Friday, June 26, 2009

Wow I just got promoted

So I just got paid a pretty high complement a few minutes ago. Yesterday I posted a link to the Bayly blog (thread) to the Why be an ESV hater article. Basically the article is about the fact that the ESV is a political translation, and Bayly was both agreeing with me and posting some pretty clear evidence. As is my policy I contact anyone I link to every time I link if I can. I think that is basic politeness, gives them a chance to respond. Anyway, the Bayly's actually know who I am. Not only that David Bayly paid me high praise indeed, "Thanks for dealing with this individual [CD-Host] I've not found another commenter on this blog as filled with darkness, including the atheists who recently visited the site. They are deceived. This individual is a deceiver". Talking about yours truly! Wow and here I thought I was just a run of the mill bible blogger. Hah, I just made #1 force of darkness on the whole history of their blog (which actually goes back quite a ways). I'm feeling great. I've had a lousy week and that post definitely made my day. I'm on the internet so I get insulted regularly, but that was the coolest of all time.

OK so other than CD's ego tripping is there any content coming from this? First off I'd like answer a few questions.

There was a request for a link to my debate with Frank Turk (centuri0n). This is in reverse order (start at the bottom) but it is available here. There was a request for more insight on discipline and I was recommending the walk throughs list. Eric, had linked to my Rules for due process.

So what set them off? Heck, if I know. I haven't talked to those guys in over 2 years:
  • I'm hoping it was the Defense against Patriarchy series. This series the Bayly's actually deserve some credit. Of course, Doug Phillips was the main target, but the Baylys also had a blog full of their claims about their views having been the norm through Church history were a leading inspiration. I ended up writing over 100 pages proving that to be a cock-and-bull story.
  • Another possibility was our first encounter Tim Bayly on homosexuality and feminism where Bayly calls for excommunication based on opinion (not teaching or actions). I asked him to confirm this was really his opinion. He sort of did, then rejecting my characterization then refused my offer to let him rephrase as he saw fit.
  • One of the other articles about women's issues.
  • There are about another 1/2 dozen scattered references to him over the years.
But this just doesn't seem to rise to the level of prince of darkness, ok maybe defense does. I'm pretty proud of that. So while I feel great pride in David's complement there is this sense of undeserved praise. What to do, what to do? I should mention that Tim's comment wasn't bad either:
CD-Host, I owe our readers no link to your lies and heresies. Contradicting the Word of God is no small thing, and it's my sworn duty to silence it when it occurs. Often, it's helpful to our readers to hear questions and arguments. But in your case, the anonymity and toxicity of your heresies rises to a level I must not permit. So I'm pulling all links to your web site.
So in other words my stuff is well above the average in terms of lies and heresies. And you know what, I also got a permanent link on Planet Atheism today. Tim in recent threads had mentioned there were some problems recently with atheists (I couldn't find the threads on his blog unfortunately). But I suspect there is a connection, and this new link is their doing. So to get to the point, I'll take this opportunity to warmly thank both Tim and David for their endorsement.

I've noticed in the last 2 years a sharp drop off in claims that complementarianism and patriarchy were the universally held view up until: a generation ago, the 70s, the last hundred years.... and I can only hope that I had something to do with this and my modesty is misplaced.


Suzanne McCarthy said...

Hi CD,

After making two short comments on the Bayly blog and being given a rather long lecture, I was blocked again.

I did say "Hi guys" and they seemed convinced that I was addressing men and women, but of course, the Bayly brothers are guys, what can one say?

This is what I would like to have posted. In this comment I cite from the 2004 version of The TNIV and the Gender Neutral Bible Controversy. But, that book, now on the web, has been edited.

On June 2, 1997, when the initial Colorado Springs Guidelines were agreed on, Guideline B 1 originally read,

"Brother" (adelphos)and "brothers" (adelphoi) should not be changed to "brother(s) and sister(s)."

In The TNIV and the GNB, 2004, p. 425 - 426, Poythress and Grudem write,

"Examination of further lexicological data (as indicated in chapter 12) showed that this guideline was too narrow."

The following refined guideline was approved on Sept. 9, 1997,

"Brother" adelphos should not be changed to "brother or sister"; however, the plural adelphoi can be translated "brothers and sisters" where the context makes clear that the author is referring to both men and women."

