Greg Livingstone on "A Common Word"
15 comments | Permalink
At the DG pastors conference, Greg Livingstone was asked about signing the response to the Muslim statement on "A Common Word."
Here is his humble reply.
Here is his humble reply.
posted by JT at Monday, February 11, 2008
15 Comments:
I appreciate the humility in Greg's response but I think his response falls significantly short of addressing the concerns raised by both Piper and Mohler. Furthermore, I've read both the letter from the Muslim clerics and the response that Livingstone signed. I can't escape the fact that, while the intent may be to get in the room with these clerics, then move to one-on-one discussion in hopes of finding a Nicodemu, the tone and construction of the letter itself contradicts this intention. If they intent by these Christian men is to evangelize these Muslim clerics, the language used in the response becomes deliberately vague and perhaps purposefully disingenuous. This is, I think, harmful to the gospel. It would have been better to acknowledge the gesture by the Muslim clerics while not shying away from the obvious difference between us revealed in their beliefs about the person of Jesus Christ.
I like, Aaron, was disappointed in his response. This was a major theological lack of judgment and cannot be justified under any circumstance. He didn't own it; he tried to soft-brush it aside. I humbly submit, that I wouldn't call this a humble response; I'd call it pride.
I'm with Aaron and Steve here; this is a disappointing response. The payoff line is right here:
"I'm sorry that my own mission is probably losing some donors over this."
Real humility will not seek to justify personal compromise by trying to invent opportunity that flies in the face of Biblical scrutiny. This is atrition vs. contrition.
Perhaps the humility Justin speaks of is in the fact that Justin heard Livingstone's response and witnessed his posture and tone as he spoke. We simply have words on a page. I don't want to be too quick to judge his lack of humility because I am not sure that is the real issue here.
As with most attempts such as this the meaning behind the words are lost. How can evangelicals sign a confirmation to a common bond concerning loving God and loving ones neighbor when Islam has a different God and, from my understanding of Islam, loves ones neighbor only by conversion to Islam.
There does seem to be a sort of bait and switch that is being done if I read him correctly. To say one signs something only to get in the door is no different than the Mormon’s that come to my door espousing they are Christians to get inside and then plan on teaching something different.
Why do we as Christians continually seem to give up our beliefs to create bridges? The problem with this is we end up walking across a bridge of sand that is sure to crumble. Unity only comes at a cost of one side or both giving up something and I do not see Islam giving up its beliefs and we as Christians cannot give up ours.
I agree with all above comments. I am disappointed in Greg Livingstone's acknowledgement. Below is an edited private response I sent to an individual.
It seems to me that Greg Livingstone's response to the question asked of him was rather tepid, even minimizing of the gravity of his actions. For example, he says, "I also am very aware that some of us are more called to defend the faith, and others are always looking for opportunity. Sometimes that opportunity grabs you before you think about asking for counsel."
This response is quite disappointing, but a rather commonplace response these days because people think of everyone as "specialized." He seems to view himself as "specialized." His role is not to defend the faith or even his faith in particular. That, apparently belongs to other people who specialize in apologetics. His specialization is to look for opportunities. Does 1 Peter 3:15 and the gospel call for us to engage in apologetics belong to a specialized set of people or to all Christians?
Ponder the following statement: "But I'm not afraid to also rebuke the American Christian who sees Muslims as bigger sinners than we are. We've loved cannibals and they eat people. Muslims don't eat people. It's not halal; they're not allowed. And I don't think they're any more evil than the people in this room."
Ponder Greg's opening line of this portion of his comments. It comes off as designed to ameliorate the wrongness of his signing the statement. Instead of simply, humbly, graciously, and unequivocally owning his error, he diverts attention away from himself to the imaginary American Christian who allegedly views Muslims as greater sinners than we Christians are. His statement, then, comes off as diversionary at best.
