Saturday, February 14, 2009

Going to the source first

If a church or Christian organisation wants to provide a list of books or articles to inform people of a certain theological issue, do you think they have a responsibility to show books representing all sides of the argument, or just the ones they agree with?

E.g. Mars Hill website gave a list of what they called "helpful books on Justification", which contained many polemics against the New Perspectives position. However, they do not provide any material from Sanders, Wright or Dunn.

It seems to me that that list should have been titled "Helpful books on OUR view of justification", or something like that.


Dannii said...

If the books/articles are about a particular theological topic I don't think it's important to really reference opposing heretical views.

But if the books/articles are about other books/articles, arguing for or against them, it would be pretty unfair not to reference them.

So what is that Mars Hill list about? Justification or the New Perspectives?

dave miers said...

i have zero problem with what you have mentioned.

in youth ministry i want to teach teenagers to be discerning no matter what they read... yet i'm not going to recommend to them books i disagree with - especially from a public platform or website.

it is different if i'm talking to someone one-on-one, i can think of times in the past when i've directed someone to a book that i didn't agree with - but i'm able to follow that up in a way i can't if i give an endorsement in a public setting.

have we talked about this before?
was it maybe in comments on another blog? or is this one of those deja vu thing?

Adele said...

Dannii, the list was primarily about justification.

Dave, so the issue is pastoral?

Certainly as a pastor I wouldn't want to guide my flock to heresies (not that I consider npp heresy...yet), and it would be unwise to encourage the flock who perhaps don't read much in the first place and are less discerning to read that which i disagree with.

My issue is saying "You want to understand new perspectives? Just read piper's book on it". You can't claim to understand someone if you've only really the polemics against them.

have we talked about this before

It came from the source of all good and up to date discussion...your blog, which I think you alread knew :-)

I guess the issue I have is

geoffc said...

me talking above, not adele...

dave miers said...

i think i'd be more likely to recommend books on justification than recommend books on npp. again if there was discussion on npp with someone in a one2one context, i'd point them to other authors.

It came from the source of all good and up to date discussion...your blog, which I think you alread knew :-)

it was a genuine question... iwasn't sure!