And that statement right there pinpoints the pride that brought your contentions into this thread in the first place. If you want to critique a man to his fans, and yet refuse to read the material being recommended to you that you might get a better understanding of his thought and life, what sort of credibility do you think that you are going to hold with them?
I mean, come on, you couldn't get away with pulling something like that in seminary. "Hey prof, I don't need to actually read Tillich to write this paper in critique of his work. I just pulled a few quotes off of some website. That should be good enough to get the full picture, right?"
I can only recall reading one biography in seminary of a commentator I critiqued for an exegetical paper, and that just happened to be the famed Karl Barth, and Keith Green, as all have admitted, is no Karl Barth. Yet his teaching for all that is no less dangerous, and probably alot more popularised. Why reformed believers feel this man should be exempt from having his teachings tested and proved, I don't know. His teachings are there for all to hear. But I do know it is not necessary to know something of the particulars of his life in order to evaluate the principles he inculcates in his musical teaching ministry.
And this idea of divorcing religion, or love and zeal to God, from theology, stems from the theology of feeling; it is not biblical in the slightest.
Last edited: