Peripatetic 21 – Response to Brett Gallaher

(Subtitle: What 3/4 of an MA in theology at Asbury buys)

A response to his article, reposted here at the Huffington Post.

Edit: For some reason, during an edit of this post, I inserted “Brian”, instead of “Brett” Gallaher. My apologies.


6 Comments

Brett Gallaher

Thank you for reviewing my article. 🙂

While I know you addressed the issue of who I meant when referring to “fundies” I do want to clarify I was not writing to apologists; I was writing to those who might actually believe God is male, for example. If you read the Huffington Post article comments you will see many were arguing for God having a male gender. You assume I’m challenging those who know the material and still reject it. That is not the case. I am not an apologist. I simply like to share my point of view from my studies and experiences. It helps people laugh about topics that have caused great pain for them. Your condescending tone throughout was unnecessary, but I am literally flattered my article has received this much attention. For what it’s worth, keep fighting the good fight.

Oh, and my name is Brett, not Brian. 🙂 I do actually have a cousin named Brian but he sticks to band directing.

RazorsKiss

Brett; You will notice that I made the point in the majority of my response that what you address, in the main, is orthodoxy, not “fundies”. In the case you point out, perhaps there are a few benighted souls who believe God has an invisible shapeshifting sexual organ. On every other point, you and I both know that a denial of these points is unacceptable for Christian orthodoxy. For instance, inerrancy – or open theism – or universalism. In each of these cases, and in the case of a defense of homosexuality, I might add, there have been and should have been excommunications from the church body. These aren’t things “Fundies should know” about Christianity – they are things that are basic to the Christian faith that you are denying. Since 4 of the 5 are tenets of orthodoxy, it shouldn’t surprise you that orthodox folks take you to mean that this is applicable to historical orthodoxy en toto, and that you believe those who believe historical orthodoxy also believe in invisible shapeshifting sexual organs. Whether that was your intent or not, I’m perfectly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt concerning – but you had to have realized that your positions on these topics were not a challenge to “fundies,” but to everyone who is in line with historical orthodoxy.

Brett Gallaher

Orthodoxy has always been extremely broad. Greg Boyd, for example, an Open Theist, professes Christian Orthodoxy. At one time, Arians made up almost a majority of the faith. Origen was a Universalist. Gregory of Nyssa was a Universalist. Carl Barth was a Universalist (sometimes). It’s a never-ending discussion.

And no, I really wasn’t sending out a challenge to any apologists on the matter. I am no longer a Christian, nor am I an atheist. We Occupy Jesus is about living a life inspired by the narrative of Jesus, regardless of religious affiliation. You don’t have to agree with such an approach. It is simply our approach. Again, I do wish you the best.

RazorsKiss

Orthodoxy has always been extremely broad? That’s an assertion, not an argument. The history of creedalism and confessionalism militates against that position, certainly. Secondly; Boyd, Barth, Origen and Gregory (who was following Origen) are all heretics of various stripes. I address the Arian ascendancy at length in my church history class, and it is hardly unknown – nor is it unknown that Arianism is… a heresy. It’s not never-ending, my friend. If every doctrine is up for grabs, the discussion might be never-ending – but that’s begging the question. It’s also exceedingly ahistorical. I’m just not an ecumenist. That’s the big difference here. I have a developed doctrine of apostasy, and consider “apostate” to be a meaningful category. I also differentiate between an apostate and one who never had a clear profession, in a Biblical church. From what I can see, I don’t think you were a Christian to begin with. That’s not to be insulting, but I can only call it as I see it.

I wasn’t saying you were sending out a challenge to apologists. I was saying that your post was a de facto challenge to Christianity, and your positions are not Christian, nor can they be – hence, it was far less what “Fundies” should know, and far more what “Christians” should know, given the subject matter you presented. I’m confessionally Reformed – and even non-apologist Reformed folks are going to say exactly what I did. We’re also the ones who the term “fundamentalist” was coined about – so we pay attention when it’s bandied about.

Britt Brown

First of all he is no longer a youth pastor, nor a follower of the faith (or at least as you understand it). Secondly, he knows more about historical theology than you probably ever will. Thirdly his name is BRETT (it’s not hard to get right, pretty common name really). Lastly, you COMPLETELY missed the entire point of the article. Good job.

RazorsKiss

First, I was going by what was listed on his linkedin profile. Second, I have a church history class on this website, and have a wealth of material on the subject available in various media, as well. Thirdly, I fixed it – but it was a result of a bad edit at one point. The filename for the podcast and the post originally said “Brett” – the podcast retained it, but the post did not, and I mistakenly put in “Brian”, as we have a Brian who contributes here. Lastly, 4 of the 5 most definitely apply to all of historical orthodoxy, not merely to “fundies” – as I’m sure he knows quite well. Hence, the excuse “I was only talking to fundies” strikes us as merely that – an excuse.


Leave a Comment