New Director for CBMW
25 comments | Permalink
David Kotter has been appointed the new executive director at the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. This is a great move for CBMW, as Kotter is a sharp thinker, good communicator, and a humble, godly man.
posted by JT at Monday, June 25, 2007
25 Comments:
That's great! And please note -- Mr. Kotter has an engineering degree! A great background for tackling theological conundrums. -:)
You don't need a degree in theology to be gifted to do Gods work
i hope he's more humble than stinson.
What was wrong with Stinson? He is my Dean at the LEAD school at Southern Seminary.
Jim,
Dr. Stinson’s leadership of CBMW has been exemplary and has served to further the cause of the Kingdom. He has inspired countless men to reflect Christlike headship in their homes and churches. Your terse comment was unnecessary and does not reflect the spirit with which Dr. Stinson has directed CBMW.
barak, i agree that you may have seen good things from stinson. i've seen him to be short, arrogant, and rude. one doesn't have to be wrong for the other to be right. besides, i think only Jesus can speak with authority about the Kingdom. with the fractioning of denominations, i imagine there are many variant Kingdoms of God which are inspired. why be so closed minded and intolerant? i actually think you have a point, its just not the whole picture. your hero doesn't have to be faultless to be a help to the Kingdom. he's just not my first pick if i was going to invite a fellow believer out for pints.
jim
Jim, Jesus did speak with authority about the Kingdom, He did so in the Bible.
As such we are able to speak with authority about the Kingdom as it has been revealed to us.
I would just point out that Barak was saying that Dr Stinson had served to further the cause of the Kingdom, which indeed he has, and that as such your reply did not correlate with what was actually written.
Also no one claimed Dr Stinson was 'faultless', a 'straw man' comment if ever there was one.
Oh, and just what is he "closed minded and intolerant" about?
It's amazing the things that people will say in blog comments. Jim, what makes it OK for you to make unnecessary off-hand comments impugning the character of a minister of the Gospel, especially in written form that's there for the whole world to see? That is not the way to treat a brother, plus it's just plain rude.
Dang, why jump all over Jim for expressing his opinion about Stinson from his interactions with him. Maybe he's right. I don't know. Does anyone else here have any other experience of him?
I like you last point Jim; "your hero doesn't have to be faultless to be a help to the Kingdom."
Glenn I don't think he claimed Stinson was "closed minded and intolerant" (although I could be wrong).
Blessings,
Bryan L
Justin,
Would you consider removing Jim Stewart's slander.
I hope nobody will be offended if I may say something to make peace here.
First, to Jim Stewart. I like your honesty and your natural bravado. However, the others are correct that your comment is a character assassination on Stinson. If Stinson does have a shortcoming on humility, such matters would best be addressed to him one-on-one between you and him (Matt 18), and through prayer. Posting his sins and shortcomings on a public forum is inappropriate.
Second, to others who reacted equally as ungraceful. If Jim could have been more graceful, so could have been the reactions from some.
I have preached sermons about the character of Jonah as being a bigot because, simply, he was. Yet God still used Jonah for Kingdom glory. I've preached sermons about Samson as being arrogant. Yet God still used him.
Maybe Jonah's friends and fans might react to me negatively. Maybe Samson's gym buddies might want to take me out for my opinion.
In any case, Bryan is correct in saying that public forums like a blog comment should allow the freedom to express oneself without censure. Especially in today's postmodern society where toleration is expected and everyone's opinion has equal standing, non-Christians do have a point when Christians react immaturely when different opinions are expressed.
Jim's comment doesn't need to be censured or deleted. But I think it wasn't a necessary comment, or at least, it could have worded differently. But let's respect his opinion and anyone else's opinion on any issue that are different.
Will Shin said, In any case, Bryan is correct in saying that public forums like a blog comment should allow the freedom to express oneself without censure. Especially in today's postmodern society where toleration is expected and everyone's opinion has equal standing, non-Christians do have a point when Christians react immaturely when different opinions are expressed.
Jim's comment doesn't need to be censured or deleted. But I think it wasn't a necessary comment, or at least, it could have worded differently. But let's respect his opinion and anyone else's opinion on any issue that are different.
Did I read this correctly? Post-modern society's toleration for all opinions as having equal standing sets the standard for conversation, even for Christians? And this is the way to make peace?
Hmmmmm! I will have to rethink my participation in blogs, if this is the standard.
A.B,
Do you think we should censor people just because we disagree with them or don't care for what they say?
Do you want to be censored because others don’t agree with you or like what you’re saying?
Blessings,
Bryan L
Bryan,
You ask, Do you think we should censor people just because we disagree with them or don't care for what they say?
Do you want to be censored because others don’t agree with you or like what you’re saying?
I do not know why you are asking me these questions, since my comment was not addressed to you or to anything that you have written. I addressed only what Will Shin stated. I raised a rather crucial question about a rather huge idea that Will Shin asserted.