What was the 'further lexicological data'?

In Poythress and Grudem's own words,

"in fact, the major Greek lexicons for over 100 years have said that adelphoi, which is the plural of the word adelphos, 'brother" sometimes means "brothers and sisters" (see BAGD, 1957 and 1979, Liddell-Scott-Jones, 1940 and even 1869).

This material was new evidence to those of us who wrote the May 27 guidelines - we weren't previously aware of this pattern of Greek usage outside the Bible. Once we saw these examples and others like them, we felt we had to make some change in the guidelines."


Let's establish these facts.

1) Wayne Grudem published his Systematic Theology in 1994.

2) In May 1997 he drafted the Colorado Springs Gender Guidelines, saying that adelphoi should not be changed to "brothers and sisters."

3) In September 1997, in response to a comment on the guildelines, this line was changed to "Brother" adelphos should not be changed to "brother or sister"; however, the plural adelphoi can be translated "brothers and sisters" where the context ...."

4) In 2004, Grudem and Poythress wrote that they had been unaware of the entry for adelphos in the Liddell Scott Lexicon, (published in 1869 and following.)

5) In 2006 I interviewed Dr. Packer and asked why he had endorsed this book by Grudem and Poythress. He said that he had not taken time to read the book.

The question can be rightly posed as to whether the Colorado Springs Guidelines, and the subsequent Bibles which follow these guidelines, have the goal of accuracy to the Greek, or thew goal of restricting words referring to women.

If accuracy had been the goal, then surely someone would have consulted the most important Greek lexicon before writing the guidelines and not after.

CD-Host said...

Sue --

Yep I can see why they would delete that one. Wouldn't want their clique knowing of yet another example of where Grudem and co. were deliberately mistranslating the scriptures and making stuff up.

The question can be rightly posed as to whether the Colorado Springs Guidelines, and the subsequent Bibles which follow these guidelines, have the goal of accuracy to the Greek, or thew goal of restricting words referring to women.

I'm not sure there is any point in even posing it anymore. I think you've done a pretty thorough job of showing the goal is restricted words referring to women. Accuracy has long ceased to be major concern.

J. L. Watts said...

#1 - Really? Wow, I would be honored too to feel that Christian love we hear so much about.

I for one enjoy your blog - may not always agree with you - but I seriously doubt that you #1. Maybe #45 or #46...

J. L. Watts said...

Suzanne, I do not like the ESV, and the more I read of it, the less I do. I feel that the plural should refer to brothers and sisters, else the NT writers would be speaking solely to men.

CD-Host said...

Hi J.L --

It is an interesting thing. The more I use the NLT the more I like it. It is a translation that just keeps growing in me. With the ESV, the more I come in contact with it the more defective it seems. It really is remarkably shoddy given how many copies it has sold.

Anyway I see you've taken you blog private. How come?

J. L. Watts said...

I like the NLT as well, CD.

The blog is not private - as a matter of fact, you visited me the other day.

- Polycarp.

CD-Host said...

Ah gotcha. Your blogger profile points to

Corrie said...

Congratulations, CD-Host, for making it to #1 on the Bayly Bros. list of really, really bad people. :-)

I tried to find, in my Bible, where David/Tim were given this "sworn duty" to silence the contradicting of (their own take on God's word) God's word any time they see it?

Gamaliel seemed to see it a different way. Acts 5.

"And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it--lest you even be found to fight against God."

It seems that the Bayly Bros. could apply the same wisdom to those who disagree with them on some of the nuances of "father-rule"?

I don't know exactly what you said that was so "dark" and evil but I didn't see you denying that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God? What "heresy" are you guilty of? Disagreeing with the Bayly Bros version of "father-rule"?

Suzanne, they called you a "liar" because you addressed them as "guys". That disgusted me. They like to twist and pervert things into something they are not. I knew that you were addressing them (the Bayly Bros who are MEN) but they will grasp at anything to denigrate those that dare to disagree with their own pet philosophies. "Aha! Aha!" they cry. You didn't contradict what you were asserting and that just makes them look like fools to make that inane leap.

