Beware neo-Evangelicalism, the “Emerging” Church, “biblical feminism” (i.e., “biblical equality”), “engaging the culture” and all that modernist and postmodernist tommyrot. It all easily leads to this.
I looked at Denver Seminary in the mid-90’s when I was thinking about seminary (before my Anglican days). I remember being struck by their motto: “Here is no unanchored liberalism: freedom to think without commitment. Here is no encrusted dogmatism: commitment without freedom to think. Here is a vibrant evangelicalism: commitment with freedom to think within the limits laid down in Scripture.” I wonder if that’s still their motto???
I was also amused by the almost-apologetic note concerning the man wearing a clerical collar on the seminary site.
Well, this is how DenSem’s current president is using that old statement with reference to a recent hosting of controversial neo-Evangelical pastor and teacher Rob Bell, who has become something of a lightning Rod over his dalliance with universalism:
[blockquote]On April 8th the seminary will host a conversation with Rob Bell about his latest book, Love Wins, a work that has created a lot of controversy on the national stage. Bell, who was scheduled to be in Denver for another event, agreed to come to campus for what we’re describing as an “open discussion.†It will include a thirty-minute presentation by Bell on the themes and goal of the book, thirty minutes of questions from our faculty member, Scott Wenig, and thirty minutes of questions from the student body. We believe this type of event expresses well our core commitments of vigorous scholarship and charitable orthodoxy. (See all of our core commitments at http://www.denverseminary.edu/about-us/who-we-are/our-core-commitments/.) Through this kind of presentation and discussion we want our students to learn how to critically engage controversial ideas by asking hard questions based on solid exegesis and theological reasoning. Just as importantly we want them to learn how to engage in this kind of conversation in a charitable and civil way.
Years ago, Vernon Grounds described the seminary as a place of vibrant evangelicalism. He wrote, “Here is no unanchored liberalism, freedom to think without commitment. Here is no encrusted dogmatism, commitment without freedom to think. Here is vibrant evangelicalism, commitment with freedom to think within the limits laid down in Scripture.†It is in the spirit of that “vibrant evangelicalism†that we are hosting this event. If you’re in Denver on April 8th from 10:00-11:30, I would encourage you to attend.[/blockquote]
Well, perhaps the existence of a women’s center with so many therapists and others on its rolls indicates that there are many women who find that the Church does not their needs. It would seem, too, that many of them are hurting. Yes, yes, I agree that an unanchored rather vague ‘spirituality’ is no substitute for real faith in the living God. But can’t we at least acknowledge that maybe we have failed to convey what God can do? And that there are women who prefer to take another route in which they take responsibility for their own lives?
Incidentally, I clicked on the video for the pastor who is a jazz musician and jazz theologian and found it quite moving.
[blockquote]Well, perhaps the existence of a women’s center with so many therapists and others on its rolls indicates that there are many women who find that the Church does not their needs. It would seem, too, that many of them are hurting. [/blockquote]
Well, if it’s the case that they’ve found that “the Church does not meet their needs”, that only means one of two things: 1) they didn’t look in the right places there in the [i]ecclesia[/i]; 2) they DID look in the right places but didn’t like what the Church has to offer. With respect to the “biblical feminists”, I suspect it’s the latter. Other women, however, [i]do[/i] embrace what the Church offers and [i]have[/i] found there the Medicine that can heal their hurt. I think especially of women such as Elizabeth Eliott, no friend of the New Age feminists or the “biblical” feminists she. I think she’d look on this apparent trend at Denver Seminary with much sadness.
[blockquote]Yes, yes, I agree that an unanchored rather vague ‘spirituality’ is no substitute for real faith in the living God. But can’t we at least acknowledge that maybe we have failed to convey what God can do? [/blockquote]
In a word, no.
[blockquote]Incidentally, I clicked on the video for the pastor who is a jazz musician and jazz theologian and found it quite moving.[/blockquote]
I thought it was silly. A bluegrass musician myself who has also been trained in theology, it never occured to me to connect the two.
OK, I’m confused. What’s the problem with the women’s center and what the lady said?
Here’s what I got out of it. The woman attended this seminary and realized that Jesus was rather bold in how He reached out to and included women. (This is true, isn’t it?) So then she decided to open up a center for women that, from what I can tell, isn’t affiliated with a church and simply provides guidance and support for women. Big deal.
