This is not meant as a comment upon his nomination but as a way of sorting out what will appear to be the themes that are played about among those who are nominated and those who are vying for one candidate or another. I would suspect that this is a subtle way of identifying what are Matt Harrison's presumed weaknesses or areas where he lacks these qualities. I am sure there will be more from all the folks.
I am disappointed but not surprised that these are the areas highlighted but cannot help to remember the serious issues facing the Synod that cannot be solved joyously, winsomely, by the laity, or in our schools without forthrightly hashing out what rite vocatus means with respect to deacons doing Word and Sacrament ministry, what our confessional standard and doctrinal statements and resolutions actually mean, whether our Synod is a loose amalgamation of those who wish to cooperate in certain areas or congregations and ministers united by a common faith and practice, how we will educate and pay for the education of our seminarians, and how we will deal with the challenges of a post-modern and more secular world around us.
In the end I hope that our people are willing to converse openly and honestly and to spend some time in serious contemplation of these issues. . . We cannot afford to pass them off to another time and another location and our Synod deserves nothing less than delegates who will give these their sincere and prayerful attention. None of this will happen unless we also have candidates for all offices who know and confess their faith and our confessional heritage while at the same time willing to roll up the shirtsleeves to sort it all out. That is my prayer. I hope it is yours, as well.
CSL President Meyer's speech might have been credible if his seminary had not released in February, 2016, its news, "Acclaimed Yale theologian Miroslav Volf headlines ‘Reformation500’ event: Legacy of the Reformation will be highlighted." The 2015 Reformation500 event, celebrating the legacy of the Reformation, had invited Reformed pastor Tullian Tchividjian to speak. A few months later Tullian's own scandalous legacy was revealed.
But how does non-Lutheran Miroslav Volf fit into the Reformation and its legacy? In his article, "The “Same” God?, Volf Speaks," Scot McKnight writes:
Miroslav Volf, Professor at Yale, on the dedication page of his new  book — Allah: A Christian Response, says this: "To my father, a Pentecostal minister who admired Muslims, and taught me as a boy that they worship the same God as we do."
In his Book Review of Volk's book, Brandon Tsark, a Pepperdine religion graduate student, wrote:
"Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?... Volf offers a sustained ten-point argument that Christians and Muslims worship the same God."
In "A review of the book "Allah, a Christian response"," Paul Dan writes:
Chrislam is Volf’s political theology in this work. He does not explicitly call it so, but he clearly fleshes it out. The thesis of the book is that Allah and the God of the Bible are one and the same person....
Volf appeals to Martin Luther. He acknowledges that Luther said that Christians and Muslims worship the same God because the reformer was under the threat of Turkish conquest (p. 60). Luther denies that the Muslims are saved as a result of their faith, which Volf does not like. As a result, he cites Erasmus of Rotterdam to counteract Luther. What did Erasmus say about the Turks? He claimed that the Turks are half Christians (p. 73). Then Volf asserts that Muslims can be saved even while having wrong convictions about God, and that their belief in the Almightiness of God is good enough.
Didn't we identify this heresy in the previous Purple Palace regime and apologize for attempting to remove it in the current one? Now the author of this heresy is being trumpeted as a speaker at a seminary that was the home of other heresies four decades ago. And now the shepherd of that seminary is a candidate for synodical president.
Post a Comment