The Bayly Bros are dangerous because of their high view of their own authority as pastors. Having been a target of their ridiculous false accusations for merely stating a fact, it is high praise to be on their poop list, indeed.

So, they can keep on wielding their "swords" but I fear for them when they appear before Jesus and He asks them why they unsheathed them so willy nilly.

CD-Host said...

I tried to find, in my Bible, where David/Tim were given this "sworn duty" to silence the contradicting of (their own take on God's word) God's word any time they see it?

Of course never. But now that you mention it, if he sees his blog as being an official act involving people who are not part of the PCA and not just something he does on the side, he better have permission:

A Presbytery may, at its discretion, approve the call of a teaching
elder to work with an organization outside the jurisdiction of the Presbyterian
Church in America, provided that he be engaged in preaching and teaching
the Word, that the Presbytery be assured he will have full freedom to
maintain and teach the doctrine of our Church, and that he report at least
annually on his work. As far as possible, such a teaching elder shall be a
member of the Presbytery within whose bounds he labors. (See BCO 20-1.)
(BCO 8-7)

It would be a violation of his vows to be acting in an official capacity as a minister on a non PCA site or PCA approved site.

What "heresy" are you guilty of? Disagreeing with the Bayly Bros version of "father-rule"?

There are only 3 possibilities that come to mind.
1) Disagreeing on father rule
2) Disagreeing on minor aspects of discipline procedures
3) Disagreeing on a matter of fact regarding Margaret Sanger.
And I don't think any of those count as heresies.

So, they can keep on wielding their "swords" but I fear for them when they appear before Jesus and He asks them why they unsheathed them so willy nilly.

Very true.

Good hearing from you again :-)

Bill K said...

I was bothered by the "silence" comment too, but something was ringing in my head about the familiarity of the word. There are some relevant scriptures I'm aware of:

titus 1:10-11,13b-14
"For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. [...] Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. "

1 peter 2:15
"For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men."

God's letter to Titus through Paul suggests the first method of silencing; rebuking and teaching (must teach in order for someone to be sound in the faith) those who are listening to false teachers.

God's letter through Peter proposes a second way of silencing - being above reproach.

The third type of instruction is for teachers to avoid foolish controversies, c.f. 1 tim 4:7, 6:20, 2 tim 2:14,16,23-26, 4:2

What would the Bible's recommendation be for Tim Bayly? He should counter your "heresy" by superior teaching to the people in his fellowship, he should not involve himself with controversial discussion with you anymore, and he should let a life of good deeds be proof against false accusations. None of these recommendations however is the same as censorship and the destruction of information. Pretending things aren't there doesn't make them go away.

CD-Host said...

Hi Bill --

I'm sure it is comments like these that make you appreciate the fact that you go to a sane church, and a biblical church. Corrie is right, Tim is a control freak. His rebuke isn't biblical for the reasons you mentioned, but we can even go deeper, one of the most basic criteria for a biblical rebuke is you know what you are being rebuked for and well I don't.

Speaking of your sane church, with its outstanding outreach program that is successful. I noticed one of the lead speakers for the upcoming conference is Joni Eareckson Tada (Figured you wouldn't mind me giving Xenos a plug).

Bill K said...

Yes, she is coming. I don't know much about her; do you have any thoughts?

CD-Host said...

Nothing particular insightful. I've heard she is very moving. Her focus is Christians with severe disabilities. I'd assume her message to Xenos would be about how to pull disabled Christians into position of leadership. If Dennis is planning on setting up a deaf home church or something, I think that is fantastic.

Bill K said...

The main focus of XSI conference this year is responding to suffering; so I'm guessing that her message will fit into that topic. The main headliner is Ajith Fernando - he is a Christian from Indonesia who has writte a book called "The Call to Joy and Pain". His thesis was to write to the church in the West because we always try to avoid pain, and yet scripture says that pain and joy come together and work to make us more like Christ.

We have had a ministry for a number of years called Access that is for those with disabilities. There is a student homechurch and an adult homechurch. There are a few volunteers that help out with each, but also some of those who are disabled lead the studies. And they are serious - the last time I talked to my friend in this ministry they were doing an inductive study of the book of John! When I was talking to her, I got the distinct sense that her understanding of John was much better than my own.