What am I missing and what should I be outraged about? 😉
Terry #5,
I don’t understand. Are you saying that women shouldn’t seek secular counseling? And that if I were to start a writing group for women that might naturally contain some spiritual elements (because of my own background) that I’m usurping the Church? If so, wow. That would never occur to me.
Teatime2 at 7: Did you read the bios of on the “Affiliate Guides” page? See all the New Age stuff there? Why does a purportedly conservative Evangelical seminary give credence to this stuff via the Swanson video? Aren’t Christians to “avoid even the appearance of evil”?
And how about Vaun Swanson’s insinuation in her video that the “exegetical tools” she learned at Denver Seminary enabled her to justify her feminist worldview?
There’s no problem at all providing guidance and support for women. It’s just that Christianity has certain, explicit things to say about where such guidance and support is to be found, and where it isn’t. Now, if Swanson jettisons these things for the answers of the New Age, fine and dandy. But at that point Denver Seminary shouldn’t be using her as a recruitment tool for new students.
Caedmon,
No, I just read the lady’s blog post and looked at this Vann woman’s video, to which she referred. From the title and the blog entry, I thought that was the source of the outrage.
Honestly, it wasn’t enough to claim outrage or label this woman as a “feminist,” IMO. You study, you get a degree, and you decide how to use your education and talents. God knows, I’ve done all sorts of things with my degrees and don’t think I’d deserve a “label” because of it. I’m hardly a feminist but I did help out at a battered women’s shelter a while back.
LOL, I’ve met hardcore feminists and this woman doesn’t even come close, from the basis of this brief video, anyway.
It’s not true, apparently that there’s one born every minute. I gather there are a LOT born every minute.
How can you read this New Age nonsense without bursting into laughter? Do you REALLY think that a woman with real spiritual and emotional problems is going to get straightened out by breathing right? By having her uterus massaged? By eating a mess of herbs under a herb coach’s eye? When was the last time you saw so much pseudo science?
This shallow, feelpgood pablum is what you feed to women who have had too much time and money to understand that the real world plays rough, that being a parent is a tough job, and that all the psychobabble is a mere disguise for justifying an unsatisfied hunger for immediate gratification and narcissism. Is all this harmless (as well as funny)? No indeed, for indulgent emotional sensuality is the very reverse, the dark side of the force if I may so say, of what Jesus had to say, namely, that living right is a hard, difficult self discipline, that love is not spun sugar, and that our great hope lies after death. Obeying the two Great Commandments is not a function of Jungian dream counseling, eating right, and developing a more intense self-centeredness. This stuff would be harmless if it did not encourage women to lie to themselves about what it takes to become real. Larry
If you don’t go to Vaun’s website and look at the bios, you probably won’t find a reason for me to be outraged. But then, I thought the video was enough with it’s pomo “determine for myself” what the Author of Scripture “intended to convey” and all her promotion of, as Larry Morse noted above, “feel good pablum”. It’s the sort of muck that is par for the course of religious feminists such as Swanson. You probably wouldn’t call it “hardcore” feminism, but then neither did I. Feminism runs a wide spectrum, but I do operate with a base definition of feminism which covers the genus feminism as well as the species, religious feminism. (that definition is also available at my blog)
Mainly it’s incredibly silly. I’m all for counseling and therapy — love the stuff myself. But come on . . . this just makes me bust out laughing:
[blockquote]She creates tranformative space and sacred containers for women to be met as individuals or as they gather in community for the purposes of birthing their hidden potential, deepening their journeys, embodying their truth and celebrating their “instatus nascendi” jewels hidden with in matter. Described as a “midwife to the spirit” Lizanne’s compassionate and creative approaches help women know, own and claim their deepest essential selves and live with their full presence in the world.[/blockquote]
And:
[blockquote]”She has facilitated Women’s Groups throughout her career because women find their voices in community where they can be truly seen, witnessed and supported. She also specializes in individual healing and transformative processes, and in relationship counseling, with the goal of creating a sacred vessel reflecting the deepest integrity of both partners. Tinka believes transitions between life stages are ignored after young adulthood; especially in midlife and elder hood. She honors these transitions by creating Rites of Passage for women in groups. Clients and other professionals describe her as warm, grounded, empathic and intuitive with the skills to create a sacred space in which to support healing and deepening to the Authentic Self.”[/blockquote]
Tee hee.