So, with all due respect, if you do want a response from me concerning the questions you addressed to me, I will offer a response.
No, of course, I'm not interested in censuring you for holding any of your opinions. I may censure your opinions, but I will not censure you for holding your opinions. By censure, I mean, express strong disapproval of your opinions without expressing strong disapproval of you.
I believe that this is the only thing that Barak Tjader and others were doing when they expressed disapproval of what Jim Stewart stated. I do not see that anyone expressed strong disapproval of Jim Stewart. I do see that some have expressed strong disapproval of what Jim Stewart asserted.
Jim Stewart, on the other hand, went well beyond expressing strong disapproval of Randy Stinson's beliefs and opinions. Jim Stewart actually censured Randy Stinson, the man. He did it not once, but twice. Is what Jim did right, in the moral sense, to do, particularly in a public forum?
Thank you for reading my thoughts carefully.
A.B,
I didn’t know I had to wait for you to address me first before I could ask you a question or seek clarification about your views.
I was reading what your answer to me and I was a little confused at your reply. I think the reason is because I used the word censor meaning in terms of deleting/removing a comment we disagree with (as someone requested JT do in this situation). You responded to my question about censoring with an answer about censuring. Am I correct in seeing this difference in terms used?
Anyway, I think its fine for people to speak out strongly in disagreement with someone else, but nobody seemed to even consider that he might be right or his perspective valid. Nobody offered a counter experience of their interaction with Stinson. They just slammed him. That was my objection and why I originally asked the question I did.
Blessings,
Bryan L
Bryan,
Yes, you are correct to see the difference between censor and censure. You wrote censor. Given the development of the responses, I thought that you must have meant censure. I assumed incorrectly. My mistake.
You stated,
Anyway, I think its fine for people to speak out strongly in disagreement with someone else, but nobody seemed to even consider that he might be right or his perspective valid. Nobody offered a counter experience of their interaction with Stinson. They just slammed him. That was my objection and why I originally asked the question I did.
Why do you say that Nobody offered a counter experience of their interaction with Stinson? Did not Barak offer a counter experience with Randy Stinson? As I read Barak's comments, it seems to me that this is what he offers.
On the other hand, I could offer counter experiences with Randy Stinson, but what would be the point? For me to do so would be to descend to the level of conversation that I refuse to enter for the reasons I offered in my previous comments.
Let's disagree with, even censure ideas and beliefs others hold, if we find them lacking or wrong, but let's keep from censuring persons. The original comment with which some took issue may well be worthy of JT's censure and censor. It is his call, obvisously.
Obviously, obvisously should have been obviously. ;)
Well A.B, I guess if Barak was actually speaking of his personal experience with Stinson then yeah you're right, although I didn't get the impression that he was speaking from personal experience. Was he?
If you don't want to offer your counter experience then fine, that's you're prerogative, but if peopel were saying my friend was rude or short or whatever and they weren't then I'd defend them and say I think you got it wrong, or maybe you caught them on a bad day.
If you don't want to defend your friend then fine but to do so doesn't mean you’re descending to a lower level of conversation (which I guess Barak did according to you if he actually was offering his personal experience). That sounds so arrogant. It's not wrong to respond with truth to what you perceive as error (although your particular method might be).
Blessings,
Bryan L
Bryan,
Huh?
I give up.
Notes to self: (1) rethink reading comments on blogs; (2) rethink making comments on blogs.
Have a nice day.
I am assuming Jim Stewart is a believer, in which case it is clear that his comment was not appropriate to post on the public blogosphere based on Ephesians 4:29 "Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear."
Randy and Dana Stinson go to my church. I have worked with them and find them to be some of the most humble and gracious people I know. If I did not, I would go to them privately as mentioned by Will Shin in his reference to Biblical confrontation found in Matthew 18:15-20
Suzanne
I think that's good advice for yourself A.B if you're going to get so worked up about this stuff.
Blessings,
Bryan L
Bryan,
Believe it or not, I am not worked up over anything.
Have a wonderful day!
Finis!
Glad to hear that. You have a good day too!
Blessings,
Bryan L
My wife has been Dr. Stinson’s assistant for the past two years, both at CBMW and SBTS, and I have assisted him with various projects and conferences. He has always been a very gracious employer, and we have also cherished the friendship of he, Danna, and their five children. Hopefully that answers some of the questions that this post has generated. And back to the topic at hand, we are thrilled with David Kotter’s appointment as CBMW’s executive director. With his organizational and leadership skills as well as his passion for Christ-exalting gender relations in the home and church, we anticipate bright days ahead for CBMW.
Responding to A.B. Caneday:
"Did I read this correctly? Post-modern society's toleration for all opinions as having equal standing sets the standard for conversation, even for Christians? And this is the way to make peace?
Hmmmmm! I will have to rethink my participation in blogs, if this is the standard."
I'm curious. In what ways are you saying your participation in blogs have to be rethought?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home