Dialogue with family integrated church proponent Mr. Wolfe

[Contra_Mundum]

I guess, the question is whether that stand is the same as the position with which Rev.Mathis was originally dialoging. My impression is that there are some appreciable differences.

But anyway, Rev.Mathis asked for someone to put forth the substance of said connection (so as to limit assumptions on any side), and it seems like a reasonable request.

 

[nasa30]

Dear Shawn,

I pointed to Brother Swanson as someone that might have a dialogue with you on this subject but I am not in the habit of speaking for others when they can be asked themselves. I said that he was very outspoken and the information is out there.

You asked me

What exactly is his position?

He is available to be asked so that is best evidence.

Pastor Swanson was in the movie Divided that you write a lot about and has made remarks and comments on the subject. One 3 minute Example from Divided here

To get his perspective on the film, you could listen to some of his broadcasts like this one -Kevin Swanson Addresses Tim Challies' Response to Divided

Or you could ask him why he is ok with being associated with NCFIC since he speaks at conferences that they put on and speaks at some Vision Forum conferences.

He also seems to fall into your description of Radical Homeschoolers and that conversation could be interesting as well.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Dear Judson,

I pointed to Brother Swanson as someone that might have a dialogue with you on this subject but I am not in the habit of speaking for others when they can be asked themselves.

Please re-read what I wrote. I never asked you to speak for Mr. Swanson. I asked you what you have heard since you've obviously knew something. That is a reasonable request as pastor Buchanan pointed out. And it occurs often at the puritanboard.

Or you could ask him why he is ok with being associated with NCFIC since he speaks at conferences that they put on and speaks at some Vision Forum conferences. He also seems to fall into your description of Radical Homeschoolers and that conversation could be interesting as well.

Mr. Judson. I think that is an excellent idea to have a public discussion with him. I will contact him and his session to see if he is able and willing. If others are interested please chime in.

 

[nasa30]

Please re-read what I wrote. I never asked you to speak for Mr. Swanson. I asked you what you have heard since you've obviously knew something. That is a reasonable request as pastor Buchanan pointed out. And it occurs often at the puritanboard.

Your question to me was

What exactly is his position?

That is a question better left to the person since he can be asked. No one can know his exact position but himself.

Thanks for the tip on how the PB works.

Rev.Mathis asked for someone to put forth the substance of said connection

I believe my last post put forth that requested connection.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Judson, what dialogue format did you have in mind? Pre-set questions, free-form, etc?

 

[nasa30]

Judson, what dialogue format did you have in mind? Pre-set questions, free-form, etc?

No, you have me wrong. I am not looking or requesting for you to do anything. There are opinions and arguments from both sides all over the internet on this subject already so I don't think another outlet is needed honestly. I am content with the ongoing conversations that are going in on blogs now.

You made the statement

I am back to the old standby: one sided conversations.

I was merely making a suggestion to you based on that comment. I have Pastor Swansons podcasts sent to my ipod and enjoy them and he was in the movie Divided so I thought of him when you made your comment.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

No, you have me wrong. I am not looking or requesting for you to do anything.

Well, the sentence you quoted of mine had the public dialogue with Mr. Wolfe as the context.

Is anyone interested in a one-on-one or are they satisfied with one-sided blog postings on either side?

 

[nasa30]

No, you have me wrong. I am not looking or requesting for you to do anything.

Well, the sentence you quoted of mine had the public dialogue with Mr. Wolfe as the context.

Yes, you are wanting a public dialogue and I made a suggestion. That's all. I am not looking/requesting you to do anything. It was just a suggestion for you.

 

[Hebrew Student]

nasa30,

I think what Shawn is trying to say is that so many of the heads of the NCFIC are not willing to engage in public dialogue with those who know and disagree with their position. The only time I have ever seen them willing to engage is with those who don't know what they are talking about, and are clearly misrepresenting what they believe [the one notable exception, of course, being this thread].

The fact of the matter is, I would like to have dialogue with some of these people on their hermeneutics. I have written about the relevance of speech act theory to the problems that they are bringing up, and would be very interested in seeing what their response to these things would be. However, I constantly see men like Scott Brown or Kevin Swanson going after those who have never heard of the movement, or who do not understand the argumentation of the leaders in the movement. Also, especially with this Divided movie, as well as recent articles in The Washington Post and USA Today, it almost makes it sound as though this is a marketing gimmick with little or no concern for the truth when you are unwilling to even engage your strongest critics in public dialogue.

The value of a public dialogue with the leaders of this movement where there is cross examination is readily apparent. As the book of Proverbs says:

Proverbs 18:17 The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him.

That is why I was so pleased with this public dialogue with pastor Wolfe. It is one notable exception to what I stated above. I would think that, if people really do have the conviction that sunday schools and youth groups are Biblically wrong, they should have the courage of their convictions to take on their strongest opponents, and not hide behind the marketing gimmicks of movies, conferences, and articles in major newspapers.