I mean — is it precisely “evil”? — maybe not. It’s just . . . “womyn’s granola.” ; > )
I’m not really into that. Heck I have slight issues with having “Beth Moore Bible Studies for Women” — like somehow women need to be segmented off for learning — so I definitely don’t appreciate the whole “womyn’s granola center” thing.
I can see why an actual scholar and academic would be demoralized over this kind of claptrap from her alma mater. But hey — we in TECusa have been used to this kind of thing for decades now, so I’m inured to it. I find that most of my female friends avoid such, er . . . enclaves of A Certain Philosophy of Womyn . . . like the plague.
Mostly the evil in the bios and the video is the same self-centeredness that large chunks of corrupted “evangelical” churches and liberal churches and Adam and Eve and all fallen humanity share unless and until they give all over to Jesus: “It’s all about me!”
But it is not all about me. It’s all about Jesus. Only when we lose our lives for His sake and the sake of the Gospel do we save our lives, transformed, fully “potentialized” 🙂 to life eternal.
Roughly two-thirds of the bios listed are secular disciplines (leadership, communications, healthy eating). A Christian critique of all but a couple of the rest depends very much on whether you feel psychology/psychotherapy from a non-Christian is appropriate.
Moreover, Pomegranate Place does not purport to be a religious foundation. Vaun has a D.Min. in Religious Studies but (correct me if I’m wrong Kamilla) she is not an ordained minister. If Kamilla’s point is that a seminary should only promote graduates who have gone into overtly religious ministry, then Vaun’s testimony probably shouldn’t be on there, but to call what she and her colleagues are doing “evil” devalues the word.
Incidentally, Larry, while I agree with you that some of the disciplines listed are definitely out there, that’s no reason to dismiss everything under the rubric of “self-indulgence”. I have seen Chinese herbs, acupuncture and yoga (as physical exercise) improve the physical (there were objective changes that even regular doctors observed) and emotional well-being of loved ones, who are both in the medical profession (and under great stress) and believers. It was not “shallow, feel-good pablum” for them nor was it a substitute for faith, but many people they work with would be inclined to dismiss it as “pseudo science.”
Milton is certainly correct to point out that the evil is centered in the self-focused nature of the video (as well as the therapies on offer). I certainly don’t deny the usefulness of psychology (which would be rather silly of me since the Counseling program at my alma mater is one of the two biggest acadic programs they offer!) as a whole or even receiving care from a nonChristian (my own primary care physician, for example, is Jewish). Nor would I argue that a Christian educational insitution should only promote grads who are involved in explicitly Christian ministries.
Denver Seminary is promoting itself on this page of their website by highlighting “stories of transformation as told by our students and alumni”. And therein lies a two-fold problem. First, DenSem’s philosophy department has been teaching and arguing against the very sorts of philosophies and therapies being promoted by their alumna – just a bit of conflict there, no? But more importantly, they promote themselves as a conservative-evangelical educational institution. Now while we all may have differing opinions on the propriety of including some of these therapies and tools in a life ordered toward sanctification and holiness, a Christian life, conservative-evangelical they are not. More specifically, tools such as the enneagram and systems such as Jungian psychotherapy function as gateways, steering people toward the ticket line so they can jump in their own personal hand-cart to hell.
Sarah, I think we agree on the usefulness of ministry balkanized by demographic, I often wonder how in the world we are expected to function as the “Body of Christ” if we insist on amputing each little body part so it can be cared for separately. Jeremy, I have to admit to a bit of confusion about Vaun’s education. As far as I know, no religious body has purported to ordain her. When we both graduated in 2002 her degree was an MA in Christian Studies, my degree was an MA in Philosophy. Some time after that, I was solicited by the seminary on Vaun’s behalf to participate in her doctoral research project. But in the video, she only mentions her 2002 MA degree.
Teatime 2, I am baffled that you read my comment as criticizing seeking help through therapy. I would have thought it was clear that I took the opposite tack. Regarding jazz theology: Caedmon, you need to revisit the way that you do theology if you are not making connections between doctrine and life, word and world.
RE: “If Kamilla’s point is that a seminary should only promote graduates who have gone into overtly religious ministry, then Vaun’s testimony probably shouldn’t be on there, but to call what she and her colleagues are doing “evil†devalues the word.”
I thought Kamilla’s point was that her seminary should not be promoting graduates who tout currently trendily vacuous twaddle as their “ministry.”
