the problem "runs right through the pages of Scripture itself."

In a recent Patheos blog post, Seibert writes that the Bible "has been used to justify warfare, oppress women, condemn gays and lesbians, support slavery, and legitimate colonization, to name just a few of its troubling legacies."
It's an old discussion, and Seibert notes that "Most Christians would attribute this misuse of the Bible to faulty interpretations and misguided interpreters." But that's not the only problem, he says. "At times the Bible endorses values we should reject, praises acts we must condemn, and portrays God in ways we cannot accept."
As a result, he argues, Christians have a moral obligation to critique Scripture and condemn what is immoral," he states.
Seibert's claims about the nature of Scripture are rare among professors at evangelical colleges, albeit not entirely new; the call for Christians to pursue an 'ethical' reading of Scripture has long been a fixture in some mainline circles. But the sentiment seems to be new in the Bible department of Messiah, one of the few Anabaptist colleges in the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. Still, according to the school's statement of faith, "God gives us the Bible as the inspired, trustworthy and authoritative Scripture to reveal God's ways and purposes, to nourish our minds and souls, and to instruct us in how we ought to think and to live."
Seibert has made similar claims before, most notably in his book Disturbing Divine Behavior—which also received criticism. (Scot McKnight called Seibert's argument "at times Marcion-like," referring to the second-century heretic who rejected the Old Testament.)
This time around, Boyce College theology professor Owen Strachan calls Seibert's piece "shameful," pointing out the "serious friction … between Seibert and his school’s statement of faith."
CT previously has examined the question of how to read the Bible, including a look at sin in the Old Testament, why God seems to sanction raw violence in the Old Testament but not the New, and similar topics

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2013/02/is_the_bible_im.html

by what standard can we sinners Judge the word of the creator?

I would like to know why we should do that.we already have the push in the west to make any sex act legal. if it wasn't for the ban I would post that. its now being pushed at yale that bestiality isn't a perversion.

 

[P31Woman]

Let me turn this around. It's the responsibility of the Messiah College to call out Southern Baptist when we have a heretic in our midst teaching bible classes. We want them to call it out.

 

[Grazer]

Asking questions of the text is not judging it. I have questions about some of the stories in the bible. Are you saying I shouldn't ask these questions and just accept what you say? Perhaps you should message the admins about those teaching that Jesus didn't die for everyone and voice your complaints

And I will say it for the final time; whether Siebert is right is not the point of this thread!!! Each college has their own SoF and own views on what they allow their employees to do. Messiah College has nothing to do with Southern Baptist Seminary.

 

[P31Woman]

He is not asking questions!

He is teaching a new way to interpet scripture. :crazy A new way to define God.

Conservative Christians pretty much stand united in our desire to keep heretics out of our midst.

"At times the Bible endorses values we should reject, praises acts we must condemn, and portrays God in ways we cannot accept."

This is an example of his teaching.