I am not normally this forceful. However, I am very tired of seeing the leaders in the NCFIC play these games. I am not asking for these leaders to stop their marketing, or even to stop promoting their position. I am simply asking for them to dialogue with someone who is competent in this area like Pastor Mathis, and show that their position can be defended in academic discourse.

God Bless,
Adam

 

[Shawn Mathis]

It was a good suggestion.

 

[nasa30]

I think what Shawn is trying to say is that so many of the heads of the NCFIC are not willing to engage in public dialogue with those who know and disagree with their position.

However, I am very tired of seeing the leaders in the NCFIC play these games. I am not asking for these leaders to stop their marketing, or even to stop promoting their position. I am simply asking for them to dialogue with someone who is competent in this area like Pastor Mathis, and show that their position can be defended in academic discourse.

I don't see that they are hiding or playing games. When "big name" folks like Tim Challies writes in his blog about it, they respond to it. Both NCFIC and Kevin Swanson did. Dr Voddie Baucham and Dr. Köstenberger had a dialog about it. Sam Waldron has written and they have responded. They are not having face to face dialogues either but the are definitely responding to each other. Other folks have objections but no one has the time to respond to everyone who raises an objection. Any one of us could set up a blog and praise or criticize anything. It seems like they are responding en masse to common objections. Like I said, no one has the time to respond to every Tom, Dick, or Harry that makes a point but they responding to the "big guys" that make comments.

 

[Hebrew Student]

Nasa30,

I am really surprised to hear you say this. The responses from Baucham, Swanson et al to Challies, Waldron, and Kostenberger all complained that they were being misrepresented. This are high profile names, but, apparently, not people who accurately articulated what the NCFIC believes.

What I am talking about is someone like Shawn who is not going to use the whole "they don't believe in regenerate church membership argument" or some other argument that might be close, but does not exactly represent what the NCFIC is saying. It is real easy to pick on high profile names that misrepresent your view. It creates good publicity. It is quite another to pick on someone who knows and understands your perspective, and thus, has a foundation for criticizing key aspects of it, such as your hermeneutics.

God Bless,
Adam

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Update: I contacted Mr. Swanson and his elder last week. I have heard nothing yet but will be seeing them early next week.

 

["William The Baptist"]

It is real easy to pick on high profile names that misrepresent your view. It creates good publicity.

Just a thought, but as for creating good publicity... there comes a time when you must respond to "big name" people when they are misrepresenting you as opposed to every tom, dick, and harry on the internet (not saying Mr. Mathis is that-for that is different, just making a point)... if you have a ministry, conviction, a family, a church, and so many other things you are invested in, constantly answering every opposition is not only tiring, but it isn't beneficial, nor fruitful.

 

[Hebrew Student]

William The Baptist,

Just a thought, but as for creating good publicity... there comes a time when you must respond to "big name" people when they are misrepresenting you as opposed to every tom, dick, and harry on the internet (not saying Mr. Mathis is that-for that is different, just making a point)... if you have a ministry, conviction, a family, a church, and so many other things you are invested in, constantly answering every opposition is not only tiring, but it isn't beneficial, nor fruitful.

I would say that would only be relevant if I said that they *could not* respond to the big name people, or if I said the must respond to every tom, dick, and harry on the internet. That is a false dilemma. I am not saying that they *can't* respond to the big name people; nor am I saying that they have to respond to every tom, dick, and harry on the internet. What I am saying is that they should also be responding to the *strongest* the other side has to offer. If the big names can only offer misrepresentation, and that is all you respond to, and other people who are not big names, but who know your position such as pastor Mathis get ignored, yes, it is playing games. The reason is that the strongest opposition to your position never gets addressed.

The goal in any discussion should always be truth, and, while responding to big names who misrepresent you is important, so also is dialoguing with the strongest of your opposition, so you can get to the truth of the matter. Again, when the strongest the other side has to offer gets ignored, one begins to wonder if these people are really interested in truth, or just in a marketing gimmick.

God Bless,
Adam

 

[Hebrew Student]

Also, as Shawn pointed out to me, Scott Brown and Kevin Swanson both know of Pastor Mathis' work in this area. Hence, it is not a matter of Shawn being some no name they have never heard of.

God Bless,
Adam

 

[Shawn Mathis]

I spoke with Mr. Swanson. Although he is busy, he is looking into writing a short explanation of his view. His reasoning is different than what is commonly propagated.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The last I heard, Mr. Swanson published his paper at his website, here.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Well, I have a request for a friendly public chat with an FIC pastor. He'll be putting up a new thread shortly and I'll link there. It promises to be open and fruitful.

for peace and unity in Christ's church,

shawn

 

[southkogs]

I've gone ahead and started that thread here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/fic-elder-talks-reformed-pastor-70997/#post908860