It may be that we simply don’t agree on what is “trendily vacuous twaddle” — in which case the TECusa women’s ministry website is probably the place for you.
Hi Jeremy Bonner — I think that most of the TECusa womyn’s stuff is more trendily vacuous twaddle than evil, demonstrating just how little of substance they believe or even understand, theologically or practically.
“Vacancy, nobody home.”
I can understand why this woman is irked over it all. I wouldn’t want a seminary — one that professes, further, to be conservative and evangelical — to be promoting that sort of “ministry” of a graduate either.
Further, generally that kind of vacuity ends up being filled alright — usually with Goddess Sophia/earth-womb/druidess-wiccan-circle stuff — as we all have noted over here in TECusa.
“Regarding jazz theology: Caedmon, you need to revisit the way that you do theology if you are not making connections between doctrine and life, word and world.”
I absolutely understand making connections between doctrine and life, word and world. But that is quite a different thing than the faddish silliness we’ve seen in so much of modern “theology.” But if I’m wrong, since I’m a Bluegrass musician perhaps I should start writing theological papers such as “The Lloyd Loar F-5 Mandolin as Icon”, “The Ecclesiological Dimensions of Bill Monroe’s Gospel Bluegrass”, and “The Christological Implications of The Stanley Brothers’ ‘Jacob’s Ladder'”.
Well, such dissertations would set a record. If sol you’re the right one. Let me see your Bill Monroe piece when its done. BluegrassBaptisms, that’s what I’m talking about. L
Jeremy, it is not acupuncture et al as a discipline I am talking about. It is the use that all this is put to. The babble in the entry is the schizophrenic who talks and talks, using legitimate words but in nonsense sequence. This is the fraud of social medicine as novelty. L
That will likely be all from me on the matter – unless I attend the alumni luncheon on graduation weekend next month (for which I have just registered).
I feel all enlightened. Vaun has been able to interpret Christ’s words to fit her needs and interests. Neat trick.
Beware neo-Evangelicalism, the “Emerging” Church, “biblical feminism” (i.e., “biblical equality”), “engaging the culture” and all that modernist and postmodernist tommyrot. It all easily leads to this.
I looked at Denver Seminary in the mid-90’s when I was thinking about seminary (before my Anglican days). I remember being struck by their motto: “Here is no unanchored liberalism: freedom to think without commitment. Here is no encrusted dogmatism: commitment without freedom to think. Here is a vibrant evangelicalism: commitment with freedom to think within the limits laid down in Scripture.” I wonder if that’s still their motto???
I was also amused by the almost-apologetic note concerning the man wearing a clerical collar on the seminary site.
Well, this is how DenSem’s current president is using that old statement with reference to a recent hosting of controversial neo-Evangelical pastor and teacher Rob Bell, who has become something of a lightning Rod over his dalliance with universalism:
[blockquote]On April 8th the seminary will host a conversation with Rob Bell about his latest book, Love Wins, a work that has created a lot of controversy on the national stage. Bell, who was scheduled to be in Denver for another event, agreed to come to campus for what we’re describing as an “open discussion.†It will include a thirty-minute presentation by Bell on the themes and goal of the book, thirty minutes of questions from our faculty member, Scott Wenig, and thirty minutes of questions from the student body. We believe this type of event expresses well our core commitments of vigorous scholarship and charitable orthodoxy. (See all of our core commitments at http://www.denverseminary.edu/about-us/who-we-are/our-core-commitments/.) Through this kind of presentation and discussion we want our students to learn how to critically engage controversial ideas by asking hard questions based on solid exegesis and theological reasoning. Just as importantly we want them to learn how to engage in this kind of conversation in a charitable and civil way.
Years ago, Vernon Grounds described the seminary as a place of vibrant evangelicalism. He wrote, “Here is no unanchored liberalism, freedom to think without commitment. Here is no encrusted dogmatism, commitment without freedom to think. Here is vibrant evangelicalism, commitment with freedom to think within the limits laid down in Scripture.†It is in the spirit of that “vibrant evangelicalism†that we are hosting this event. If you’re in Denver on April 8th from 10:00-11:30, I would encourage you to attend.[/blockquote]
We report, you decide.
Well, perhaps the existence of a women’s center with so many therapists and others on its rolls indicates that there are many women who find that the Church does not their needs. It would seem, too, that many of them are hurting. Yes, yes, I agree that an unanchored rather vague ‘spirituality’ is no substitute for real faith in the living God. But can’t we at least acknowledge that maybe we have failed to convey what God can do? And that there are women who prefer to take another route in which they take responsibility for their own lives?
