Is Dr. Robert Cargill Saved?

Following up on the post from yesterday… I mean, some bloggers seem to imply that one cannot comment on Christian-anything unless one is Christian

 

Post By Joel L. Watts (10,153 Posts)

Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

Website: → Unsettled Christianity

Connect

9 thoughts on “Is Dr. Robert Cargill Saved?

  1. Joel, I agree with most of what you write, but I am going to have to respectfully push back, when you say, “facts are facts” , yes some things are undeniable, like the rate gravity accelerates something towards earth. However, when it comes to the study of humanities and archeology, it seems like there are less “facts” and more interpretations of data.

    And yes, someone who is agnostic can comment about Christian ideals, there are lots of atheists and agnostics in religion departments. It is my interpretation of Dr. West, that Dr. Cargill can express his opinions, however, because he is not a Christian, his opinions will be weighted differently. And at this moment I don’t have a problem with that.

    • I don’t read West that way, Nate.

      Further, what opinions is Cargill stating?

      (BTW, excellent points and well stated. Opinions are weighted differently, but my argument is for facts.)

      • I am probably (definately) missing parts of this story, but I read your pieces and the piece at Matrix, along with the comments.
        And you’re probably right, I am reading Jim wrong, as I don’t know him. But Jim doesn’t seem to have a problem with scholarship of people who are not Christians. Jim has been a supporter of Thomas Thompson and James Crossley work. And hasn’t he agreed with Bob’s archaeology work? What ideas of Bob’s is Jim against? I thought this was about gay marriage, but is there something else?
        Anyway, my main point, and the reason for posting, is that not all facts are equal.

        • Indeed, Nate. Jim is not disagreeing with Bob over scholarly issues, as he makes clear in his post. He is disagreeing over how one approaches the practical and pastoral issue of same sex marriage. Of course a Christian will have a different approach from an agnostic on matters relating to the faith and the church.

          James McGrath simply muddied the waters by wrongly accusing Jim of calling Bob not a Christian as a slur, when it is in fact Bob’s own self-designation.

Leave a Reply, Please!