But wait! What kind of view of the human who is in Christ Jesus does Greg Livingstone have? What kind of view is this that sees the human, who is redeemed by God's amazing grace, as equivalent with the unredeemed godless Muslim? Muslims are no more evil than the pastors at the Desiring God pastors' conference? Amazing! Yikes! What a comment! This is not the biblical view of God's people in Christ Jesus. Is it? Are we not called the saints? And why? Is it not because of the extraordinary work of God's grace that has transformed us from being held captive in the kingdom of darkness to become servants and subjects in the kingdom of his dear Son? Greg Livingstone's comment reminds me of the ubiquitous moral equivalency argument made ad nauseam throughout the Cold War.
I am grieved and disappointed. Greg Livingstone did not show the kind of leadership that Duane Litfin manifested in his statement when he explained why he retracted his signature.
Deeply disappointed to have to write these comments. Let's be leaders! Let's have courage! When we're wrong, let's be man enough to acknowledge it unequivocally.
I've heard the audio file of Greg Livingstone and have noted that a few folks have "appreciated his humility" on this. There's a word that seems to be tossed around constantly these days.
Considering the wording of this document I share the serious concerns of many others that have openly spoken against it, would have never signed it themselves, and expressed surprise at some of the signers.
For Livingstone to say "this isn't my first mistake" and leave it at that, doesn't seem all that humble to me but instead seems more like a fallback onto that "well we all make mistakes" excuse. It's entirely possible I'm picking up on that more than anything since I'm a mother of young children who try to use a similar line of reasoning when they get caught doing something naughty. I don't appreciate their "humility" when they offer up their excuses.
Just my 2 cents.
what a mess.
This post has been removed by the author.
Just stumbled on this blog...
Wow, from having just been at the DG conference, I am very surprised to read these criticisms of Greg Livingstone after having seen and heard his transparency and humility in admitting wrong.
In fact, and this is not made up... as I walked out of that session, I said to my friend, "It was really refreshing to see and hear that kind of transparency." (The other speakers had also been transparent about certain things in the Q&A)
Just as Aaron said, "Perhaps the humility Justin speaks of is in the fact that Justin heard Livingstone's response and witnessed his posture and tone as he spoke. We simply have words on a page. I don't want to be too quick to judge his lack of humility because I am not sure that is the real issue here." That is right on. Certainly he made an egriegous error, but from having been at the conference and seeing his contrition first-hand, it seems pretty harsh to question the sincerity of his apology. Most of us don't have anyone recording the words we speak. We'd probably all be surprised at how we come across if we were to read our words stripped of context and visual cues. Let's allow the brother to admit his wrong and let's appreciate his heart for the Muslim world (which most American Christians don't give a hoot about!). Then, let us learn from our mistakes and make sure that we don't rush into something foolishly like he did again.
The problem is he has not admitted he was wrong. Granted, perhaps he talked with slumped shoulders and a sweet voice. I'll grant he is a great guy who loves Jesus and just wants to do what's right. I'll even grant that his character is marked by humility.
But let us not confuse humility of personality with humility of contrition. As it relates to his signing of the Yale document, he shows no evidence of the latter.
Here is a link for the video with Mr Livingstone.
http://www.recoverthegospel.com/?p=1610
This post has been removed by the author.
"But let us not confuse humility of personality with humility of contrition. As it relates to his signing of the Yale document, he shows no evidence of the latter."
Bingo!
The video clip confirmed even more that he did not own his nefarious and undiscerning actions. He failed to guard the trust and to contend for the faith. He committed the same error of "the downgrade" of Spurgeon's day; where methodological pragmatics trumped theological truth constraints.
My older brother was a missionary to the Muslim people for 35 years where most of those years were lived in Jordan and Lebanon. He went home to be with the Lord two years ago and would be absolutely shocked by this man's weak response and his purposed and proactive participation as "A Common Word" signatory with those who deny the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Think of it beloved: he had to sign something that he knew was false biblically in order to justify his attempt of getting into the same room with one Nicodemus.
This is not evangelism, but accommodationalism.
Amen, Steve!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home