Incidentally, I clicked on the video for the pastor who is a jazz musician and jazz theologian and found it quite moving.
Terry Tee at 5.
[blockquote]Well, perhaps the existence of a women’s center with so many therapists and others on its rolls indicates that there are many women who find that the Church does not their needs. It would seem, too, that many of them are hurting. [/blockquote]
Well, if it’s the case that they’ve found that “the Church does not meet their needs”, that only means one of two things: 1) they didn’t look in the right places there in the [i]ecclesia[/i]; 2) they DID look in the right places but didn’t like what the Church has to offer. With respect to the “biblical feminists”, I suspect it’s the latter. Other women, however, [i]do[/i] embrace what the Church offers and [i]have[/i] found there the Medicine that can heal their hurt. I think especially of women such as Elizabeth Eliott, no friend of the New Age feminists or the “biblical” feminists she. I think she’d look on this apparent trend at Denver Seminary with much sadness.
[blockquote]Yes, yes, I agree that an unanchored rather vague ‘spirituality’ is no substitute for real faith in the living God. But can’t we at least acknowledge that maybe we have failed to convey what God can do? [/blockquote]
In a word, no.
[blockquote]Incidentally, I clicked on the video for the pastor who is a jazz musician and jazz theologian and found it quite moving.[/blockquote]
I thought it was silly. A bluegrass musician myself who has also been trained in theology, it never occured to me to connect the two.
OK, I’m confused. What’s the problem with the women’s center and what the lady said?
Here’s what I got out of it. The woman attended this seminary and realized that Jesus was rather bold in how He reached out to and included women. (This is true, isn’t it?) So then she decided to open up a center for women that, from what I can tell, isn’t affiliated with a church and simply provides guidance and support for women. Big deal.
What am I missing and what should I be outraged about? 😉
Terry #5,
I don’t understand. Are you saying that women shouldn’t seek secular counseling? And that if I were to start a writing group for women that might naturally contain some spiritual elements (because of my own background) that I’m usurping the Church? If so, wow. That would never occur to me.
Teatime2 at 7: Did you read the bios of on the “Affiliate Guides” page? See all the New Age stuff there? Why does a purportedly conservative Evangelical seminary give credence to this stuff via the Swanson video? Aren’t Christians to “avoid even the appearance of evil”?
And how about Vaun Swanson’s insinuation in her video that the “exegetical tools” she learned at Denver Seminary enabled her to justify her feminist worldview?
There’s no problem at all providing guidance and support for women. It’s just that Christianity has certain, explicit things to say about where such guidance and support is to be found, and where it isn’t. Now, if Swanson jettisons these things for the answers of the New Age, fine and dandy. But at that point Denver Seminary shouldn’t be using her as a recruitment tool for new students.
Caedmon,
No, I just read the lady’s blog post and looked at this Vann woman’s video, to which she referred. From the title and the blog entry, I thought that was the source of the outrage.
Honestly, it wasn’t enough to claim outrage or label this woman as a “feminist,” IMO. You study, you get a degree, and you decide how to use your education and talents. God knows, I’ve done all sorts of things with my degrees and don’t think I’d deserve a “label” because of it. I’m hardly a feminist but I did help out at a battered women’s shelter a while back.
LOL, I’ve met hardcore feminists and this woman doesn’t even come close, from the basis of this brief video, anyway.
It’s not true, apparently that there’s one born every minute. I gather there are a LOT born every minute.
How can you read this New Age nonsense without bursting into laughter? Do you REALLY think that a woman with real spiritual and emotional problems is going to get straightened out by breathing right? By having her uterus massaged? By eating a mess of herbs under a herb coach’s eye? When was the last time you saw so much pseudo science?
This shallow, feelpgood pablum is what you feed to women who have had too much time and money to understand that the real world plays rough, that being a parent is a tough job, and that all the psychobabble is a mere disguise for justifying an unsatisfied hunger for immediate gratification and narcissism. Is all this harmless (as well as funny)? No indeed, for indulgent emotional sensuality is the very reverse, the dark side of the force if I may so say, of what Jesus had to say, namely, that living right is a hard, difficult self discipline, that love is not spun sugar, and that our great hope lies after death. Obeying the two Great Commandments is not a function of Jungian dream counseling, eating right, and developing a more intense self-centeredness. This stuff would be harmless if it did not encourage women to lie to themselves about what it takes to become real. Larry
Teatime2 #10 –
If you don’t go to Vaun’s website and look at the bios, you probably won’t find a reason for me to be outraged. But then, I thought the video was enough with it’s pomo “determine for myself” what the Author of Scripture “intended to convey” and all her promotion of, as Larry Morse noted above, “feel good pablum”. It’s the sort of muck that is par for the course of religious feminists such as Swanson. You probably wouldn’t call it “hardcore” feminism, but then neither did I. Feminism runs a wide spectrum, but I do operate with a base definition of feminism which covers the genus feminism as well as the species, religious feminism. (that definition is also available at my blog)
Kamilla
#11: Sound of nail being hit on head. Thanks, Larry.
Mainly it’s incredibly silly. I’m all for counseling and therapy — love the stuff myself. But come on . . . this just makes me bust out laughing:
[blockquote]She creates tranformative space and sacred containers for women to be met as individuals or as they gather in community for the purposes of birthing their hidden potential, deepening their journeys, embodying their truth and celebrating their “instatus nascendi” jewels hidden with in matter. Described as a “midwife to the spirit” Lizanne’s compassionate and creative approaches help women know, own and claim their deepest essential selves and live with their full presence in the world.[/blockquote]
And:
[blockquote]”She has facilitated Women’s Groups throughout her career because women find their voices in community where they can be truly seen, witnessed and supported. She also specializes in individual healing and transformative processes, and in relationship counseling, with the goal of creating a sacred vessel reflecting the deepest integrity of both partners. Tinka believes transitions between life stages are ignored after young adulthood; especially in midlife and elder hood. She honors these transitions by creating Rites of Passage for women in groups. Clients and other professionals describe her as warm, grounded, empathic and intuitive with the skills to create a sacred space in which to support healing and deepening to the Authentic Self.”[/blockquote]
Tee hee.
I mean — is it precisely “evil”? — maybe not. It’s just . . . “womyn’s granola.” ; > )
I’m not really into that. Heck I have slight issues with having “Beth Moore Bible Studies for Women” — like somehow women need to be segmented off for learning — so I definitely don’t appreciate the whole “womyn’s granola center” thing.
I can see why an actual scholar and academic would be demoralized over this kind of claptrap from her alma mater. But hey — we in TECusa have been used to this kind of thing for decades now, so I’m inured to it. I find that most of my female friends avoid such, er . . . enclaves of A Certain Philosophy of Womyn . . . like the plague.
Mostly the evil in the bios and the video is the same self-centeredness that large chunks of corrupted “evangelical” churches and liberal churches and Adam and Eve and all fallen humanity share unless and until they give all over to Jesus: “It’s all about me!”
But it is not all about me. It’s all about Jesus. Only when we lose our lives for His sake and the sake of the Gospel do we save our lives, transformed, fully “potentialized” 🙂 to life eternal.
Sarah, LOL! “Womyns’ granola” Hahahahahaha!
I have to say that I tend to agree with Teatime.
Roughly two-thirds of the bios listed are secular disciplines (leadership, communications, healthy eating). A Christian critique of all but a couple of the rest depends very much on whether you feel psychology/psychotherapy from a non-Christian is appropriate.
Moreover, Pomegranate Place does not purport to be a religious foundation. Vaun has a D.Min. in Religious Studies but (correct me if I’m wrong Kamilla) she is not an ordained minister. If Kamilla’s point is that a seminary should only promote graduates who have gone into overtly religious ministry, then Vaun’s testimony probably shouldn’t be on there, but to call what she and her colleagues are doing “evil” devalues the word.
Incidentally, Larry, while I agree with you that some of the disciplines listed are definitely out there, that’s no reason to dismiss everything under the rubric of “self-indulgence”. I have seen Chinese herbs, acupuncture and yoga (as physical exercise) improve the physical (there were objective changes that even regular doctors observed) and emotional well-being of loved ones, who are both in the medical profession (and under great stress) and believers. It was not “shallow, feel-good pablum” for them nor was it a substitute for faith, but many people they work with would be inclined to dismiss it as “pseudo science.”
Milton is certainly correct to point out that the evil is centered in the self-focused nature of the video (as well as the therapies on offer). I certainly don’t deny the usefulness of psychology (which would be rather silly of me since the Counseling program at my alma mater is one of the two biggest acadic programs they offer!) as a whole or even receiving care from a nonChristian (my own primary care physician, for example, is Jewish). Nor would I argue that a Christian educational insitution should only promote grads who are involved in explicitly Christian ministries.
Denver Seminary is promoting itself on this page of their website by highlighting “stories of transformation as told by our students and alumni”. And therein lies a two-fold problem. First, DenSem’s philosophy department has been teaching and arguing against the very sorts of philosophies and therapies being promoted by their alumna – just a bit of conflict there, no? But more importantly, they promote themselves as a conservative-evangelical educational institution. Now while we all may have differing opinions on the propriety of including some of these therapies and tools in a life ordered toward sanctification and holiness, a Christian life, conservative-evangelical they are not. More specifically, tools such as the enneagram and systems such as Jungian psychotherapy function as gateways, steering people toward the ticket line so they can jump in their own personal hand-cart to hell.
Sarah, I think we agree on the usefulness of ministry balkanized by demographic, I often wonder how in the world we are expected to function as the “Body of Christ” if we insist on amputing each little body part so it can be cared for separately. Jeremy, I have to admit to a bit of confusion about Vaun’s education. As far as I know, no religious body has purported to ordain her. When we both graduated in 2002 her degree was an MA in Christian Studies, my degree was an MA in Philosophy. Some time after that, I was solicited by the seminary on Vaun’s behalf to participate in her doctoral research project. But in the video, she only mentions her 2002 MA degree.
Kamilla
Teatime 2, I am baffled that you read my comment as criticizing seeking help through therapy. I would have thought it was clear that I took the opposite tack. Regarding jazz theology: Caedmon, you need to revisit the way that you do theology if you are not making connections between doctrine and life, word and world.
RE: “If Kamilla’s point is that a seminary should only promote graduates who have gone into overtly religious ministry, then Vaun’s testimony probably shouldn’t be on there, but to call what she and her colleagues are doing “evil†devalues the word.”
I thought Kamilla’s point was that her seminary should not be promoting graduates who tout currently trendily vacuous twaddle as their “ministry.”
It may be that we simply don’t agree on what is “trendily vacuous twaddle” — in which case the TECusa women’s ministry website is probably the place for you.
Oh come on Sarah, give me a little credit 🙂
Most of what is on offer certainly wouldn’t appeal to me, but most of it also seems to me more anodyne than evil. That’s all.
Hi Jeremy Bonner — I think that most of the TECusa womyn’s stuff is more trendily vacuous twaddle than evil, demonstrating just how little of substance they believe or even understand, theologically or practically.
“Vacancy, nobody home.”
I can understand why this woman is irked over it all. I wouldn’t want a seminary — one that professes, further, to be conservative and evangelical — to be promoting that sort of “ministry” of a graduate either.
Further, generally that kind of vacuity ends up being filled alright — usually with Goddess Sophia/earth-womb/druidess-wiccan-circle stuff — as we all have noted over here in TECusa.
Terry Tee at 18:
“Regarding jazz theology: Caedmon, you need to revisit the way that you do theology if you are not making connections between doctrine and life, word and world.”
I absolutely understand making connections between doctrine and life, word and world. But that is quite a different thing than the faddish silliness we’ve seen in so much of modern “theology.” But if I’m wrong, since I’m a Bluegrass musician perhaps I should start writing theological papers such as “The Lloyd Loar F-5 Mandolin as Icon”, “The Ecclesiological Dimensions of Bill Monroe’s Gospel Bluegrass”, and “The Christological Implications of The Stanley Brothers’ ‘Jacob’s Ladder'”.
Well, such dissertations would set a record. If sol you’re the right one. Let me see your Bill Monroe piece when its done. BluegrassBaptisms, that’s what I’m talking about. L
Jeremy, it is not acupuncture et al as a discipline I am talking about. It is the use that all this is put to. The babble in the entry is the schizophrenic who talks and talks, using legitimate words but in nonsense sequence. This is the fraud of social medicine as novelty. L
For those interested, i have posted a follow up:
http://bravelass.blogspot.com/2011/04/follow-up-denver-seminarys.html
That will likely be all from me on the matter – unless I attend the alumni luncheon on graduation weekend next month (for which I have just registered).
Kamilla